I would not have been shocked if a spectator in the public gallery had produced a gun and shot him. If I had had a gun, and thought I could have got away with it, I might have done it myself and claimed justifiable homicide. The Norwegian justice system can seem like a model of universal human rights in action, until you sit in an Oslo courtroom and watch how it deals with Anders Breivik.
We say we believe in human rights, but say it too easily and you can duck the question: What do you mean by a human right? Specifically in the case of Breivik, what precisely do we mean by the human right not to be tortured?
When I was in Oslo in 2012, I was astonished by the deference with which the court treated the puffy-faced fascist.
Illustration: Mountain people
The “accused will always be given the opportunity to comment upon what the witnesses have said,” Norway’s court rules read.
The witness Breivik could barrack that day was Tonje Brenna, an organizer of the Norwegian Labour Party’s youth league. She described how she hid and tried to save a wounded girl, while the bodies of her slain friends fell around her.
The geography of the island of Utoya, where the activists were having their summer camp, limited her movement as much as her determination to help her injured comrade. It is a flat piece of land of little more than 10 hectares in Lake Tyrifjorden, west of Oslo. She had no hills to run to, no caves to hide in. Brenna could only cower on the cliff side of a low escarpment, hoping that Breivik would not notice her and her bleeding friend, while suppressing the urge to scream as bodies toppled over the cliff edge above them.
She gave her evidence with remarkable dignity, and at the end of it, the lead judge turned to Breivik and invited him to say anything he wanted.
He was free to jeer at her, humiliate her, gloat over the deaths of her comrades.
When I told Norwegians the British would not tolerate anything beyond the defendant questioning evidence, they were rather stern with me: This is our system. Terrorists had the same rights as everyone else. We cannot sink to their level.
Which is what everyone is meant to believe.
Which is what many right-thinking people said last week when judge Helen Andenas Sekulic and her colleagues decided that the Norwegian state was torturing Breivik, by holding him in solitary confinement. Their defence of basic principles played to our myth of Scandinavia as a land filled with rational liberals, better than and purer than the rest of fallen humanity.
If the stereotype were ever true, it is not true now. Before he shot 69 young social democrats and murdered another eight Norwegians with a car bomb, Breivik left a vast and vastly incomprehensible manifesto. Much of it reads like a Telegraph commentator suffering from delirium tremens.
Breivik gibbers about “cultural Marxism,” the “Frankfurt School” and, of course, the “EUSSR.”
However, in his description of how he wanted men like him to kill, Breivik was lucid.
He might not have known it, but he believed in the 19th-century anarchist philosophy of “propaganda of the deed.”
The act of terror would spread his ideas and inspire converts to become “Justiciar Knights” just like him. The greatest believers in propaganda of the deed today are radical Islamists, and in common with more people on the far right than you would imagine, Breivik admired them.
Islamic militants, he said, have honored and commemorated their martyrs and “we must do the same.”
If he was captured, the “European resistance fighter” must use the courtroom as a stage “to help generate a maximum amount of sympathizers.”
If he was imprisoned, Breivik promised that he would try to convert inmates or hold them and his guards hostage.
In these circumstances, Norwegians wondered what human rights the court was defending when it ruled that Breivik’s solitary confinement was inhuman and degrading. They were not making mobbish demands for vengeance, but worrying about heady judicial rhetoric taking judges far from the reality-based community.
They did not even mock the court for saying that Breivik had suffered “psychological damage” in jail, even though less genteel writers, such as your correspondent, would have pointed out that a man who slaughtered innocents in cold blood appeared “damaged” enough already.
Rather, they upheld the rule of law, but looked askance at the judges who enforced it. Norway is not Syria. Skien prison on the Baltic coast is not Guantanamo Bay. Breivik has three cells at his disposal: a bedroom, study and gym. He can talk to officers, priests, health workers and lawyers. However, he cannot meet the prisoners he had promised to either convert or take hostage and he cannot issue proclamations.
To call that “torture,” as Oslo’s sober VG newspaper said, “trivializes” real suffering and lets real torturers off the hook.
True solitary confinement, where the prisoner never sees another face or hears another voice, is naked cruelty. Breivik is not enduring it or anything like it.
There are still many Norwegians, including survivors of the attack, who are like the Norwegians who lectured me in 2012 for criticizing court procedures.
However, Hanne Skartveit of VG tells me that she is now seeing widespread disquiet at the behavior of the judiciary.
People talk of human rights as if they were always present, but they were an invention of the Enlightenment and must coexist with that second great system the Enlightenment invented, or I suppose I should say revived, democracy. Human rights can be hard for societies to live with. We treat men, even men as brutal as Anders Breivik, with respect, when all our human instincts fly against it. And that is as it should be.
However, and this is not said often enough, they are also hard for their supporters. They must be able to justify themselves. They must resist the urge to engage in judicial and rhetorical overreach. They must remember that, however they are dressed up, laws stand on public consent and the public always needs to be persuaded.
With the refugee crisis and the rise of the populist right threatening European liberalism, this is not just a lesson giddy Norwegian judges need to learn afresh.
Because much of what former US president Donald Trump says is unhinged and histrionic, it is tempting to dismiss all of it as bunk. Yet the potential future president has a populist knack for sounding alarums that resonate with the zeitgeist — for example, with growing anxiety about World War III and nuclear Armageddon. “We’re a failing nation,” Trump ranted during his US presidential debate against US Vice President Kamala Harris in one particularly meandering answer (the one that also recycled urban myths about immigrants eating cats). “And what, what’s going on here, you’re going to end up in World War
Earlier this month in Newsweek, President William Lai (賴清德) challenged the People’s Republic of China (PRC) to retake the territories lost to Russia in the 19th century rather than invade Taiwan. He stated: “If it is for the sake of territorial integrity, why doesn’t [the PRC] take back the lands occupied by Russia that were signed over in the treaty of Aigun?” This was a brilliant political move to finally state openly what many Chinese in both China and Taiwan have long been thinking about the lost territories in the Russian far east: The Russian far east should be “theirs.” Granted, Lai issued
On Tuesday, President William Lai (賴清德) met with a delegation from the Hoover Institution, a think tank based at Stanford University in California, to discuss strengthening US-Taiwan relations and enhancing peace and stability in the region. The delegation was led by James Ellis Jr, co-chair of the institution’s Taiwan in the Indo-Pacific Region project and former commander of the US Strategic Command. It also included former Australian minister for foreign affairs Marise Payne, influential US academics and other former policymakers. Think tank diplomacy is an important component of Taiwan’s efforts to maintain high-level dialogue with other nations with which it does
On Sept. 2, Elbridge Colby, former deputy assistant secretary of defense for strategy and force development, wrote an article for the Wall Street Journal called “The US and Taiwan Must Change Course” that defends his position that the US and Taiwan are not doing enough to deter the People’s Republic of China (PRC) from taking Taiwan. Colby is correct, of course: the US and Taiwan need to do a lot more or the PRC will invade Taiwan like Russia did against Ukraine. The US and Taiwan have failed to prepare properly to deter war. The blame must fall on politicians and policymakers