Professor Magnus Ranstorp do not think Norwegian authorities solve anything particularly of the challenges of Mullah Krekar by placing him on Kyrksæterøra.
– Given that shifting him from Oslo environment, so I think that it physically can affect the environment positively, it means that you get him away. But one does not solve extremist or radikaliseringsspørsmålet in that he has free access to communications, says Ranstorp VG.
– He’s going to sit on a reception center, and one can wonder if he can influence those who sit there and whether it can create any problems. I do not think to solve very many problems with this measure.
The ruling, stating that the police decision to forcibly move Mullah Krekar to Kyrksæterøra is in line with the law, became known on Monday morning.
Thus the appeal from His lawyer Brynjar Meling, who believed the compulsory relocation was illegal, rejected.
Police in Oslo expects that Krekar traveling to South Trøndelag, unless Court of Appeal treats appeal his already this week.
Lawyer Brynjar Meling has been in contact with his client Mullah Krekar after court delivered its judgment today.
– He is naturally disappointed. He is aware that he does not pose any danger to national security and that there is no basis for the decision, says lawyer Brynjar Meling said.
– ideologue and scholar religious person
In ruling the court has rendered a note that PST has been prepared in advance of treatment in the Oslo District Court for a short week ago. Here they have considered what position Krekar has in the rest of extreme Islamist environment in eastern area, where several people have traveled to Syria.
They believe the environment looks at Krekar as an “ideologue and scholar religious person,” even without that there has been direct contact.
“This image may however change when Mullah Krekar released, “believes PST.
The Court points out that Krekar will still have the opportunity to spread his message and have contact with sympathizers and supporters via the Internet, although he staying at Kyrksæterøra.
When it comes to contact with allies face to face, the court’s overall assessment that Krekar will be approached by fewer followers and sympathizers if he has residency Kyrksæterøra and ascribe thus this reduction great importance in the assessment of the police order is proportionate.
Believes court did not consider safety hazard
Professor Hans Petter Graver at the Faculty of Law at the University of Oslo believes the court’s ruling is thorough and that it represents a solid approach to the issue.
– But I think the assessment of the proportionality is unclear. It looks like the court considering the impact of the decision on specific whereabouts regard the reduction in the number of visits Krekar will get, and ascribe this much weight. It really should be considered is the impact this decision has on the security danger he represents, says Graver.
He thinks it is unfortunate if the court has only taken into account the reduction in the number of visits.
– It is not necessarily two sides of the same coin.
– I think he may have contact with dangerous individuals
According Ranstorp happens radicalization of youth in Europe partly over the internet and partly physical.
– If one thinks theoretically he shall (Krekar, journ.anm.) sit up in northern parts of Norway and have sermons, while his apprentices sitting in Oslo and meetings these individuals physically. It gives the PST and others an opportunity to be able to see who attracts these individuals and radical communities.
– Because of this there may be a slight advantage, but it is quite marginal, says terrorism expert, adding that police decisions have “an enormous symbolic value.”
– Where dangerous is Mullah Krekar?
– I think he has contact with individuals who may be very dangerous. One can argue whether he is part of the problem with fueling radicalization, but he is not decisive in any way. He can be decisive on the climate in Norway, and then apply it to handle him sensible, says Ranstorp, adding that Norwegian authorities should do a study on these issues.
Believes decision not violate human rights
In the 18-page ruling discusses law including whether a police decision comes at odds with the European Human Rights (ECHR).
They write that they can not see that the compulsory settlement and notification comes into conflict with the first part of Article Five.
“However, it should additionally not small weight that the order that can remind something about detention, grab into Faraj their right under the Constitution, § 106, first paragraph, which says that: “Anyone who oppheld themselves legally in the realm, can move freely Within the limits and choose the Housing.”, “writes the court ruling said.
– Beginner to resemble detention
Attorney Jon Wessel Aas agree with the court that police decisions” starting to resemble detention “, but stressed that he not think that’s it.
He emphasizes that if the police had found an even smaller place than Kyrksæterøra, they had probably not been upheld by the court.
– A small island out at sea in Norway where there lives a few others, in a small cottage or through a house arrest, it would according to this judge also be in conflict with the Constitution and conventions that we are bound, says the profiled lawyer.
– Based on the District Court’s judgment then you have stretched it right as far as is admissible.
– Smarten argument
Aas highlights that the court, in addition to considering the provisions on freedom of movement in the ECHR, also have taken the right to family life for Krekar.
– They come with a pretty neat argument that I have a taste for, stating that it had not been for that police are not allowed to send him out of the country, he had to be moved to Iraq, which is much further away. There is a point, says Aas, and thinking on these part of the ruling:
“Elles is the distance from Oslo to Kyrksæterøra ein good deal shorter than between Oslo and Baghdad, so it will be convenient for both possible wife and his children to travel to Kyrksæterøra to visit him there. “
Further believes Aas that it was right by the court not to go into detail about the instructions that were given police from Justisdepartermentet is illegal or not.
– Police have not built on instruction as justification, but on the law. It is the court also said that they do not need to decide whether the instruction is an attempt to instruct, because it has not had an impact on the decision.
Law professor Graver agree with Aas, although he still believes that the instructions from the Ministry of Justice is illegal.
– The question is whether it is authorized to give this decision, and not whether proceedings have been illegal.
No comments:
Post a Comment