This complaint refers to a violation of Editors Code. 1. Accuracy, and relates to the following statements made by Mr. Bangstad in his article: After Anders Breivik's conviction, Norway must confront Islamophobia[1]:
[1] Inacuraccy of Mr. Breivik’s ‘conviction’: Conviction has been appealed by means of review.
On 27 August 2012 an application was filed with the Norwegian Supreme Court for Review of the Oslo District Court: Breivik Judgement, to set aside (A) the Necessity ruling, and (B) the conviction; to conclude Objective and Subjective Necessity Test Evidentiary Enquiry. The finding of guilt, in the absence of full Objective and Subjective Necessity Test Conclusions renders the Guilt Finding Inadequate.
[B] Possible Inacuraccy of Mr. Breivik’s inspiration being the ‘far right’
[C] White Guilt Liberal Bigotry to Muslims Implying they are incapable of hearing criticism: challenging alleged ‘negative attitudes’.
Text of Email Complaint filed at PCC Complaint Form:
Halton House
20/23 Holborn
London EC1N 2JD
Email: [email protected]
ReaderEd: Chris Elliott
The Guardian
Kings Place, 90 York Way
London N1 9GU
Chris Elliott ([email protected])
Dear PCC,
Complaint against The Guardian: Sindre Bangstad: Article: After Anders Breivik's conviction, Norway must confront Islamophobia.
This complaint refers to a violation of Editors Code. 1. Accuracy, and relates to the following statements made by Mr. Bangstad in his article: After Anders Breivik's conviction, Norway must confront Islamophobia[1]:
After Anders Breivik's conviction, Norway must confront Islamophobia
The far right can no longer deny Brevik was inspired by their ideals. Negative attitudes towards Muslims must be challenged.
After a national trauma, the verdict presents us with the opportunity to finally face and confront the hatred in our midst with the honesty, seriousness and commitment it requires of us all.
[1] Inacuraccy of Mr. Breivik’s ‘conviction’: Conviction has been appealed by means of review.
On 27 August 2012 an application was filed with the Norwegian Supreme Court for Review of the Oslo District Court: Breivik Judgement, to set aside (A) the Necessity ruling, and (B) the conviction; to conclude Objective and Subjective Necessity Test Evidentiary Enquiry. The finding of guilt, in the absence of full Objective and Subjective Necessity Test Conclusions renders the Guilt Finding Inadequate.
Specically the Application requests the following orders:
[A.1] Set Aside the Judgements ‘Necessity (Nødrett) Ruling’
[A.2] Set Aside Defendant’s Conviction (Finding of Guilt) and Remit to Oslo District Court for hearing of Further Evidence to conclude Objective and Subjective Necessity Test Evidentiary Enquiry.
[A.3] If Defendant refuses to cooperate with Further Evidence proceedings; an order to change his plea to ‘guilty’; and/or ‘Non-Precedent’ Setting Declaratory Order
[A.4] If Failure of Justice Irregularity Does not Influence Conviction and/or Sentence Verdict; a ‘Non-Precedent Setting’ Declaratory Order
[B] Set Aside the Judgements Failure to disclose the pending Judicial Ethics violation complaint against Rettens Leder: Wenche Elizabeth Arntzen, filed on 06 June 2012 to the Secretariat for the Supervisory Committee for Judges[2], as a violation of Aarhus Convention Article 3.(3)(4)(5)[5] principles, and general ECHR public accountability Transparency (Lithgow & others v United Kingdom)[6] principles
[B] Possible Inacuraccy of Mr. Breivik’s inspiration being the ‘far right’
Mr. Breivik’s decision to refuse to appeal his conviction, particularly in light of the gross irregularities that occurred during his trial, by the Prosecution avoiding an enquiry of his evidence by means of the required objective and subjective test that is required in cases of an accused pleading to necessity; indicate a possibility that the obvious motivation may not be his true motivation.
