Thursday, April 5, 2012

Breivik, European Free Speech and American Free Speech

Mo & Aisha k-i-s-s-i-n-g
John R. Houk
© April 5, 2012

The essayist Fjordman is an instrumental writer to expose the dark side of Islam to the Western world. Back in July 2011 mass murderer/terrorist Anders Breivik killed men, women and children under the delusion it would begin a grassroots paradigm (One may have to log into Google to read this link) that would take down Left oriented governments of Europe and replace them with a new European order that would employ a warped vision of Christianity to remove Muslims from Europe. Breivik built his warped paradigm on the backs of legitimate writers and politicians that have caught onto the nature of the dark side of Islam. That dark side incidentally is something that cannot coexist peacefully with the Western heritage of Judeo-Christian-Greco-Roman civilization that has developed into a civilized world of representative governments, Civil Rights and a socio-political society that differences are usually settled with legislation and an effective judicial system. I am a bit prejudiced but I have to say the United States of America has arisen to the highest level of this Western heritage. (That’s why everyone wants to move here even when they hate America.)

The act of terrorism that Breivik did was ghastly horrible. AND one the side effects was to give ammunition to Left Wing Multiculturalists that anti-jihad writers are nothing but extremist Right Wingers that promote hate and incite Islamophobia to the point of bigotry and violence. There were a host of anti-jihad writers that Breivik plagiarized and quoted for his master plan, but it seemed that Norwegian Fjordman was a large focus of inspiration that turned to twisted goals. It is one thing to expose Islam. It is quite another thing to breed hatred toward Muslim believers as a whole. I think Islam is evil myself; however under the principles of religious freedom and Free Speech Islam must be free to be practiced as long as the theo-political nature of Islam does not itself inspire Muslims to do the very same thing that Breivik did.

Unfortunately Europe does not have the same parameters of Free Speech that America has. God help America if our nation begins to dilute Free Speech as Europe has. In Europe a Christian can be slapped with the accusation of a hate crime by openly promoting Biblical morality if it offends non-Christians or practitioners of alternate lifestyles. Such warped limitations on Free Speech in Europe have already occurred.

** Äke Green: Pastor Äke Green of Sweden was convicted of hate crimes for preaching that homosexuality is a sin in 2004. Pastor Green’s conviction was overturned in Swedish Appellate Court in 2005, but if I was a betting man I am guessing Sweden has strengthened their hate crime law limiting Christianity. ( article posted in 2007)

** André-Mutien Léonard: Belgian homosexual activists have brought charges against Mgr André-Mutien Léonard, the Roman-Catholic bishop of Namur, for homophobia, a criminal offence in Belgium according to the country’s 2003 Anti-Discrimination Act. In an interview last April in the Walloon weekly Télé Moustique, the bishop is said to have described homosexuals as “abnormal” people. According to Michel Graindorge, the activists’ lawyer, the bishop intended to “stigmatize” homosexuals, whose “identity and dignity is debased from the moment that the bishop considers them to be abnormal.” ( article posted in 2007)

** Christian Vanneste: Last January Christian Vanneste, a member of the French parliament (who has just been reelected), was convicted for homophobia by a French court. Mr Vanneste had said that “heterosexuality is morally superior to homosexuality” and that “homosexuality endangers the survival of mankind.” (Brussels Journal 2007)

** Susanne Winter: Vienna — Austrian far-right parliamentarian Susanne Winter was convicted Thursday of incitement because of her anti-Muslim statements, including the claim that Islam’s prophet Mohammed was a paedophile. A court in Winter’s home town of Graz also found the 51-year-old politician guilty of humiliating a religion. She was sentenced to a fine of 24,000 euros (31,000 dollars) euros and a suspended prison term of three months, Austrian news agency APA reported. (Gates of Vienna 1/22/09)

** Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff: There is now a conviction against Austrian citizen Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff (ESW), who stood trial on a charge of “incitement to hatred” at a series of seminars educating about political Islam and the challenges we face. The case was closed on February 15th 2011 by judge Bettina Neubauer, who gave the following verdict to ESW, who was also convicted of being a “Repeat offender”, in spite of this conviction being her first:

·         Acquitted on the charge of incitement to hatred

·         Convicted for denigration of the teachings of a legally recognized religion.

·         Punishment: 120 day fines for a total of 480 euros.

