You are here:   Constitutional Affairs > A Norwegian Thatcher?

Daniel Johnson: Your party, the Progress Party, has sometimes been accused, on the left and in parts of the media, of being far-right, comparable to Le Pen - what is your answer to that?

Siv Jensen: First of all, it's important for me to clarify what we stand for. We are a classical liberal party, and are very much in favour of market mechanisms. We seek to improve the competitiveness of Norway, which is actually getting worse and worse. And when it comes to what is, I guess, the most critical issue, immigration, I believe that we stand for the exact same views as those held by the Liberal Party of Denmark, which is in government. We also share the views of [French President] Nicolas Sarkozy and, I believe, some of those prevalent among the Tories today. So we are very mainstream, I would say, for Europe these days. We need to do something about immigration, because if we don't, as a very small country on the outskirts of Europe, we will end up with all kinds of problems.

DJ: What is your party's policy on immigration?

SJ: We have had very, very poor integration in Norway over the past 30 years, and that has resulted in some very critical things. First of all, you see women now, even with Norwegian citizenship, who don't know anything about their rights in a free modern country. They are kept locked away, they don't know any Norwegian, they are totally incapable of taking part in their children's upbringing. I think it's very strange, because one of the good things about living in the Western world is that as a woman you have total freedom. And their rights are in practice non-existent, because we let them bring the bad sides of their culture. I believe that that is what they originally fled from, so I really don't understand that.

You see young girls being put through forced circumcision, which is not acceptable. There are also a substantial number of forced marriages, and the authorities just let it happen. So I think this is the critical test, not only for Norway but for all of us, when we fight for human rights in other parts of the world and fight for women's rights. But it's not really something that we take seriously enough. I mean, when women parade in Oslo on 8 March (International Women's Day), they have old feminist slogans. This is silly really because Norway is a country of equality. What they should be more focused on are the women in third-world countries, in Afghanistan for instance, where they are so oppressed. It's ridiculous that we can let this happen.

DJ: What do you think should be the role of a Muslim community in a Western European society like Norway, and how can we move towards a position where Muslims are properly integrated into our society?

SJ: I think the mistake has been that we have not been very clear as to what our demands are. We open up our country, they are welcome to come, especially if they are in need, fleeing from another country, but coming to Norway, or coming to Britain, has to mean full integration.

You need to learn the language, you need to go to school, you need to get a job, you need to be able to support yourself and your family, you cannot be allowed to live on welfare for too long. That's what's happening in Norway. There is a very large number of immigrants living on welfare and they have been for a very, very long time. That is not helping people. And I believe also that letting that happen is dangerous because it means they end up outside society. They end up without education, without friends and without money.

They often tend to commit crimes and end up in prison, where they can get the wrong ideas. So the best thing for us to do is to be extremely strong on integration, and be very clear about that before people come to Norway. That is our demand. If you're happy to come, you are welcome, but you have to follow certain ground-rules. And we shall not give into demands from certain Muslim societies to accept Sharia. It is not compatible with the standards of the Western world. We have one set of rules, we have laws, and you cannot have a different set of laws for a certain group of people.

DJ: Do you think that the left-wing establishment in Norway understands the danger to the freedoms they enjoy as well, because the hostility towards your party is very extreme, isn't it? They've tried to exclude you from mainstream politics completely.

SJ: Not very successfully though. We have been growing for the past 15 years and we're doing extremely well these days. And it has nothing to do with racism or extremism at all. It has everything to do with protecting some of the most crucial parts of Western society, it has to do with defending freedom of speech, the freedom of each individual, defending human rights. These freedoms are so crucial to what our society is based on - if they are threatened, then our future is threatened. We saw them being threatened with the Danish cartoons, and I was quite disappointed even with the Norwegian government at that time, because they were not able to stand up to defend one of the most crucial rights of a modern society.

I respect totally the fact that people have different views on different things. I even respect the communists; even though I hate communism, I respect people's right to defend it. What I don't respect is when that leads to abolishing important parts of a free society. That is what we have to fight against, and if we let our guard down on those issues we will end up in a mess in just a few years' time.

DJ: Are anti-Americanism, anti-Zionism or even anti-Semitism a big problem in Norway? Do you find that there is a lot of hostility towards America and Israel?

