Covid in Norway: 'Antivaxxer' Jailed for Voicing Opinions on Social Media Speaks Out
Covid in Norway: 'Antivaxxer' Jailed for Voicing Opinions on Social Media Speaks Out
Courtesy of State Broadcaster NRK, we now 'know' Trond Harald Håland was 'manic' when he took to Facebook earlier this year
Editorial prelim: This is a very long post, please go online or read in the app.
Earlier this year, some ‘alternative’ media outlets actually reported early on the plight of one Trond Harald Håland who repeatedly took to Social Media to voice his concerns about the Covid-19 modRNA injections—and ended up committed to a mental institution by a GP who never once saw him.
What was Mr. Håland’s thoughtcrime, you might ask? Well, he criticised the modRNA injections, and this miscarriage of—’justice’?—was only resolved after he spent more than a week in confinement. I’ll let Norway’s state broadcaster NRK take it from here…
As always, translation, emphases, and bottom lines mine.
Jailed After Fierce Facebook Posting
100 postings in one day on Facebook made chief municipal physician [overlege] think that Trond Harald Håland was manic. Others believe he became a political prisoner for ‘alternative’ opinions on vaccines.
By Syed Ali Shahbaz Akhtar, NRK, 21/22 Dec. 2023
‘It was an infraction of my privacy without any grounds. There were only a few Facebook posts’, Håland says to NRK.
You can read what the hospital thinks about the matter at the very bottom. They believe there were things that indicated that there was talk of a worsening of Håland's underlying illness [in the following account, see if you spot the absurdities; also why not show what the ER staff thought here before you start editorialising?]
On 19 July, Håland received [an unsolicited] home visit by staff from the emergency room [what is omitted here is the little factoid that police accompanied the first responders; Jesus Christ, it’s also in their name] in Stavanger one early morning [shouldn’t that be the other way round, i.e., you go to the ER if you have to].
On July 16, he had posted 32 times on his Facebook profile [don’t you have a teenage daughter, Mr. Journo?].
The following day [17 July], the number of records had increased to 63.
On 18 July, the number of postings had increased further to 105 [it’s never spelled out concretely, but I think these are Mr. Håland’s ‘daily postings’; during the summer holidays].
This is shown by a count and survey carried out by NRK at the beginning of August. NRK reserves the right to count only open submissions [oh, this is what ‘respectable journos’ do these days: you choose which ones to count, which you then do, and it took you only some 4+ months to put together this piece? Marvellous achievement].
Most of the posts dealt with Covid vaccines, as well as general criticism of the handling of the pandemic. Håland is opposed to the mRNA vaccines and believes that some ‘batches’ in particular have brought with them many side effects and deaths. [so, what’s the big deal here? I also think so, I have ample of evidence to back up this particular claim, most of which is grounded in ‘peer-reviewed’ scientific literature, which, for the record, you, Mr. Journo, never once mention, but I digress]
[translation of the above posting] High mortality is not due to Corona. That is entirely impossible and correlates totally with the vaccine rollout. You can rule out Covid here 100%. There is no connection with [Covid-the-disease]. Corona came once most people were vaccinated. Therefore these [jabs] are not like a cure but there are many who died. This is criminal mass-murder. There is no worse scum than those responsible.
Data from VARES shows correlation. The excess mortality stands at 114% in the Philippines.
They lie when they say all it works. [It’s like telling] people to take it because if you don't wear a diaper, you'll shit in your pants. Such logical flaws meant there was never data on herd immunity. It was also only tested for 97 days after administration. This health intervention doesn’t work. People should know that. It's perfectly fine for them to go out to defend their own lives and the lives of others. Liars, and they lie about everything. They must be taken care of.
They knew about the hot lots and VAERS because I knew it, too, and they continue anyways. They know about excess mortality for years and are lying that there was no significant excess mortality.
[this posting is followed by a link to Dep. Health Director Nakstad telling everyone that while no-one is able to ‘splain things about mortality, they know it’s not the jabs; read my reporting on this particular piece of legacy media slander here:
And now back to Mr. Shahbaz Akhtar’s ‘reporting’]
Most of his posts are reposts from others or statistics on, e.g., excess mortality in different countries from various websites. In some of the posts, Håland commented while others were merely the sharing of articles or statistics from these websites [so, basically, Mr. Håland was ‘using’ social media in a way that it was designed to be ‘used’, is that what you’re saying?]