After having gone through this material at the first two hearings, the audience of the case had a clear expectation that ESW would be acquitted of the charges and have her name cleared. But at the end of the second hearing, the judge added an unexpected twist to the case:

She inquired of ESW about her comments that the actions of Muhammad would today be considered ‘paedophilia’. While ensuring a nod of approval from the prosecutor, she then extended the charges to also encompass “Denigrating the teachings of a legally recognized religion”. (Gates of Vienna 2/18/11

Judge Leo Levnaic-Iwanski upheld the verdict of the lower court, which convicted Elisabeth on the charge of “denigration of religious beliefs of a legally recognized religion.” (Gates of Vienna 12/20/11)

The Superior Court confirmed the verdict, although with a somewhat different reasoning. While the lower court regarded pedophilia as factually completely unjustified, the higher court judged the remark “liked a little something with children” to be an extreme evaluation. Only the isolated explanation that Mohammed had sex with a child was allowable.

In supporting the verdict, there was explicit reference to the Winter case and the disposition of the European Court of Justice: (Gates of Vienna 1/28/12

** Geert Wilders: Fitna and some of the speeches delivered by Wilders hit the European concepts of political correctness, multiculturalism and diversity right smack in the groin. The Leftists of Europe and the Muslims of Europe (which are more radicalized than many would dare to comment on) went in violent seizures that someone would dare speak out against people that are divergent from Western Culture.


European Hate Speech Laws

In large part, the movement to circumscribe the bounds of free expression has its roots in three instruments of international law—the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Religious Discrimination (CERD), and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). Article 10 of the ECHR, for example, grants the freedom of expression to all, but the exercise of this right is conditioned on conformity with the restrictions necessary, inter alia, "for the protection of the reputation and rights of others." The CERD and ICCPR, which also purport to recognize the freedom of expression, go a step further. Article 4(a) of the CERD obligates signatories to make "all dissemination of ideas based on racial superiority or hatred" a punishable offense, while Article 20 of the ICCPR requires outlawing "any advocacy of national, racial, or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility, or violence."

Given the nebulous standards on which much of Europe's hate speech laws are based—indeed, there is not even a universally agreed upon definition for what constitutes hate speech—it is little wonder that such legislation has ensnared speech it was likely never meant to punish. Delineating the line between speech that is considered rude and that which is considered insulting for the purposes of criminal prosecution is an utterly subjective undertaking, and a distinction that governments are ill-suited to determine. Compounding the problem of these laws' arbitrariness is their selective application: while European authorities have at times appeared reluctant to go after Islamist firebrands spouting hatred, those engaging in legitimate debate about Islamism are frequently targeted for prosecution. Examples abound: (The Legal Project © 2012 READ ENTIRITY)

I am sure There are other cases Left Wing Multicultural persecution of truth tellers especially related to Islam. The cases above are the ones I have been most familiar with over the years. I did not even mention cases in Canada which has a comparable Free Speech infringement in the similitude of Europe.

The horrendous terrorist murders perpetrated by Anders Breivik has thrown a monkey wrench into liberating Free Speech in Europe. Because of Breivik the anonymity pursued by Fjordman was exposed as Norwegian authorities began shining a light because Breivik based a large amount of his deviant epic on Fjordman’s writings.

Anders Breivik is now in the middle of his trial in Norway. Breivik has been found insane by a couple of psychiatric experts. Especially in Europe a successful insanity defense will keep Breivik out of prison. Breivik would be committed to a psych ward.

Here is the remarkable twist. Breivik does not want to be declared legally insane and escape prison. He wants to be prosecuted as a person acting on political ideology rather than insanity. Of course that sounds insane. There will be no acquittal for Anders Breivik. Here is a glimpse of the Breivik legal defense team goal:

Defense attorneys for confessed terrorist Anders Behring Breivik have confirmed that former guerrilla leader Mullah Krekar and anti-Muslim blogger Peder Jensen, better known as “Fjordman,” are among the roughly 35 persons they’re calling to testify during Breivik’s trial. The goal is to prove that Breivik, like Krekar and Jensen, is driven by political ideology, not insanity, and therefore can be held responsible for his attacks. (Krekar, ‘Fjordman’ called to testify; Views and News from Norway, 4/3/12)

As I asserted, I have no doubt that Breivik will be convicted under this legal defense and spend the rest of his life in jail.

Here’s the problem though. If the Breivik defense team is successful in waving a declaration of insanity and is convicted for political ideology, then all European anti-jihad writers and politicians will find themselves in a legal pickle. This is especially the case for Fjordman because he is a Norwegian citizen.  If Breivik is convicted for political thoughts as well as for murder then Fjordman would be an accomplice to the crimes of murder perpetrated by Breivik.

The reasoning will have nothing to do with whether or not Fjordman helped Breivik in the demented scheme to bring change to Europe. Fjordman could be judged guilty of inspiring Breivik to formulate his plan. It is the old anti-Free Speech ploy of assigning incitement to perform hate crimes via Fjordman (and others) writings.

Friends, this is not good for Free Speech or Religious Freedom!

