FJORDMAN HAS ARTICLE PUBLISHED IN AFTENPOSTEN: RULE OF LAW AFTER 7/22

 

This article by Fjordman was published in today’s Aftenposten and published here with the author’s permission. KGS

The Rule of Law After 7/22

by Peder Jensen, a.k.a. Fjordman

I know that some people dislike me, which they are perfectly entitled to do. Yet it is important to remember that a civilized country ruled by law must function regardless of personal likes or dislikes. My unpleasant encounter with the Norwegian police raises fundamental questions regarding the handling of witnesses in major criminal investigations. You can still be interested in these issues even if you disagree with or dislike my writings.

Furthermore, it is meaningless to hold well-documented texts responsible for the actions of a disturbed person. Assuming that we take “psychological accountability” seriously, we should also hold those accountable who distribute the Koran — which very explicitly encourages violence against non-Muslims — and thus make them co-responsible for countless actions of Jihadist terrorism around the entire world. Is this happening?

In his terror manifesto, Anders Behring Breivik quoted numerous different people from all over the world, obviously without their knowledge or approval. Being quoted by persons one has never met is something beyond one’s control, but since I was the only Norwegian among those quoted there I realized that I sooner or later would have to discuss this matter with the authorities.

I first contacted the Norwegian Police Security Service [PST] by physically knocking on the door of their headquarters in Oslo. However, they didn’t want to talk to me and told me to send them an email instead. I suppose the security services have coffee breaks, too. Judging by the newspapers one could get the impression that the police were actively seeking me out, yet neither the police nor the press had the slightest idea who I was until on August 4th when I knocked on the door to Manglerud Police Station, accompanied by Knut Ditlev-Simonsen from the law firm Staff. As far as they were concerned I might as well have been Mickey Mouse.

Although I was not legally obliged to do so I answered most of their questions. The only form of indirect contact I have ever had with Breivik is that both of us posted comments on the website Document.no. It is true that he tried to contact at me some point in 2009 and sent me a handful of emails. As with everything else he said to others prior to his atrocities, they were hardly spectacular or sensational and contained no hint of future terror actions. Furthermore, I was totally uninterested in meeting with him. Apart from that, I don’t know anything about Breivik. Absolutely nothing.

After some hesitation I voluntarily gave the police access to my telephone log, which must be considered to be a very friendly gesture by a person who is not charged with anything and who himself knows that he was not involved in the criminal actions. Virtually the only one of the police requests that I turned down was giving them my computer, which I considered to be too serious a violation of my privacy. I was then physically followed by several police officers and forced to hand it over.

It was Bård Dyrdal, leader of the program for questioning witnesses after the 7/22 terror attacks, who announced the use of force against my person, supported by police attorneys Christian Hatlo and Pål-Fredrik Hjort Kraby. “He had the status of witness and we got a long and fair explanation from him to the questions we had,” Kraby told NRK [Norwegian Broadcasting Corporation].

This is correct. I held the status as a witness both before and afterwards and have never been suspected of or charged with a criminal act of any kind. For the record, after having studied all of my communications for several months, the police informed me by email in October that I am still not suspected of anything.

When Dyrdal announced that I would immediately be escorted by half a dozen police officers to my flat in order to search through my books, movies, photos, kitchen equipment and dirty laundry for hours and hours he declared that there was a lot of pressure in this case, which probably means that the police let the mass media dictate their actions in the case against Behring Breivik. There was no objective, professional justification for what they did to me.

They also confiscated a suitcase with clothes and socks that contained no electronic equipment at all. At a time when far too many rapes and other serious crimes remain unsolved in parts of the country one has to wonder whether it is the right decision by the police to spend several months on studying the socks of a person who has no criminal record .

There is absolutely nothing on my PC that could possibly connect me to the terror attacks. The only thing there that might be of interest to the police authorities — and then to the PST more than the regular police — are contacts I have with peaceful individuals in many countries who do not like Islam. This means that the Norwegian police disregarded all common legal procedures in order to confiscate a PC that can be used for nothing other than conducting illegal political surveillance.

The police justified their actions against me by using something called a third-party search [tredjemannsransaking], which would imply that evidence of Breivik’s terror attacks should exist in my flat and that there was a danger that this evidence could be lost or destroyed. This is ridiculous. I had contacted the police myself and answered their questions for many hours precisely because I had nothing to hide. Besides, at this point two weeks had passed since the terror attacks, plenty of time to get rid of any evidence had such evidence existed in the first place, which it didn’t.

