Saturday, January 14, 2012

The Quislings in our midst.

A brief note on political treason in Norway

The period between April 9, 1940 and May 8, 1945 was a dark chapter in Norwegian history. Events in mainland Europe which saw the continent plunged into another bloody war eventually found its way to the sparsely populated northern outpost and started a five year long German occupation. Being invaded by a foreign nation was demoralizing, but what made it even worse was the knowledge that the German military were assisted by Norwegians who were more than happy to collaborate with the enemy and take an active role in disrupting Norwegian resistance efforts. By doing so these collaborators betrayed their country and literally thrust a dagger into the back of their compatriots.
The act of deliberately betraying your own country in order to achieve political or personal goals has been looked down upon by every single civilization on earth, and consequently the act of treason has always been punished with death. And that was the fate that eventually befell Norway’s most infamous traitor in modern history, Vidkun Quisling.
On October 24, 1945 Vidkun Abraham Lauritz Jonssøn Quisling was executed by a firing squad at Akershus fortress near the harbor in Oslo for crimes committed against the Norwegian nation. So vile was his betrayal that the name Quisling today is recognized all over the world and it has made its way into several dictionaries where it is synonymous with the word traitor.
Sixty six years has passed since Quisling drew his last breath and those who got to witness his betrayal probably didn’t expect to see anyone emulate his behaviour, but sadly there has been a steady stream of individuals who have been more than willing to fill his shoes. And just like under the Quisling regime of WW2 the traitors today are to be found inside the walls of the Norwegian Parliament where they actively work on ways to facilitate the transferral of power from Norwegian hands to autocratic supranational entities. But unlike Quisling these people haven’t seized power in a quick coup d’état. Their deceit has taken a much more leisurely pace, and it has had more severe consequences than Quisling’s treason. The traitors inside the Norwegian Parliament have slowly and meticulously picked away at the very foundation of the nation by gradually relinquishing Norwegian sovereignty and placing the kingdom of Norway under the jurisdiction of international entities such as the EU and the UN. And unlike Quisling who paid the ultimate price for his treason, Norwegian politicians have never had to appear in front of a court and answer for their crimes.
Let’s have a look at the Norwegian constitution and find out what it says about treason;
Chapter 8, section 23 of the general civil penal code of the kingdom of Norway states that:
 “Any person who unlawfully attempts to cause Norway or any part of the realm to be brought under foreign rule or incorporated into another state, or any part of the realm to be detached, or who aids or abets thereto, shall be liable to detention for a term of not less than 8 years or to be imprisoned for a term of not less than eight years and not exceeding 21 years.”
The language used here is very specific and there is no room for interpretation. It makes it very clear that no Norwegian Government or private citizens may engage in activities that will cause any part of the kingdom of Norway to fall into the hands of foreign powers, nor may they engage in activities which will cause Norway to be brought under foreign jurisdiction. Violation of this article is punishable by imprisonment for a period of 8 to 21 years.
In addition to this, article number one of the Norwegian constitution states that:
“The Kingdom of Norway is a free, independent, indivisible and inalienable Realm. Its form of government is a limited and hereditary monarchy.”
The first article of the Norwegian constitution reflects the language used in article 83 of the penal code. It categorically stipulates that the kingdom of Norway is an independent and indivisible realm, meaning that it cannot be surrendered to foreign powers nor can it legally be placed under foreign jurisdiction. Not even the tiniest parcel of Norwegian territory may be surrendered legally. Once again the content of these two articles are self explanatory and there’s no room for interpretation. These articles are an integral part of the Norwegian constitution which is the highest legal authority in the country, meaning that in the event of legal disputes the constitution takes precedence. Quisling disregarded the constitution and payed for it with his life.
But in spite of the clarity of the Norwegian constitution and its severe warnings to those contemplating breaking its laws there has been a significant push made by the political establishment in Norway for quite some time now to join the EU and place Norway under foreign rule. And despite two referendums in which the Norwegian people rejected EU membership the political leadership have continued in their efforts to bring Norway under EU rule. On 24 June 1994, the Norwegian labour Party under the leadership of Prime Minister Gro Harlem Brundtland signed the EEA agreement (European Economic Area agreement) in Corfu, thus submitting Norway and its citizens to the laws of the EU, and in the process relinquishing Norwegian sovereignty to a supranational entity.
“Law regarding the implementation of the main agreement of the European Economic Cooperation into Norwegian jurisdiction (EØS).
§ 1. The conditions in the main agreement of the European Economic Cooperation shall be regarded as Norwegian law, along with the amendments of protocol regarding the adjustment of the agreement of March 17, 1993 concerning the expansion of the EEC agreement dated October 14, 2003 and the EEC expansion agreement for Bulgaria and Romania in 2007. This also includes article 1 to 3 in protocol 25 in regards to coal and steel production.”

