One in three believes they have noticed climate change

Tuesday, 14 August 2018

A large majority believes climate change is happening, and one in three believes they have experienced it personally, according to a recent survey.

The survey was carried out by the Cicero Center for Climate Research, and some of the findings are presented during Arendalsuka Tuesday.

“It seems that there is a fairly small proportion of the population who believe that climate change does not happen, and also a small proportion of people who believe that humans do not affect the climate,” concludes Cicero researcher Marianne Aasen to NTB.

31 percent say they have experienced the climate change in person.

The survey was taken up in June, and Aasen therefore believes that it does not catch the summer tumble and the discussion of “good summer weather” versus climate crisis.

It’s just a taste of the survey Aasen can present in Arendal, since the numbers are so fresh. The researcher makes reservations that there may be some bias, but it is important to shout at the main picture, she emphasizes.

* A total of 77 percent believe the claim that climate change is going on is quite good or very good.

* Under 10 percent deny that human activity affects the climate, while around 70 percent think we contribute to the changes.

About 4,000 people have been asked, and it is TNS Gallup who has been collecting data.

Like the smoking act?

With annual surveys, the research center will monitor whether people’s views on climate change and climate change change. In particular, Aasen is keen to see how the policies the politicians arrive at affect people’s attitudes and behaviors.

Can measures to limit food shedding and driving have the same effect as the smoking act, which has helped to make smoking taboos in very many circles?

“We will look at the evolution of norms – what do people think is okay? It is especially interesting now that there are instruments on the stairs. Increases resistance when instruments are introduced? is something that Aasen is wondering about.

More than half of the respondents have little faith in the fact that “new technology will solve the climate problem so I do not have to change my lifestyle.” But many seem to have a certain hope that technology can save us. Nearly 26 percent say that this statement is neither bad nor good, and almost one in ten are confident that the technology will solve the climate problem.

Prefer carrots in front of whip

During Arendalsuka there are a number of events where the climate will be discussed. The Paris agreement puts pressure on politicians and industry to find solutions that cut the emissions.

Previous surveys have shown that people would like to contribute to addressing the climate problem, Aasen says. The question is how far they are willing to go and what measures they can swallow.

– People also want society to make the right choice, rather than punishing bad climate choices with high fees. Making vegetarian food more accessible and making it easier to choose collectively are measures supported, says Aasen.

Among other things, people find it easy to let pedestrians and cyclists get more space at the expense of the driver, according to the Cicero researcher.

“When it comes to changes that really make sense, like flying less and driving smaller cars, people generally indicate less willingness to do something,” says Aasen.

Freedom and democracy under pressure

Tuesday, 14 August 2018

For some of us, it means a lot of being curious and expanding our mental horizons. We seek insights, what is called truth. Such a life of the quest requires exposure to varied thoughts and experiences. Most of the intellectual building blocks come as an accumulated insight inherited, tried and failed over hundreds of generations. It was especially possible to stand on the ancestors’ shoulders when the art of writing developed.

But new thoughts also descend. It triggers old truths, and it challenges established power relationships. Therefore, it always has the wishes and powers of the find that will introduce censorship.

The established and powerful have always had their methods. In the past, riot leaders were picked up and put them in prison or worse. You could also ban collections of more than five people. Previously, such restrictions could mean that people could not communicate. There was no phone or internet.

Now we have just got internet and social platforms on the internet. On these, people in theory can talk to anyone and so many. In free form, it is a solid opinion exchange.

But it is also threatening, for some. Ideologies can be challenged and torn apart. People can be exposed and revealed.

And it can also spread lies, propaganda, kittens. Yes, “hate speech”.

New technology

The Internet and free social media can revolutionize politics and ideology in theory. Not necessarily for the better, but possibly. But not everyone wants the ideology (s) to be destroyed. And some of them will fight.

And those who fight against the destruction of their worldview, their ideology, their religion – which may be their identity – will now naturally try to limit people’s ability to be heard and discuss on these new platforms. And while busted people were more likely to be locked and knocked (by letter and ban) or could not get to the marketplace where people gathered, they are now banned from the new places where gossip is shared and politics are created. It’s Facebook, Youtube, Twitter, Apple, Google, Spotify etc.

These technology giants are so big that they can not be resisted. And the censorship does not come as a race, it starts cautiously and increases gradually. A voice is excluded here and one vote there, but it happens gradually and one by one. Those who are not banned in the first place, but who are in the gray zone, hold their breath and hope they do not happen. They can not get boycott Facebook even if the colleague was just banned. They hope the best and things get better. That no one should knock on the door of them.

