Hanne Nabintu Herland OpEd Political Witchhunt stating her Contempt of Court Refusal to Testify in Breivik Case; indicate lack of understanding of Breivik’s defence: Necessity.
Andrea Muhrrteyn | Norway v. Breivik | 21 May 2012
From: Habeus Mentem
Sent: Monday, May 21, 2012 11:13 PM
To: Hanne Herland (**@hannenabintuherland.no); Helle Skjervold (**@aftenposten.no); Geir Salvesen (**@aftenposten.no)
Cc: NO: Crt: Breivik: Oslo District Court (**@domstol.no); NO Oslo District Court: Admin (**@domstol.no); NO: Crt: Breivik: Lippestad (**@advokatlippestad.no); NO: Lippestad (**@advokatlippestad.no); NO: Lippestad (**@advokatlippestad.no); Crt: Pros Holden. MJus: Grete Faremo (**@jd.dep.no); Crt: Pros Holden. Politie: Police Directorate (**@politiet.no); Crt: Victims: Siv Hallgren (**@elden.no); Crt: Victims: Frode Elgesem (**@thommessen.no); Crt: Victims: Mette Yvonne Larsen (**@advokatstabell.no)
Subject: Hanne Nabintu Herland: Heller fengsel enn å vitne i Behring Breivik-rettssaken
Hanne Nabintu Herland @HanneNabintuHer
CC: Aftenposten
CC: Breivik Court Parties
Ms. Herland,
Aftenposten: Politisk heksejakt and Heller fengsel enn å vitne i Behring Breivik-rettssaken / Political Witchhunt and Rather Prison than Testifying in Breivik Case; indicate your lack of understanding of Breivik’s defence: Necessity.
I read your OpEd in Aftenposten wherein you state that you informed the court that you refuse to testify in the Breivik case, even if you are found to be in contempt of court. You refuse to ‘run the gauntlet in the twisted killer’s show where he and his defenders reel in people with so-called ‘media appeal’ to give the killer sympathy.’
You further state that you were not a ‘witness’ to the July 22 Attacks.
Brief Introduction (lengthier background info at end of the letter): I am a deep green ecology Feminist member of the Radical Honoursty culture.
I am unaware of any court of law that has found Mr. Breivik guilty of any crime. As far as I am aware, the principles of ‘Western culture’ which you profess to be a supporter of are founded upon the principle of ‘innocent until proven guilty’. Mr. Breivik’s defence – political necessity – requires that he admit to the acts charged, but that does not necessary mean he is ‘guilty’. Do you consider yourself the judge in the matter, that you have already found Breivik ‘guilty’ of a crime which he has not yet been found guilty of by an impartial court? Why do you think Aftenposten have censored the information shared with Prime Minister Stoltenberg, 1676 Norwegian National, Regional and Local Politicians, 1,278 editors and journalists, 482 Law Professors and Lawyers, 1,230 Oslo University Professors and Lecturers, and 104 NGO Officials from the Norwegian people, that Breivik’s Acquittal is Justified by Media's Population-Terrorism Connection?
