It would seem that some of our fellow travels in cyberspace seems to be thinking along the same lines as Debbie Schlussel.
Her ideas are discussed more fully in this article here.
I would provide a link to Ms Schlussel’s article but my browser deemed it unwise to visit her site, so I haven’t read her original thoughts on the matter.
The Summer camp on Utøya Island is used for gatherings of the Norwegian Labour party Youth Group which is a member of this international organisation. I am not and never have been a supporter of Socialism but to describe this as a “Neo Nazi Anti Israel Hate indoctrination or PLO Fatah terrorist Camp” seems to me to be unwarranted.
I maintain that these children were nothing other than innocent victims of a deluded mass murderer.
My post on the MyTelegraph site, should you be interested can be found here.
Boadicea's Chariot 
Arrers, the prevaling view in Scandinavia is exactly what you say: a massacre of innocents. But what if they were rehearsing some less savoury political ideas? Would that have somehow justified the murders? Nonsense.
Btw, the vitriolic comments on your post ‘elsewhere’ reinforce my decision to ignore the site.
Janus, I think the prevailing view worldwide is exactly the same, but a swift Google of various blogsites is not something I would recommend. It hardly represents a sane view.
Yes, the comments are interesting aren’t they? Rather predictable, I’m afraid. You are right, I’m constantly asking myself why on earth I bother. There are still a few remaining members who post interesting stuff though.
I would like to pose a couple of purely hypothetical questions.
At what age are children responsible for their actions. It would seem that children as young as 10 or 11 can be held accountable for their crimes? I am thinking of the Jamie Bolger killers.
Utøya, age of the dead
Age 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 23 25 27 28 30 43 45 51 Total: 69
Fatalities 2 7 8 16 17 5 1 3 2 1 1 1 1 2 1 1
Mean age: 19.6, median age: 18, mode age: 18
(I hope the format comes out alright).
On the basis that the majority of victims were eligible to vote, one could argue that they at least were, in any event, adults.
Imagine that instead of anti-Zionist, left wing sympathisers they were members of Hitler’s Nazi youth, preparing to join the SS, would the nature of the attack and its justification be any more or less palatable?
As for my own justification for raising these points, I refer you to this TED lecture. http://www.ted.com/talks/margaret_heffernan_dare_to_disagree.html
Hi Sipu.
In this country children are deemed to be responsible for crimes at the age of ten, which is rather lower than that of most European countries, but what crime had these victims committed? I don’t think that innocent people who hold political opinions at variance to my own deserve to die, unless we are in a state of war and they mean me harm, in which case they are not innocent, which answers, hopefully, your second hypothetical question.
Thank you for the breakdown of the ages of the victims, so I should amend my final sentence on this post to read “innocent children and adults”.
Excellent video clip, thank you. I agree with what you are saying, but to debate ideas and exchange viewpoints is probably why some of us enjoy blogging. I just wish that some would learn how to disagree rather more agreeably. I don’t mind differing opinions but find little enjoyment or enlightenment in mindless personal abuse.
What worries me is that, unless the democratic (or at least those claiming to be) governments do something to curb the spread of the hard left influence and terrorism, this will not be the last time something like this happens.
FEEG, terrorism and extremists, be they left or right are not easy for any democracy to deal with. Neither are the deluded, like Brievik.
Although, I would add that the Norwegian government is Socialist, in that they are the majority party.
Ara: Breveik is a right wing nutter. Most of the people he shot were left wing nutters. There is little difference between the two. Politics is not so much of a spectrum as a circular system, the extreme left and right merging into one.
FEEG, exactly!
But I don’t describe the democratically elected government of Norway or their children as nutters, although I may disagree with their politics.
The camp may well have been run by an eccentric party, but that eccentric party was not violent. Breivik’s actions were.
I don’t know about you all, but when the boy was growing up and went to camp most summers he never went anywhere near any political camps and neither did anyone else I have ever known, what about your children?
I suggest to send teenage children and young adults to a politico rally style camp is pretty rum behaviour and smacks of activism. I gather that Palestinian terrorists were there for some purpose or the other.
Inculcation in the ways of the parents and presumably anti Israel?
Surely to God any normal child would have been out of there in a flash? Mine certainly would have availed himself of the first boat out! Hardly an entertaining summer is it?
Hardly strikes me as a ‘Massacre of the Innocents’ then.
It unfortunately suggest to me that they were victims firstly of their strange parents in attempting to inculcate them politically and secondly of some nutter murderer.
Trouble is in this world once one sets oneself up as an activist on any side and the opposition comes gunning for you it isn’t a lot of point calling foul! All right to cull Jews but not Norwegians or Palestinians ?
All right to cull fascists but not socialists or vice versa?
