Transcripts‎ > ‎

Anders Behring Breivik Court Transcript 2012-06-05 Live Report

Tuesday 5 June 2012


9:00 The court is sitting in the courtroom 250

9:01 There are five witnesses to the witness stand today.

9:02 The first witness is Ole Jørgen Anfindsen. He is a researcher at the Norwegian Veritas.
9:02 Anfindsen's science and informatics, author and social commentator in part on the theme of immigration, race and intelligence. He is best known as editor of the site HonestThinking.

9:03 All the witnesses today, 31 of the trial is conducted by Breivik's defenders.

9:03 Lippestad ask Andfindsen to share their experience and knowledge.

9:04 Andfindsen: - I have written a book called Suicide paradigm. It was written with support from the Freedom of Expression.

9:04 Anfindsen emphasizes that today he appear in court as a private person and not an employee of the Norwegian Veritas.

9:05 Anfindsen: - I am an editor for the website Honest thinking. Discussion The place I started with my brother. For more than 20 years I have been an active social commentator.

9:06 Anfindsen: - I am also a researcher and has worked at home and abroad.

9:08 Anfindsen: - I have made a presentation I will show here today. I will show that Breivik's perception of reality, and argue these are not necessarily signs of psychosis or bursting reality sense.

9:08 Judge Arntzen ask more about Anfindsen mandate.

9:09 Anfindsen says that he will talk about the demographic development in Norway.

9:10 Anfindsen goes further and says that he does not have depth knowledge of Breivik's compendium. He has a general knowledge of this.

9:10 Anfindsen: - I am not here today to defend Breivik or his ideology.

9:11 Anfindsen: - My task is to point out facts that indicate that Breivik in areas not alone.

9:12 Anfindsen says he, despite being pressured to not to testify, he still chooses to set up.

9:13 Anfindsen deals with the word demographics occurring a dozen times throughout the compendium.

9:14 Anfindsen refers to a 30-page memo he wrote about SSB in 2007.

9:15 Anfindsen: - No one can say with certainty how demographic trends will be in the future.

9:16 Anfindsen: - However, it is possible to describe the most relevant parts of the demographic outcomes, and any comment on the likelihood of the different possibilities.

9:17 Anfindsen: - The term outcomes can be explained as the different possibilities that may occur, in other words, the set of possible outcomes of the phenomenon under study.

9:18 Anfindsen explains how SSB calculates the demographic development.

9:18 He explains that he is up to 2005 was much more critical to SSB's methods than how they have worked in recent years.

9:20 Anfindsen: - I have been very critical of the SSB in the small part has been shown and described the outcome, and instead selected only a small part. I have pointed out that if they do not enter that immigration may be higher than expected, they will not be able to predict how it will be.

9:22 Anfindsen - I reiterate that my criticism of SSB has been reduced after 2007. I do not see it anymore as equally necessary to take the time to criticize SSB after they took a showdown with what I believe was a lack of culture in the agency.

9:22 (SSB = Statistics Norway)

9:23 Anfindsen: - The SSB's responsibility to ensure that the community at all times have adequate descriptions of the demographic outcome. - Including estimates of how many immigrants (including descendants) who come to the country.

9:24 Anfindsen said that it was in 1991, Statistics Norway for the first time developed projections up to 2050, a period of 59 years.

9:25 Anfindsen: - A crucial assumption for the projections from 1991 is that net immigration on average would be a maximum of 12,000 per year for the entire projection period.

9:26 Anfindsen: - I have the claim that there is an average figure presented. They then calculated how they thought immigration would look like.

9:28 Anfindsen: - In 2002 I decided to put me further into this, for there was something not quite right. I bought so copies of these research reports from Statistics Norway in 1991. It was very interesting was the report No. 10

9:30 Anfindsen: - Despite the fact that anyone with a minimum of scientific training will years later be able to see that the current forecasts were worthless, it was until 2005 used to argurmentere that "immigration will certainly not exceed" one or the second level.

9:30 Anfindsen: - Those who expressed concern were brusquely swept aside and told that there was no reason for concern and that the problem occurs.

9:31 Anfindsen: - This was done by various politicians and other community stops. This shows sloppiness and incompetence.

9:31 Anfindsen: - A white politician might not have time to read SSB researchers' reports thoroughly.

9:32 Anfindsen: - The tone was that everyone else a SSB demographers did not know better.

