babble-intro-img
babble is rabble.ca's discussion board but it's much more than that: it's an online community for folks who just won't shut up. It's a place to tell each other — and the world — what's up with our work and campaigns.

Breivik

77 replies [Last post]

Comments

6079_Smith_W
Online
Joined: Jun 10 2010

Kropotkin. 

I presume you are talking to me in #27. 

You said that if psychiatrists declared Brevik had a serious mental illness he would have been sent away without a public trial like here in Canada. 

I responded by providing one example of one such case which did go to trial, including the accused wrestling with messages from God telling him to kill. The trial also included evidence about his difficulties dealing with his illness.

Beyond that, I think the first thing I said in that post is that I'm no expert, so if you are asking that, of course I am not. 

But Vincent Li's case is one example of someone going to trial in Canada even though it was established that he had a serious mental illness. 

More importantly, I don't see what psychiatrists' findings has to do with the issue of whether someone has a public trial or not. Whether we have to listen to him or not is not one of the things considered in a psychiatric evaluation, nor should it be.

Controlling the court is the judge's job.

(edit)

There's a section here about the law in Canada. Seems to me there are many different kinds of findings, someo of them final, and some of them open-ended, but that pretty much all of them involve accused people appearing before a judge in a public hearing at some point or another.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mental_disorder_defence

Do what you want with it, but I don't see the point. Breivik is not in Canada, and his trial is happening right now, in public. And frankly, I am glad that it is public.

 

 


kropotkin1951
Offline
Joined: Jun 6 2002

6079

I'm not an expert, but I am not so sure that is true.


pookie
Offline
Joined: Dec 13 2005

kropotkin1951 wrote:

If all the doctors had agreed he was psychotic he would have been sent away without a public trial just like we do in Canada. As well if he had been deemed mentally competent to stand trial by all the doctors he would have either plead guilty and gone right to sentencing or he would be claiming he didn't do it.  This is the only process that gives him a soapbox because a judge is trying to determine his state of mind at the time of the shootings. I think the doctors who ignored his intricate planning are the ones who gave him a bully pulpit to work with. 

 

I think you are confused.  In Canada, at least, if someone is unfit to stand trial they are declared to be so by a judge, in an open process and generally remanded into treatment until such time as they become fit.  This is different from the person who claims mental disorder at the time the offence was committed.  A person CAN be "insane" at the time they commit the offence, yet still be fit to stand trial.

Vincent Li did indeed have a trial, but was almost immediately declared not criminally responsible because the Crown (sensibly) had no objection.


6079_Smith_W
Online
Joined: Jun 10 2010

@ kropotkin 1951

I AM sure that the question of whether a trial should be public, and how the information that might come up there should be controlled, has nothing whatsoever to do with psychiatric evaluations.

 


kropotkin1951
Offline
Joined: Jun 6 2002

The judge is guided by the doctors.  No judge is going to get reports from various doctors that all come to the same conclusion and then order a trial to call then as witnesses to determine if the person is fit to stand trial unless the prosecution is not willing to accept the plea. That is the process and yes the reports are handed over to the judge in an open process but normally there is no trial with witnesses it is more similar to an administrative process where the doctors file reports with the Crown and the judges base their decisions on the Crown's recommendations and the expert doctors.

In watching the Vince Li case it seemed to me that the sensational trial was a result of the Crown not accepting the truth because of the media clamour for revenge. In Canada we are more and more demanding victims rights and those seem to have became the focus instead of the real issue of the mental health of the person at the time of the murder.


alan smithee
Offline
Joined: Jan 7 2010

I do not support the death penalty but if there ever was a case for it,this little fascist coward would be a prime example.


6079_Smith_W
Online
Joined: Jun 10 2010

I'll say it again, kropotkin. 

It is not the job of psychiatrists to prevent someone from using a trial as a soapbox, and to implythat there are situations in which it is okay to not allow a public trial on those grounds sets a dangerous precedent. 

In the first place, I doubt very much that Breivik is not fit to stand trial. And in the second place, if that became the rule, who you think would be the greatest victims of secret trials? 

