The Oslo court has declared that Anders Behring Breivik is sane and inspired by an evil, right-wing extremist Islamophobic ideology, which also happens to be exactly what the entire political establishment from the state broadcaster NRK and national newspaper VG to Prime Minister Jens Stoltenberg wanted the judges to say. So far, none of the involved parties have indicated that they will appeal this decision to a higher court.
In the end, Breivik received three months in jail for each of the human beings he killed in cold blood, which believe it or not is the maximum punishment possible in Norway. This is being hailed as a great victory for Norway’s glorious and humane justice system.
I admit that I have mixed feelings about this sentence. First of all, if Breivik actually is sane enough to be held accountable for his actions, sentencing him to a mere three months in jail for each of his murder victims is a sick joke that makes a mockery of the entire Norwegian justice system. It’s the symptom of a society that values the right of brutal criminals over the rights and well-being of their victims.
I have never met Breivik, but to the best of my abilities I would say that he represents a difficult case somewhere between insanity — as his very twisted worldview sometimes indicates — and the calculated cynicism he displayed during his terror attacks. He might have been declared sane in the USA, for instance.
However, it is not and should not be up to random journalists to decide this legal matter, which it sadly looks like it partially was in the Breivik case. We have to question whether we live in a democracy, a society ruled by the people, or a pressocracy, a society ruled by the press and those who control it.
The simple truth is that the outcome of this trial has been largely dictated by the mass media, who conducted an extremely aggressive campaign to overturn the first report of the court-appointed psychiatrists stating that Breivik is criminally insane. We were eventually presented two different reports with diametrically opposite conclusions, and the judges chose to simply overlook the first one of these entirely.
The official statements of the female head judge Wenche Elizabeth Arntzen and her co-judges closely mirrored what many pro-Multicultural newspaper columnists have written over the past year, parroting the line that Breivik was part of a dangerous and delusional Internet-based “right-wing extremist” subgroup and that his massacre on July 22, 2011 was basically the logical conclusion of reading Islamophobic blogs.
Today, I published at Frontpage Magazine an essay about increased surveillance of Islam-critics in Norway, which is now also seen in several other Western countries. Unfortunately, it is likely that this trend will get worse after the latest court ruling in Oslo. Siv Alsén, a senior advisor in the Norwegian Police Security Service (PST), openly admits that the security services are now closely monitoring anti-Islamic websites and groups, since they are seen as a security threat.
Til norsk presse:
Jeg gav følgende kommentar per epost til Aftenposten, men de publiserte ikke alt:
Jeg kan ikke si med sikkerhet om Breivik er utilregnelig da jeg aldri har møtt ham. Det virker sannsynlig at han utgjør et komplisert grensetilfelle. Derimot er det helt tydelig at denne konklusjonen er fremtvunget av mediepress som dommerne ikke har klart å motstå, slik advokat Morten Furuholmen korrekt har påpekt. Dette er pressens dom som de har påtvunget oss, ikke rettens dom. Etter denne dommen må vi spørre oss om vi bor i et demokrati der folket styrer eller et pressokrati, der pressen hersker og synes at den bør det.
Denne saken har rettet et kritisk søkelys mot rettspsykiatere, bloggere, politi, politikere og andre. Det er greit, men kanskje er det på tide også å rette søkelyset mot massemediene selv. Vi trenger en strukturell opprydning i pressen like mye som vi gjør det i politiet.
Hva enkeltpersoner som ikke har undersøkt Breivik måtte mene om tilregnelighet er uinteressant, poenget er som advokat Morten Furuholmen påpeker at det foreligger tvil, og da tilsier etablert rettspraksis at man skal ansees som utilregnelig. Dommerne har i dette tilfellet satt til side all vanlig rettspraksis i kjølvannet av massivt mediepress og har i stedet fulgt rådet til tungt politiserte vitner som Øyvind Strømmen, Lars Gule og Mattias Gardell. Dette svekker tilliten til rettens konklusjoner ganske kraftig.
Til Ole Asbjørn Ness fra Finansavisen har jeg skrevet følgende:
Det er godt kjent at massemediene omtaler seg selv som “den fjerde statsmakt” og ikke rent sjelden oppfører seg som om de er eller burde være den første, som dirigerer ikke bare regjeringen og Stortinget men i dette tilfellet også domstolene. Det er udiskutabelt at voldsomt mediepress etter den første rettspsykiatriske erklæringen delvis medførte at Breivik til slutt ble erklært tilregnelig, som var det resultatet pressen ønsket. Hva som er korrekt er ett spørsmål her, men et annet er om dette er noe journalister skal bestemme.
