The Land of the Midnight Sun: Providing legal evidence against Radicals.


Well here we have come to a cross roads in Europe where we have Bible Basher’s and Qu’ran Crasher’s. Yes I will use this pun because these Islamist’s have used lorries to attack people in crowds. If people find this distasteful it is because the truth is starring at you, just like you tried to force your opinions and values on a bunch of people.

This is what you need to know about this part of the world. The Land of the midnight sun is separated, because Sweden is apart of Europe and Norway is not. Norway likes to protect its people. Therefore when NRK  (the Norwegian Network), decided they were going to do a fly in the wall documentary; the police intervened, as they quite rightly would and should. The police seized all the footage the director Ulrik Imtiaz Rolfsen  and the camera man had and then a case was made against a radical Islamist recruiter.

I am not too sure about the translation of the laws here, but, because I live here I know that this is enough grounds for evidence so that the courts were able to assess and judge that this man  Ubaydullah Hussain, was tried for aiding and abetting in terrorism and lead to the deaths of several young men who joined IS (Islamic State). They apparently were sent to Syria and were involved in conflicts in Syria. Mr Hussain is only 20 years old and was involved in the recruiting and trafficking of (IS) here in Norway.  According to Rolfsen, the police were aware that he became involved with IS when he was 18 years old and all they needed was evidence. So, the bravest thing Rolfsen could do is hand his evidence of 2 years; that Mr Hussain was leading these men to their deaths. He is seen in the documentary standing with the men who died in Syria, handing out leaflets.

The question is… on the grounds of law… on terror; in certain countries across Europe – this is not seen as inciting hatred. Now,  I know from personal experience living in Oslo that even Latter day saints, or, Jehovas Witness worshipers; stand outside mosques here in Oslo – handing out “The Watch” magazine. I do not agree with that also. This is what I call inciting, or,  pushing your ideology on people whom worship another kind of religion and you want to convert them.

To reflect upon whether, or, not I think it should be allowed; well no because, maybe it is causing a vicious cycle of hate. So, further on I will show how one sided this law is. As an atheist, or an agnostic person; you should be allowed to live your life the way you want. Instead of having these people try to take donations from you in the street. Or try to even indoctrinate you on the street. We all have this wonderful facility called the internet. We can go to a church or I heard some Christian’s write to Jesus online.

As I mention online and what measures they are taking to combat some of these issues, my investigation led me deeper. The internet is beginning to clamp down on these propaganda videos and this includes Twitter,, reddit and Youtube to name a few; I came across this little piece The Lowy Insititute – Lauren Williams (2017) whereby she states:

Unlike extremist propaganda videos of the past, which were often unsophisticated productions featuring terrorist leaders making long and boring sermons, Islamic State’s videos are of a high quality. They use cinematic production techniques, Hollywood-style special effects,[5] ‘immersive’ video game-style media,[6] and dramatic, apocalyptic narratives to draw the viewer’s attention and secure media coverage. The material is available online and disseminated on social media through a network of supporters on Twitter, Facebook, YouTube,, Kik, and Tumblr. It is from these social media sites that material is often picked up by mainstream media outlets.

Islamic State deploys various forms of marketing techniques to recruit members and sympathisers. Recruitment and propaganda videos typically focus on three main narratives: persecution, utopianism, and brutality.[7] Often the propaganda videos incorporate all three narratives.

But now the documentaries from both Norway and the UK have proved they are recruiting on the streets. This is because Lauren Williams (2017) further declares the history on the decline of the media coverage on such matters:

In accordance with Margaret Thatcher’s famous statement, in relation to the IRA, that “we must starve terrorists of the oxygen of publicity”, governments are now moving to try to prevent Islamic State messaging from reaching the public. Along with media self-regulation, governments and corporations have censored social media and attempted to silence journalists in the interest of national security. But while government and corporate responses have tended to focus on social media, there has been little in the way of regulation, or self-regulation, of the press.

So they are censoring the media, meanwhile,  on the streets these people are allowed to stand there, handing out leaflets and stirring hate amongst people; to generations of their communities. Wow!

