Reykjavík Grapevine - 02.07.2010, Side 13

Licensing and
registration of travel-
related services
The Icelandic Tourist Board issues licences to tour operators and travel agents,
as well as issuing registration to booking services and information centres.
Tour operators and travel agents are required to use a special logo approved
by the Icelandic Tourist Board on all their advertisements and on their Internet
website.
Booking services and information centres are entitled to use a Tourist
Board logo on all their material. The logos below are recognised by the
Icelandic Tourist Board.
List of licenced Tour
Operators and Travel
Agencies on:
visiticeland.com
12
The Reykjavík Grapevine
Issue 09 — 2010
Article | Reykjavík Nine
Last week the Speaker of Alþingi, Social
Democrat Ásta Ragnheiður Jóhannes-
dóttir, was presented with the signa-
tures of 705 people who demand that ei-
ther the trumped up charges against the
‘Reykjavík Nine’ be dropped, or they too
be charged with the same crimes.
The organisers of the petition (or mass con-
fession, if you will) argue that it’s outrageous
to indict the Reykjavík Nine for having vio-
lated the first clause of the 100th article of the
penal code (which deals with ‘attacks against
the independence and integrity of Alþingi’), a
crime that carries a minimum penalty of one
year in prison, and a maximum one of life
behind bars. They argue that if the Reykjavík
Nine were truly guilty of such a heinous at-
tack on Alþingi, everyone who participated in
the ‘pots and pans revolution’ of 2009 should
be charged with the same crime. The mass
protests in January 2009, when the protesters
laid siege to the house of Parliament for sev-
eral days, was far more disruptive and threat-
ening to “the integrity of Alþingi” than the
Reykjavík Nine’s attempted visit to the public
benches of parliament on December 8, 2008.
The 705 signatories to the mass confes-
sion Ásta Ragnheiður received demanded
that they be charged for their participation in
the pots and pans revolution, that they, too,
be charged for having “attacked parliament.”
If the Reykjavík Nine should stand trial, they
should, too. And anyone who not only con-
fesses to a crime that carries a maximum
sentence of life in prison, but practically de-
mands that he stand trial for it, should be
taken seriously.
As the crime in question was one against
Alþingi, one would have thought that its
speaker would take the matter seriously. But
no. Sure, Ásta Ragnheiður accepted the sig-
natures, but at the same time she stressed
that she did not have any authority to do any-
thing about them. Nor did she respond in any
official capacity. Having made this dismis-
sive statement, she hurried away.
The judicial system and its in-
dependence
Since then Ásta Ragnheiður has said that she
has shelved the petition, and that she would
in fact not take any action in the matter. Ap-
parently, the speaker of Alþingi believes pub-
lic confessions to serious crimes against the
institution she represents are something that
don’t need to be taken seriously.
This was in keeping with her previ-
ous public statements on the issue. Ásta
Ragnheiður has argued that the affair doesn’t
really concern her at all. The courts should be
trusted to handle the case, and that moreover
she was never in any real capacity involved
with it.
But let’s pause for a minute.
Sure: The charges are brought by the
State Prosecutor, not Alþingi. But it was in-
deed taken up only after the Secretary Gen-
eral of Alþingi requested that the State Pros-
ecutor do so. In his request, the Secretary
General even identifies the different laws
he believed had been broken – including the
first paragraph of the 100th article of the pe-
nal code. The Secretary General serves under
the Speaker of Alþingi.
Not only did the entire case originate in
her office, Ásta Ragnheiður has on several
occasions made it clear that she feels very
strongly about the case.
Academic freedom
In response to a parliamentary inquiry, she
stated that the Reykjavík Nine, and the other
protesters who entered the house of parlia-
ment that day had “forced their way into the
house of parliament,” that they “overpow-
ered” staff and guards and generally behaved
in a “violent” and “threatening” manner. Ac-
cording to her, it was “obvious” that the group
had “no compunction about using force to get
into contact with members of parliament.”
She also stressed that the protesters had en-
tered Alþingi through “the back door.” All of
this was supposedly caught by surveillance
cameras.
Since then, the video from said surveil-
lance camera has been released to the media,
and it shows no angry mob overpowering
guards and policemen, no one forcing their
way into Alþingi. Furthermore, the entrance
the group used is the public one – only MPs,
Ministers and others on official state busi-
ness use the front entrance to the house.
Nothing in the case files supports the claim
that the protesters used violence or threats
of violence – and it is quite simply absurd to
claim that the protesters attempted to get into
“contact” with MPs. The protesters hoped
to get onto the public benches, which are
located high above the chamber. There was
absolutely no indication at any point that
the group intended to harm anyone: nobody
was armed, and nobody in the group made
threats of physical violence. No evidence has
surfaced to suggest otherwise.
But wait, there’s more. So invested is Ásta
Ragnheiður in this narrative of the Reykjavík
Nine as ‘dangerous terrorists’ that she has
made disturbing attempts to influence how
they are portrayed in the media, going so far
as to hand talking points to members of aca-
demia who have dared comment on the sub-
ject.
Heed the talking points!
