Fjordman Tackles Testimony in Breivik Massacre Trial


APTOPIX Norway Massacre Trial

John R. Houk
© June 2012
 
I am a huge fan of the essayist Fjordman. Ever since the massacre in Norway by Norwegian Anders Breivik, Fjordman has been at the focal point of the blame game by Norwegian multiculturalists. Fjordman has been a pseudonym that was exposed to the public because of Breivik’s massacre. Why was a pseudonym necessary?
 
Islamic hatred is much stronger and dangerous in all of Europe than in America. One that exposes Islam in Europe runs the danger of arrest by the government (national and/or EU government) for hate-speech as defined by the freedom disenfranchisement of Multiculturalist laws that seems to protect everything except Christianity. The government is the one hand. The other hand is that Islamic hatred causes the constant threat of violence and death threats by Muslims living in Europe as immigrants or as 2nd or 3rd generation Muslims adopting a European nation BUT demanding to live the culture of intolerant Islam.
 
This means even under a pseudonym Fjordman had to have bodyguards to protect his life from Muslim death threats.
 
As soon as police authorities began to scrutinize Breivik’s 1500 page manuscript of hate it became clear that Breivik utilized the essays of prominent expose Islam/anti-jihad writers as a huge amount of manuscript content. Guess what? Fjordman is a Norwegian citizen. Instead of examining Fjordman’s essays the Norwegian authorities simply appeared to assume Fjordman was part of some terrorist conspiracy that Breivik attached himself to. The result of authority examination of Fjordman he has lost his anonymity. In his latest post or at least the latest post I have found Fjordman himself uses his actual name of Peder Jensen. I have been reluctant to use Jensen’s real name because the last time I read the actual name it was an exposé of a hit piece.
 
I am so used to the pseudonym I will probably continue to use that rather than Jansen unless “Fjordman” is abandoned.
 
Fjordman was going to an interview with Norwegian police via the Internet through Skype or something like that. Then it became clear the police would release to the public the testimony of Multiculturalist expert testimony but not that of those that expose the truth of Islam.
 
Fjordman took it upon himself to answer the list of probable questions that would have been answered. Below is the English translation of the answered questions as it appeared on Gates of Vienna.
 
JRH 6/14/12
 
******************************
Fjordman’s Suggested Testimony for the Trial of Anders Behring Breivik
 
As regular readers know, a few days before his scheduled appearance Fjordman withdrew his offer to testify by skype at the trial of Anders Behring Breivik in Oslo. The defense team had sent him a list of potential questions, which prompted the preparation of the responses published below (in both Norwegian and English).
 
By Fjordman
Posted by Baron Bodissey
6/12/2012 01:22:00 AM
 
Suggested Testimony for the Trial of Anders Behring Breivik
by Fjordman

Note: This text was initially written in Norwegian and then translated into English, but since most of the readers are non-Scandinavians, the English version will be presented here first.

Denne teksten ble skrevet på norsk og oversatt til engelsk, men siden de fleste av leserne er ikke-skandinaver har jeg valgt å presentere den engelske versjonen først, fulgt av den norske.
In 2012 I was subpoenaed as a witness for the trial against the mass murderer Anders Behring Breivik by his defense lawyers. Until the beginning of June I seriously considered saying yes to testifying on the Internet but eventually rejected this. One of the reasons for this is that I intensely disliked the way the defense lawyers had mistreated a number of people, trying to harass them into testifying without informing them that they actually did not have a legal obligation to testify at all. I find this behavior rude and unethical.

I also found it unacceptable that certain expert witnesses were defined as “right-wing extremists” whose testimonies could not be broadcast. This was stated by the court itself, represented by judges Wenche Elizabeth Arntzen and Arne Lyng plus co-judges Ernst Henning Eielsen, Anne Elisabeth Wisløff and Diana Patricia Fynbo.

