A public service announcement to the Norwegians: Glorifying crime is legal

How hard can it be to comprehend the distinction between incitement and threats? Evidently, most journalists are too dense to grasp that incitement does not equal threats, even if you explain it to them repeatedly. While media coverage of a subject you are intimately familiar with is often amusingly inaccurate, this takes misinformation so far that it just boggles my mind. These are examples from the most recent spate of media coverage of my case:

http://www.tv2.no/nyheter/innenriks/trusler-paa-nett-blir-ulovlig-3947185.html
http://www.vg.no/nyheter/innenriks/norsk-politikk/artikkel.php?artid=10071887
http://www.tv2.no/nyheter/innenriks/mottar-ofte-trusler-paa-nett-loven-er-en-revolusjon-3947189.html

They report that the government now wants to make threats on the Internet illegal -- as if this is legal now, which of course is bullshit and can get you into a lot of trouble if you take it seriously. The word they should have used is incitement ("oppvigling" in Norwegian), but this does not appear to be included in their vocabulary; it is all just "threats" to them. Since the news outlets do such a lousy job, I am going take it upon myself to clarify some legal matters surrounding incitement, threats, and glorification.

Firstly, despite what you read in the newspapers, threats have nothing to do with my case. I was never accused of making threats, nor does the proposed legal reform consist of criminalizing threats. Threats on the Internet have in fact been illegal since before the Internet existed, as the law against threats makes no reference to the medium:

§ 227. Med Bøder eller med Fængsel indtil 3 Aar straffes den, som i Ord eller Handling truer med et strafbart Foretagende, der kan medføre høiere Straf end 1 Aars Hefte eller 6 Maaneders Fængsel, under saadanne Omstændigheder, at Truselen er skikket til at fremkalde alvorlig Frygt, eller som medvirker til saadan Trusel. Under særdeles skjerpende omstendigheter, jf. § 232 tredje punktum, kan fengsel inntil 6 år idømmes.

If I had been threatening murder like the newspapers keep reporting, you can be sure that the cops would not have passed up the opportunity to charge me for making threats and would have used §227 instead of §140.

I was just charged with incitement, for expressing my opinion that killing cops is a morally legitimate course of activism for MRAs. This might fit the legal definition of incitement, except the law specifies that incitement must occur in public, and "public" happens to be defined in such a way as to exclude the Internet. I was also somewhat baffled that they didn't try §147c or perhaps §135, though these too would have fallen through on the same technicality (§135 is null and void for additional reasons I will explain below and slated to disappear entirely in favor or freedom of speech). Anyway, I was charged by §140 only, which reads as follows:

§ 140. Den, som offentlig opfordrer eller tilskynder til Iværksettelsen af en strafbar Handling eller forherliger en saadan eller tilbyder at udføre eller bistaa ved Udførelsen af en saadan, eller som medvirker til Opfordringen, Tilskyndelsen, Forherligelsen eller Tilbudet, straffes med Bøder eller med Hefte eller Fængsel indtil 8 Aar, dog i intet Tilfælde med høiere Frihedsstraf end to Tredjedele af den høieste for Handlingen selv anvendelige. Lige med strafbare Handlinger regnes her Handlinger, til hvis Foretagelse det er strafbart at forlede eller tilskynde.

This basically states that whosoever publicly exhorts or incites to the implementation of a punishable act or glorifies such or offers to carry out or aid the execution of such, or who aids and abets the exhortation, implementation, glorification, or offer, can be punished by up to eight years in prison.

I was also charged with the "glorifying" a crime part, the most flagrant example of which cited from my blog being this post. However, as my lawyer has cogently explained to me, glorifying crime is legal and, crucially, it will remain legal after the new law is passed, and even after next time the Penal Code is revised entirely. The take-home message I want to convey in this post is that we are free to exult in and publicly celebrate successful violence against our oppressors.

If you consult the law, it will as quoted above still tell you that glorifying crime is illegal. Even the hearing note published by the government promulgates the myth that the proposed law temporarily expands the scope of §140 and other laws beyond what is allowed by the new penal code of 2005 until that one replaces the current Penal Code of 1902. Hell, even the Lawyer's Association is duped, though they at least half-heartedly oppose such illegal expansion. But this is wrong. The government cannot do it. Most people don't know this, and you certainly can't glean this information from reading the newspapers. I also can't guarantee that the police lawyers have got this straight yet, so there is a risk, if you glorify illegal acts publicly, that you might get arrested and charged, maybe even jailed for a while by the lower courts. But I am confident that you will be cleared in the end just as I was. So rest assured that we can legally express our joy when feminist enforcers are killed.

No punishment for glorifying crime is possible after due consideration of the law, and the reasoning goes like this: A new Penal Code is already worked out, which was already approved back in 2005. And the section of the new law equivalent to §140 does not cover glorification. The new incitement law simply reads like this:

§ 183. Oppfordring til en straffbar handling. Den som offentlig oppfordrer noen til å iverksette en straffbar handling, straffes med bot eller fengsel inntil 3 år.

There is a rule to the effect that when a new criminal law is passed, but not yet in effect, then to the extent that it counts to the citizens' favor, the new law will apply immediately in that regard. So anything in current law which is no longer criminalized in the coming law, is also not punishable today, and glorifying crime is one example of this. Conversely, if the new law constructs new crimes, then of course the state must wait for the law to take effect before prosecuting you, and nothing can become retroactively illegal, or else I could have been convicted under the Penal Code of 2005, which is already Internet-ready.