I have never before heard of any Western democratic country where a voluntary witness who himself contacted the authorities, who was described by the police as being cooperative, who has no criminal record, did not know the perpetrator, and on top of everything else was nowhere near the crime scene when the crime took place have his apartment ransacked and his computer equipment confiscated.

When I told Lars Hedegaard of the International Free Press Society what kind of treatment I had been given as a witness, he responded that it reminded him of the situation in totalitarian states, like the ones we are all too familiar with from the twentieth century. “If someone had told me a few years ago that the free and proud Norway which we Danes admired during the German occupation would end up like this, I would have considered them insane.” Harsh words from a neighbor, and damaging to Norway’s international reputation.

If my case is not disputed, I fear that it may create a dangerous precedent. Worst case scenario, it could imply that the police can from now on ransack the apartment of citizens they dislike, especially if they say something Politically Incorrect, and confiscate their computer equipment, camera and clothes without charging them of having done anything criminal whatsoever. If this happens, we no longer have a crime police; we have a thought police. Do we want a society like that?

På norsk:

Rettsstaten etter 22/7

av Peder Jensen, også kjent som Fjordman

Jeg vet at det er folk som ikke liker meg. Det skal de få lov til, men det er viktig å huske på at en sivilisert rettsstat skal fungere uavhengig av om man liker vedkommende eller ei. Jeg mener at mitt ublide møte med norsk politi reiser prinsipielt viktige spørsmål knyttet til hvordan man skal behandle vitner i store kriminalsaker. Du kan interessere deg for dette selv om du er uenig med eller til og med misliker mine skriverier.

Det er også meningsløst å holde godt dokumenterte tekster ansvarlig for hva en forstyrret person gjør. Dersom vi skal ta «psykisk medvirkning» på alvor bør de som distribuerer Koranen, som i meget klare ordelag oppfordrer til vold mot ikke-muslimer, holdes ansvarlig for medvirkning til talløse jihadistiske terroraksjoner over hele verden. Skjer det?

I sitt terrormanifest siterte Anders Behring Breivik en rekke ulike mennesker fra hele verden, åpenbart uten deres viten eller samtykke. Å bli sitert av personer man aldri har møtt er noe man ikke selv kan ha kontroll over, men siden jeg var den eneste nordmannen blant dem som ble sitert der innså jeg at jeg før eller siden burde snakke med myndighetene om saken.

Jeg kontaktet først Politiets sikkerhetstjeneste (PST) ved fysisk å banke på deres hovedkontor i Oslo. De ville imidlertid ikke prate med meg og ba meg heller sende en e-post. De har vel kaffepauser i etterretningstjenesten også. I avisene kunne man få inntrykk av at politiet aktivt hentet meg inn til avhør, men hverken de eller pressen ante hvem jeg var inntil jeg 4. august troppet opp på Manglerud politistasjon sammen med Knut Ditlev-Simonsen fra Advokatfirmaet Staff. Jeg kunne like gjerne ha vært Mikke Mus for deres del.

Selv om jeg ikke var juridisk forpliktet til å si noe, svarte jeg på de fleste spørsmålene. Den eneste formen for indirekte kontakt jeg har hatt med Behring Breivik er at vi begge postet kommentarer på nettsiden Document.no. Det er riktig at han forsøkte å ta kontakt med meg på et tidspunkt i 2009 og sendte meg en håndfull e-poster. De er, som alt annet han sa til andre før hans ugjerninger, lite oppsiktsvekkende og litt intetsigende, uten det minste hint om fremtidige terroraksjoner. Jeg var dessuten totalt uinteressert i noe møte. Noe annet vet jeg ikke om Behring Breivik. Absolutt ingenting.

Litt nølende ga jeg frivillig politiet adgang til min telefonlogg, noe som er en betydelig utstrakt hånd fra en person som ikke er siktet for noe og som selv vet at han ikke har vært involvert i de kriminelle hendelsene. Men jeg nektet å følge politiets anmodning om å gi dem min datamaskin, noe jeg anså som en for sterk inngripen i mitt privatliv. Jeg ble deretter fotfulgt av flere politifolk og presset til å overlevere den.

Det var Bård Dyrdal, leder for vitneavhørsprosjektet om 22. juli-terroren, som gjennomførte tvangsvedtaket, støttet av politiadvokatene Christian Hatlo og Pål-Fredrik Hjort Kraby. «Han hadde status som vitne og vi fikk en lang og grei forklaring fra ham på de spørsmålene vi hadde,» sa Kraby til NRK.

