Streets around court building will be blocked off during Breivik trial

Norwegian Newspaper, Vårt Land, reports that, according to a letter sent out from the Norwegian Editors Association (Norsk Redaktørforening) to its members, city streets surrounding the Oslo District Court (Tingrett) in downtown Oslo will be blocked off to traffic during the trial against Anders Behring Breivik.

The association informed its members that the reason for this arrangement is to make space for broadcasting buses from international television stations.

The Norwegian Police Security Service (PST) has previously stated that they are concerned about threats and violence in relation to the trial.

Google translation:

Closing streets in Oslo during the terror trial
02/18/12

140 newsrooms have so far expressed their interest to follow the trial of Behring Anders Breivik.

The streets around the Oslo Courthouse will be closed to make room for the buses from international TV stations that will transfer directly from the terrorism trial.

140 newsrooms have so far expressed their interest to follow the trial of Anders Behring Breivik in Oslo District Court. The case starts 16 April and is expected to last for ten weeks.

85 of editors are foreign – 55 are Norwegian. From the many TV stations that have expressed interest, there are reports that some 20 media buses will come….

Original article: Stenger gater i Oslo under terrorrettssaken
_____

Related post: PST fears threats and violence surrounding 7/22 court case

Related post: List of international news organizations that have requested accreditation for the 7/22 trial

Political commentator says it appears the political goal of the Labor Party is to make ethnic Norwegians a minority

In an opinion piece on the Verdidebatt website, which is run by the newspaper Vårt Land, right-wing author, blogger and political commentator, Ole Jørgen Anfindsen, argues that Øyvind Strømmen, a left-wing journalist and author frequently used by the Norwegian media as an expert on right-wing politics, exaggerates the relevance of right-wing extremist political ideas and the Eurabia theory to the current political debate in Norway about mass immigration.

According to Anfindsen, Strømmen writes in his most recent book that right wing politicians are borrowing ideas from the extreme right: “[T]he borrowing from the extreme right has not ceased.” Anfindsen says that Strømmen uses quotes from the blog of Progress Party politician, Kent Andersen, to illustrate this point.

Anfindsen points out, however, that, as Andersen has written about on his blog, the Labor Party as early as 1980 stated in parliamentary documents that it is a political goal to transform Norwegian society into a pluralistic, multicultural society. Those that complain that these major policy decisions were not clearly communicated to the Norwegian people, or not debated in a democratic fashion, are simply opposing Labor Party policy, Anfindsen argues.

Anfindsen also writes that the Labor Party appears to applaud the fact that ethnic Norwegicans are soon to become a minority in the capital, Oslo, and that it is reasonable to conclude that the political goal of the Labor Party is exacly that: to make ethnic Norwegians a minority.

Below are excerpts from the article translated from Norwegian:

“In the same blog post from which Strømmen chose to quote an excerpt on pages 162-163 of his book, Andersen also writes the following:

The thought about the ‘multicultural Norway’ is rather not new. It shows up in Parliamentary report number 74 (1979-1980) ‘About immigrants in Norway’ (under Oddvar Nordlie’s [Labor] government). Here we can read quote: ‘To develop one’s own language and own culture as central tools in an intergration process that shall result in the goal of a multicultural/pluralistic society.’

…

“It is, therefore, just to go to the sources Strømmen gives in his book, as well as follow a weblink or two, and one finds in a few minutes documentation that the situation is more or less how Andersen claims, namely that the Labor Party has desired to break up the unique Norwegian culture and replace it with multiculture. This is, therefore, not the ‘Eurabia thinking,’ as Strømmen claims (page 163), but quite simply the Labor Party thinking.

“The Labor party has, apparently, believed that Norway was too poorly inhabited, and has desired to fix this serious shortcoming by the aid of significant immigration from the Third World. This immigration is subject to a certain regulation from year to year, but in the long run it does not look like there is meant to be any limits to how many should come here.

“And since it is obvious to anyone with a minimum of mathematical schooling that ethnic Norwegians, in a not too distant future, necessarily will become a minority in this country if today’s policy is continued, then it is reasonable to assume that this is exacly the Labor Party’s long-term political goal. And there are not that many years left until Norwegians become a minority in Oslo; a development the Labor Party appears to be applauding.

…

“So what does this have to do with Strømmen’s book? Not so little. To Strømmen, it is important to portray as right-wing extreme anyone who believes that the Labor Party (and its supporters) lacks respect for Norwegians and Norwegian culture and, therefore, wishes to replace them and it with something else.

“But then it turns out, when one digs a bit in the sources that Strømmen himself refers to, that the Labor Party itself, even in a parliamentary report, makes it clear that it is considered as unfortunate that Norway is dominated by Norwegian culture and that, therefore, they wish to supplement this with a line of other cultures from the whole world. And, in practical politics, the Labor Party each and every day shows that they believe that there should be an end to Norwegians being a majority in this country.

“Now many will, of course, agree with the Labor Party that it is exactly a policy such as this that will make Norway a better country to live in, which is what their youth politicians claimed on NRK news Feb 6, 2012 (in a comment to statements from Breivik’s court hearing the same day, where he repeated his claim that Labor Party politicians are traitors, a statement that the aforementioned Labor Youth [AUF] politicians perceived as incomprehensible).