 

 


pookie
Offline
Joined: Dec 13 2005

kropotkin1951 wrote:

The judge is guided by the doctors.  No judge is going to get reports from various doctors that all come to the same conclusion and then order a trial to call then as witnesses to determine if the person is fit to stand trial unless the prosecution is not willing to accept the plea. That is the process and yes the reports are handed over to the judge in an open process but normally there is no trial with witnesses it is more similar to an administrative process where the doctors file reports with the Crown and the judges base their decisions on the Crown's recommendations and the expert doctors.

In watching the Vince Li case it seemed to me that the sensational trial was a result of the Crown not accepting the truth because of the media clamour for revenge. In Canada we are more and more demanding victims rights and those seem to have became the focus instead of the real issue of the mental health of the person at the time of the murder.

As a matter of law this is incorrect.  While medical evidence is necessary to lay the foundation for the defence, the ultimate determination of whether someone was suffering from a mental disorder at the time of the offence is a question that can only be answered by the jury (or judge in a judge-alone trial).  In addition, being mentally ill is not enough - you have to show a link between that and a specific lack of appreciation of the criminal act in question.

The judge does not have the authority to decide whether or not to order a trial.  It is only in the context OF a trial that this issue will arise.


Buddy Kat
Offline
Joined: Sep 21 2006

They used to have a warrant for the wacko's here called  ..LGW's ( Lieutenant Governor Warrants)  they can pretty hold anyone who is deemed unfit indefinately ..all they have to do is rubber stamp every so many years...This has been replaced with some other act to modernize the wording..

 

http://www.csc-scc.gc.ca/text/pblct/forum/e023/e023b-eng.shtml

 


kropotkin1951
Offline
Joined: Jun 6 2002

6079_Smith_W wrote:

It is not the job of psychiatrists to prevent someone from using a trial as a soapbox, and to imply that there are situations in which it is okay to not allow a public trial on those grounds sets a dangerous precedent.

Actually I didn't claim that it was any ones job to prevent any one from using a trial as a soapbox.  Please stick to the words I use and not the ones you want to imply into the space between the lines.

Below is the Criminal Code section.  What I am trying to say and very poorly apparently is that in most cases where there is any doubt as to the mental state of the defendant a judge orders him remanded into custody to have evaluations done on him.  The Crown and judge and defence lawyers all get those reports.  If all the doctors agree then a prudent Crown would of course be the party asserting the mental disorder and the defense lawyers would be agreeing.  Other than doctors reports what else would the lawyers use to determine what the person should be charged with?  Then in most cases the judge will take the Crowns recommendation and look at the evidence (i.e. the doctors reports) and determine on the balance of probabilities that the person suffers from a mental disorder.

If there is competing evidence from the doctors the judge will hear evidence from them to determine which of their diagnosis's fits with the balance of probabilities given the other evidence in the case. I hope that clarifies what I was trying to say when I said that if all the doctors agree then there is more of an administrative process.

From a human rights perspective if the doctors all say someone is suffering from a mental disorder then it would a breach of their privacy rights to insist on an open court hearing to pour over all the details of the persons mental illness.

Now in the case of Breivik I believe the reports were mixed but it is the prosecution contending that he suffers from a mental disorder.  He on the other hand is contendeing that he was not suffering from a mental illness and thus has been given a sopabox.  In Canada he would have been allowed to try to prove the same thing.

Quote:

16. Defence of mental disorder

16. (1) No person is criminally responsible for an act committed or an omission made while suffering from a mental disorder that rendered the person incapable of appreciating the nature and quality of the act or omission or of knowing that it was wrong.

Presumption

(2) Every person is presumed not to suffer from a mental disorder so as to be exempt from criminal responsibility by virtue of subsection (1), until the contrary is proved on the balance of probabilities.

Burden of proof

(3) The burden of proof that an accused was suffering from a mental disorder so as to be exempt from criminal responsibility is on the party that raises the issue.



6079_Smith_W
Online
Joined: Jun 10 2010

Well whatever your intent was in bringing up the psychiatric evaluation, and its possible connection to him not having an open trial, I don't think he necessarily has been given a soapbox. 

I'd say the process is definitely skirting the line with some of the offensive things he is saying, but that also has to be weighed with his right to explain himself,  the need of the court do deal with the evidence, and for families of the victims and the public to hear it as well. 

I see it as a difficult job for any judge. In this case, there has already been a ban on recording equipment. I presume the judge would also have the power to impose a complete or partial publication ban. 

