On Monday, Alliance leader Hans Jørgen Lysglimt Johansen was sentenced to seven months in prison for hate speech, reckless behavior and gross fraud. He pleaded not guilty throughout the trial, and the defender says Lysglimt Johansen is disappointed by the verdict. He was acquitted of insurance fraud and complicity in hate speech. The three judges did not always agree on whether Johansen should be sentenced for hate speech and reckless behaviour. They were divided on the question of whether the Alliance leader’s statements about Jews, Muslims and homosexuals fell within freedom of expression or not. Hans Jørgen Lysglimt Johansen was sentenced to seven months in prison. Photo: Annvor Seim Vestrheim / news Two of them – the expert judge and the one co-judge – largely agreed that the statements were not within the scope of freedom of speech, that they were hateful. But the last co-judge believed that Johansen was fully entitled to express himself as he did. He also believed that Ervin Kohn, who was offended in the case, should have been prosecuted rather than the Alliance leader. – I am shocked by the co-judge, says Kohn to news. Wanted to have aggrieved persons on the dock Johansen stood accused, among other things, of reckless behavior towards Ervin Kohn. Kohn is Jewish, and was head of the Mosaic religious community in Oslo for 13 years. He has also been deputy chairman of the Antiracist Centre. The majority in the court believe that the many Twitter messages Johansen wrote about Kohn make the Alliance leader guilty of reckless behaviour. But one co-judge is of a different opinion, it appears in the judgment. news has removed the name of the co-judge from the text. Hans Jørgen Lysglimt Johansen in the Oslo district court with defenders Bjørn Robert Antonsen (far left) and Jonas Berge during the trial against him. Photo: Einar Torkelsen / news The judgment states, among other things, that “[meddommeren] is of the clear opinion that if the choice was between Kohn and Lysglimt, it is Kohn who should be on the dock”. The co-judge does not think it “hangs in the balance” that Kohn feels insulted and violated by Johansen’s statements, because he is what the co-judge considers to be a defender of Israel, which is under investigation for genocide in Gaza. The judgment also reveals that the co-judge has close ties to several Jews, and that he is very concerned about the conflict in the Middle East. The co-judge believes that Kohn is helping to justify Israel’s actions in Gaza, and that “perhaps what someone would possibly consider mental complicity in genocide far exceeds what Lysglimt is charged with”. news has presented what emerges in the judgment and the co-judge’s statements for Ervin Kohn. He does not want to comment on the case beyond the fact that he is shocked, because he expects that the verdict will be appealed and that he will have to testify again. – Comparatively trivial, news has asked questions to the co-judge in question. – The problem is really neither Jews nor Israelis, but Zionists. In our case, Zionists who go to great lengths in their hasbara, and who, at the same time as Gaza is starved and carpet bombed, must have others punished for something comparatively trivial, he says to news. Ervin Kohn does not want to comment on the fact that the co-judge thinks he is engaging in “psychological complicity in genocide”. Photo: ISMAIL BURAK AKKAN / news – Kohn is offended in the case. Is a judgment the right place to direct this criticism against him? – Kohn chose the path of the court, so it is here (in a court and in a judgment) that this unfolds. A Jewish tradition is to answer a question with a new question. If things had not been put into context in the judgement, would the media have taken up such a context on their own initiative? Kohn emphasizes to news that he reported Lysglimt Johansen for hate speech, and that it was the prosecution that chose to prosecute him for reckless behaviour. Must express her opinion Ina Strømstad is a district court judge, and a member of the judges’ media group. She answers news in general about co-judges, and emphasizes that she is not considering this specific case. – A co-judge must decide on the issues raised by the case, and he must express his opinion. When one of the judges dissents, this judge’s opinion must also be stated, and the opinion must be justified, says Strømstad. District judge Ina Strømstad explains that fellow judges who dissent must explain why they disagree. Photo: news She says there are wide limits to how a judge will justify the result they believe is correct. – It has a connection with the fact that those to whom the judgment is directed must understand why the judge has reached the result he has reached. At the same time, there are limits to how far the judge can go, says Strømstad. She explains that demands are placed on the personal suitability of co-judges. – The co-judge must, among other things, be able to follow the negotiations, understand the issues in the case, have an opinion on the case and express his opinion. If, for example, he refuses to take a position on the matter or refuses to comply with Norwegian law, he will be unsuitable. Strømstad says that having strong opinions in the first place does not make a person unfit to be a co-judge. – You have to distinguish between personal suitability for the role and having opinions you don’t agree with. The co-judge must reflect an opinion in a population, and people have different opinions. The fact that someone has opinions that you do not agree with does not obviously mean that they are unsuitable as co-judges. – Slightly uncertain waters Maria Astrup Hjort is Dean of Studies at the Faculty of Law at the University of Oslo (UiO). She has looked at the reasons for the co-judge in the case against Lysglimt Johansen for news. – What is striking in this dissent is that circumstances are included that are not necessary to reach the result that is done, for example that Kohn should have been prosecuted. That is not the question, says Hjort. – It is unnecessary, and in the extreme can create doubts about what the rationale for the minority’s view really is. I think that is problematic, she continues. Law professor Maria Astrup Hjort thinks the dissent in this case is problematic. Photo: University of Oslo She emphasizes, like district court judge Strømstad, that a dissent must be justified. – But a justification must also not lead to hate speech in the opposite direction. It is a little ironic that the minority in a case about, among other things, hate speech makes such statements. By claiming that Kohn should have been prosecuted, one can ask the question whether the minority in its reasoning is not also beginning to step into slightly uncertain waters, says Hjort. She points out that the co-judge in this case was in the minority, and that it was therefore not decisive for the verdict. – Dare to be brave The co-judge says he is aware that the dissent is unusual and can be perceived as a strong signal. – I understand that. At the same time, we sometimes have to dare to be brave and go a little outside the well-known box. He says the intention was not to be “a brawler”. – At the same time, there must be room for genuine and well-thought-out disagreement. I could not stand with my back straight if, contrary to my convictions, I had advocated punishment for Lysglimt for reckless behavior towards Kohn, writes the co-judge. The trial against Hans Jørgen Lysglimt Johansen took place in the Oslo district court. Photo: Torstein Georg Bøe / Torstein Bøe At the same time, he encourages others to sign up for service before the courts, and says there is a lot of good learning to be had in being a fellow judge. – The mandate as co-judge is, as I see it, ultimately to make Norway a better country and the world a better place. I believe that I have attempted to do so in my dissent. Time will tell if I have succeeded. State attorney Carl Graff Hartmann, who led the case for the prosecution, does not want to comment on what comes to light in this case. Published 19.07.2024, at 16.07
ttn-69
– Shocked – news Norway – Overview of news from different parts of the country