SJ: I don't see it as a big problem, but there are quite a few people with those views. But some of us are able to stand up to that. And I'm not afraid to defend Israel's right to defend itself. It is unfortunately surrounded by very chaotic countries. Israel is the only Western country in that region. It is a country that respects human rights, respects all the things that we place very highly here. And they have problems. I don't blame them for wanting to defend themselves, but they're always accused of violating and interfering and trespassing, and I just don't understand why left-wing journalists keep on reporting this from a very subjective point of view.

DJ: I believe you visited Israel recently.

SJ: Yes, I did. I visited a small town called Sderot and it was actually under attack while I was there, so we had to run for the air-raid shelter, and we heard the bombs. People were killed. They have been under these attacks constantly, daily. And it does something to young girls and boys in school when they have to be evacuated several times a day. How can they learn in such an environment? It's impossible for them, but that's everyday life in that region, and it's just impossible to understand. Some of the very hostile Palestinians have these rockets and the launchers in their living rooms, and they just put it up, launch a rocket, pack it up and continue with their everyday lives. That's what's happening, and it's a threat not just to Israelis, but to ordinary Palestinians. The only thing they want is a peaceful life, and to be able to support their families and to go to work every day. That's what they want, and they are totally unable to, because of Hamas controlling Gaza and creating fear by terrorist acts, even against their own people, and we need to stop that. I don't think it will be very easy to see successful negotiations with the Palestinian side as long as you have Hamas as a very strong faction. That's why it's so dangerous to recognise them in government.

DJ: So you're against negotiating with them.

SJ: You have to remember that the Norwegian government was the first government to recognise Hamas. We protested vigorously against that, because you don't negotiate with terrorists, you just don't. A terrorist is a terrorist, no matter what. You don't negotiate with them; that will make the whole process so much more difficult. I believe some of us need to stand up for that, and there are not too many politicians who dare to do it, but I do.

DJ: Who are the other politicians you admire in Europe - or indeed, in the US?

SJ: I see Sarah Palin as a very strong and vital woman who can do good things for the US in future years. I think that Sarkozy is a strong and good leader for France, with the ability and strength to reform his country. It's absolutely necessary to do that. I'm curious about the renewal of the Tories. It's interesting what is happening there these days, and I have had the pleasure of meeting with a few of their politicians. They have good ideas, good plans, good reforms, and what I see is that they have gotten back some of the guts that you saw under Margaret Thatcher, who is one of my political heroes. She stood up as so strong in everything that she did, and she fought fights - all necessary ones. This made the UK into a better country, and it made it better for the average British woman after the reforms that she made.

DJ: It's interesting that David Cameron mentioned Lady Thatcher, probably for the first time, in his last big speech, so perhaps he is beginning to rediscover that legacy.

SJ: There's no need to be ashamed of what she did.

DJ: Do you think that the West is getting the problem of Iceland right?

SJ: No, no. Not at all, and I'm actually a bit worried about the positions Gordon Brown is taking on that. I have no problem seeing that the bankruptcy of huge Icelandic banks is creating problems for British people, it even creates problems for Norwegian people. But that has to do with the financial scandal that we're seeing. The problem now is that Gordon Brown is attacking Iceland instead of trying to be part of a rescue plan, and I believe that it's Europe's responsibility, Norway's responsibility, to reach out and help them.

But what has happened is that Icelandic politicians have visited Moscow, negotiating the terms of a possible loan. And that is not just a loan; if they accept the terms, that will have an impact on the geopolitical situation in that region. It will affect not only Iceland, it will affect Norway. But it will also affect Europe, and even the US. It has to do with controlling the resources in that area, it has to do with controlling fisheries, oil and gas. I mean, it's dangerous. And so you cannot isolate that into being just a consequence of the financial crisis. It's so much more. And in modern warfare, if I can put it that way, where you have asymmetric warfare, you have to think far beyond what we are used to when it comes to Cold War thinking. You cannot see Russia in a Cold War perspective any more, but they're getting their strength back, they're getting financial muscles, they're building an oil fund, they have been rebuilding their army for quite some time, whereas Europe has gone the other way around, and that creates challenges. In today's warfare scenarios, you have to include economics, financial issues, trade, and energy issues, and ignoring that is very dangerous.

DJ: So are you worried about Russia?

SJ: Yes, I am very worried about it, even though Russia is a neighbouring country to Norway. We have a mutual border, and we have had increased trade relations for years. And they are pretty good, we have a solid neighbourly relationship, friendly actually, but what we see recently is more hostile activity from Russia. They have increased their flights over Norwegian territory, we're not back to where we were during the Cold War, but you can see an incredible increase, and it should worry more people than me.