Of course that is something members of the media, or anyone with an interest, would have the right to appeal.

 


NDPP
Offline
Joined: Dec 27 2008

The Far Right in Europe - by Mariano Aguirre

http://www.alternet.org/world/155068/the_far_right_takes_root_in_europe/...

"Anders Behring Breivik's attacks are part of a worrying trend in Europe: the far right's rise with mainstream politics.."


Doug
Offline
Joined: Apr 17 2001

Buddy Kat wrote:

They used to have a warrant for the wacko's here called  ..LGW's ( Lieutenant Governor Warrants)  they can pretty hold anyone who is deemed unfit indefinately ..all they have to do is rubber stamp every so many years...This has been replaced with some other act to modernize the wording..

 

You're probably thinking of the dangerous offender designation, which, if he did what he did here, Breivik would probably qualify for.


kropotkin1951
Offline
Joined: Jun 6 2002

6079_Smith_W wrote:

Well whatever your intent was in bringing up the psychiatric evaluation, and its possible connection to him not having an open trial, I don't think he necessarily has been given a soapbox.

YOUR post # 18 is where the original reference to a soapbox is in this thread. You then repeated the term in 37. In 40 I responded to your use of the word soapbox by explaining nicely that I had never said such a thing. Are you now being contrary with yourself or have you lost your place in one of your circular arguments.

As for my INTENT in bringing up a psychiatric evaluation, well that was for the nefarious reason that the opening post talks about his evaluation. Sorry for ignoring your first insightful post in this thread where you called him a fucking coward.  I should have joined in the pile on instead of trying to have a nuanced conversation.


Buddy Kat
Offline
Joined: Sep 21 2006

Doug wrote:

Buddy Kat wrote:

They used to have a warrant for the wacko's here called  ..LGW's ( Lieutenant Governor Warrants)  they can pretty hold anyone who is deemed unfit indefinately ..all they have to do is rubber stamp every so many years...This has been replaced with some other act to modernize the wording..

 

You're probably thinking of the dangerous offender designation, which, if he did what he did here, Breivik would probably qualify for.

Yep that's what they replaced it with ...modernizing and providing victim impact..and if Breivik didn't come under that one , and if they had no proof, they could always throw the.... "We have no proof or nothing but our gut feeling says yer bad - terror act" ..obvious hate based legislation, at him. Problem with that one is the rubber stamp will probably only work as long as the government of hate is in power.

 

 

New http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zky2bn0Gtyg New

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J-QvXax88J8

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q0eQgUpkJ1Q

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ns8LD5Q8ecc


6079_Smith_W
Online
Joined: Jun 10 2010

*sigh*

Yes, kropotkin. 

In the context of PREVENTING him from using it as such, because that is something that hs has tried to do in a preliminary hearing. The judge put some measures in place in this trial specifically to prevent his words being more widely publicized.

And I was responding to this statement of yours:

"He apparently is being given a pulpit because the doctors couldn't decide whether he was psychotic at the time"

Pulpit? Soapbox? What's the diff? A professional or class difference at best, but in both cases a raised podium which serves exactly the same purpose. Your choice of word might be closer to the way he thinks of himself. Mine, perhaps wishful thinking, because I would have fer prefered that he satisfied himself raving on streetcorners.

And there's this:

"I think the doctors who ignored his intricate planning are the ones who gave him a bully pulpit to work with."

Now whatever your reason for making that statement - and as you say you weren't implying that it was the doctors' responsibility - surely you can see now I might infer otherwise.

And he IS a fucking coward, very likely a psychopath who cares nothing about other people. The only thing I am not sure about is if he is doing this to cause as much pain to others as he can, or, as I said upthread, or if this is all just masturbation to him. He certainly seems to be on the edge of a self-satisfied smile in most of the pictures I see.

But since you mention nuance, I think I said the balance between openness in the trial and keeping whatshisname reined in is a delicate process.

 

 


kropotkin1951
Offline
Joined: Jun 6 2002

As always 6079 you win. You are clearly a superior intellect and nothing I say is right.  Your debating style is so lucid and non confrontational I stand in awe.  I really am at a loss as to how to begin to compete with the image of a serial killer masturbating. I cannot bring anything to a debate like  the depth of your insight.  A fucking coward masturbating as commentary is truly something to behold.  