9:33 Anfindsen: - In particular, two of the leading researchers in the SSB headed this.

9:33 Anfindsen - This was a scandal, I would say.

9:34 Anfindsen shows statistics on immigration.

9:34 Anfindsen: - This is taken from a right-wing blog, but from the publication of statistics pages.

9:35 Anfindsen: - The current level of immigration is today the triple of what was SSB's estimate. They have missed with what today seems to be slow remorse.

9:35 Anfindsen: - Reviews min is about them then, failing to consider that immigration could be higher than what they took into account. SSB did not discuss it at the time, which they should have done.

9:36 Anfindsen: - I must add. None of us know what happens the next few years until 2050. It's entirely possible that the prognosis of 1991 may turn out to vote when we get there. All this is possible. But my criticism is that they would not discuss what-if scenarios.

9:37 Anfindsen: - This was not the politicians know.

9:37 Anfindsen displays a quote from former Prime Minister Kaare Willoch which he gave to Dagbladet in 2007.

9:40 Anfindsen sites: "We tried to limit immigration, but it was not easy. Major conflicts have led to major refugee flows and we have not wanted to break our international obligations says Willoch, which says that the number of immigrants in Norway today is as expected . VI was submitted to such scenarios (in 1988) - so we knew where it would end, the former Norwegian prime minister.

9:40 Anfindsen: - Therefore, I believe that Willoch in 1988 had info on this.

9:42 Anfindsen: - At the same time, we see that the SSB up to 2005 fought tooth and nail to the acknowledgment Willoch claims to have had since the 1980s. Either Willoch's claim is unreliable / inaccurate, or so we are facing some form of corruption.

9:43 Anfindsen: - I have met Willoch in connection with research for my book, and I do not remember Willoch wrong about the info he got in the 80s. Rarely have I seen such a talented retiree.

9:43 Anfindsen: - If it is then true that the SSB has toned down forecasts for immigration statistics, it's wrong. How can we not have it.

9:46 Anfindsen quoting the scientist who wrote the report in 1991. The researcher said that they had no guarantee that their forecasts were successful. The researcher also wrote that they assumed that immigration in the future would be controlled by the government. "Many factors, including the rules on family reunification, would make it difficult to implement (such management"

9:47 Anfindsen believe that the researcher then had to write a report, he felt that he could not vouch for.

9:47 Anfindsen - I was touched. It went on me that a scientist could make such modification. I tried to get hold of this researcher, but he had passed away.

9:49 Anfindsen: - I wanted to hear him why he put in such major modification of the forecasts in 1991. I was never asked him about it. But I talked with her son (in 2003 approx.). He said that in SSB had the time a work ethic that one should not stigmatize immigration. This father had told. He said that his father told him that they were very careful not to stigmatize groups of immigrants.

9:50 Anfindsen: - In addition, it was, as far as I know, never implemented policies aimed at fulfilling the conditions of the SSB reports of moderate net immigration.

9:51 Anfindsen: - Key people who were involved back then are still alive, and this one should find out. It's a sore spot for the Norwegian society.

9:52 Anfindsen quoting an interview from class struggle with a person he did not want to mention the name of.

9:53 Anfindsen says he has had numerous feature articles published in national newspapers, where he began to focus on demographic trends in terms of immigrants.

9:54 Anfindsen said that he was not alone in this criticism is correct. Refers to a comment written by VG Hanne Skartveit.

9:56 Anfindsen citing a SSB researcher from an interview in the class struggle in 2003 where he claimed that in 2033 will be no difference between immigrants and Norwegians, that there is an assimilation.

9:57 Anfindsen: - The researcher believed that it was not relevant to determine the "immigrant population" would be in 2033.

9:57 Anfindsen dishes harsh criticism of this researcher's statements.

9:58 Anfindsen: - You do not suffer from the delusion to claim that SSB has under communicated the ongoing demographic trends.

9:59 Anfindsen: - You do not suffer from delusions of claiming that certain SSB researchers have used SSB reports to silence critics of immigration.

9:59 Anfindsen: - You do not suffer from delusions of claiming that the media, politiere, and others, have shown a lack of interest in addressing these problems.

10:00 Anfindsen: - This is serious, not least because it undermines confidence in the government and media, and thus ultimately confidence in democracy.

10:02 Anfindsen shows that he believes it is written many good comments on this topic and Human Rights Service (HRS), which is a debate forum on the web.

