Now that the dust is settling in Oslo, and we are beginning to discover more information about the tragedy that took place two days ago it is important that we try to understand what really took place.
The facts are that Anders Behring Breivik, 32, detonated a bomb, which targeted the Norwegian government, and then posed as a police officer to begin his shooting spree, that targeted youth who were attending a camp, hosted by the country’s Labor Party (Norway’s liberal party). Breivik has been quoted from his social media postings that he was concerned with the spread of Islam across Norway, and that he believed that the “multiculturalism” was hurting his country. Also, according to the New York Times, Breivik published a 1500 page manifesto in which he wished to create another “crusade”, and establish a culturally conservative agenda with Norway. Based on the manifesto left behind by Breivik, authorities and news outlets have felt safe declaring that Breivik was a “right-wing, Christian fundamentalist”. Unfortunately for the Norwegian government, and the New York Times, this claim may be premature.
Terrorism, when implemented, usually only comes from two places: 1.) A complete hopelessness that one is able to change their situation through peaceful means, and that the current situation is simply intolerable. The person who lives in this situation does not believe that there is any other option; however, they tend to live in completely oppressive governments where civil liberties are non-existent. 2.) The person who commits the terrorist act is mentally unstable, and views his world through a prism that is completely skewed by his psychosis. There is reason to believe that both of these themes apply to the Oslo terrorist.
Norway’s policies to create an “open” society have more than likely provided a hostile environment towards those more nationalistic in their ideologies. In their attempt to be more “open”, Norway has enacted hate speech legislation, which regulates what the government deems as hate speech. According to the Norwegian law, it forbids “harassment on the grounds of ethnicity, national origin, ancestry, skin color, language, religion, or beliefs,” and defines harassment as “actions, omissions or utterances that have the effect or are intended to have the effect of being insulting, intimidating, hostile, degrading or humiliating.” What is more alarming is that according to the law:
“Defendants may be accused not only by the individuls whom they’ve supposedly offended, but also by semiofficial organs, such as the Anti-Racist Center, and the Center Against Ethnic Discrimination, or by the government’s Equality and Anti-Discrimination Ombud.”
In essence, the Norwegian government in order to create a more “open” society, decided to eliminate the most basic of civil liberties, and that is the right to free speech. Since the enactment of these laws, the Norwegian government, and those on the left, has used these laws to shut down organizations they have deemed “politically incorrect”. According to an article in Pajamas Media, written by Bruce Bawer, the Norwegian government listed Norway’s Human Rights Service, which has dedicated itself to the awareness of female conditions in the Islamic world, and fighting for women’s rights in the Islamic world, as being guilty of hate speech simply because they have employed Mr. Bawer, who is an author of a book which exposes radical Islam. The Norwegian government has deemed Mr. Bawer guilty of hate speech, because he wrote a book in which the government disagrees.
Living in a country where one cannot speak freely without fear of prosecution, fine and prison is not a society in which one would feel that they could ultimately effect change. According to multiple reports, Mr. Bawer’s case is not an isolated case, and that the “hate speech” laws of Norway have been used by those in power to silence those whom they disagree. This kind of oppression, combined with severe psychosis, and the results cannot be welcomed.
On the issue of Breivik’s mental state we have the reports of his manifesto, in which he outlines his desires to create a crusade against Islam, and that he wishes to kill as he can in order to radically take over his government to end multiculturalism, and implement a radically conservative agenda in Norway. The language used in the manifesto, and in his social media postings demonstrated that Breivik wished to see the world burn, and that his frustration with “political correctness” had reached its peak. He used words like “the time for armed resistance has come”, and then declared that “a million will die before they were done.” Yet, the claim that thee attacks were motivated by his Christianity was more symbolic, and less belief.
The usage of the Crusades seems to be more based on his desire to take on Islam, than on his belief that his actions are God’s will. It appears that his Christianity is more or less the European belief that by being born in Europe is being born in Christendom, and thus he is a Christian. It is less likely that Breivik used the Holy Scripture to validate his cause. Instead he was more influenced by right-wing political philosophers.
In looking at the totality of the facts regarding the terrorist attack in Oslo, it becomes clearer that the attacks were the result of a lot more than just Breivik’s political ideology and religious convictions. Using the study of terrorism we can see that people resort to terrorism when they feel powerless to change their government, because that government has become oppressive and is denying civil liberties. Also, their psychological state plays a very important role as well. Though Norway has begun to chip away at its citizen’s civil liberties in order to create a peaceful society, it is hard to believe that Norway’s actions have warranted such a horrific event. Thus, the psychological aspect of this action must be fully examined. Mr. Breivik’s mind was obviously unstable, and his desire to target those he saw as responsible for the problems in his life were a result of this instability. Therefore, ideology and religion in this case are simply superficial labels applied by a government and a media trying to make sense of the unbelievable.
The Finnian Lad 