NO v. Breivik :: Uncensored

Oslo & Utoya Terror Survivors Agree with Breivik: He was Not Legally Insane on 22 July 2011

2012-03-10T13:12:00.001-08:00

Terror survivors feel let down

March 8, 2012 | Nina Berglund | Norway News in English

Many of those who survived confessed terrorist Anders Behring Breivik’s bomb and massacre last summer have been telling Norwegian media that they feel let down by the state’s indictment against Breivik. Some fear he may not be held responsible for his murderous attacks, while others feel left out by not being actually named in the 19-page historic legal document.

Norwegian newspapers and broadcast outlets have been filled with stories about reaction to the indictment that was formally presented on Wednesday. While Breivik himself has said he was “disappointed” by it, because he claims he’s sane and acted rationally on July 22, many of the survivors and families of his victims seem to strangely feel the same.

They want him locked up for life and Breivik himself wants a jail term as well, while prosecutors say they will instead ask the court to commit him to a psychiatric institution. State authorities point to an initial evaluation by court-appointed psychiatrists that Breivik is insane and therefore can neither be held responsible for his acts nor sentenced to jail. They have stated they will await the conclusions of a second team of psychiatrists currently observing Breivik in the prison where he’s behind held, but the state still seems to be leaning towards obtaining an insanity verdict, also because of the doubt they claim will arise if the new psychiatrists declare Breivik sane and accountable.

Meanwhile, the presentation of the indictment stirred memories of the horrors of July 22, and feelings of being overlooked. Several persons who survived the bombing of government headquarters and the massacre on the island where Breivik shot persons at the Labour Party’s youth summer camp want public acknowledgment that they’re victims, too, and they want justice.

Many of those who were not physically injured on Utøya but badly traumatized by witnessing Breivik’s massacre , seeing friends be shot and fleeing for their lives wanted to be named in the indictment as being among Breivik’s victims. It’s widely viewed they were all victims of attempted murder, but under Norway’s legal system, each individual case would need to be evaluated for as many as 800 persons, meaning the case against Breivik would go on for years.

While the head of a victims’ support group said he understood the practicalities involved in trying to streamline the massive case, others weren’t so understanding.

“It’s been a tough day,” Randi Johansen Perreau, the mother of two victims of the massacre on the island of Utøya, told newspaper Dagsavisen. One of her sons was killed, while the other survived after seeing his brother shot and then being shot at himself while fleeing.

“The indictment is a betrayal of the many he (Breivik) tried to kill,” Perreau said. “It leaves an impression that society isn’t taking seriously that (those who dodged Breivik’s bullets) were also victims of a criminal act.”

Terje Solvik, who represents a newly formed group of 81 survivors living in Akershus County, also claimed the indictment was “quite thin” in terms of recognizing those who were victims of attempted murder. Prosecutors, Solvik told Dagsavisen, “could at least have mentioned that survivors were in grave danger and that it was coincidental who was killed and who wasn’t.”

Breivik ‘would do it again’

ALL 77 victims of Anders Breivik. Utøya, Norway, 22-07-2011. (12:17)

The indictment revealed that 56 of Breivik’s 69 victims on Utøya were shot in the head. Many suffered multiple gunshot wounds. Breivik moved over the entire island and targeted anyone he saw, prosecutors wrote.

“There was panic and mortal dread among children, youth and adults during the shooting, exacerbated by the limited opportunities to flee or hide,” stated prosecutors in the indictment.

Breivik’s defense attorney, Geir Lippestad, said that in addition to being disappointed that prosecutors believe he was insane, his client “wanted to make it very clear” that he believes he was sane and rational and still doesn’t regret his actions, which he has repeatedly said were motivated by his attempt to halt Norway’s development as a multi-cultural society. He wants Norway to be ethnically Caucasian and Christian, and especially opposes immigration of Muslims.

“He would do the same again if he could choose,” Lippestad told NRK on national TV Wednesday night. “He’s very clear about that.”

Anders Breivik: Habeus Mentem :: Right to Legal Sanity (21:04)

» » » » [Views and News from Norway/Nina Berglund]

Norwegian 78 yr Johanna Moore Tortured to Death with Hot Iron (Dullstroom, Mpumalanga)

2012-02-25T03:17:00.002-08:00

Woman, 78, tortured with clothes iron

2012-02-24 09:07 | Buks Viljoen, Beeld | News 24

Mbombela - A 78-year-old woman has been tortured and beaten to death with a hot clothes iron in her home in Dullstroom, Mpumalanga.

The body of Johanna (Jo) Moore was found in her home on Thursday morning with serious burn wounds to her face and both arms.

According to forensic experts, it looked as if her attackers had crushed her head with the same iron.

The motive for the murder appeared to be robbery, as money as missing from the house.

Well-known

Moore, a South African citizen of Norwegian descent, had lived in Dullstroom for the past 22 years and ran a nursery in the town’s main road for many years.

Over the past few months she worked from home as a florist.

After news spread about Moore’s murder, many Dullstroom residents gathered at her Jan van Riebeeck Street home.

She was last seen alive on Wednesday afternoon when her gardener, André Mlwazu, left. He had worked for her for 21 years.

When he arrived at the house at about 08:00 on Thursday morning, he suspected trouble as the garden gate was open.

He walked around the house and saw an open door. In the kitchen he saw blood on the floor as well as keys near the pantry door.

He went to the neighbour, Ockie Burger, for help.

Moore’s body was found in the pantry. She was lying on her stomach in a pool of blood. The clothes iron with which she had been tortured was found next to her.

The whole house was in shambles. Her empty handbag, which had presumably contained cash, was also found.

Her car appeared untouched and stood in the garage.

Kind

SA Sports Boycott: (01/05): SA Farm Attacks Guerrilla Warfare (12:19) | 02. Mark Dice: Boycott Sports (04:38) | 03. William Cooper: Sport Circus (02:31) | 04. Alan Watt: Truth About Sports (05:46) | 05. Noam Chomsky: Sport & Authority (03:38)

Moore’s only family members live in Norway and the Netherlands. They were informed of the murder on Thursday.

She had worked for lawyers in Dullstroom for many years before buying the nursery after her retirement.

Her friend, Anita Minnaar, described her as tough, despite being small and slender.

“She was the kindest person imaginable and we got to know each other well because she did my company’s books.”

Moore’s best friend, Welma Strydom, was in a state of shock at the house on Thursday. They had known each other since Moore had arrived in Dullstroom, she said.

DA councillor Verne Lello said the community was horrified by the murder.

“She was vulnerable and never harmed anyone.”

Police asked people with information about the murder to call Sergeant Johannes Maseko on 082 3189600 or 013 2540141 or to contact Warrant Officer Daniel Nkosi on 082 7980659.

Two Suspects Arrested

Two men were arrested. One was arrested at a pub, who then incriminated his friend in the murder.

Allegedly the man admitted that robbery was his motive. (Ed: Since when is torturing a 78 year old woman to death with an iron 'robbery'?]

Selected Sowetan Reader Comments

» » » » [News 24 :: Nuus 24 :: Beeld] [Sowetan Comments: 01 :: 02]

Definition of Multiculturalism || Multiculturalism and the Defense of Liberty

2012-02-22T05:49:00.001-08:00

Definition of Multiculturalism || Multiculturalism and the Defense of Liberty

Citizen Warrior | 22 February 2012

MULTICULTURALISM is a philosophy that appreciates ethnic diversity within a society and that encourages people to learn from the contributions of those of diverse ethnic backgrounds.

There is nothing wrong with multiculturalism. In fact, it's wonderful. It makes the world a better place. It enriches everybody. But wholesale, indiscriminate, across-the-board, reckless multiculturalism is incomplete. It is missing one simple distinction, and that makes it blind.

Multiculturalism is great. Blind multiculturalism can get us into trouble.

The missing distinction is mutuality. It's great to tolerate other religions or ethnic customs if the people following those religions and customs also tolerate ours. It is self-inflicted abuse to tolerate them when they do not tolerate ours. And it is cultural suicide to tolerate a religion that actively tries to undermine or destroy ours.

It is a crime against humanist values to let them be taken away (one small concession at a time) by a less-tolerant culture simply because the less-tolerant culture is more insistent, aggressive, and relentless.

Multiculturalism and the Defense of Liberty

RT: Multiculturalism is to blame for 22/7 in Norway - Expert: Helge Luras (03:36)

MULTICULTURALISM says we should have no arrogance about our own culture and we should be open to the teachings and practices of other cultures. We should at least look at cultures to see if they have something to teach us.

But given the way the human mind tends to streamline and simplify, multiculturalism has been streamlined in many minds into "my own culture is evil."

The original purpose of multiculturalism was to prevent the self-righteous arrogance of European and American Judeo-Christian cultures. There was a time when they encountered people from other cultures and they judged them to be barbaric, savage, or simplistic. In many cases Europeans and Americans used force to impose their own "superior" culture on the native cultures they came across.

This kind of blind arrogance is ugly and it is right and good that it has been discredited. It other words, multiculturalism is a good thing.

But in our passionate commitment to multiculturalism, we tossed out a very important item: Our own culture. We should look our own culture to find what's good about it, and we should do it just as impartially and as appreciatively as we look at other cultures.

One of the things we will find is that the basic principles of liberty and equality are so pervasive in our culture, we take them for granted. They are like water to a fish. They go into the background and we stop noticing them. Some Americans have told me "we don't really have a culture."

But if our pervasive right to liberty and equality were suddenly taken away and we were dropped into some exotic and seemingly attractive culture in say, Somalia or China or Saudi Arabia or the Maldives, the lack of natural freedom and equality would be shockingly noticeable.

But we don't live in those cultures. We enjoy all the protections of liberty and equality we have enjoyed our whole lives. In fact, many of those liberties and equalities have improved over our lifetimes. This all seems right and proper to us.

But it is not natural. It is not inevitable. It is not "self-evident." In fact, if you look at the history of civilization, what you see is a glaring lack of liberty and equality all over the world and as far back as we have historical records. And unless those liberties and equalities are protected and defended, they will be lost. Really.

Jihadis are actively working to take them away and replace our guaranteed rights with the law of Allah (Shari'a). Luckily for the blind multiculturalists who think their own culture is evil, others are busy protecting their liberty and equality for them at the moment.

You probably know all this already. But when you encounter someone who has this my-own-culture-is-evil attitude, speak up and explain this concept. We need every ally in this fight we can get. Our culture of liberty and equality needs to be defended. As Robert Spencer said, "People who are ashamed of their own culture will not defend it."

Explain to them what the world is like in other parts of the world. Explain to them how women in Saudi Arabia cannot go outside their home unless they are accompanied by their husband or a male relative. Explain to them that in Iran they have "clothing police" that go around beating and arresting women if their ankles show. Explain to them that in Iran, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, and Somalia, if a woman is raped, she is usually jailed and sometimes stoned to death for "fornication." Encourage them to watch Osama the movie and Not Without My Daughter.

You can do all this with the attitude that you are on their side. They want to be multicultural. You can wholeheartedly agree: Multiculturalism is great. Studying other cultures is illuminating. And then educate them on how some other cultures live today. Compare and contrast those cultures with the freedoms and equality we enjoy in this culture.

Explain to them also that there are billionaires, and tens of thousands of skilled Jihadis, and well-funded groups of politically-savvy lawyers, all working actively to overthrow our own government and establish those same restrictive laws on everybody here. They are successfully intimidating with violence and also waging jihad by gaining concessions.

Liberty and equality are not ours alone. They are features of many cultures. But they are salient and foundational features of our own culture, and in the interest of appreciating all cultures, these features should be seen for what they are: Precious and worth protecting. Handled the right way, even a young, passionate multiculturalist should be able to see that.

» » » » [Citizen Warrior :: Citizen Warrior]

Anders Breivik, Anti-Feminist MRA? || Anders Breivik's chilling anti-feminism

2012-02-21T13:08:00.003-08:00

Anders Breivik, Anti-Feminist MRA?

July 24, 2011 | Hugo Schwyzer | Good Men Project

As we absorb the shock of what happened last week in Oslo and Utoya, we’re also starting to get a clearer picture of mass murderer Anders Behring Breivik, now in Norwegian police custody. His manifesto, which largely consists of uncited work from a host of other right-wing thinkers, is now available online. 2083: A European Declaration of Independence gives us a picture of a man who is deeply troubled by multi-culturalism, by Islam, by modernity, by feminism, and by what has happened to traditional masculinity.

Breivik’s manifesto features an extended section called “Radical Feminism and Political Correctness,” cribbed uncredited from an American writer named Gerald Atkinson. The section complains “that the ‘man of today’ is expected to be a touchy-feely subspecies who bows to the radical feminist agenda.” Feminism’s aim, the manifesto continues, is to “emasculate” men, and render them “unwilling to defend traditional beliefs and values.”

This rage at women in general, and at progressive feminists in particular, runs through much of the long and unwieldy 1187-page text. It’s a rhetoric familiar to anyone who reads the writing of Men’s Rights Activists.

So are anti-feminists and Men’s Rights Activists directly to blame for the actions of Anders Breivik? Of course not. Most MRAs – perhaps almost all – reject violence and mass murder as a political tactic. To suggest otherwise would be an indefensible and tasteless attempt to capitalize on a tragedy. But to pretend that there was no coherent political component to the tragedy would be almost equally indefensible.

There’s no escaping the reality that Breivik has painstakingly sought to ground the rationale for his acts of terror in ideological necessity. Judging by the manifesto he compiled shortly before Friday’s horrific rampage, he saw himself as a white knight standing up not only against liberal values, but against feminism and for an endangered traditional masculinity.

It is telling that Breivik targeted a Labor Party youth camp filled with young activists who were deeply committed to the very things he despised. The Norwegian Labor Party has long stood for greater rights for women; the Party’s “Women Can Do It” Project became a template for encouraging women’s empowerment across Europe. That empowerment, as far as Breivik was concerned, came at the price of the collapse of manhood and Western Civilization.

The mass murder of so many young people (of both sexes) may well have been his way of cutting down not only the best and the brightest of the future Norwegian progressive elite, but of killing off those who were personally and ideologically committed to the idea that men and women are radically equal.

Those who died at Utoya were not chosen at random. They were killed because of who they were and who they were going to become. Judging by the values of their parents and their party, these martyred young people were radically committed to pluralism, to progress, and to sexual justice. Those were the causes they gathered for on that little island, and those commitments were the reason they died.

About Hugo Schwyzer: Hugo Schwyzer has taught history and gender studies at Pasadena City College since 1993, where he developed the college's first courses on Men and Masculinity and Beauty and Body Image. He serves as co-director of the Perfectly Unperfected Project, a campaign to transform young people's attitudes around body image and fashion. Hugo lives with his wife, daughter, and six chinchillas in Los Angeles. Hugo blogs at his website.

» » » » [Good Men Project]

Anders Breivik's chilling anti-feminism

To Anders Breivik, the 'feminisation' of the European male corresponds to the 'feminisation' of Europe itself

Wednesday 27 July 2011 16.00 BST | Jane Clare Jones | Guardian

Following much of the media's initial "fact-free conjecture" about the origins of the atrocity in Norway, we have since had to reckon with Anders Behring Breivik's own account of his motivations put forward in his 1518-page manifesto entitled 2083: A European Declaration of Independence.

Overlooked, however, in the focus on Islamism and Islamophobia's culpability for Breivik's pathology is the way his gargantuan manifesto presents multiculturalism as just one form of the "ideology" which "now looms over western European society like a colossus". This ideology, most often known as political correctness, has, Breivik tells us, several other names. One of them is cultural Marxism, and the other is feminism.

Breivik's introduction is entirely given over to a half-baked history of political correctness, "no aspect" of which, he tells us, is "more prominent … than feminist ideology". The PC-project is bent on "transforming a patriarchy into a matriarchy" and "intends to deny the intrinsic worth of native Christian European heterosexual males". But more than that, it has succeeded. The "feminisation of European culture" has been underway since the 1830s, and by now, men have been reduced to an "emasculate[d] … touchy-feely subspecies".

The antipathy to feminism – and women – threaded throughout Breivik's document is more than just incidental. The text is peppered with references to the pernicious effects of the "Sex and the City lifestyle, the propagation of sexual immorality (indexed by women's promiscuity), and the "erotic capital" women use to manipulate men. The degeneration of our civilisation is intimately linked to an epidemic of sexually transmitted disease and "emotionalism". Indeed, the danger of women's "unnatural" demand for equality is such that Breivik closes his introduction by claiming that "the fate of European civilisation depends on European men steadfastly resisting Politically Correct feminism".

A whole web of reasons are given for this conclusion, but two familiar constellations stand out. The first concerns feminism's purported sundering of the nuclear family and responsibility for a demographic collapse that opens Europe to Muslim colonisation. Too distracted by "having it all", western women are failing to breed enough to repel the amassing hordes. But, in their feminine naivety, they fail to realise that their comeuppance is on its way, their freedoms snatched by the invasion of the genuine oppressor. Barely submerged in this narrative – as in much cultural conservatism – is a profound anxiety about who controls women's bodies and reproductive capacities. In his concern to save us from ourselves, Breivik wants to drag us back to the 50s, limiting access to reproductive technology and discouraging women from pursuing education beyond a bachelor's degree. Alternatively, he suggests, we could "outsource breeding", and pursue surrogacy in low-cost countries or the development of artificial wombs.

This sci-fi fantasy of finally abolishing men's dependence on women's generative abilities is revealing. On the one hand, Breivik indicts feminism with causing our alleged "cultural suicide", both by encouraging reproductive treachery and also because women are apparently more supportive of multiculturalism. However, in another sense, Breivik's thought betrays an analogy between his monocultural nationalism and his veneration of a certain type of "warrior" masculinity, an analogy that revolves – as his manifesto's title implies – around the ideal of masculine independence. The "feminisation" of the European male corresponds to the "feminisation" of Europe itself. Our cultural purity is threatened by invasion from outside. Once proud, virile, and impregnable, Europe has been turned – Breivik suggests in Section 2.89 – into a woman, one who has submitted to rape rather than "risk serious injuries while resisting".

Unlike Breivik, we must resist the urge to make easy causal connections. No account of this man's background or beliefs about nationality, religion or gender can serve to explain his actions. His cool enumeration of technicalities about downloading the document, his careful inclusion of a press-pack of photos, the chilling reference to the sacrifices involved in its "marketing operation" – all this serves to exhibit an inhumanity which opens a chasm between ideas and action. Nevertheless, while the behaviour of Breivik must, and can, only be understood as insanity, we would do our understanding a disservice by accepting it as only that.

» » » » [Guardian]

Former Gang Member Reveals Sex-Abuse-for-Status Gang Code || BBC: Rape 'now gang weapon of choice' || Muslim rape wave in Sweden

2012-02-20T04:06:00.007-08:00

'Being raped by a gang is normal – it's about craving to be accepted'

Former gang member reveals how women suffer shocking sexual abuse in return for 'status'

Mark Townsend | Guardian | Saturday 18 February 2012 11.46 GMT

A female former gang member has exposed the growing levels of sexual violence against young women who join them, saying that many are willing to risk being raped in return for the status of membership.

Isha Nembhard, who was part of an 80-strong gang in Peckham, south London, said some girls readily accepted that they would be sexually abused when associating with male gangs.

The 20-year-old said that the problem had reached a point where being raped was becoming "normalised" among many young women. "Girls who are getting treated very badly know what they are getting into. They sleep with a boy and the boy asks if she will sleep with all his friends.

"It's about low self-esteem and a craving for attention. Even if they know it's wrong, they will do anything to get acceptance," she said.

"A lot of girls are sort of prostituting themselves to have sexual relationships within a gang and get treated in a bad way. For example, she might know about what happens to girls in the gang but still sleeps with all of them just for the status."

Nembhard, who was a teenage drug dealer, said that even those who are abused and called "pieces of shit" by gang members maintained sexual relationships with them because they felt "that they couldn't do better".

Cover Girl Culture :: (Advertising & Cult of Celebrity Cultural Consequences) (02:57)

She added that cultural and social trends had exacerbated the problem since she left school. "When I was growing up, girls were more boisterous. I used to be a tomboy, but nowadays a lot of girls who go to school are more girly-girly and make sure they put on their makeup and wear the right sort of skirts. It's changed dramatically."

Nembhard said that girls tended to be more sexually active before the age of 16 than before. "In my day it wasn't like that," she said.

Social networking sites like Facebook had, she added, helped to encourage promiscuity among young women. "You've got young girls exposing themselves on there, making it normal, and so others follow suit."

Earlier this month the home secretary, Theresa May, announced £1.2m of new money over three years to tackle the issue as part of the government's revamped anti-gangs strategy.

Meanwhile, a senior Scotland Yard officer has voiced concern that the problem of young women being sexually abused by male gangs had grown sufficiently large to be classified as a "mainstream issue".

The Metropolitan Police detective in charge of protecting vulnerable young women from falling into gang culture, Detective Chief Inspector Petrina Cribb, said that, although police were targeting girls as young as 12 to warn them of the risks associated with male gangs, she believed that educating youngsters of the dangers should begin even earlier, at primary school.

Cribb also admitted concern about the levels of ignorance among young women about sexual abuse, saying that many did not understand that being forced to give oral sex was rape. Cribb, who manages the Met's Heart programme, which educates young people about the risks associated with joining gangs, added: "A lot of young people do not know what is the law, particularly with regard to being coerced into oral sex, which is rape, but some think it is just playing around.

"Young girls find that they may have no choice – a young girl who is surrounded by a group of boys might feel it's normal to go along with it."

Former girl gang members say that despite being aware of the risks many girls with low self-esteem are willing to risk being raped by entire gangs to increase their "status".

The Heart programme, which involves police, local authorities and charities, aims to teach women about relationship issues, rather than the traditional emphasis on sex education. Already 180 girls identified as at risk have begun one-on-one tutorials for the rest of the year, with another 725 workshop places available to teach girls what is unacceptable in a relationship.

The scheme has so far been introduced in three London boroughs – Lewisham, Newham and Waltham Forest – but Cribb said she felt "very strongly" that every school should be delivering a form of relationship education to empower young women. "We are trying to explain that girls actually have a choice and that consent is key to a sexual relationship," she said.

Gifford Sutherland of community group Foundation 4 Life, which uses reformed former gang members to educate vulnerable youngsters, said sexual abuse was not the only risk that gangs posed to girls. "Not only are girlfriends manipulated by young men for sex, but they become associates, hiding firearms, carrying drugs, and sometimes these young girls find that they have no choice.

"The key concern is that this sort of behaviour has been normalised, that they go through an initiation process or they are coerced into sex. We show that is not a healthy relationship."

Although the Met has no detailed data on the numbers of potential victims, it believes that the estimated 250 active criminal gangs in the capital account for one in seven reported rapes. A survey by the NSPCC has suggested that a third of teenage girls have been forced into sexual activity against their will, while research by the Race on the Agenda charity shows that rape is used to punish girl gang members.

However, those with first-hand experience of the way in which gangs operate say that the factors driving such abuse are complex.

» » » » [Daily Mail]

Rape 'now gang weapon of choice'

Angus Stickler | BBC | Today programme

[NRK] Oslo Police: All 41 rapes committed 2007-2009 in Oslo, committed by Non-Ethnic Norwegians (03:25)

Young women are being exploited and subjected to sexual violence as a result of gang reprisals, according to a report.

Interviews with more than 350 women and girls by the charity Race on the Agenda revealed the use of rape to punish girl gang members and relatives of rivals.

The women and girls interviewed were all associated with gangs in London.

Report author Carlene Firmin said rape was being used "as a weapon of choice" and few services were equipped to help.

She described one interview with a girl who had been arrested for selling drugs for a gang.

"Upon her bail, she was kidnapped and she was raped by a number of the gang members as a punishment and to silence her," she said.

The report says little is known about the numbers of women and girls affected by gang violence - and highlights how the few services that do exist are chronically under-resourced and over-stretched.

Peaches Cadogan, a former gang member who now works with charity Reality Bites trying to help gang members, backed up the report.

She said girls involved in gangs did not know how to get out of the abusive situation, and feared the backlash if they said no.

She said: "This is real life - this is them - because at the end of the day - you're not only putting yourself in that situation - you're also putting families in a situation.

"Those gang members have no problem in just putting a gun in your mother's mouth - these things happen on a day to day basis."

We tried to speak with some of these young women - but none would give us an interview.

Life of violence

The focus of the debate on gangs has long centred on young men involved in knife and gun crime. But has the gang culture's impact on girls been overlooked?

The issue of girls involved in gang crime is not just confined to black communities living in the impoverished estates of London.

In London and Glasgow, a BBC investigation has spoken to young female gang members. Their names have been changed, but their stories reveal the depths of girl involvement in gangs.

"I've beaten up people - I've had 10 people rush me at one time - got my head bust open with a bottle. When I give out violence, it's because they give out violence to me - so it's pay back," said Rebecca, a London gang member.

She was smoking and dealing cannabis from the age of 13 and started selling Class A drugs when she left school.

"Whenever you get involved in Class A drugs and you're selling it - it comes with gun crime, knife crime, it comes with all of it.

"I've held a gun myself - not my gun...it's nothing to you - you do it without question."

The East End of Glasgow has one of the highest knife crime rates in western Europe. Young white men are predominantly involved, but in recent years there has been a shift.

According to workers on a youth project on the Easterhouse estate, children as young as seven are getting drawn into the violence and increasing numbers of girls are getting involved.

Youth worker Stephanie Brady said: "The girls these days they join gangs to try and make friends. I think they feel as if they need to be a part of something - they've no real confidence or self-esteem."

There is a distinct difference with London - here it's not about the drugs. It's simply alcohol-fuelled battles between rival teenage gangs.

Targeting family

RT: Multiculturalism is to blame for 22/7 in Norway - Expert: Helge Luras (03:36)

"It's getting worser and worser so it is," said Louise, 16, who joined a gang when she was just 13.

"Lasses are just as bad as boys - lasses will just go and start - certain lasses they act like boys and dress like boys - they'll go about stabbing other lasses - battering other lasses and just laughing - just pick their victims."

Once in a gang you dare not venture from the boundaries of your patch. Louise made a mistake - she started dating a boy from a different area and the gang targeted her family.

"My mum got attacked when I was not there - they battered her," she said.

"She had bruises all over her face and her eye was all the way out and it was - she was scared - scared of staying in our house."

In Glasgow at least the girls are escaping the targeted sexual violence, although they do speak of underage sex fuelled by drink and drugs.

In London and Glasgow these girls are the second or third generation associated with gangs - they know no different, having grown up in and around violent crime.

It is a world largely hidden from mainstream society. It is only now that it's beginning to hit the political radar - these are teenage girls drawn into a world of violent crime - from which there is little chance of escape.

"You know you're always always looking behind your shoulder 24-7 a day for everyone - you get me," said gang member Rebecca.

"So it's hard when you're living that life and you started so young - it's hard to get out of it you know."

» » » » [BBC] :: [Guardian]

Muslim rape wave in Sweden

Majority Rights | Fjordman

Oslo Police Report: 83 of 86 Rapes in Past 5 Years by Non Westerners (02:17)

Swedish girls Malin and Amanda were on their way to a party on New Year’s Eve when they were assaulted, raped and beaten half to death by four Somali immigrants. Sweden’s largest newspaper has presented the perpetrators as “two men from Sweden, one from Finland and one from Somalia”, a testimony as to how bad the informal censorship is in stories related to immigration in Sweden.

Similar incidents are reported with shocking frequency, to the point where some observers fear that law and order is completely breaking down in the country. The number of rape charges in Sweden has tripled in just above twenty years. Rape cases involving children under the age of 15 are six - 6 - times as common today as they were a generation ago. Most other kinds of violent crime have rapidly increased, too. Instability is spreading to most urban and suburban areas.

According to a new study from the Crime Prevention Council, Brå, it is four times more likely that a known rapist is born abroad, compared to persons born in Sweden. Resident aliens from Algeria, Libya, Morocco and Tunisia dominate the group of rape suspects. According to these statistics, almost half of all perpetrators are immigrants. In Norway and Denmark, we know that non-Western immigrants, which frequently means Muslims, are grossly overrepresented on rape statistics. In Oslo, Norway, immigrants were involved in two out of three rape charges in 2001. The numbers in Denmark were the same, and even higher in the city of Copenhagen with three out of four rape charges. Sweden has a larger immigrant, including Muslim, population than any other country in northern Europe. The numbers there are likely to be at least as bad as with its Scandinavian neighbors. The actual number is thus probably even higher than what the authorities are reporting now, as it doesn’t include second generation immigrants. Lawyer Ann Christine Hjelm, who has investigated violent crimes in Svea high court, found that 85 per cent of the convicted rapists were born on foreign soil or by foreign parents.