Det er riktig, jeg hadde status som vitne både før og etterpå og har aldri noensinne vært mistenkt eller siktet for å ha begått en kriminell handling. For ordens skyld sier politiet pr. e-post i oktober, etter å ha studert all min kommunikasjon i flere måneder, at jeg fremdeles ikke er mistenkt for noe.

Dyrdal uttalte da han annonserte at jeg umiddelbart skulle eskorteres til min leilighet av et halvt dusin politifolk for å ransake mine bøker, filmer, fotografier, kjøkkentøy og skittentøy i timevis, at det er mye press i denne saken. I praksis betyr det sannsynligvis at politiet lar massemediene diktere deres handlinger i saken mot Behring Breivik. Det fantes ingen objektiv, faglig begrunnelse for det de gjorde mot meg.

De konfiskerte også en koffert med klær og sokker som ikke inneholdt noe elektronisk utstyr. På et tidspunkt da altfor mange voldtekter og andre grove forbrytelser står uoppklart i deler av landet kan man spørre seg om det er en riktig prioritering av politiet å bruke flere måneder på å studere sokkene til en person fullstendig uten kriminelt rulleblad.

Det finnes overhodet ingenting på min PC som kan knytte meg til terrorangrepene. Det eneste som kunne være av interesse der for politimyndighetene, og da mer for PST enn det vanlige politiet, er kontakter jeg har med fredelige mennesker i mange land som ikke liker islam. Det betyr at norsk politi satte til side vanlige rettsprinsipper for å beslaglegge en PC som ikke kan brukes til noe annet enn å drive ulovlig overvåking på rent politisk grunnlag.

Den begrunnelsen politiet brukte overfor meg er det som kalles tredjemannsransaking, noe som innebærer at bevis for Behring Breiviks terrorangrep måtte finnes i min leilighet og at det var fare for bevisforspillelse. Dette er latterlig. Jeg hadde selv kontaktet politiet og svart på spørsmål i mange timer, nettopp fordi jeg ikke har noe å skjule. Det var dessuten gått to uker siden terrorangrepene, rikelig tid til å fjerne bevis dersom det hadde eksistert, noe det ikke gjorde.

Jeg har aldri hørt om et vestlig demokratisk land der et frivillig vitne, som selv tok kontakt med myndighetene og av politiet er omtalt som samarbeidsvillig, som ikke har noe kriminelt rulleblad, ikke kjente gjerningsmannen og som attpåtil ikke var i nærheten av åstedet da forbrytelsen skjedde, får sin leilighet ransaket og sitt datautstyr konfiskert.

Da jeg fortalte Lars Hedegaard fra The International Free Press Society hva slags behandling jeg hadde fått som vitne, var hans reaksjon at det jeg har vært utsatt for i denne saken minner om tilstandene i totalitære stater som vi dessverre kjenner altfor godt fra det 20. århundre. «Hvis noen for bare noen år siden hadde sagt at det stolte og frie Norge, som vi dansker så opp til under den tyske okkupasjonen, ville ende opp slik ville jeg ha betegnet dem som utilregnelige.» Dette er harde ord fra en nabo og skadelig for Norges internasjonale omdømme.

Jeg frykter at behandlingen av meg i denne saken kan skape en farlig presedens som i verste fall innebærer at politiet fra nå av kan ransake leiligheten til borgere de ikke liker oppsynet til, spesielt hvis de sier noe politisk ukorrekt, og konfiskere deres datautstyr, kamera og klær uten å sikte dem for å ha gjort noe kriminelt overhodet. Da har vi ikke lenger et kriminalpoliti, vi har fått et meningspoliti. Ønsker vi å ha et slikt samfunn?

For a complete archive of Fjordman’s writings, see the multi-index listing in the Fjordman Files.

6 Replies to “FJORDMAN HAS ARTICLE PUBLISHED IN AFTENPOSTEN: RULE OF LAW AFTER 7/22”

  1. This may sound weird but it sounds like the governments were just waiting for a situation like this (Breivik) to do away with people who go against the current of islam! It is scary to say but the caliphate is here like Bat Y’eor said!!! It seems quite odd that this would all be a coinsidence!!! It doesnt seem like a coinsidence when you think back to 911 and how the world has drastically changed since then!

  2. The police were able to confiscate his computer without a warrant? We have sunk low in the Anglo world, but not quite that low yet.

    Perhaps the country was at one time rather placid (apparently the longest Brevik could get in prison is 21 years–suggesting they did not have much of a crime problem). So the police are kind of casual about things like warrants, unlike those from more crime-oriented locations.

    Yet that is not really believable. What is their population, 5 million, I think? That would be a big city in Canada, no such city would be without crime.

Leave a Reply to Anne von Kanada Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*