10:03 Anfindsen: - I can not vouch for all who enter there, but two of them is a renowned mathematician and a scientist with a background.

10:05 Anfindsen refers to Breivik compendium.

10:07 Anfindsen cites a quotation from a Swedish anti-racist, Thomas Hubinette, 1996. The Swede said the quote that says, "let the white race perish."

10:09 Anfindsen refers to several anti-racists as he calls self-denying white.

10:09 Anfindsen cites a quote from penned by Lars Gule, who testified in the trial before the weekend.

10:10 Anfindsen addresses the world Cultural Marxism, a word that recurs several times in Breivik's compendium.

10:11 Anfindsen: - Cultural Marxism used as a collective term for considering trends that emerge from the so-called Farnkfurt school. They use Marx's ideology in a different way than Marx himself did.

10:12 Anfindsen are asked by the judge to cut his presentation and go quickly through it he will tell.

10:13 Anfindsen: - Culture Report Marx, the Marxists are always keen to take the oppressed or underprivileged perspective. Palestinians and Afghans are oppressed, but the Norwegians and Swedes, however, are rich and can not fight for the same right to existence.

10:14 Anfindsen quotes Shelby Steele, an American who has said, if you say you are white and proud of it, you're a Nazi.

10:16 Lippestad ask Anfindsen whether these views are visible in the blogs. Anfindsen answered that he did not participate in discussions on these blogs. - I do not want to sit in an echo chamber, said Anfindsen.

10:18 Judge Arntzen: - We want to hear what is relevant to the case we are dealing with here on why Breivik thinks like he does. We are not interested in hearing about your views on this question.

10:18 Anfindsen: - There have been a number of statements from many who say that the West is in a fate hour. It is not just something that comes from right-wing echo chambers or such things. This is not taken out of thin air.

10:19 Anfindsen: - Breivik's examples are not necessarily delusions.

10:20 Anfindsen refers to White Papers from the 1970s which he believes shows a radicalization of the Labour Party's policy, in line with the international labor movement's agenda.

10:22 Anfindsen refers to a statement from a Swiss psychiatrist who has just spoken out about Breivik is sane or not.

10:23 Lippestad intervenes and says that Anfindsen may not address this.

10:24 Judge Arntzen seems interested and asks if this is relevant.

10:24 Lippestad says they should just move on ... since there are other expert psychiatrists to comment on this.

10:25 Prosecutors Holden interrupts and says: - It may be too late because the quote is already out here on the slide slow Anfindsen.

10:25 Anfindsen: - The factors I have cited in my testimony, is just the tip of the iceberg.

10:26 Anfindsen: - I believe this is part of the explanation, not the whole, that it created fertile ground for right-wing radicalism.

10:28 Anfindsen: - In the areas where I feel I have the competence to express myself, I can not see that Breivik is suffering from psychosis or delusions. He has no confidence in the system and this may be why he has become radicalized. Breivik has been enticed by the purity of thinking. He wants a culturally and ethnically pure religious Europe.

10:28 Anfindsen: - I think Breivik's view of Islam on Muslims seem to be disastrously oversimplified.

10:29 Anfindsen: - Breivik has lost faith in democracy. Partly because he is disillusioned and disappointed.

10:36 The court has now paused.

10:36 After the break, the players in the right opportunity to ask questions Anfindsen.

10:46 The negotiations continue.

10:47 Lippestad should ask questions to Ole Jørgen Anfindsen.

10:47 Lippestad: - You said that this immigration is a big deal in what you call the echo chambers. What is the echo chambers?

10:48 Ole Jørgen Anfindsen: - With that thought to social media or online forums where you meet like-minded users to encourage each other and reinforce each other's views and not encouraged to discuss each other's sight. It can be a hotbed of mistrust.

10:49 Ole Jørgen Anfindsen: - I hate echo chambers and the quality of what is written is very doubtful, therefore I have not spent any time debating with them. I always write the full name.

10:51 Anfindsen - I mean, that if my antennas are correctly set, after having visited such as Gates and Vienna and, so you can sometimes see a red-hot hatred of mainstrem media, as it is spoken about. I think this is disturbing. There are legitimate reasons to question the Western society, and Norway. But I believe that these sites creates a basis for the rage that builts up. I think that there are many out there on the edge who are angry with society, but do not want to commit violence. Precisely because they believe that the half-truths from the authorities.

