Friday, November 20, 2015

My compensation case for wrongful political imprisonment goes to the court of appeal

I am special because I did not internalize the prevailing sexual taboos of my culture like my more impressionable peers. Instead, I grew up to be a men's rights activist, dedicating my life to the fight against oppressive sexual taboos and their associated laws. If there is one thing I am proud of which to my mind really makes me better than most people, it is my ability to see through the odious irrationality which forms the basis for most of our sexual legislation. I am truly one of the few blessed (or cursed...) with the gift of sight in the country of the blind. I see the man in the street as a simple-minded fool who will easily internalize ever more hateful and irrational laws against normal human sexuality, usually including a great number of his own desires and actions. My refractoriness to brainwashing with feminist sexual taboos means that I don't fit in, and proudly so. If you are of the mainstream persuasion, then I represent what you consider evil, and you represent evil as I understand it. This difference is profound and cannot be amicably reconciled, because this is the stuff that true hatred is made of, the kind that motivates lynch mobs and legislators on one hand and sex offenders and sex-positive activists on the other.

I am a stranger in a strange land who fundamentally does not accept the sexual morality of my culture, a natural-born rebel. I am so ardent and sensitive to this issue that I can't read the news without convulsing with hatred against the state for another persecution of victimless sexuality and fake victimhood, which happens daily (such as this recent example). If I were to express my opinions with complete honesty, I would obviously be in prison, so this blog is an expurgated version fit for publication. My original comments that landed me in jail in 2012 actually also struck the right balance between the hatred in my soul against the scumbags in law enforcement and the purely pragmatic need to remain within the law, which is why I was cleared of all criminal charges by the Supreme Court of Norway. I am assuredly not a nice guy from the point of view of society, and those judges would have loved to see me imprisoned, but the police had so flagrantly disregarded the law that it would have been a scandal to let the prosecution proceed.

I became a men's rights activist first and foremost because of the corruption of rape law (see my post entitled "My Antifeminist Journey" for how I was radicalized) -- because of the hatred instilled in me by all the feminist legal reforms to rape law in my lifetime -- closely followed by the hatred incited in my soul by odiously high age of consent laws and the legal fiction of statutory rape, the criminalization of child pornography with its absurd definitions, grooming laws, revenge porn laws, the feminist construct of "sexual harassment," the criminalization of men who pay for sex (and the sellers too in many countries), the recent abolition of the statute of limitations for sex crimes in Norway, the preposterous "trafficking" hysteria, the institution of needless taboos against sexual relations between people based on a multitude of roles and statuses such as doctors and patients and teachers and students or President and intern, and no enumeration of my antifeminist hatred is complete without mentioning the bizarre feminist idea that women should be held equally culpable for sex crimes: the female sex offender charade. This makes me a bona fide enemy of the state, and because of expressing my conviction that insurrection is the moral response for men, I was arrested in 2012. I am admittedly an ideologically violent activist, but it is legal in Norway to be an advocate of violent resistance as long as one does not publicly exhort a specific implementation of such acts, which I never do. Even communists don't get imprisoned here just for being ideologically revolutionary, and it would be a travesty to lower the bar on permitted speech just for me.

My mission is to convince men that the sex laws of our land are hateful and unfair and that the scumbags in law enforcement are our enemies (and not just the enemies of men -- cops and prosecutors increasingly use our insane sex laws to prey on women too, goaded on by feminists and manginas). I aim to incite maximum hostility against the feminist state of Norway (without breaking the law), against our legislators and their enforces. This hatred is mutual, of course, and I provoked a predictable reaction from the state. But the more the authorities fight me, the more they help promulgate my subversive propaganda in court documents, like this one. That is the ruling from the district court (Nordhordland tingrett) in my compensation case for wrongful incarceration as a political prisoner.