Maybe the parents will be more careful about brain washing their surviving children. Much better to send them sailing, swimming or whatever at that age and leave the politics alone.
No 18 year old needs a spray job by Hamas!
Life is often unfortunately circuitous and can have a terrible way of coming home to roost.
Not only Breivik but the parents have a lot to answer for.
Norway is a peaceful place. Children’s holiday activities do not expose them to being murdered. Didn’t any of you try out political ideas as teenagers? If not, why not? To suggest these youngsters were somehow ‘asking for it’ is arrant nonsense.
No one should be killed for either their or their parents beliefs – that should go without saying.
However, it makes a little more sense of the things that Breivik said if, in his muddle-headed thinking, he saw the Summer Camp as an ultra-Left wing organisation,
I’m not quite sure why he was deemed to be ‘sane’ – since it would seem to me that he would be better locked up for the rest of his life.
Boa, the view here is that he will be be locked up for life anyway. No court will ever allow him out and avoiding the insanity plea will ‘discourage the others’.
Right Janus – the ‘discouraging others’ argument makes sense. But, I thought he had a sentence of so many years rather than life – just how will the courts keep him locked up for ever in that case?
I assume that he will be kept in isolation – I wouldn’t reckon his chances of survival in a ‘normal’ prison.
Boa, his initial sentence is 21 years but it is still conditional on the decision of a court to release him. He is in isolation, yes, to the extent that he can be visited by other ‘selected’ inmates. He is not allowed to visit them or use communal areas. As you say, he is a marked man, whose future, even under these circumstances, is in some doubt.
Exactly, Christoper, but I wouldn’t describe it as eccentric, it is the majority party in the Norwegian government.
Tina.
No, neither the parents nor their children had anything to answer for. The healthy outdoor activities you describe were the major reason for the children to be there. It was a summer camp not some indoctrination centre!
Boadicea.
“No one should be killed for either their or their parents beliefs – that should go without saying.”
Indeed it should!
Yes, there was a very long and rambling testimony from Brievik and his plan was to slaughter the children of the political party in power. His only regret it seems was that he didn’t kill more of them!
There were conflicting psychiatric assessments submitted to the court, but he was declared legally sane, that is not psychotic when he committed his crimes.
Arnfinn Nesset a serial murderer in Norway who killed at least 22 people, maybe as many as 138 was relased after 12 years in prison.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arnfinn_Nesset
Ara: It most certainly was not just a healthy summer camp. The theme was about how to bring the downfall of Israel. It seems to me if it had been about how to bring the downfall of Iran, it would very rapidly have been nipped in the bud. As for elected governments, remember Hitler was democratically elected in 1933. Previous youth camps at this venue were associated with Al Fatah, which is hardly a peaceful group.
I stick to my premise that both side to this were in the wrong.
I don’t care who the victims were, or why they were there, there is no excuse for the deliberate slaughter of innocents under any circumstances. If they were looking for someone to kick the stool out from under Breivik, I would have no hesitation in volunteering.
FEEG.
I have read nothing to suggest that the theme was to bring down Israel. There was mention of a discussion which supported a boycott of Israeli goods which I don’t believe is Norwegian government policy and a photograph of a poster on a boat which supported calls for the Israeli government to lift the blockade on Gaza. I cannot find any other evidence but you may be interested in this article: see link below.
There was also a representative of member of the Fatah Youth Group photographed at the camp. Fatah, along with Iran, Iraq, the Lebanon, and Israel are members of International Union of Socialist Youth, a link to this organisation is provided in my post. I have no idea if representatives of all many countries who are members have visited this camp, but it sounds likely.
http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/07/28/the-ideas-of-norways-young-victims-also-draw-praise-and-criticism/
It is my understanding that the Norwegian labour Party has been the majority party for many years since the war, but now is the largest of a coalition. It would seem to me that there is little chance of a Hitler like takeover of Norway any more than this would occur in the UK because we had a Socialist government for some years.
Araminta
It is a little sad that one feels obliged to make such statements – but I felt that my next comment on being able to make more sense of Breivik’s post-rampage comments might lead people to think I was in sympathy with his actions. There is always some sort of logic in people’s behaviour – even if the person is insane and everyone else can see the flaws in their thinking.
Sipu
Thanks for your link. – it highlights my concern that societies with a rather liberal approach to criminals tend to release serious offenders a little too quickly.
Agree with you on that one, Bravo, although I don’t support capital punishment. It was the cold blooded nature of this act that makes it all the more chilling.
Boadicea.
Thank you for that.
Yes, it made perfect sense to him! I didn’t think anything about your comment led me to believe you had any sympathy for his actions at all.
I would be surprised if he is ever freed, Boadicea but yes, who knows?