A group of Swedish teenage girls has designed a belt that requires two hands to remove and which they hope will deter would-be rapists. “It’s like a reverse chastity belt,” one of the creators, 19-year-old Nadja Björk, told AFP, meaning that the wearer is in control, instead of being controlled. Björk and one of her partners now plan to start a business to mass produce the belts and are currently in negotiations with potential partners. “But I’m not doing this for the money,” she said. “I’m really passionate about stopping rape. I think it’s terrible.” In an online readers’ poll from the newspaper Aftonbladet, 82% of the women expressed fear to go outside after dark. There are reports of rapes happening in broad daylight. 30 guests in a Swedish public bath watched as 17 girl was raped recently, and nobody did anything. The girl was first approached by 16-year-old boy. He and his friends followed her as she walked away to the grotto, and inside the grotto he got her blocked in the corner, ripped off her bikini and raped her, while his friend held her firm.

There are even reports of Swedish girls being attacked and cut with knives on the dance floor. A 21-year-old man who came to Sweden a couple of years ago admits that he has a low opinion of Swedish females –or “whores” as he calls them. He is now prosecuted, suspecteded of cutting eight girls in several pubs. He is also charged with raping a girl at a private party, and with sexually harassing another girl in the apartment. Several witnesses claim that the 21 year old has said that he hates Swedish women.

Some Muslim immigrants admit their bias quite openly. An Islamic Mufti in Copenhagen sparked a political outcry after publicly declaring that women who refuse to wear headscarves are “asking for rape.” Apparently, he’s not the only one thinking this way. “It is not as wrong raping a Swedish girl as raping an Arab girl,” says Hamid. “The Swedish girl gets a lot of help afterwards, and she had probably fucked before, anyway. But the Arab girl will get problems with her family. For her, being raped is a source of shame. It is important that she retains her virginity until she marries.”

It was no coincidence that it was a Swedish girl that was gang raped in Rissne – this becomes obvious from the discussion with Ali, Hamid, Abdallah and Richard. All four have disparaging views on Swedish girls, and think this attitude is common among young men with immigrant background. “It is far too easy to get a Swedish whore…… girl, I mean;” says Hamid, and laughs over his own choice of words. “Many immigrant boys have Swedish girlfriends when they are teenagers. But when they get married, they get a proper woman from their own culture who has never been with a boy. That’s what I am going to do. I don’t have too much respect for Swedish girls. I guess you can say they get fucked to pieces.”

The number of rapes committed by Muslim immigrants in Western nations are so extremely high that it is difficult to view them only as random acts of individuals. It resembles warfare. Muhammad himself had forced sex (rape) with several of his slave girls/concubines. This is perfectly allowed, both in the sunna and in the Koran.

If you postulate that many of the Muslims in Europe view themselves as a conquering army and that European women are simply war booty, it all makes perfect sense and is in full accordance with Islamic law. Western women are not so much regarded by most Muslims as individuals, but as “their women,” the women who “belong” to hostile Infidels.

They are booty, to be taken, just as the land of the Infidels someday will drop, it is believed, into Muslim hand. This is not mere crime, but ideologically-justified crime or rather, in Muslim eyes, attacks on Infidels scarcely qualify as crime. Western women are cheap and offensive. We Muslims are here, here to stay, and we have a right to take advantage of this situation. It is our view of the matter that should prevail.

Western goods, like the land on which we now live, belong to Allah and to the best of men—his Believers. Western women, too, essentially belong to us—our future booty. No wonder there is a deep and increasing suspicion against Muslims in the Swedish and European public.

Sweden has national elections less than a year from now. Here is a suggested draft email, in English and Swedish, that you can send in to Swedish politicians and media to protest the lack of honesty about what Muslim immigration is doing to the country:

I would hereby like to protest against the passivity and the lack of resolve demonstrated by Swedish authorities in the face of a huge spike in the number of rapes in their country. It is time for Swedish politicians, Swedish media and the Swedish public to admit that the large increase in the number of rape charges in their country during the past generation is intimately tied to the immigration that has taken place during that same time period. The attitude among many Muslim men is that women who are not veiled and act properly submissive have themselves to blame if something happens to them. Such a line of thinking is incompatible with the culture of freedom in any Western country. It means that as long as Muslim immigration continues, Sweden will continue to import an Islamic culture that will destroy women’s freedom in Swedish society.

The strains caused by immigration are now so large that unless something serious is done about this, pretty soon Sweden will face the same kind of riots we have recently seen in France, and will approach the point of permanent ethnic and religious strife. Swedish politicians and media need to put the well-being of their daughters above that of political correctness and their own Multicultural vanity, and it is shocking that they actually need to be reminded of this.

It is an international embarrassment to Sweden as a nation that Swedes travel around the world to lecture about women’s rights, and at the same time their own young women are finding that their most basic rights, such as being able to go outside wearing normal clothes without being harassed, are slipping away. It’s a sham, and it needs to end. Unless Swedish authorities are able to provide basic security to a population that pays some of the highest tax rates in the world, the Swedish government should publicly admit its inadequacy and resign from office. At the very least, it should be honest enough to tell Swedish citizens that they have to provide security for themselves, and stop making it difficult for people to do this. The Swedish general elections are less than a year away, and this time, Muslim immigration needs to be raised to the very top of the public agenda.

» » » » [Majority Rights]

VG: Marianne Vikas Correspondence: Re: NO v. Breivik: Radical Honoursty Multiculti Feminists Message to Anders Breivik

2012-02-18T10:11:00.000-08:00

VG: Marianne Vikas Correspondence: Re: NO v. Breivik: Radical Honoursty Multiculti Feminists Message to Anders Breivik

Andrea Muhrrteyn | Norway v. Breivik | 16 February 2012

“It has been my experience that when dealing with females, you need to treat them as though they have a mental disorder… especially those that are constantly seeking equality in the workplace, the military, and in the home. Women need to know their place and need to know when it is okay for them to speak. They were put on this earth for two reasons, and two reasons alone: taking care of their husband, and giving birth to his children… that is all. Any woman who tells you otherwise is obviously touting the liberal agenda of equality, and they need to be told the truth of their purpose. It is a disorder that can be fixed, but not until they go through several years of therapy to understand that they need to be subservient.”

******************

From: Lara Johnstone
Sent: Thursday, February 16, 2012 3:26 PM
To: NO: Prison: Ila: Knut Bjarkeid (****@ilafengsel.no); NO: Prison: Ila: Knut Bjarkeid (****ostmottak.ila-fengsel@kriminalomsorg.no); NO: Lippestad (****@advokatlippestad.no); NO: Lippestad (****@advokatlippestad.no); NO: Crt: Breivik: Lippestad (****@advokatlippestad.no)
Cc: Crt: SupremeCrt: Chief Justice Tore Schei (****@domstoladministrasjonen.no); NO: Crt: Breivik: Oslo District Court (****@domstol.no)
BCC: NO: NRK: Frode Nielsen; VG: Charle Brenna (****@vg.no); VG: Morten Hopper (****@vg.no); VG: Marianne Vikas (****@vg.no); TV2: Kjersti Johannessen (****@tv2.no); TV2: Robin Krüger (****@tv2.no); TV2: Bjørn Carlsen (****@tv2.no); TV2: Kjell Persen (****@tv2.no); TV2: Anne Huso (****@tv2.no)
Subject: NO v. Breivik: Radical Honoursty Multiculti Feminists Message to Anders Breivik

Mr. Anders Breivik
Ila Prison
c/o: Adv. Geir Lippestad

CC: Norwegian Chief Justice: Tore Schei
CC: Norwegian Oslo District Court
CC: Norwegian Media

Mr. Breivik,

For your information.

'Free & Fair Trial for Breivik' Pages violate Facebook TOS
http://ireport.cnn.com/docs/DOC-749226

Multiculti Feminists 'Free & Fair Trial for Breivik' not part of EDL & NDL 'Human Rights' Agenda
http://ireport.cnn.com/docs/DOC-749518

53% of Norwegians are exposed to a social media news site (facebook), whose policy is to delete any pages, supporting the rule of law and free and fair trial principles be applied on behalf of Breivik; so that he can be found guilty or innocent, honourably in accordance with the rule of law.

************************************

'Free & Fair Trial for Breivik' Pages violate Facebook TOS

Facebook shut down two Facebook pages supporting Breivik's rights to a free and fair trial, stating the pages violate Facebooks Statements of Rights and Responsibilities.

The 'Free and Fair trial for Breivik' pages were established by a Multiculti Feminist, who does not unequivocally endorse Breivik's ideology; but does unequivocally endorse the rule of law, and free and fair trials for everyone.

Members of the English and Norwegian Defense league were the only individuals who complained about the 'free and fair trial' for Breivik pages, demanding that the pages not be associated with their Defense League pages.

Mr. Ronney Alte, leader of the Norwegian Defense League demands regarding a photo published by Channel 4 news, in an article titled: EDL-influence over Breivik-linked group revealed:

"You got 3 min to remove the picture before I report this group and ask everyone else to do the same" -- Ronny Alte, Leader of Norwegian Defense League

The Mission Statement of the two 'Free and Fair Trial for Breivik' pages, respectively titled: Norway v. Breivik :: Uncensored; and the second one: Anders Breivik :: Habeus Mentem was:

"To support the Norwegian government to provide Breivik with a free and fair trial, equivalent to the treason trial provided to Nelson Mandela by the Apartheid South African government."

The page founders ideology being:

"As a radical honoursty (radical honoursty judges individuals based upon the content of their character, not their race, religion, ideology or culture), hence in Breivik's eyes a 'multiculti feminist' (Breivik's enemy), the founder of this page does not unequivocally endorse Breivik's ideology; but does unequivocally endorse the rule of law and free and fair trials, for EVERYONE."

The two notice's from Facebook state:

"We removed the following content you posted or were the admin of because it violates Facebook Statement of Rights and Responsibilities: Anders Breivik :: Habeus Mentem"

"We removed the following content you posted or were the admin of because it violates Facebook Statement of Rights and Responsibilities: Norway v. Breivik :: Uncensored"

Neither Facebook, nor the English or Norwegian Defence League have any objections to the following 'No Free or Fair Trial for Breivik' pages: DIE Anders Behring Breivik | Fuck Anders Behring Breivik | Heng Anders Behring Breivik | We Hate You Anders Behring Breivik | I Hate Anders B Breivik | We Hate Anders Behring Breivik | Ja til offentlig henging av Anders Behring Breivik | Gi Anders Behring Breivk dodstraff |

Source: Norway v. Breivik :: Uncensored blog (norway-v-breivik.blogspot.com)

*******************************************

Multiculti Feminists 'Free & Fair Trial for Breivik' not part of EDL & NDL 'Human Rights' Agenda

Facebook shut down two Facebook pages supporting Breivik's rights to a free and fair trial, stating the pages violate Facebooks Statements of Rights and Responsibilities.

The 'Free and Fair trial for Breivik' pages were established by a Multiculti Feminist, who does not unequivocally endorse Breivik's ideology; but does unequivocally endorse the rule of law, and free and fair trials for everyone. She has endorsed free and fair trials or hearings for among others: Timothy McVeigh; Osama Bin Laden, Jericho 98 Political Prisoners, Disclosure Project witnesses, Robert McBride and Eugene de Kock.

Members of the English and Norwegian Defense league were the only individuals who complained about the 'free and fair trial' for Breivik pages, initially demanding that the pages not be associated with their Defense League pages; and subsequently filing complaints to facebook to shut down the 'free and fair trial for Breivik' pages.

Mr. Ronney Alte, leader of the Norwegian Defense League demands regarding a photo published by Channel 4 news, in an article titled: EDL-influence over Breivik-linked group revealed:

"You got 3 min to remove the picture before I report this group and ask everyone else to do the same" -- Ronny Alte, Leader of Norwegian Defense League

The Mission Statement of the two 'Free and Fair Trial for Breivik' pages, respectively titled: Norway v. Breivik :: Uncensored; and the second one: Anders Breivik :: Habeus Mentem was:

"To support the Norwegian government to provide Breivik with a free and fair trial, equivalent to the treason trial provided to Nelson Mandela by the Apartheid South African government."

The page founders ideology being:

"As a radical honoursty (radical honoursty judges individuals based upon the content of their character, not their race, religion, ideology or culture), hence in Breivik's eyes a 'multiculti feminist' (Breivik's enemy), the founder of this page does not unequivocally endorse Breivik's ideology; but does unequivocally endorse the rule of law and free and fair trials, for EVERYONE."

The two notice's from Facebook state:

"We removed the following content you posted or were the admin of because it violates Facebook Statement of Rights and Responsibilities: Anders Breivik :: Habeus Mentem"

"We removed the following content you posted or were the admin of because it violates Facebook Statement of Rights and Responsibilities: Norway v. Breivik :: Uncensored"

Neither Facebook, nor the English or Norwegian Defence League have any objections to the following 'No Free or Fair Trial for Breivik' pages: DIE Anders Behring Breivik | Fuck Anders Behring Breivik | Heng Anders Behring Breivik | We Hate You Anders Behring Breivik | I Hate Anders B Breivik | We Hate Anders Behring Breivik | Ja til offentlig henging av Anders Behring Breivik | Gi Anders Behring Breivk dodstraff | 10 million people to kill Anders Breivik |

Source: Norway v. Breivik :: Uncensored blog (norway-v-breivik.blogspot.com)

***************************************

Encl: 10 Images:
(1) NvB Whores of Court Innocent Guilty
(2) Randi Rosenqvist: Anders Breivik & Baader Meinhof
(3) 12-02-08: NvB: Overview Defense Leagues
(4) 12-02-10: EDL: Tommy Richardson - Hel Gower
(5) 12-02-10: Geir Lippestad Defense
(6) 12-02-10: FB Delete: N v Breivik: Uncensored
(7) 12-02-13: Hang Anders Breivik FB Page
(8) 12-02-13: N v Breivik: Geir Lippestadt Defence & Halvor Raknes
(9) 12-02-15: FB: 10 Million People to Kill Anders Breivik
(10) 12-02-15: FB Delete: A Breivik :: Habeus Mentem

Respectfully,

Lara Johnstone
Radical Honoursty Multiculti Feminist
http://fleur-de-lis.co.nr
http://norway-v-breivik.blogspot.com/

From: Marianne Vikås
Sent: Thursday, February 16, 2012 3:32 PM
To: Lara Johnstone
Subject: RE: NO v. Breivik: Radical Honoursty Multiculti Feminists Message to Anders Breivik

Hi, who are you?

From: Lara Johnstone
Sent: Thursday, February 16, 2012 5:10 PM
To: 'Marianne Vikås'
Subject: RE: NO v. Breivik: Radical Honoursty Multiculti Feminists Message to Anders Breivik

My name is Lara Johnstone

What do you mean by 'who are you'?

Lara Johnstone

From: Marianne Vikås
Sent: Thursday, February 16, 2012 5:35 PM
To: Lara Johnstone
Subject: SV: NO v. Breivik: Radical Honoursty Multiculti Feminists Message to Anders Breivik

I wonder why you send this e-mail to me.

From: Lara Johnstone
Sent: Thursday, February 16, 2012 5:54 PM
To: 'Marianne Vikås'
Subject: RE: NO v. Breivik: Radical Honoursty Multiculti Feminists Message to Anders Breivik

Ms. Vikas,

Are you not a journalist with VG?

Did you write the news article?

^ Ravndal, Dennis; Jarle Brenna , Fridtjof Nygaard , Marianne Vikås, Morten Hopperstad (6 January 2012). "Breivik not likely to bluff about mental illness" (in Norwegian). Verdens Gang. Retrieved 7 December 2011.

Do you care about the rule of law?

If not; no problem. Use your delete button.

If you have no responsibility to the constitution and the rule of law! Then no wonder men treat you like a brood sow, for you to spread your legs and pop out babies, for them to use as slaves and cannon fodder!!

Maybe King Breivik will give you preferential treatment and shove you into one of his breeding concentration camps, where you don't have to worry about things like the rule of law and honour and integrity; where you can be a brood sow for one of his English or Norwegian Defense League buddies to breed more cannon fodder slaves for their Crusade?

Alternatively maybe some Muslim Patriarchal Fascist will think you are nice and white enough to shove you into his breeding factor concentration camp, so you can be his brood sow to pop out cannon fodder slaves for his Muslim crusade?

You have no problem with being a brood sow??? Nothing more than a breeding factory to pop out children to be bred as cannon fodder?

Lara Johnstone

From: Lara Johnstone
Sent: Thursday, February 16, 2012 7:57 PM
To: 'Marianne Vikås'
Subject: FW: NO v. Breivik: Radical Honoursty Multiculti Feminists Message to Anders Breivik

Ms. Vikas,

What percentage of the EDL and NDL do you think agree with Santorum?

Free Wood Post: Santorum: Being Female is a Mental Disorder

Former Senator and Republican presidential candidate Rick Santorum recently told a local university in Nebraska that not only is being a LGBT individual seen as suffering from a mental disorder, but so is being a female.
“It has been my experience that when dealing with females, you need to treat them as though they have a mental disorder… especially those that are constantly seeking equality in the workplace, the military, and in the home. Women need to know their place and need to know when it is okay for them to speak. They were put on this earth for two reasons, and two reasons alone: taking care of their husband, and giving birth to his children… that is all. Any woman who tells you otherwise is obviously touting the liberal agenda of equality, and they need to be told the truth of their purpose. It is a disorder that can be fixed, but not until they go through several years of therapy to understand that they need to be subservient.”

» » » » [Per Email]

There are 6 major ways business corporations profit from war.

Creating Real Democracy

1. Control of strategic resources.

Gold, silver and slaves (defined as property not persons) used to be the preferred resources of pillagers. Today oil, natural gas, and other physical resources (water in the future) are the aim of business corporations to either control or gain access to. US- and UK-based transnational energy corporations initiated the drive for war in Iraq for oil and in Afghanistan for natural gas. It’s hardly surprising that Exxon-Mobil, Chevron and other energy corporations have enjoyed record profits over the last several years.

2. Building weapons.

Plans, tanks, guns, bullets, food, and bases are among the many items supplied to governments by Lockheed Martin, Boeing, General Dynamics and other military contractors to wage wars and indefinitely occupy foreign countries. Military contractors benefit from “cost-plus” contracts – contracts that guarantee a certain percentage profit. The more expensive the military item, the greater the profit.

3. Waging wars.

No longer are government-paid troops the only soldiers waging wars and occupying cities and villages. The Iraq war saw an explosion of business corporations receiving US government contracts to hire soldiers. Paid mercenaries provide an ever-increasing role in fighting “enemies” and protecting people and property.

4. Reconstruction: Demand Destruction

After corporate-made bombs blow up buildings, governments pay other corporations, such as Bechtel corporation, to rebuild buildings. Sometimes it’s the same corporations (i.e. Halliburton corporation). This cycle is akin to those who criticized some New Deal depression-era programs of paying people to dig holes and then to fill them back in. The military economic prime-pump equivalent, however, is no myth but is much more lethal and expensive.

These are the more obvious ways business corporations profit from wars and occupations. There are 2 other paths to profits that are not as widely acknowledged – but at least as devastating economically and democratically to nation-states.

5. Debt.

Waging wars costs more money that what governments have in their treasuries. This requires taking out loans. This takes the form of selling government bonds that are purchased by central banks (the Federal Reserve in the case of the US) and private banks. The government allows banks to literally create money out of thin air to purchase US Treasury notes. Governments are on the hook for not only the principle of the loans but interest. Thus, banks profit from receiving interest payments and whatever principle may be repaid for money they never had to begin with. This is profit of glorious proportions to banking corporations. Wars, thus, create government dependency to banks – which explains why throughout history banks have encouraged Kings and other royalty to war with each other. Governments lose sovereignty when they lose their ability to shape their own budgets. More of our federal budget goes to debt service each and every year. Not all of US debt is war-incurred – the trillions for bank bailouts is another major cause. But the truth remains the more money set aside for war that can’t be paid for yields more debt…and bank profits. This was the reason President Lincoln scorned British and US banks and created interest free US money, called Greenbacks, to pay for the Civil War – saving billions in interest payments that would have been paid to banking corporations.

6. Privatization/corporatization of domestic public assets.

Greater public debt eventually leads to an inability to fund domestic needs. Governments are left with two choices – raise taxes or sell off public assets to fill budgetary holes. If debts soar due to further war spending and too-big-to-fail bank bailouts, we can expect to see a massive sell off of public assets to business corporations – with massive corporate profits and loss of public control. The drive to “privatize” social security and Medicare are likely to intensify as our federal debt explodes. Financial corporations eager to invest our retirement savings in the market and insurance corporations more that willing to set up private health savings accounts would be huge winners.

» » » » [Create Real Democracy]

Radical Honoursty Multiculti Feminists Message to Anders Breivik

2012-02-17T08:00:00.000-08:00

NO v. Breivik: Radical Honoursty Multiculti Feminists Message to Anders Breivik

Andrea Muhrrteyn | Norway v. Breivik | 16 February 2012

From: Lara Johnstone
Sent: Thursday, February 16, 2012 3:26 PM
To: NO: Prison: Ila: Knut Bjarkeid (****@ilafengsel.no); NO: Prison: Ila: Knut Bjarkeid (****ostmottak.ila-fengsel@kriminalomsorg.no); NO: Lippestad (****@advokatlippestad.no); NO: Lippestad (****@advokatlippestad.no); NO: Crt: Breivik: Lippestad (****@advokatlippestad.no)
Cc: Crt: SupremeCrt: Chief Justice Tore Schei (****@domstoladministrasjonen.no); NO: Crt: Breivik: Oslo District Court (****@domstol.no)
BCC: NO: NRK: Frode Nielsen; VG: Charle Brenna (****@vg.no); VG: Morten Hopper (****@vg.no); VG: Marianne Vikas (****@vg.no); TV2: Kjersti Johannessen (****@tv2.no); TV2: Robin Krüger (****@tv2.no); TV2: Bjørn Carlsen (****@tv2.no); TV2: Kjell Persen (****@tv2.no); TV2: Anne Huso (****@tv2.no)
Subject: NO v. Breivik: Radical Honoursty Multiculti Feminists Message to Anders Breivik

Mr. Anders Breivik
Ila Prison
c/o: Adv. Geir Lippestad

CC: Norwegian Chief Justice: Tore Schei
CC: Norwegian Oslo District Court
CC: Norwegian Media

Mr. Breivik,

For your information.

'Free & Fair Trial for Breivik' Pages violate Facebook TOS
http://ireport.cnn.com/docs/DOC-749226

Multiculti Feminists 'Free & Fair Trial for Breivik' not part of EDL & NDL 'Human Rights' Agenda
http://ireport.cnn.com/docs/DOC-749518

53% of Norwegians are exposed to a social media news site (facebook), whose policy is to delete any pages, supporting the rule of law and free and fair trial principles be applied on behalf of Breivik; so that he can be found guilty or innocent, honourably in accordance with the rule of law.

************************************

'Free & Fair Trial for Breivik' Pages violate Facebook TOS

Facebook shut down two Facebook pages supporting Breivik's rights to a free and fair trial, stating the pages violate Facebooks Statements of Rights and Responsibilities.

The 'Free and Fair trial for Breivik' pages were established by a Multiculti Feminist, who does not unequivocally endorse Breivik's ideology; but does unequivocally endorse the rule of law, and free and fair trials for everyone.

Members of the English and Norwegian Defense league were the only individuals who complained about the 'free and fair trial' for Breivik pages, demanding that the pages not be associated with their Defense League pages.

Mr. Ronney Alte, leader of the Norwegian Defense League demands regarding a photo published by Channel 4 news, in an article titled: EDL-influence over Breivik-linked group revealed:

"You got 3 min to remove the picture before I report this group and ask everyone else to do the same" -- Ronny Alte, Leader of Norwegian Defense League

The Mission Statement of the two 'Free and Fair Trial for Breivik' pages, respectively titled: Norway v. Breivik :: Uncensored; and the second one: Anders Breivik :: Habeus Mentem was:

"To support the Norwegian government to provide Breivik with a free and fair trial, equivalent to the treason trial provided to Nelson Mandela by the Apartheid South African government."

The page founders ideology being:

"As a radical honoursty (radical honoursty judges individuals based upon the content of their character, not their race, religion, ideology or culture), hence in Breivik's eyes a 'multiculti feminist' (Breivik's enemy), the founder of this page does not unequivocally endorse Breivik's ideology; but does unequivocally endorse the rule of law and free and fair trials, for EVERYONE."

The two notice's from Facebook state:

"We removed the following content you posted or were the admin of because it violates Facebook Statement of Rights and Responsibilities: Anders Breivik :: Habeus Mentem"

"We removed the following content you posted or were the admin of because it violates Facebook Statement of Rights and Responsibilities: Norway v. Breivik :: Uncensored"

Neither Facebook, nor the English or Norwegian Defence League have any objections to the following 'No Free or Fair Trial for Breivik' pages: DIE Anders Behring Breivik | Fuck Anders Behring Breivik | Heng Anders Behring Breivik | We Hate You Anders Behring Breivik | I Hate Anders B Breivik | We Hate Anders Behring Breivik | Ja til offentlig henging av Anders Behring Breivik | Gi Anders Behring Breivk dodstraff |

Source: Norway v. Breivik :: Uncensored blog (norway-v-breivik.blogspot.com)

*******************************************

Multiculti Feminists 'Free & Fair Trial for Breivik' not part of EDL & NDL 'Human Rights' Agenda

Facebook shut down two Facebook pages supporting Breivik's rights to a free and fair trial, stating the pages violate Facebooks Statements of Rights and Responsibilities.

The 'Free and Fair trial for Breivik' pages were established by a Multiculti Feminist, who does not unequivocally endorse Breivik's ideology; but does unequivocally endorse the rule of law, and free and fair trials for everyone. She has endorsed free and fair trials or hearings for among others: Timothy McVeigh; Osama Bin Laden, Jericho 98 Political Prisoners, Disclosure Project witnesses, Robert McBride and Eugene de Kock.

Members of the English and Norwegian Defense league were the only individuals who complained about the 'free and fair trial' for Breivik pages, initially demanding that the pages not be associated with their Defense League pages; and subsequently filing complaints to facebook to shut down the 'free and fair trial for Breivik' pages.

Mr. Ronney Alte, leader of the Norwegian Defense League demands regarding a photo published by Channel 4 news, in an article titled: EDL-influence over Breivik-linked group revealed:

"You got 3 min to remove the picture before I report this group and ask everyone else to do the same" -- Ronny Alte, Leader of Norwegian Defense League

The Mission Statement of the two 'Free and Fair Trial for Breivik' pages, respectively titled: Norway v. Breivik :: Uncensored; and the second one: Anders Breivik :: Habeus Mentem was:

"To support the Norwegian government to provide Breivik with a free and fair trial, equivalent to the treason trial provided to Nelson Mandela by the Apartheid South African government."

The page founders ideology being:

"As a radical honoursty (radical honoursty judges individuals based upon the content of their character, not their race, religion, ideology or culture), hence in Breivik's eyes a 'multiculti feminist' (Breivik's enemy), the founder of this page does not unequivocally endorse Breivik's ideology; but does unequivocally endorse the rule of law and free and fair trials, for EVERYONE."