We have our domestic examples. Some, like Thomas Knarvik, are banned in one set. In the US now there are bigger things going on. There’s a massive campaign made sure to remove Alex Jones and InfoWars from all the major social media.

He is being removed because of conspiracy theories and “hate speech”. But it is a matter of hate speech on social media. From left and right, for and against Islam. And even though he exaggerates and definitely lives with untrue conspiracy theories, including facts that are true, and he has been guilty of fake news, he is not alone in any way. There are many crazy people out there who are unprecedented. So why Alex Jones?

It is because he is somebody, a threat, a threat to the establishment in the United States. Millions of people know who he is and listen and read to him and InfoWars. He even interviewed Donald Trump, and undoubtedly helped him win in 2016. Perhaps Alex Jones was even decisive for the outcome on the margin.

That is why CNN and various Democrats and activists have put pressure on technology giants to unpublish Jones. He is a foul voice.

There is a lot of “hate speech”

One could say that Youtube, Facebook, etc. should remove all Muslim hate speech – and that’s enough to take off. But I do not think they should. We can not be frightened (insane) opinion polls. On the contrary. The west is just a good place because it is (or was) illuminated enough not to believe in quackalists, sulfur preachers and conspiracy theorists. Our ambition was – and should be – that they could speak freely and get dressed in the free public space.

Therefore, we should also allow Islam to be pronounced, and put it down with arguments to the extent that it is necessary. For some ideas, so stupid are given what we today know that they simply break themselves down.

This self-esteem should also acquire the establishment. Do not fear Alex Jones. If he is so mad and talking hate and conspiracy, would people in an enlightened democracy like to uncover it? All his viewers hardly buy anything he says anyway. Or are you unsure of your own claims? Does the reality begin to differ too much from what you claim about multiculturalism and globalization?

Because by putting him in the sentiment, behind the lock and strike, you have already declared your revolt against the free word, against democracy and freedom of expression. You are denying yourself the right to call you liberal.

Preventing people from speaking is totalitarian. But it is unfortunately in the direction “the establishment” now wants to take us. It happens with small but frequent steps. One assumes that technology giants have no duty to open up their commercial social platforms to anyone. They are private and can do as they please.

But everyone understands the effect of being shut down from the modern marketplace. That means knocking, ties to death, loses its democratic voice.

We are exposed to a serious attack on freedom of speech from powerful forces, and it comes from those who claim to take it in defense. They have become intolerant in the tolerance name.

A fight we must take in Norway too

Our Prime Minister has criticized Resett, and she tries to criticize Islam by calling it “religious racism.” Her culture minister, Trine Skei Grande, is still looking forward to new media such as Resett and would like to welcome any teasing from the technology giants against Norwegian counter votes. With them / us gone, her behavior in a wedding in 2008 had still not been known.

And if we do not mobilize against the increasing constraint of who and what to participate in the public arena that technology giants are now controlling, and soon, this will not be going well. The western world we love is based on (the ambition of) the free word, the free thought, the honest exchange of opinions.

Censorship is the root of democracy’s death, and to fear, frustration, insecurity and violence. So let’s do the right thing and let freedom of speech survive. And to get it, the actual technology giants must play on teams.

Like it or not, but it is.

Censorship in the modern West

Tuesday, 14 August 2018

We are used to hearing about censorship and oppression of opinions in countries such as China. They refuse their citizens free access to the internet in fear of being oppositional and demanding changes in society. Politicians in the West have long criticized China and other countries operating in similar ways. Now it turns out that many of them are hypocrites.

After the choice of Trump, left-hand side, without a better description, was completely hysterical. Politicians and their friends in the media began to scream about “false news” as an explanation of why Trump was chosen. They demanded that companies like Google, who owns Youtube and Facebook, remove what they call “false news”.

They often use this tactic. They make an “evil” and shall determine what is the definition of this “evil”. They did the same with the term “racism”. From having an innocent start as a description of “ideas about racial superiority”, it became a broad term. Which even included criticism of immigration and multiculturalism. They promise to “racism” and incorporate ideas into schoolchildren. Suddenly we are in today’s situation, with a population that accepts a total transformation of our own society.

The left side has defined “false news” and companies like Facebook and Google have changed their platforms according to their wishes. It is very likely that this campaign has brought bias to right-oriented news media. Traffic to right-wing news agencies has been reduced from social media.