6079_Smith_W
Online
Joined: Jun 10 2010

Yeah, sorry if it seems a bit lurid.

Fact is, I see his own description of his racist, sadistic slaughter as a divine mission as just a little bit more obscene. 

I sympathize with you in that I can't compete with that.

 


Buddy Kat
Offline
Joined: Sep 21 2006

There is no point everyone beating themselves up over Breivik...The reason I think they gave him the soapbox is to show how right wing extremism has spread to a point of insane ...We all know post 911 the hate on the US had ..the merciless killing of 100's of thousands if not a million innocent lives over right wing hate..lies..and propaganda.We watched the hate grow daily around the whole world, even Europe couldn't escape it.

We all see the media cave in and fold up like cheap lawnchairs under republican and conservative rule ..the war on muslims errr I mean terror ..the obvious to some , genocide in that part of the world... the torture...the proroging to cover up war crimes...the targets placed on democrat foreheads ...the rigging of elections to keep the propaganda and hate going ...the torture prisons around the world to circumvent local and national laws..the almost weekly display of urinating on the enemy or posing with body parts ...that this widespread hate has affected people like Breivik wasn't a case of why? but when?

Now that the world has seen and heard the HOW? Maybe ..just maybe they will bring the right wing bastards to justice...because THEY are the people that created Breivik.


NDPP
Offline
Joined: Dec 27 2008

Mainstream Media Coverage of Norway Massacre

http://mwcnews.net/focus/editorial/18369-coverage-of-norway.html

"Several days before 69 Young Labor activists were murdered by Breivik they had demonstrated for tougher Norwegian Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) against Israel for its crimes against the Palestinians. Neo-Nazi mass murderer Breivik was also a pro-Zionist extremist who set out in his 1,500 page Manifesto his demand for the ethnic cleaning of Muslims...

If you Google the term 'pro-Zionist' you will get 6 million results and the number 1 is an article in the pro-Zionist Jerusalem Post that quotes pro-Israel, pro-Zionist mass murderer Anders Breivik attacking anti-racist Jews.

'Jews that support multiculturalism today are as much of a threat to Israel and Zionism as they are to us. So let us fight together with Israel, with our Zionist brothers against all anti-Zionists, against all cultural Marxists/multiculturalists..."


Slumberjack
Offline
Joined: Aug 8 2005

Unfortunately, the last decade alone had us bearing witness to any number of missions being undertaken around the world involving sadistic slaughter. Where the slaughter concerns American presidential decisions, we generally don't refer to them as acts of insanity. Mostly they're referred to as collateral mistakes. Obviously they wouldn't be so brazen as to say they meant it.

Some may describe such mistakes, which continue to occur as a matter of routine, in a similar fashion to the Breivik case as cold and calculated acts of murder. In the case of American presidents, the slaughters that occur under their writ; however these are relayed to us through the use of standard talking points and theatrics; however they continue unabated; the justifications have a similar ring to what Breivik has been going on about when you get down to it. Whereas Breivik's crimes were in reaction to what his estimation had managed to figure as having already transpired, or in other words, in reaction to that which he deemed to be already surrounding and threatening a way of life; by contrast the slaughter carried out by successive American Presidents in cooperation with supportive Western leaders has been largely of a pre-emptive nature; something to be met and countered in the most violent fashion wherever necessary, before the actual threatening event transpires. It apparently must also be undertaken elsewhere, meaning as an everyday state of affairs to be conducted the world over into the distant future and beyond, in order to continue driving home to selected audiences with an apparent and bottomless appetite for such nonsense, the fact that we'd much rather prefer to avoid having to deal with it here on main street.

And then someone will say 9/11 as if it were an acronym meaning justification, like a can of ready-made excuse, just stir and serve in a crock whenever a debate requires that decades upon decades of history needs relegating away as being too inconvenient and drawn out to introduce as background material. One decade at a time please and thanks. Meanwhile and with countless Breivik scale ‘collateral' slaughters having occurred over the past ten years and counting, no western leader has been made to stand trial and none will. Society has long been bombarded with Breivik type propaganda, varying degrees of it, which has been firmly embedded within most of our mainstream media content. A lot of people cheered in the theatres at the Chuck Norris movies of the eighties when he was shooting up evil middle eastern terrorists.