10:52 Prosecutors Holden is now the word.

10:52 Holden wants Ole Jørgen Anfindsen to show what the place was taken away by Lippestad.

10:54 It is excerpts from an interview with a Swiss psychiatrist directly. Here it is claimed in the interview that the Swiss psychiatrist spoke with either Sørheim or Husby who said Breivik as a schizophrenic could be locked up for life.

10:54 Holden told Anfindsen that this is strong claims.

10:54 Ole Jørgen Anfindsen says that what appears in this interview is remarkable.

10:54 Holden: - What have you done to investigate the truth in this?

10:55 Ole Jørgen Anfindsen: - I have had thorough discussions with my source in Switzerland as the hart heard the sound recording that was made by Vetter. My contact has listened through this and say there may be no other conclusion here than that Vetter believes what is said.

10:56 Anfindsen says this is sensational HVO Sørheim or Husby said this to the Swiss psychiatrist who told this to students who wrote an essay about Breivik at a secondary school in Switzerland.

10:57 Holden: - Have you done some research to determine whether Vetter spoke with one of Sørheim or Husby?

10:57 Anfindsen: - I have not done. But I must assume that what he says is correct, but he could have been mistaken.

10:58 Anfindsen says he can not know if this is true, but believes that this is something you should check more closely.

10:58 Anfindsen: - I see myself as a journalist who brings to the table what I have been told.

10:58 Holden: - You have not spoken to any of them?

10:58 Anfindsen: - I have not done.

11:00 Anfindsen are done in the witness box.

11:01 Now, the former leader of the Norwegian Defence League, Ron Alte, who will testify.

11:02 Defender Vibeke Hein Bæra starting to ask questions of Alte. She wants to know how Alte is like to be leader of the NDL, and to have a view that differs from what is usual in Norway today.

11:03 Alte: - NDL is a group that wants to focus on what goes on in secret around the mosques in Norway today. It's a grassroots movement that wants to provide training for what it is.

11:03 Alte: - The relationship between the English Defence League and NDL is pretty close. EDL is a European coordinator for the different groups in Europe.

11:04 Alte - I was the leader of the NDL for a year. I ended the leadership because there were disagreements about how we should set ourselves to action 22 July. I could not vouch for these actions and chose to pull out.

11:05 Alte: - NDL is not against immigration in general, but what we believe is an Islamization.

11:05 Alte: - It is common that the members meet in social ways, takes a pizza and a beer.

11:06 Alte: - We express our opinions. When we meet resistance from many quarters, to say the least. We meet resistance from both the Blitz and SOS Racism.

11:07 Bæra: - How was it for you before 22 July?

11:07 Alte: - Before it was almost impossible for us to come up with our opinions.

11:08 Alte: - An example is when we were in Aarhus. Left-oriented met us and attack us. The headings in Norway was that the eight were arrested on the marquee. None of those arrested were from us. All from the left side.

11:09 Alte also talks about when he had to attend a demonstration in England when he was prevented by the British police so that he could not reach the demonstration.

11:10 Alte: - When Bhatti had mark here in Oslo, we were stopped by police around the corner so we would not get us anything. This despite the fact that we had a dialogue with police.

11:10 Bæra asks how it is for Alte to be part of this environment.

11:11 Alte - I often threatened and hung out on the web. I am portrayed as an abuser, even though I'm the opposite. I do not go out at night alone now, without a bulletproof vest.

11:12 Alte - I have not experienced violence, but I know that the police have put in huge resources to prevent this.

11:12 Mette Yvonne Larsen, counsel, ask the court what relevance this has for the cause.

11:12 Bæra say that this has a clear relevance.

11:13 Alte goes on and talks about when he was in Aarhus, Denmark. He says that the boat was a plainclothes police officers to look after them from blitzere who planned to take the Alte and others.

11:14 Alte: - My experience is in line with the fact that it's hard not to be politically correct in Norway. Freedom of expression in Norway applies only to the individual.

11:14 Alte shows that several of the statements in court, not being broadcast.

11:15 Alte - I know there are many out there who share Breivik's views and actions.

11:15 Lippestad now takes the word.

11:16 Lippestad: - Can you say something about the argument of those who say you should not take the distance of Breivik's actions.

11:16 Alte - I said that if my name and NDL was put into context with actions 22 July, it would be difficult. So I pulled myself out.