So why isn't the Penal Code of 2005 implemented yet, after seven years? Supposedly this is due to problems with legacy software in the government computer systems. It would cost billions to update the old systems and make them compatible with the new law, and so the law is postponed indefinitely. My guess is it won't be implemented until sometime in the 2020s. The delay is actually a good thing, since the new law is even more hateful than the old in some ways. The chapter on sex crimes is infuriating reading indeed, perfusing my soul with seething antifeminist hatred. The sex laws thoroughly criminalize every aspect of sexuality you can imagine, same as before, and then some. Negligent rape can now get you ten years, up from eight, while negligent manslaughter is still limited to six years. Most spectacularly: A legal fiction of "rape" is constructed for all sex with anyone under 14. This was formerly construed as "abuse," which is also dishonest and hateful, but now the feminist sex abuse industry escalates their malice to the point of forcing those under 14 to believe they have been "raped" when they have consensual sex. This is similar to the Anglo-American notion of "statutory rape" -- except Norwegians are not culturally prepared to grasp the difference, and so at least initially, news reports of "rape" will tend be taken literally until the unwashed hordes wise up to this legal mendacity. While this change is strictly linguistic and the sentencing remains the same, it represents escalated demonization of men by means of a deliberate lie, showing the true nature of the revolting feminist scumbags in our legislature. They know what they are doing and I requite them with an equal measure of hatred.

So despite some minor expansion of freedom of speech (which I understand legislators were forced into due to human rights obligations -- not because they are nice), we can be thankful that these loathsome feminists can't figure out how to put the entire Penal Code of 2005 into effect yet. In the meantime, politicians must resort to patching up the old laws temporarily whenever they want to introduce new crimes, and this is what is now happening as a direct result of my case. Because I got out of jail, legislators are scrambling to enact what I have previously referred to as Lex Berge to make sure it won't happen again. Rather than touch §140 though, as a stopgap measure they now want to change the legal definition of "public" as defined in §7 from

1. Ved offentligt Sted forstaaes i denne Lov ethvert for almindelig Færdsel bestemt eller almindelig befærdet Sted. 2. En Handling ansees forøvet offentlig, naar den er forøvet ved Udgivelse af trykt Skrift eller i Overvær af et større Antal Personer eller under saadanne Omstændigheder, at den let kunde iagttages fra et offentligt Sted og er iagttaget af nogen der eller i Nærheden værende. 

to

1. Med offentlig sted menes et sted bestemt for alminnelig ferdsel eller et sted der allmennheten ferdes. 2. En handling er offentlig når den er foretatt i nærvær av et større antall personer, eller når den lett kunne iakttas og er iakttatt fra et offentlig sted. Består handlingen i fremsettelse av et budskap, er den også offentlig når budskapet er fremsatt på en måte som gjør det egnet til å nå et større antall personer. 

This will do the trick of making the Internet "public," which will affect various laws referring to "public" speech acts (details here) including §140. The proposed change has now been commented on by various interest groups, and their statements are available here.

As usual, the process of changing the law offers insight into odious feminist lobbying. Sure enough, feminist hate groups like the NGO known as Save the Children seize the opportunity to push for not just criminalization of incitement on the Internet, but more hateful sex laws as well. These scumbags specifically want to include closed, password-protected Internet fora and communities in the definition of "public" so as to criminalize more men who get in touch with hookers in closed spaces under §202, which criminalizes public communications pertaining to prostitution. I hate their guts profoundly and wish all men would heed my advice never to give a penny to feminist hate groups such as Save the Children, Amnesty, etc. who masquerade as charitable organizations. Lobbying by the nauseating cunt rags in these organizations is in large measure how the feminist state was built. For example, Save the Children was also instrumental in lobbying for our grooming law (§ 201a. introduced in 2007), which is now one more tool in the feminist toolbox used to hurt men. And Amnesty keeps campaigning for further expansion of rape law. Also, let us not forget how the cops themselves relentlessly agitate for ever more escalation of sex laws so they can persecute more men, even though the issue at hand is freedom of speech. They are the scum of the earth.

I suppose I should mention that there are some exceptions to my guarantee that glorifying crime is legal. I promote hatred against feminism, which is an ideology, and there is indeed no valid statute against promoting hatred towards political ideologies or glorifying crime against feminist enforcers. However, if you promote hatred towards or glorify crime against some race or religion and so on, then this could be covered by the so-called "racism law," §135a. Unlike the incitement law, this one was already adapted to the Internet in 2005, so another falsehood the journalists need to stop blathering about is that hateful utterances online are now going to be criminalized as if they weren't already:

§ 135a. Den som forsettlig eller grovt uaktsomt offentlig setter frem en diskriminerende eller hatefull ytring, straffes med bøter eller fengsel inntil 3 år. Likt med en offentlig fremsatt ytring, jf. § 7 nr. 2, regnes en ytring når den er satt frem slik at den er egnet til å nå et større antall personer. Som ytring regnes også bruk av symboler. Medvirkning straffes på samme måte. Med diskriminerende eller hatefull ytring menes det å true eller forhåne noen, eller fremme hat, forfølgelse eller ringeakt overfor noen på grunn av deres a) hudfarge eller nasjonale eller etniske opprinnelse, b) religion eller livssyn, eller c) homofile legning, leveform eller orientering.

This law is hateful and contrary to free speech and I totally oppose it, but it does not apply to men's rights activism. At least not unless the MRAs also happen to be racists, xenophobes, homophobes, or religiously intolerant -- none of which applies to me or most MRAs I know.

So in conclusion, while incitement on the Internet may soon turn illegal in Norway, glorifying crime (except against the usual protected minorities) is and will remain legal for the foreseeable future.