They did not finish there, afterwards they spoke to Youtube. They started a campaign to remove ads on videos that violate what they think is appropriate. To achieve this, they showed videos like glorified violence, but also “racist” videos. This led to the youtube creators named adpocalypse, Google removed advertising on a large proportion of videos. Sometimes completely inexplicable. After this, it has been difficult for political channels, mostly on the right side, to get revenues from their videos. I have also noticed that the channels have completely stopped growing.

Not long ago, they launched a campaign for the internet companies to become stricter against “hat”, which of course the left-hand side defines. The result is the exclusion of individuals like Alex Jones, not just on a platform, but on absolutely everyone. Absolutely without a proper explanation. Without showing to specific clips.

All this forms a clear picture; The goal is to prevent people with the wrong opinions to get an audience. In the modern world there is public discussion and information dissemination on the internet, especially social media. By banning people from these platforms, you can also censor individual opinions. The left side aims to remove some opinions from the public discussion and remove the democratizing effect of social media. To gain more control over the population and their opinions.

It is uncertain how they initially gained such control over the old media. All Norwegian newspapers and TV channels are all the same, they bend for the left-wing flute. Most American do the same.

Now they go after the internet and their methods make China blush.

Diversity does not become a trust culture

Tuesday, 14 August 2018

Hadia Tajik did not have much understanding of Norwegian culture as anything but brown cheese and something else that was intended to illustrate that we hardly own culture here in the country in a debate last autumn. As well as implicitly, therefore, there is nothing to lose in connection with Islamic immigration, so nothing worth protecting.

One to me outrageous assertion. Others protested more or less in vain with different inputs and arguments. But especially one was not powerful enough – perhaps the most important thing – something I easily remind my readers about today’s headline.

As the 80’s, I come from an earlier era when your “word” was your own honor and your reputation (in English, “Your word is your bond”), but the old-fashioned culture no longer talks about it. In many remote countries, as well as in Tajik’s Islamic country of origin, Pakistan, there is great culture. It is both intrusive and intrusive to us, now at a dangerous level – let us be completely honest and politically incorrect … For Norwegian prisons to be filled with criminal strangers, violence is a clear language, though it is deliberately covered. For no “liberal” will assert themselves responsibility or obligation.

Norway was a homogeneous, egalitarian equality society with diligent spirit that gradually becomes “population change” without the politicians having asked us through a referendum. Even when we had a vote of the European Union – and it did not matter – it was cynically overlooked as “just” advisory, and sometimes twice. The Constitution was not “tested” for any sovereignty resignation, and politicians with Gro Harlem Brundtland in the lead drove off a truly hidden EU agenda, via the EEA. Had we stayed outside this undemocratic supranational costume had much been won and / or saved us. Many were seduced with words like free trade, as well as the echo of Chamberlain’s words about no war in our day. Truth is a completely different one, yet it still runs shamelessly, in order not to admit a total political mistake.

The “colorful community” is colorful but lacks fellowship. As a young war journalist, Winston Churchill from Aden, south of the Arabian Peninsula, warned us about Islam already in 1899. Since then, the warnings have been many. But after the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989 and the collapse of communism, the overmotion took over Western Europe. Its cousin, socialism, therefore needed new content, and EU internationalism, ie our “one-world” and us controlled overnight without land borders, became the declared goals of socialists and globalists. Consequently, the national state had to be weakened to allow free movement of people and goods within the Union. Provided, demonstrable, we got drugs, criminal activities as well as foreign invaders with a primitive and violent culture.

This is simplified saying about politics thrown over our heads. The arguments varied, ranging from Ap who wanted new clients (voters), to others who put more emphasis on trade and vandalism. Someone, like me, hoped for less tax within a European regime. I was wrong, not because I am or was against taxation for the community’s best. However, because the special wealth tax was directly discriminatory against Norwegian owners, only benefit for foreign investors who did not have tax and national liability. Consequently, a number of Norwegian companies were taken over by foreigners, a particularly bad national strategy.

Diversity does not become a trust culture of, perhaps, on the contrary. We also did not get the diversity of the press support that Ap also stood behind. They have also claimed that integration is taking place. No, and again no, the truth is that Ap is not thinking of anything but its own agenda, with the “capitalist” Støre at the tip worth more than 100 million. Had he and LO been the true friend of the Norwegian workers and protects, they would take care of their own rather than immigrants. Now it is fervent for not having to admit that political power and benefits were the only thing that was going on.