11:17 Lippestad: - Did anyone else that one should not renounce to 22 July?

11:17 Alte: - No, you should just not say anything, nor take away.

11:17 Lippestad: - Which grounds, those who wanted this?

11:18 Alte: - They believed that the media would twist what we said. They were worried about how it would appear in the media.

11:18 Prosecutors Holden wants to hear more about the view of Breivik's actions in the Altes environment.

11:18 Alte: - The vast majority is opposed to the actions. However, some support the manifesto, some supporting the bomb in its ministries, while others support the action.

11:18 Holden: - Who are these?

11:19 Alte - I do not know much about it. I reject them, but there are blog posts about this out there.

11:19 Holden: - How is it expressed?

11:19 Alte: - It is expressed through declarations of support for actions.

11:19 Holden: - What percentage support Breivik's actions?

11:20 Alte: - It is very very small part, but I will be careful to say. But perhaps a hundred that I know of.

11:20 Holden: - Is it Norwegian or?

11:20 Alte: - When we talk in the world, but they are also in Norway.

11:21 Prosecutors Engh questions about why Alte pulled out and not support Breivik's attitudes.

11:22 Alte - I want to solve this without violence. I call myself an Islam critic. Proportion to support Breivik is really negligible.

11:22 Engh: - When you talk about Norwegian, or English Defence League as well?

11:22 Alte: - In the EDL is 99.99 percent in the Breivik's actions.

11:23 Judge Lyng Alte ask if he knew Breivik prior to 22 July.

11:23 Alte said he had not heard of Breivik before the name appeared on 23 July.

11:24 Alte says he has heard of the Knights Templar before the follow-up questions from Lyng.

11:24 Heather: - What do they call themselves now?

11:24 Alte: - I will not say, since I do not know for sure. I'm sorry.

11:24 Alte is finished with his testimony.

11:25 The court takes a lunch break at 12.30.

12:29 The court set soon after lunch break.

12:30 Next witness the defense to lead is Arne Tumyr. He is the leader of the organization Stop the Islamization of Norway (Sian).

12:33 The court is set.

12:34 Tumyr says that he is retired but works as honorary chairman of Sian.

12:34 Tumyr gives assurance to the court.

12:34 Lippestad get the word.

12:34 Lippestad says that the purpose of bringing these witnesses today is to show that Breivik's perception of reality is also shared by others.

12:35 Lippestad say this after criticism from aid lawyers.

12:35 Lippestad ask what Sian is.

12:36 Tumyr: - Sian is an organization that works to stop the Islamization of Norway. We consider the Islamization as a threat to Norwegian values and the rule of law.

12:37 Tumyr: - We are a non-violent organization. People who are racists or Nazis could not achieve membership with us. It is only free speech and argumentation against Islam, which we see as an evil political ideology disguised as religion.

12:37 Tumyr: - We do not say how many members we have. It is given here in court that we have 400, but it's wrong. We do not give the number because then it will be used against us by the journalists.

12:38 Tumyr: - It is a common organization of annual meetings, we are registered with the CCR in the Company Register.

12:39 Tumyr: - We enjoy no benefit from either free speech or freedom of assembly to other organizations or associations. If we ask, for example, the House of Literature on to rent their premises, or for example, LO, so we do not get it. The same thing we hear from the Conservative Party's house. They will not be associated with Sian.

12:40 Tumyr: - Ask for example, we Byhallen in Kristiansand to hold a debate there. We asked the preset and bishops to set up the debate against us. But no one wanted.

12:41 Tumyr: - This happens even though we are a common organization. We are branded as racists. They fear reprisals for having contact with us.

12:41 Tumyr: - We also had an ad on TV 2 Market. It was also withdrawn because they could not have such an ad there.

12:42 Tumyr say they feel excluded from a statement in the press.

12:42 Tumyr: - Via our website we have a small valve to express ourselves, but we do not express an opinion as we want.

12:42 Lippestad: - What do you out on their Facebook page and their website?

12:44 Tumyr: - What we write about is about Islam, Islamization, we tell about the prophet and the story and how Islam is slowly but surely making itself felt throughout Europe. The threat this is for a western society. The picture gives the Norwegian press of Islam is not true.

12:44 Lippestad asks Sian views on the dangers of Islam.