According to this agreement Norway is bound by the same laws and regulations as any other EU nation. The only difference is that Norway doesn’t have any political representation in the governing branches of the EU. When opponents point out the unconstitutionality of the EEA agreement its proponents argue that the agreement doesn’t violate the constitution, because the decision to join the EEA was made with a ¾ majority in Parliament. The article which they are alluding to is article 112 of the constitution which states:
“If experience shows that any part of this Constitution of the Kingdom of Norway ought to be amended, the proposal to this effect shall be submitted to the first, second or third Storting after a new General Election and be publicly announced in print.”
However this article doesn’t permit an EEA or  EU membership. It simply stipulates the provisions that has to be met for constitutional amendments to take place. It doesn’t give the Norwegian Government the right to surrender Norwegian sovereignty, which was incorrectly claimed by the Labour Government at the time, and which was the consequence of ratifying the EEA Agreement. And as we have shown earlier in this essay the act of ratifying this agreement was in clear violation of article 83 of the penal code and article 1 of the constitution.
Chapter 8, section 23 of the general civil penal code
“Any person who unlawfully attempts to cause Norway or any part of the realm to be brought under foreign rule or incorporated into another state, or any part of the realm to be detached, or who aids or abets thereto, shall be liable to detention for a term of not less than 8 years or to be imprisoned for a term of not less than eight years and not exceeding 21 years.”
Article number one of the Norwegian constitution
“The Kingdom of Norway is a free, independent, indivisible and inalienable Realm. Its form of government is a limited and hereditary monarchy.”
And if this isn’t clear enough let’s have a look at what Johannes Bratt Andenæs, Professor of jurisprudence have to say regarding the legality of amending and adding new laws into the Norwegian constitution:
“The constitution is the highest Legal authority, not only that in those instances where there’s a conflict of interest it shall be given priority over all other legal authorities, but also that it is the foundation for which the legality of all other legal amendments shall be judged against.  It is the constitution that determines what is required in order to implement a new valid law. One can say that the legislature derives its mandate directly from the constitution.”
The point that Professor Andenæs is making here is that any laws or legal amendments incorporated into the Norwegian constitution are to be deemed illegal if they are in conflict with any of the existing laws or if they are in conflict with the original spirit of the constitution. And there can be no doubt that this is the case with the EEA agreement and several other international agreements which the Norwegian Government has signed and which have been made into Norwegian national law.
The consequences of the Norwegian Government’s decision to unlawfully surrender Norwegian sovereignty are enormous and they have had disastrous consequences for the nation. By joining the EEA and signing the Schengen Agreement and by giving precedent to international EU and UN conventions on refugees, Norway has seen demographic changes that could in the future see ethnic Norwegians become a minority in their own country. Today anyone can, in theory, travel to Norway and seek political asylum and expect to be housed and fed by the Norwegian state. The Schengen Agreement which has removed national border checkpoints in Europe has made it next to impossible to stem the flow of illegal immigrants entering the country.
It is proved without a shadow of doubt that the enormous treason the Norwegian government along with a majority of Norwegian politicians have committed has had severe negative repercussions. Their treason far exceeds that of Vidkun Quisling as it has severely endangered the unique Norwegian ethnic national character. The UN defines the word genocide as any deliberate action or policies which aim to destroy or severely reduce the numbers of an ethnic group which is the consequences of the Norwegian Governments enormous treason against its own people.
No one is above the law and that include the Norwegian Government. The constitution which was drafted in 1814 after Norway had declared independence from Denmark was intended to protect the citizens against exactly the type of abuse that is taking place at the moment, namely politicians abusing their political mandate in order to achieve their own personal goals. The constitution was meant to be an insurance policy against Government abuse. In 1814 Norway had been under foreign rule for more than 400 years and the founding fathers of the nation finally saw an opportunity for Norway to become an independent country. And the constitution reflects this mood.  It was modelled after the American constitution which was well-known in Europe at the time for its progressive and liberal nature, and the Norwegian founding fathers wanted to ensure that similar freedom were given to the citizens of Norway.
Now almost 200 years later Norway is yet again under foreign rule and it’s not as a result of a military invasion, but because our own Government whose members have pledged an oath to uphold the constitution has decided to disregard it. Since the signing of the EEA agreement The Norwegian Government has implemented a staggering 8000 EU laws. They have also made the European Convention on Human rights part of the Norwegian law, along with the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and Convention on the Rights of the Child.
The Norwegian Government has in direct violation of the constitution incorporated foreign legislation which is a violation of the constitution. The Norwegian Government has failed to use the constitution like the founding fathers had intended it to be used, as a set of rules limiting what they can and what they cannot do. The Norwegian Government has instead altered the constitution to suit its own political needs.  They have politicized it, just like they have politicized almost everything else in the country, and the fact that the courts in Norway haven’t held the Government to account for this massive treason proves that the lines separating the Norwegian courts and the Norwegian Government have been blurred.
And what changes are the Norwegian Government going to implement in the future considering that they have already successfully pulled off a coup d’état and got away with it? There’s a strong political movement in Norway that wants to incorporate the UN’s declaration of Human rights in the Norwegian constitution before its bicentennial in 2014, which is truly frightening when we know that the OIC (Organization of Islamic Cooperation) is actively lobbying the UN to recognize criticism of Islam and the prophet Mohammad as a violation of Muslims' human rights. It also raises serious questions concerning our obligations to so-called ‘asylum seekers’.
In order to reinstate the respect that the Norwegian constitution deserves it’s imperative that anyone who has been involved in the process of undermining it be brought before the courts and charged with treason. It’s also imperative that they receive sentences that accurately reflect the gravity of their crimes.  
After the Oslo attacks on July 22, 2011, there has been a significant push made by members of the political left to remove certain words from the public discourse, including the word traitor. The political left believe that in light of the atrocities it’s disrespectful to label someone as such. It may be true that in some instances it is poor taste to do so, but with regards to the Norwegian Government’s attempts to compromise Norwegian independence it’s most definitely not. Treason is a very fitting description for such behaviour. Vidkun Quisling was brought to justice for having cooperated with a hostile foreign power during WW2; my question is when will the traitors in the Norwegian Parliament be brought to justice?

No comments:

Post a Comment