It is sad to say that the Right under Erna Solberg is not much better. She lives with everyone, and is therefore the friend of the house. Worst in my opinion, she does not put the motherland first, because she does not live with Angela Merkel, who is at least smart enough to put Germany first. For her and Germans, the EU is worth gold because it gives German industry an internal market and an advantageously weak and competitive euro currency, rather than the D-mark. No wonder, Trump is bothered by the US trade deficit when, in addition, both the EU and Germany are protecting import tariffs, and hardly want to pay NATO’s defense spending.

That a bourgeois government does not clearly see the importance of the United States as a Allied, and is more diplomatic, it is strange, especially after the “money support” of the Clinton family, which many believe was pure political corruption. Both Børge Brende and our current foreign minister are like plotting parrots of course and / or as instructed by their prime minister. I also thought that if something was important for the foreign service, it was diplomacy … Unfortunately, the UD is being abused in expensive judges of domestic politics by proclaiming us a great power. In fact, we are a spur of the cranes. Not least, therefore, we are becoming “inflated” Norwegians of self-esteem.

Is it we who will integrate us in Norway?

Tuesday, 14 August 2018

Smaira Iqbal, leader of the Women’s Committee in Islamic Council Norway (IRN), writes in an article in Aftenposten today about his view of the man who did not renew the temporary office when he refused to give his hand. She believes that in Norway, she must show a greater understanding of the practice of her beliefs and support his right not to take a woman in her hand. She believes that Norway must show greater tolerance.

Why should Norway show greater tolerance for a value that is not Norwegian? We are talking about immigrants to integrate in Norway. It is not Norway that will integrate for immigrants? It is highly voluntary to come and live in Norway. It is highly voluntary to stay in Norway. In Norway, Norwegian values ​​apply.

Norwegian values ​​are not Islam, halo meat, hijab or burkini. Norway is a Christian country based on Christian values. In the name of the tolerance we have accepted values ​​that are incompatible with our own. It is Norway that integrates and not the opposite. You are given a right to practice your religion privately, but if you move to a new country you must accept other ways to dress in other ways of eating and living. When moving to another country, it must be a part of the decision-making basis if you can live in another country different from the country from which you come from.

We eat halibut when we are in a Muslim country, but in Norway the meat is slaughtered in our way. When we are in Iran we dress with hijab, but not in Norway.

Children in Norway should not wear hijab. It is an assault against a young child. It is our right to decide for ourselves, to think for ourselves and to develop ourselves as we wish. It is not compatible with Norwegian values.

Dear Smaira Iqbal,

If you read this post, I wonder where is your tolerance for our values ​​that are different from yours? Are you the one who must show tolerance for the country you have moved to?

I think you should think about your values ​​and your tolerance before demanding that we tolerate more of that intolerant. It is not ethnic Norwegian that will integrate, but you who have come here will integrate you in Norway. In exactly the same way as we need to adapt when we come to your country. I have even been to school in a Muslim country and nobody is coming there who requires rights. We adapt the rules as they are in that country.

You reveal in your post that you have no intention of integrating yourself in Norway.


The debate surrounding handwriting shows very clearly why integration is not successful in Norway. It is ethnic Norwegian that will integrate and not vice versa.

The latest release to the Equality Ombudsman that it is okay for men to refuse to hand in women shows that we must fight for our values ​​in the future. It is sad that it has come as far and wrong as Hanne Bjurstrøm represents.

To support the mosques that work against Norwegian values, we must stop that.

We need new politicians, new journalists, men and women who will fight for Norway and values ​​we have built up through generations.

Twitter bans the conservative commentator Gavin McInnes

Tuesday, 14 August 2018

Friday the Twitter account of commentator Gavin McInnes, who worked in Rebel Media, was permanently blocked without notice. The official account of Proud Boys, a conservative-liberal activist group, McInnes has founded, was also blocked.

A spokeswoman for Twitter claims that the accounts have been blocked because they violate the social platform’s current violent extremist groups.

The decision to ban McInnes comes after Twitter director Jack Dorsey promised that violations of the social media guidelines should be handled “with warnings, with notices and temporary account barring” before any permanent exclusion. This said Dorsey when he recently visited Sean Hannity’s radio show.

Dorsey immediately after the interview with Hannity was severely pushed by twisted Twitter employees, which led to rapid changes to the company’s rules of current so-called hate speech.