The two notice's from Facebook state:

"We removed the following content you posted or were the admin of because it violates Facebook Statement of Rights and Responsibilities: Anders Breivik :: Habeus Mentem"

"We removed the following content you posted or were the admin of because it violates Facebook Statement of Rights and Responsibilities: Norway v. Breivik :: Uncensored"

Neither Facebook, nor the English or Norwegian Defence League have any objections to the following 'No Free or Fair Trial for Breivik' pages: DIE Anders Behring Breivik | Fuck Anders Behring Breivik | Heng Anders Behring Breivik | We Hate You Anders Behring Breivik | I Hate Anders B Breivik | We Hate Anders Behring Breivik | Ja til offentlig henging av Anders Behring Breivik | Gi Anders Behring Breivk dodstraff | 10 million people to kill Anders Breivik |

Source: Norway v. Breivik :: Uncensored blog (norway-v-breivik.blogspot.com)

***************************************

Encl: 10 Images:
(1) NvB Whores of Court Innocent Guilty
(2) Randi Rosenqvist: Anders Breivik & Baader Meinhof
(3) 12-02-08: NvB: Overview Defense Leagues
(4) 12-02-10: EDL: Tommy Richardson - Hel Gower
(5) 12-02-10: Geir Lippestad Defense
(6) 12-02-10: FB Delete: N v Breivik: Uncensored
(7) 12-02-13: Hang Anders Breivik FB Page
(8) 12-02-13: N v Breivik: Geir Lippestadt Defence & Halvor Raknes
(9) 12-02-15: FB: 10 Million People to Kill Anders Breivik
(10) 12-02-15: FB Delete: A Breivik :: Habeus Mentem

Respectfully,

Lara Johnstone
Radical Honoursty Multiculti Feminist
http://fleur-de-lis.co.nr
http://norway-v-breivik.blogspot.com/

» » » » [Per Email]

Chanel 4: Noah Sinclair Correspondence: Multiculti Feminists 'Free & Fair Trial for Breivik' Pages violate Facebook TOS

2012-02-16T03:14:00.001-08:00

Chanel 4: Noah Sinclair Correspondence: Multiculti Feminists 'Free & Fair Trial for Breivik' Pages violate Facebook TOS

Andrea Muhrrteyn | Norway v. Breivik | 16 February 2012

From: Lara Johnstone
Sent: Thursday, February 16, 2012 12:41 PM
To: 'Channel 4 Viewer Enquiries'
Subject: RE: Form Message (KMM4075361I19660L0KM)

Dear Mr. Sinclair,

Thanks for your response. I have not received any other response.

I posted an IReport on the matter to CNN, after the English and Norwegian Defense League got Facebook to remove two 'Free and Fair Trial for Breivik' pages.

53% of Norwegians have facebook. Three of Breivik's judges shall be common citizens. 53% of Norwegians are exposed to a social media site, whose policy is to delete any pages, supporting the rule of law and free and fair trial principles be applied on behalf of Breivik; so that he can be found guilty honourably in accordance with the rule of law.

'Free & Fair Trial for Breivik' Pages violate Facebook TOS
http://ireport.cnn.com/docs/DOC-749226

----------------------

'Free & Fair Trial for Breivik' Pages violate Facebook TOS

Facebook shut down two Facebook pages supporting Breivik's rights to a free and fair trial, stating the pages violate Facebooks Statements of Rights and Responsibilities.

The 'Free and Fair trial for Breivik' pages were established by a Multiculti Feminist, who does not unequivocally endorse Breivik's ideology; but does unequivocally endorse the rule of law, and free and fair trials for everyone.

Members of the English and Norwegian Defense league were the only individuals who complained about the 'free and fair trial' for Breivik pages, demanding that the pages not be associated with their Defense League pages.

Mr. Ronney Alte, leader of the Norwegian Defense League demands regarding a photo published by Channel 4 news, in an article titled: EDL-influence over Breivik-linked group revealed:

"You got 3 min to remove the picture before I report this group and ask everyone else to do the same" -- Ronny Alte, Leader of Norwegian Defense League

The Mission Statement of the two 'Free and Fair Trial for Breivik' pages, respectively titled: Norway v. Breivik :: Uncensored; and the second one: Anders Breivik :: Habeus Mentem was:

"To support the Norwegian government to provide Breivik with a free and fair trial, equivalent to the treason trial provided to Nelson Mandela by the Apartheid South African government."

The page founders ideology being:

"As a radical honoursty (radical honoursty judges individuals based upon the content of their character, not their race, religion, ideology or culture), hence in Breivik's eyes a 'multiculti feminist' (Breivik's enemy), the founder of this page does not unequivocally endorse Breivik's ideology; but does unequivocally endorse the rule of law and free and fair trials, for EVERYONE."

The two notice's from Facebook state:

"We removed the following content you posted or were the admin of because it violates Facebook Statement of Rights and Responsibilities: Anders Breivik :: Habeus Mentem"

"We removed the following content you posted or were the admin of because it violates Facebook Statement of Rights and Responsibilities: Norway v. Breivik :: Uncensored"

Neither Facebook, nor the English or Norwegian Defence League have any objections to the following 'No Free or Fair Trial for Breivik' pages: DIE Anders Behring Breivik | Fuck Anders Behring Breivik | Heng Anders Behring Breivik | We Hate You Anders Behring Breivik | I Hate Anders B Breivik | We Hate Anders Behring Breivik | Ja til offentlig henging av Anders Behring Breivik | Gi Anders Behring Breivk dodstraff |

Source: Norway v. Breivik :: Uncensored blog (norway-v-breivik.blogspot.com)

**************************

Breivik has learned what most politicians know and use to manipulate the public. The majority of citizens couldn't care less about the principle of free and fair trials, when the person in the accused box, is someone who does not share their ideology, race, or religion.

There is either the rule of law;
Or there are no rules at all!

Regards,

Lara Johnstone

-----Original Message-----
From: Channel 4 Viewer Enquiries
Sent: Monday, February 13, 2012 3:50 PM
To: jmcswan@mweb.co.za
Subject: Re: Form Message (KMM4075361I19660L0KM)

Dear Lara,

Thank you for your email regarding Channel4.com.

I have escalated this enquiry to the site producer and await a response.

If you require further information, feel free to email me back or visit http://www.channel4.com/4viewers/faq

Noah Sinclair
Channel 4 Customer Support

Visit: http://www.channel4.com/programmes/4od for programmes from the last 30 days and the Channel 4 archive available to UK viewers on Windows, Mac and Linux without the need to register.

Original Message Follows:
------------------------

Channel4.com Enquiry
websiteName: channel4
feedback:
Mr. David Abraham CEO: Channel 4
Ms. Jay Hunt Chief Creative Officer

Dear Mr. Abraham & Ms. Hunt, NDL/EDL Demands re: Channel 4 Breivik picture. The NDL/EDL have been making demands that I remove the Breivik picture (www.channel4.com .. K_NDL_EDL.jpg) from my Breivik blog and facebook page, which I found on your website at: EDL influence over Breivik linked group revealed. URL: http://www.channel4.com/news/edls-connections-with-breiviks-norwegian-cell

The photo's url is: www.channel4.com../K_NDL_EDL.jpg

Have the EDL/NDL demanded you remove the photo; or complained about the photo?

I do not see any problems with the photo; nor have I been informed of any valid legal justifications for why I should remove it from the Norway v. Breivik :: Uncensored blog (http://norway-v-breivik.blogspot.com) or facebook page.

A transcript of the NDL/EDL's demands is available at: norway-v-breivik.blogspot.com..

Respectfully

Submitted,
Lara Johnstone
Norway v. Breivik :: Uncensored
http://fleur-de-lis.co.nr
http://norway-v-breivik.blogspot.com/
http://www.facebook.com/289239404473623

areaOfFeedback: online and apps
postcode: 6529
firstname: Lara
surname: Johnstone
Title: Ms

» » » » [Per Email]

English & Norwegian Defense League & Facebook Shut Down 'Multiculti Feminists' Page, which supports a Rule of Law Free & Fair Trial for Breivik

2012-02-15T11:02:00.000-08:00

English & Norwegian Defense League Again Shut Down Multiculti Feminists Facebook Page in Support of Rule of Law Free & Fair Trial for Breivik

Andrea Muhrrteyn | Norway v. Breivik | 15 February 2012

English and Norwegian Defense League members shut down Norway v. Breivik :: Habeus Mentem facebook page, dedicated to supporting a free and fair trial for Breivik, in accordance with the rule of law.

The mission of the Anders Breivik :: Habeus Mentem page was:
To support the Norwegian government to provide Breivik with a free and fair trial, equivalent to the treason trial provided to Nelson Mandela by the Apartheid South African government.

Habeus Mentem is a legal concept similar to the concept of Habeus Corpus. Habeus Memtem refers to the right to a person to their own mind (beliefs and values) and culture. Put differently: the right to be deemed legally sane.

Anders Behring Breivik; born 13 February 1979, is a Norwegian terrorist, and the confessed perpetrator of the 2011 attacks in Norway. On 22 July 2011, Breivik bombed the government buildings in Oslo, which resulted in eight deaths. He then carried out a mass shooting at a camp of the Workers' Youth League (AUF) of the Labour Party on the island of Utøya where he killed 69 people, mostly teenagers.

Breivik's militant ideology is described in a compendium of texts, titled 2083 – A European Declaration of Independence and distributed electronically by Breivik on the day of the attacks.

Janne Kristiansen, Chief of the Norwegian Police Security Service (PST), has stated that Breivik "deliberately desisted from violent exhortations on the net [and] has more or less been a moderate, and has neither been part of any extremist network."

Breivik's statements that he considered his terrorist acts to be 'atrocious but necessary' to prevent a greater harm, are in accordance to the legal principles of the defence of political necessity or military necessity. The political necessity defence is frequently used by protestors, such as for example: Anti-Apartheid protestors used it when they occupied South African embassies. Katya Komisaruk pleaded to political necessity when she broke into Van den Burg Air Force Base to destroy the computers used to detonate Ballistic Missiles.

POLITICAL NECESSITY: In U.S. criminal law, necessity may be either a possible justification or an exculpation for breaking the law. Defendants seeking to rely on this defense argue that they should not be held liable for their actions as a crime because their conduct was necessary to prevent some greater harm and when that conduct is not excused under some other more specific provision of law such as self defense. Most common law and civil law jurisdictions recognize this defense, but only under limited circumstances. Generally, the defendant must affirmatively show (i.e., introduce some evidence) that (a) the harm he sought to avoid outweighs the danger of the prohibited conduct he is charged with; (b) he had no reasonable alternative; (c) he ceased to engage in the prohibited conduct as soon as the danger passed; and (d) he did not himself create the danger he sought to avoid.

MILITARY NECESSITY: Military necessity, along with distinction, and proportionality, are three important principles of international humanitarian law governing the legal use of force in an armed conflict.

Military necessity is governed by several constraints: an attack or action must be intended to help in the military defeat of the enemy, it must be an attack on a military objective, and the harm caused to civilians or civilian property must be proportional and not excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated.

Luis Moreno-Ocampo, Chief Prosecutor at the International Criminal Court defined military necessity as: “The application of Article 8(2)(b)(iv) [of the Rome Statute] requires, inter alia, an assessment of: (a) the anticipated civilian damage or injury; (b) the anticipated military advantage; (c) and whether (a) was "clearly excessive" in relation to (b).” [Luis Moreno-Ocampo OTP letter to senders re Iraq, 9 February 2006; International Criminal Court (ICC)]

As a radical honoursty (radical honoursty judges individuals based upon the content of their character, not their race, religion, ideology or culture), hence in Breivik's eyes a 'multiculti feminist' (Breivik's enemy), the founder of this page does not unequivocally endorse Breivik's ideology; but does unequivocally endorse the rule of law and free and fair trials, for EVERYONE.

This is the second time, the English and Norwegian Defense Leagues shut down a facebook page in support of a free and fair trial for Breivik.

The Anders Breivik :: Habeus Mentem page was not marketed to any other facebook page, hence no facebook member's personal profile or page profile or group were notified that it even existed.

The only link to the Facebook page, was from this Norway v. Breivik :: Uncensored blog. The only people who have objected to the first page supporting Anders Breivik receiving a free and fair trial, were members of the English and Norwegian Defense League.

What is the motivation for the English and Norwegian Defense league leadership to covertly shut down the Norway v. Breivik :: Uncensored and Anders Breivik :: Habeus Mentem pages?

Why do the English and Norwegian Defense league members object to any support for Breivik to receive a free and fair trial?

Who benefits, when the State, media, and social media deny Breivik's rights to a free and fair trial, censoring those who support the rule of law and his right to a free and fair trial?

Who benefits when those who support Breivik to be found guilty or innocent in accordance to the rule of law -- not by hatred and denying him a defense; -- are censored and silenced?

“When the government’s boot is on your throat, whether it is a left boot or a right boot, a male boot or female boot, a black boot or white boot, a Catholic, Muslim, Christian or Atheist boot, a straight, homosexual or lesbian boot; is of no consequence.”

None of the following Breivik related Facebook pages endorse the rule of law and a free and fair trial to be applied in the case of Norway v. Breivik. Nor do any of these pages seemingly bother the Norwegian and English Defense Leagues leadership elite. Why does a page supporting a rule of law free and fair trial for Anders Breivik, bother the English and Norwegian Defense League leadership elite so much?

Why the double standards? The following pages encourage fair minded Norwegians to support the State, the media and social media to consider Breivik guilty without anything resembling a rule of law free or fair trial. It may not be intelligent advocacy, but in a free speech republic, it is their free speech right. Why does it bother the English and Norwegian Defence League, when anyone advocates on behalf of a free and fair trial for Breivik? If you were a fair minded Norwegian, who considers the rule of law important, and who believes you live in a democratic Norwegian state, that provides everyone with a free and fair trial, and you observe your goverment and your media denying Breivik a free and fair trial, and censoring his arguments. Does that not prove Breivik was right, that there is no such thing as the rule of law, or free and fair trials and democracy in Norway?

When you hate Breivik enough to allow your hatred to manipulate you into supporting your government, fellow citizens and the media to deny Breivik a rule of law free and fair trial; then you are doing exactly what Breivik -- and the English and Norwegian Defense League??? -- wants you to do??
“I disagree with every word you say; but I will defend to the death your right to say it.” -- Voltaire

» » » » [Facebook]

Fampo: Norway, the Last Soviet Republic: Censorship, Child Protection and Psychiatry Worthy of a Dictatorship

2012-02-14T01:22:00.006-08:00

Corruption and abuse of power in Norway

Fampo | People’s Action Against Abuse of Power, Police State and Culture of abuse | www.fampo.info

Contrary to what mainstream media tells us, corruption and human rights violations abound in Norway. Fampo is an organisation which struggles to stop abuse of power in Norway.

Censorship, the Norwegian way

On September 06 2000, the local radio station Radio Modum broadcasted the second program in the series Det skjulte Norge (The veiled Norway). The following day Irene Mjøseng, editor of the local newspaper Bygdeposten commented on the content in Det skjulte Norge in an editorial. The next day she was called by the newspaper’s board chairman, Bjørn Larssen. He told that he had received two negative reactions on Mjøseng’s editorial. He declined to inform who had reacted negatively on the editorial, but informed that external persons had contacted him regarding the editorial. Mjøseng understood that the chairman refused her to publish more editorials or articles of the same kind. She found that the chairman’s attempt to stop coverage of certain issues conflicted with the guidelines an editor shall follow, and commented the demand from the chairman in an editorial on September 12th.

On September 13th Mjøseng was suspended as an editor. On October 31st she was sacked. To the regional newspaper Drammens Tidende Larssen stated that Bygdeposten chose to suspend her in order to protect her security; she had herself said that she was in danger because she had expressed herself to much (!)

Mjøseng sued Bygdeposten for sacking her without sufficient reason. In the trial Bygdeposten put forward another reason for the dismissal: The main point was that Mjøseng was not willing to follow the newspaper’s fundamental views, including that Bygdeposten should be a newspaper produced according to a local newspaper concept, and that she had confirmed this at the board meeting on October 10th. Protocols from the meeting expose this as a lie.

“The court agrees with the defendant that she thereby has parted with the newspaper’s editorial fundament as this topic is not the same as the local newspaper that she as editor is bounded by”, judge Hagelund in Drammen municipal court wrote. This is an absurdity. The fact that a newspaper is edited according to a local newspaper concept, means that it shall be good at presenting local stuff, not that some topics are banned. Also, the actual articles had a local connection, i.e. through the organisation Fampo, registered with address Solumsmoen.

Mjøseng brought the conclusion to the next judicial level - high court. Borgarting high court had to go against the city court on all points. However, that did not mean that the court agreed with Mjøseng. The high court wrote that it seemed “evident that Mjøseng has been influenced by Hiåsen [Fampo’s chairman] and/or Fampo to the extent that there can be raised rightful suspicion that this influence has influenced her editorial practice and thereby her independence.” The high court did not attempt to justify the claim that the editor had let herself be influenced, but claimed that it was “evident”.

Let us take a look at what was published in Bygdeposten before the editor was removed. The article Coercively hospitalised without reason described a case where a woman from one of Oslo’s suburbs was picked up in her home three times and brought to a mental asylum without the requested papers existing. In the article The last Soviet Republic the editor informed that the police at Sunnmøre demanded that Kåre Torvholm and Oddmar Remøy, both with a clean legal record, should be subject to a mental examination. We will come back to Torvholm’s struggle to reveal extensive economical criminality later on.

Oddmar Remøy and Kåre Torvholm were accused for posing threats against, and acting threatening towards, the sheriff in Herøy municipality. In the article Wants judicial murder on April 27th 2000, Mjøseng cited an article in the newspaper Fiskaren, where the prosecuting authority used a journalist as a witness. This journalist later admitted (in a taped conversation) that he was not present in the room where the threats were alleged to have been posed, and that he had not heard the conversations the prosecuting authority had mentioned in Fiskaren.

The Bygdeposten case is the main topic in the report Ytringsfrihetens pris i Det skjulte Norge (The price of freedom of speech in the hidden Norway). In the report, Dag Hiåsen documents that two court levels withheld documents from the plaintiff, a clear violation of Norwegian law. The report also exposes lies concerning the case, planted in regional media.

In the editorial Radio med mening (Meaningful Radio) Mjøseng wrote: “Three local radio stations which have begun spending their time on these issues, have lost their licence to publish immediately. One of them was the student radio in Tromsø”. With help from the Norwegian legal system, revealing journalism in Bygdeposten was also stopped.

“Child Protection”

Anders Breivik: Norway's Whores of the Court & their Schizophrenic Diagnosis Delusion (05:34)

According to Statistics Norway, the Child Protection Services (CPS) intervened in some way towards 11 700 new children in 2007. If one multiplies that number with 5, one gets 58 500, which is nearly the annual birth rate in Norway. This means that if the CPS continues like in 2007, there will be a CPS case on every fifth Norwegian child! This includes all kinds of CPS involvement, from economical help to the family to foster homes.

In 2006 scientist Joar Tranøy wrote a report to the University in Stockholm, about the Norwegian CPS and the methods used by psychologists who are entitled to write official reports on whether parents are fit to raise their children - or if the parents shall be denied the right to take care of their children. Tranøy scrutinised the reports in 37 cases where parents had contacted him, and found several methodological weaknesses.

Lack of criticism of sources: In 32 out of 37 cases sources had not been scrutinised; allegations against parents were uncritically adopted. The conclusion in 18 of the cases referred to second hand information from the CPS. In 16 reports psychologists made use of slander. Non-scrutinised information was being uncritically referred to as facts in 18 cases. Tranøy found decontextualisation in 28 of the 37 reports. Decontextualisation may imply that facts relevant to descriptions of persons are not mentioned. It may also mean that statements and actions are separated from their context, so that those who read the report may easily misinterpret the situation.

Tranøy also found citation errors in disfavour of biological parents - and biased statements. An example of a biased statement is the following remark from a report: “Dad occupies the whole dining table with his hobby activities and it is quite untidy and somewhat dirty in the house”. The psychologist observed this during quite short time (15 min, according to parents). According to neighbours the children often participated in the hobby activity, the building of a model plane. The psychologist did not examine this.

In his report, Tranøy describes general legal protection problems in the CPS system. One may compare the report in CPS cases with the task of a police investigator. Both shall find the truth. Should the accused be found guilty? Should the child be removed from its family?

The role of the police investigator is regulated by law. Child Protection cases are different. There are no rules for the collection of information. The CPS worker decides personally if talks with parents or witnesses shall be taken by phone or face to face. Telephone is often used. What the CPS worker/psychologist writes in the report is not read loudly to parents, and control questions may fail to be asked.

CPS cases often rely on “information” from anonymous sources. It may prove impossible to defend oneself against anonymous sources. You do not know who the source is, if the source is reliable, if the source possesses first hand information or just has heard some rumours. And you do not know about possible clash of interest between the source and the parents. In criminal cases this kind of use of anonymous sources is illegal. In a letter the Public Prosecutor has warned against the use of anonymous sources, and mentions that these are often driven by revenge, envy or malice.

The psychologists in the Child Protection cases are often taken from lists made by the CPS, or they may have close connections to the CPS. Psychologists operating in several Child Protection cases are often present at meetings with the CPS, without the parents being present, and thereby get one-sided information.

In criminal cases it is obvious that experts are appointed by the court. It would have resulted in harsh criticism if the police could appoint experts.

Another problem is the swift change of roles in Child Protection cases. Sverre Kvilhaug has long experience as a lawyer in child care cases, and is a critic of the role of the experts in CPS cases. Kvilhaug poses the question whether the demands for a fair trial are fulfilled:
“Article 6 in The Human Rights Convention entitles everyone to a fair trial. This is also the case in a Child Protection case in county organs or in courts - when the issue is whether parents shall lose or regain the care for the children. In these cases psychologists have a special role. They are paid by the child care departments to influence the outcome. In this way they frequently change hats. The extent and economical importance for many psychologists makes it reasonable to ask if their reports and votes are influenced by their interest in getting new assignments from the child care departments. This question does not seem to have bothered county bureaucrats, courts or the department. In criminal cases such a change of hats would never have been accepted, nor even conceived”.

Kvilhaug continues:
“I shall illustrate the extent: In the year 2001, a psychologist in Norfjoreid informed that she had been an appointed expert paid by the child care department in about 40 cases. In about 50 cases she had been an expert member of two different committees. One year later she had had 11 assignment for the child care department and 5 for the county committee. Also, she had been an expert member of the county jury. Can one rely on that an expert, who is as economically dependent on the child care department as in this case, is able to give the private part in a child care case a fair treatment? Would not most people tend to believe that these psychologists will support the child care departments in near 100% of the cases, and is that not what we see that the experts actually do? Would anyone believe that an expert voting against the child care department will get new assignments from the child care departments?”

One example can serve to illustrate the way many psychologists act in child care cases. Jurist Herman Berge found the following pattern in the work of a central psychologist connected to FOSAP (Forum for Psychological Experts):
By examining the 33 decisions I found at Lovdata [official website] you find no decision where Poulsson has not concluded in favour of the assigning authority. You may safely conclude that Poulsson consequently concludes in favour of the child care department. In my opinion Poulsson’s work has no scientific value, and is worthless, not to say detrimental, in child care cases”.

Psychiatry worthy of a dictatorship.

Anders Breivik: Habeus Mentem :: Right to Legal Sanity (21:04)

Norway is the European country where the largest number of people are being coercively hospitalised, relative to population numbers. An analysis made by SINTEF in 1996, showed that about 45% of all hospitalisations in Norwegian psychiatry are coercive. In other European countries the same numbers were between 5 to 15 percent. The numbers for Norway were however only an estimate. Because many hospitals do not report coercive hospitalisations, no good statistics are available.

In some other countries there is a court deciding whether a person shall be coercively hospitalised. That is not the situation in Norway; in Norway you can only complain to a control commission after being hospitalised. At that point it is often difficult for the patients furthering their case, being drugged.

We have many examples of an utmost grave form of use of psychiatry in Norway – internating people who have disclosed illegal actions and abuse of power. The most infamous example is the Juklerød affair. Arnold Juklerød was hospitalised at Gaustad mental asylum in 1971 with the diagnosis kverulant paranoia (paranoid schizophrenic). According to psychiatrists at Gaustad, Juklerød had “unchangeable paranoid false ideas” that local authorities had broken the law in the process where a school was shut down. As Trond Skaftnesmo later documented – and as the deparment admitted in 1995 – Juklerød’s false ideas were true. In spite of this, Juklerød’s diagnosis was never deleted.

One of those who have been labelled mentally sick and coercively hospitalised was Synnøve Fjellbakk Taftø, diplomat and jurist. Taftø has written the book Skjoldmøysagaen, where she writes about her experience from Norwegian diplomacy.

As mentioned before, the police in Sunnmøre wanted Kåre Torvholm and Oddmar Remøy mentally examined. In the case of Remøy, the argument for hospitalising him, tells a lot. This is what Bjørn Martin Aasen, municipal doctor in Herøy and former secretary in one of the departments in Gro Harlem Brundtland’s government, wrote to justify coercive hospitalisation:
“He belongs to a civil network with both local, national and international connection, with the purpose to disclose criminal things happening in the public sector, to get things on to a more productive track. In my opinion the requirements in lph 3 are fulfilled” Here ‘lph 3’ is short for the law on mental care.

In a report written in 1999, when a new law concerning psychiatry was carried, Dag Hiåsen wrote about the control commissions. In the year 1997, 9,651 Norwegians were coercively hospitalised. The number of complaints on coercive psychiatric treatment endorsed by the control commissions that year was 49. That number is exceeded by the number of control commissions in Norway at the time (57)!

The last years the use of medication for ADHD has soared; the use has increased by 900% in the period 96-06. The UN’s drug organ has voiced concern about the strong increase in Norway, which is exceptional in Europe. There exist noteworthy warnings about side effects of this medication, as well as interesting alternatives to medication

Economical criminality - the example of the fishing industry

Due to Kåre Torvholm (1941 - 2000) and other people with the will to investigate, it is today known to most Norwegians that economical criminality has been (as it still is) rampant in Norway’s fishing industry. Torvholm was a pioneer in exposing illegal fishing and theft of the fishermen’s pensions. He was external mentor for Torstein L. Hansen when Hansen documented economical criminality in his post-graduate thesis at the University of Tromsø. The following are extracts from journalist Kjetil Haanes’s article “Kåre Torvholm should have been alive to see this” in Sunnmørsposten July 17. 2001:
“The last year hardly a week has passed without disclosures of fishing-related cheating. The confidence is all time low, and the fishing industry is to blame. Many have had knowledge about, and participated in, cheating in a lot of ways: fishing diaries and the amount, weight and species of the fish. Dock documents and export documents are falsified. This is documented in trial after trial.

Too long have the fishermen’s spokesmen been silent about this culture. For a long time excuses like that with complicated laws, being 100% law obedient was not possible. And we have been told that fishermen from other nations, like Iceland and Russia, have acted far worse”.

Haanes concludes as follows:
“They [former Fishing Ministers] cannot have been ignorant, at least not if they read some of the hundreds of faxes from the now deceased fish cheating discloser Kåre Torvholm from Moldtustranda.

And now I will explain the choice of title for this commentary. In the last days I have been phoned by many people declaring that “Kåre should have experienced this”, as the scandals have been unfolded.

Several active fishermen have also contacted me and said: “You should have known how right Kåre was about the cheating”. And a former politician occupied with fishing politics, and a critic of Torvholm, said: “He seems to have been right after all”.

Warned journalists

Political Psychiatry & Breivik's 'paranoid schizophrenic' diagnosis (11:02)

History judges and the verdict may be merciless, especially for those who are exposed as playing with false cards. Some of these are now seeking to avoid attention. This includes persons who have been calling journalists, urging them to avoid contact with Kåre Torvholm. If they had contact with him, they would not be regarded as serious, and would experience difficulties in collecting information - it was said.

Kåre Torvholm wanted the truth to be known, so that people in positions could not misuse their power to gain benefits. He wanted justice and equal opportunities for all, and he was fond of the fishermen and coastal Norway.

By putting an end to cheating in fishing in Norway, one is also honouring Kåre Torvholm. Maybe time is ripe for both?”

One Member of Parliament, Marie Lovise Widnes (Socialist Electoral Alliance, the period 1989-93) did support Torvholm in his struggle against economical criminality. She has written the book Fragler, finst dei? (Fraggles, do they exist?), a book that describes Torvholm’s work.

Politicians are informed

All parliamentary parties in Norway are informed about the grave conditions Fampo can document. In September 2004 Erik Strand, board member of Fampo, sent an open letter to the members of the Committee of Justice in the parliament. In the letter Strand described the Bygdeposten trial, human rights violations in Norwegian psychiatry, and other conditions not worthy of a democracy. Then MP and today Minister of Justice, Knut Storberget (Labour Party), confirmed in an e-mail that he had received and read the open letter. Strand also sent an open letter to the candidates in the 2005 parliamentary election; all the MPs are informed.

Odd Einar Dørum (Liberal Party), Minister of Justice until the 2005 election, is even more well-informed; Fampo was invited to a meeting with representatives from the Department of Justice in August 2004. At the time of this meeting, a debate had been going on for some time on the Liberal Party’s internet debate forum.