Mr. Breivik appears to be the only political activist in the history of civil disobedience activism who has plead to necessity, who appears to have no interest in demanding that his evidence be examined in accordance to the required objective and subjective tests; and who refuses to appeal the denial of the prosecution to conduct these tests.
If Mr. Breivik sincerely believed that his 22 July terrorism actions were motivated by necessity, then such sincerity would wish to have his evidence examined in accordance to the rules of evidence, to determine the quality and quantity of its authenticity or lack thereof.
White Nationalism’s Pied Piper: He’s worse than Insane; he’s a fraud?
Excerpt from Radical Honoursty Letter to Mr. Breivik[3]:
Request Clarification: What were your instructions to your attorney’s regarding ‘Guilt/Innocence: Necessity’
Mr. Lippestad stated in court proceedings that your claim of innocence and necessity was purely a formality: i.e. my interpretation: you did not subjectively believe your claims of necessity; its all just propaganda bullshit.
Your testimony, on the other hand, repeatedly focussed on your claim of necessity as the source for your innocence.
So, I am confused: If you sincerely believe your claims of innocence and necessity:
At the very least: Why have you not instructed Mr. Lippestad to retract his statements that contradict yours?
If he refuses: Why have you not publicly stated your lawyers refusal to follow your instructions and placed the dispute transparently before the court, as a matter of court record?
Or, is Lippestad telling the truth; and you really don’t subjectively believe in your necessity claim towards innocence, you are simply engaging in a bullshit the public relations propaganda [campaign]?
[C] White Guilt Liberal Bigotry to Muslims Implying they are incapable of hearing criticism: challenging alleged ‘negative attitudes’.
To challenge a ‘negative attitude’ that is sincerely believed, but founded on inaccurate information, and to enable the holder of the negative attitude to change their opinion, thanks to being converted by more accurate information is to be applauded, irrespective of whether the ‘negative information’ is about corrupt left or right wing politicians, left or right wing journalists, left or right wing muslims, conservatives, liberals, Africans, Europeans, feminists, etc.
To challenge a ‘negative attidude’ that is allegedly ‘negative’, but based upon accurate information, and to demand the holder of such ‘negative attitudes’ change their attitudes to your ‘positive attitude’ that is founded on inacurative information, is to endorse brainwashing and political conformity to propaganda political correct horseshit.
In the absence of a fully impartial investigation by conducting an objective and subjective test of Breivik’s evidence, it is not possible to determine whether his evidence is founded on inaccurate bullshit, or accurate experiences.
Nobody – least of all Muslims - benefit from being bullshitted that they do not need to improve some of their behaviours, if or when such anti-social behaviour is proven by accurate facts. Only white guilt liberals, who think that Muslims or Africans are some inferior retarded species, that need to be denied the opportunity to better themselves by means of constructive criticism feedback, so that they can forever remain retarded dependents of white guilt liberals, have such self righteous bigotry towards Africans and Muslims, while projecting that bigotry on individuals who do think that Muslims or Africans are quite capable of hearing honest criticism and share such criticism as a concerned individual, with the best of intentions for helping another person learn and grow.
A copy of the application is attached.
Relief Requested:
I accordingly request the Guardian to be ordered to:
(A) Correct the error implying that Mr. Breivik’s conviction has not been contested.
(B) Clarify the Guardian, or Mr. Bangstad’s perspective as to whether he is stating Mr. Breivik’s ‘far right inspiration’ as a fact; or as an opinion.
(C) Clarify the Guardian, or Mr. Bangstad’s perspective as to whether he considers Muslims to be inferior and retarded and incapable of honest constructive criticism? Does Mr. Bangstand/The Guardian consider honest constructive criticism to enable another person to grow and learn to be ‘hate’? Or what exactly is their definition of ‘hate’ / ‘negative attitudes’?
Respectfully Submitted
Lara Johnstone
Radical Honoursty EcoFeminist
http://ecofeminist-v-breivik.weebly.com
Habeus Mentem: Right 2 Legal Sanity
http://www.facebook.com/Habeus.Mentem
[Full PDF Complaint]