  • That’s a bit like calling this a no win situation, is it not?
  • Why are the governments around Europe making excuses?
  • Surely. handing out religious propaganda should be illegal?
  • Surely, we are entitled to free speech but preaching to people on the streets is unacceptable because not everyone agrees?
  • Surely, most people are allowed freedom of thought instead of having religion advertised in this profoundly extreme way?
  • Surely, they have religious places of worship where you can preach to people… but then you are not giving other people – young people; the chance to think for themselves, or shop in peace without feeling guilty.


It is not just just one type of crazy either.  You have to include Bible Bashers and then the Qu’ran crashers: see the two worlds colliding and there you have it, we are back to the middle ages folks!

No progress and No time to think or reflect on your choices as a human being. Just people allowed to force their opinions and disturb the public.

Well yeah, very nice of the police to  carry out surveillance on people, but, I think we all know – both sides are wrong. If the internet is one zone and the recruitment starts on the streets; maybe it is time you were given the law to help, we the people decide where our souls lay.

I really do not want a holy war on the streets. However, this is what I as an agnostic person is seeing. The way I perceive this is how a majority of people are seeing this also. They really do not want people to preach to them on the streets any more. They really do think that it is not freedom of thought to allow people to be brainwashed into some war. Or to be brainwashed into thinking that it is okay to discriminate against agnostic people, or, atheists who do not wish to have religion thrown in their faces. This is a choice, and we the people have the freedom to choose.


 Lets look at this aspect of young people dying: 

I really think it is time that they made a law were they think that this is breaching the peace, and to consider that some how on both sides of the coin, are rancid on every level. You have Jehovas Witness’ who force their children to be apart of that religion and they die from cancers or heart failure because they are not allowed to have a blood transfusion; at what point is that ethical? That is way too extreme for me….. So, that poor child has no right to life???? What the heck!!! They have no voice!!! No say in the matter…

Followed by these crazy Islamist radicals who send their kids to their deaths because they want them to be suicide bombers. Come on!!! It’s wrong to force your ideologies on kids… or vulnerable people and you jolly well know it. This is where we all need to make a choice; do we let them continue harming themselves and other’s around them out of choice or do we enforce the laws?

If we enforce laws then maybe, the value of life would increase and perhaps it may, conclude to the reduction of the loss of lives. However, this will not happen under the European Union, because they are an un-elected body of people who want to profit from the terror. I am sure of it now. They do not want to help set boundaries which clearly need to be stated… they do not want to help people get along and understand: this is the 21st century and children have a choice to live: if they have a failure to thrive, then perhaps something needs to be done.

Every time we see people stretching the laws here in Europe. Well, yes you are allowed your opinions; e,t,c but as someone who has seen even Pagans shy away from discussing their own ideologies and forcing their ideologies on other’s I can honestly say – why is this being allowed? We are allowed freedom of speech, but forcing your ideologies on someone is causing conflict.

Now, this does not mean you cannot have a discussion. I am saying that being on the street and trying to recruit people for an army should be illegal.

  1. How long would it take that legislation to go through?
  2. How many lives have to be lost before these idiots decide to take action in the law to help police to do their jobs to protect people?

Here most of us are as law abiding citizen are wondering if we can be tolerant towards one another again. Well, I want the police to do their job. Followed by judges in court to present justice in a way that punishes people for the grounds of inciting hatred and disturbing the public, for these to be more transparent.

According to The Legal Project (2017) this is what European Hate Speech Laws are and these are the people whom have been convicted of it. However

European Hate Speech Laws

Since the end of World War II, many European countries have witnessed a proliferation of hate speech legislation designed to curb incitement to racial and religious hatred. Though originally intended to guard against the kind of xenophobic and anti-Semitic propaganda that gave rise to the Holocaust, today, national hate speech laws have increasingly been invoked to criminalize speech that is merely deemed insulting to one’s race, ethnicity, religion, or nationality. Under the guise of tolerance and co-existence, Islamists have often manipulated such laws in a bid to monopolize debate and define what is beyond the pale of permissible public discussion.

In large part, the movement to circumscribe the bounds of free expression has its roots in three instruments of international law—the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (CERD), and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). Article 10 of the ECHR, for example, grants the freedom of expression to all, but the exercise of this right is conditioned on conformity with the restrictions necessary, inter alia, “for the protection of the reputation and rights of others.” The CERD and ICCPR, which also purport to recognize the freedom of expression, go a step further. Article 4(a) of the CERD obligates signatories to make “all dissemination of ideas based on racial superiority or hatred” a punishable offense, while Article 20 of the ICCPR requires outlawing “any advocacy of national, racial, or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility, or violence.”