The district court ruling claims that what I wrote would be punishable if not for the technicality of publicness, the definition of which did not include blogging at the time. This is wrong and cannot be allowed to stand. I did not incite execution ("iverksettelse") of crimes; I merely argued in favor of them and expressed my unflinching moral support for the brave men who hurt the state, as well as glorifying them after the fact, which is also legal. Expressing hatred and activist-glorification against laws, legislators and enforcers is protected by freedom of speech as this right is defined in Norway, and that is all I am doing. All the points in my old post from one year ago describing my lawsuit back then are still valid. But I lost and was denied compensation because the court regards my actions as "worthy of punishment," as is also claimed in an obiter dictum from a previous Supreme Court ruling in my case (though it is debatable what exactly they meant there). It is the opinion of the district court that my statements would be punishable if they were defined as public at the time, which is false. That is my most important reason for appealing, next to getting money: I want to establish for all to see that my kind of rhetoric which was labeled as extremist and criminal all over the national news is perfectly legitimate.

I was imprisoned for 22 days while the cops made a failed attempt at prosecuting me for promulgating my heartfelt conviction that insurrection is an ethical, noble and tactically reasonable course of men's rights activism. What I did was legal, but every bit as malicious as accused and with the utmost premeditation. The true test of freedom of speech is whether it protects malevolent activists like me with unpopular agendas, and aside from the compensation issue and the hysterical scramble to change the law because of me, Norway passed in this case. But I am still not done litigating the compensation issue. I appealed the district court ruling, and now my compensation suit is going to the court of appeal (Gulating lagmannsrett) on December 4th, 2015. The goal of the upcoming trial, aside from getting more publicity for the Men's Rights Movement and to legitimize our vicious propaganda, is to force the Norwegian government to pay me compensation in the amount of NOK 37,100 for their bad-faith attempt to prosecute me for exercising my freedom of speech, which they are refusing to do unless compelled by the court. I stated my sincere and thoughtful opinion on the ethics of violent activism against feminist sex laws and their enforcers, without telling anybody to actually carry it out. It was part of a philosophical discussion rather than a call to action, which was and is perfectly legal. In terms of mens rea, I most assuredly had a guilty mind insofar as what I did was no accident and perfectly malicious. But crimes also require the actus reus, and that was absent, since no actual law was violated, as certified by the Supreme Court.

From the state's point of view, I am a dangerous man because I seek to use my influence in the Men's Movement to hurt the government -- influence which only grows the more they try to suppress me -- but I do so within the bounds of the law. My heart is full of seething hatred against the scumbags in law enforcement and I sincerely wish them the worst, but none of this is criminal. It is mere sentiment and opinion and at worst glorification of crimes, which despite being mentioned in the Norwegian Penal Code of 1902, has long since been decriminalized in the interest of freedom of speech. It was de facto legal already in 2012, and now, with the enactment of the revised Penal Code in 2015, the law has even been changed to make it explicit that glorifying crime is legal. The new version of § 140 (the statute I was accused under), which is now called § 183, does not have any reference to glorification because it has been legalized, and now simply says: "Den som offentlig oppfordrer noen til å iverksette en straffbar handling, straffes med bot eller fengsel inntil 3 år."

Gulating Court of Appeal, Bergen
I am very idealistic about my activism. I took a calculated risk of being nearly as offensive as one can be without being a criminal, a risk I deemed to be justified because I so strongly believe in the sex-positive cause, motivated by morality and idealism from the depths of my heart. It is important for me to emphasize that everything I wrote was carefully considered and represents my deepest convictions, my heart and soul. Our goal as MRAs is to find ways to rebel against society in revenge for the feminist sex laws and influence legislators to repeal them, not because I think they can be persuaded by reason but because our politicians might come to realize that men's rights activists are a greater cost to them than the perverse satisfaction of oppressing sexuality that they derive from these laws. The words I was arrested for still describe my agenda with perfect fidelity. But that agenda did not and does not go so far as to literally incite illegal violence as defined by the Penal Code. Protesting means hurting society, but it does not necessarily involve breaking the law. A labor strike or a blockade, for example, can do far more harm than killing the occasional cop, without the downside of landing us in prison, so that is the sort of campaigns we should be agitating for. I am a spiteful propagandist for men's rights, but not a criminal inciter, and thanks to freedom of speech our cause cannot be silenced. Now it is time to do my part to foster hatred against the feminist state and its scumbag enforcers in the Gulating Court of Appeal on December 4th. I am motivated by the hate of that which is evil and the love for that which is still good about humanity, though few have the moral integrity to recognize it and fewer dare articulate it like I do. Come watch me win compensation for being wrongfully prosecuted for my activism.