It does strike me as odd that often some of the most fervent supporters of particular political or liberation movements are those who have very minimal direct experience or even knowledge of the situation on the ground. I presume that the people who join these movements do so because it gives them a safe cause to fight for, the consequences of which will have very little effect on them but will serve the purpose of assuaging any feelings of guilt they may have for their own comfortable existence and strengthening any feelings of achievement they may be striving for. I call it Mrs Jellybe Syndrome. (Mrs Jellybe was the ‘telescopic philanthropist’ from Bleak House who pursues distant projects, mostly in Africa, at the expense of her duty to her own family.) Such people will do little to help their neighbours, but will march in protest, provide arms and indoctrination and collect money for those about whom they know nothing.
Norway, and Scandinavia in general, are a long way from the Middle East in every sense and while I confess that In know little about Scandinavia I am pretty certain that most Scandinavians know very little about the Middle East, just as they knew very little about colonial and apartheid Africa, though that did not stop them from interfering.
While nobody questions the charge that Brievik’s actions were truly dreadful, it is not really that surprising that cases like this arise. There are always going to be extremes, some for the good, Newton Shakespeare and Mozart, some evil, Hitler, Stalin and Tony Blair and some largely inconsequential, 50 Shades of Grey.
Brievik lived in a world that angered him. He did not believe that society reflected his wishes. And lets face it, society does some pretty shitty, state-sanctioned stuff. Why should he not change things? Why should others have their aspirations fulfilled and not he. His one man war against society differed only from those wars conducted by other national leader in that he had fewer people to fight his battle. It does not necessarily mean that it was any more unjust.
Sipu.
Whilst I share some of your doubts about the value of the Mrs Jellybe approach to philanthropy, it does not invalidate the concept or the many good results of charitable donations of time or money, in my opinion. I also believe that it is no bad thing for children from prosperous and relatively safe backgrounds to learn that their contemporaries worldwide do not enjoy such privileges.
In stable established democracies I think we should be more worried when we cease to be surprised or shocked by instances of terrorism and mass murder!
We all feel frustrated occasionally by the actions or policies of governments, including our own, but I suggest that killing over 70 of one’s fellow citizens may indeed attract attention to his grievances but firstly, it is illegal and secondly, somewhat counter-productive.
To see Breivik as some sort of social reformer who had a point, seems to me to be frankly, a somewhat repugnant idea.
Arra, I suggest that in many, many cases perhaps more damage than good is done by ‘arm’s length’ charities. Those running them and those donating frequently have little idea of the relative circumstances and the consequences of their actions. I find it extraordinary just how little , local, objective and informed opinion is sought in determining the needs of 3rd World communities. People in the West think they know best. They do not.
You are right, it is good for people to learn about the relative privileges or lack thereof of people around the world, but they must learn the complete story, not the potted versions that ignore the inconvenient facts. Those facts are best understood by going to the countries concerned and living there for a considerable period without a preconceived agenda.
It is important that children are taught the virtues of altruism, but that altruism is far better directed at their own communities which they at least have a chance of understanding than to an alien culture that neither wants nor needs the benefits of Western interference.
Of course Brievik has a point, just as Tony Blair and George Bush had a point. A situation existed that they all believed was damaging to their cultures/communities/nations. They all did something about it. The question is whether you agree that ends justified the means. Cerainly in all cases they appear to have been counter productive. As for being illegal, legality and morality are no co-equal.
In South Africa, where his right now, an arrest warrant is being sought for Tony Blair. http://www.citizen.co.za/citizen/content/en/citizen/local-news?oid=311340&sn=Detail&pid=146826&Arrest-warrant-sought-for-Tony-Blair. I doubt that it has a snowballs chance, but the fact that Desmond Tutu, Nobel Laureate, has refused to share a stage with him, indicates the levels of disgust felt towards the man in foreign parts. And that just goes to prove my point about the West not understanding the mind-set of those living in the 3rd World.
It is important to have an open mind.
Does the end justify the means, Sipu? An interesting question, and I think this seems to be a question of whether your own code of ethics, religion or morality justifies the action. This seems to me to open up a whole new topic and one which has been the subject of debate for centuries.
Forgive me if I return to my original topic at this point, but I find it difficult in this instance to find any moral reason or justification for Brevik’s actions.
The reason for posting on this subject was simply this. Breivik seems to have become, to some at least a hero. Whilst everyone deplores the results of his thinking there seems to be a some support or understanding of his position. I have seen attempts by some to imply that his victims were somehow responsible; that is they were not innocent victims and they or their parents were somehow responsible or guilty for their fate. Furthermore, there are suggestions that the Norwegian government was also were culpable because of their policy regarding immigration, and especially those immigrants who are Muslim. So, there seems to some sort of reasoning that implies that is acceptable, and making the victims or the government in some way to blame, justifies this thinking.