DJ: You mentioned energy. You dissent, don't you, from the current consensus about climate change. How does this affect Norway, a very important energy producer?

SJ: We can see that climate changes are happening, but they have been happening for as long as the world has existed. The question is whether they are man-made or not, or whether they are dangerous or not. Just some 30 years ago, all these scientists said that the world was getting colder, and now they have changed their mind and say that the world is getting warmer. So is that what's happening, or isn't it?

Nevertheless, we are in a situation worldwide where approximately 2 billion people lack access to electricity, and those demands will just grow as we reach new levels of welfare throughout the world, which means that the demand for energy will increase. Norway has every opportunity to be a market leader in that because we have the know-how, the technology, especially in renewable energy production, which we have been doing for a long time. We could have been self-sufficient if we had done something about it, but just in the middle of the debate on climate change we have put ourselves in a situation where we still import coal from Europe, and it doesn't add up when our government says that we still need to do something about climate change issues. Well, if that is true then you need to fight coal-energy production, which is probably the most dangerous energy resource that we have today. But instead we end up importing coal when we could be self-sufficient, and what we should do is export our technology, our competence, to the rest of the world, help them produce renewable energy and help them set up production facilities that they don't have today.

DJ: Turning to the financial crisis, and economics generally, you're a very strong supporter of classical economics and the free market.

What would you change about what is sometimes called the Scandinavian model, the big welfare state and so on? What specifically do you think needs to be done to make Norway prosperous again?

SJ: We had a banking crisis in Norway in the '80s and we had to make severe changes and after that we liberalised the whole market. But we set up a good regulatory framework, and you have to be an anarchist to be against regulatory frameworks, and any good market liberal will agree that regulatory frameworks are very important, to make markets work better.

But what I see now is that socialists and social democrats throughout Europe and even in the United States, are getting some renewed energy defending their ideology, claiming that the reason for this financial scandal has to do with liberalism or market failure or capitalism, which is not true at all. It has to do with mistakes made actually by [former US President] Bill Clinton, and it has to do not with the lack of regulation but with the wrong regulation, with forcing financial institutions to lend money to people without the capacity to pay it back. I think people need to be reminded of that.

DJ: So it's too much state intervention rather than too little.

SJ: Well, that's actually the reason behind the scandal in the United States: too much state intervention and the wrong state intervention. If they had regulated the markets as many of the European countries have done, it wouldn't have happened.

DJ: And do you think, in general, that the future of Europe lies in a more liberal market system? Are you critical of the European Union and the way that it is run?

SJ: Yes, I am. I believe that the EU has done some good things for Europe, even for Norway, which is not a member. I believe in free trade, and free trade is part of the European idea.

I believe in free trade for all countries in the world, and I believe that is the only way to help third world countries. They're not allowed to prosper from all the good things within the EU, because they're left outside. And the double standards. I mean, it's ridiculous, when we claim that we want to help them and we have all those discussions on foreign aid policy issues but their plight is getting worse because of protectionism.

I was very critical when the monetary policy regime was put forward for Europe because it's difficult to have a unanimous monetary policy without having a unanimous fiscal policy. And you see that now. I think the financial crisis is a very good example of that. What happens if France and Germany, or France and England, go in totally different directions with their economies, where the monetary policy will be of huge importance? They cannot have the same interest-rate level in a situation like that. But they are forced to have it. Eventually, that will probably lead to something like the United States of Europe, which is a totally different thing from the EU.

I also believe that one of the weakest things about the EU is the extreme bureaucracy that has been created. The Eurocrats have distanced themselves from the everyday life of Europeans. So I don't blame Europeans for not understanding what goes on in Brussels, I don't blame them for voting against the new constitution.

They don't understand what they're discussing, what they're doing, what's happening, because Brussels has created this huge distance between the policy-makers and the people. So they need to do something about that, and do something about their language, their rhetoric, and above all to do something about the enormous bureaucracy. I'm very much against bureaucracy, we need to fight bureaucracy, because we spend tax-payers' money on it.

DJ: And you're in favour of lower taxes, are you? I rather assume you are.

SJ: I am, very much so.

DJ: In spite of the fact that this crisis has led to nationalisation of banks, and public spending to prop up the system, so it will be harder to cut taxes. Do you think that is still going to be possible if you come to power?