UPDATE 11/27/2015: For reasons beyond my control having to do with bureaucratic delay in securing funding for my lawyer, the trial has been postponed until sometime next year. I will announce the new date as soon as I know it.

UPDATE 12/4/2015: The trial has been rescheduled for February 29th, 2016. I will use the extra time to practice elocution, and I hope to see many of you in attendance.

UPDATE 02/25/2016: The trial has been postponed again for the same reason. New date to be determined.

The trial will finally take place on October 13th, 2016.

16 comments:

ScareCrow said...

Any help I can provide - just ask.

Keep in mind I live in the USA though (United Sodomites of Ass-rape)

Eivind Berge said...

Thanks, ScareCrow, I appreciate your support.

Caamib said...

Good luck.

I am interested in what you expect from a court of appeal in such a case, given that you initially failed. Do you know of any experiences with it?

Eivind Berge said...

It is actually very common to get a different verdict from the courts of appeal in Norway. It even happened in my own criminal case, where I was first jailed by the district court and then that decision was reversed by the court of appeal. Then the prosecution appealed to the Supreme Court, which upheld the appeal court's decision and declared that my blog couldn't possibly constitute criminal incitement because the Internet wasn't defined as public at the time.

The district courts are little more than an extension of the police. They usually do what the police tells them, with little independent thought and few controversial decisions. Also, in a civil case like my compensation case, the district court consists of only one judge, so if he is police-friendly, you have already lost. Trials in Norwegian district courts are little more than formalities to get out of the way before the real trial, which happens in the court of appeal. There you get a jury in serious criminal cases (for now, until feminists manage to abolish it), or in my civil case, at least three judges.

Dan said...

"I became a men's rights activist first and foremost because of the corruption of rape law (see my post entitled "My Antifeminist Journey" for how I was radicalized) -- because of the hatred instilled in me by all the feminist legal reforms to rape law in my lifetime -- closely followed by the hatred incited in my soul by odiously high age of consent laws and the legal fiction of statutory rape, the criminalization of child pornography with its absurd definitions, grooming laws, revenge porn laws, the feminist construct of "sexual harassment," the criminalization of men who pay for sex (and the sellers too in many countries), the recent abolition of the statute of limitations for sex crimes in Norway, the preposterous "trafficking" hysteria, the institution of needless taboos against sexual relations between people based on a multitude of roles and statuses such as doctors and patients and teachers and students or President and intern, and no enumeration of my antifeminist hatred is complete without mentioning the bizarre feminist idea that women should be held equally culpable for sex crimes: the female sex offender charade."

I agree with pretty much all of this. Just to clarify: what is your actual position on paedophiles and people who purchase real child porn? I'm not talking about hebephiles but actual paedophiles and boy-lovers who actively try to groom and have sex with children. Do they not deserve persecution?

Eivind Berge said...

I am not fighting for pedophiles' right to have sex with children. If age-of-consent laws were only concerned with criminalizing sex with prepubescent children, I would not feel compelled to incite rebellion against that, except I do have a problem with the level of hysteria which treats it like a fate worse than murder, the insane punishments (like the potential life sentence of preventative detention for physically harmless acts), and the dishonesty of pretending that children literally can't consent. The latter is actually a very recent corruption in my part of the world: the lie that sex with children under 14 is always "rape" even if they consent (§ 299 of the new Penal Code) was only enacted in Norwegian law in 2015! This is a factual, deliberate and hateful lie that I cannot tolerate. I can tolerate criminalizing sex with prepubescent children, but don't twist it into something it isn't.

I recognize that aside from violent pedophilia, most of the damage done to children results from society's condemnation rather than the acts themselves. Laws against consensual sex with children exist for the sake of parents rather than kids. That is fine -- I accept parents' rights to govern the sexuality of their prepubescent children, even though they inflict some harmful hysteria on them. It would be nice if the state could stay more out of it, but given that most parents want it to be a criminal matter, I say let them have laws protecting their kids from the pedophiles that they fear so much as long as they are reasonable. Oh, and by the way I still can't condone these laws applying to women under any circumstances, because pretending that female sexuality can be predatory and harmful is just taking it too far.

