Sunday, November 13, 2011

Tomorrow: A Breivik Media Circus in Oslo

Anders Behring Breivik

Anders Behring Breivik will appear in court tomorrow in Norway, and a new round of media frenzy will almost certainly accompany his appearance.

Our Norwegian correspondent NA sends this brief note about what to expect:

Tomorrow, the 14th of November, Anders Behring Breivik’s custody extension hearing will be held.

He has been allowed to meet in court in person instead of via a media-link from his cell in Ila prison. There they will talk about what crimes he’s being charged with and he will be able to explain himself to a certain degree. For a while it seemed as though he would have to explain himself by video-link from his cell but the supreme court said that he would be allowed to meet in person, which overrode the regional court of Oslo.

This will be a media circus beyond anything ever seen before, given that there are 400 free seats for anyone wishing to stand in line in order to see it. It will be interesting to hear what Breivik has to say in his defence, and his reasons for committing the atrocities on 22nd July. The Counterjihad will most likely end up being accused of all the general -phobias and -isms.

Below is a report from AFP on the same topic:

Norway Gunman Allowed to Appear in Person in Court

The gunman behind the July 22 massacres in Norway will be allowed to appear in court in person instead of via video link for a custody extension hearing next week, the Supreme Court ruled Friday.

“He will be allowed to appear,” Supreme Court spokesman Svein Tore Andersen said.

Anders Behring Breivik, a 32-year-old right-wing extremist being held at the high-security Ila prison near Oslo, is scheduled to appear before a judge at the Oslo district court on Monday for a hearing on the extension of his custody for 12 more weeks.

The lower court recently ruled the hearing would be open to the public but then granted a police request that Behring Breivik, who has confessed to the two attacks that killed 77 people, would appear only via video link.

His appeal against that ruling was first rejected by the appeals court, but on Friday Norway’s highest court found in his favour.

Andersen refused to comment on the grounds cited for the reversal.

According to the NTB news agency however, video links are not permitted in hearings about extended isolation, and although Behring Breivik officially was released from solitary confinement a month ago, the Supreme Court said in practice he was still isolated and therefore must be permitted a physical court appearance.

It remained unclear what additional security measures would need to be taken for the court hearing or how many people could be expected to attend, Oslo district court spokeswoman Irene Ramm told the VG daily’s online edition.

“We don’t know how many might come, but we have a capacity for up to about 400,” she said.


Trencherbone said...

Prepare for a festival of moral equivalence.

Those infidels who use the 'moral equivalence argument' to compare Islam with other religions need to examine their own subconscious psychological motives. They are not only attempting to delude others, but are in deep denial and trying to delude themselves. They are administering self-generated taqiyya as a tranquilizer to blot out reality.

The conscious part of the moral equivalence argument takes the form "Christians and Jews have committed atrocities such as the McVeigh, Breivik and King David Hotel bombings, so Christianity and Judaism are just the same as Islam. Therefore Islam poses no special threat."

The fallacies are obvious: Christian and Jewish acts of terrorism are rare and infrequent; they are rejected by the majority of followers of the religions, go against the core teachings of the religions, and are committed by a few isolated loonies. In contrast, Islamic acts of terrorism are commonplace, are encouraged by the Koran and are supported, if not actually carried out, by a substantial proportion of Muslims.

The unconscious and self-deluding part of the moral equivalence argument is the refusal to face the fact that Islam is an intrisically violent totalitarian ideology that has infiltrated our civilization, and is bent on our conversion, subjugation or elimination. To acknowlege this would be deeply disturbing and well outside the comfort zone of most people (remember the popular enthusiasm for appeasement of Hitler and 'Peace in Our Time'?) . So we reassure ourselves, by the moral equivalence argument, that Islam is just like other religions.

It's far easier to stay in denial and regard Islam as being no more a threat to our lives and culture than the Quakers or Lubavitcher Hasidim. That way we don't have to worry about the looming global clash of civizations, or think about the unpleasant courses of action that may be necessary to reduce the threat.

Moral equivalence is moral cowardice...