Trond Harald Håland had previously made his mark on these issues. In January 2022, he and some of his peers chose to caution against the [Covid mod-RNA] vaccines and sent a letter to the county medical officer. They demanded a complete halt and an investigation of the consequences [so, what, exactly, is the ‘crime’ here?]
A number of the posts in July this year [2023] criticised the media's coverage of climate issues, but most of them were about mRNA vaccines [so, what, exactly, is the ‘crime’ here?].
Police at the Door
Håland had stayed up late on several these summer days. He therefore describes himself as a morning grouch on the morning of 19 July when he was woken up by an intense knock on the door from first responders.
‘I told them to go to hell. I was half asleep’, says Håland.
A short time later, there was another knock on the door. This time the police were there.
‘Police was outside and said that if I didn't open the door now, they would break it down. So I just walked out.’
The meeting with the police was documented continuously:
I took out my mobile phone and filmed it. It was posted online. I wanted to make sure that everything went right. And it did, for the most part. That wasn't the problem. The police were nice. They kept the mood down. I realised pretty quickly that I was going to be hospitalised. That I might not be allowed back in.
[the following paragraphs are the most harrowing ones]
Use of Force
An ambulance arrived at the scene and Håland had to go with it.
Police had received an anonymous report of concern about his posting.
Håland had been diagnosed with bipolar disorder in 2017. He had received this diagnosis after he had reported what he believed to be unacceptable conditions in the healthcare organisation he was working for at the time [remember: Norway is a socialistic country with near-exclusive state-run healthcare services; the provider is never named, but if I had to speculate, it wasn’t a private one]. Håland has never agreed with the diagnosis, as he believes the examination was based on a single conversation and not a thorough investigation. Håland himself has stated that he has struggled with depression, but that he is not bipolar.
This previous experience meant that Håland wanted to say as little as possible when the police came to the door, and he also wanted to obtain legal assistance quickly [what a considerate judgement, eh?].
He arrived at the emergency ward at the mental health clinic at Stavanger University Hospital (SUS). The admission record states the following, among other things:
Awake, appears aware of the situation. Appears hygienic [i.e., washed and not in a derelict state]. Normally dressed with shoes, trousers and jumper. Normal speech rate, no latency or speech fluency. Denies visual and auditory hallucinations. Not asked about suicidal thoughts. Difficulty to identify racing thoughts.
Further down in the assessment, it states:
Anonymous person reported concerns to the ER physician-on-call who suspects that the patient is manic. Throughout the evening, the patient has posted constantly on Facebook with political content. The patient states that he has written something about vaccines and climate maps. Suspicion of mania. The patient was assessed as not being able to give consent…
[let that assessment sink in for a moment: some anonymous person ‘reported concerns’, which led the doctor-on-call ‘suspect’ something is odd—because Mr. Håland was posting on social media]
Håland was thus placed under so-called ‘mandated observation’.
According to Håland, this was done without a conversation with him and without an assessment by a specialised psychologist. This psychology specialist allegedly attempted to speak with Håland, but was rejected by Håland. Such a decision must be made by a doctor/psychiatrist, or as SUS [Stavanger University Hospital] explains it, by a specialist psychologist with relevant practice and further training who is equivalent to a doctor/psychiatrist in such a context. They also believe that a specialist psychologist can make judgements based on observations and other information, even if the patient refuses to talk:
It's difficult to establish a dialogue with the patient. He won't respond and doesn't want a dialogue. He wants to talk and clarify with a lawyer first. He seems irritable and dissatisfied. The patient is informed about coercion and his right to complain.
[Image you’re experiencing what Mr. Håland went through, with police and all that—would you ‘respond’ or ‘want a dialogue’?]
Håland chooses to do so. To complain.
If you are involuntarily hospitalised, you have the right to have your complaint heard by a review board within the shortest possible time. It meets every fortnight, and there were nine days until the next meeting.
Attention to Detail
Even though Håland was hospitalised, his Facebook page did not go silent. From the moment he was approached by paramedics and police at the door, messages of support started pouring in.
Håland was labelled a ‘dissident’ and a ‘hero’. Someone who had spread ‘the truth’. Norway was described as being ruled by ‘tyrants’ and a totalitarian society.