In essence, this implied that the testimonies of pro-Multicultural and pro-Islamic persons could be broadcast, whereas those critical of Multiculturalism and Islam, such as myself and Bruce Bawer, could not be broadcast. This represented naked political and ideological censorship by the court, which is unacceptable.

I did have a number of things that I wanted to convey to the public, however. I have therefore decided to publish a testimony online that I would have liked to have given. I received a few questions from Breivik’s defense lawyers indicating that they wanted to ask me about censorship and bias in the mass media. My short answer to this is that yes, there is censorship in the mainstream media, which generally suffer from a pronounced left-wing political and ideological bias in favor of Islam, mass immigration and Multiculturalism.

However, I do not want to make that the main issue. It is unlikely that I would have been able to present a testimony identical to the one you can read here since I would have been interrupted and asked different questions. Yet I do believe that many of the issues I raise here are relevant to the Breivik case overall.

clip_image001

English version

Can you tell us a little bit about yourself and your background?

My real name is Peder Jensen. I have posted articles on the Internet under the pseudonym Fjordman since February 2005. I initially started writing articles on my own blog, but from 2006 I have guest-blogged on other websites, usually in English, although some of my texts have been translated into several different languages.

I was born and raised in Ålesund. I am a university graduate having studied English, taking exams in history with an emphasis on Norwegian history, world history, Middle Eastern and Chinese history. I began studying the Arabic language at the University of Bergen, Norway and continued with these studies at the American University of Cairo in Egypt in 2001.

I worked for the Norwegian-led observer group TIPH in the Palestinian city of Hebron in 2002 and most of 2003. This was partly coordinated by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, but I was formally employed by the Norwegian Refugee Council (NRC), then led by the current party secretary of the Norwegian Labor Party, Raymond Johansen. One of my bosses in Hebron was Arnstein Øverkil, former head of the Police Security Service (PST). I took a master’s degree at the University of Oslo in culture and technology in 2004, writing a master’s thesis on blogging in Iran.

I have entertained the idea of taking a PhD in topics related to Internet censorship, but I haven’t pursued this idea so far. I deliberately decided not to embark on a career in the NRC, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, or similar organizations, partly for political reasons. I had become highly critical of Islam and found it increasingly difficult to work for organizations which I found to be too pro-Islamic.

There are many decent people working for the NRC who do a good job, but the organization’s condemnation of the Danish Muhammad cartoons made it virtually impossible for me to continue working for them. I interpreted their response to this incident as a clear submission to sharia law, Islamic intimidation and censorship, and I couldn’t accept that.

What was your reaction to the July 22 attacks? You decided to contact the Norwegian police?

At the time of the attacks, in the summer of 2011, I was working part-time at a center for individuals with high-functioning autism and Asperger’s syndrome. This was a decent job with decent individuals, but as a part-time job it also gave me the flexibility to focus on my writing while at the same time paying the most basic bills. The people I worked with there knew absolutely nothing about my blogging activities.

I was living in Oslo on July 22. By July 23, literally overnight, I had become the country’s second-most hated person due to the actions of a mentally unbalanced man I have never met. This was an absurd situation that was very difficult to handle. Some of my friends advised me to leave Norway immediately, but I considered this to be cowardice. People who run away also tend to look guilty, and I had done nothing criminal.

After discussing it with friends and family, I decided to contact the Norwegian Police Security Service (PST). I physically visited their national headquarter in Nydalen in Oslo on July 27, where I introduced myself by my real name. They told me that they were busy and asked me instead to send them an email, which I did. They then referred me to the regular police.

After consulting with my lawyers at the law firm of Staff, I voluntarily reported at the Manglerud Police Station in Oslo on August 4, 2011 accompanied by attorney Knut Ditlev-Simonsen. At that time neither the police authorities nor the Norwegian mass media had the slightest idea who I was, even though police attorney Kraby claimed otherwise. Continue reading “Fjordman Tackles Testimony in Breivik Massacre Trial”