In February 2004 Erik Strand posted a debate article on the Liberal Party's debate forum on the Internet, Talerstolen. Strand commented that the Liberal Party's chief of staff, Runolv Stegane, had sent a letter with negative remarks about Fampo’s chairman Hiåsen, to Hiåsen and with copy to the mayor in Sigdal. Stegane signed the letter as vice mayor in Sigdal. In his posting Strand wrote about some of the personal consequences for Hiåsen of his engagement for human rights in Norway, and the report Ytringsfrihetens pris i Det skjulte Norge. Stegane replied with several false allegations. According to Stegane, Hiåsen had served as a lawyer for Mjøseng (which he was denied to do), and had declined to show up in court (a lie). According to Stegane, Ytringsfrihetens pris i Det skjulte Norge was filled with stories about for example surveillance. - Hiåsen had used much imagination in writing these stories. The truth was that in the report Stegane had received, the word surveillance was not even used! Stegane ended his participation in the debate with the following remark about the Bygdeposten case: "This is a sad story which could have been avoided if she [Mjøseng] had not let herself brainwash by people acting like religious fanatics with a monopoly on the right lore. It is sad to observe that Erik Strand, cand. scient [university degree] (according to Hiåsen) falls into the same trap.

In an e-mail Thomas Hansen, editor of the Liberal Party's member magazine liberal.no expressed his disgust for Fampo's participation in the Internet debate this way: "If there is something that pollutes the Internet debate, then it's not spam, but madmen who are out to defame and poison the entire debate environment with their outrageously narrow and unimportant issues."

In an open letter to Liberal Party leader Lars Sponheim, Strand demanded that Sponheim distanced himself from the allegations Stegane had posted on his party's debate forum. Sponheim did not answer, but the Liberal Party's Secretary General, Terje Breivik, wrote an "answer" where he did not comment upon Stegane's allegations. Breivik only concluded that the party could not instruct Stegane in his task as a vice mayor, and that one could strive to get him out of office in the next election - an answer that had no relevance to Strand's letter. In a posting at "Talerstolen", Sponheim's advisor Geir Olsen, denied that Stegane had posted false allegations.

The open letter may be read at Fampo.

In early August 2004, Strand posted an open letter to Dørum as a debate article on Talerstolen. In a reply later the same day Dørum’s advisor Marit Meyer confirmed that the letter was received in the Department of Justice, and that Fampo soon would be invited to a meeting in the Department of Justice.

After some phone calls, Fampo received an e-mail with the following message: “Parlamentary Secretary Rita Sletner may meet you on August 31. at 13.00 - 14.00”. When arriving at the meeting, Fampo was told that Sletner was not able to come, and that the meeting could not last for an hour. Representing Dørum was his advisors Marit Meyer and Kjersti M. Høgestøl. A representative from the Police Department (part of the department of justice) was also present.

The meeting lasted less than 40 minutes, not giving room for explaining conditions both grave and complex. Nevertheless Fampo managed to present several grave conditions and give the department an issue of “Ytringsfrihetens pris i Det skjulte Norge”. Fampo used a tape cassette during the meeting, and the promise that Fampo would receive response from the Department of Justice, can be documented.

One year later Fampo had received no response from the Department of Justice. So then Strand posted a new debate article at Talerstolen, commenting this. A local Liberal Party chairman replied that taping a meeting without the knowledge did not show openness and honesty. A former board member of Young Liberals of Norway, expressed his doubt about the legality of this (it is legal). Then in a reply Marit Meyer wrote that she had been present at the meeting, and she was not aware of any tape cassette. Strand’s questions about the promised response she did not answer, and no response ever came from the Department of Justice.

Robbery and neutralising

Robbery and neutralising. - The welfare state of the state-in-the-state-clan is the title of a report where Dag Hiåsen examines a broad spectre of conditions in Norway. The searchlight is directed towards lack of judicial security as a cause of increasing poverty in Norway. By a diversity of arrangements the sources of wealth is placed in a few hands. In his report Hiåsen cites news and debate programs and demonstrates that the given explanations of increasing poverty do not concur with facts.

The report pins the legal system. The courts are dangerous for common people, was the headline of an article in Økonomisk Rapport 02/1998. The article begins as follows: “Scary is the reality Økonomisk Rapport has disclosed (…)”. The magazine continues: “The judges judge arbitrarily.” “They misunderstand laws (…), do not understand what the case is about or let sympathy weigh more than reason when they judge.”

Under the headline Dangerous trials the following text was stressed: “Scary is our conclusion after having examined almost all verdicts from Borgarting High Court last year. Common people have no judicial security, but risk losing up to half a million kroner in small cases. If you are not on the guard, you may be the next victim.”

The description given by Økonomisk Rapport is unfortunately correct. Several judicial murders are infamous in Norway (Fritz Moen, Per Liland, and Ferdrik Fasting Torgersen). Andreas Skartveit, former director of a publishing firm, put it this way in a letter published in Aftenposten 06.07.98, after having summed up several serious cases: “The most serious about these mistakes is not that they are so many, but that they are so ugly. And the worst thing is that one can see a pattern in the mistakes.”

Fampo have been contacted by victims of the Norwegian judicial system. Documents show corruption in a frightening scale. That includes cases where people have been forced to sell their house as a result of judicial murder. Notorious is the case where Nils T. Koppen’s property was coercively sold for 350.000 kroner, while local authorities hid the fact that the property would soon be sold for 16 million kroner. Also, many people have experienced that their own lawyer have sold them down the river.

In his report, Hiåsen quotes the following from text-TV: “Every third employee within health care, school and child care say that they are afraid of going to their leaders and tell about conditions that should be criticised. The reason is fear of retaliations; the largest survey concerning whistleblowers hitherto shows.” The text continues: “Among the retaliations one finds social exclusion, losing tasks, not getting salary rise, and becoming excessive.” The report Prosjekt Munnkurv (“Project Muzzle”) was worked out by Norsk sykepleierforbund (union for nurses). Here is a comment from Bente Riise, former editor of Psykisk Helse, published in the newspaper Dag og Tid 18.12.04: “43% of the nurses fear sanctions if they express themselves in the public about conditions concerning the patients’ health. Half the nurses have either got, or seen their colleges get, negative sanctions as a result of discussing problematic conditions internally. - The restrictions on freedom of speech are unacceptable.”

In the article “Whistle blowing - a risky sport”, Jan Helge Solbakk, professor in medical ethics, discusses a proposed new law concerning whistle blowers. In a hearing note sent out by the department 23.12.05, the department (for work and social issues) writes:
There is proposed a general rule which states that employees have the right to speak on their own behalf about conditions concerning the entity where they work. This shall be done in a way that does not harm the employer’s relevant and essential interests. There is also proposed a special rule concerning the right to speak about conditions worthy of critique. This shall be done in a responsible way. When whistle blowers go to the media, it must be especially be seen that the whistle blowing has solid foundation, if the relevant conditions have general interest, and if the employee has first spoken about the conditions internally, when this is rational.”
Solbakk starts his comment by mentioning that of the 176 institutions and persons receiving the hearing note, only 56 replied. He states:
“Among the central medical institution and health institutions, Statens helsetilsyn is the only one that has responded. This in spite of that the law proposal cannot easily be seen as strengthening of employees’ freedom of speech or right to blow the whistle, but rather can be seen as a defence of the employer’s need for protection in such cases, Helsetilynet has not got any critical remarks about the proposals that shall replace § 2 - 4 in the work environment law.”

Solbakk continues:
“As Henning Jakhelln - one of the most learned in the area - comments, a law where the focus is moved from the object of whistle blowing to its subject, to the question of correct procedure from the whistleblower, will reduce the whistleblower’s possibilities heavily.”

Hiåsen mentions several examples of people who have met retaliations because they have dared to disclose conditions that are hidden from publicity. He comments on threats against Kåre Torvholm and his family (this was mentioned in the newspaper Sunnmørsposten). The threats also involved Torstein L. Hansen and his family. Threats against Torvholm were also mentioned in the book Oppgjør by Oddmund Hammerstad, former secretary in the Ministry of Defence. A sinister case is the case of architect Eirik Finne, who lost his job when he could demonstrate that a common roof construction radically increased the danger of fire.

Also a report from 1999 about psychiatry in Norway discusses causes of poverty. Hiåsen cites a study showing that people with a psychiatric diagnosis had worse economical conditions than other groups. In the study group a relatively larger number of people with a history in psychiatry had spouses in job. That should indicate that the situation among people who have been detained in psychiatry is worse than the study tells.

Please note

There are several indications that people are hindered from reading the material on Fampo’s website. Several people have responded that they have not been able to certain articles. After this has been mentioned over the phone, they have been able to read the articles. Please remember this if you do not get into Fampo’s website.

Fampo’s address: 3355 Solumsmoen, Norway
Internet: www.fampo.info
Email: fampo [at] hotmail.com

» » » » [Fampo]

English & Norwegian Defense League Shut Down Feminists Facebook Page in Support of Rule of Law Free & Fair Trial for Breivik

2012-02-13T09:42:00.000-08:00

English & Norwegian Defense League Shut Down Feminists Facebook Page in Support of Rule of Law Free & Fair Trial for Breivik

Andrea Muhrrteyn | Norway v. Breivik | 13 February 2012

English and Norwegian Defense League members shut down Norway v. Breivik :: Uncensored facebook page, dedicated to supporting a free and fair trial for Breivik, in accordance with the rule of law.

The mission of the Norway v. Breivik :: Uncensored page was:
To support the Norwegian government to provide Breivik with a free and fair trial, equivalent to the treason trial provided to Nelson Mandela by the Apartheid South African government.

Anders Behring Breivik; born 13 February 1979, is a Norwegian terrorist, and the confessed perpetrator of the 2011 attacks in Norway. On 22 July 2011, Breivik bombed the government buildings in Oslo, which resulted in eight deaths. He then carried out a mass shooting at a camp of the Workers' Youth League (AUF) of the Labour Party on the island of Utøya where he killed 69 people, mostly teenagers.

Breivik's militant ideology is described in a compendium of texts, titled 2083 – A European Declaration of Independence and distributed electronically by Breivik on the day of the attacks.

Janne Kristiansen, Chief of the Norwegian Police Security Service (PST), has stated that Breivik "deliberately desisted from violent exhortations on the net [and] has more or less been a moderate, and has neither been part of any extremist network."

Breivik's statements that he considered his terrorist acts to be 'atrocious but necessary' to prevent a greater harm, are in accordance to the legal principles of the defence of political necessity or military necessity. The political necessity defence is frequently used by protestors, such as for example: Anti-Apartheid protestors used it when they occupied South African embassies. Katya Komisaruk pleaded to political necessity when she broke into Van den Burg Air Force Base to destroy the computers used to detonate Ballistic Missiles.

POLITICAL NECESSITY: In U.S. criminal law, necessity may be either a possible justification or an exculpation for breaking the law. Defendants seeking to rely on this defense argue that they should not be held liable for their actions as a crime because their conduct was necessary to prevent some greater harm and when that conduct is not excused under some other more specific provision of law such as self defense. Most common law and civil law jurisdictions recognize this defense, but only under limited circumstances. Generally, the defendant must affirmatively show (i.e., introduce some evidence) that (a) the harm he sought to avoid outweighs the danger of the prohibited conduct he is charged with; (b) he had no reasonable alternative; (c) he ceased to engage in the prohibited conduct as soon as the danger passed; and (d) he did not himself create the danger he sought to avoid.

MILITARY NECESSITY: Military necessity, along with distinction, and proportionality, are three important principles of international humanitarian law governing the legal use of force in an armed conflict.

Military necessity is governed by several constraints: an attack or action must be intended to help in the military defeat of the enemy, it must be an attack on a military objective, and the harm caused to civilians or civilian property must be proportional and not excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated.

Luis Moreno-Ocampo, Chief Prosecutor at the International Criminal Court defined military necessity as: “The application of Article 8(2)(b)(iv) [of the Rome Statute] requires, inter alia, an assessment of: (a) the anticipated civilian damage or injury; (b) the anticipated military advantage; (c) and whether (a) was "clearly excessive" in relation to (b).” [Luis Moreno-Ocampo OTP letter to senders re Iraq, 9 February 2006; International Criminal Court (ICC)]

As a radical honoursty (radical honoursty judges individuals based upon the content of their character, not their race, religion, ideology or culture), hence in Breivik's eyes a 'multiculti feminist' (Breivik's enemy), the founder of this page does not unequivocally endorse Breivik's ideology; but does unequivocally endorse the rule of law and free and fair trials, for EVERYONE.

Did the English and Norwegian Defense league leadership covertly shut down the Norway v. Breivik :: Uncensored page, so as to encourage the perception that social media and perhaps mainstream media are deliberately censoring any voices in support of Breivik receiving a free and fair trial?

Who benefits, when the State, media, or social media over-react by denying Breivik's rights to a free and fair trial, censoring those who support the rule of law and his right to a free and fair trial? Who benefits when those who support Breivik to be found guilty or innocent in accordance to the rule of law -- not by hatred and denying him a defense; -- are censored and silenced?
“When the government’s boot is on your throat, whether it is a left boot or a right boot, a male boot or female boot, a black boot or white boot, a Catholic, Muslim, Christian or Atheist boot, a straight, homosexual or lesbian boot; is of no consequence.”

None of the following Breivik related Facebook pages endorse the rule of law and a free and fair trial to be applied in the case of Norway v. Breivik. Nor do any of these pages seemingly bother the Norwegian and English Defense Leagues leadership elite. Why does a page supporting a rule of law free and fair trial for Anders Breivik, bother the English and Norwegian Defense League leadership elite so much?

Why the double standards? The following pages encourage fair minded Norwegians to support the State, the media and social media to consider Breivik guilty without anything resembling a rule of law free or fair trial. It may not be intelligent advocacy, but in a free speech republic, it is their free speech right. Why does it bother the English and Norwegian Defence League, when anyone advocates on behalf of a free and fair trial for Breivik? If you were a fair minded Norwegian, who considers the rule of law important, and who believes you live in a democratic Norwegian state, that provides everyone with a free and fair trial, and you observe your goverment and your media denying Breivik a free and fair trial, and censoring his arguments. Does that not prove Breivik was right, that there is no such thing as the rule of law, or free and fair trials and democracy in Norway?

When you hate Breivik enough to allow your hatred to manipulate you into supporting your government, fellow citizens and the media to deny Breivik a rule of law free and fair trial; then you are doing exactly what Breivik -- and the English and Norwegian Defense League??? -- wants you to do??
“I disagree with every word you say; but I will defend to the death your right to say it.” -- Voltaire

» » » » [Norway v. Breivik :: Uncensored]

Norwegian Muslim Party launched in Pakistan: Want Muslim Mayor for Oslo & Muslim President for Norway

2012-02-11T01:26:00.000-08:00

Party Like It’s A.D. 632

Bruce Bawer | Feb 10th, 2012 | FrontPage

Recently the Partij voor Moslim Nederland (Party for Muslim Netherlands), which already enjoys a significant presence in various municipal governments in that country, announced that it intended to run candidates for the Dutch Parliament. An article in Forbes listed the party’s major principles, which included limits on “offensive” speech about religion; the criminalization of blasphemy and of the destruction of religious texts; immediate admission of Turkey to the EU; an end to support for Israel; and the free and unimpeded importation of Muslim brides from abroad.

Whether to work within existing parties, or to concentrate on forming and building up separate Muslim parties, has always been a key strategic question for the soft jihadists of Europe. Though there are Muslims in Norway who are prominent members of several large traditional parties, the country now has a Muslim party too. Founded in 2009 as the Independent Labour Party, it was obliged later that year to change its name to the Samtidspartiet (Contemporary Party) because of official concerns that it might be confused with the Norwegian Labor Party. When outlining the party’s goals, its founder, Norwegian-Pakistani Ghuffor Butt, focused on a desire for lower taxes, gas prices, and the like – making it sound like rather a libertarian party for Muslims. Formerly a cinema director, producer, and political journalist in Pakistan, as well as an actor in some twenty Pakistani movies, Butt ran – and, as far as I know, still runs – a successful store in Grønland, a largely Muslim district in Oslo, that sells Bollywood films.

Yet lest these credentials suggest he was a “liberal” and “modern” Muslim, Butt made it clear, in answer to a Dagbladet journalist’s questions, that his party’s other objectives included lifting the ban on hijab in the police force, establishing exclusively Muslim schools and hospitals, instructing immigrant-group children in their parents’ native tongue rather than in Norwegian, easing residence-visa rules, using taxpayer money to fund the building of mosques and pay the salaries of imams, punishing those who had reprinted the Danish Muhammed cartoons, withdrawing troops from Afghanistan, and prohibiting homosexuality. (Later, presumably loath to offend some of his allies on the left, Butt made a phone call to Dagbladet to walk back the bit about gays: while homosexual conduct is forbidden by Islam, he said, the party did not intend to change Norwegian law on the subject. Yeah, right.)

“If Norwegians didn’t drink alcohol, have premarital sex, and eat pork,” Butt told Dagbladet, “they’d be the world’s best Muslims.” He also suggested that Mossad was responsible for 9/11 and echoed the popular myth that Jews hadn’t shown up for work at the World Trade Center that day.

It is interesting to note that the official launch of this putatively Norwegian political party took place in Pakistan – yet another apparent indication of the way in which many Norwegian-Pakistanis view their relationships to their old and new homelands. As Butt explained, it was easier to reach Norwegian Pakistani voters in Norway this way because they didn’t watch Norwegian TV: thanks to satellite dishes, their sets are tuned to the Pakistani channels on which he was planning to do interviews. “In three years, Oslo’s mayor will be a Norwegian-Pakistani,” he predicted (wrong so far), and expressed the hope that within fifteen years a “second-generation immigrant” would be Norway’s prime minister.

Then there’s the U.K., where Muslims established the Islamic Party of Britain in 1989 only to dissolve it in 2006 after limited success in local elections. The party received widespread attention when one of its functionaries, in answer to a reader’s question on its website, said that gays should be put to death for “public…lewdness.” The party is no more, but it lingers on, after a fashion, in the form of the socialist Respect Party, to which it had intimate ties. Based in the immigrant-heavy city of Manchester, run by two people named Salma Yaqoob and Abjol Miah, and founded in 2004 in opposition to the war in Iraq, the party – which has what one might call a “special relationship” with the Muslim Association of Britain, the Muslim Council of Britain, and the Revolutionary Communist Party of Britain (Marxist-Leninist) – calls for a higher minimum wage, higher taxes on the rich to fund welfare programs, stauncher support for Pakistani, and a tough stance toward Israel; though it presents itself as a part of the left, it has soft-pedaled women’s rights and gay rights to garner Muslim votes. Its most famous member is the Hamas-loving international gadfly George Galloway, who represented the party in Parliament after his expulsion from Labour.

And let’s not forget Spain, where in 2009 Muslims formed the Partido Renacimiento y Unión de España (PRUNE), which – though it calls explicitly for a “moral and ethical regeneration” of Spanish society, with Islam as the motive force – denies that it’s a Muslim party. A similar situation obtains in Germany, where a party called the Alliance for Innovation and Justice, founded in 2010, also claims it’s not a Muslim institution, despite its overwhelmingly Muslim membership, its clearly Islamic ideological orientation, and its intimate ties with the ruling party in Turkey.

So it goes. In those places in Europe where Muslims have reached a certain percentage of the population, it’s not surprising to see Muslim parties cropping up, fielding candidates, and, eventually, winning elections – first for local offices, then for seats in Parliament.

One challenge facing all such parties, however, is that of convincing Muslims that a separate party is the best way for them to gain power. Indeed, while it’s important to keep an eye on these still relatively small parties, at present the far more significant problem is the readiness of the large, established parties that, in order to win Muslim votes, are quick to betray their founding principles – and to sell out the interests, rights, and security of members of constituencies (such as gays and Jews) that are increasingly being dwarfed by ever-ballooning Muslim populations. The possibility of those Muslim votes being siphoned off by newer, smaller parties with aggressively Islamic platforms can only encourage the major parties to shift their own agendas in even more Muslim-friendly directions.

It’s all part, needless to say, of the complex, subtle – and ominous – workings of soft jihad. Which is why the decision of the Party for Muslim Netherlands to dive into the parliamentary fray is a development worth taking note of. For it’s no isolated incident, but part of a much larger and constantly shifting picture – that of the steady, and seemingly inexorable, political Islamization of Europe.

Bruce Bawer is a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the Freedom Center and the author of “While Europe Slept” and “Surrender.” His new Harper Collins e-book, "The New Quislings," about the Norwegian Left's exploitation of the July 22 mass murders in Norway, is now available.

» » » » [Front Page (See original for links info)]

Anders Breivik: Knights Templar: Opening Statement: Defence: Preemptive Political & Military Necessity Strike to Defend Norway for Norwegians

2012-02-10T11:40:00.000-08:00

Anders Breivik: Knights Templar: Opening statement: Defence: Not Guilty: Political & Military Necessity to Defend Norway for Ethnic Norwegians: I am Sitting Bull of National European Indigenous Rights Movement. I do not acknowledge guilt for the actions of 22 July 2011 as a criminal act. My military attacks against the government building and Labour Party youth was a preventative attack against these traitors immigration policies, which are committing cultural destruction of ethnic Norwegians and their culture; as a tool for the Islamic colonization of Norway.

|::| 06.02.2012: Transcript: Breivik Court Statement |::|
|::| 2083 - EU Declaration of Independence: Court Opening Statements (PDF) |::|
|::| Political Necessity and Civil Disobedience, by JA Cohan, Pierce Law Review (PDF) |::|
|::| ICC Prosecutor: Rome Statute Art.8(2)(b)(iv) Military Necessity definition (PDF: Pg.5) |::|

3.70 Court/trial statements for Justiciar Knight and other patriotic resistance fighters after an operation

2083: A European Declaration of Independence, by Andrew Berwick (aka Andres Breivik), London [From Unwanted Advocate: (PDF)]

A trial is an excellent opportunity and a well suited arena the Justiciar Knight can use to publicly renounce the authority of the EUSSR/USASSR hegemony and the specific cultural Marxist / multiculturalist regime. After all, this hegemony is nothing more than a global criminal network consisting of fundamentally undemocratic, anti-national dictatorships.

The individual countries in this cultural Marxist/multiculturalist criminal network are not democracies and have not been real democracies since perhaps the 1950s. Instead they are dictated by a small elite of political and cultural leaders who deliberately use the state institutions and media companies to indoctrinate and control their own people. The accused should use this opportunity to present all available documentation, illustrations and proof included in this compendium (2083 – A European Declaration of Independence) to claim his innocence. However, he should also at a later stage in the trial demand freedom on behalf of his people and demand that the regime in question immediately and without hesitation capitulates to the pan-European tribunal – PCCTS, represented by the accused, the Justiciar Knight and the national patriotic forces he indirectly controls.

2083 - European Declaration of Independence, by Knights Templar: Andrew Berwick (12:23)

The Justiciar Knight must demand the right to form a cultural conservative tribunal consisting of the 20 most dedicated and trustworthy cultural conservative/patriotic leaders in the country. Furthermore, he must demand that that the national parliament immediately transfers all political powers to this newly established tribunal / cabinet. The Justiciar Knight must also demand at least 20 hours of unrestricted access to the national broadcasting company in order to consolidate and rally an initial and loyal patriotic military force (2000 should be a benchmark depending on the size of the country). The Justiciar Knight and the newly established tribunal will then appoint one trustworthy individual in his newly appointed cabinet to be the new national military commander with control of the national regular military forces. Martial law must be declared in this transitional period. (See relevant phase 3 strategies for more detailed descriptions).

By the time you are done presenting your demands, the judges and the trial audience will probably laugh their asses off and mock you for being ridiculous. Nevertheless, it is important to ignore the ridicule and remain firm and focused. After all, it is what we in fact expect to happen one day. If we truly believe that, then more people will as well. It might sound completely ridiculous and funny to most people today. But by presenting the following accusations and demands in all seriousness we are indirectly conditioning everyone listening for the conflicts and scenarios ahead. They will laugh today, but in the back of their minds, they have an ounce of fear, respect and admiration for our cause and the alternative and authority we represent. Because they know that it is not completely unlikely that the scenario you just described will in fact happen one day in a not too distant future.

So the key word is “conditioning”, through indirect psychological warfare, directed at our enemies by presenting them with given scenario. We are thus indirectly preparing not only our enemies but our people for what lies ahead. Do not whisper these accusations and demands but tell them out loudly and proudly.

Opening statement – Knights Templar trial

An opening statement is an introductory statement made by the attorneys for each side at the start of a trial. The opening statement, although not mandatory, is seldom waived because it offers a valuable opportunity to provide an overview of the case to the jury and to explain the anticipated proof that will be presented during the course of the trial.

The primary purpose of an opening statement is to apprise the trier of fact, whether jury or court, of the issues in question and to summarise the evidence that the party intends to offer during the trial. The Supreme Court has characterised an opening statement as "ordinarily intended to do no more than to inform the jury in a general way of the nature of the action and defence so that they may better be prepared to understand the evidence".

Most practitioners and legal scholars agree that an effective opening statement is vital to the trial process. The importance of an opening statement has been established by studies that showed that 80 percent of jurors' ultimate conclusions with respect to the verdict corresponded with their tentative opinion after opening statements. This is because an effective opening statement establishes the facts of the case and sets forth a legal theory and explanation for why the attorney's client should prevail.

Using the court proceedings as a platform to further our cause

The goal for the European resistance fighter is not to win the trial but to present all available evidence, presented in this compendium, and his cause in the most favourable way in order to help generate a maximum amount of sympathisers and supporters for the national and/or European patriotic resistance movement. The judges will not be sympathetic towards you because they are, after all, representatives of the regime we wish to defeat. After a successful operation, allowing capture and the subsequent court proceedings may presents several propaganda opportunities. The trial itself may not end up as anything else than a formality where the goal can be to change the law, forcing the parliament of that country to introduce the death penalty, or harshen the penal laws in other ways. Indirectly forcing the parliament of your country to change the laws will be an indirect victory to our movement because it will provide significant media coverage of our cause and thus will contribute to future recruitment efforts. Devastating attacks will develop into an existential conflict between the regime and the resistance movement where the regime ultimately will lose or will be forced to use Stalinist methods. In both cases, they will eventually lose.

Example - opening statement for Justiciar Knights or other European resistance fighters:

Biography: Sioux Indians: Sitting Bull: Chief of Lakota Nation [01/03]

To the jury and/or members of the court; I am standing here today as a Justiciar Knight Commander of the PCCTS, Knights Templar, a pan-European organisation which is a part of the patriotic National Resistance Movements in all Western European countries. I represent the highest national military and political authority considering the fact that we are the only military force in this country that represents the free patriotic people, as we are not on the pay roll of the category A and B traitors that you refer to as your superiors. When I speak, I speak on behalf of millions of Europeans who does not want to see their culture and territorial rights taken from them, who does not want to live under current or future dhimmitude and who does not accept that their own leaders are selling them against their will to Islamic slavery.

The current multiculturalist regimes of Western Europe are not at all democratic, this country is not democratic. They haven’t been democratic since the 1950s. There is no basis for democracy when all state institutions including schools, universities deliberately use advanced brainwashing techniques (as will be described later) to condition the people from resisting their own annihilation through the implementation of cultural Marxism / multiculturalist doctrines. Furthermore, there is no basis for democracy when 99% of all journalists support and propagate multiculturalism. There is no basis for democracy when all patriots and nationalists are ignored, ridiculed or persecuted. Factors such as these and many more have resulted in the Marxist tyranny we live under today.

The political and cultural elites are deliberately selling their own people into Islamic slavery by allowing demographical warfare.

Thomas Jefferson, the third President of the United States and the author of the US Declaration of Independence, stated;
“The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.”

He also wrote:
"That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organising its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. [...] It is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security."

Geronimo: The Last Free Apache (05:53)

Refreshing the tree is now long overdue as our countries are in a rapid state of disintegration. The intention of the National Resistance Movement is to refresh the tree of liberty, and obviously not to cut it down. Refreshing the tree of liberty involves a coup supported by a significant portion of European patriots. Many of us will have to sacrifice our life for the cause in order to destroy the tyrants of our time. It is impossible to guarantee a democratically sanctioned coup as we have to keep in mind that Europeans have been brainwashed now for two generations. Many will oppose us for our stance and call us fascist. Nevertheless, it is essential to acknowledge and understand that we are not.

All coups involve the temporary suspension of the constitution. Thomas Jefferson himself knew that. However, the goal of the coup is as I said not to chop down the tree of liberty but to refresh it.