Given the nebulous standards on which much of Europe’s hate speech laws are based—indeed, there is not even a universally agreed upon definition for what constitutes hate speech—it is little wonder that such legislation has ensnared speech it was likely never meant to punish. Delineating the line between speech that is considered rude and that which is considered insulting for the purposes of criminal prosecution is an utterly subjective undertaking, and a distinction that governments are ill-suited to determine. Compounding the problem of these laws’ arbitrariness is their selective application: while European authorities have at times appeared reluctant to go after Islamist firebrands spouting hatred, those engaging in legitimate debate about Islamism are frequently targeted for prosecution. Examples abound:

  • Denmark: Article 266(b) of the Danish Criminal Code criminalizes “expressing and spreading racial hatred”, making it an offense to use threatening, vilifying, or insulting language intended for the general public or a wide circle of persons. In 2001, several Danish politicians were convicted under this provision for allegedly making “anti-Islamic” statements. More recently, in June 2010, the Danish crown prosecutor sought to lift MP Jesper Langballe’s parliamentary immunity so that he could face charges under Article 266(b) for publishing an article about the creeping “Islamisation of Europe” and the subjugated status of Muslim women.
  • France: France’s principal piece of hate speech legislation is the Press Law of 1881, in which Section 24 criminalizes incitement to racial discrimination, hatred, or violence on the basis of one’s origin or membership (or non-membership) in an ethic, national, racial, or religious group. A criminal code provision likewise makes it an offense to engage in similar conduct via private communication.Such laws have been deployed against individuals across a broad swath of society. In 2002, four Muslim organizations filed a complaint against author Michel Houellebecq for stating that Islam was “stupid” and “dangerous” in an interview. Although the court acquitted Houellebecq, it refrained from doing so on free speech grounds. In 2005, politician Jean Marie Le Pen, runner-up in the 2002 presidential election, was convicted of inciting racial hatred for comments made to Le Monde in 2003 about the consequences of Muslim immigration in France. And in 2008, actress Brigitte Bardot was haled into court and convicted on charges of inciting racial hatred for her criticism concerning the ritual slaughter of sheep during a Muslim feast. Bardot was ordered to pay €15,000, the fifth time she was fined for inciting racial hatred against Muslims since 1997.
  • The Netherlands: Long considered a bastion for the freedom of thought and expression, Holland has today joined in the European retreat on free speech. Together, Articles 137(c) and 137(d) of the Dutch Criminal Code operate to prohibit making public intentional insults, as well as engaging in verbal, written, or illustrated incitement to hatred, on account of one’s race, religion, sexual orientation, or personal convictions. The most prominent hate speech case to date is that of politician Geert Wilders, who was indicted by the public prosecutor in 2009 for his public comments about Muslims and Islam, and his release of a short film documenting inflammatory passages in the Qur’an.
  • United Kingdom: Sec. 18(1) of the Public Order Act of 1986 (POA) states that “a person who uses threatening, abusive, or insulting words or behaviour, or displays any written material which is threatening, abusive, or insulting, is guilty of an offence if: a) he intends to thereby stir up racial hatred, or; b) having regard to all the circumstances racial hatred is likely to be stirred up thereby.” Among the panoply of other British hate speech laws is Section 5 of the POA, which makes it a crime to use or display threatening, abusive, or insulting words “within the hearing or sight of a person likely to be caused harassment, alarm, or distress thereby.” Indeed, it was under this incredibly low threshold that Christian hoteliers Ben and Sharon Vogelenzang, accused by a Muslim patron of calling Muhammad a “warlord”, were charged, but ultimately acquitted, in 2009. Conversely, Harry Taylor, an atheist who placed drawings satirizing Christianity and Islam in an airport prayer room, was convicted in April 2010 under Section 5 and given a six-month prison sentence.