As to child pornography, I am fundamentally opposed to criminalizing simple possession and sharing of information. I could tolerate a ban on the *commercial* exploitation of child porn without feeling the urge to incite insurrection, but anything beyond that is a moral travesty. Once you allow the criminalization of mere private possession of ones and zeros, you empower the police state tremendously and open the door to the madness we are seeing today. I can't for the life of me understand why so many otherwise reasonable people are willing to tolerate the most heavy-handed police methods imaginable and give up all rights to privacy and free speech as we otherwise understand it as soon as the magic of "child porn" is invoked. Such is the power of sexual taboos to corrupt minds, I guess -- they are the ultimate tool of oppression.

And since you mentioned grooming, I must say I am categorically opposed to grooming laws because they incriminate people on the basis of imputed intentions rather than actual acts worthy of punishment.

Anonymous said...

You may want to look up and consider autistic malignant narcissism, the condition that apparently has shaped your psyche and worldview, and one that's endemic among MRA types. It may help increase your self-awareness just a bit; even though, by definition, that's nearly impossible. Still.

Eivind Berge said...

Nope, that diagnosis doesn't fit me at all. I am not at all autistic. I score low on narcissism and am highly aware of my limited skills and importance. I am certainly malignant towards my ideological enemies, but that is true for all politically aware people.

Anonymous said...

Eivind, kan man overhovedet tage forensiske psykologer og psykiatere seriøst?
Jeg tænker især på Breivik, som blev erklæret mental syg (og vistnok narcissist) i første omgang, men denne beslutning forargede befolkningen, fordi det ville medføre at han kunne slippe for fængselsstraf. Derfor blev der foretaget en ny mentalundersøgelse kort tid efter den første, og voilà! Denne gang blev Breivik fundet sund og rask og dermed egnet til straf.
For mig at se lyder det mere som en farce end videnskab.

Eivind Berge said...

Ja, rettspsykiatrien er en farse, og Breivik-saken gjorde heldigvis at den ble avslørt som sådan i full offentlighet. Det er verre enn en farse fordi de idiotene har makt til å ødelegge liv og frata oss tilregnelighet etter eget forgodtbefinnende.

Jeg er en sterk forkjemper for en absolutt rett til tilregnelighet, og at ingen skal tvangsbehandles under noen omstendigheter. Hvis personen hevder seg tilregnelig, så skal han dømmes som tilregnelig, samme hva rettspsykiaterne mener. Så får vi heller høre på dem hvis personen selv mener han er syk, men også da må vi ta dem med en stor klype salt.

Anonymous said...

http://www.vg.no/nyheter/innenriks/venstre/politiker-helge-solum-larsen-er-doed/a/23582996/

Eivind Berge said...

Hva slags "akutt sykdom" var det han døde av?

Anonymous said...

Den sykdommen kalles bygdedyret.

Anonymous said...

Are you still pro-rape? Because if so, you deserve to be buried under the jail like the pile of depraved shit you are!

Eivind Berge said...

I was never "pro-rape" -- my argument is a bit more nuanced than that. I am primarily concerned with fighting feminist corruption of rape law, and other morally repugnant sex laws. A sex law is morally repugnant when it creates fake victims and/or is meant to punish activities that are not worthy of punishment according to my more enlightened sense of morality. I never claimed real rape wasn't worthy of punishment, but you have to define it reasonably.

Caamib said...

"You may want to look up and consider autistic malignant narcissism, the condition that apparently has shaped your psyche and worldview, and one that's endemic among MRA types. It may help increase your self-awareness just a bit; even though, by definition, that's nearly impossible. Still."

"You may want to look up and consider solipsistic cancerous cretenism, the condition that apparently has shaped your psyche and worldview, and one that's endemic among liberal types. It may help increase your self-awareness just a bit; even though, by definition, that's nearly impossible. Still."