By John E. Xavier
Murder Charges and the Inadequacy of the Norwegian Legal System
In Norway, the murder trial of Anders Breivik continues in the wake of his mass murder and terroristic attacks last year. In thinking reminiscent of the Norwegian Nazi Vidkun Quisling, Breivik continues his one-man spectacle of twisted logic coupled with systematic hatred. Surely it must be clear by now that Breivik represents the worst of humanity, holding murderous hatreds of various groups: national, racial, religious, ethnic, gender, and who knows how many others. Nonetheless, Norwegian law seems incapable of ruling on admissible evidence and permissible behavior beforehand. Breivik has thus presented, in court, his propaganda and perverted science as a defense and furthermore gestured before the entire world with a Neo-Nazi salute.
Yet his various hatreds have now been reduced to the clarity of charges of murder, on a massive scale. This reduction to a murder case may be painted over by phrases pertaining to hate crimes, sanity or insanity, excessive immigration, culture shock, and many other terms resulting from spin. What remains nonetheless is that a citizen, in what is by almost any measure a highly successful democracy, has resorted to mass killing. The acts are not being contested by Breivik. He has essentially stated his two-step logical progression: one, he did not like certain elements of social policy or certain types of people; and, two, he must therefore organize and carry out a plan to systematically kill such people, or any other people he might choose, in the name of his dislikes.
As Norwegian law and as the most basic laws of even any cave-dwelling society would say, he gave himself the authorization to commit murder. He was not the keeper of his brother or sister; in his world of his own law, on the contrary, he was allowed to be their killer, as he saw fit.
Breivik has displayed in his court appearances a nearly complete ignorance of Norway's historical dynamic. He out of hand rejects modern Norway and its current social and racial dynamic. He also has glossed over the historical record which arises due in large part to Viking captives, brought to the homeland centuries ago. He has further glossed out another historical dynamic, due to other centuries-old cultures such as that of the Arctic Saami (or, Sami, formerly known as Lapps), Kven, Swede-Finns, and any other small group defined by by politics or religion (Laestadians, for example).
Breivik is ignorant, and in any case has rejected the validity, of various modern religious and social movements. Breivik's ignorance-fueled rejection includes, incredibly, the basic rights of women to be members of society in such areas as voting and employment. In the full swagger of his Neo-Nazi ignorance and of his obsession of rejectionism, to say nothing of his bloated sense of male privilege, he has stated that his acts of killing were such that he would be willing to repeat it all, and he has so stated in court.
So now comes the true crux of the matter. What seems to be at stake here is the very definition of Norwegian society in general and of the justice system in the specific. Here, we will leave aside the issue of society in general to discuss instead the justice system in Norway. This is an especially crucial discussion in light of the Norwegian limits on prison sentences, even for crimes of murder. It is also crucial in light of the outrageous legal concept of what constitutes defense evidence in a Norwegian court of law.
Breivik's defense, he and his legal team argue with straight faces, is that he was only defending his culture, his patrimony, his heritage, as he saw fit. He and his legal team have done almost everything in words, except to say outright "Oh, poor, poor baby! All those people of color and those bitch feminists have been so cruel to our terribly sensitive Anders," -- to evoke sympathy for this man who has admitted to mass killing. And that legal defense team is allowed to make such arguments, stated in open court in context of defense, not just in some smart-aleck press release outdoors on the courthouse steps.
No legal system in a democracy can long stand for this sort of Neo-Nazi theorizing as even admissible for minimal pre-trial court discussion, let alone as serious evidence for a defense in regular trial. Such courtroom exchanges as Breivik and his legal team have initiated are essentially self-satirizing and bring low the credibility of the law itself. It is not censorship to so argue against the Breivik defense team, but rather a fully logical application of theory and practice of evidence in court. A strong application of national and international laws of evidence ought to make it laughably easy to exclude any theory of race, for example, as a basis for "self-defense" which includes murder or attempted murder--whether individual or mass murder.
Conclusion to Breivik's Case: What Is A Worthy Sentence in A Modern Democracy?
To be repetitious here, Breivik admits to his acts of killing and has stated a total lack of remorse and a willingness to repeat his horrible acts. Surely, then, a democracy must find methods and materials to enact a separation of this self-admitted monster from Norwegian society. That separation must be on a permanent life-with-no parole basis, as his sentence. This is not for punishment, which would be impossible to calculate. Certainly this is likewise not for rehabilitation, but rather for the simple protection of people.
Furthermore, his true life sentence should at the time of his own death include private cremation with ashes scattered to the winds so there can be no burial site as a place of pilgrimage by those who admire his evils. And let us not deceive ourselves, there are many who admire his evil. This was witnessed to by some initial reactions in France to Breivik's murderous acts by even high political leaders in the extreme right wing of Le Pen and Le Pen-style political circles. Only a firestorm of indignation brought retraction from the main lepeniste official in question.
Finally, there needs to be an on-going investigation on an every-hangnail-and-room-key basis to turn up all the conceivable facts in Breivik's case, with a full parliamentary report. Such a report must be available in book and internet forms, to the people of Norway, and to the entire world. However, we do not hear much about such a report at this time.
Yet, for all of his political and social propaganda, Breivik has reduced his case to that of murder. Norway and the world should know every detail discovered by investigators, so that the entire process of Breivik's crimes can be reconstructed, almost on a day-by-day basis. Most of all, the investigation must spell out the mediocrity of Breivik, so that he can be exposed as the shallow, willfully ignorant and hate-filled monster that he himself fed and nourished. It has come down to all of that.
