Talk:Hans Rustad

This article contains information about one or more living persons. Articles about living people must be handled carefully, because they are more open to legal threats. Reference any contentious allegations solidly; unreferenced allegations should be removed. If legal threats are raised on this page, please direct the potential litigant to RationalWiki:Legal FAQ; do not interact with them.

100% harrassment

This article is a hate crime and should be deleted along with the rest of your norwegian articles connected to it. Most of them are copy/paste of old Wikipedia-articles whp were deleted for harrassment. The people behind these "islamophobia/far-right" articles are the reason why Hege Storhaug (in which RW has another harrassing article on)lives pn an adress restricted to the public regiasters and need armed police present when she travel around to promote her book.

Bullshit, on stilts. There's no "hate crime" in the article. Moreover, this site is incorporated in the United States and U.S. law does not recognize so-called hate speech as criminal. Your accusation is a fine example of why that approach is so wise.---Mona- (talk) 17:48, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

ZIONISM Funny how the "rationalwiki" article about Hans Rustad does not mention the fact that Rustad is not only a critic of Islam (made into a psychiatric disorder by using the adjective "islamophobe"), he is a self confessed Zionist as well. Hans Rustad does not believe in free speech, which he explains in en interview in the Norwegian communist newspaper "Arbejderen". Specifically "the Holocaust" and related items should not be open for discussion and dissidents should be persecuted. He is also not against mass immigration in general - only against Muslim immigration.

'I am not for allowing people to say that they want to kill people, so I think freedom of speech has limits. For example holocaust-denial is a threat against living people today. Source: Klassekampen 6 maj 2006 - Vil ta friheten i forsvar (Link: http://www.klassekampen.no/36145/mod_article/item)

Rustad supports other Zionist extremists such as Zvi Mazel and Manfred Gerstenfeld. He also supports sexual mutilation of infant boys' sex organs - amputation of the foreskin - euphemistically called "circumcision".

Rustad is a philo-semite, who despises the old (Nordic) Norwegian culture, and thinks that the Norwegians should be grateful to the Jews for bringing "civilization" to Norway (Christianity).

Why the Rationalwiki doesn't mention the obvious fact that Rustad is first and foremost a Zionist, and not a Norwegian patriot / nationalist is a good question. We have observed the same tendency in the mainstream media - where Rustad's Israel First policy is almost never mentioned and certainly never questioned. At best Hans Rustad document.no is controlled opposition.

Here is a portrait interview of Hans Rustad written by the strongly left-leaning newspaper Klassekampen ("class struggle"): https://www.document.no/2007/01/27/rustad_i_klassekampen/ If you put it through Google translate it becomes rather obvious how this RationalWiki article about Rustad is mostly unsubstantiated slander. Rustad is a critical voice. He holds several opinions not typically shared by mainstream media. He supports Israel and he is critical of Islam. But he is not supportive of conspiracy theories. Neither is he affiliated with nazi ideology. This RationalWiki article confusingly repeats these Nazi-allegations even when the one newspaper which erroneously made such allegations against Rustad was convicted by the Norwegian Press Complaints comission for having broken good press ethics by doing so. The ethics comission (as mentioned in reference 11), makes a special note of emphasizing that publicly visible people must expect strong critique, but that that the nazi-slander applied to Rustad was still clearly not called for. I don't really care too much about which label RationalWiki wants to apply to this guy, but if the goal is to inform, and perhaps also allow readers to distinguish between different shades of certain political viewpoints, then this article ought to be cleaned up and the language ought to be straightened out. ^{— Unsigned, by: 79.160.43.232 / talk / contribs}

1. On talk pages, please sign your comments using four tildes (~~~~) or by clicking on the sign button: on the toolbar above the edit panel. You can also indent successive talk page comments using one more colon (:) for each line. Thank you.
2. Could you provide sources for your claims that aren't from dokument.no or related Breitbartesque nativist blogs? Thanks! Reverend Black Percy (talk) 20:14, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Me again. Here is a story published in the very uncontroversial, yet politically conservative leaning (by scandinavian standards) minervanett.no discussing Rustad in light of the publication of a Document.no magazine. Again, yes the guy is clearly critical of islam and immigration, but I'd say he stands for critical - yet justifiable - viewpoints akin to Sam Harris rather than critical and murky viewpoints like Robert Spencer. https://www.minervanett.no/forsider-til-besvaer/ ^{— Unsigned, by: 79.160.43.232 / talk / contribs}

On talk pages, please sign your comments using four tildes (~~~~) or by clicking on the sign button: on the toolbar above the edit panel. You can also indent successive talk page comments using one more colon (:) for each line. Thank you.

Sam Harris has problems of his own. That being said, it's certainly true that Dokument.no isn't a racialist site — but it is a genuinely islamophobic site. And I say that as a vehement critic of Islam myself. The article you link to acknowledges that as well. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 13:00, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Why is an anti-immigration activist by default a 'crank islamophobe'?

Better check

https://www.jihadwatch.org/

https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/271146/all-jihad-all-time-bruce-bawer

http://j-cabal.net/

Then try to live up to your 'rationality' pretence, will you. ^{— Unsigned, by: 173.239.198.66 / talk / contribs}