12:45 Tumyr: - Just take a look at the same conditions found in Pakistan. The people there live under a regime of terror. We see how they are caught in an evil system and terrorist regime.

12:46 Tumyr: - Islamization as we experience it, we can mention in abundance, how it is slowly coming into the country. In Kristiansand we had a pediatric ward where there was a pig on the door that the children would find his department. But he had to remove because Piglet was an unclean animal.

12:47 Tumyr: - It is this fact that we see that Muslims require their own norms and rules of their own religion in the Norwegian society.

12:48 Tumyr keep talking about why he thinks Islam is harmful.

12:49 Tumyr: - We say that Islam should not have government funding.

12:50 Lippestad: - You take the distance from the violence. It's good. But Breivik obviously does not. But he believes that Islam will take over Norway. Do you believe that too?

12:50 Tumyr: - Yes, we look at the research that says that in the future will be in the majority Muslims in Norway.

12:51 Tumyr go out the same points as Anfindsen made earlier Monday with an article by Kare Willoch in 1986 that they knew how immigration would be.

12:52 Tumyr: - It seems that the politicians understand or want to change this policy. Future generations will blame us for not doing anything.

12:54 Tumyr: - If you go into the schools. Where presented, I would think that it is, that religion should be presented to the children in his character. So there is Islamic council that decides how Islam should be presented to the Norwegian school children. The history of forgery. I can take an example. The Prophet is depicted as an infallible person, but in reality he was a war criminal and pedophile. Then the Muslims outraged when we say this. When we violate their religion, Muslims say.

12:54 Lippestad: - So you think that if we do not put your foot down now, so get what consequences?

12:55 Tumyr: - Yes, we have seen many times. We are being attacked by Muslims when we are in the public domain.

12:55 Tumyr: - The politicians say it is not Islam that is the problem, but the Islamophobic.

12:56 Tumyr: - The Act is about to dismiss the people. We are faced with the fact that we do not get a word.

12:56 Lippestad: - Another thing Breivik has talked about is that Norway is on the brink of civil war with Islam. Is there something you want to comment about that?

12:57 Tumyr: - Yes, Islam is terrorism. The persecution of non-Muslims. We know that only since 9/11 2001, 16,000 Islamic terrorist acts carried out with 57,000 victims. They present themselves as a religion of peace, in reality it is a religion of war.

12:57 Lippestad: - Where do you from?

12:58 Tumyr: - We read the same books that professors at universities. I have the papers here that you can get.

12:58 Tumyr: - They are taken from the Islam-critical website called .... er .... a religion of peace states translated into Norwegian. This is information that can be controlled down to the bottom detail.

12:59 Lippestad: - How do you convey their message? Can you say something about how Sian is working to communicate this when it is not easy in the public domain?

13:00 Tumyr: - We go around with brochures. We get quite a lot of money sometimes from people who support us. We use a lot of brochures. We also use the money to upgrade our website. On the Facebook page, we have many who are discussing.

13:01 Tumyr: - It's so that our people throw into topics and questions. Also there are all interested and think something related to that topic. But unfortunately there are occasionally things that we are unhappy with and then we cut it out.

13:01 Lippestad: - But as long as it encouraged violence, as will it be?

13:01 Tumyr: - I have rarely seen any incitement to violence here.

13:02 Read the previous interview with Tumyr here.

13:03 Tumyr: - I am very unhappy that my testimony will not be broadcast. I feel a little trampled on the human dignity. I find myself not equal

13:04 Judge Artnzen: - I can comfort it that you're in good company.

13:04 Tumyr are done in the witness box.

13:06 Shortly after the trial began July wrote an article about Sian Facebook pages, where there was great support for Breivik's opinions. 

13:07 Vigrid leader Tore Tvedt has now taken the witness stand. Tvedt gives assurance to the court.

13:07 Lippestad speak up.

13:07 Tore Tvedt said that he is of no fixed abode and old-age pensioner.

13:08 Tvedt: - In 1990 I started Vigrid organization that stands for Norway to be a Nordic country. Since I have worked for this.

13:08 Lippestad: - Are you a classical organization?

13:09 Tvedt: - We have no member fee that way. We create unity through religious ceremonies. We also use the internet.

13:10 Lippestad: - Meet you, or you are a network organization?

13:10 Tvedt: - Yes, you can say. I've never been stay left in peace. Police have chased me, they have broken my doors. For this reason, we never had a headquarters. Eventually I got a private circle of friends. We do not discuss cases, we do not meet.