On Thursday, the New York Times published an article where they trivialized the fear of comprehensive censorship of conservative debates, and called the “excessive” concerns. Twitter’s decision to ban Gavin McInnes came shortly after InfoWars host Alex Jones was banned from a number of platforms.

In another case, the popular, politically independent podcast h3h3 was immediately closed midway through a live broadcast on YouTube after the host began to discuss the censorship of Alex Jones.

Just over an hour later, Gavin McInne’s personal Twitter account, as well as the account of his activist group, was blocked.

The new satirian of the newspaper Aftenposten will not draw the Prophet Muhammad

Tuesday, 14 August 2018

A few days ago Aftenposten presented her new newspaper Marvin Halleraker. He says to his own newspaper that it is easy to find material for a satirical character nowadays. There is a lot of involuntary comedy in the world. “But as a starting point, the artist has clear limitations on what he wants to comment on. The Prophet Muhammad is not one of these.

– If you ask if I would draw Muhammad, the answer is no. The costs are too big, he says.

The question became fierce about the publication of the Muhammad caricatures of Kurt Westergaard in Jutland Post in 2005. The artist Lars Vilks is another who has charity Islam who has been tried to kill and lives with constant police protection. In 2015, the satire magazine Charlie Hebdo’s premises in Paris attacked and large sections of the staff killed in a jihadist terrorist attack.

“Obviously, I was scared after the attack on Charlie Hebdo. You do not know what individuals can find and it is uncomfortable. Nevertheless, one may need to move on, says Halleraker.

Despite this, Halleraker claims that: “I feel free”.

“I’m doing my point,” he says.

His point of view, however, is not to challenge Islam’s emergence in Europe. Fear rages.

Red.anm .: This article is not a criticism of Halleraker. Resett himself puts limits on the publication of satire against Islam. This is done for the sake of the safety of personnel.

My comment on this is:

We have come so far in the true face of multiculturalism, Muslims already limit freedom of the press. How long will it be before politicians do something? They just sit there and let it play. I am angry with politicians who do not do anyone against Satan’s ideology!

Mark Zuckerberg personally took the decision to close Infowars

Tuesday, 14 August 2018 has written several articles about the censorship of the famous right-wing, but partly conspiracy Infowars, directed by Alex Jones, thrown out of several social media. The New York Times has come to the bottom of Facebook’s decision-making process and can reveal that the decision was not taken by subordinate bureaucrats, but by Facebook owner, Mark Zuckerberg, personally. Late Sunday, after returning to the hotel room on a trip from home, Mark Zuckerberg took a decision he had hoped to avoid, writing the American newspaper ..

For several weeks, Facebook’s CEO and his colleagues had discussed what they should do with Infowars, writes The New York Times. The pressure on Facebook to do something about him had intensified after executives gave a series of vague and confusing responses to politicians and journalists about the company’s guidelines. Incorrect information was allowed to stay on the platform, they said, but hate speech is not accepted. Then some users dug up and reported old Infowar’s posts, asking for them to be removed on the grounds that they glorified violence and contained dehumanizing languages ​​against Muslims, immigrants and transgender people.

But Alex Jones does not care so easily. According to the newspaper, he has millions of followers, a popular video program, and President Trump’s ears. Trump should once have told Alex Jones personally that his reputation was “amazing”. Prohibition of such a prominent activist would lead to political setbacks, no matter how justified the action was, feared Facebook leadership. Therefore, according to The New York Times, the situation was volatile enough for Zuckerberg to engage, according to the newspaper’s sources. Alex Jones has previously called Facebook the entrepreneur for “genetically manipulated psychopaths”, so the sympathy was probably not particularly strong in the first place.

According to The New York Times, Zuckerberg has always preferred narrow decision decisions. His assessment of Infowars took the form of a number of technical policy issues. They included mass reporting of Infowar’s posts in the form of a coordinated action, a tactic common in online harassment campaigns. Leaders also discussed whether Alex Jones’s Facebook pages should be removed altogether, or should they remove unacceptable posts as they appeared.

It was Apple who was first out with the exclusion of Infowar and Alex Jones. Infowar podcasts were removed from iTunes. After seeing this news on Sundays, according to the New York Times, Zuckerberg sent a note to his team confirming his own decision: The pages would be taken down. The following days also announced other platforms – YouTube, Pinterest, MailChimp, and more – that they forbade Infowars. The exception was Twitter, which decided not to ban the website or Alex Jones.

The Norwegian deterioration. Why do we allow it?