I would like to begin by saying that of all our attainments, the freedom of our people is the most precious and the most vulnerable. Preserving our freedom and sovereignty is what many of our forefathers dedicated their lives to and what so many thousands of our people have given their lives for. Our freedom, national identity and our culture in this country is the fruit of centuries even millennia’s of struggles. It is the result of a history that has no equal and has brought us to where we are today. I will present evidence proving that the freedom of our people, our culture, our traditions, our Christendom and our national identity is in the process of being deconstructed by cultural Marxists and multiculturalists in our country.

Before I continue I would like to read a quote from John Stuart Mill, a former English Member of Parliament and influential British thinker:
“A person may cause evil to others not only by his actions but by his inaction, and in either case he is justly accountable to them for the injury.”

I will prove that these cultural Marxists infiltrated our state institutions after WW2, especially our schools, universities and the media. I will prove that our political system referred to as a democracy has over the last 6 decades developed into a cultural Marxist dictatorship controlled by a group of multiculturalist elites whose plans consist of the deconstructing our country’s traditions, national identity and even our nation state. The most influential of these individuals are referred to as category A and B traitors. This traitorous elite now controls a majority of our state intuitions, including the media and our courts. I will prove that they have deliberately and systematically undermined this country and their day to day betrayal continues to weaken the cultural defences of our country.

By deconstructing our cultural defences, these category A and B traitors have laid the foundation for cultural conquest, but it doesn’t end there. These category A and B traitors continue to facilitate and allow the ongoing Islamic colonisation of our country, a process better known as Islamic demographic warfare. This Islamic demographic warfare will eventually lead to the enslavement of our people under the Islamic Ummah. Due to the actions of these category A and B traitors we will end up as the persecuted Christian minority in Lebanon. Didn’t you know that Lebanon was once a Christian country with 80% Christians in 1911? I expect that you knew that.

However if you were unfamiliar with the successful Jihad in Lebanon I will present 10 other historical examples later on.

The following statement was written by Karl Popper, a philosopher at the London School of Economics:
“If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them. We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant.”

I will prove that the only pragmatical approach, the only hope our people have of preventing the future enslavement of our people and preventing the ongoing cultural and demographical genocide is for every European to do what is required of him. Every European has not only a right but a duty to contribute to the efforts of our National Resistance Movement through armed struggle against all category A and B traitors. The PCCTS and the Justiciar Knights represents the highest military authority in this country because we are the only military force that acts in the interest of our people. We are the true manifestation of the will of our people which cannot be said about our regular national army as they are controlled by the multiculturalist category A and B traitors we wish to defeat.

The individuals I have been accused of illegally executing are all category A and B traitors, guilty of high treason and condemned to death by the highest legal authority in Europe and our country. This authority is known as the military and criminal tribunal; PCCTS. All the individuals I have been accused of illegally executing have deliberately used their influence in a way which makes them indirectly or directly guilty of charges 1- 8 which will be presented later.

The evidence I will present will prove not only that I am innocent of the crimes I have been accused of. It will prove that we, as the highest military authority in this country have the right to temporary suspend the constitution and to seize political and military control of our country until all category A and B traitors have been hunted down and executed. There are approximately xxxx category A and B traitors operating freely within the borders of our nation. I will get back to this point later.

The question that many now ask themselves is the following:

Biography: Sioux: Crazy Horse: Last Lakota Warrior [01/05]

Am I a Sitting Bull or a Hitler of our time? As you already know, Sitting Bull was a celebrated hero, a Native American Chief who fought on behalf of his people against General Armstrong Custer and the US force. Ask yourself, who is the Hitler of the two?

Sitting Bull or General Custer? Was Sitting Bull a terrorist because he fought for the indigenous rights of his people or was he a hero? That is the question that you will decide during this trial.

We, the armed European Resistance Movements, are in fact fighting for our indigenous rights (compared to the Islamic terrorists who are fighting for world domination – a global Caliphate based on Sharia law). An individual fighting for his indigenous rights is NOT a terrorist as history clearly proves. We are no more terrorists than the indigenous Brits who fought against the imperialistic Roman invaders, or the Americans who fought against English rule. We are no more terrorists than Sitting Bull, Crazy Horse or Chief Gall who fought for their people against the imperialist General Armstrong Custer.

WE are the Sitting Bulls, Crazy Horses and Chief Galls of our time and the imperialistic Custer’s of our time are called Barroso, Blair, Brown, Merkel and Sarkozy.

We, the PCCTS, Knights Templar and the Justiciar Knights of Europe and this country have dedicated our lives to defend and sacrifice ourselves for the freedom of our people, our culture, Christendom and our nation. We know what the risks are and we willingly pay the price for that every day. We do not complain about it; it is our own decision. It is my duty, as a Justiciar Knight of the European Resistance Movement to defend my people, my country and my culture from gradual systematic and deliberate genocide and this is the reason why I am standing here today. I know that the truth I represent is tough and hard to comprehend and accept in our politically correct times. But the majority of free and patriotic Europeans will learn that what I say here today is the truth.

We have the people on our side; we have the truth on our side. What do you have? It is every Europeans duty to defend their people and country against the ideology of genocide, conquest and destruction known as Islam.

I have nothing against individual Muslims. The problem is that Islam is a political ideology and the fact that the ongoing Islamisation of our country will eventually be the end of our freedom. Future generations will wonder how we, in 2010, at this location, in this room, served our most precious asset.

Will you condemn the patriotic heroes of the Resistance Movement for contributing to save their people and country from slavery and tyranny? Isn’t it the most basic human right to save your own people and culture from deliberate genocide and extermination?

The answer to that is immediately also the answer to the question whether individuals in this country are actually free or if they have already been reduced to slaves of the multiculturalist traitor elites.

Mark Twain once wrote:
“During a time of change, the patriot is a scarce man. He is hated and scorned. When his cause succeeds however, the timid join him. For then it costs nothing to be a patriot. “ -- Mark Twain

According to you, this trial is about whether I, as a member of the National Resistance Movement also known as the National Indigenous Rights Movement, have the right to defend myself, my people and my culture by executing the category A and B traitors who are deliberately allowing the Islamic colonisation of our country.

But this trial is also about finding the truth. The statements I have made, the comparisons I have drawn – are they true? Because, if something is true, how can it be illegal?

Therefore I ask you, not only to grant my request for presenting all available evidence and documentation listed in the compendium: 2083 – A European Declaration of Independence, but also to allow the hearing of witnesses and experts in the field concerning the ongoing colonisation of Europe and who can attest to the fact that the traitors I have executed where facilitating and deliberately contributing to this process. I ask that this is done in full publicity.

I am not only referring to Witness 1 and Witness 2 but also on the expert witnesses from Country 1, Country 2, Country 3 and other countries. Preferably, all. I must have the ability to defend myself. I must be allowed to prove to you and to the people of this country that I have acted in the only rightful manner, in self defence through a preemptive attack. I must be allowed to prove that I executed these traitors in order to prevent them from continuing to contribute in the ongoing processes of cultural and demographical genocide and extermination. Please do not obstruct me from doing that.

Because without this documentation and the mentioned witnesses, I cannot defend myself in a proper way and in my view it will this will not be a fair trial. Thank you.

Civil Disobedience and the Necessity Defense

by JOHN ALAN COHAN

PIERCE LAW REVIEW Vol. 6, No. 1

I. INTRODUCTION

NATO: Battle of Jus Sanguinis (Right of Blood) River Campaign (08:09)

Freedom of expression in a free society includes freewheeling public dissent on controversial political issues of the day. Civil disobedience is a form of protest that, while usually peaceful, involves violating the law -- usually by trespassing on government property, blocking access to buildings, or engaging in disorderly conduct. Civil disobedience has been called “the deliberate violation of law for a vital social purpose.” In their day in court, civil disobedients have at times sought to interpose the necessity defense to justify their conduct. The necessity defense asserts that breaking the law was justified in order to avert a greater harm that would occur as a result of the government policy the offender was protesting.

Protestors will seek to invoke the necessity defense not so much to gain acquittal from the relatively minor charges, but to advance the more important objective of publicly airing the moral and political issues that inspired their act of civil disobedience. There is the hope of gaining notoriety for a cause by discussing it in court, and “educating” the jury about political grievances or other social harms.

The strategy is meant to appeal to a higher principle than the law being violated.the necessity of stopping objectionable government policies, and to let the jury have an opportunity to weigh their technically illegal actions on the scales of justice. Acquittal is of course hoped for in the end but may be quite low on the protestors' list of priorities.
The necessity defense is attractive to reformers who practice civil disobedience because it allows them to deny guilt without renouncing their socially driven acts. It offers a means to discuss political issues in the courtroom, a forum in which reformers can demand equal time and, perhaps, respect. Moreover, its elements allow civil disobedients to describe their political motivations. In proving the imminence of the harm, they can demonstrate the urgency of the social problem. In showing the relative severity of the harms, they can show the seriousness of the social evil they seek to avert. In establishing the lack of reasonable alternatives, they can assault the unresponsiveness of those in power in dealing with the problem and prod them to action. And in presenting evidence of a causal relationship, they can argue the importance of individual action in reforming society. Thus, the elements of the necessity defense provide an excellent structure for publicizing and debating political issues in the judicial forum.

The goal of describing their political motivations to the jury, and implicitly to the media, is subject to numerous hurdles inherent in the necessity defense. In most instances, as we will see, courts will rule as a matter of law that the actors have failed in the offer of proof regarding the elements of the necessity defense so that the jury rarely is given the chance to weigh in on the matter. On the other hand, if the defense is allowed, the jury is called upon to weigh controversial political issues and to function as the “conscience of the community.” “Reflected in the jury’s decision is a judgment of whether, under all the circumstances of the event and in the light of all known about the defendant, the prohibited act, if committed, deserves condemnation by the law.”3 In cases where judges have been persuaded to allow the necessity defense, juries have, often enough, delivered not guilty verdicts.

II. OVERVIEW OF CIVIL DISOBEDIENCE

A. Definition of Civil Disobedience

The Legend of Crazy Horse (10:00)

John Rawls defines civil disobedience as “a public, nonviolent, conscientious yet political act contrary to law usually done with the aim of bringing about a change in the law or policies of the government.” A more comprehensive definition of civil disobedience is:
Civil disobedience is an act of protest, deliberately unlawful, conscientiously and publicly performed. It may have as its object the laws or policies of some governmental body, or those of some private corporate body whose decisions have serious public consequences; but in either case the disobedient protest is almost invariably nonviolent in character.

Broadly construed, civil disobedience may be directed toward a law or policy of the government, or toward a corporate entity whose policy is the subject of protest. Civil disobedients hope that their conduct makes a dramatic appeal to the conscience of the community, affects public awareness of a particular social issue, and motivates citizens to demand change in certain policies.

Civil disobedience is a singular hallmark of a free country:

We must recognize that civil disobedience in various forms, used without violent acts against others, is engrained in our society and the moral correctness of political protestors’ views has on occasion served to change and better our society. Civil disobedience has been prevalent throughout this nation’s history extending from the Boston Tea Party and the signing of the Declaration of Independence, to the freeing of the slaves by operation of the Underground Railroad in the mid-1880’s. More recently, disobedience of “Jim Crow” laws served, among other things, as a catalyst to end segregation by law in this country, and violation of selective service laws contributed to our eventual withdrawal from the Viet Nam War.

Civil disobedience differs from other forms of peaceful protest in that there is a technical violation of the law such as trespass, blocking of public access, or disorderly conduct; and the violation is part of the effort to garner public attention to the cause. Ordinary forms of peaceful protest may simply involve peaceful picketing, circulating petitions, forming of rallies, and the like, in which proper police permits are obtained and there are no violations of the law.

B. Distinction Between Direct and Indirect Civil Disobedience

Deep Green Resistance: Decisive Ecological Warfare (DEW): Race 2 Save Planet: END:CIV Resist or Die (02:59)

There are two kinds of civil disobedience—direct and indirect. Direct civil disobedience involves the intentional violation of a specific law that, in and of itself, is challenged as unjust. An example would be smoking marijuana in public to protest a law that makes it unlawful to engage in such an act. Rosa Parks’ famous refusal to move from her seat on a Montgomery, Alabama bus was an act of direct civil disobedience because she violated the actual segregation ordinance then in place.

Indirect civil disobedience, which is undoubtedly the most frequent form of protest, involves the violation of a law which is not itself the object of protest. Indirect civil disobedience seeks to mobilize public opinion, typically through symbolic action. For example, the Freedom Riders protested segregation by riding buses, but authorities arrested them for trespass. Since they did not directly attack the bus law, they were characterized as engaging in indirect civil disobedience. While a person might trespass and block access of shipments to a nuclear power plant, the act is not committed to protest the trespass law under which the defendants are charged, but to protest the use of nuclear power. Or, to cite another example, students in France recently engaged in acts of violence and disorderly conduct to protest a law that allows employers to dismiss workers under the age of twenty-six without cause during their first two years on the job. The protestors do not contest the validity of the disorderly conduct laws, but believe their acts are necessary as a means to pressure officials to change the law.

Indirect civil disobedience might also target an unjust policy of a business organization, scientific laboratory, government facility, military contractor, or other entity. While trespass is the most frequent law that is violated, protestors commit other acts such as malicious mischief, obstruction of passage, assault, arson, or theft as a means of protesting an entirely separate issue or policy. Protests in modern times are often directed toward such issues as nuclear power, war, human rights violations, animal cruelty, and environmental pollution.

The distinction between direct and indirect civil disobedience is important because significant case law holds that the necessity defense is available only to defendants charged with direct civil disobedience. The leading case on this point is United States v. Schoon, in which the Ninth Circuit held that the necessity defense, with respect to civil disobedience, is available only for direct, not indirect, civil disobedience. We will discuss the Schoon case in Part IV.

It may be difficult to make a clear distinction between direct and indirect civil disobedience.10 One person may engage in civil disobedience by refusing to be drafted because of objections to the draft law, while another person may refuse to be drafted because of objections to an unjust war, with the former, not the latter, being direct civil disobedience.

When people seek to prevent military action by trying to disarm weapons, are they engaged in indirect or direct civil disobedience? When people block a road to stop trucks from coming in to cut down virgin timber, is that indirect civil disobedience because it is a violation of a neutral traffic law or is it direct civil disobedience because it seeks to actually stop the challenged action? The distinction does not work well for the now historically-approved actions of those who protested against segregation: people like Martin Luther King, Jr., who famously spent time in 1963 in a Birmingham jail for engaging in an illegal march against segregation. Was he directly protesting the necessity of a permit, or was he trying to stop segregation? Under a rigid distinction, he was engaged in indirect civil disobedience and thus would not have been able to raise the defense of necessity.

Some of the most important advancements in civil rights have been a product of direct civil disobedience. In the 1960s there were a great many instances of direct civil rights protest, with direct violations of segregation and discrimination laws. For example, in Lombard v. State,13 the U.S. Supreme Court reversed the convictions of four students who staged a sit-in demonstration at a whites-only lunch counter in New Orleans, to protest that city’s custom of refusing to allow segregated service in restaurants. In Hamm v. Rock Hill, the Court vacated charges against defendants convicted of state trespass statutes for participating in sit-ins at lunch counters that had a policy of refusing service to blacks. These protests involved direct civil disobedience in that the actors specifically targeted the policies at these eating establishments, although the defendants were charged with trespass, not with violating the policies in question. Additionally, there were innumerable instances of indirect civil disobedience involving sit-ins, which resulted in over 3000 prosecutions for criminal trespass and similar violations. These violations culminated in the enactment of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which set an end to discriminatory practices in public accommodations.

C. Historic Instances of Civil Disobedience

Northwest Front: Harold Covington discusses Direct Action Regime Change: The Brandenburg lecture series deals with the landmark Supreme Court ruling in Brandenburg v. Ohio, whereby discussions about direct action to bring about non-consensual (possibly violent) regime change, are not actionable. [01|02|03|04|Podcast]

Of course, civil disobedience is something of a democratic tradition. In numerous countries the government allows no public display of displeasure with government policies. For example, demonstrators in Arab republics have been known to be sentenced to public lashings and prison terms for taking part in demonstrations against the government. In Arab countries, a sentence of flogging is seen as “an ultimate humiliation and carries connotations of heresy.” Additionally, political protests in China are dealt with by arresting the offenders and keeping them incarcerated for extended periods of time.

As early as 1635, American colonists were persecuted for direct civil disobedience in refusing to obey certain laws by reason of conscience.

Acts of direct civil disobedience to the English crown were the hallmark of the American Revolution, including the Boston Tea Party. Opposition to slavery involved numerous kinds of direct civil disobedience, including aiding and abetting runaway slaves.21 In 1846, Henry David Thoreau wrote his famous and influential essay, On the Duty of Civil Disobedience, in which he gave a cogent argument on the necessity of direct civil disobedience:
Unjust laws exist: shall we be content to obey them, or shall we endeavor to amend them, and obey them until we have succeeded, or shall we transgress them at once?

. . . .

. . . If the injustice [of the machine of government] has a spring, or a pulley, or a rope, or a crank, exclusively for itself, then perhaps you may consider whether the remedy will not be worse than the evil; but if it is of such a nature that it requires you to be the agent of injustice to another, then, I say, break the law. Let your life be a counter friction to stop the machine.

Direct civil disobedience was in play in 1872 when Susan B. Anthony was indicted and convicted for violating a federal law that prohibited voting in congressional elections without having a lawful right to vote. She managed to persuade a voting registrar to register her in violation of a state law that restricted voting rights to men and voted for a congressional election in New York State. Ms. Anthony fully conceded the facts alleged in the indictment, and the court directed the jury to find a verdict of guilty because the facts constituting guilt were undisputed.

Before the judge pronounced sentence of a $100 fine, it was reported that Ms. Anthony
had a great many things to say, and declared that in her trial every principle of justice had been violated; that every right had been denied; that she had had no trial by her peers; that the Court and the jurors were her political superiors and not her peers, and an nounced her determination to continue her labors until equality was obtained, and was proceeding to discuss the question involved in the case, when she was interrupted by the Court with the remark that these questions could not be reviewed.

Following the conviction of Ms. Anthony, indirect civil disobedience quickly emerged as the mode of choice in the women’s suffrage movement, with the fight for women’s rights characterized by “direct action, civil disobedience, public disruptions, and passive resistance.” In 1913, over 5000 women marched in Washington on the eve of the inauguration of Woodrow Wilson. In May of 1917, police arrested over 200 women for obstructing the sidewalk in front of the White House. Congress later passed the suffrage amendment in early 1918, and it was ratified by the states on August 26, 1920.

In more recent times we have seen many instances of indirect civil disobedience in the areas of nuclear disarmament, nuclear power, environmental pollution, and anti-abortion advocacy.

Sometimes civil disobedience will involve private rather than public acts, such as conscientious resistance to an unjust law in an effort to avert the evil effects of the law. An example would be secretly smuggling immigrants across the border for the purpose of securing their safety, rather than as a public challenge to immigration policy. Another example would be occupying an abortion clinic for the purpose of physically preventing abortions scheduled that day, rather than as an appeal for legal change of the law. Some acts can be hybrid, that is, a combination of a public appeal as well as conscientious resistance to the policy in question.

In the 1960s, a period of widespread civil disobedience, both direct and indirect, the norm was that one would willingly accept the penalty. Addressing the topic of direct civil disobedience, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. said from his Birmingham jail cell:
One who breaks an unjust law must do so . . . with a willingness to accept the penalty. I submit that an individual who breaks a law that conscience tells him is unjust, and who willingly accepts the penalty of imprisonment in order to arouse the conscience of the community over its injustice, is in reality expressing the highest respect for law.

The idea is that accepting legal consequences shows that the civil disobedient seeks to better society within the parameters of the social contract, to be persuasive, and to behave ethically. In the event the protestor is convicted, serving time in jail will, according to Dr. King, “arouse the conscience of the community” over an unjust state of affairs.

Accepting the consequences is something that judges today sometimes emphasize:
One characteristic of civil disobedience is the recognition by its practitioner that he must face the legal consequences of his offense. Indeed, it is the appearance of martyrdom for a just cause which focuses public attention upon the disobedient crusader thereby hastening the achievement of his goal.

However, in today’s era of special interest groups seeking to persuade public opinion, civil disobedients inevitably seek acquittal of the charges rather than willingly accepting the legal consequences for their acts. By invoking the necessity defense, they hope to garner public awareness and sympathy for their cause. If the judge allows the jury to consider the necessity defense, this will often entail the introduction of expert testimony on the imminent danger that the protestors sought to avert, and significant media attention is likely to be given the case.

» » » » [Excerpt: Civil Disobedience & Political Necessity (PDF)]

[Pt II] DE-NO-SE-FI-IT-SR-UA Defense Leagues Demand NO v. Breivik Remove 'Like' to their Pages!

2012-02-10T05:42:00.000-08:00

German, Norwegian, Polish, Swedish, Finnish, Italian, Serbian & Ukrainian Defense Leagues Demand NO v. Breivik Remove 'Like' to their Pages

Andrea Muhrrteyn | NO v. Breivik | 09 February 2011

[Pt.I] The Italian, Norwegian, Polish, Swedish, Finnish, Italian, Greek, Serbian and Ukrainian Defense Leagues don't approve of Norway v. Breivik :: Uncensored even 'liking' their pages. They demanded that the 'likes' be removed.

The 'likes' were removed; even though the request was beyond absurd. That was however not enough. Then Ronny Alte, the leader of the Norwegian Defense League proceeded to demand that all the pictures containing the picture of Breivik with an NDL badge in the background, also be removed.

This photo was originally published on Channel Four news site, in an article titled: EDL influence over Breivik-linked group revealed.

Asked why the photo should be removed, that was publicly available on a major news website; he only stated that if it was not removed, he would get the -- Norway v. Breivik :: Uncensored -- page shut down.

Why do these people complain about censorship and political correctness; when these Defense Leagues practice as much censorship as those they complain about wanting to silence them? Do they only support freedom of speech for those they agree with? That's not freedom of speech. Freedom of speech is to support the freedom of speech for those you vehemently disagree with.

The Mission Statement of the Defense Leagues says it supports:
(1) HUMAN RIGHTS: Protecting And Promoting Human Rights
(2) DEMOCRACY AND THE RULE OF LAW: Promoting Democracy And The Rule Of Law By Opposing Sharia
(3) PUBLIC EDUCATION: Ensuring That The Public Get A Balanced Picture Of Islam
(4) RESPECTING TRADITION: Promoting The Traditions And Culture Of England While At The Same Time Being Open To Embrace The Best That Other Cultures Can Offer

But.........
(1) When it comes to Breivik (and how many others?) the rule of law and free and fair trials are irrelevant?
(2) When it comes to Breivik's trial; a free and fair balanced picture of his motives and the legal -- political necessity -- principles upon which they are founded, are irrelevant?
(3) When it comes to the Radical Honoursty culture Voltarian commitment to freedom of speech for those we disagree with; the Defense Leagues have little concern for a culture that is more committed to the rule of law, than Defense League members have for their own Magna Carta?

Letter to Channel 4: Board: Contact:

Mr. David Abraham
CEO: Channel 4
Ms. Jay Hunt
Chief Creative Officer

Dear Mr. Abraham & Ms. Hunt,

NDL/EDL Demands re: Channel 4 Breivik picture.

The NDL/EDL have been making demands that I remove the Breivik picture (www.channel4.com .. K_NDL_EDL.jpg) from my Breivik blog and facebook page, which I found on your website at: EDL influence over Breivik linked group revealed.
URL: www.channel4.com../edls-connections-with-breiviks-norwegian-cell

The photo's url is: www.channel4.com.../K_NDL_EDL.jpg

Have the EDL/NDL demanded you remove the photo; or complained about the photo?

I do not see any problems with the photo; nor have I been informed of any valid legal justifications for why I should remove it from the Norway v. Breivik :: Uncensored blog (norway-v-breivik.blogspot.com) or facebook page.

A transcript of the NDL/EDL's demands is available at:
norway-v-breivik.blogspot.com../de-no-se-fi-it-sr-ua-defense-leagues.html

Respectfully Submitted,

Lara Johnstone

Norway v. Breivik :: Uncensored
http://fleur-de-lis.co.nr
http://norway-v-breivik.blogspot.com/
http://www.facebook.com/289239404473623

» » » » [Pt 1] :: [Norway v. Breivik :: Uncensored]

[Pt I] DE-NO-SE-FI-IT-SR-UA Defense Leagues Demand NO v. Breivik Remove 'Like' to their Pages!

2012-02-09T20:18:00.000-08:00

German, Norwegian, Polish, Swedish, Finnish, Italian, Serbian & Ukrainian Defense Leagues Demand NO v. Breivik Remove 'Like' to their Pages

Andrea Muhrrteyn | NO v. Breivik | 09 February 2011

The Italian, Norwegian, Polish, Swedish, Finnish, Italian, Greek, Serbian and Ukrainian Defense Leagues don't approve of Norway v. Breivik :: Uncensored even 'liking' their pages. They demanded that the 'likes' be removed.

The 'likes' were removed; even though the request was beyond absurd. That was however not enough. Then Ronny Alte, the leader of the Norwegian Defense League proceeded to demand that all the pictures containing the picture of Breivik with an NDL badge in the background, also be removed.

This photo was originally published on Channel Four news site, in an article titled: EDL influence over Breivik-linked group revealed.

Asked why the photo should be removed, that was publicly available on a major news website; he only stated that if it was not removed, he would get the -- Norway v. Breivik :: Uncensored -- page shut down.

Why do these people complain about censorship and political correctness; when these Defense Leagues practice as much censorship as those they complain about wanting to silence them? Do they only support freedom of speech for those they agree with? That's not freedom of speech. Freedom of speech is to support the freedom of speech for those you vehemently disagree with.

Norway v. Breivik :: Uncensored have not deleted any comments or status postings from other groups. If or where a post is deleted, it was deleted by the individual who originally posted the comment or status.

» » » » [Norway v. Breivik :: Uncensored :: Pt. II]
» » » » [Environmental Graffiti: Simo Hayha] [Daily Mail: Chris Kyle]

Transcript: Breivik's Statement to Court: Pre-Emptive Act of War in Defense of ‘Norway for Ethnic Norwegians’

2012-02-07T22:17:00.000-08:00

This Breivik said in court

Olav Haugan | TV2 | 06.02.2012 16.30

Explained why he demands to be released. - A highly imaginative statement, says leader of the Bar Association Berit Reiss-Andersen.

Anders Breivik Behring was smiling in courtroom 828 in Oslo, made a right-wing message to the audience , and sat down quietly on his chair. He was dressed in a dark suit and white shirt with a sharp silver tie. Breivik was wearing handcuffs.

District Court Judge Wenche Fliflet Gjelsten informed in advance of the meeting that the minutes of detention the ban was lifted. This means that TV 2 can reproduce what Breivik said in court.

12-02-06: Norway vs. Breivik: Breivik Knights Templar Court Salute (03:06)

[NO] 12-02-06: Norge vs Breivik: Breivik Tempelridderne Domstol Salutt (03:06)

Breivik Asked for a minute to explain

After an introduction addressing the judge to the accused Anders Breivik Behring:

Are you familiar with the indictment of 22 July 2011?

I am familiar with the charges.

The question is how you set yourself to it. If you acknowledge guilt or not?

I recognize the actions, but I do not acknowledge guilt. And in this connection I wish to explain why I did not acknowledge guilt. So if I could get a minute, I had been greatly appreciated.

Okay.

Is it okay?

Yes, we get to hear what you ... if this is relevant to the detention meeting so be so good.

It is absolutely relevant. It is the explanation.

[NL] 12-02-06: Noorwegen vs Breivik: Breivik Tempeliers Hof Salute (03:06)

[SE] 12-02-06: Norge vs Breivik: Breivik Riddare Templar Domstol Honnör (03:06)

Pre-written script

After this the accused Anders Breivik Behring up a sheet with a pre-written text. He shifts his position on the chair before he starts to read the text. Breivik said this:

The attacks against the government quarter and the Labour Party was preventive attack against traitors who commit, or plan to commit, cultural destruction. Of this deconstruction of the Norwegian ethnic group, and the deconstruction of Norwegian culture.

- Systematic deconstruction of the Norwegian ethnic group is the same as ethnic cleansing. Traitors in the Labor uses the institution of asylum, family reunification scheme, stay on humanitarian grounds, and refugee quota as a tool for the Islamic colonization of Norway.

- As a result of this policy will be Norway's indigenous people, ethnic Norwegians, being a minority in Oslo in the course of ten years. This is not an allegation, it is a fact.