[translation of the above posting] The tyrants in psychiatry and the police have taken Trond Harald Haaland for an involuntary psychiatric evaluation for his involvement in providing the Norwegian people with knowledge about THE CORONA VACCINE CRAP-SHOT CRIME AGAINST HUMANITY. Now we must all wake up and be ready to help and defend Trond Harald Haaland. Because if the tyrants succeed in shutting up Trond Harald Haaland, it may well be YOU or ME they come for in the next round.
‘…we already sense a legal and health scandal’, writes the anonymous writer at Steigan in the first article in which they discuss the case on 22 July [the NRK journo doesn’t link to that piece, which you can find here].
You can read about the criteria in the relevant sections of the Mental Health Act in the fact box below:
An Act on the Establishment & Implementation of Mental Health Care
§ 3-2. Conditions for decisions on compulsory observation
On the basis of information from the medical examination pursuant to Section 3-1, the professional responsible makes an assessment of whether the following conditions for compulsory observation have been met:
Voluntary mental health care has been attempted [George Orwell sends his regards], without this having been successful, or it is obviously pointless to attempt this.
The patient is examined by two doctors, one of whom must be independent of the responsible institution, cf. § 3-1 [as documented above, this condition was not met].
The patient lacks consent competence, cf. Section 4-3 of the Patient and User Rights Act. This condition does not apply in the event of imminent and serious danger to one's own life or the life or health of others [neither condition was met as documented above].
It is predominantly likely that the patient fulfils the conditions for compulsory mental healthcare according to § 3-3 no. 3 [see above, since there was institutional failure (there was but one doc), technically, if the county medical examiner would be counted as the other gut who was ‘independent of the responsible institution’, how would oversight work?].
The institution is professionally and materially able to offer the patient satisfactory treatment and care and is approved in accordance with § 3-5 [irrelevant here]
The patient is given the opportunity to express himself, cf. § 3-9 [Mr. Håland had this opportunity, and he objected].
Even if the law's conditions are otherwise met, forced observation can only take place where, after an overall assessment, this appears to be the clear best solution for the person concerned, unless he or she poses an imminent and serious danger to the life or health of others. During the assessment, particular emphasis must be placed on how much burden the coercive intervention will cause for the person concerned.
Involuntary observation cannot last longer than 10 days from the start of the examination without the patient's consent. If the patient's condition indicates that it is strictly necessary, the deadline can be extended up to 10 days with the consent of the head of the control commission. Transfer to compulsory mental health care can take place before or at the end of this deadline, if the conditions for such care are present.
§ 3-3. Conditions for decisions on compulsory mental health care
On the basis of information from the medical examination pursuant to § 3-1 and any compulsory observation pursuant to § 3-2, the professional responsible [note it’s merely one person again] makes an assessment of whether the following conditions for compulsory mental health care are met:
Voluntary mental health care has been attempted, without this having been successful, or it is obviously pointless to attempt this.
The patient is examined by two doctors, one of whom must be independent of the responsible institution, cf. § 3-1.
The patient has a serious mental disorder and the establishment of compulsory mental healthcare is necessary to prevent the person in question, due to the mental disorder, either
a. has his prospect of recovery or significant improvement significantly reduced, or there is a high probability that the person concerned will have his condition significantly worsen in the very near future, or
b. constitutes an imminent and serious danger to one's own or others' life or health.
The patient lacks consent competence, cf. Section 4-3 of the Patient and User Rights Act. This condition does not apply in the event of imminent and serious danger to one's own life or the life or health of others.
The institution is professionally and materially able to offer the patient satisfactory treatment and care and is approved in accordance with § 3-5.
The patient is given the opportunity to express himself, cf. § 3-9.
Even if the law's conditions are otherwise met, compulsory mental health care can only take place where, after an overall assessment, this appears to be clearly the best solution for the person concerned, unless he or she poses an imminent and serious danger to the life or health of others. During the assessment, particular emphasis must be placed on how much burden the coercive intervention will cause for the person concerned.
Håland was visited at the hospital. In the treatment records from the hospital, one of the visits in particular was described as follows [note that we don’t know the context of the following description]:
Last night he received a visit from an unruly group of people who laughed, shouted, and made themselves comfortable in the post office. They helped themselves to whatever drinks and snacks they could find in the living room, had a party atmosphere with hugging and shouting and a happy mood completely out of step with their surroundings. They filmed and took pictures and were difficult to correct, rude, and impolite.
