Vigilant Censorship at Gates of Vienna, by Baron Bodissey/Edward S. May, Dir. of Center for Vigilant Freedom (CVF) / International Civil Liberties Alliance

Vigilant Censorship at Gates of Vienna, by Baron Bodissey/Edward S. May, Dir. of Center for Vigilant Freedom (CVF) / International Civil Liberties Alliance

Andrea Muhrrteyn | Norway v. Breivik | 19 May 2012

I've posted comments before to Gates of Vienna and noticed that some of them would be published, while others would not be.

If there is something that really irritates -- no disgusts -- me, it is hypocrisy. I am a big fan of the German maxim: Better an honest enemy, than a false friend. I'd rather know exactly where I stand with someone, even if those circumstances are not favourable to me, or not to my liking; than to be lied to and bullshitted and led to believe that I am in a relationship that values and appreciates disagreement, when its all just bullshit. Put differently, I'd rather be in a relationship with a man who loves me enough to slap me when he is angry, but never cheats on me, and is brutally honest with me; than be in a relationship with a so-called 'gentleman' who constantly gives me fake and two faced lying compliments while having various affairs behind my back. Same with my friends. Rather have a dozen honest enemies and know where I stand, than one two faced fake lying son of a bitch asshole pretending to be my friend.

So I posted a comment to Gates of Vienna: Vlad Tepes Interviews Tommy Robinson, wherein Tommy Robinson whines endlessly about how the EDL are censored. I don't support the EDL being censored, even though I disagree with them on many issues. I have never advocated that any person or organisation be censored, not a person on the left or the right. I have supported the free speech of left wing extremists and right wing extremists; not cause I agree with either of them, but cause I support their right to free speech, and thier right to public participation in public discourse. I am happy to engage them and discuss any issue under the sun with them, or anyone. There is no topic under the sun, I am not willing to discuss with anyone interested in a sincere discussion.

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

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.

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

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

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

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.

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

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.

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

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?

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

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.