Mag
Opinion
Reykjavík Nine: A Statement Regarding The Ruling

Reykjavík Nine: A Statement Regarding The Ruling

Published February 18, 2011

The ruling of Reykjavík’s District Court is a sentence for the sake of appearances. It is not at all in accordance with the serious accusations that we have had to live with for the last year. It is soft enough to tranquillize people’s possible fury but at the same time, tough enough to fulfill the State’s need to punish, cover its shame, and encourage continuing persecution of its political opponents.
We have this to say about the case:
The Parliament (Alþingi) is a disgrace to Iceland’s society and holds the original responsibility for this case. Numerous parliamentarians and parliament staff members—particularly the speaker of parliament, the prosecution’s cheerleader—actively participated in delivering slander about us. The tiny attempts of a handful of parliamentarians to counterbalance this campaign of lies were silenced by the same people who most actively lied. Prime Minister Jóhanna Sigurðardóttir and company: We despise your opportunistic and desperate attempt to save your own skin at the last minute.
The office of the State Prosecution is a remotely operated persecutor and acted with the instructions of those who really wanted us sentenced. When the office gets complaints against The State (e.g. the police), the cases are usually dismissed because of an unlikely conviction. That rule however does not apply when The State is the accuser.
The Court, which is hired by those in power, making it highly political, handed the authority of the lawsuit to the police, from day one. The truth is often stranger than fiction: Those who controlled the trial were the same people who in the end testified against us.
The largest media outlets’ editors are the Goebbels’ of the Icelandic state and global capitalism, and they sentenced us as soon as the accusations were published. According to that political judgment they intended to steer the discussion to the direction of condemnation, not only by the courts, but also by the society. At the same time, they cried out and tried to push the nation’s emotional buttons when the State intervened with the business of suit-dressed money and power-figures. Thus they revealed their attitude towards the alleged justice of the constitutional state. Justice that is never supposed to touch those who sit at the top of the pyramid.
Society is traditionally co-dependent and it is in a state of denial: The State cannot be wrong. It shows apathy when it has the chance to be effective. But as the court case continued, more and more people started to question The State’s apparent position against its political opponents. As a result, we witnessed an uncommon restraint towards The States’ arm of enforcement. Despite attempts of the above-mentioned parties to control and mislead the discussion, people managed to reveal the error and display an inconvenient but true picture of the case.
We are convinced that the solidarity we were shown in many different ways, both in Iceland and abroad, was crucial. We are deeply thankful for all that support. At the same time we encourage people to continue the same restraint against the state and to turn the defense into attacks: bombard the power elite’s colossus as well as all other institutions that preserve the social structure we live in.
Finally, we declare complete support with all the people that have stood, currently stand and will stand in our footsteps, wherever in the world.
Sólveig Anna Jónsdóttir
Snorri Páll Jónsson
Þór Sigurðsson
Steinunn Gunnlaugsdóttir
Ragnheiður Esther Briem
Teitur Ársælsson
Jón Benedikt Hólm
Andri Lemarquis



Mag
Opinion
<?php the_title(); ?>

Ungoo

by

[Continued from Ungoo: Part VIII] Combined, these faults admittedly sound like the joke about that restaurant: two friends go out for dinner; one complains that the food tastes terrible to which the other replies: yes, and the portions are way too small. The like-button is probably the greatest invention since the billboard, and just as inattentive to thinking. Facebook is fast, whereas most sources seem to agree that depth is slow. If Facebook is the way we converse and, thereby, think, then yes, our culture is probably pretty shallow. Our, as in: yours too, wherever you are from. We are

Mag
Opinion
<?php the_title(); ?>

Ungoo

by

[Continued from Ungoo: Part VII] Which brings us back to Facebook. You may or may not know that a government agency called Promote Iceland has based whole marketing campaigns on encouraging the country’s inhabitants to employ social media to lure visitors. If those plans received any criticism at all, most of that probably appeared as Facebook posts, which were then drowned in more life-affirming messages. Nonetheless, debates take place on Facebook. If an interesting article appears elsewhere, whether on Starafugl or in Fréttablaðið, Facebook is still where most of the following debate will take place. Facebook is a radically new

Mag
Opinion
<?php the_title(); ?>

Ungoo

by

[Continued from Ungoo: Part VI] The most recent attempt to create a common venue for cultural commentary and debate is Starafugl, a website started and edited by author Eiríkur Örn Norðdahl. It’s been around since last winter. As I have been involved in various ways, I am liable to be considered biased when I claim that Starafugl has had a convincing first few months. I claim it, all the same. Starafugl ran into trouble a few weeks back, when it received its first ever invoice. The invoice charged Starafugl for a photograph, that had been used to illustrate an article

Mag
Opinion
<?php the_title(); ?>

Ungoo

by

[Continued from Ungoo: Part V] Radio program Víðsjá, run by state broadcaster RÚV, is in fact a tower within Iceland’s cultural panopticon. Which might serve as a translation for the program’s name. It reports on events and publications, and leaves space for commentary, which at times has been among the best you’ll find: inspired and grounded, informed and enlightening, at times romantic, courageous when needed. Incidentally, if I’m not mistaken, radio host Eiríkur Guðmundsson, often credited for having made the program what it is, was also a student of the aforementioned Matthías Viðar. Notwithstanding repeated downsizing of RÚV programming, the

Mag
Opinion
<?php the_title(); ?>

Make Yourself at Home

by

Air-bnb has announced its future vision —and a new logo. Supposedly composed from a heart, a location marker and the letter A, the logo has already been the target of much ridicule, needless to repeat here. The logo is not the point. One of the its main virtues, according to the company’s announcement, is that it is easy to draw. This serves a function: people all over the world are offered to draw the logo on just about anything they are willing to share for a fee. As the company’s statement says, Air-bnb is not just about sharing spaces, but

Mag
Opinion
<?php the_title(); ?>

Democratic Principles —the Machiavellian B-sides

by

“The president will not discuss statements made in an election campaign, during his term in office.” So said the President’s spokesman in response to RÚV’s attempt to ask President Ólafur Ragnar Grímsson about his statements in 2012, that, if elected, he might seek to leave office before the end of his term. His fifth term, to be exact. The spokesman’s response has the structure of a reasonable, if not self-evident, principle, something any member of a functioning democracy would surely understand. Meanwhile, the content of the sentence may be considered somewhat less than democratic. In other times, the same content,

Show Me More!