[RU]: 12-02-06: Breivik дает суд тамплиеров Сжатый кулак салют (03:06)

[DE]: 12-02-06: Breivik gibt Gerichtshof eine Tempelritter geballter Faust Gruß (03:06)

Does he represent the Norwegian resistance movement

During the reading of the text is Anders Breivik Behring quietly in the chair. He reads at a fast pace.

I am a militant nationalist, a cell commander of the Knights Templar in Norway and Europe. I represent the Norwegian resistance movement and the Norwegian Indigenous Peoples, and my ancestors have lived in this country for 12 000 years.

- We in the Norwegian resistance movement is not going to sit still and see that we are made to a minority in their own capital. We are not going to sit and observe that we are made to a minority in their own country. We do not accept it. It is unacceptable. We are going to fight. We will fight against the traitors of the Labour Party, and against political activists working for other organizations that support multiculturalism and Islamisation.

After this the judge Breivik to come to the conclusion.

Now comes the conclusion. The attacks of 22/7 was the preventive attack in defense of Norway's indigenous people, ethnic Norwegians. I like a militant nationalist, a cell commander of Knights Templar, and the representative of the Norwegian resistance movement can not admit guilt for 22/7 because I acted in self-defense on behalf of my people, my culture, my religion, my city and my country. I therefore demand that you release me immediately ...

Several in the audience burst into laughter when Breivik says this.

... and hereby wish to propose that the Norwegian military nominate me for the War Cross with three swords. The universal human rights and international law allows for the indigenous people are threatened ...

[FI] 02.12.06: Norja vs. Breivik: Breivik Temppeliherrojen Tuomioistuin Salute (03:06)

[FR] 02/12/06: Norvège vs Breivik: Knights Templar Breivik Cour Salute (03:06)

Interrupted by the judge

District Court Judge Wenche Fliflet Gjelsten interrupt the accused to prepare

You claiming self-defense?

I'm done immediately.

I think it keeps it, huh?

The right allows the indigenous peoples who are threatened by ethnic and cultural deconstruction, of which ethnic cleansing and cultural Genocide, has a right to defend itself militarily.

That's it?

That's it.

Total Breivik spoke for 2 minutes and 27 seconds.

Expert called the report ridiculous

Right toward the end of incarceration meeting Breivik asked about the word probably once

It depends on what, answer the judge.

I want to comment on the expert report. Will I be allowed to do that?

Yes.

I keep on working on an article regarding the expert report that is absolutely ridiculous. Few people in Norway believe in it.

Very short.

But I come back to it.

When we say it that way. Then the accused be returned to prison.


[ES] 12/02/06: Breivik da Corte, un Saludo Puño en alto de los Caballeros Templarios (03:06)	[IT] 12-02-06: Norvegia vs Breivik: Breivik Knights Templar Corte Salute (03:06)

Imagination Fully

Chairman of the Bar Association Berit Reiss-Andersen says it is not uncommon for an accused acknowledge the facts, but not guilt. But the experienced lawyer have great difficulty understanding Breivik explanation.

His reason for self-defense is very special, to put it a little careful. Where we are over in his political fantasy world, and I will not comment seriously. I just note that this is a very imaginative statement, says Reiss-Andersen.

She says Breivik's behavior in court also shows that this is not a repentant man.

- It was not a humble man we saw in court. To make such an arrogant power and semi-fascist greeting is clear that provokes. But it also reminds us of who he is, says Reiss-Andersen.

Defendant that he could talk

Several family members said after the meeting that the detention was hard to see and hear Anders Breivik Behring talking for over two minutes. Some thought he was too much to say. It is not Reiss-Andersen agrees in.

- All the accused have the right to be heard. He talked for two minutes. It felt very strong, but objectively speaking, we can not say that this was very much. He's supposed to testify for several days during the trial. We have a legal system that works regardless who you have in the dock. The proceedings shall be conducted in the manner we have adopted is a fair trial.

» » » » [TV2: Google Translate]

SAIRR: SA white population will be extinct by 2161; SA has More Murders than Road Fatalities

2012-02-07T01:30:00.000-08:00

Whites new endangered species?

2012-02-05 16:00 | Charl du Plessis | News24 & City Press

Johannesburg - If a new study is anything to go by, South Africa’s white population may be extinct by the year 2161.

A new report by the South African Institute of Race Relations revealed that the country’s white population was declining by about 0.3% every five years.

The decline has been attributed by the institute to lowered fertility rates affecting the middle class across all population groups, as well to continued white emigration.

City Press extrapolated the figures and discovered that, if the current decline trends persisted, white South Africans would be extinct by the year 2161.

Figures contained in the institute’s yearly South Africa Survey showed that South Africa’s white and Indian population were declining, while the country’s coloured and black African population groups were growing.

The study predicted that by 2025, the black African population would have grown by about five million from the current level of 40 million.

Over the same period the white population would have declined by 350 000 to a level of just more than four million.

The Indian population would decline marginally, while the coloured population would grow by just under 600 000.

Controversy

Frans Cronje, the deputy chief executive of the institute, said there was a “lot of controversy” around the figures, because South Africa’s population statistics may be off by as much as 10 million.

Cronje said the country’s white population was declining because of lowered fertility rates among women that was a “symptom of the middle class”.

It was also exacerbated by the emigration of young, white South Africans from the country.

He said that a strong argument could be made that the decline in the white population had already been much greater than estimated, with young white South Africans emigrating en masse from the country.

Cronje said South Africa’s black population continued to grow, but there was a big problem in the age group between 20 and 30, which had been worst affected by the HIV/Aids pandemic.

Cronje said the growth of the coloured population could be attributed to both natural growth – existing coloured communities having children – and a rise in inter-racial relationships.

He suggested that the rise of the coloured population might mean that in 10 or 15 years’ time, a South African court could be called on to rule on a person’s race in disputes over Black Economic Empowerment legislation.

» » » » [News 24]

More murders in SA than road fatalities

Sapa & TimesLive | 07 February, 2012 00:34

South Africa is the only country in which one is more likely to be murdered than killed in a road accident, an SA Institute of Race Relations survey has found.

"That our murder rate exceeds killings on the roads does not mean that road fatalities are low, only that our high murder rate is even higher than our high road fatality rate," researcher Kerwin Lebone said yesterday.

The study was based on information from the Road Traffic Corporation and the police for the year to the end of March 2011. It found that 32 South Africans per 100000 were murdered, whereas 28 per 100000 died in road accidents.

"International data show that the rate of road deaths is always much higher than the murder rate [elsewhere] throughout the world," Lebone said.

He said that in the US road fatalities accounted for three times more deaths than murder.

» » » » [TimesLive]

Breivik gives Court a Knights Templar Clenched Fist Salute; Lawyer tells media it is "some kind of right-wing extremist greeting."

2012-02-06T11:48:00.000-08:00

Breivik gives Court a Knights Templar Clenched Fist Salute; Lawyer tells media it is “some kind of right-wing extremist greeting”. Breivik says he deserves a Medal of Honour; for his act of war against traitors promoting the “Islamic colonisation of Norway” which is going to make “Ethnic Norwegians become the minority in 10 years”.

2083 European Declaration of Independence: Book 3: Communication and Logistics: 3.69 Background information – symbolism of insignia: Military salutation of the PCCTS, Knights Templar

The military salutation of the PCCTS, Knights Templar is the clenched fist salute. The raised fist salute consists of raising the right arm with a clenched fist (preferably with a white glove). The clenched fist symbolizes strength, honour and defiance against the Marxist tyrants of Europe while the white glove symbolizes purity, duty, kinship and martyrdom. Using the right arm symbolizes the tradition of the “Right Opposition”. The salutation is in line with traditional usage, as we regard the present ruling multiculturalist elites in Western Europe as left wing fascists. Our military salutation has nothing to do with the so called “white power” salutation or the “Roman Salute” (Saluto Romano), where the palm is faced down with fingers touching, often known as the Hitler Salute used by National Socialists.

Norwegian terror suspect Breivik tells court today he deserves a medal

In his court appearance today, Norwegian mass killer Anders Behring Breivik pleaded not guilty, saying the July 2011 bomb blast and shooting spree were 'self defense' of his culture.

Valeria Criscione | Christian Science Monitor | February 6, 2012

12-02-06: Breivik gives Court a Knights Templar Clenched Fist Salute (03:06)

OSLO, NORWAY: Hundreds packed Oslo District Court to see Anders Behring Breivik, the Norwegian man who confessed to last summer’s twin terror attacks in Oslo, for the last time before his long-awaited trial in April.

Mr. Breivik appeared in court for a final custody hearing dressed in a dark suit, composed and smiling subtly as he flashed his handcuffed arms in what his lawyer described as an extremist gesture in front of the media, survivors, and victims’ families.

He pleaded not guilty to the car bomb blast on July 22 against government buildings in Oslo and a subsequent shooting spree on the Labor party youth camp on the island of Utøya that killed 77 in the worst national tragedy in Norway since World War II.

Breivik cited self defense on behalf of his culture as the basis for his plea. He said both attacks were a “preventive attack on traitors” because the Labor-led government – which he has blamed for promoting the "Islamic colonization" of Norway – was allowing the “deconstruction of Norwegian culture.” Breivik suggested he should receive a war medal for his actions.

“Ethnic Norwegians will become the minority in 10 years,” Breivik said during a brief opening statement, which provoked short, sharp bouts of laughter from victims present in court. “Indigenous people subject to genocide have the right to defend themselves.”

Judge Wenche Gjelsten cut Breivik short and ordered him to be returned to Ila prison to be held in custody until his trial starts on April 16, citing a risk that he would commit further acts. Judge Gjelsten's decision was expected, despite the defense’s plea that Breivik be immediately released because of possible doubts about his sanity.

Two court-appointed psychiatrists, Torgeir Huseby and Synne Sørheim, concluded in November that Breivik was paranoid schizophrenic and psychotic and hence not punishable under Norwegian law. The diagnosis sparked criticism among some legal experts, who questioned how someone who so meticulously planned a crime over many years could be found psychotic.

Breivik himself claims he is not insane. His defense attorney has appealed the latest decision to submit him to a second psychiatric evaluation to the Supreme Court. Breivik has so far refused to cooperate with the two new court appointed psychiatrists, Agnar Aspaas and Terje Tørrissen.

Regardless of whether Breivik is deemed insane, the trial will still proceed in April as a normal criminal trial. The court has blocked off about 10 weeks for the trial, with a decision expected sometime in July.

Breivik faces possible charges of terrorism, which carry a maximum sentence of 21 years. Christian Hatlo, police prosecutor, told The Christian Science Monitor that the police had submitted its proposal for charges today, but a final decision from the Higher Prosecuting Authority would come later this month. There is still the possibility the Higher Prosecuting Authority may opt to instead charge Breivik for crimes against humanity, which carries a sentence of 30 years.

Breivik’s appearance today was only the second time victims and the media were allowed to see and hear the accused present himself in court since the July 22, 2011, attacks, and the first time he allowed photographs to be taken. This appearance drew more than 70 victims and survivors’ family members.

Trond Blattmann, leader for the July 22 support group, told Norwegian news agency NTB that although the group preferred the hearing was not open to the public, it was important for some to see Breivik in person in order to “mentally prepare themselves for the trial” in April.

In the end, the outcome of Breivik’s trial will be determined by two court judges, Wenche Arntzen and Arne Lyng, and three civilian judges. The court is expected to select the three civilian judges this month via a lottery system from its registry of Norwegian citizens in Oslo.

These three may in theory overrule the two judges and determine Breivik’s sentencing. However, the judges will take a formal ruling first at the end of the trial on whether Breivik is legally insane and sent to a psychiatric institution or sane and hence able to be charged.

» » » » [Christian Science Monitor]

I deserve a medal, says Breivik

Updated: 06 February 2012 17:48 | By pa.press.net | MSN.UK

12-02-06: Breivik gives Court a Knights Templar Clenched Fist Salute (03:06)

Mass killer Anders Breivik has told a court he deserved a medal of honour for the murder of 77 people and demanded to be set free.

Breivik, who has been declared criminally insane, smirked as he was led in to Oslo district court, handcuffed and dressed in a dark suit, for his last scheduled detention hearing before the trial starts in April.

He stretched out his arms in what his lawyer Geir Lippestad said was "some kind of right-wing extremist greeting."

Reading from prepared remarks, the 32-year-old Norwegian told the court that the July 22 massacre - carried out with a bomb, a rifle and a handgun - was a strike against "traitors" he said were embracing immigration to promote "an Islamic colonisation of Norway."

Like in previous hearings, Breivik admitted to setting off the bomb outside the government headquarters in Oslo and opening fire at a Labour Party youth camp on Utoya island, outside the capital, but denied criminal responsibility and rejected the authority of the court.

About 100 survivors and relatives of victims watched in disbelief, as Breivik asked to be released, and told the judge he should receive a military honour for Norway's most deadly peacetime attacks. "It wasn't good that he got to say what he wanted to say," said Amel Baltic, a 16-year-old survivor of the Utoya massacre. "It made me irritated."

Many survivors have expressed concern that Breivik will use court hearings to draw attention to his extremist views.

A psychiatric evaluation found Breivik criminally insane, but a second evaluation was ordered amid criticism against that diagnosis. Breivik has refused to cooperate with psychiatrists in the second review.

Unlike the only previous public hearing, Breivik this time agreed to let himself be photographed before the proceedings began. Mr Lippestad, the defence lawyer, suggested Breivik's remarks on Monday foreshadowed what is to come in the trial, scheduled to start on April 16. "It's a preparation for the trial. Much of this case is about his personality," he said.

Breivik claims he is a commander of a militant organisation aiming to overthrow European governments and replace them with "patriotic" regimes that would deport Muslim immigrants.

» » » » [MSN.UK]

Historian: - Breivik rightwing greeting was a PR stunt

Published 02/06/12 - 5:41 p.m. (AP) | Sindre Murtnes, Lars Haug Aker, Tim Peters, Alf Bjarne Johnsen, Bjorn-Martin Nordby, Dennis Ravndal and Mads A. Andersen | VG

(AP) Experts believe Anders Breivik Behring made a right-wing message in the courtroom just to get attention.

When Breivik entered the courtroom in the Oslo City Court on Monday, he raised his hands and showed the handcuffs to the press turnout.

Video images from the courtroom shows that Breivik beat handcuffs on the left breast before he stretched his arms towards the audience.

This was prepared right-wing gesture , according to defender Geir Lippestad.

But Professor PhD in history at the University of Oslo Nikolai Brandal do not think there were any other thoughts behind the gesture than the attention needed.

- I have read the manifesto and drew me a picture of what he stands for. He makes it clear that he is not a Nazi, and even take away from it. This greeting is a break with what he stands for, believes Brandal.

- It's tempting to create headlines and he is obviously oppmerksomhetssyk. I do not think this was more than a PR stunt, says Brandal.

Sent a strong signal

The courtroom was filled with the press, legal aid lawyers, relatives and survivors of terrorist attack.

When Breivik entered the courtroom, he was met by a powerful blitzregn from the press photographers.

Breivik replied with a smile before he directed against the press and made the controversial greeting.

Right Psychiatrist Verøy Henning was present in the courtroom and let the special attention to the gesture from Breivik.

- He raised his hands to show that he was handcuffed, sat up in the back and smiled. It was very clear that he sent a strong signal, said Henning Verøy right psychiatrist.

Wrote about the greeting of the Manifesto

In his so-called manifesto talked Breivik, "the military salute for the Templars."

Here he describes that the right hand should be raised with a clenched fist, preferably wearing a white glove.

The clenched fist represents "strength, honor and hatred against the Marxist tyrants in Europe, while the white glove symbolizes purity, duty, kinship and martyrdom."

He also says that the greeting is not to be confused with the Nazi salute, or the Roman greeting, where the palm should be flat and face down.

According to Breivik done salutation to the Knights Templar in defiance of the multicultural elite in Western Europe as Breivik see as left-wing fascists.

Breivik's defenders have previously said that he sees himself as a Templar appointed a mission to save Norway from multiculturalism and Islamism is suitable.

- He is very concerned that there is not a Nazi salute. There is another type of greeting directed at the right extremist groups, says one of Breivik's defenders Vibeke Hein Bæra to AP

Common in the extreme-right

Professor Tore Bjørgo at the Police Academy, said he has not seen this exact greeting before. But that similar gestures are definitely common in the extreme-right:

- The most famous greeting, of course, extensive hands, but his fist is a symbol for many of these communities. It means like strength or cohesion. But Breivik's not a Nazi, so I will not speculate on exactly what he is trying to say here.

Before he extends his fists, it looks like Breivik trying to knock his chest with both hands. Which according Bjørgo is even more common:

- It's something we see in all environments. It happens among gorillas as well, to put it that way. Breivik've got a huge ego, so basically that he was only trying to show it. Beyond that it is difficult to speculate.

Viewing himself as a political prisoner

Seniroforsker Terje Emberland the Holocaust center says it is difficult to see what Breivik trying to express with the greeting.

- It's not something I immediately recognize, but it's probably a way to signal that he sees himself as a political prisoner and a martyr, he said.

Emberland says Breivik martyr notion is related that he feels he is under attack from Muslims and social democrats, and that he thus considers himself as a mostandshelt.

- Do you think it is a PR stunt?

- He has at least need to communicate something to the public. This adds to the image he creates in the manifesto that he is called upon to save Europe. It is a classic fascist thinking, says Emberland.

- Were prepared

Defender Geir Lippestad says that gesture Anders Breivik Behring showed in the courtroom, was a carefully planned message to the public.

- It was a greeting, he told us he wanted to give, a type of right-wing message.

- What did he mean by this greeting?

- I do not know, it must be for those watching.

- What does this greeting?

- I do not know, says Lippestad.

At the trial, which begins 16 April is set aside one week to Breivik explanation. He is, according to the defense well underway with his defense shifts.

Starting tomorrow, he will continuously have access to documents from the investigation that has previously been restricted to him.

» » » » [VG]

Anders Breivik: Court Statement: Not Guilty: Militant Norwegian Indigenous Nationalist; Judge's Legal Mandate of Multiculturalism is Incompetent

2012-02-06T03:48:00.000-08:00

Anders Breivik silent as he arrived in court: Went out to the press bench to be photographed

Vibeke Buan | Aftenposten | Published: 06.feb. 2012 (12:40) Updated: 06.feb. 2012 (12:40)

12-02-06: Anders Behring Breivik Arrives in Court (00:46)

The terror accused were led into the courtroom in Oslo Courthouse at 24:35, flanked by two policemen.

He was wearing a dark suit, and looked to belong to the bench as he sat looking down, before he went to the bench press to be photographed.

The terror suspect has agreed to let himself be photographed and filmed on the way in and out of the courtroom.

Also the right psychiatrist Terje Tørrissen, which is one of the two new experts who are appointed, are present in the courtroom.

Want to say something about the question of guilt

Behring Anders Breivik (32), according to his defenders have prepared a speech he wants to keep under restraint the meeting.

During the previous face imprisonment, was the terror suspect stopped several times by the judge when he would talk to the bereaved and survivors who sat in the audience.

- He is preparing to say something about the question of guilt. What it is in the details, I know nothing about, said Geir defender Lippestad before the weekend.

Last before the trial

Today's incarceration is the last meeting before the trial against him Santander Behring Breivik begins 16 april.

Police ask today about 12 more weeks in custody, but no further restrictions.

The meeting is the second open to the aggrieved party, the public and press. 103 survivors and survivors, including legal guardians, have announced that they will attend the meeting. 23 legal aid lawyers will also be present.

Large press turnout

In addition, 63 journalists from home and abroad accredited to follow incarceration meeting.

Among them are several foreign media, including the British BBC, the German Der Spiegel and the ARD, Radio France and the Spanish RNE.

Several international news agencies like Reuters, AP, AFP and Bloomberg News will also cover the imprisonment.

The ruling is expected to arrive at 14.30.

» » » » [Aftenposten]

Breivik did right-wing message in the courtroom

Espen Eide, Olav Haugan & Kristian Ervik | TV2 | 06.02.2012 14.21

Oslo City Court / OSLO (TV 2): 32-year-old smiled as he entered the courtroom and made a kind of greeting with hands.

Just after 12:30 pm arrived terrorist accused Anders Breivik Behring courtroom 828 in the Oslo District Court. Breivik was wearing a black suit, white shirt and bright blue tie.

32-year-old was led into the courtroom wearing handcuffs by several police officers. The terror suspect showed his handcuffs in a kind of greeting before being shown to their assigned role along with its defenders.

According to defense Geir Lippestad this was a form of a right-wing message.

- It was a greeting as he told us about the arrest just before he went up that he wanted to give. One type of right-wing message, said defense attorney told reporters after the hearing.

Lippestad said that he does not know who the greeting this might be or what it meant.

Having sat down, he looked out over the crowd of victims, their families and the large press corps. Breivik had undertaken a smile throughout the hearing and alternated with to look around and look down at the table.

Read out the speech

Precise clock 12:40 was set right and the photographers had to leave the room. As the district court lifted the ban that the minutes are common in prison meetings, the press pass on what is happening and being said in the courtroom.

District Court judge began by presenting the parties to the case before Breivik spoke when asked if anyone had any comments.

The suspect spoke calmly and clearly, and said that he wanted to explain why he did not acknowledge guilt for the mass killings in Oslo and Utøya.

Wanted War Cross

He then asked the judge if he could get a minute to explain why. He then proceeded to read from a speech he had written in advance.

Here he spoke about why he did not acknowledge guilt.

He gave enough once stated that he believes the judge is not competent because she has received its mandate from a system that supports multiculturalism.

- I am a militant nationalist. I represent the Norwegian Indigenous Peoples. We in the Norwegian resistance movement is not going to sit still and see that we are made to a minority in their own capital and country, said Breivik.

He suggested that the military assigns him the highest honors of war is the War Cross with three swords.

Laughter from the audience

Breivik said the attacks against the Labor government was an attack against the country be you. He is allowed to continue without being interrupted by the judge.

It was during his speech at the question of guilt that Behring Breivik defended their actions, but denied culpability.

After a brief exams to why he denied guilt demanded he be immediately released.

Immediately after Breivik's claim for release broke out a short laugh from belonging to the bench, where several of the survivors and relatives of Utøya sitting.

After Breivik had finished speaking, was prosecutor Christian Hatlo word. He asked for continued detention of the accused when the police believe there may be recurrence risk. At the same time set Breivik quietly with folded hands and listening to what was said.

Called the report ridiculous

After Hatlo was done was defend Geir Lippestad word before the accused even asked to be allowed to comment on the psychiatric evaluation by the assessors.

- Will I be allowed to make a comment? I want to comment on the expert report, I get permission to do so? I'm trying to write a feature article on the expert report, which I think is absolutely ridiculous, he said.

- It must be very short, black Judge Wenche Fliflet Gjelsten.

- When I come back to it, said Breivik. Then the court adjourned.

Breivik start calling expert report for ridicule before he is interrupted by Judge Fliflet Gjelsten.

After this, the court adjourned and Breivik brought out of the courtroom.

Indictment proposal is clearly

Monday's detention was the last meeting before the trial that starts 16 april.

The police send their indictments Monday against proposals Behring Anders Breivik to prosecutors to bring the case, according to NTB.

After this, the two prosecutors who have been responsible for the terror case, Svein Holden and Inga Bejer Engh, review the charges and evidence collection before the case is forwarded to the Director of Public Prosecutions who will be responsible for final approval.

During incarceration meeting on Monday hinted prosecutor Christian Hatlo that the charges will come in February-March.

» » » » [TV2: Google Translate]

Media Censorship of MultiCulti Fascism as the Cause of Breivik's Terror Act; Not Matter of Great Debate in NO Media

2012-02-06T02:35:00.000-08:00

Breivik coverage draws great debate

February 6, 2012 | Nina Berglund | News in English.NO

Norwegian Broadcasting (NRK) was among media outlets planning live photographic coverage, for the first time, of the latest custody hearing for confessed terrorist Anders Behring Breivik at midday on Monday. That upset many survivors of Breivik’s bombing and massacre last summer. They don’t want to see any photos of the mass murderer, and claim he’s only getting the publicity he seeks.

Court officials cleared the way for cameras in the courtroom, before actual legal proceedings were to begin at 12:30pm, after Breivik himself said he’d allow himself to be photographed. That decision is left largely up to the defendant in Norway, and his willingness came as no surprise to those who long have feared Breivik seeks the media spotlight to further his extremist agenda.

Ongoing debate

Debate over both domestic and foreign media coverage of the July 22 terrorist attacks and Breivik in particular has been raging in Norway once again. Some want the media to simply ignore Breivik, including the head of the survivors’ national support group, Trond Henry Blattmann, who also objected to the publication of new photos taken of Breivik shortly after his arrest.

“I don’t like this at all, and the media should refrain from publishing photos (of Breivik),” Blattmann told newspaper Dagsavisen. “They’re pushing the limits all the time, under the guise this is in the public interest. I don’t think the public has any interest in seeing these photos.”

Blattmann’s group also doesn’t want Norwegian media to interview Breivik or publish content from any interviews conducted by foreign media. Breivik can now receive visitors in prison and is also willing to be interviewed, as long as various conditions are met. He has, for example, demanded to receive questions in advance and be able to pose and answer questions of his own. Interviews can be conducted in English, which Breivik’s defense attorney Geir Lippestad has said is his client’s “working language.”

Lippestad would prefer that Breivik say as little as possible and not be interviewed but that’s up to Breivik and prison authorities. The latter reportedly have already turned down one interview with a foreign journalist whom Breivik had approved, allegedly for security reasons.

Police questioning starts up again

Breivik has, meanwhile, agreed to resume cooperation with police and subject himself to more questioning this week. He continues to refuse, however, to meet with new court-appointed psychiatrists assigned to evaluate his mental state and has appealed their appointment to the Supreme Court. The new psychiatrists were appointed after massive public criticism of two other psychiatrists’ determination that Breivik is insane and thus unable to serve time in prison.

Norwegian media, which often operate under different and arguably stricter guidelines than international media, face a dilemma over their coverage of their country’s worst mass murderer ever. Not a single Norwegian media outlet has confirmed interest in interviewing Breivik, out of consideration for his victims, although many are believed to be interested. Even top media officials and commentators have urged restraint and caution in conducting or publishing any interviews with Breivik, among them Per Edgar Kokkvold, secretary general of the national press association Presseforbundet.

Others claim journalists must be allowed to do their job, and that includes documenting and recording developments in a case that left 77 persons dead and caused massive destruction of public property. “News and journalism is all about documenting events,” said Per Arne Kalbakk, program director at NRK. He said NRK is “aware it can be difficult for many (to see photos of Breivik)” but said NRK has contacted (survivors’) attorneys prior to publication.

» » » » [News in English.NO]

Breivik calls TV 2 to complain about Media Censorship of Riots in Sweden & France

2012-02-05T05:30:00.000-08:00

Breivik called TV 2 to complain about the news

Were the media silent about the riots in Sweden and France to prevent the FRP would make a good election.

04.02.2012 17.53 | Kjersti Johannessen & Robin Kruger | TV2

TV 2 has access to investigation material shows that the terrorist accused Anders Breivik Behring on several occasions to have approached the media to complain about coverage of news stories.

Opposed Progress

One of the cases was during the riots in Gothenburg in 2009, where it was set fire to several cars. The rebellion started after police threw two immigrant youths from an occupied premises in the city.

Then Breivik have called both TV2 and NRK and asked why they did not cover what happened. According to Breivik, the editors then have replied that it was not "news worthy".

Breivik even think that this incident was under cover in the Norwegian press as it was approaching parliamentary elections, and that one did not want to increase support for the Progress Party to describe the noise in the immigrant communities.

He also claimed that similar events in France also received too little attention in the Norwegian press.

Frame editors

It has previously been known that Breivik shall be considered to carry out terrorist acts against the Norwegian Broadcasting Corporation, VG and Aftenposten.

He considered framework VG and Aftenposten, while he struck against the Government buildings, but struck down the plan because he thought he would be unable to go to Utøya afterwards.

He explained that he wanted to "take" both Aftenposten and NRK. NRK should have been the main target. Breivik must have operated undercover at NRK's main office in Oslo Marienlyst twice.

Span of NRK

He must have known exactly where the entrance to the political editor and foreign editor was. By approaching the buildings on the bike, he will also be mapped where NRK journalists have smoking breaks.

However, abandoning his plans because NRK's premises is sectioned up and locked the doors. He considered the possibility of executing more than 15 people to be very small because there are many escape routes.

