It is fascinating to observe how quickly the Norwegian Left manages to discover that threats, harassment and insecurity are a serious social problem when it suddenly affects them themselves.

When AUF leader Gaute Skjervø revealed that he carries a personal attack alarm following a wave of coarse messages and threats, the entire apparatus immediately swung into action. Jonas Gahr Støre called it “outrageous”. Tonje Brenna came forward with the usual appeals concerning democracy, the climate of expression and the responsibility we all have to take care of one another.

And yes, of course threats are unacceptable. No politicians, journalists or people in general should have to live with threats of violence.
But where is this indignation otherwise?

When Simen Velle reported threats and PST confirmed that an investigation had been opened, there was no national moral mobilisation from Støre about democracy and the climate of expression. No major appeals about how young politicians must be protected. No collective self-examination concerning the culture of debate. When figures on the Right receive threats, the response is often entirely different. Then it suddenly becomes a matter of one “having to tolerate reactions”. That one “provokes”. That one “plays the victim”.

The same applies to fear in general.

For years, many of the same milieus have dismissed people’s experience of insecurity. Women who say they feel unsafe in Oslo are told that their fear is irrational. That crime is exaggerated. That Oslo is actually safe. That it merely concerns “perception of reality”. One is prejudiced and must be more “inclusive”.

It is quite interesting to observe how quickly fear suddenly becomes both legitimate and serious when it affects the politically correct people.
And at the same time, these are milieus that themselves have spent years branding political opponents as racists, extremists and dark forces in society. One cannot contribute to inflaming a climate of debate with a constant need to brand opponents, only then to appear shocked that the temperature of public discourse becomes high.

Virtually every single time, 22 July is invoked in the debate. Even though people on the Right strongly distance themselves from the terror, one is nevertheless often met with insinuations that one somehow bears moral responsibility. At the same time, other forms of extremism are treated far more cautiously politically.

The same milieus that speak most loudly about “Islamophobia” often show little willingness honestly to discuss the fact that PST for several years has assessed Islamist terror as one of the greatest threats to Norway. Only a few months ago, the American embassy was subjected to a terror attack. Nevertheless, many experience that this type of incident is quickly toned down or explained away, because it challenges the worldview to which the Left clings.

Gaute points out in his interview with VG that: “We have young girls with Muslim backgrounds who are harassed on TikTok. They stand quite defenceless in all of this.”

But what about Arina Aamir, who also has a Muslim background and must carry a personal attack alarm? It is not because of threats from the Right. Or Lily Bandehy, who carries both a personal attack alarm and pepper spray. Or several of us journalists at Document. An application was made for a personal attack alarm for me as well, because of threats I receive. But I was told that “none were available at the moment”. I would dare to assert that we too stand rather defenceless against those who threaten us. But once again, this type of threat apparently does not count in quite the same way.

In response to youth crime, the solution all too often appears to be “buns, soft drinks and youth clubs”, while the seriousness of the violence is toned down.

That several of the milieus from which we on the Right receive threats are heavily overrepresented in the crime statistics, and that the violence figures are sky-high, is dismissed time and time again. Instead, 22 July is once more used as the preferred explanation for everything that is wrong in society. Girls who have actually been subjected to violence and rape by our new fellow countrymen are dismissed as racists who need to pull themselves together. Unfortunately, I know something about that myself.

I am entirely opposed to people who use their freedom of expression being threatened. Expressions should be met with expressions. The same applies to the labels that Gaute Skjervø throws around indiscriminately. He ought also to refrain from that.

The double standards of Jonas Gahr Støre and AUF have long since passed their expiry date. Society has changed, and their perception of reality ought soon to do the same.