Håland tells NRK that he does not recognise himself in this description of his visitors.
The treatment records also state that Håland had a meeting with a senior consultant on 25 July [that would be on the 6th day of his involuntary hospitalisation]. There, the senior consultant believes that Håland does not show any ‘insight into his illness’. Håland himself still does not understand why he is in the psychiatric ward. He disagrees that the posts and his activity on Facebook are an exacerbation of his bipolar diagnosis.
Trond Harald Håland received disability benefits after his diagnosis [in 2017]. Before that, he worked as an occupational therapist. Today, Håland is studying mathematics and states that he has so far amassed 90 credit points.
The man from Stavanger believes he has witnesses who can substantiate that he has not been in a manic state.
Shortly before his hospitalisation, he went on a cabin trip with a couple of friends and their children. In addition, he has been followed up by a psychiatrist at somewhat irregular intervals in recent years. The last contact was reportedly at the beginning of July [i.e., two weeks before the above-related incident].
NRK has seen reports from both the friends and this psychiatrist that they have not seen any deterioration in Håland at-all recently.
One of his friends even [stop editorialising] wrote:
We were totally shocked and saddened and believe that a human abuse has been committed against Trond. We didn't notice anything at all that indicated this was going to happen.
But the chief physician was clear in his notes.
He described Håland as ‘covering up’: he was really ill, but was just hiding it. In addition, they had received information from a relative of Håland's that he had recently seemed tired and could ‘disappear into himself’. The chief physician therefore believed that Håland should be hospitalised.
The chief physician maintained this view right up to the hearing before the Commission.
Håland Appeared Normal
Attorney Barbro Paulsen was contacted early on by people around Håland, and eventually by Håland himself. She says that she has experience with these kinds of cases. Paulsen herself is sceptical about the coronavirus vaccines, and has spoken publicly about this in the past:
I was actually about to go on holiday when I got the phone call. This particular case, that he had been picked up because of a posting on Facebook, touched something in me, and at the same time I didn't think this could be real.
There was a huge amount of people calling me who were associated with Håland. I thought that he would be released shortly. He immediately appeared to me to be adequate and completely normal.
But then Paulsen was told that the hospital wanted to keep him on. She then advised him to say as little as possible:
This is because such a deprivation of liberty can be regarded as imprisonment. Don't give them a reason. I always advise my clients to remain calm and polite. If you become agitated or angry, you may trigger a counter-reaction that is often not particularly pleasant [and, quite likely, the intended cause for the action in the first place]. Håland appeared to me to be focused, calm, and responsive. He didn't come across as manic at all, as alleged.
Paulsen also responds to the fact that the person who reported the incident to the police was kept anonymous, which meant that Håland was not given the opportunity to directly counter the allegations. This person has remained anonymous to this day, despite Paulsen having requested access on two occasions [there is but one essential concept here: in dubio pro reo, i.e., innocent until proven guilty in a court of law].
But what she reacts to most is the fact that the hospital admitted Håland so quickly:
An important guarantee of legal certainty is what is known in law as the ‘principle of least interference’, which must always be a guiding principle. This is because it is so violent when the state, which is a strong party, turns up at your door. No phone call has been made to the next of kin in advance, or a message has been sent to him to ask if he is doing well or to invite him to a meeting. Here, you have jumped straight to the most invasive measure. The county physician has not even bothered to go on Facebook and read what he had posted, but stubbornly maintained that Håland has a serious mental disorder.
It also emerges from the admission records, the treatment record, and the Commission's decision that the county physician had not read Håland's Facebook posts.
Stavanger University Hospital, for its part, has pointed out that there is a legal requirement for an assessment within 24 hours when a patient is admitted to the hospital involuntarily.
‘The Trial’
On 28 July, the Commission held a hearing. It acts as a kind of court in cases of involuntary hospitalisation.
A doctor with extensive experience, a lawyer, and two lay judges were part of the commission, which consists of a total of five members.
Håland and his relatives explained the case from their side, while the senior consultant from the psychiatric ward explained the case from the hospital's side.
In this ‘procedure’, Paulsen believed that the hospital had violated the law on several points, including:
Voluntariness was not attempted.
