I have now been part of Resett since September, 2017 and was permanently employed in September this year. All the time, the pressure has tolled on me and my loyalty has been questioned. Why, being a dark skinned woman, am I with Resett? Several times I have tried to explain this, but in vain.
Now it seems like two from the editorial office have put something forth and many indiscriminately believe their contribution, without knowledge of the basis for this disloyal way of «punishing» their former employer.
Being one of the women with Resett I can add a few nuances to the issue. From the very first day, Helge has been extremely open-minded toward others. Most contributions have been allowed because freedom of speech is so essential. Who are we to bury the free speech? If one fronting a racist attitude wants a platform, it is all the more important to let him speak up; then we know what we are up against, including Islamists and others fronting extremist ideas. Breivik would possibly have been stopped, had his extreme ideas been given a platform.
In Norge the last years, we have witnessed an elaborate narrowing of the space for opinions. Ideas that challenge and break with the publicly accepted dogmas are quickly condemned; criticism of feminism and immigration is labelled immoral and extreme.
Freedom of speech is essential in a democracy. It also implies to discuss opinions and statements that do not fit in the predominating and politically correct understanding of the society in which we live.
The Lurås method is to address issues that would have cost others their job. To repeatedly invite people fronting other opinions without them providing an answer or showing any interest in dialogue, has also been the Lurås method. Quite a few have rejected an outstretched hand, only to complain that Resett is uniform. I could mention several names; however, I do not want to burn every bridge. Maybe they will some day enter into a dialogue.
Nowadays, Resett is criticised for criticising feminism and equal rights. I can take on some of the guilt. At several occasions, I have criticised neofeminism and especially Ottar, and also equal rights. Not because it is not esssential, but because it is not the same tomen and women. Why should we abstain from criticising that which deserves to be criticised?
It is fine that some get to state their displeasure; at the same time, it is essential that we who experience differently, contribute to a balanced impression.
Helge Lurås is a decent, just, and respectful editor. It is a good thing that he speaks where others keep silent. It is also a good thing that others respond. That is the wonderful feature of plurality of opinions.
Translated to English by Lars Hoem