Rett før denne dommen gikk dusinvis av muslimske innvandrere fra bydelen Vollsmose i Odense, Danmark, til regelrett angrep på den lokale legevakten. I Malmø i Sverige, som snart vil bli Nordens første by med muslimsk flertall, er det jevnlig bomber. Dette skjer rett ved vår dørstokk, i tillegg til alle problemene Norge selv har på grunn av innvandring. Det er ikke “dystopisk” å si sannheten.
Det jeg har skrevet om islam, masseinnvandring og EU er korrekt, så jeg ser ingen grunn til å slutte med å si sannheten. Mange av dem som støtter dagens feilslåtte politikk er kanskje naive mer enn noe annet og skal ikke ensidig demoniseres, men det hadde vært veldig hyggelig om de samme gruppene til gjengjeld kunne la være med å demonisere kritikerne av det multikulturelle eksperimentet.
For a complete archive of Fjordman’s writings, see the multi-index listing in the Fjordman Files.
Previous posts about the trial of Anders Behring Breivik:
20 comments:
"The Oslo court has declared that Anders Behring Breivik is sane and inspired by an evil, right-wing extremist Islamophobic ideology, which also happens to be exactly what the entire political establishment from the state broadcaster NRK and national newspaper VG to Prime Minister Jens Stoltenberg wanted the judges to say."
I vehemently disagree. I ran into several partisans who wanted him declared insane; they sought to score their political points by equating insanity to disagreement with their political opinions. "No reasonable person could disagree" and all that.
Calling Breivik a criminal is the better outcome for Gates of Vienna and the rest of the Islamonauseous blogosphere, to my mind. Calling Breivik a criminal sends the message that what Breivik did was wrong, separately from what he thought or learned or read on the Internet. But calling Breivik insane would have signalled that what Breivik thought was wrong, and thereby spread a wider net to stigmatize everyone who agreed with Breivik in the tiniest particular.
"the mass media, who conducted an extremely aggressive campaign to overturn the first report of the court-appointed psychiatrists stating that Breivik is criminally insane."
While the campaign may have been aggressive, that doesn't make it wrong. The first report listed as evidence of Breivik's insanity that Breivik was making up words and phrases - such as "dhimmitude" and "cultural marxism". The first report called Breivik paranoid for believing the police had him under surveillance, when the police should have had him under surveillance for his preparations. Expecting competence from the police is hardly paranoia.
The only insane actors in this are the Norwegian authorities and people who are passive in the face of Islamic predators. Instead they worry about locals with blogs who are concerned about the government's idiotic immigration policies. Typical Leftists.
All the while, the Muzzies are free to rob, rape and burn like their 7th century ancestors.
And I wouldn't worry about security, any country that is as politically correct as Norway will have a bunch of manure brains and gutless wonders as police.
I am a so-called 'Islamaphobe' but it dosent make me want to kill anyone! Like nyone with a brain I know the difference between harmless things like spiders, and the totally valid fear of something truly disgusting. Like Islamic insanity in general.
Brevik is a cruel and psychopathic narcissist certainly not an example of Nationalists and right wing thinkers at all!
@Erik
If I heard it right, Arntzen emphasised in the beginning that their judgement wasn't based on the opinion of the press but based on the law.
In my opinion the police/government shouldn't or needn't increase surveillance of Islam-critics they should enter the dialogue with all them i.e. talk about the ICLA (I haven't heard anything about it in MSM).
From that Front Page essay, this is a favorite:
Kari Helene Partapuoli, leader of the Centre, which already receives millions in direct state support annually, says the money will partly be spent on mapping international networks opposed to multiculturalism. Partapuoli earlier warned against the dangers of “subconscious” racism, stating that there is a racist in all of us. She didn’t explain what kind of mental exorcism will be required to drive out our racist inner demons...
Mental exorcism?? Oh no, not at all. These will be modern versions of the old kinds - trial by fire, etc.
They didn't burn witches at the stake to be mean: they performed those scientific experiments to "prove" that any witch who wasn't consumed by the flames was innocent.
In the multiculit True Religion of Norway, there will be newer and just as scientific "trials" for proof of purity.
What a cess pit that totalitarian state has become. Stalin would have approved deeply.
The BBC called Breivik an ultra-nationalist. I assume that an ultra-nationalist is somebody who believes in the homogeneous nation state of old but is prepared to blow up people and shoot them to bring it about. Nationalists on the whole do not want to kill anybody. But a "sane" Breivik is a godsend to the internationalist BBC - I dare no longer use the word Marxist about them as Breivik used it of internationalists - as it has allowed them to stain the hands of all nationalists and anti-multiculturalists with the blood of the 77 he murdered.