Håland has not been examined by two independent doctors.
‘threat criteria’ were not fulfilled.
the lawyer believes that Håland has the capacity to consent.
Stavanger University Hospital (SUS), for its part, stated that Håland was ill, but covered up in the assessment interview [don’t ask me how that works: isn’t it curious that Mr. Håland was ‘ill’ but managed to ‘cover up’ his illness during the same interview?].
They also refer to the fact that Håland was assessed by both a doctor at the emergency department and a doctor and psychology specialist at SUS.
The consulting physician was of the opinion that Håland is not particularly concerned about the topics he has written about on Facebook when he is well [why would he: it’s social media, for crying out loud; also since when is the ‘belief’ of a doctor about something he couldn’t have observed—Mr. Håland posted these things before the consulting physician got to ‘assess’ him—something other than hearsay?]. This was despite the fact that Håland's Facebook history showed that he had posted about the pandemic at irregular intervals, and thus reported the vaccination to the police in 2022.
But this was abnormal behaviour, according to the chief medical officer.
He also believed that Håland had not cooperated by refusing to accept medication and other treatment [which is, let’s not forget, the patient’s right]:
Without coercion, the negative side of the treatment criterion of rapid deterioration will be fulfilled. He will also miss out on significant improvement without compulsory counselling. [I suppose medication and ‘treatment’ will continue until morale improves]
‘The Judgement’
The sentence above is taken from the counsellor's submissions in the Commission's decision. The decision was delivered orally to the parties on the same day as the Commission's proceedings. The consultant's concerns were not enough.
‘Full victory’, wrote Steigan.
In the photo, Håland is standing with two plastic bags containing his belongings, and his lawyer Paulsen who gives a thumbs up.
The decision was issued in writing just over a week later.
NRK has read this, and, among other things, it says the following:
The Control Commission finds that voluntary mental health care has not been attempted [a clear win for Mr. Håland who’s been saying that all along]
However, the commission was not unanimous in its decision that the complainant is in mania or has psychotic features or functioning now [this one’s more ambiguous, but I suppose that it’s o.k.-ish for people to agree to disagree].
The same relative to whom the consultant had previously referred the complainant was of the opinion that Håland was not unwell now. In fact, he was in a better condition than he had been for a long time. He should not be hospitalised now. This was emphasised by the Commission [no need for enemies, it would seem].
At the same time, the Commission maintains that Håland is basically bipolar. But concludes that he is not ill now.
Here is Ms. Paulsen’s comment:
As a lawyer, I believe that this is within the framework of freedom of expression, and that this is important to protect in the future, given that, without freedom of expression and space for expression, we have no democracy. Håland has never harmed anyone. He is a kind and empathetic man.
She claims that the psychologist who assessed that Håland should be compulsorily hospitalised had not spoken to him, and the consultant who wanted to keep him in a psychiatric ward had not read what was on Facebook:
That's one of the things that has shaken me the most.
The case has attracted a lot of attention. In addition to the aforementioned Steigan, websites such as Document, Antijantepodden, and international ‘alternative’ [sic] websites have featured the case.
It's not easy to be a critic in Norway today. The scope for expression has been severely restricted in the times we live in now.
She refers to the debate surrounding the new Freedom of Information Act and the potential restrictions on the right of access.
The Håland case raises several fundamental questions about freedom of expression. ‘I really “hope” this case is just a system failure’, says the lawyer [I personally doubt that].
[NRK] But do you think it was the frequency or content of the records that led to Håland being compulsorily hospitalised? You yourself argue that the chief physician did not read what was written on Facebook because the chief physician did not have Facebook… [who prepares the portfolios the chief physician signs off on?]
[Paulsen] I'll be very careful about speculating here, but I don't believe the frequency alone is the issue here. He has been active for several periods in recent years. Then it calms down, and then he becomes active again. There is nothing that deviates in this particular period, if you had bothered to do a little research [quite an allegation for a ‘careful’ attorney]
[NRK] If Håland had posted 105 times in one day about growing vegetables, do you think he would have been hospitalised?
'[Paulsen] No, of course not.
Stavanger University Hospital denies that the political content of the posts had anything to do with his hospitalisation. See their response below.
A Political Prisoner?
