The 17 May Committee rejected Asle Toje as a speaker at the War Sailor Monument (Krigsseilermonumentet). That has caused FrP’s Ingeborg Bjørnevik to boil over.

The 17 May Committee in Oslo is not usually the most political. Each party selects a speaker for a wreath-laying site in Oslo. Ingeborg Bjørnevik, who sits on the city council for the Progress Party (Fremskrittspartiet), selected Asle Toje.

But this has caused an uproar on the left. MDG politician Eivind Trædal believes it is entirely right to reject Toje, and writes the following on Facebook:

It is embarrassing to see how Høyre and FrP year after year attempt to turn 17 May into a divisive day. First with Danby Choi and now with Asle Toje. Constitution Day (Grunnlovsdagen) should not be about culture war or “owning the libs”. If one ends up with sharp votes over speakers, one has already missed the point of the task.

After some confusion from the 17 May Committee’s secretariat regarding who has voting rights, it is now clear that Toje is not wanted this year. His freedom of expression is, of course, intact, and he is free to give a speech elsewhere if he so wishes. Then I hope FrP manages to find another, more suitable candidate.

– This is how bad it has become. It is completely insane, says Ingeborg Bjørnevik to Document.

She states that she has now withdrawn from the 17 May Committee, because she refuses to acknowledge that this is acceptable treatment.

– The 17 May Committee is supposed to be about setting the practical framework for the national day celebration, and then it is used as an opportunity to silence opponents. The only correct course is for me to withdraw, and then they can continue with this attack on freedom of expression. I will not stand for it, she says.

Each party is allocated a wreath-laying site where they select a speaker. The only requirement is that it must not be an active party politician, but there has been a strong tradition that speakers have held differing views.

– Hilde Helland in Høyre, for example, points to Kristin Clemet, because she wants a clear conservative voice, Bjørnevik explains.

But even though the parties on the left speak loudly and often about diversity, it evidently does not apply to diversity of opinion.

– The Labour Party (Arbeiderpartiet) points to statements about immigration. But is it really the case that we must have a speaker who agrees with the Labour Party’s immigration policy in order to be allowed to speak on 17 May?

It has never been customary to vote on the speakers on 17 May. This has now been broken by the committee in order to stop Asle Toje’s speech. Bjørnevik therefore believes that all speakers must at the very least be put to a vote.

– It is entirely absurd that we are sitting and discussing whether speakers may disagree with Ap on immigration policy in order to be allowed to give a speech at a wreath-laying, says Bjørnevik.

– What do you intend to do now?

– I will not budge an inch. My assignment is complete. We have selected a speaker. If they cannot respect that, I take my leave, she says, adding:

– It is also completely incredible to me that Asle Toje can sit on the Nobel Committee (Nobelkomiteen) and has received a number of public appointments, but is not considered worthy enough to give a three-minute speech on 17 May. This is a torpedoing of freedom of expression and of the Constitution (Grunnloven) that we celebrate on 17 May, she concludes.