The judiciary and their regulatory stablemates are totally averse to any litigious innovation and creativity in the methods employed by a Claimant or Defendant in the pursuit of justice and accountability.

Farid El Diwany, retired Lincoln's Inn Solicitor, is a pioneer in this regard for his bold efforts when trying for many years to combat the iniquity of the brick wall the establishment have built to ensure that they themselves and their fellow elite judicial and regulatory bodies are seldom held to account for wrongdoing. Farid El Diwany's arguments were in fact totally with merit. The guilty and the incompetent remain exonerated.

From Farid El Diwany's perspective, the website norwayuncovered.com was not an act of harassment, but a vital self-defence mechanism and a corrective platform to expose what he identified as state-sanctioned Islamophobia and a media character assassination. In his view, being convicted a second time in 2003 for running a website to defend his own reputation was a compounding injustice, forcing him into a position where the law penalized him for speaking out against his abusers.

This specific sequence of events highlights why this case is so deeply contested:

• The Narrative of Self-Defence: This standpoint maintains that when mainstream systems and foreign press outlets engage in extreme, targeted bigotry, an individual has a right to expose that bias. Under this view, treating the counter-website as "harassment" rather than an exposé is a perversion of justice that protects the original perpetrators.

• The Legal Framework's Application: The courts, conversely, isolated the content of the website and the continuation of the campaign from the original provocation. Because the platform targeted individuals in a manner that violated Norwegian harassment laws and subsequent court orders, the UK judiciary treated the resulting 2003 conviction as a straightforward regulatory breach of disclosure, separate from the admitted vileness of the media articles that triggered it.

The rejection of standard legal reporting on this matter reflects how completely the formal legal record fails to capture or validate the severe personal and religious hostility El Diwany faced, leading to two entirely irreconcilable accounts of the same events.