Now, whilst I can understand that some who share the same concerns, about a large influx of immigrants and problems with integration, may agree with his reasoning. I think this is a dangerous path to tread.
Breivik may have been deemed to be sane at the time, but in my view, he is deluded in his thinking. I cannot separate his reasons from his actions, but there are some who do. Do they have the same understanding or sympathy with the terrorists who attacked the twin towers or bombed London? I doubt it, I don’t.
If Breivik had massacred these people for any other reason then I suggest the condemnation would have been absolute and unequivocal. Do you really think he has a point?
In the end, I think it best to repeat Bravo’s statement.
“I don’t care who the victims were, or why they were there, there is no excuse for the deliberate slaughter of innocents under any circumstances.”
So yes, we should keep an open mind, but in this instance, I find it difficult.
Hin Arra. I think there is a very fine line between sanity and madness. There are fine lines between normality and perversion; between decency and indecency. The tipping point is just that, a point. There is a straw that breaks the camels back. etc, etc.
I am sure we have all experienced situations where the question of right and wrong is not easily answered. For you and I and most other people, it is easy to say the Breivik was wrong, but there are 50 shades of grey between white and black and good and evil. (Oh my goodness, I think I have just realised what the title of THAT book means. I hasten to say that I have not read it.) For different people a different shade exists. The point is we are not all the same and we should not expect the same behaviour from other people. I do not justify it, I merely try to understand it. xx
Yes, Sipu, and it’s been an interesting exchange of ideas; thank you.
No, I know you are not trying to justify it.
Regarding THAT book, I was somewhat bemused, nay shocked, this afternoon when an 86 year old friend was not only in possession of a copy, but she couldn’t put it down,and she’s already arranged to borrow the remaining two volumes of the trilogy.
Blimey, I thought. xxx
It appears that quite a few people are prepared to stand up and say Breivik had a point whilst deploring his actions. It appears some frog writer of high repute has joined in the chorus.
I suspect that whilst governments ignore the concerns of their citizens over immigrants and multiculturalism and refuse to stop the floods entering, this is going to be played out more than once in the future.
If, as and when it does the governments of the west only have themselves to blame for the ensuing anarchy.
Enoch Powell just got the wrong country
Arrers and Sipu, what’s with the xxx? Explain or get a room.
Don’t start that again.
🙂 xxxxx
Yes, Tina.
As I mentioned earlier, many are suggesting that governments in the west take Breivik’s “message” seriously. Since these countries are democracies perhaps their citizens could find alternative methods to get this message across. Should governments change their policies or listen to all nutters, mass murderers and terrorists? I’m sure they all have a message. We may not agree with them all though, or the method of delivery.
But, I think my main objection to this sort of thinking is the idea that the victims, parents or the Norwegian government should be considered in any way culpable for Breivik’s murderous actions.
Breivik’s message from his Manifesto:
Breivik described his far-right militant ideology in a compendium of texts entitled 2083: A European Declaration of Independence, which he distributed electronically on the day of the attacks. In it he lays out his worldview, which includes Islamophobia, support of Zionism and opposition to feminism.It also expresses support for far-right groups such as the English Defence League and paramilitaries such as the Scorpions. It regards Islam and “cultural Marxism” as “the enemy”, and argues for the violent annihilation of “Eurabia” and multiculturalism, and the deportation of all Muslims from Europe based on the model of the Beneš decrees. Breivik wrote that his main motive for the atrocities was to market his manifesto. Breivik had been active on several Islamophobic and nationalist blogs, including document.no, and was a regular reader of Gates of Vienna, the Brussels Journal and Jihad Watch.
After studying several terrorist groups, including IRA, ETA and others, Breivik suggests far-right militants should adopt al-Qaeda’s methods, learn from their success, and avoid their mistakes. Breivik described al-Qaeda as the “most successful revolutionary force in the world” and praised their “cult of martyrdom
From Wiki
Pity he’s not already a ‘martyr’.
Yes, there was a recent article in The Telegraph which agreed with you, Janus. It might have been better if the police had shot him, but he surrendered, unfortunately.
‘But, I think my main objection to this sort of thinking is the idea that the victims, parents or the Norwegian government should be considered in any way culpable for Breivik’s murderous actions.’
My point in 32, many think they are in varying degrees! Many agree with parts of Breiviks manifesto, they just don’t agree with his resolution. This does not make them nutters.
If countries do not want the same resolution to happen again then they had better start listening to all parts of their electorates.
“Nutters”, Tina in the context of my sentence did not include supporters of Breivik, merely the insane in our society who kill for many varying reasons.
(blushy thingy)
🙂
And thanks to you too, Janus for your contributions to this thread.