13:11 Tvedt: - I meet people mostly when we have ceremonies. I keep getting text messages from people I do not remember. They say, it was you who baptized me there and there. How we keep in touch.

13:11 Lippestad: - How is the contact on the internet?

13:12 Tvedt - I tried to create a facebook page for Vigrid once. It was stopped. The same thing happened when I tried to create a private profile.

13:12 Tvedt: - The Constitution does not exist. We are at war.

13:12 Lippestad: - Do you have flagged as an organization what you stand for, or do you want to stay under the radar?

13:13 Tvedt: - No, not at all. When I started Vigrid I had some basic rules. We have never used violence as a means. I am old man and martial arts have trained people there to defend us, but just for that.

13:16 Tvedt: - It is difficult to operate a business in which nordic word is important. We are called Nazis.

13:17 Lippestad: - What is your point of view when we talk about the notion that one is at war?

13:17 Tvedt: - The war we are in today, I believe is an extension of World War II.

13:18 Tvedt: - Norway participate in this war.

13:19 Lippestad: - I'll be a little cautious now, but you said you reject violence, but that self-defense if attacked is something else. Are we under attack now?

13:19 Tvedt wait a moment to answer ....

13:20 Tvedt: - For the people I fight for, as we are about to become extinct. Norway is a consensus of countries where politicians go together one way. Those who disagree should be removed.

13:20 Tvedt: - It is war. It is ethnic cleansing as part of the internationalist utopian agenda.

13:21 Lippestad: - Are there more than you believe this?

13:21 Tvedt: - We have a no-show, but when we talk about it, so I'm not alone in viewing it.

13:21 Lippestad: - Which sites do you keep on?

13:22 Tvedt - I included on the main website. I've never been to those of dissidents. I do not know anything other than what I've read where others share my views.

13:22 Lippestad have more specific questions.

13:22 Tvedt has no more to say.

13:22 Prosecutors Holden has no questions. Nor aid lawyers.

13:23 Tore Tvedt finished his explanation.

13:23 The court is now a closed meeting participant. The court pauses while waiting for the next witness will be meeting.

13:24 Next witness is a philosopher and writer Einar Øverenget. He is principal of the Academy of Arts activies.

13:24 The court pauses to 14:30

13:54 Aid lawyers have decided to boycott the last three witnesses who have been in the witness box today not to ask questions of them. Mette Yvonne Larsen believes that the witnesses will help to obscure what happened 22 July. See the interview with Larsen left in our live center.

14:33 The court would now have been set back after the break. The judges are a few minutes late.

14:34 Today's final expert witness is in place in the witness box.

14:34 Einar Øverenget a philosopher and author, and Rector of the Academy of Arts activies. He is called by Breivik's defenders.

14:34 Defender Vibeke Hein Bæra get the word.

14:35 Bæra ask Øverenget to tell about his background.

14:36 Øverenget talks about what he has studied and worked in philosophy.

14:36 This testimony is broadcast. You can follow the explanation directly to the video window.

14:38 Consequences: - The case is here on the Breivik is sane or insane. There are three key issues we want to highlight here today. What does the term insane?

14:39 Øverenget: - I am trying to raise this with sane in a legal context. It means to be imputed to the Norwegian giving responsibilities. An unaccountable action means that one is not responsible for their actions.

14:43 Øverenget says that freedom is the right to decide for themselves. He refers to the human rights declaration that all men are born free.

14:46 Øverenget ask a series of questions about being rational. Can you control your own actions.
14:46 - Is it the case that the action goes back to a question whether there was a choice he took of their own volition. It is possible to perform rational actions and still be sane. It is entirely possible.

14:47 Øverenget: - What has worried me with this matter is that you should watch out for the diagnosis of political extremism. Political extremism exists. There are historical examples of that too, look at Hitler's Germany.

14:48 Øverenget: - It is a fairly dramatic statement and say that a person is not accountable to their actions.

14:48 Øverenget emphasizes that he has great respect for the rule psychiatry.

14:48 Consequences: - It is the scientific methods used in legal psychiatry. What methods do you think should be in place?

14:49 Øverenget: - I have several feature articles said that forensic psychiatry is an inexact science. To the extent that you do not see the need to interpret it to you. Many try to say something about human intentions as to why they did it, so it is an interpretative science.