Trond Harald Håland himself says that he originally thought he would be quickly ‘released’, but eventually realised that it was not at all certain. In the days before the commission proceedings, he began to prepare by, among other things, creating an exercise plan while he was in psychiatry:
The people who were there and worked there were perfectly fine. You were taken care of. I am not critical of them. That's not where the problem is. What happened in advance and the basis for admission, that’s the problem.
Where is the limit for the use of coercion? I didn't meet the criteria and it's completely impossible for them to know if I was going to do it two weeks in the future [this is extremely important: Mr. Håland was admitted without legal grounds, yet he feared that the commission would retroactively permit his continued institutionalisation…].
He thinks the whole situation was absurd [it is, no doubt about it]. Could it be that because he had a prior diagnosis or a label as bipolar, that he could be committed against his will? Although he apparently showed no symptoms either on admission or during his stay?
[NRK] Several people who share opinions with you have described you as a political prisoner. Do you see yourself as a political prisoner?
It is a very strange case. I am unable to conclude that it is deliberate because of these utterances. But I don't think the topic I posted about is irrelevant.
[NRK] At the same time, you show that none of them at the hospital have read the content. How can it be politically motivated then, if they haven't read it? [mistakes were made, no-one is responsible, then, eh? I hear that all the time when my child leaves a textbook in school…]
The doctors have not read anything, but at the same time an anonymous complained has been filed. If someone who doesn't like what I write can somehow bring in a political opponent…if it's that simple. In a way, it's up to the person who made the alert here’
[NRK] But why do you post over a hundred times on Facebook in one day? Many of the posts are relatively similar in content and message ...
It's because Facebook censors so much, and I wanted to make sure that at least something got through.
[NRK] Have you moderated [read: self-censored] yourself? In terms of both content and frequency?
I have moderated both in terms of content and frequency. The language has been moderated and more diplomatic.
[NRK] Why have you done that if you think you haven't done anything wrong?
It's not me, but Barbro who said that my credibility is at stake here. Perhaps they have succeeded in censoring me a little, but I will get the same message across.
He and his lawyer will now consider whether to file a formal complaint against the hospital with the Norwegian Board of Health and other competent authorities.
Stavanger University Hospital Defends the Decision
NRK has been in contact with both Helse Stavanger and their ER department about this case. The ER department was asked about the first contact. ‘What was the purpose of seeking out Håland? Were they really just going to talk to him, but then the situation escalated and they referred him to a psychiatric centre?’
The head of the ER department in Stavanger replied the following in an e-mail:
We apologise that we are unable to confirm or deny the information you have provided, or to answer your questions. Our general routine is not to discuss specific patient cases with the media, even if there is an exemption from the duty of confidentiality.
Sølve Braut, head of the clinic for adult mental health care [sic] at Stavanger University Hospital (SUS), believes that both the ER department and the hospital considered that Håland had to be forcibly hospitalised:
The main criterion for compulsory hospitalisation under the Mental Health Care Act is that the patient has a serious mental disorder. One of the additional conditions is that the prospect of recovery or significant improvement is significantly reduced without hospitalisation, or that there is a high probability that the patient's condition will deteriorate significantly in the very near future. [hi there, boilerplate hogwash without consideration of the above-admitted procedural mishaps]
He believes that the course of bipolar disorder can change rapidly, and that a comprehensive assessment of the patient's symptoms is required [how wonderful that this is such a severe disorder that it could go away completely between being forcibly committed to the psychiatric ward by police and attending physicians…also, scientists and doctors shouldn’t ‘believe’, but they are required—obligated—to have evidence, which is clearly not the case], adding:
What he or she says and does, together with information and observations from relatives and others, form the basis for the assessment that specialists make when making decisions under the [Mental Health Care] law.
[NRK] Does SUS agree with the assessment that voluntary solutions should have been tried?
[Braut] Both the ER department and the hospital assessed that there was a need for compulsory hospitalisation at the time of admission [note the equivocation here without provision of a concise yes/no answer]
[NRK] What does SUS think about attorney Paulsen's opinion of an offence on the part of SUS?
[Braut] We make our assessments based on the patient's medical condition and the criteria in the law, and it's part of the guarantee of legal certainty in society that patients can be assisted by a lawyer and can appeal our decisions and have their case heard by an independent appeals body. The fact that the appeals body sometimes makes different judgements than us and reverses our decisions shows that we have a system that works [and here’s the eventual end result of any Covid-related ‘enquiry’]
[NRK] This case has sparked a debate on websites such as Steigan, Dokument, and various foreign websites about freedom of expression and alternative opinions. What does SUS think about this?