“But if Norway is a democratic society, one must be allowed to be in disagreement with the Labor Party. In addition, it must be allowed to put forth strong critique of the Labor Party, and it must be allowed to ask critical questions. Yes, it must actually be allowed to be of the opinion that the Labor Party ideologists either are incompetent (and, therefore, do not understand what the long-term consequences of the party’s politics will be) or, alternatively, that they have goals that they rarely admit fully in public.

“For example, it must, as Kent Andersen and Christian Tybring-Gjedde did in a subsequently quite well-known opinion piece in Aftenposten, Aug 25, 2010, be allowed to ask ‘What was wrong with Norwegian culture, since the Labor Party wants to replace it with multiculture?’

…

“There are just about four million Norwegians in the country, but there are several hundred millions of people in the countries from which our largest immigrant groups have their roots. In some time we are, therefore, — with today’s rules of the game — sentenced to lose the demographic competition; something that, in other words, happens with the Labor Party as an active promoter. The attitude behind this is readily summarized in Thomas Hylland Eriksen’s well-known words: ‘The most important white spot now consists of deconstructing the majority, and do it thoroughly so that it can never be called a majority again (Culcom, June 18, 2008).’

…

“Strømmen’s book is, thus, referring to sources that document the Labor Party’s responsibility for the (in many people’s opinion, irresponsible) immigration policy that has been conducted in Norway the last decades, and that is even larger than what many of us have been aware of. Since this has relevance for the upcoming trial against Breivik, and since the terror on 7/22 is the backdrop for Strømmen’s book, I’ll include a few words about the defense of Brevik.

“With a possible exception of some Labor Party polticians that NRK has spoken to, it seems to be the broad agreement that Breivik has the right to a trial that is as fair as possible, including a best possible defense. Not at least has his lawyer, Geir Lippestad, repeatedlly underlined the importance of this.

“This means, the way I view it, that Lippestad will fail his task as Brevik’s defense unless he makes sure that the court receives full information about the circumstances Strømmen (implicitly) documents, and that I have outlined above.

“Why so? Yes, because Breivik’s major point is that the Labor Party’s policies in reality constitute treason, and that the party members, therefore, are legitimate targets for actions of the type that he carried out last summer. Let me here, to avoid misunderstandings, rush forward and repeat what I said in several interviews in the weeks after 7/22, namely that I believe it is necessary to tone down the rhetoric in light of the terror tragedy, hereof to cease calling immigration supporters ‘traitors.’

“What is clear, on the other hand, is that the Labor Party has the main responsibility for a policy that many are of the opinion has placed our country in a very problematic situation. As I have emphasized before, this does not give Breivik the right to blow up bombs or excecute AUF [Labor Youth Organization] members. But as his lawyer, it is Lippestad’s duty to put forth all arguments that can indicate lenient circumstances (to the degree this is possible) for Breivik. And he is, unfortunately, right in that there are several aspects of Norwegian democracy that are not functioning as it should.”

…

Øyvind Strømmen refutes Anfindsen’s critique in the comment field on Verdidebatt, titling his comment “Four points about mendaciousness”:

“In the case of the Progress Party [FRP], I have, to the contrary, both in the book and, for example, in this interview with Nettavisen, criticized the perception of the Progress Party as right-wing extreme, as one ought to: such a perception is idiotic. What I have done, on the other hand, is to criticize specific Progress Party politicians for a simplification of right-wing extremist thought matter, something I have used a chapter in the book to exemplify.”

Original article: Arbeiderpartiet, Lippestad, Breivik og Strømmens mørke nett

Google translation: The Labor Party, Lippestad, Breivik and Strømmen’s Dark Web
_____

Ole Jørgen Anfindsen’s blog: HonestThinking.org

Øyvind Strømmen’s book: The Dark Net. On Right-Wing Extremism, Counter-Jihadism and Terror in Europe.

Related blog post: When started Arbeiderpartiets attack on Norwegian culture? (Når startet Arbeiderpartiets angrep på Norsk kultur?)

Related article: Dream of Disneyland – “What was wrong with the Norwegian culture, since the Labor Party will replace it with multiculturalism?” (Drøm fra Disneyland – “Hva var galt med norsk kultur, siden Arbeiderpartiet vil erstatte den med flerkultur?”)

Related article: This is the FRP code (Dette er Frp-koden)

Related link: Culcom

Governmental committee positive to hijab in the police force

Norwegian newspaper, Vårt Land, reports that a government-appointed committee, the Faith and Ethics Policy Committee, that was established a year and a half ago by Culture Minister, Anniken Huitfeldt (Labor), will likely propose that judges and police officers should be allowed to wear the hijab.

The question of whether the hijab should be allowed in the court system and police force has been a matter of heated debate in Norway. A proposal by previous Justice Minster, Knut Storberget (Labor), to allow the use of the hijab in the police force was withdrawn after it received strong negative reactions.

Google translation:

Wishes hijab in the police
01/16/12

Police and judges with the hijab may be the result if the government’s belief political committees gets its way….

Non-French. Stålsett [the committee chairman] is clear that Norway is in a different direction than France, which is the longest in Europe to ban the use of the hijab.

“So, the committee will not come down on any French, secular solution?”

“It will affect our conclusion that we in no way want to hide away or reduce the presence of religious symbols. We want to facilitate that diversity should be strong,” says Stålsett….

Original article: Ønsker hijab i politiet
_____

See also: Committee recommends hijab in the police (Utvalg foreslår hijab i politiet)

See also: Veiling the Police in Norway at Gates of Vienna.