14:50 Øverenget: - If we examine the people, we can not enter their heads. Therefore, we interpret them. But that does not mean it is not scientific.

14:51 Øverenget: - You will affect what you observe from what you are coming from. It may be knowledge, it may be many factors that influence what you see. So two people will see a lot of different things. Do you see such a pole in the water, it will look broken, but I know that it is not. It is knowledge.

14:52 Øverenget: - In psychiatry, we do not have the same knowledge that if for example, we measure the roads. So it is not just psychiatry.

14:53 Øverenget: - If I observe things I have little knowledge of, foreign cultures, for example, I see things that are incomprehensible to me, but a social anthropologist will be able to familiarize themselves with and understand it. If you have no such knowledge, one can run the risk of not understanding this.

14:54 Øverenget: - Having the right knowledge platform to understand something, it is important to be able to interpret it.

14:54 Consequences: - Is it a correct interpretation of me understand it so that it will observe the need to understand the methodology?

14:55 Øverenget: - Yes, otherwise it will simply not know seem very strange.

14:55 Bæra transition to the next topic she wants Øverenget to talk about. Evil actions.

14:57 Øverenget: - When we saw in Hitler's Germany and mass extermination of Jews, they knew not what they did? Yes, they knew it. For instance, Eichman a pervert, he had done evil deeds, but he had empathy, but not for those he exterminated and did attempt.

14:58 Øverenget: extract the examples of Nazi Germany. How could they carry out such mass murder and still be empathetic to their own.

15:00 Øverenget: - If you look at the doctors in concentration camps who carried out the most horrific experiments during the day, set in the evening and wrote pludrete love letter to her boyfriends. The totalitarian by Eichmann, for example, was that he would emphasize his own conscience. He knew what he was, but he would not put this front.

15:01 Bæra quote Breivik, who has said that 22 July was terrible but necessary.

15:01 Øverenget: - It's a horrible explanation, but it's recognizable. It's Hitler's speech to the soldiers. That we recognize.

15:01 Consequences: - Is it typical?

15:02 Øverenget: - It is a central feature. One should not think like themselves, but just do it.

15:02 Øverenget: - There are recognizable elements of the fascists.

15:03 Consequences: - Can you tell us what you think about what choices Breivik did and how it is identifiable.

15:04 Øverenget: - Yes, it looks like this. I have been with me from the description which saw who went systematically put forward a plan that was made in advance. He put the gun down when police arrived. It was a planned action, the police were not his enemies. It's rational.

15:05 Bæra: - He has also said a lot about when he decided to attack and went to the acquisition of the bomb and beyond. It makes sense with all these choices, that this is an act of a man who has not made the choice?

15:05 Øverenget: - It is certainly instrumental rationality present.

15:07 Øverenget: - The thinking of the character ends and means. It is quite clear that it has been present an instrumental rationality, it also significantly increased. For a general view, it is hard to believe a person who makes so many choices in all the evil.

15:07 Øverenget: - It is probably difficult to imagine that a person who made such choices should not be held legally responsible. I think this is difficult.

15:08 Øverenget: - We will fit us well to take from us the ability to deal with radicalism.

15:08 Øverenget: - I think it's necessary for us as a society to learn how to cope.

15:09 Prosecutors Engh question.

15:09 Engh: - Is there any difference in the case of emapti and the ability to feel?

15:11 Øverenget: - You should maybe ask psychiatrists about. But when it comes to Nazi Germany, as one sees on a book that has just come out called Soldiers. Among other things, looks at Adolf Eichman, he had feelings for the children. One can not say about him that he had no empathy.

15:11 Engh: - How about being able to feel things?

15:12 Øverenget: - In some ways you could have a normal emotional life outside the framework Mon conducted cruel things.

15:17 Engh: - I wonder if you based a philosophical perspective, say when the political extremists so that they are real shortcomings of accountability in a philosophical sense?

15:17 Øverenget: - You are in a sense, nothing philosophical stands. If you say it in the philosophical stand then you have to think if he knew what they were doing. Do we know what we have chosen to do.

15:19 Expert Torgeir Husby questions Øverenget.

15:19 Husby: - ??How do you define evil actions?

15:21 Øverenget: - When we speak of totalitarian evil, systematic liquidation of innocent people. One can talk about different kinds of evil.

15:24 Øverenget finish his explanation. The court is adjourned for today.