SJ: We do have a financial crisis, which is basically a crisis for the banking sector, yes you will see some businesses fail because of what's happening on the stock exchanges. But that happens from time to time. What's more important is that we are on our way to a huge world recession, and lowering taxes is a good way to fight recession. So I believe that many European countries will have to do that in order to create growth in the economy.

Siv Jensen: Creating a New Wave in Scandinavian Politics


These days nearly every Western European country has at least one of them - a large political party that's held at arm's length by the media, political establishment, professoriate and chattering classes. Some of these black sheep - such as the BNP, Le Pen's National Front, and the late Jörg Haider's crew in Austria - really are beyond the pale; others are demonised simply because they challenge statist dogma and/or speak forbidden truths about Islamic immigration.

Here in Scandinavia, the home of statism at its statiest, the most high-profile such entity is probably Pia Kjærsgaard's Danish People's Party. Two months after 9/11, voter anxiety about Islamisation swept out the Social Democrats (in power since 1924) and installed a conservative coalition - which, with strong DPP support, has since instituted effective, and popular, reforms (and stood foursquare for free speech during the cartoon crisis). The picture in Sweden is different: although the 2006 election exchanged Göran Persson's long-dominant Social Democrats for a "moderate" coalition, systemic changes have been modest, and the only major critics of the Swedes' essentially unmodified "see-no-evil" immigration policy have been the Sweden Democrats - a group, alas, that has a history of neo-Nazi ties and anti-Semitic rhetoric (and, in any case, has yet to win a single Riksdag seat).

Somewhere in between lies Norway, whose major anti-establishment faction is the Progress Party, or Fremskrittspartiet (FrP for short). Founded in 1973, it was run for 28 years by the charismatic Carl I. Hagen, whose tough-talking pugnacity made him a standout, in the '80s and '90s, in a largely bland political firmament. Though nothing in the party's programme would raise eyebrows in, say, moderate Republican circles in the US, its rejection of longstanding Nordic assumptions about the role of the state has long led the media to caricature its ideology as dangerous, its supporters as unevolved lowbrows, and Hagen as a demagogue. Yet FrP survived - and thrived. Though other parties (of Left and Right) have collaborated to deny its MPs top government positions, FrP now not only dwarfs the once-powerful Conservatives but also rivals Labour, that mighty architect of postwar Norway's huge state bureaucracy and welfare system. FrP, it's widely assumed, will garner enough votes in next September's parliamentary elections to form a government.

Such an outcome would be a triumph for both market liberalism and common sense about immigration - and a massive blow for that once seemingly indomitable colossus, Scandinavian social democracy. Yet the victory's public face won't be Hagen, who retired in 2006, but his longtime second-in-command, Siv Jensen. In one sense, Jensen, 39, fits neatly into the current crop of Norwegian party heads: like her, the Conservatives' Erna Solberg and the Socialist Left's Kristin Halvorsen are formidable blonde pitbulls born in the 1960s. But the Thatcher-like brio with which Jensen defies PC pieties sets her apart. A shrewd, compelling debater, she's unyielding on core principles, but nonetheless cuts a more congenial figure than her sometimes blustering predecessor. Indeed, her wry humour seems actually to have tempered media hostility towards FrP.

Tempered, but not quelled. Last year, sophisticates cheered a book, FrP-Koden (The Progress Party Code), in which Magnus Marsdal, a veteran of such Communist institutions as Attac, Red Youth and the newspaper Klassekampen, puzzled over the rise of "Norway's most unsympathetic party". Yet ordinary Norwegians can see clearly why FrP has risen like a phoenix: its warnings about unchecked social democracy and naïve immigration policies have proven all too prescient, and for many Norwegians Jensen and her party represent the only hope for meaningful change. If she wins power, she may yet provide a model of gutsy liberalism and immigration common sense for all of Europe.

