Usman Rana: "Nobody questioned Osama bin Laden's sanity" :: Norway's Muslims Question Racist Focus on Breivik's Sanity

Norway Muslims question focus on Breivik's sanity

Julia Gronnevet | Associated Press | Sat, Apr 28, 2012

World Islamic Mission Mosque, Oslo, Norway [Wikipedia]

OSLO, Norway (AP) — Muslim leaders in Norway say they are concerned that the anti-Islamic ideology of Anders Behring Breivik, the far-right fanatic now on trial for killing 77 people, is being overshadowed by questions about his mental state.

The self-described anti-Muslim militant shocked Norway on July 22 with a bombing and shooting rampage targeting the government headquarters and the Labor Party's annual youth camp. Since he has admitted to the attacks, the key issue for the trial is to determine whether Breivik is sane enough to be held criminally responsible.

"I'm not a psychiatrist, but what is important is what he has done. That should be the focus, not how crazy he is," said Mehtab Afsar, head of the Islamic Council in Norway, an umbrella organization of Muslim groups in the country.

"He wants to get rid of Muslims and Islam from Europe. That is his main message. So I don't see the point of using so much energy on is he normal, is he insane?" Afsar told The Associated Press.

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

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.

Habeus Mentem: Knut Hamsun: ‘If you want to meet idiots, go to Norway’ - Thorkild Hansen, The Hamsun Trial

Knut Hamsun: Norwegian Author, winner of 1920 Nobel Prize for Literature

Declared Insane - in order for Norway to avoid
confronting and debating the issues he raised.

Knut Hamsun (August 4, 1859 – February 19, 1952) was a Norwegian author, who was awarded the Nobel Prize in Literature in 1920, for his novel The Growth of the Soil (Norwegian Markens Grøde). He was praised by King Haakon VII of Norway as Norway's soul.


Early life

Knut Hamsun was born as Knud Pedersen in Lom, Norway in Gudbrandsdal. He was the fourth son (of seven children) of Peder Pedersen and Tora Olsdatter. When he was three, the family moved to Hamsund, Hamarøy in Nordland. They were poor and an uncle had invited them to farm his land for him.

At age nine, Knut was separated from his family and lived with his uncle Hans Olsen, who needed help with the post office he ran. Olsen used to beat and starve his nephew, and Hamsun later stated that his chronic nervous difficulties were due to the way his uncle treated him.

In 1874, he finally escaped back to Lom, Norway. In the next five years, he would pick up any job just for the sake of the money. That included being a store clerk, peddler, shoemaker's apprentice, an assistant to a sheriff, and an elementary school teacher.

At 17, he became an apprentice to a ropemaker, and at about the same time he started to write. He spent several years in America, traveling and working at various jobs, and published his impressions under the title Fra det moderne Amerikas Aandsliv (1889).

Notice to Oslo Court: Request Date Judge to Provide Ruling on Breivik Habeus Mentem (Right to Legal Sanity) Application

Notice to Oslo Court: Request Date Judge to Provide Ruling on Breivik Habeus Mentem Application

15 December 2011 | Andrea Muhrrteyn | Norway v. Breivik

From: Lara Johnstone

Sent: Thursday, December 15, 2011 2:56 PM

To: NO: Crt: Oslo District Court: Tinghus Sentralbord; NO Oslo District Court: Tingrett Postmottak

Cc: NO Emb: Pta: Amb Tor Hildan; NO: Crt: Forensic Medicine: Tarjei Rygnestad; NO: Crt: Breivik: Lippestad; NO: Lippestad: Tord; NO: Lippestad: Odd; NO: Prison: Ila: Knut Bjarkeid; NO: Prison: Ila: Post; NO: Crt: SupremeCrt: Chief Justice Tore Schei; NO Police Security Svc; NO Police: Oslo; NO Police Directorate; NO: Police: Justice Dept; NO: MinJustice: Grete Faremo; NO: MinJustice: Pol Advisor: Astrid Bergmal; NO: PM: JStoltenberg: Chief of Staff: Karl Schjott-Pedersen; NO: PM: JStoltenberg: State Sec: Tor Brostigen

Subject: [2] Oslo District Court: Norway v. Breivik: Application: Respondent: Judge Nina Opsahl

Importance: High

Oslo District Court: Registrar,

In the matter between: KINGDOM OF NORWAY v. ANDERS BEIHRING BREVICK

Application between:
LARA JOHNSTONE Applicant
JUDGE NINA OPSAHL First Respondent
ANDERS BREVICK Second Respondent
GEIR LIPPESTAD Third Respondent
SYNNE SERHEIM Fourth Respondent
TORGEIR HUSBY Fifth Respondent
TARJEI RYGNESTAD Sixth Respondent
SVEIN HOLDEN Seventh Respondent

Please could you confirm:

1. The date my application is to be submitted to Judge Opsahl, or the relevant Judge, for their consideration.
   
2. The date the said Judge intends to provide me with their ruling on the matter.

Respectfully,

Lara Johnstone
Norway v. Breivik :: Uncensored
www.fleur-de-lis.co.nr


Lara (Clann/Tribe Name: Johnstone)
I (Sovereign or alleged Corporate identity) do not endorse any contract which does not fulfill the four requirements of a lawful, binding contract, namely: (1) Full Disclosure; (2) Equal Consideration; (3) Lawful Clear and Concise Terms and Conditions simply explained; and (4) Signatures of both/all Parties (In accordance to Common Law, I also consider corporations to be without legal standing, as they have no mind, body, legs, eyes, emotions; and hence are legal fictions). As a member of Radical Honesty culture I always endorse the resolution of all disagreements and/or misunderstandings in accordance to Radical Honesty cultural practices (See: Practicing Radical Honesty, by Brad Blanton), or via independent arbitration that does not involve bloodsucking parasite lawyers; and am willing to consider the practices of other cultures, who seriously and sincerely consider mine.

_______________________
From: Lara Johnstone
Sent: Wednesday, November 30, 2011 8:35 PM
To: NO Oslo District Court: Sentralbord; NO Oslo District Court: Admin
Subject: Oslo District Court: Norway v. Breivik: Application: Respondent: Judge Nina Opsahl

ATTENTION:

REGISTRAR & FIRST & SECOND RESPONDENTS
Registrar of the Oslo District Court
Sorenskriver og administrasjon
Postadresse: Postboks 8023 Dep., 0030 Oslo
Besøksadresse: C.J. Hambros Plass 4, 0164 Oslo
Sentralbord 22 03 52 00
Tel/Faks: 22 03 5212 | 22 03 53 54
E-post: **********@domstol.no
E-post: **********@domstol.no

In the matter between:

KINGDOM OF NORWAY v. ANDERS BEIHRING BREVICK

Application between:
LARA JOHNSTONE Applicant
JUDGE NINA OPSAHL First Respondent
ANDERS BREVICK Second Respondent
GEIR LIPPESTAD Third Respondent
SYNNE SERHEIM Fourth Respondent
TORGEIR HUSBY Fifth Respondent
TARJEI RYGNESTAD Sixth Respondent
SVEIN HOLDEN Seventh Respondent

Please find attached for your attention the following PDF documents: Application in terms of Article’s 2, 4, 85, 100, 110a, 110b, of Norwegian Constitution; and Article’s 1, 5, 6, 9, 13 and 14 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms

• Filing Sheet
  
• Notice of Motion
  
• Founding Affidavit

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that the applicant herewith applies to this court for an order from Judge Nina Opsahl that (A) Anders Breivik be provided a copy of this application for his consideration, and to be ordered to provide the court with his personal written response to the application, to be documented into the court record.

(B) If approved by Anders Breivik, additional orders as follows:

[I] A writ of Habeus Mentem on behalf of Anders Breivik psycho-cultural integrity right to a free and fair trial; and [II] writ of Certiorari/Review of the Psychiatric Evaluation Report of Psychiatrists: Synne Serheim and Torgeir Husby as to the Mens Rea political necessity criminal liability of Anders Breivik terrorist acts, on 22 July 2011.

Please take notice that the accompanying affidavit of Lara Johnstone will be used in support of this application.

KINDLY place this matter before Judge Nina Opsahl for her consideration at her earliest convenience.

Dated at George, Southern Cape, South Africa, this 29th day of November, 2011.

Lara Johnstone, Pro Se

Honourable Transparency Copies:
(A) Honourable Tore Schei, Chief Justice
(B) King Harald V, King of Norway
(C) Hon. Jens Stoltenberg, Prime Minister
(D) Hon. Dag Terje Andersen, President
(E) Gen. Harald Sunde, NATO: Military Comm.: Chief of Staff, Chief of Defence
(F) HE Tor Christian Hildan, Ambassador of Norway, Pretoria
(G) Professor Duarte Nuno Vieira (Portugal), European Council of Legal Medicine: Instituto Nacional de Medicina Legal, I.P.[1]; and The International Academy of Legal Medicine[2]

Lara (Clann/Tribe Name: Johnstone)
I (Sovereign or alleged Corporate identity) do not endorse any contract which does not fulfill the four requirements of a lawful, binding contract, namely: (1) Full Disclosure; (2) Equal Consideration; (3) Lawful Clear and Concise Terms and Conditions simply explained; and (4) Signatures of both/all Parties (In accordance to Common Law, I also consider corporations to be without legal standing, as they have no mind, body, legs, eyes, emotions; and hence are legal fictions). As a member of Radical Honesty culture I always endorse the resolution of all disagreements and/or misunderstandings in accordance to Radical Honesty cultural practices (See: Practicing Radical Honesty, by Brad Blanton), or via independent arbitration that does not involve bloodsucking parasite lawyers; and am willing to consider the practices of other cultures, who seriously and sincerely consider mine.