Looking at Breivik personally I would have said that he is as nutty as a fruit cake. Here in the British Isles, however, if he had been judged insane then presumably Gerry Adams and the sainted Martin McGuinness, those "former" IRA terrorists would have to be judged insane as well as they are Irish nationalists who killed to achieve their aims. In Northern Ireland, the division is always between Unionists and Nationalists.
Nobody would ever have thought that the peaceful homogeneous Norway of 50 years ago would become the battle line between nationalism and internationalism. As this site has informed us, Norway must now be bracing itself for more bombs and bullets from those Islamic terrorists bent on forming a separate Islamic state within Norway. Norwegian left-wing politicians in their insistance that human nature must be bent to suit their agenda, that Israel is bad and all muslims are victims are now reaping the whirlwind. They are trapped between anti-multiculturalist terrorism and the result of their multicultural policies, namely islamic anti-semitic and anti-western terrorism. Just as Breivik is a godsend to the internationalist few - and there is no doubt that in Britain the majority are nationalist but as elsewhere they are terrified into silence by the accusation of racism - and to the islamofacists who regard the internationalist left as useful idiots. It is obvious that the mad marriage between the Left and Islam is going to result in the weaker spouse being bumped off ( guess who? ).
Breivik is certainly sane, just in a very evil way. But our modern courts don't recognize evil in and of itself as something we can punish.
I think the judgment of sanity is correct, even though the law provides for what most of us consider to be a very light punishment.
I say this because this illustrates the disparity between Good and Evil of those who are sane.
What I mean is that insanity and evil are not parallel issues, but rather an given sane person can make an evil choice over a good choice.
And our modern culture needs instances like this to remind us of the true nature of evil.
In the greater sense, we can have good Islamists and evil Islamists in context of the choices they make, and in that it is quite appropriate to identify "Radical Islamists" in context of their "evil" intent.
I would otherwise argue that all Islamists are Evil, but not all of them are trying to kill me. Even though they support others of their ideology to kill me, many would probably rather just live without constant warfare despite their teachings to the contrary.
Concentrating on Anders Behring Breivik psychology at the trial was only ever going to be that of a political stalling tactic and distraction.
Breivik's status from day one could only ever have been that of a political prisoner, labelling Breivik an insane criminal goes against all the knowing facts of the case.
Irrational quibbling over the sanity determination and the sentence is irrelevant bellyaching.
Jolie Rouge
Dymphna:
They didn't burn witches at the stake to be mean: they performed those scientific experiments to "prove" that any witch who wasn't consumed by the flames was innocent.
And also out of concern for their immortal souls. It was for their own good, you see.
I am somewhat fascinated by the idea that Breivik should have been driven to the extreme actions after being influenced by others on the net.
Why is it that somebody else must be behind him?
Why couldn't one man as a thinking individual come to conclusions by himself?
Is it the comrades marching at the same pace ideology that makes it impossible for some to imagine individuals having their own ideas?
Only a few elements makes you think that Breivik at some moment in time decided to speak the language of the totalitarian left/islam ideology followers, a language they would understand
- violence
- references to Al Qaida
Isn't Breivik holding up a mirror to the left/islam?
Words such as "dhimmitude", "invented" by Breivik..?!
"The Status of Non-Muslim Minorities Under Islamic Rule
Dhimmitude: the Islamic system of governing populations conquered by jihad wars, encompassing all of the demographic, ethnic, and religious aspects of the political system. The word "dhimmitude" as a historical concept, was coined by Bat Ye'or in 1983 to describe the legal and social conditions of Jews and Christians subjected to Islamic rule. The word "dhimmitude" comes from dhimmi, an Arabic word meaning "protected".
Dhimmi was the name applied by the Arab-Muslim conquerors to indigenous non-Muslim populations who surrendered by a treaty (dhimma) to Muslim domination. Islamic conquests expanded over vast territories in Africa, Europe and Asia, for over a millennium (638-1683)."
http://www.dhimmitude.org/
Are you saying that the MAXIMUM prison sentence, in a NORWEGIAN prison, for premeditated murder, is THREE MONTHS PER CORPSE?
If I were a reporter or a muslim, I would pause to reconsider.
"Are you saying that the MAXIMUM prison sentence, in a NORWEGIAN prison, for premeditated murder, is THREE MONTHS PER CORPSE?"
