Seven Islamic Related Expert Witnesses Refuse to Testify in Breivik Case
Hanna Nabintu Herland | Mullah Krekar | Blogger Peder Nøstvold Jensen (also known as Fjordman) | Islamic Activist Mohyeldeen Mohammad | Islamic critic author Bruce Bawer | Peace researcher Johan Galtung | author: Walid al-Kubaisi
Andrea Muhrrteyn | 4 June 2012 | Aftenposten & Legal Project

Aftenposten reports that four of the expert witnesses due to testify on behalf of Breivik's Political Necessity Defence arguments have refused to testify and will not be appearing in court today.
Furthermore of the original 17 expert witnesses called, only 11 remain. The four witnesses who will not be testifying today are: Mullah Krekar, blogger Peder Nøstvold Jensen (also known as Fjordman), the Islamic Activist Mohyeldeen Mohammad & the Islamic critic author Bruce Bawer.
Chaos began when the religious historian Hanne Nabintu Herland refused to testify, saying she would rather go to prison than testify in the case of Breivik. A letter to Ms. Herland to inform her of the details of Breivik's necessity defence and detailing that ecological expert witness academics consider it their honour and duty to testify on behalf of political necessity ecological necessity activists, such as Greenpeace, fell on deaf ears.
Bawer and Fjordman contacted The Legal Project to help them to avoid testifying at Breivik's trial; and the Legal Project - for some strange and illogical reason - considers their removal from the expert witness list as a “tremendous victory for Free Speech.”
In November last year, the author filed an application to the court and Breivik for an order to “(A) act as Mr. Breivik’s paralegal assistant in aiding him to represent himself in accordance to the Political Necessity defence; by means of research, contacting relevant Norwegian and International expert witnesses to testify to relevant issues documented in his manifesto, research, etc; (B) act as Mr. Breivik’s paralegal forensic psychology advisor in aiding Mr. Breivik to expose the fraudulent allegations against him -– questioning his Mens Real political necessity criminal culpability on 22 July 2011 -- by those practicing political psychiatry , intent on denying Breivik, his Political Necessity Treason trial.” There was no response from Breivik; although it is unknown if Breivik's defenders informed him of the applications submitted to the court on his behalf. The court refused respond to the application, and it was subsequently submitted to the Supreme Court for review; who also refused to address the issue. A complaint of Judicial Ethical violations has been filed with the Secretariat of the Supervisory Committee for Judges.



