On September 9, the population of Norway repeated the process of Iceland[1] and voted out the feminist left from power. The most feminist faction of the leftist coalition that will resign in October, Sosialistisk Venstre (SV – The Socialist Left Party), barely avoided falling under the national election threshold of 4%, getting 4.1%[2] from the popular vote. This means that some of their representatives will still be in Storting (the Norwegian Parliament).

However, whilst SV has managed to save itself from being put out of misery, the hardcore feminist ideologue in the Norwegian government, Inga Marte Thorkildsen, will have to go, hopefully for good.

Inga Marte Thorkildsen served (and still serves until October when the incumbent government will resign) as the Minister of Children, Equality and Social Inclusion (Barne, likestillings og inkluderingsministeren) in the leftist Coalition government. She was an MP for Vestfold region for three terms and she has not been reelected for this term[3].

She started attracting a tremendous amount of criticism last year in April when she personally intervened into a custody dispute and tried to push the police’s investigation of an allegation of child abuse towards the ideologically correct outcome of the feminist ideology – women good, men bad. Basically, a custodial father was being dragged into courts after the mother made allegations of incest and severe beatings – none of them true. Business as usual in Europe and especially in the impeccably ”progressive” Norway.

After being exposed for the ”help” that she offered to the Police (read: pressure for them to get to her desired outcome) she went even further and utterly refused to admit that she had done anything wrong. She saw herself as the savior of the “poor mother” and felt an imperative to “help” the child escape from the father[4].

She even went so far as to “conclude,” in total defiance of the factual reality, that the Police and Barneværnet(Norway’s CPS) were wrong to give the child to the father because the mother says that he abused the father. Both the first and the second investigation (the second being ordered personally by her in STASI style) lead to the conclusion that she was completely wrong.

But this didn’t stop Inga Marte Thorkildsen and she went on to publish sensitive and private information about the case on her Facebook account and Twitter account. When asked for explanations from the father and from the public opinion, she refused to offer any explanations and claimed that the demands for her to get out of the case were “insults” directed at her[6]. Her political party and the Government also agreed that she has done nothing wrong and claimed that if the public believes that, then the public should decide[7]. Fortunately, the public didn’t forget, albeit the public had to wait over a year to make the decision.

One of the reasons the public did not forget about her misconduct is because in October 2012, she went so far as to try to change the law (The Children’s Act – Barneloven) to make it legal for a divorced parent (custodial or not) to deny visitation rights to the other parent simply on a whim[8].

Basically, her legislative proposal stipulated that if the other parent or one of the grandparents of the child say that they have a “real fear” (and this was the exact terminology) that the child might be abused, then that’s reason enough to deny the other parent’s access to children. All the accuser has to do is say that they have a real fear – no evidence needed and no courts ought to be involved (as opposed to the original law which required evidence of misconduct and a judicial process).

So, in the case in which Inga Marte Thorkildsen legally (but immorally) bullied the police, the false accuser (the mother) would have got the right to simply seize the child based on her words alone that she has a “real fear” that the father is an incestuous abusive parent. Another egregious case was also brought up in the debate – namely the case of a little boy named „Christoffer” for the media – who got however an abuse experience at his mother’s house, when his scull was cracked open (17 cm) with his windpipe stuffed full with paper. So much for “protecting him from his father” and the mother was eventually charged for aiding and abetting a child-abuser (her new boyfriend)[5]. When this case was brought up, it was pointed, that her law would not have helped nobody in the real life.

This decision of hers attracted a tremendous amount of criticism across the Norwegian society. Some journalists wondered since when a subjective feeling (like the one of “fear”) should be the standard of legal decisions. Moreover, how does the accused disprove that her “real fear” assertion is false?[9] Others reminded the Minister that Norway was already convicted once in 2007 at the European Court of Human Rights for breaching a father’s right to visitation[10] in a similar case in which the Norwegian Court of Appeal blessed a flagrant abuse of the law which sided with a mother that popped up a torrent of false allegations. In the 2007 case, the State had to pay roughly 9000 euros (70,000 norske kroner) in reparations to the victim (the father). Hardly relevant but the precedent is already set so if the law proposal of Inga Marte Thorkildsen would have been approved, the Norwegian State would have become liable to huge amounts of payments to the fathers that were being disenfranchised by the misandric State.

To make it more clear how radically misandric was her behavior and her proposals as minister, one must notice that even the feminist-oriented “men’s group” Reform – the group that proposed nothing less than outright banning and censorship of anti-feminist speech[11] – had objections to Inga Marte’s proposals[12].

The debate regarding the Children’s Act may finally come to an end once Inga Marte will be gone. But the fact that she has not yet been held accountable legally for what she did, and considering the fact that the Norwegians tend to trust the State excessively, creates a worrying precedent for the Norwegian fathers and generally for the wellbeing of Norwegian families. Let us hope that the new government won’t bring its own Inga Marte Thorkildsen.

Norwegian people are usually very polite. So they use ha det bra! (literally: have it good!) for “Goodbye!” We are not so polite, especially with feminist bigots like Inga Marte Thorkildsen, so we will simply wish her Adjø! (Adios!)

Sources:

[1] http://www.avoiceformen.com/feminism/feminist-governance-feminism/feminists-lose-elections-in-iceland/

[2] http://www.vg.no/spesial/2013/valg/ntb/ – Interactive map with elections results (in Norwegian)

[3] http://www.tv2.no/nyheter/politisk/disse-statsraadene-maa-paa-jobbjakt-4118521.html – List of famous politicians that will lose their job in October (in Norwegian)

[4] http://www.dagsavisen.no/samfunn/blandet-seg-inn-i-incestsak/ (in Norwegian)

[5] https://docs.google.com/file/d/1UyDo6NLPjr4mAszovHRVzAcAHBPgHiF3iJ0ePijMzkimhlIzdMuxoBavCWJA/edit?usp=sharing – What have we learned from the Christoffer case? – author: Dag Rune Ramstad, Aftenbladet (F2F Kronikk), February 2012 (in Noewegian)

[6] http://www.nettavisen.no/nyheter/article3387554.ece (in Norwegian)

[7] Idem 5

[8] http://www.aftenposten.no/nyheter/Departementet-vil-endre-barneloven-7014434.html (in Norwegian)

[9] http://www.dagsavisen.no/nyemeninger/alle_meninger/cat1003/subcat1018/thread256499/ (in Norwegian)

[10] http://www.vg.no/nyheter/innenriks/artikkel.php?artid=173312 (in Norwegian)

[11] http://www.nrk.no/contentfile/file/1.10947191!reform.pdf – The Reform “expert panel” report recommending to the Nordic Council to ban anti-feminist speech (mostly in Norwegian – with parts in English)

[12] http://www.reform.no/images/stories/Reforms_hringssvar_til_endringer_barneloven_-_bedre_beskyttelse_mot_vold_og_overgrep_30_11_12.pdf – Reform consultation response – Proposed changes in the Children’s Act – Better protection of children against violence and abuse. Pages 1-2 (in Norwegian)