» » » » [Google Translate]

Why the West is Best: A Muslim Apostate’s Defense of Liberal Democracy

2012-02-04T10:03:00.000-08:00

Why the West is Best: A Muslim Apostate’s Defense of Liberal Democracy.

Ibn Warraq | Encounter Books, 286 pages, $19 | Review: Robert Spencer | Crisis Magazine

One principal reason why the Islamic jihad is advancing with such confidence around the world today is because its chief competitor, the West, has lost its nerve. The iron and unquestionable dogma of multiculturalism has eaten away at its self-confidence and left only a relativism that walks to the brink of excusing genocide. Instead of defending its principles of liberal democracy and attempting to convince the Islamic world of their virtue and utility, the U.S. and Europe appear to stand for no principle more noble or compelling than majority rule. If, in any given country, a regime takes power dedicated to implementing a vision for society that is absolutely opposed to basic notions of human dignity and human rights, that’s fine with Washington and Brussels, as long as the majority voted for it.

And so the U.S. intervened military in Iraq and Afghanistan only to oversee the adoption of constitutions in both countries that enshrine Sharia as the highest law of the land. This was tantamount to tacit U.S. approval for stonings, amputations, restrictions on the freedom of speech and freedom of conscience, and the institutionalized discrimination against women and non-Muslims, since all of this is mandated under Sharia. Anything else, particularly any defense of the humane values of Judeo-Christian and/or Catholic civilization such as was once mounted against the Communist bloc on Radio Free Europe and the Voice of America, would have been seen as ethnocentric and parochial.

But now a man of the East who came to the West as a youth and gradually realized that it stood for a vision of the human person and human society that far surpassed anything in his native culture has written a courageous and insightful new book that shows that the West can and should stand for more than mere head-counting, and above all, should stand up for itself: Ibn Warraq’s Why the West is Best: A Muslim Apostate’s Defense of Liberal Democracy.

Ibn Warraq is a Pakistani ex-Muslim who writes under a pseudonym as a consequence of Islam’s death penalty for apostasy – and because his previous books have roused the ire of Islamic hardliners. His 1995 manifesto, Why I Am Not A Muslim, was a searing criticism of the brittleness, brutality, and barbarism of Islamic culture; he followed that with a series of scholarly collections that struck at the very foundations of Islamic faith, including The Quest for the Historical Muhammad, What the Koran Really Says, and The Origins of the Koran. His work, however, is not just about what he rejects, but what he accepts: his defense of the West and its values began with the brilliant Defending the West: A Critique of Edward Said’s Orientalism and now continues with Why the West is Best.

Ibn Warraq writes with an unusual depth, elegance and breadth of erudition, enhanced by an extraordinarily perceptive eye; thus one of the most remarkable and winning chapters of a book that is remarkable and winning throughout is its first, an examination of how daily life in New York City, even in these anxious days, manifests some of Western civilization’s finest qualities: efficiency and sense of responsibility; a love for humanity and its best manifestations, such as music, humor, and intellectual curiosity; a genuine multiculturalism, and above all, a living respect for freedom. “The multifarious interests of free men and women,” he observes, “are mirrored in the extraordinary number of activities available for the enthusiast, the curious, the intellectually and culturally alert….New York stands as a concrete definition of Western civilization in its energy and creativity, its air of unlimited possibility.”

But Ibn Warraq’s notion of unlimited possibility is not mere libertinism. He notes that while “the origins of the modern West are often seen in the Enlightenment,” its cultural splendors and the habits of mind it encourages must also be traced to Athens, Rome, Jerusalem, and “Judeo-Christianity,” which “added a sense of conscience and charity, tempering justice with forgiveness, and the concept of linear rather than cyclical time, which allowed for the possibility of progress. The Middle Ages brought a deeper synthesis of Athens and Rome with Jerusalem, laying the foundations for the scientific revolution, the industrial revolution, the Enlightenment, and pluralistic liberal democracy.”

He discusses the development within the Roman Catholic Church, beginning with St. Augustine’s City of God and Pope Gelasius’s “doctrine of the two swords,” of the idea of a distinction between the sacred and secular realms. But this is no mere historical survey: Ibn Warraq also compellingly explains why this distinction is an indispensable foundation of a society that allows not only for the fullest possible flowering of the human spirit, but for the cultivation of genuine virtue as well – as opposed to the empire of fear that is the Islamic world, where draconian punishments and violent intimidation masquerade as fortitude and self-control.

At the same time, Ibn Warraq explodes the idea that Muslims share roughly the same moral outlook as that of Western Christians, and hence can and should be reliable partners with Catholics and other believers in the struggle against radical, anti-religious secularism. His exploration of the Islamic family culture of violence and hypocrisy will be eye-opening to those who have bought into the view of some modern Catholic writers who purvey, in his words, “a romantic, idealized vision of Muslim domestic life.” He adduces statistics that many will find surprising, including indications that the use of pornography and drugs is higher in some of the world’s strictest Muslim societies than it is in the confused and alienated post-Christian West.

Why the West is Best also includes a brisk tour through all the flash points of the Leftist and Islamic supremacist critique of the West: racism, slavery, imperialism, and the like. In every case, we find not only that the Islamic world’s record is worse than the West’s, despite the frequent recourse of Muslim apologists to these warhorses of the evils of Judeo-Christian civilization, but also that the West, with its love for truth, has demonstrated a capacity for self-criticism and self-correction that is unparalleled in any other culture.

“The West,” Ibn Warraq concludes, “did not get rich because of slavery or imperialism or because of a neocolonialism that supposedly siphons off the riches of Third World countries. It is successful because of its culture, rooted in the Greco-Roman and Judeo-Christian heritage, because of the distinctive institutions that developed over centuries, because of the freedom granted to individuals.”

It is a bracing message, and in these days when self-criticism seems to be the only virtue that the Western intelligentsia, a rare one. For that, Why the West Is Best is all the more needed: as a much-needed corrective to the all-pervasive and highly corrosive self-hatred that the Left has succeeded in spreading through contemporary American and European culture. We can only hope that its message will gain the widest possible diffusion, and that it does not come too late.

» » » » [Crisis Magazine, via Europe News]

Breivik: Shortly After his Arrest on Utoya; in Police Custody in his Fake Police Uniform

2012-02-03T12:54:00.000-08:00

Breivik shortly after the Utoya massacre

Friday 3rd February At 2012 | 20:00 | Peter Thorup, ptho@tv2.dk for TV 2 News (Upd d 3/2 2012, 20:09)

Norwegian press now publishes pictures of Anders Breivik, taken shortly after the massacre of Utøya on 22 July last year. The police led Breivik into the white main house on Utøya, where he was placed in a chair.

The police took pictures of him to prove that he was dressed in a fake police uniforms.

In the picture you can see that he is wearing handcuffs. About his neck he has a homemade ID cards.

The pictures were taken about 1 o'clock at night on the second floor of the White House.

According to the police Breivik was not cooperative during the photographic reproduction.

Norway beat Reich alarm

Anders Breivik told police that he worked with two other cells. Therefore struck police Reich alarm and the whole evening went searching for accomplices.

The police investigated Breivik in the house, and the only injury he had was a small requirement on one finger. A striking contrast to the large number of people he killed.

Only during the night felt police are confident that Breivik acted alone. 4 o'clock in the night he was taken out of the main house and the square, where he started the massacre. He was then transported via boat to Oslo.

As Breivik surrendered the police came to Utøya 18.25 o'clock and seven minutes later he was arrested.

The press gets Monday opportunity for photography and filming the terror-term Breivik when the district court in Oslo keep hearing about yet another extension of his remand in custody before the trial against him starting 16th april.

» » » » [Nyhederne]

“I don't have islamophobia, I have islamoNausea, I'm sick of them all.”

2012-02-02T09:46:00.000-08:00

Islamonausea, not Islamophobia

Jihad Watch | 3 February 2012 | Nicolai Sennels

We should stop using Muslims' self-chosen word – "Islamophobia” – by which they paint themselves into a corner of being feared: it destroys communication.

Instead of such a divisive term, we should insert a more approachable and factual word that preserves opportunities for bridge-building and learning: "Islamonausea.” This does not render communication impossible, but enables visitors to our Western cultures to notice aspects of their behavior that make us sick.

It's no wonder that Muslims use the word "Islamophobia” so often. Lacking convincing arguments, charm or constructive contributions to their surroundings, being feared is the only way to gain at least some kind of respect. The term Islamophobia, fear of Islam, points to what Muslims want, not to what non-Muslims feel. Who is afraid of Islam, anyway?

"Fear of Islam, Islamophobia, is what the Muslim extremists try to make us to feel by using threats and terror. But who is afraid of Islam? We feel sick of all that hate, violence and suppression of women. Islamonausea is a fitting word.

"Xenophobia,” an irrational fear of that which is strange or foreign, also doesn't work. Aversion to Islam doesn't come from unfamiliarity with the religion; in fact, it's quite the opposite. There’s no reason to fear being called a racist, either, since neither Islam nor Muslims are a race.

Our language needs a term that describes what many critically thinking people feel about Islam according to their own terms, not according to what Muslims wish us to feel or what the PC establishment diagnoses to scare us into allowing more voters for the Left into our countries.

We need a term that simultaneously invites Muslims to realize what they need to change about their behavior and religion if they wish to advance from an embarrassing last place in the evolution of civilizations and to earn some real respect among the world community.

Natural reaction

As in many other nauseating situations, Islamonausea is a normal and natural reaction to something abnormal, not vice versa.

The nausea reflex is innate, and it is biologically natural and healthy to experience emotional and bodily discomfort with anything that is unpleasant, unhealthy or harmful.

There is nothing phobic or racist in feeling nausea when hearing about the Islamic massacres performed by Muhammad and his many devout copycats through history and all over the world today. The same goes for Muhammad's sexual relationship with a nine-year old girl, and the cutting off of limbs and stonings in the name of Allah and his Sharia laws.

Thinking of Muslims’ epidemic practice of forced inbreeding (which damages intelligence and increases the risk of psychiatric diseases) -- often many generations in a row -- one may also experience unpleasant feelings in the abdomen.

There is also no shame in feeling nausea when hearing about the extreme social control, violence and murderous examples made to keep and scare hundreds of millions of their women from enjoying their human rights to chose their own sexual partners, clothing and lifestyle.

The many calls for hatred, violence and killing of non-Muslims commanded by the faultless Koran are outright disgusting. Imagining the pinnacle of evolution being a planet-sized Islamic caliphate is not only a complete embarrassment to the human race; it may also make one lose one's appetite.

Examples

The word Islamonausea can be used to describe a feeling of nausea, disgust, displeasure, discomfort or aversion that arises by itself when encountering Islam or Islamic culture, or whatever or whoever represents it.

Examples of use of the word: "I'm not afraid of Islam, I have Islamonausea." "I do not want minarets in my town. They give me Islamonausea." "They got Islamonausea from all the Muslim immigrants and decided to move to another neighbourhood." "Reading the Koran gives me Islamonausea." "He got Islamonausea and decided to quit his job at the prison." "I get Islamonausea hearing about all those honor killings." "I get Islamonausea at the thought of eating Halal." "I get Islamonausea seeing all those Muslims hopping up and down and shooting in the air, trying to scare us into respecting their childish behaviour."

Prevalence

The first use of the word that I have been able to trace, is from 7 July 2005, in a comment on this website, Jihadwatch.org.

Here, a person calling himself Sheik Canuck, writes in a comment to an article on Muslims' positive reaction to the Islamic suicide bombings in London that same day:

"I don't have islamophobia, I have islamoNausea, I'm sick of them all."

The first time it occurred in a Danish newspaper was in a letter by this writer in Nordjyske Stiftstidende on December 30th 2011, entitled "We have nausea."

The term attracted some attention when the comedian, atheist and Islam critic Pat Condell used it in a video from 2009 called "Apologists for evil."

Islamonausea deserves its own article on Wikipedia. Help get Islamonausea into our dictionaries by using the word on blogs, in articles and in Letters to the Editor, and in everyday speech.

» » » » [Europe News]

Mohammed is Most Popular Boys Name in Oslo: Romeriket, Lorenskog and Nittedal

2012-01-30T10:38:00.000-08:00

Norway Renames Itself

Gates of Vienna | 30 January 2012

Can you guess the most popular name for newborn "Norwegian” boys in Oslo and environs? Hint: It’s not "Erik” or "Bjorn”. Our Norwegian correspondent The Observer sends his translation of an article about the latest trend in baby names.

The translator includes this note:

Here’s some more statistical data that confirms what most of us have known for a long time: Norway is undergoing demographic change at breakneck speed.

Some people apparently find this fact very pleasing.

The translation from Human Rights Service:

Mohammed now also the most popular name in Romeriket

27.01.12: According to SSB’s annual statistics of names, Mohammed in various spellings has for several years been the most popular name in Oslo. Now two other municipalities in Romeriket [traditional district located north-east of Oslo], Nittedal and Lorenskog have caught up with Oslo. This fact pleases the mayor of Lorenskog.

By Hege Storhaug, HRS

According to SSB’s [Statistisk sentralbyra, the Central Statistics Bureau] yearly statistics of names, Mohammed in various spellings is yet again the most popular name in Oslo. On a national basis the name comes in at number 38. What’s new this year however is that two of Oslo’s neighbouring municipalities, Lorenskog and Nittedal have caught up with the capital and the name Mohammed is now also the most popular name among newborn baby boys in these two municipalities. This is something that the mayor of Lorenskog finds very pleasing, according to the local newspaper Romerikets Blad:

"How excellent. This is great. Lorenskog is the third biggest immigrant municipality in Norway, only by surpassed Oslo and Drammen on a per-capita basis. There are people from all over Norway and the rest of the world living here in Lorenskog, so it’s not strange that many people called Mohammed live here. It is extremely exciting,” says Tovan to rb.no.

He considers Mohammed to be a completely ordinary name.

"The name Mohammed is found all over the world, and we are a part of the world. Some people are called Mohammed and some people are called Age. My name is Age,” says Age Tovan.

» » » » [Gates of Vienna, via Europe News]

Norwegian Media Censorship: Multiculturalism and Hypocrisy

2012-01-26T10:50:00.000-08:00

Multiculturalism and Hypocrisy

Fjordman | Gates of Vienna | 26 January 2012

The national Norwegian newspaper Dagsavisen recently smeared Fjordman on more than one occasion. They accused him of promoting an ideology of hatred, likened him to a Nazi, and published quotes attributed to him which in fact he never spoke or wrote.

Fjordman then sent a response to the newspaper, which it refused to publish.

He later published his response via Snaphanen. With the help of our Norwegian correspondent The Observer, Fjordman’s reply has been translated into English. Fjordman has also included an introduction to the unpublished piece.

In December 2011, the journalists Nina Johnsrud and Tore Letvik from the national Norwegian newspaper Dagsavisen published an article in which I was accused of putting ideas about “breeding stations” into Breivik’s mind. I challenged them to find a single quote I have ever published about breeding stations. They obviously couldn’t find any, since this is a lie.

The newspaper never published a correction or apology for this lie, however, for the simple reason that they are not dealing in honest journalism. This was a smear campaign of character assassination against my person, since the political Left in particular has declared me to be Public Enemy Number Two, second only to Anders Behring Breivik. They don’t look at the ball; they just want to take the man. In a strange way, I take this as a compliment. My critics are utterly incapable of defeating any of my main arguments, and they know it, so they don’t even try.

The same newspaper directly compared me to Heinrich Himmler and the SS. I’ve been compared to Nazi leaders several times in the mainstream press.

The ruthless Himmler was “the prime architect of the Holocaust. More than any other individual, Himmler was the man who created the network of state terror by which the Third Reich suppressed its opposition, eliminated its internal enemies, and compelled obedience from the German citizenry.”

He oversaw all police and security forces, including the Gestapo — the Secret State Police — and the SS, Adolf Hitler’s elite bodyguard. He was personally responsible for organizing the genocide of millions of people, partially through the use of gas chambers, and for creating a totalitarian system of brutal state suppression. Dagsavisen claims that I promote “the same” policies today.

Dagsavisen has intimate historical and ideological bonds to the Labor Party. Today it is no longer explicitly Labor’s propaganda outlet, as it once was, but it would be fair to say that the newspaper’s views still closely mirror those of the Social Democrats and the labor unions. Its editor-in-chief Arne Strand has long been associated with the Labor Party, and represented the government of former Labor Prime Minister Gro Harlem Brundtland. It is tempting to see this article as a deliberate hit-piece against my person, one that will probably be applauded by the ruling parties.

Dagsavisen’s other chief editor, Kaia Storvik, used to be an active Communist and a member of the Red Youth, the revolutionary youth league. She is now known for lamenting how hard it is to get people convicted in court for saying racist things, especially since her country and the Western world are swarming with white racists.

Dagsavisen received over 40 million kroner in state subsidies in 2011 alone, more than any other newspaper in the country. The newspaper has been on life support for years, and would most likely go bankrupt without this continuous blood transfusion that is forcibly sponsored by Norwegian taxpayers of all political colors.

The far-Leftist newspaper Klassekampen (“The Class Struggle”) also receives tens of millions every single year in press support. This press support is supposed to ensure “diversity” in the mass media, but in reality it supports a diversity of left-wing views. There are practically no conservative media outlets in Norway.

It is well-documented — and grudgingly admitted by the press themselves — that journalists in Norway as well as in neighboring Sweden and Denmark are considerably more left-leaning in their ideological views and political sympathies than is true of the general population. In fact, judged by the data I have seen, this strong left-wing media bias exists throughout most of the Western world, not just in the Scandinavian or Nordic countries. If this allegation is correct, this represents a major systemic problem for Western societies.

The mass media are the eyes and ears of modern societies. If they do not function properly, citizens will find it very hard to maneuver rationally and deal in a sensible manner with the challenges they face. This can be compared to being confronted by a hungry polar bear, whereas your eyes and ears keep telling you that this is actually a cozy teddy bear who just craves a little love and understanding.

Militant Islamic organizations and other hostile outsiders keep bragging about how they are going to colonize and conquer Western countries. They must be amazed by the near-total lack of resistance they face. One of the main reasons for this is that a heavily biased press of Globalists and Multiculturalists, who daily feed the masses a deeply distorted image of reality, where problems are the result of white racism and xenophobia.

Hilde Haugsgjerd is now chief editor of the newspaper Aftenposten, which used to be considered a conservative paper. She warns against a “hate ideology” that is hostile to Islam. Haugsgjerd is the former party leader of the revolutionary Marxist-Leninist Red Electoral Alliance, and was once married to married to the Communist activist Sigurd Allern. He was for many years editor-in-chief of the radical newspaper Klassekampen, whose editors and writers were enthusiastic apologists for brutal Marxist regimes. Allern later became professor of journalism at the University of Oslo, where he can shape the minds of young and aspiring future journalists.

Jens Stoltenberg’s Labor-led government spends one billion kroner annually on often expensive professional communications advisers. This is a substantial sum for such a small country, especially considering that the Labor Party already receives largely favorable press coverage from many journalists, including the state broadcaster NRK.

In a debate published at the website of the newspaper Dagsavisen, commenter Ben Økland called me virtually every bad name in the book. He represents the Norwegian Greens, where writer Øyvind Strømmen is also a leading member. Økland terms people such as myself a “plague epidemic” of mentally deranged people and psychiatric cases who spread “poison” and “pollute society”, with our hateful paranoia acting like toxic waste.

An honorary member of the Greens in Norway is Johan Galtung, a founder of so-called “peace and conflict studies”. He is well-known for his sometimes highly controversial statements, and has been accused of acting as an apologist for brutal and repressive Communist regimes during the Cold War. Galtung looks forward to the possibility that all of Europe could become Islamic. This can bring many positive things to the continent and dilute that pesky individualism, of which there is still too much there, or so he thinks. Yet in his view it is crucial that native Europeans quietly accept this inevitable tide of history and do not attempt to resist the Muslim takeover of their continent in any way, as this could trigger Islamic radicalization.

These comments about an easily recognizable individual citizen — me — were published under an essay written by the journalist Halvor Finess Tretvoll. I pointed out that Dagsavisen is operating dangerously close to a libel suit. By email he responded that they believe in free speech. Free speech is good. Since I have controversial opinions myself, I respect that principle very much.

However, Tretvoll refused to publish my reply, although he admitted that I had stayed within the normal limits for such a reply, and couldn’t find any factual errors in what I wrote. The problem is that I had dared to utter some critical comments about leading Labor Party figures.

So, free speech to Dagsavisen means that they can publish accusations that I inspire mass murder, that I am just like Nazi criminals who were responsible for organizing genocide, and that I represent a plague epidemic of delusional people whose paranoia is like toxic waste to society. Yet they refuse to publish a short reply by me.

When I contacted them for a reply, Dagsavisen at first wanted to interview me. I said no. One does not reward a newspaper for writing crap about oneself by giving them an interview in return. Anders Behring Breivik’s defense lawyer Geir Lippestad earlier singled out the dissident writer Hans Rustad and me as morally “responsible” for ABB’s mass murder of 77 people. The newspapers VG and Dagbladet in particular went a long way towards legitimizing this claim. VG still had the nerve to ask me for an interview immediately afterwards. I told them to get stuffed.

VG then proceeded to publish an article based on my confidential police statement, in which they used lies and distortions to present me as having egged Breivik on by email while he was preparing his terror attacks. I told them in no uncertain terms that I have no interest in making money for them by being urinated upon in public, and then granting them an interview explaining to the general public how it’s like to be urinated upon in public.

The same principle applies to Dagsavisen: I exercised my right to reply, but in writing only. I am a writer. They reluctantly agreed to this. Since the original article was a long attack on my character, I wanted a long essay in return. I reluctantly agreed to write a shorter text as a start. This was then rejected.

When a newspaper compares me to the SS and Heinrich Himmler, who organized one of the worst genocides in modern world history, and also publishes comments comparing me to a plague epidemic and toxic waste, they are obliged to present strong arguments justifying their decision not to publish a brief explanation of why I write what I write.

Since they never provided me with a satisfactory explanation, I therefore am publishing my suggested reply below in English translation. The original Norwegian text was published at the blog Snaphanen.

I am deeply grateful to The Observer for his translation:

Multiculturalism and hypocrisy

On Dec. 7, 2011, Dagsavisen published an article about me containing nasty accusations and blatant lies. It’s a severe transgression to claim that I espouse “the same views” as the SS and Heinrich Himmler, the people who were responsible for the Holocaust, which claimed the lives of millions of Jews. The fact that they feel compelled to fabricate lies in order to defame me is clear proof that they cannot win with arguments.

It is tempting to see this article as part of an organized campaign to get rid of troublesome dissidents who are critical of Multiculturalism, Islam and mass immigration. The political establishment loves dissidents, but only if they live far away in places like Burma or Tibet. It’s a very different story if they come from their own country.

The Party Secretary of the Norwegian Labour Party, Raymond Johansen, is technically speaking my former boss. I worked in the Middle East in 2002 and 2003. In reality, I represented the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, but formally I was employed by the Norwegian Refugee Council (NRC), which at the time was led by Johansen.

Some people probably wonder why I didn’t continue this career and by so doing earn good money in a nice, respectable job. The answer is that I made a deliberate choice that this was something I just couldn’t live with. It’s impossible for me to be part of the asylum-industrial complex, which undermines the future of my own country. This goes against my conscience. This became particularly difficult after the NRC publicly condemned the publishing of the Danish Muhammed cartoons. This can hardly be interpreted as anything other than a submission to Islam — which actually means “submission.” I simply cannot be a part of something like that.

Many minors now experience regular harassment in our schools and kindergartens simply because they happen to belong to the country’s native ethnic population, who are gradually being displaced from their homeland as a result of the current immigration policies. It is sheer hypocrisy when Jonas Gahr Støre and other members of the Norwegian peace industry turn their backs on children whose childhoods are ruined as a result of violence and harassment from immigrant gangs. We should ensure that we have a safe environment for our own kids before we start lecturing the rest of the world on how they should behave.

» » » » [Gates of Vienna, Europe News]

“Clash Of Civilizations”: Spiritual, Not Intellectual

2012-01-20T11:13:00.000-08:00

“Clash Of Civilizations”: Spiritual, Not Intellectual

The Brussels Journal | 20 January 2012 | A. Millar

The words “The Clash of Ideas” are splashed across the cover of the special anniversary issue of Foreign Affairs this month. This is of course a play on the "clash of civilizations” narrative that we’ve heard countless times since 9/11, and a nod to the notion that this clash – between radical Islam and the West, or liberal democracy – is fundamentally a "war of ideas.”

I have come to believe that this diagnosis is not only wrong, but a large part of the reason why we, who believe in freedom and the rights of the individual, appear to be losing ground. (For example, we are seeing more sharia in the West, despite us knowing that full sharia demands the execution of homosexuals, the stoning of women who commit adultery, and discrimination against religious minorities. And we are seeing our right to free speech eroded, especially across Europe.)

The battle is not one of ideas. It is a spiritual battle, pure and simple.

Deploying ideas like soldiers in which the generals do not believe, the “Counter-Jihad” and anti-Islamist pundits have reduced themselves to Sunday intellectuals.

A speech by any “Counter-Jihad” spokesperson or anti-Islamist media pundit is liable to denounce the increasing liberalism and “Cultural Marxism” of the West as a symptom of the rot, and to suggest that they are fighting for a more conservative Christian West, before going on to tell us that we are also fighting for liberal ideas, such as women’s rights and gay rights.

Such speeches will only ever appeal to the converted – “sensible people” who are able to shut out one half of the message to find support for their gut instincts. Contrast this with the radical imam, who calls for full sharia in the West, and who speaks with passion and conviction, regardless of what anyone thinks.

The imam knows what the West does not, i.e., that it is about the fire in the belly and in the eyes. It is first and foremost about integrity, conviction, and spirit.

If one wants an example of the ravages of strategy, put above values and integrity, one need look no further than Britain’s main three political parties. With the exception of Brighton – a student city – which elected a member of the Green Party to Parliament in 2010, over the last few decades the members of the British public have ignored those parties that best expresses their values on the grounds that they "won’t get in.”

Instead they have made the tactical decision to vote for the “mainstream” party that seems most likely to keep out of power the one they dislike more. The result of this "tactical voting” is that the three parties have become indistinguishable ideologically, and appear to be without values or, sometimes, without any morals at all. The complaint that party leaders would "say anything to get elected” reveals only that the leaders are no less tactical than the voters.

There is also, though, a tactics of the minority, of course, who believe that some extreme minor party should be supported, and its past behavior – which is, for example, racist and anti-Semitic – overlooked. To be sure, politics across the board has changed over the last decade, and so have the political parties. But where such changes appear to be cosmetic, masking a fascist underbelly, they cannot be supported.

Like the follower of Confucius, we need to cultivate integrity, so that we’re supported in our struggle for freedom – a struggle which must, perhaps, take place anew with each generation – by an inner will, and an inner spirit.

Recently, I came across a comment on a blog that suggested violence against Muslim women was an advantage to those who opposed sharia and wanted to defend liberty, since it kept the fanatics busy. This is precisely the wrong attitude, and one that is certainly not supported by Western culture – or most other cultures.

It is completely alien to the notion of chivalry of the West, the Gentleman of Confucianism, etc.

It is the comment of one who believes strategy is to be placed above his own soul. But, without a soul, without integrity, without a clear sense of right and wrong, left only with his tactics, he is doomed to lose. His freedom will go the way of that of the Muslim women we see brutalized in Egypt, Iran, and elsewhere.

» » » » [Brussels Journal, via Europe News]

Prison Psychiatrist: Randi Rosenqvist Notes Submitted to Judge, leading to Breivik Attorneys Appeal of New Experts

2012-01-19T10:29:00.000-08:00

Controversial notes leading to the appeal of new experts

Oslo City Court had no right to receive reports from the psychiatrist Randi Rosenqvist about Anders Behring Breivik (32) without his consent, according to his defenders

Wenche Bird Bunch & Hakon Letvik | Aftenposten | Published: 19.jan. 2012 (22:13) Updated: 19.jan. 2012 (22:13)

Oslo District Court's decision to appoint two new forensic psychiatric experts must be set aside because of procedural errors, according to the defenders. Thursday they delivered into his appeal.

The question of the psychiatrist Randi Rosenqvists role is now up for the Oslo District Court. As advisor to the prison director Knut Bjarkeid considered she Behring Breivik and wrote three reports. She concluded that he was not psychotic or schizophrenic, the exact opposite of the forensic psychiatric expert Torgeir Husby and Synnøve Sørheim.