The Legal Project has tracked the challenges posed by Europe’s national hate speech laws to free speech, educating policymakers and the general public about the danger through op-ed articles, speeches, and blog commentary. The Legal Project has also worked to inform the legal community about the problem through its new Continuing Legal Education course, Suing the Messenger: The Misuse of Law to Suppress Free Speech Regarding Terrorism, Radical Islam and Related Topics.The Legal Project (2017)

So, pondering on one rule for the indigenous people, or, the atheists but you cannot protect even a child from being told – they must conform who are put in danger because of this …. I am not inciting hatred because I am talking about a specific type of zealot people who want to convert people and lead them to their deaths. I mean, goodness me: are we going to allow vulnerable people to keep being forced to convert to a backdated ideology?

If you have not read my previous stories on Europe, Why would the media not want Trump to build his wall, or the European Union to collapse?  You will find I like data. It is raw and sometimes, my opinion is an opinion. We are still entitled to free speech and I have not said I want anyone to be harmed, it is the other way round. I want these religions to wake up and realise they are responsible for the deaths of young peole and children.  Therefore, I wanted to analyse the data from Europol (2017) to see if Police are able to make arrests and help where it is needed. What seems to be the problem:




Well, that is astonishing to see that Spain, France and the UK are high up there in the 100’s with arrests. But Sweden, my neighbours are behaving as though they are totally oblivious to this. I feel, this is not right. Only 3 arrests and recently you have been attacked several times. Oh and Germany, this is not acceptable, under 100. It seems like you want to not protect the people in your country, at all.

So that no one thinks I make this up, both right wing and left wing groups are included in these terrorist attacks. Thus, all crazy folk are added in Europol [pdf 2016]and  normal law abiding citizens are not. Even though I am reflecting on 2015 and I am looking at the the 1,077 terrorist arrests made over the whole of Europe. I think that every specific country has a responsibility to it’s people to reduce these threats. I am astonished that out of 400 million people; this is the amount of arrests made.


Leaving no stone upturned, we can critically analysing which therefore means,we need better laws. Because the European Union could not agree on Human Trafficking there was a delay on the laws changing, at such a crucial time. Thus, I felt like their existence was false. Laws need to be enforced and people in Europe need to be protected; it may seem simple and easy but it is their responsibility. They sit their discussing but then these people are still allowed to recruit on the streets.

Reflecting back on the case here in Norway, really focusing on the recruiting – it is human trafficking and it could be argued that putting someones life like that at risk is manslaughter. The laws do apply to these people, despite their negligence of the law to state the land does not adhere to Sharia Law; looks like they are silly enough to assume the law does not apply to them. Well, it does because – you end up in jail. I think this is justice. I would like to see more of it and Ubaydullah Hussain will spend 9 years in jail, and quite rightly so. If I was a judge I would lock him up for life because I would be afraid he may come out and start preaching to people; trying to brainwash them into becoming crazy radicals and attacking people.

As for the Jehovas Witness’ whom allow their children to die because they are not allowed to be resuscitated…. it is a horrid thing to think about. Seeing that a vulnerable person cannot choose even to live. All for the sake of their parents taking their lives they gave to them away; hurts just as much as the terrorists whom attack Europe.

If your country has been attacked more than once in the last year, or, so I think it is only right for you to think about choices and whom is influencing whom. Why not try and persuade journalists in your own countries to report things like they do on youtube.

Mental health and well being for most people is going to be reduced and this is not what radicals on both sides want.  They prey on those who are vulnerable and lead them to follow something which is not a spiritual cause. So, putting people whom are mental health at risk or even a young person who can be lead astray.

These crazy zealots “Basher’s and Crasher’s”  want us to live in fear and go back to following their crazy doctrines. Both sides are inciting hatred and they know they are antagonising one another.

Pretty soon we shall all be bored of these petty things. The police are doing their job, but not the judges. We cannot live in fear because it is not going to convert those whom are loyal to one cause, whether it be Bible bashers or Qu’ran Crashers.


To all those whom lost their lives in Europe, may you rest in peace and bless your families xxxx

One comment

  1. Fascinating. This is the paradox of “free speech” that so many Americans don’t want to address. At what point do the freedoms to express personal beliefs come into conflict with those same beliefs, as well as with the civil values of a society as a whole? Guaranteeing an ability to self-govern while escaping from this endless-loop of artificial conflict was the primary concern of the Enlightenment-era leaders and thinkers who would argue for much of what resulted in the US Constitution. And yet, it still remains a problem in the US.

    Liked by 1 person

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s