View Full Article
January 23rd, 2009
2:01 PM
Dear Ms. Jensen, Most of what you're saying in this interview sounds like a good plan! I'm from Armenia, been in Norway 2 times, have many friends & joined your facebook supporters because my friend Marius think's you should be the next PM. But I shudl say that I'm somewhat disappointed with your visit to Israel, as unlike any objective politician you have only visited one side of the conflict and advocate for Israelis right to security, but the picture is a lot more complicated as is the response of Istrael to random homemade rockets that do not do much harm as did the Israeli invasion. As a influential politician and PM hopeful of such a credible and peace-maker state like Norway, you should somewhat comply to the longstanding rules of the Norwegian mediation school, be as objective and as inclusive as possible and show maximum of neutrality and impartiality. I do hope that you will yet regain the objectivity int hemidle eastern affairs and upon taking the position of the PM increase Norway's peacemaking capacity in the Middle East, continue investing into the Peace Process and into the capacity-building in Palestine! Wish you & your colleagues best of luck in the coming elections and hope that you will bring the need change in the political structure of Norway, while continuing to increase norwegian foreign aid and norwegian peace-making policies and capacities worldwide! Regards, Erik

Geir Windsland
January 23rd, 2009
1:01 PM
Ole P's comments just goes to show what methods the people opposed to FrP are resorting to when they can't beat them on politics and they have run out of arguments. Dirty tricks and disinformation unfortunately keep myths about FrP alive, so in a way I am sad to say that it works. 'long history of racial slur, bigotry, violence and sexual abuse'? Nothing but unfounded lies, and it just goes to show how pathetic the radicals are. Terje Søviknes is the only representative I have heard of being involved in anything dubious, having had sex with a drunk 16-year old girl from the FrP Youth Party in 2001. True, nothing to be proud of, but our current prime minister (Labour) crashed into another car, got out of his own and pretended he wrote his phone number on a blank piece of paper and fled the scene. Our former prime minister of many years, Gro Harlem Brundtland, cheated on tax worth millions and also abused the Norwegian NHS while she was a resident of France. She evaded the bill for an expensive hip operation, and also jumped the waiting lists - something which could be done because of her contact network. I can also mention Terje Røed-Larsen, Åslaug Haga, Manuela Ramina Osmundsen, Jan P. Syse, Thorbjørn Berntsen, Per Ditlev-Simonsen, Per Borten, Victor Norman, Tore Tønne, Astrid Gjertsen and Einfrid Halvorsen. List goes on, but what is interesting is that AP (Labour) are overrepresented. It is also interesting to note that you slam FrP's voters as narrow-minded and prejudiced. You don't think that is a prejudiced statement? FrP aren't more populist than any other party. Defending Israel's right to exist don't get the crowds going in Norway, quite the contrary. Suggesting that not all of Norway's 500.000 people on benefits qualify for it is not very strategic as all of them can vote. Asking 400.000 immigrants to try to integrate and at least speak our language isn't going to get their votes either. Kristin Halvorsen's (Socialist Party) "If you make me minister I promise kindergarten for all kids - I will resign otherwise". Needless to say, she has not resigned, saying that "at least I tried, and I think that is good enough". What is that for populism? Apart from that, if populism means representing the voice of the majority of people, I would call it a synonym for democracy and therefore a rather good thing. And Knut from Tromsø: FrP don't want to increase public spending by much as they will reclaim money which they want to spend on neglected roads, hospitals and schools by reducing the abuse of the welfare system, reducing the ineffective and overly large bureaucracy (900.000, ca 40% of the work-force work for government/public services). Building safer and more effective roads will cost money, but will also return money as there will be fewer roadkills, less congestion (money saved) and pollution. And do you honestly believe that FrP don't have to present a budget in parliament that has to match up? The government run SSB have even praised it.

Olav Trygvasson
January 23rd, 2009
11:01 AM
Calyx what you write is untrue. FRP will end up in government one day as they continue to grow as people become fed up with the apologetic, nanny state presented by the left. If you think FRP 'spreads hate' then you ought to check your reading comprehension.

January 23rd, 2009
10:01 AM
Interesting to see this sort of wishful thinking from a journalist with a heavy ideological bias. FrP does not have much of a chance of ending up in government because a majority of the population resents them, and they have very little in common with other parties. We already have a normal liberal party, and normal conservatives who do not spread hate.

Knut, Tromsø
January 23rd, 2009
9:01 AM
FrP is not a consisently liberal party. They always propose to increase public spending. At the same time, they advocate tax cuts. A honest liberal party would propose tax cuts, but inform the electorate that this implies reductions in public spending.

January 23rd, 2009
8:01 AM
It is not "widely assumed" at all that FRP will seize power after the 2009 election. Every day, the media is speculating whether FRP will support that party or this party. Yes, FRP is a big wildcard in Norwegian politics, but don't ever tell med that anything about the party is "widely assumed"!