On May 17, Jón Ólafsson, philosopher and
Dean of the Faculty of Social Sciences at
Bifröst University, was on the morning pro-
gramme of the state owned Radio One to dis-
cuss the various ethical angles of the court
case. As he is wont to, Jón was very circum-
scribed and cautious in his analysis. He sided
neither with the protesters nor the state, but
pointed out that it was strange that out of all
those who ‘attacked’ Alþingi during the win-
ter of 2008-9, only the nine had been singled
out and charged with violating the 100th
paragraph.
Shortly after the programmeme, Jón re-
ceived a phone call from Ásta Ragnheiður,
who informed him that while she hadn’t ac-
tually heard him on the radio, she had been
contacted by “numerous people,” who had
been very unhappy about how he had talked
about the case – and that these people had
told her that Jón had gotten critical aspects of
the case wrong. She could not identify what
exactly he had gotten wrong, but offered to
e-mail him a document just to make sure
that he wouldn’t get anything wrong in the
future. He later received an e-mail from her
official Alþingi account.
The Grapevine has acquired a copy of her
letter, which reads like simple talking points.
These talking points summarize the state-
ments Ásta Ragnheiður had previously made
in parliament, complete with the reference
to the protesters having entered through the
“back door” (again, where every non-official
visitor to Alþingi enters the building). The
talking points contained nothing new, and
corrected nothing Jón had said.
This correspondence should give us
pause. Ásta Ragnheiður admitted she had
not heard what Jón said, and could therefore
not evaluate his arguments, but nevertheless
believed she needed to make sure that he was
on the same page as The State, sending him
governmental talking points on the case. Just
to make sure.
Stifling critical discourse
In her e-mail Ásta Ragnheiður evokes the
conclusions of the SIC report – pointing out
that the report had criticised politicians for
their attempts to influence the courts: “The
tripartite separation of powers is clear. More-
over, the State Prosecutor is independent in
his duties and is not supposed to receive or-
ders from MPs. The conclusions of the SIC
report single out for harsh criticism how
politicians have in the past attempted to in-
f luence the judiciary system.”
True. But the SIC report also criticises
politicians for their repeated attempts to
stif le critical discourse, and members of the
academia for having been too subservient
to members of the political elite, for having
been too willing to recite government talking
points.
Maybe Ásta Ragnheiður missed that part
of the report.
Because Ásta Ragnheiður appears to see
nothing wrong with calling up respected
members of Iceland’s academia to complain
that they are not being supportive enough
when the state decides to engage in political
persecution against protesters, going so far
as to send out government talking points just
to make sure that everybody is on the same
page.
To top this off, Ásta Ragnheiður sees
nothing wrong with making these kinds of
phone calls without actually knowing what
she’s talking about. Jón Ólafsson confirms
that she did in fact say that she had not heard
the programme herself, but was relying on
what others had told her. She would not iden-
tify who these people were. All of this raises
doubts about her judgement, as well as seri-
ous questions about professional conduct.
Everyone should be equal
Those who have taken the hard-line approach
in this matter, supporting Ásta Ragnheiður’s
view that the Reykjavík Nine be prosecuted
to the full extent of the law – and convicted
of a crime that carries a maximum sentence
of life in prison – have evoked enlightenment
ideals to support their view: the rule of law,
the ideal of the Rechtsstaat, the tripartite sep-
aration of powers, as well as the importance
of respecting the independence and integrity
of institutions like Alþingi. Ásta Ragnheiður
has even gone so far as to cite the SIC report.
Although they appear more as disciples
of Rousseau than Montesquieu, the Reykja-
vík Nine and their supporters – including the
705 who signed the petition/mass confession
– have also cited enlightenment ideals. Their
main argument is that in the fall of 2008 the
social contract between the government and
the governed had been broken. The govern-
ment and Alþingi, through their utter incom-
petence had forfeited the trust of the people
– abrogated their end of the social contract.
Hence the chant of the pots and pans upris-
ing: “Incompetent government!” and the
“declaration” one of the Reykjavík Nine man-
aged to read to Alþingi on December 8: “This
house no longer serves its purpose!” followed
by the poetic exhortation: “Get the fuck out!”
Through their demands that they, too, be
charged with the crimes the Reykjavík Nine
are being accused of, the 705 signatories to
the petition are also demanding that Ásta
Ragnheiður see to it that one of the key ide-
als of the enlightenment be honoured, that
Iceland be a Rechtsstaat – that the rule of law
be applied in a fair and even manner: every-
one guilty of the same crime should face the
same charges.
MAGNúS SVEINN HELGASON
PÁLL HILMARSSON
Attacks On Alþingi Are Of No Concern To Alþingi
up is down, obedience is freedom, fiction is fact, ignorance is enlightenment
“Ásta Ragnheiður admitted she had not heard
what Jón said, and could therefore not evaluate his
arguments, but nevertheless believed she needed
to make sure that he was on the same page as The
State, sending him governmental talking points on
the case. Just to make sure.“
Magnús Sveinn Helgason is a historian. He most recently authored addendum
five to the SIC report, and is currently working on a book on financial bubbles.