Tuesday, 14 August 2018

A recent taxi ride in Oslo was a selfless experience. It quickly turned out that the driver was unable to communicate with us, either in Norwegian or English.

We are still uncertain about which country he came from, but his attire and appearance suggested that he was from an African country. Eventually, we understood that he had only been here for approx. 2 months. Now the undersigned is a great supporter of newcomers to Norway to work and contribute to the community. Such initiatives are welcome. Skin color and religion are completely insignificant. But it’s important that they have the right qualifications for the job they receive.

taxi Tour

The experience of the taxi driver has raised some questions, which include qualifications and understanding of responsibilities. After blowing through two traffic lights on “reddish”, as well as having overlooked the bullying a couple of times, we demanded that he stopped so we got off. The first thought was to report them to the police and taxi center, but with a previous experience fresh in memory it was concluded that it was a waste of time. In retrospect, it turns out that declaring fallit is that one no longer cares about notifying the authorities of offenses which in the worst case can lead to death. What has happened to Norway and Norwegians? What is the reason for our ever increasing indifference?

Society and development

That’s the way development goes, said a good friend and neighbor when she was told about our experience. Yes, so that’s the reason. But, why do we allow it then? The development can be controlled! Are not we who choose which way to go? What is clear is that Norway, our country, is not able to cope with the huge ethnographic change that forces Europe through. What might be worse is that the strategy for our population increase has omitted significant measures that would have helped the transition that Norway is now in.

The northernmost people are good people who have learned about formation and behavior, which is embodied in us over generations. This has resulted in us becoming the ones we are, a peaceful people who have undergone “Norwegian” rules of conduct so that we can coexist with our countrymen in peace and tolerance. Now this image is highly threatened.

For example, a walk through Oslo city center can quickly become a risky affair. Before, it was possible that you might be young in some places late night or at night. Today, unfortunately, it applies throughout the day. What is the reason for this development? We all know the answer. An uncontrolled limit of population flow greater than what the public apparatus is able to absorb is the cause. Everybody, except the political authorities, seems to understand this. Or maybe they know it, but choose to sacrifice our society for ideological reasons or for political stools.

Where are the authorities?

Why is it, for example, that the authorities allow foreign drug traffickers to play free space in Oslo? For years, we have heard that drugs are the main cause of most of the winning crime. Why, for example, do not all these Nigerian or Eastern European drug addicts, almost taped along the sidewalk of Storgata in Oslo, from the country? What are they here to order?

The negative part of the change in society is more apparent for each day. The incomprehensible is that the authorities, those whose mission to serve and protect the people do not do what they must do. We no longer accept the argument that money is missing. Norway has surely money that is now clearly used in all political hassle around the world.

Now you could have confronted the chief of police, the mayor or even the prime minister. They would have said the same as last they talked about the issue, if they ever did. So, blah blah blah, svada. Certainly, the authorities sometimes announce one whose efforts are in various areas of justice policy. But it all seems like a kind of “ad hoc” commitment broadcast to defend its political existence and not to reassure the population.

Social Threats

So what social threats are we facing? One can mention everything from drug trafficking, foreign crimes raid across the country, outbreaks of the outcrops and luxury cars disappearing across the border, hundreds of violence against elderly and disabled people, ravages of housing and, not least, government defamation through NAV fraud. .

These criminal activities are so extensive that they even have their own weekly broadcast on TV2 with the program Åsted Norway. During the program, the audience is encouraged to call in with tips to the police about where they, as foreigners, are found to be criminals. Are we not at the wrong end of the problem here? Should not these have been stopped before they entered the country? It is a paradox that the self-evacuation started has become entertainment. We live in a country of origin.

This mindset, which for the undersigned began with a cab ride, will probably not stop before development turns. Just the idea that more of the 3,000 taxi drivers in Oslo may lack the same qualifications as the above driver is scary. Should not anyone who carries on passenger transport hold a Norwegian certificate, with a smooth running course, dark driving, that is, the whole traffic package? After all, they hold responsibility for human life during the transport mission. The reason why my driver is in the driver’s seat that day are the absent requirements Norway should have in terms of qualifications and responsibilities, the lack of control of service providers, and the total absence of respect that unfortunately many foreign cultural displays for our country and our hospitality.

“You must use the right gear to get the job done,” used an old sledge teacher to say. Now the country is approaching quickly when there is no way back. Should we really allow that to happen? It’s time to save our country. We need to get the right tool in place.