- The three statements from Rosenqvist is sent from the public prosecutor to the Oslo District Court. In our opinion, the court based and emphasized these notes on the question of appointment of new experts. The court shall not receive, view, use or emphasize such confidential material. This is such a major procedural error that we believe the decision of new experts to be repealed, said attorney Geir Lippestad.

Requirement of secrecy

He refers to the Criminal Procedure Act, Section 119, which states that the court must not accept testimony from a variety of professions, including doctors, something that is entrusted to them in their position, unless the person entitled to secrecy has consented.

Oslo District Court appointed a week ago psychiatrists Agnar Aspaas and Terje dry ice that new experts. In his explanation proved right "that the staff and advisory health related to Ila Prison, have not seen signs that the defendant is psychotic."

Continuing despite appeal

Although the 32-year-old defenders appealed the decision to appoint two psychiatrists, continuing the two's work. They will meet Friday morning court to discuss the mandate and work forward.

- The defense has not filed a suspensive effect, meaning that the appeal does not affect the committee's work. They will receive a letter with the formal appointment and mandate next week, says Chief Information Officer Irene Ramm in the Oslo District Court.

Attorney Lippestad will now await the Court of Appeal and possibly the Supreme Court's opinion on the appeal before he says something about how he perceives Rosenqvists role.

Nor will he consider the fact that the director at Ila Prison delivered Rosenqvists material on to the police, who in turn sent it to the public prosecutor, which also brought it to court.

The same mandate

Prosecutors Inga Bejer Engh and Svein Holden believes that the two new experts must have the same mandate that psychiatrists Torgeir Husby and Synne Sørheim got when they were appointed on 28 last July.

The mandate had four parts: the first part about how the mission was completed, the second part to assessment of sanity, part three was also review if it was appropriate to sentence of compulsory mental health care, and part four was all forecasts and assessments that could impact your right if the issue of custody was appropriate.

» » » » [Aftenposten]

Is the Mass Murderer Anders Behring Breivik Insane? Part 1: The Nordic Mohammed

2012-01-18T11:20:00.000-08:00

Is the Mass Murderer Anders Behring Breivik Insane? Part 1: The Nordic Mohammed

Gates of Vienna | 18 January 2012 | By Fjordman

Anders Behring Breivik in two different attacks on 22 July 2011 became the worst mass murderer in modern Scandinavian history. He killed a total of 77 people, 8 with a car bomb outside a government office building in central Oslo, and the remaining 69 with a massacre of unprecedented scope and brutality when he spent nearly an hour and a half methodically shooting people attending a summer camp of the Workers’ Youth League (AUF) on the island of Utøya outside of Oslo. He also wounded many others, mentally and physically.

ABB has confessed to carrying out these attacks, claiming that his actions were "atrocious but necessary.” There is also plenty of technical evidence, with videos and numerous witnesses. This represents a rather rare case where we can be virtually 100% that the man who is in custody really did commit the crime in question.

Other things remain controversial, however. Due to the great scope of the massacre, many people, myself included, initially wondered whether there were several perpetrators. Norwegian police after conducting months of investigation claim that ABB acted alone and was not part of a wider terror network. Perhaps this made him harder for the security services to detect.

This brings us to the first question: What caused him to carry out these horrible acts? In the long manifesto which he circulated on the Internet to justify his atrocities, he quoted a large number of people — with myself among the most prominent — who are critical of Islam and the current immigration policies supported by Western governments. This triggered a lot of public animosity against this community of writers.

And the second question: Is Breivik sane or insane?

This is the subject I will focus on here.

After careful examination, a panel of experts confirmed in December 2011 that Breivik is to be considered criminally insane. The head of the panel of experts, Karl Heinrik Melle, said there was "no major objection” to the initial report published by the psychiatrists Synne Sørheim og Torgeir Husby. They found that ABB suffers from paranoid schizophrenia and cannot be held accountable for his actions. The panel’s conclusions were submitted to the Oslo district court. In their 243-page report, Sørheim og Husby painted a picture of a person with "grandiose illusions” who is incapable of living peacefully in a modern society in his present state. I will take a closer look a what their report reveals.

In January 2012, an Oslo court ordered a new psychiatric evaluation of ABB after this earlier, contested report found him insane. "Due to the gravity of this case, the criminal responsibility (of Behring Breivik) must be examined again,” Oslo District Court judge Wenche Elizabeth Arntzen stated. Two new experts, Agnar Aspaas and Terje Tørrisen, were named to evaluate the 32-year-old’s sanity before the beginning of his trial in April. Breivik refused through his lawyer to cooperate with the probe. "He feels the first report was 80-percent wrong,” his main defense lawyer Geir Lippestad said after informing his client of the judges’ decision.

Verdens Gang (VG), Norway’s largest national newspaper, in mid-January 2012 published on its website the full psychiatric report which had concluded that Breivik is insane, leaving out a few pages that were deemed to reveal too-intimate details about Breivik’s family. This report is confidential, but VG have previously proved that they have access to lots of confidential material related to the Breivik case. The 243-page report published by them looks authentic and is consistent with what was publicly known previously. I have also heard no claims to the contrary from the quoted psychiatrists themselves or from anybody else. For the purposes of this analysis, I will treat it as authentic.

Alongside it the newspaper published some comments from the prison where ABB has been held while awaiting trial. Those who work there can see no evidence that Breivik is currently psychotic, as the psychiatrists claim in their report.

I am unhappy with the many media leaks in this case, which combined have reached a point where they undermine the ability of the police to talk to witnesses and conduct a proper investigation. Nevertheless, it is better that the mass media leak a psychiatric report regarding the terrorist himself as opposed to sensitive testimonies from his many victims. I read this report in its entirety, partly out of genuine curiosity and partly due to my own involuntary involvement in this horrible case. The following page references are to the original Norwegian psychiatric evaluation of Breivik as published by VG, with my own English comments and translations.

ABB came off as polite, but emotionally flat, in talks with psychiatrists Synne Sørheim og Torgeir Husby. He cannot properly describe his own emotions. Breivik claims to be a perfect knight worthy of emulation and to have made a lot of money with his many employees, which isn’t factually true. Evidence indicates that he was a failure in his commercial dealings. The psychiatrists interpret this and other factors as enormous psychotic delusions betraying a grossly inflated ego. His extreme narcissism and exceptionally egocentric mental universe with nearly all-encompassing ideas of grandeur dominate his behavior, regardless of context.

ABB is convinced that he is extraordinary, that he leaves a lasting positive impression on everybody around him, that everybody remembers him with awe, that he stands out from the crowd and achieves great success wherever he goes. In real life, he moved back to his mother’s house after his career failed. He did reasonably well in school and is estimated to have at least average and possibly above-average intelligence, yet he still did not complete secondary school. He describes his own actions in intimate, banal and almost embarrassing detail in his manifesto because he believes his personal example will form a template for others to follow and emulate.

He mentions his favorite candy and ranks this as proper rewards for incredibly brave military operators like himself. Breivik is convinced that his personal habits of watching TV, drinking coffee and eating candy are of genuine geopolitical significance due to his own immense importance, and because they strengthen his battle morale as the perfect knight. He is vain, and had plastic surgery on his face.

On page 183 of the psychiatric report, Breivik is asked if he thinks he has any significant weaknesses. "No, I lack nothing, I am a good builder of alliances, I am interesting, have good looks, and no real flaws,” he replies.

Breivik is, according to himself, very modest and a perfect knight. He’s also extremely intelligent and ranks among the intellectual giants of the political Right. ABB calls himself an "attention-seeking whore” (page 162), representing a rare moment of insight.

He also suggests we should take DNA samples of everybody from the political Right in Norway to see who is most closely related to Harald Fairhair, traditionally seen as Norway’s first national king, in order to appoint a new king (page 185). He says that if he promotes himself as the new regent, people will think he is crazy.

Cynical observers might claim that train left the station long ago.

On a darker note, on page 234 the officially appointed psychiatrists conclude that "He thinks he has responsibility for deciding who should live or die in the country.” Breivik claims (page 201) that if nobody wants to work with him or continue his glorious work after his attacks, he has misjudged the overall situation so badly that he may "self-terminate” after the trial. This is among the reasons why the psychiatrists have classified him as potentially suicidal, although he does not presently display any visible signs of depression and is not known to have suffered any episodes of severe depression in the past. Up until now he has never expressed the slightest regret for the many murders he committed, and shows no remorse for what he has done.

Breivik has been widely labeled as "anti-Islamic” in the mass media because, as an excuse for his murderous acts, he quotes writers who warn against Islamic inroads in the West. However, there is another side to that story. As a terrorist himself he actually displays admiration for Islamic militant groups and is even willing to accept a renewed Islamic Caliphate in the Middle East. The latter overlaps directly with the stated goals of large international organizations such as the Muslim Brotherhood, and can hardly be called "anti-Islamic.”

ABB indicates that he wants to glorify death and martyrdom through his words and deeds. Very similar sentiments that have been voiced on countless occasions by Jihadist operatives from Hamas, Hizbollah or other Muslim groups around the world. Breivik says explicitly, as noted on page 163 of the report, that after his terror attacks, what he calls militant cultural conservatives in Europe can now "live in the same way as the Islamists.”

Thomas Hegghammer, a senior research fellow at the Norwegian Defense Research Establishment, wrote in the New York Times that "Breivik goes much further than any counterjihad ideologue has ever done, and his manifesto contains ideas and information that have no precedent in the counterjihad literature. For example, he provides extensive advice on how to build bombs and plan terrorist attacks.” Moreover, "the more belligerent part of Mr. Breivik’s ideology has less in common with counterjihad than with its archenemy, Al Qaeda.”

Breivik believes that he is a perfect example for others to follow, worthy of emulation even down to the most intimate and banal details of his private life. The entire world should revolve around his unique person as a supreme military-political genius and master of life and death. Grandiose delusions of this magnitude are fortunately rare, but not unheard of. If you believe traditional historical sources (not everybody does), an Arab man called Mohammed suffered from comparable delusions in the seventh century of our era.

Author John L. Esposito is widely seen as an apologist for Islam by his critics and ranks as one of the most pro-Islamic writers alive today. In his book Islam: The Straight Path, page 13-14, Esposito reminds his readers that Mohammed serves as the ideal model for Muslim life, providing the pattern that all Islamic believers are to emulate and "guidance in all aspects of life: how to treat friends as well as enemies, what to eat and drink, how to make love and war.” He is the "living Koran” in the sense that practices of the Prophet became a material source of Islamic law alongside the Koran itself:
His impact on Muslim life cannot be overestimated, since he served as both religious and political head of Medina: prophet of God, ruler, military commander, chief judge, lawgiver. As a result, the practice of the Prophet, his Sunna or example, became the norm for community life. Muslims observed and remembered stories about what the Prophet said and did. These reports or traditions (hadith) were preserved and passed on in oral and written form.

The corpus of hadith literature reveals the comprehensive scope of Muhammad’s example; he is the ideal religiopolitical leader as well as the exemplary husband and father. Thus when many Muslims pray five times each day or make the pilgrimage to Mecca, they seek to pray as the Prophet prayed, without adding or subtracting from the way Muhammad is reported to have worshipped. Traditions of the Prophet provide guidance for personal hygiene, dress, eating, marriage, treatment of wives, diplomacy, and warfare.

Islam is not just a total way of life; it is a totalitarian way of life. Not even Adolf Hitler or Joseph Stalin, representing the most totalitarian strands of European thought, said that everybody in the entire world should from now on visit the bathroom in the same manner they did. Mohammed did exactly that.

Or, putting it in a more provocative manner, one could say that Islam is a creed stating that those who urinate like Mohammed should wage war against the rest of mankind until they, too, urinate like Mohammed.

Theologically speaking, what I write here is exaggerated, but not incorrect. Muslims are expected to emulate all aspects of Mohammed’s personal example or Sunna, including bathroom etiquette, and spread these manners to the rest of planet by any means necessary.

Based on these examples, one could be tempted to conclude that Anders Behring Breivik, with his extreme narcissism and desire for others to emulate his perfect personal example, represents a Nordic Mohammed.

To be continued…

» » » » [Gates of Vienna, via Europe News]

Breivik Prison Psychiatrist: Randi Rosenqvist: “Nobody would have thought of declaring Baader-Meinhof gang legally insane”

2012-01-13T05:55:00.000-08:00

Mama's Boy and Mass Murderer: Experts Disagree on Psychological State of Norwegian Killer

Gerald Traufetter | Der Spiegel | 12/23/2011

Psychiatrists evaluating the Norwegian man who killed 77 people this summer have diagnosed him with paranoid schizophrenic psychosis. But a number of forensic psychiatrists disagree. They believe he has a narcissistic personality disorder -- and can therefore be held responsible for his actions.

Three tables separated Anders Behring Breivik and psychiatrists Torgeir Husby and Synne Sørheim. The killer's left arm was constrained by a belt around his stomach, and his feet were fettered. Two prison guards watched over him as he sat for 13 sessions with the psychiatrists.

The two ultimately diagnosed Breivik with paranoid schizophrenic psychosis. Their finding could eventually mean that he will be held in a forensic psychology clinic rather than in prison.

But since they presented their expert opinion to the court in Oslo, there has been growing criticism of its findings. People question whether it is plausible that a man who murdered 77 people can be mentally ill and therefore not responsible for his actions in the eyes of the law.

Expert Objections

In fact, Randi Rosenqvist, the most influential forensic psychiatrist in Norway, also has doubts. "As far as I'm concerned," she says, "this diagnosis doesn't follow from their arguments."

For many years, the 60-year-old psychiatrist headed the forensic medicine commission that evaluates the quality of forensic expert opinions. Accordingly, her judgment carries weight in the field.

Rosenqvist's doubts come from having noticed signs in Breivik that point toward a narcissistic personality disorder as the cause of his orgy of violence. If correct, this diagnosis would not necessarily make him incapable of being held responsible for his actions. She criticizes her fellow psychiatrists for having "failed to substantiate why other psychiatric disorders have been excluded" from consideration.

More than anything, Rosenqvist faults the psychiatrists for having brushed aside Breivik's anti-Muslim ideology by arguing that it stems from mental incompetence. For historical reasons, she explains, there is a tradition of caution when it comes to diagnosing mental illness in cases involving politically motivated perpetrators.

To back up her point, she mentions the Baader-Meinhof gang, otherwise know as the Red Army Faction, which carried out a series of deadly bombings and assassinations in Germany between the 1970s and 1990s. With them, she says, "nobody would have even thought of declaring the terrorists incapable of guilt." As a counter example, she also mentions the widespread abuse of psychiatric diagnoses for dissidents in the Soviet Union.

Conflicting Signals

SPIEGEL has obtained significant portions of the transcripts from psychiatrists' sessions with Breivik. In them, there are some things that support the conclusion that his deeds were those of an insane person. For example, at one point, Breivik says that "the first target was indescribable." He then laughs and continues: "But I quickly became immune to it. As they swam, I was virtually on autopilot, and I wanted to execute as many (of them) as possible." At another point, the experts asked him what was going through his head while he was running around shooting people. In response, he said: "I wanted to kill enough (of them) so that the publication of my manifesto would attract enough attention in the global media. The operation was merely a formality."

But these kinds of statements don't necessarily lead psychiatrists to deduce that Breivik is evil or ill. To make an unambiguous diagnosis of paranoid schizophrenic psychosis, the experts would have had to recognize symptoms such as acoustic hallucinations ("hearing voices"), which didn't happen in Breivik's case. Or they would have had to note bizarre psychic delusions.

In fact, the psychiatric evaluators did just that, but they attributed Breivik's belief that he is a member of the Knights Templar to his anxiety about being monitored by the police. But none of that convinces Rosenqvist. "When someone plans this kind of attack, it would be strange if he didn't feel like he was being followed," she says.

What's more, Rosenqvist points to a possible contradiction. Based on low values on a diagnostic scale, the evaluators certified that Breivik functioned poorly in everyday life. But, counters Rosenqvist, "he must have had good cognitive abilities for the planning" of his deeds.

Rosenqvist also thinks that the details about Breivik's life on which the evaluators based their diagnosis aren't very convincing. For example, they note that Breivik lived with his mother and let her do his laundry and cook for him, and that he no longer had much social contact after 2006. But, in Rosenqvist's opinion, "Those aren't such unusual living conditions for young men."

An Alternative Diagnosis

Clinical psychologist Svenn Torgensen also suspects that Breivik is actually suffering from a narcissistic personality disorder. To this he attributes Breivik's delusions of grandeur and his belief that he was singled out to be a knight in a crusade against Islam.

Even the two psychiatric experts who wrote the official report gathered a series of signs that tend to speak for pathological narcissism. For example, when they asked Breivik what he thought the youths probably felt when he was shooting at them, the killer merely responded by discussing what the deeds meant for him. "On this day," he said, "I was waging a one-man war against all the regimes of Western Europe. I felt traumatized every second that blood and brains were spurting out. War is hell."

Torgensen gets the impression that Breivik found an ideal place to nourish his delusions of grandeur in the anti-Islamic scene full of crusader fantasies. "This was coupled with an extremely sadistic disorder," Torgensen says. "This disastrous combination could explain the scale of his violence."

What's more, Torgensen believes that officials are trying to use a diagnosis of mental disease to make Breivik disappear as quietly as possible. One thing that leads him to believe this are rumors that a new wing is being built in the prison that will be dedicated to psychiatric detainees.

» » » » [Der Spiegel]

Psychiatry-nestor critical Breivik diagnosis

The former head of the forensic commission concerned that you have not looked at other possible diagnoses.

13.01.2012 13.48 | TV2 | Kjell Persen

Right Psychiatrist Randi Rosenqvist, who has led the forensic commission for several years, said, according to an interview with the German magazine Spiegel that she is hesitant to whether the terror suspect 32-year-old Anders Breivik Behring is paranoid schizophrenic.

There were 29 november that the conclusion of the report of the two legal experts Synne Sørheim and Torgeir Husby was made public.

- The experts describe a person who is in his own delusional universe where all his thoughts and actions are governed by these delusions. Breivik have for a long period of time developed the disease paranoid schizophrenia who have changed to the Breivik as he is today, said District Attorney Svein Holden during the press conference.

Referring to the Baader-Meinhof gang-

Randi Rosenqvist believe that history has shown that one must be careful not to issue the psychiatric diagnoses in cases involving the politically motivated violence.

In the interview, she criticized his colleagues for the perpetrator's anti-Muslim ideology is seen as delusions, and shows that the extreme left of the German Baader-Meinhof gang, was not seen as unpredictable.

- No one would even have thought of declaring them as unpredictable, said Rosenqvist to German Spiegel.

Rosenqvist considered among the most experienced legal psychiatrists in Norway, with many years as member and chairman of the forensic commission. She has also been a consultant at the Regional Security Department at Aker Hospital.

To the German news magazine she says that the feature of Breivik's personality may point towards a narcissistic personality disorder.

Confirming statements

She confirmed to tv2.no that her statements, as they are quoted by Spiegel is correct.

- What I can maintain, is that I am concerned that the experts have not looked at other possible diagnoses in the spectrum of personality disorders, says Randi Rosenqvist to tv2.no.

Right psychiatrist also points to seemingly contradictory information from the psychiatric examination, which showed a very low level of functioning at Breivik.

- He has been good enough abilities to plan actions, said Rosenqvist.

"Observanden withdrew from social contact with friends, and have until the current has been most in his own room. His mother arranged for washing of houses and clothes, and shopped and cooked for him (...) It is the experts' assessment that observanden in the period 2002 to 2006 had an increasing tendency of isolation gradually declining functional ability, "the report said that TV two have published excerpts from .

Appeared not chaotic

- This is not so unusual living conditions of young men, said Rosenqvist about the housing situation.

Already five days after the terrorist attacks she said that from the information that was then reached in the media, so she is not likely that Breivik would be declared criminally insane.

- Based on his behavior on Friday 22 July, he appeared neither chaotic, illogical, or fragmented, said Rosenqvist to the Times .

» » » » [Google Translate]

129 terror victims require new Breivik assessment... But Anders Behring Breivik refuses to be examined again

2012-01-05T08:31:00.000-08:00

129 terror victims require new Breivik assessment...
But Anders Behring Breivik refuses to be examined again

Eric Brekstad Utheim , Jorunn Stølan , Eva-Therese Grøttum , Dennis Ravndal and Fridtjof Nygaard | VG | Published 05.01.12 - 16:51, edited 06.01.12 - 16:20 (AP)

(AP) They were even hit by terror. Now requires the new psychiatric examination of terrorist Anders Behring Breivik.

Friday is the deadline to petition for appointment of new legal psychiatrists in the terror case.

AP knows that the requirement to obtain a new assessment of the terrorist is massively from the many involved in the case.

35 legal aid lawyers have been delivered or will deliver petitions on behalf of at least 129 clients who were affected 22 July - either because they were Utøya or government building, or that their loved ones died.

When defenders visited the mass murderer in jail Thursday afternoon, he was clearly on that he will not talk to the right psychiatrists if appointed new experts. There is a gap in the law that he can force minds are added to the day of observation if the new experts believe it is necessary.

Requires two types of investigations

Terror victims require two different reports. More wishes to be appointed new legal psychiatrists, who is conducting a new forensic psychiatric assessment, while others believe Breivik rather should be entered for the-clock observation.

29. last November was the conclusion of the current report. It was made by psychiatrists Synne Sørheim and Torgeir Husby, and stated that Breivik is a paranoid schizophrenic, psychotic, and can not be punished for the terror he performed 22 July.

A conclusion of the 129 survivors believe there is any doubt about - and therefore they will have new reviews.

Fears national trauma

- I think it is important also for the future that we get such a thorough assessment of this as possible. We run the risk that this case is a national trauma that will hang with us at least 50 years away, says AUF does Eivind Rindal to VG.

He was even on Utøya on 22 July, and is among the more than 100 terrorist concerned that through her counsel has requested the implementation of a new forensic psychiatric evaluation of the Behring Anders Breivik.

- I have read the report, and for me there are several things that are distorted. For example, that his fear of being watched is considered a sign of paranoid delusions. He was planning a terrorist attack, so for me it sounds logical that he feared, he says to VG Nett.

Rindal also react to his political ideology is not taken into account.

- If his political affiliations are a sign of such a diagnosis, there are many more than him out there who have that diagnosis. But it is also that the health personnel at the prison do not feel that he has the diagnosis is made by law psychiatrists, he said.

Rindal want it to be seen beyond the traditional academic environment in Norway.

- I think it would be advantageous to bring in someone from abroad, but also to look at expertise from the academic environment, which can provide a better understanding of the political and ideological aspects of the case, he says.

AUF-shoulder fear that the psychiatric community in Norway is closely linked, and that there is an obstacle for the implementation of an independent assessment of how strong the present report.

- For the forensic Commission would of course been a sort of admission of failure on the under-known report of such an important issue, he said.

- Will eliminate the uncertainty

- I represent two parents whose son was killed on Utøya. My clients are committed to eliminate the doubt and uncertainty that is built around the current report, says lawyer Kjetil H. Nilsen from Alta, who was among the first to deliver a petition.

- If a new assessment of the same as the current report, that he is insane, so it will be to put the ball dead. As it is now, there is uncertainty, and it is difficult to relate to for those who have lost their son.

Lists several reasons

Law Firm chart has nine legal aid lawyers in the case. They have, on behalf of a total of 56 of its more than 60 clients in the case, submitted a joint petition for the nominated new experts.

In his letter to the court, written by Mette Yvonne Larsen, lists, tables, lawyers several reasons why their clients want a second opinion.

* External experts have expressed skepticism about Sørheim and Husby conclusion. They show that the psychiatric team that has followed up on Ila Breivik not considering him as psychotic, and that he is not subject to the medication even though he is known psychotic.

* More Utøya-young people who met Breivik 22 July, saw him as a rational, and finds it inconsistent that he was psychotic.

* Additional relevant experience that Breivik's political ideology is mistaken for psychosis.

* Several victims stated that they do not trust that Husby and Sørheim have acted independently, as they should. It appears that Sørheim professionally has been subordinated to Husby for many years.

Proposes specific name

Law Firm chart proposes a list of new, alternative names they believe are likely to be experts, whether to develop a "second opinion".

They mention five names: Psychiatry Agnar Aspaas, Terje Dry Ice and Asbjorn Restan and psychologists Anne-Kari Torgalsbøen and Jim Aage Nøttestad.

Hour Continuous observation

Table-lawyers also calls for a new observation on-the-clock basis, and not only through specific conversations with Breivik - as the current report is made.

Criminal Procedure Act section 167 allows for this, and the very first application that came-from lawyer John Arild Aasen - spoke in favor of this. He wrote the petition on behalf of three clients.

Several of the other aid lawyers provide in their petitions supporting Aasen's initiative.

These deliver a petition:

Table-lawyers who have submitted a request that it appoint new experts are Mette Yvonne Larsen, Olav Black, Helen melted, Anne Elisabeth Grondahl, Morten Engesbak, Bendik Falch-Koslung, Change Refsdal, Maria Bergram-Aas and attorney Martin Eiebakke. They have thus made it on behalf of 56 clients.

The other lawyers who have formally submitted a request that it appoint new experts are:

* Law firm Lund, who represents two clients who were hit by the bomb in the government quarter.

* Sigurd Klomsæt, which represents one Utyøya-survivors. Klomsæt also wish that it be seen abroad when it might be found new legal psychiatrists. He believes the Norwegian environment is too narrow.

* Bergen-law Einar Drægebø has submitted a request that it appoint new experts on behalf of all 17 victims and 6 survivors.

* Ragni Løkholm Ramberg representing ten survivors, who all want new experts.

* Lawyer Nicolai Bjønness will have a new forensic psychiatric statement, and allows for a new expert is NOK. Oslo lawyer deliver the petition on behalf of four clients.

* Lawyer Brynjar Meling warned early on that he would deliver a petition on behalf of one of their clients.

* Meling partner colleague Arvid Sjødin require a new appointment on behalf of three clients, one survivor and two families who lost loved the Utøya.

* Meling and Sjödin associate Kari Nessa Nordtun represent two survivors, and crave the new appointment.

* Attorney Svein Kjetil Svendsen also work Sjødin and Meling. He represents one survivor, and has submitted the request.

* Lawyer Carl Drilling deliver a petition on behalf of two who was at work in the government quarter, when the bomb went off.

* Attorney Noble H. Olsen, representing the two surviving families in Finnmark, and ask for a new forensic psychiatric examination on their behalf.

* Lawyer Bjorn Stefanussen stands behind a petition on behalf of two Utøya-survivors.

* Thor-Erik Andersen has delivered on behalf of one left.

* Vestfold attorney Christopher Arno has submitted a petition on behalf of one left and two survivors.

* Thomas Benestad has submitted a request for a single client.

* Terje Korneliussen want new appointment, and has submitted a petition on behalf of a client.

* Day Stein Feldt has requested a new appointment on behalf of two bereaved families.

* Tone Linn Thing Violence represents a surviving family, who want new psychiatric assessment.

* Tom Schjeldrup Mathiesen has one client who wants new experts.

* Tore Høyer have two clients who want new psychiatric assessment.

* Thor Harald Eike has one that supports Aasen's proposal to day observation. Do not worry, he'll have another round of experts.

* Counsel Linda Solberg Børsand and Kristin Mørch also supports Aasen's proposal that Breivik must be observed over a longer time window than in the current report. They align themselves with Aasen's proposal on behalf of two clients.

* The same counsel Siw Pale Vassli. VG does not know on behalf of how many clients.

* In addition, in other words Kjetil H. Nilsen submitted a petition on behalf of Finnmark family he represents, who lost his son in Utøya 22 July.

Defense and prosecutors want to keep the report

Defender Geir Lippestad has in turn written to the court and said that he did not want a new forensic psychiatric statement, and that it already exists is good NOK.

Prosecutors Inga Bejer-Engh and Svein Holden is also asked to comment. Also they reported that they do not want to appoint new experts , and that they believe the report that is delivered is a good NOK.

That view is shared also by many aid lawyers.

Among other things, the Christian Lundin, representing 67 clients in the terror case, warned against creating further uncertainty about the current report.

- There is a very thorough statement of 243 pages, prepared by experienced, skilled and competent psychiatrists, he writes in a statement to the Oslo District Court.

The forensic commission went through the current psychiatric report just before Christmas, had "no significant comments."

» » » » [Google Translate: VG]