No, the maximum INITIAL prison sentence in Norway is 21 years, (there is no per-corpse measurement) and then it can be INDEFINITELY EXTENDED in increments of 5 years.
Breivik will probably serve 21 years, then 5 more, then 5 more, then 5 more, then 5 more...
"Partapuoli earlier warned against the dangers of 'subconscious' racism, stating that there is a racist in all of us."
All of us? So that includes brown, black, red, and yellow people, too?
Egghead
"I would say that he represents a difficult case somewhere between insanity — as his very twisted worldview sometimes indicates — and the calculated cynicism he displayed during his terror attacks."
Insane? Or just an extreme case of attention-seeking, as the mass mailing of his manifesto, and the close attention he paid to his looks may indicate?! In which case... with the mass media focus on him, surely he achieved exactly what he was hoping for?
And now, after his "great success", he grins at the thought of going to his prison cell fitted with a personal gym and library. Socialy isolated - just as he had been for much of his life - but now not having to work for a living like the rest of us, but having the free time to write all the crazy texts he could ever want...
Yes, Norway has an original way of "punishing" criminals, and "discouraging" any copycat crimes...
The anti-Islamists are a security threat? That truly is insane.
Today the editorials of most papers in New Sweden are about
the Breivik verdict. Here follows an exerpt from a typical such.
Daniel Swedin in the Socialdemocratic 'Aftonbladet' writes:
Together we can prevail over hatred
According to the court, Breivik is criminally accountable. He knew what he was doing when he killed 77 people at the Social Democratic youth camp on Utøya and at Oslo's government district. In the lawsuit it has become increasingly evident that the terrorist attacks were political, carried out by a right-wing extremist with a political agenda and the clearly expressed purpose of basically changing Norway. Some have not wanted to embrace this.
It is difficult for some to understand that Breivik is solely responsible for his actions, but his worldview is neither created by or limited to himself. Breivik is not alone. Breiviks manifesto is marked by the conspiracy theory of Eurabia, a fantasy that Islam is about to take over Europe by high birth rates, immigration and the prone help of the Left. This delusion is represented in almost every European Parliament. It was so Breivik found his inspiration. Here he found the answer to what should be done to overcome the perceived threat from Muslims and 'collaborators' of the labor movement: Strike first, strike hardest.
But yesterday's verdict leave us, amid all deep grief and anger, with something hopeful. Because, if Breivik legally was sane and performed a politically motivated act, it means that the opinions and world view that he represented is possible
to fight. The entire ideological complex that he won power from is understandable and combatable.
But the key point is that the views represented by Breivik shall neither get continued spreading nor new anchor points. To achieve this is now a responsibility of all who cherish democracy and diversity. The best way to punish Breivik is if more people choose to get involved in the anti-racist struggle, that more people stands up against everyday prejudices and hateful attitudes. The hard work has only just begun, but together we can win.
- - - - -http://www.aftonbladet.se/ledare/ledarkronika/danielswedin/article15307461.ab
Breivik is exceeding any scale the authorities are trying to measure him by. They quite simply, don't have any tool to measure him by, and cannot figure out how to invent a new tool.
The minds of the politicians, the lawyers, the judges, the psychologists, the journalists, the "experts" all go by their own old books and ideologies, inventing nothing new. Their minds are cemented. That is why they cannot imagine the existance of anything not fitting into their moulds, other than naming it different phrases that they already have in their books.
They are all lacking creative thinking, as they think all explanations are already in their books.
I think this narrow-mindedness also is preventing them from seeing consequences of the society they are constructing. They are not looking ahead, and have no visions, only very short term goals. In short, I think they are simple minds with one goal, personal power.
Is Breivik more insane/evil than those he purported to act against?
IW
Quoting"... sane and inspired by an evil, right-wing extremist Islamophobic ideology,.. "
So they are saying Breivik is a muslim activist?
1> evil ideology - islam - very Evil indeed. Check
2> Right-Wing and extremist - islam is very nasty and fascist - there is a good reason it is called mein Quranff. Check
3> islamophobic - all muslims have to be afraid of it - they can be killed by their own families for having the slightest doubts. Check
Yep, the press is calling him a muslim.
Post a Comment
All comments are subject to pre-approval by blog admins.
Gates of Vienna's rules about comments require that they be civil, temperate, on-topic, and show decorum. For more information, click here.
Users are asked to limit each comment to about 500 words. If you need to say more, leave a link to your own blog.
Also: long or off-topic comments may be posted on news feed threads.
To add a link in a comment, use this format:
<a href="http://mywebsite.com">My Title</a>
Please do not paste long URLs!
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.