If Breivik’s legal team is successful in waving a declaration of insanity, the best thing that could happen for Free Speech is for the Prosecution to pursue a case of murder in whatever degree that Norway utilizes (No death penalties in Europe). If independent thought via writing is attached to murder charges it will not bode well for Fjordman’s Free Speech and it will not bode well for Free Speech in all of Europe. There is an extension here as well. European law has been creeping in the American judicial system due to Left Wing activist judges who ignore that a foreign legal precedent quite probably would be unconstitutional in the good old USA.

The legal wrangling going on in Norway may not be getting a lot of press in America; however legal decisions there just might affect the rule of law in America. After all, our President has shown a predisposition to ignore the Constitution. Limiting Free Speech because of unconstitutional hate speech laws is not beyond the pale of America’s Left.

JRH 4/5/12
Krekar, ‘Fjordman’ called to testify

April 3, 2012

Defense attorneys for confessed terrorist Anders Behring Breivik have confirmed that former guerrilla leader Mullah Krekar and anti-Muslim blogger Peder Jensen, better known as “Fjordman,” are among the roughly 35 persons they’re calling to testify during Breivik’s trial. The goal is to prove that Breivik, like Krekar and Jensen, is driven by political ideology, not insanity, and therefore can be held responsible for his attacks.

The main question facing the Oslo City Court is the state of Breivik’s mental health, and whether insanity led him to bomb Norway’s government headquarters and then carry out a massacre at a Labour Party summer camp. Breivik killed 77 persons in his attacks, tried to kill hundreds more and caused billions of kroner worth of damage that will take years to repair.

He’s already been declared insane by two court-appointed psychiatrists but controversy over that decision, which could allow him to avoid jail and instead be committed to mental health care, led the court to seek a second opinion. Their evaluation is due next week.

Prosecutors have seemed willing to accept the insanity ruling as have many others, to explain how a white, middle-class son of a Norwegian diplomat could do what he did. It’s been otherwise difficult for many to accept that a Norwegian could so carefully plan and carry out such diabolical acts against fellow Norwegians.

Breivik’s defense attorneys thus intend to show that there’s little difference between the sort of holy war or jihad that someone like Krekar defends and often promotes, and Breivik’s own war against Muslims. Breivik has said repeatedly that he attacked Norway’s Labour-led government and the next generation of Labour politicians because he held them responsible for allowing Norway to develop into a multi-cultural society that has allowed the country’s Muslim population to grow.

Breivik, who claims he is sane and ready to be sentenced to prison for his attacks, has long espoused the same sort of anti-Muslim rhetoric as other right-ring extremists. He has said he was inspired by the blogger “Fjordman,” for example, and cited Fjordman no less than 111 times in the manifesto he published just before he carried out his attacks.

“Breivik’s views on war between Islamic extremists and right-wing extremists are shared by many,” says his defense attorney Geir Lippestad. That’s why Lippestad and his colleagues want to question others about such a war, in court and under oath. He’s not sure the court-appointed psychiatrists have much knowledge about extremist views.

An attorney for Krekar, who’s currently in jail following his conviction for making death threats, said Krekar will testify when called. “As I understand it, Breivik wants to show that he’s correct in believing there’s a war going on between the West and Muslims,” attorney Arvid Sjødin told newspaper Dagsavisen on Tuesday. “I presume Krekar will confirm that there is such a war.”

Sanity of Islamic extremists rarely an issue

Also due to be called in for questioning about conflicts between Islam and the west is Arfan Bhatti, an Islamic activist in Norway who’s been on trial in connection with threats against the Israeli and US Embassies in Oslo and for firing shots at an Oslo synagogue. Bhatti’s sanity hasn’t been called into question despite his inflammatory rhetoric and criminal record, nor has Krekar’s.

Jensen, alias Fjordman, said he also will testify when called, but he prefers to believe that Breivik is insane. “Anders Behring Breivik is a mentally disturbed person,” Jensen told Dagsavisen. He noted, though, that “large portions of Europe’s and the western world’s population view Islam’s advancement and the damage done by today’s immigration policies with rising unease. This is pure common sense, and has nothing to do with Breivik.”

Breivik’s defense counsel has opted to concentrate its strategy on proving Breivik sane, in line with Breivik’s own wishes, and also will summon noted Norwegian psychiatrist Randi Rosenquist, who has criticized her colleagues’ earlier insanity declaration. Breivik’s defense attorneys have opted against basing their strategy on Norway’s lack of preparedness and poor security at both government headquarters and the Labour summer camp, which failed to prevent Breivik’s attacks.

Breivik, European Free Speech and American Free Speech
John R. Houk
© April 5, 2012
Krekar, ‘Fjordman’ called to testify

Please support our stories by clicking on the “Donate” button now

Copyright © 2012 · All Rights Reserved

No comments:

Post a Comment