Geir Windsland
January 23rd, 2009
8:01 AM
MrKay: What you are saying here is nothing but a big fat lie. Even when FrP had more than 30% of the voters, Venstre and KrF (a miniscule 5% of voters each) refused to even talk to FrP about forming a coalition that together with Høyre at the time would amass nothing short of 55% of all votes. FrP have a number of times initiated talks! The arrogance - particularly from Venstre's nonentity Sponheim - is beyond belief. These micro-parties seriously think that it is entirely fair and square that a coalition which consists of them and Høyre (these three parties added together is a mere 28%) would represent the Norwegians' voices and their wishes. So much for democracy. Høyre have been reluctant to say anything at all - as usual - but have lately more or less unfortunately also taken the same route. However silly that also might be, it is easier for me personally to accept Høyre's decision as they have ca. 17% of voters, and therefore actually have some leverage to speak of. This long-lasting arrogance and bullying has obviously prompted FrP's Per Sandberg to finally reciprocate by saying: "If that is how you want it, then we might consider saddling up with AP (Labour) instead". Sure, the prospect of an AP and FrP intercourse is not very realistic, but the Mickey Mouse parties will definitely get the message loud and clear. That is what Sandberg's statement was about, and it was an elegant and diplomatic way of saying: Who the he** do you think you are? FrP can put a stop to their aspirations just like that. An annoying Chihuahua constantly barking and biting an elephant's leg will eventually get stamped. KrF and Venstre want FrP's support when it suits them, but give nothing in return. They are like the well-known 'friend' who expects a free ride in your car to work every morning, but isn't bothered to talk to you in the canteen. The political climate in Norway today, and the immense hostility towards FrP, means that even if the party represented 49.9% of the voters, the other parties would not grant them power to rule alone. It's taking a mickey of out of democracy, and it's not worthy a nation of Norway's stature and reputation.

Rob Black
January 23rd, 2009
5:01 AM
With America nearly bankrupted by Bush & co (you never go to war on credit!) whilst its being bankrolled by communist China (who could imagine that?) you'd think Siv Jensen and co would seek inspiration from much more mundane elements of Western political experience than one Sarah Palin and Tharcherism (which was probably suitable in its time). What a disappointment! Her blind support for Israel, where she sees no problem with illegal settlements and the collective punishment (a criminal act under any modern warfare law) on Palastinian population is as bad as that of left-wingers who see Palastinians as innocents.

Ole P.
January 22nd, 2009
6:01 PM
It should also be noted that Frp representatives have a long history of racial slur, bigotry, violence and sexual abuse, and that this goes to show that the party does attract an unhealthy number of rather narrow-minded and prejudiced people. Also, if the party had been able to actually stick to their liberal core rather than turn to populism and demagoguery at every possibility, they would be accepted as reliable political opponents and taken seriously by the other parties. As it is, it's impossible to know what direction they will take next, and that's what makes them a pariah caste in Norwegian politics today.

January 22nd, 2009
5:01 PM
Not so fast, Humber. Though there were personal relations between the founder of the Progress Party and elements within the apartheid regime, it has by no means been proved that ALP (later Progress Party/FrP) received financial aid from such sponsors. And why on earth do you imply this has been ongoing support by writing that such alleged support was "at its strongest around 30 years ago", when even the abovementioned allegations are specifically limited in time towards the initial founding of the party? And what relevance do such allegations carry today? What about the Labour party, and their communist roots, or Labour's unwillingness to effectively resist the German invaders during WW2. These are actual facts, contrary to the apartheid accusations. But how relevant is this information today? Also interesting to observe Hakon trying to discredit Mr. Bawer. As a fellow Norwegian of Hakon, I see Bawer as a man with unique insight to Norwegian society, certainly armed with a sharp pen far less politically correct than many Norwegians would prefer. His observations on Norwegian society through other writings are also certain to be a painful read for leftists up North, still no less true. On a final note, on the hysteria politicians are instigating towards the Progress Party: I recall when the current PM Stoltenberg (Labour) a few years back warned voters that if the Progress Party came in position Norway would be isolated internationally due to the party's "extreme" policies.. At the time this was said, there were republicans in charge in the US, Denmark was soon ruled by an equally "extreme" fraction, etc. The only thing Stoltenberg managed to do was to isolate himself (and Norway) from the White House through his socialist experiments in our foreign policy. And this continues to this very date, with Norway's solo embrace of Hamas.

Post your comment

This question is for testing whether you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.