Breivik denies consent for EcoFeminist's 'Breivik is Innocent till Found Guilty' Media Complaint
Andrea Muhrrteyn | Norway v. Breivik | 17 August 2012
On 31 July, a complaint was submitted to Press Complaints Commission against a Norway News in English, article wherein Editor, Ms. Nina Berglund wrote that 'Breivik's Guilt was Established Long Ago'.
According to Norwegian Press Complaints Commission procedures a request for consent was also submitted to Mr. Breivik, via his attorneys: Request for Consent to file Complaint against Nina Berglund, Editor: News & Views from Norway: Violation of 3.1, 3.2, 4.5 of Code of Ethics of the Norwegian Press in Article: Breivik Moved to New Prison (PDF)
The Complaint (PDF) requests an order from the PFU, that Ms. Berglund be required to: (A) Correct the error of her statement that “Breivik’s guilt has been established (long ago)”; and/or provide the source for her statement of alleged fact. (B) Confirm that Anders Breivik’s is entitled to due process, including the right to be considered ‘innocent until proven guilty’ in accordance to the rule of law; and that no court of law has yet found Anders Breivik Guilty of any crime, and; (C) Apologize to Mr. Anders Breivik for violating his right to the presumption of innocence, and; (D) Apologize to her readers, for encouraging them to participate in the process of trial by media to violate Mr. Breivik’s right to the presumption of innocence.
Subsequent correspondence with Lippestad attorneys confirmed that they had informed Breivik of the request for consent, on behalf of newspapers respecting his right to presumption of innocence, until a court of law has made a finding of guilt. Mr. Breivik has so far declined to respond by either providing or declining consent; the implication thereof being that he has chosen to deny consent.
Direct correspondence and requests for clarification were sent to both Mr. Breivik and his advocate: Mr. Geir Lippestad.
Mr. Lippestad was asked:
1. Why did Defence Counsel not demand Prosecutor Engh and Holden provide reasons for their refusal to address Breivik’s claim of necessity?
2. Is it common for Norwegian Prosecutors to refuse to provide the court with the Prosecutor’s Office assessment of an accused’s evidence for their claim of necessity?
3. In Norwegian Law upon which party does the Onus of Proof lie in a claim of necessity?
4. Is there some political correct conformity conspiracy between Defence Counsel and Prosecution to ignore Breivik’s claims of necessity?
5. Why did your Defence of Breivik state that the only issues before the court – as the media have been reporting and you said to the court – are the sane/safety issue?
6. How exactly can the only issue before the court be the ‘sane/safety’; since when is the ‘guilt/innocence’ issue irrelevant in a political criminal trial?
7. If Lippestad attorney’s are denying the court to be required to seriously examine the necessity evidence for Breivik’s guilt or innocence; upon what grounds and authority did Lippestad Attorney’s find Breivik to be guilty beyond reasonable doubt?
8. Or is it a matter of first ascertaining Breivik’s sanity; and then if, or when Breivik is finally deemed sane, does he then get a new trial with a focus on ‘guilty/innocence’ issue; to determine his innocence or guilt, based upon the evidence for and against his necessity defence?
9. If not, when exactly is Breivik entitled to an impartial trial where the issue before the court is Breivik’s ‘guilt/innocence’ and Prosecutors and Defence Counsel are required to seriously legally examine the evidence for and against his Necessity Defence?
Mr. Breivik was asked:
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?
See Annex F: Letter to Mr. Lippestad: Request for Clarification regarding Defence Counsel’s focus on ‘sane/safety’ issue, while seemingly ignoring the ‘innocence/guilt’ issue, thereby denying Breivik’s right to Impartial trial to enquire into the evidence for and against his Necessity Defence.
According to Mr. Tord Jordet:
"Yes you are right, he receives visits weekly, and he can call us as often as he wants. I have informed him by phone that you have written a formal complaint to the PFU, and I told him that I would send the letter to him. Therefore I will have to wait for him to read your letter before I can give you a reply.
In general I don`t believe he would engage himself in a case against the press at this time. He was prepared for character assassination, and have been aware that the press will be out to get him. His views of most journalists indicates that he does not expect them to write truthfully and unbiased. Therefore I do not believe him to be affected by this article, and I don`t expect that he wants to spend time and energy fighting this journalist in PFU. He is most likely to approve certain cases against the press, but I don't think he will want to intervene in any.
As you probably know he is planning to write several books, and I believe that it is more likely that he will share his views on the media in a book."
Mr. Jordet was informed that Mr. Breivik was not being asked to intervene in the matter, only to provide his consent, that he agreed with the principle that nobody should be accused by a journalist of having been 'found guilty' in a newspaper, without such a 'finding of guilt' made by an impartial court.
There has been no further response.
Proceeding without Breivik's Consent:
On 17 August a request was made to the PFU to proceed without Mr. Breivik's consent:
Irrespective of whether Mr. Breivik himself believes in his guilt, and is involved in a massive Bullshit the Public Relations Image Management Campaign; EVERY ACCUSED -- EVEN THOSE WHO PLEAD GUILTY, OR CONSIDER THEMSELVES GUILTY -- SHOULD ONLY BE REPORTED ON, AS 'GUILTY'; ONCE A COURT OF LAW HAS MADE A 'FINDING OF GUILT'.
So, whether Mr. Breivik consents to my complaint, or not; I request information as to the procedure to process this complaint, in the absence of Mr. Brievik's consent; either by
(A) presentation to the committee, that special circumstances of judicial ethics (factual legal findings of guilt, cannot be made by an accused, their lawyer, or any journalist, or editor; only an impartial court of law; and any reporter/editor who reports an accused to have been found guilty (irrespective if they pled guilty or not) is MISSTATING LEGAL FACTS) warrant that the complaint be treated without Breivik's consent; Or
(B) An appeal to the Press Association's Secretary General, on his own initiative to request the matter be processed, as it is -- I imagine -- a matter of great fundamental public interest, that journalists not go around accusing people of 'findings of guilt' without a proper court of law having made such a legal finding of guilt.
Processing of Breivik's Non-Consent Complaint to Be Discussed on 28 August
On 17 August, the PFU responded that:
The Norwegian Press Complaints Commission will on august 28th decide if your complaint can be handled by the commission without consent from mr. Beivik. We will also discuss with the ms. Berglund of Views and News if her website is within our competence (our area).
» » » » [Excerpts: PFU Complaint: News w Views]
No comments:
Post a Comment