Home > Country index > Norway > Local Conditions > Buskerud

Censored by MidtiBuskerud.no
Erik Strand, July 26th, 2014

Yesterday I posted a debate article at MidtiBuskerud.no, a website where registered users kan post articles. "Midt i Buskerud" means "in the middle of Buskerud", and the website is meant to be a forum for local discussion. After a few minutes, my article had vanished. I checked the inbox where I can read messages sent to me by other users of the forum or the host. The host had sent me a message telling that my posting had been removed:

"The host in the zone Midt i Buskerud has found it necessary to delete the posting Morten Wold and the CPS. Reason: The host finds that the contribution may be somewhat too person oriented."

Below I give an English translation of the entire posting that was deleted. For some background, one can read here.

This is what I posted:

"Morten Wold and the CPS

During July, Bygdeposten ha publsihed several articles concerning the local Child Protection Services (CPS), for example the two articles in the links below:



It has for a long time been an unconvenient, but demonstrable, truth that there is no judicial security in Norwegian CPS cases. For an overview one can read at Fampo's web pages - www.fampo.info/barnevern.html. [The material in English is found at www.fampo.no/cps.html]. With conditions like those which were the topic of the articles in Bygdeposten an at Fampo's web pages, it is important that politicians deal with the problem in a constructive way.

And one could read in Bygdeposten on July 8th that Member of Parliament Morten Wold (Progress Party) and Ingunn Dalaker Øderud (Centre Party), municipality board member in Modum, are concened over several CPS cases:


When a Member of Parliament speaks in this way,there is maybe a hope that something will be done? A look at what Morten Wold has been doing earlier gives usreason to doubt. This is not the first time Wold speaks about articles in Bygdeposten. In year 2000, Wold worked as a "journalist" in Drammens Tidende. That year Bygdeposten published several articles about sinister conditions in Norway which one should not expect to exist in a democracy. This did, however, not happen without someone trying to discredit what was published in Bygdeposten.

Dag Hiåsen has written the report "Ytringsfrihetens pris i Det skjulte Norge" [The price of freedom of speech in The veiled Norway]. The report may be read at www.fampo.info/ytringsfriheten.pdf. If one scrolls down to page 72 in the report, one can read about lies planted by Wold in Drammens Tidende. One can also read how Hiåsen refutes these lies. At the moment, I mention only one allegation by Wold. In Drammens Tidende on September 13th, 2000, Wold writes: "There has, however, not been any disclosures in the articles published in the newspaper [Bygdeposten]. The sources whichthe newspaper has used, have not been able to locate the responsibility.

If one looks at what has been published in Bygdeposten, one will see that Wold's allegation has nothing to do with reality. One of the articles in Bygdeposten had the title "Den siste sovjet-staten" [The last Sovjet republic] (publsihed on April 4th, 2000). In that article the readers were informed that the police at Sunnmøre demanded a mental observation of Kåre Torvholm and Oddmar Remøy,both with a clean record. Kåre Torvholm was central in the struggle to disclose economical criminality in the Norwegian fishing industry. Former MP Marie Lovise Widnes (Socialist Left party) has provided an extencive presentation of his work in her book "Fragler, fisnst dei?". The entire book can be read at www.fampo.info/fragler.pdf.

In order of comparision with the police's demand of mental observation, the article mentioned that while the two charged persons had a clean record, the man who put former labour union president Yngve Hågensen's house on fire, had been found guilty of 83 cases of criminal misconduct. There was no demand for mental observation of him. If Morten Wold had let Fampo and Hiåsen present documentation to Drammens Tidende, he would have seen that Hiåsen as a legal representative in a case for the control commission had been given all the documents in the case. In one of the documents, municipal doctor and former secretary in Brundtland's government, Bjørn Martin Aasen, justified a coercive hospitalisation of Oddmar Remøy with these words:

"He belongs to a civil network with both local, national and international connections which struggle to expose criminal things which happen in the public sectorin order to get things onto a more productive track. In my opinion the conditions in lph3 [law on psychiatric health care] are fulfilled."2

It can be mentioned that this is not the first time that I have been censored in internet fora in Buskerud - see http://www.fampo.no/article_deleted_in_norwegian_election_campaign.html.