[Braut] To the extent that these websites try to create the impression that people are being admitted to mental health care solely because they have dissenting political opinions or are in opposition to the government, I can refute that this is the case [again, this isn’t the answer to the above question].
[NRK] The health authorities have been clear about the importance of immunisation and preventing the spread of COVID-19 [they have since admitted in writing that the modRNA injections don’t prevent transmission]. Was it significant that Håland went directly against the authorities' views? Would Håland have been hospitalised if he had posted 105 posts in one day about growing vegetables?
[Braut] It is primarily changes in behaviour that can be perceived as important. In any case, this will only be one of many assessment topics in an overall assessment of whether the legal requirements are met.
After the incident this summer, there has been no contact between Håland and the hospital, his lawyer Barbro Paulsen told NRK.
SUS confirms that the last contact was a request for access to documents in early September. Paulsen also says that the case will be followed up.
‘Håland does not consider the case to be closed’, says Paulsen.
Bottom Lines
This is arguably a bad situation, but what’s making this all worse is the way this is ‘covered’ in legacy media.
I learned about this case when it was happening, but I’ve refrained from commenting on it so far because I wanted to see when and how legacy media would cover it, if at-all.
There’s no doubt that many thinks could be said, including the—let’s be honest—questionable wording Mr. Håland used in some of his postings.
What’s even more troublesome is the ongoing centralisation and data-sharing across platforms and actors under the umbrella of ‘One Health’.
Once upon a time, one’s medical records were considered ‘confidential’ and pertained to you and your physician.
Now, esp. with the WHO-declared, so-called ‘Pandemic™’ serving as a catalyst (when everyone was asking/sharing one’s ‘vaxx status’, with or without Covid Passport mandates), these times are certainly gone.
Once there’s something on your ‘permanent record’, it can and will eventually be weaponised, procedural abuses and individual failures notwithstanding. The admission of ER doctors and hospital staff that they didn’t read any of Mr. Håland’s materials before committing him to the psychiatry ward is telling in and of itself.
Moreover, it is increasingly painful to observe all the issues that could—and should—have been covered by the ‘journos’ here, which incl. (incomplete listing):
social media censorship
procedural abuse using the Mental Health Care Act as a bludgeon
issues raised by Mr. Håland, e.g., safety and efficacy (sic) of the Covid injectables, the role of public health officialdom, and the lack of any concern on part of the judiciary
Mr. Håland is to be commended for his stance, as is his attorney, Ms. Paulsen. While I don’t agree with all the stuff they’ve said, this is clearly, to me, a freedom of speech issue, as well as one of bodily sovereignty vs. arbitrary detention on grounds that cannot be defended, neither legally and, apparently, nor medically. This is, of course, the textbook definition of authoritarianism and tyranny.
Last but not least, let’s mention that state broadcaster NRK is, at best, ‘doing journalism’ as a kind of performance that permits them to, kinda, claim that ‘we’ve covered it, what are you loony tinfoil hat-wearing weirdo’ claiming.
As is so often the case, they are not even hiding their contempt or writing ‘between the lines’, and I suspect this to be because they ‘feel’ safe and right. History will not be kind to these people, esp. as the record of abuse, lies, and carnage is undeniable.
The take-away message here is: how do you spell ‘limited hangout’ in Norwegian?
Mr Haland sounds like he was having a perfectly normal response to the tyranny of clown world. The people who play pretend with government rules are the crazy ones.
Diagnosis: based and redpilled.
Whether or not Håland is mentally ill is of no consequence since none of his behaviour fit the criteria for being incarcerated in the first place; this is impossible to read as anything but a political decision.
‘insight into his illness’ is a beauty of a catch-22 and here in Sweden, it is rarely if ever used anymore simply because it makes it impossible for the patient to ever appear sane and healthy.
Instead, clinicians must describe and recount the patient's statements verbatim if possible, or true to the intent stated by the patient.
I do believe Norway, just as Sweden and Denmark and Finland does, have the concept of „Wahnsinnige aus Rechthaberei“? This has been used in the past to hospitalise "troublesome" persons.