NDPP
Offline
Joined: Dec 27 2008

 

NDPP wrote:
Anders Behring Breivik was no more or less 'insane' than the young Zionist soldiers of Israel who cold bloodedly gunned down Palestinian children in Gaza - to defend a White homeland and Western civilization. The sources from which we know he drew his inspiration are loud and persuasive and growing in influence all around us.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AfT4QrqOnYM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=em2JB6eysQo&feature=related

Anders Breivik Not 1st Terrorist Linked to EDL

http://drdawgsblawg.ca/2011/01/more-on-the-jewish-defence-league-edl-axi...


NDPP
Offline
Joined: Dec 27 2008

Norway Killer Says No One Would Call Him Insane If He Were 'Bearded Jihadist'

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/norway-killer-says-no-one-woul...

"But because I am a militant nationalist, I am being subjected to grave racism,' he said. 'They are trying to delegitimize everything I stand for.' Mr Breivik insists he is sane and accuses the prosecutors of trying to make him look irrational. 'I see all multicultural political activists as monsters, evil monsters who wish to eradicate our people, our ethnic group, our culture and our country,' he said."


6079_Smith_W
Online
Joined: Jun 10 2010

Not sure why he is drawing that racist distinction. Neither Timothy McVeigh, nor Paul Jennings Hill, both white, both convicted for terrorist acts and executed, were suspected of being insane.

... that is to say, I do know why he is saying it, but it is nonsense.

 

 


quizzical
Offline
Joined: Dec 8 2011

i just gotta say they want to label him insane as can't have people looking too close at right wing "Christian" racists or people might recoil in horror and chuck out of power those  who have more patience than he does.


kropotkin1951
Offline
Joined: Jun 6 2002

I apologize for the fact that this piece is by a right wing commentator on a right wing site but he seems to lay out the facts well and his arguments are quite compelling.

FrontPageMAg.com wrote:

With a tradition of stressing rehabilitation rather than punishment, Norway does not impose the death penalty, and the maximum criminal jail sentence is 21 years. ...

But now, a report released by court-appointed “experts” has declared him legally insane, which means Breivik could be held in a mental health institution rather than being imprisoned at all. He could even be released if such experts later determine that he is no longer a threat to society.

I wonder whether the prosecutors are trying to keep him locked up for ever.  If they get a ruling that his belief system is a major component of his mental illness then there is no doubt he will never recant and thus he will remain in jail until he dies. In Canada he would have a faint hope of getting out if he is convicted as a sane person. In Norway he gets a maximum sentence of 21 years.

This piece also has a good discussion about the nature of the prosecution's claim of insanity. It also helped me understand the difference between some forms of premeditation and others.

Quote:

Psychiatrists claim Breivik had developed paranoid schizophrenia and was psychotic at the time of the attacks, and that his condition persists. Their report describes examples of different forms of “bizarre delusions,” according to a prosecutor:

They especially describe what they call Breivik’s delusions where he sees himself as chosen to decide who shall live and who shall die, and that he is chosen to save what he calls his people.

...

Others are more outraged and think that perhaps it is the Norwegian justice system that is insane. “This is completely incomprehensible,” said a leader of the populist Progress Party, which campaigns for tougher criminal sentences. “How can someone who has planned this for such a long time… be considered insane?”

Good question, but careful premeditation isn’t necessarily an indicator of sanity. Case in point: Jared Loughner, the lunatic shooter of Arizona Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords. He had been fixated on Giffords for years as his sanity unraveled, ever since she apparently did not adequately answer an insane question he once asked of her. He planned his attack and even left behind a note saying, “I planned ahead.”

A more appropriate question might be, “How can someone whose motivation to kill stems from a rationally constructed ideology be considered insane?” Loughner’s attack, like that of John Lennon’s shooter Mark David Chapman or Ronald Reagan’s would-be assassin John Hinckley, Jr., was premeditated, but did not derive from any ideological motivation.

I think Breivik is right that Bin Laden would not be called insane.  But that has little to do with race in my view.  I think the distinction made between ongoing delusions such as one that makes you believe Anne Murray is in love with you and a belief that killing people is a proper political solution to national problems is a good one.

In the former case if the person offed the Snow Bird there is a strong probability that on the balance of probabilities he would be judged not criminally responsible but still locked away for his life. Breivik or McVeigh are clear examples of people who suffer from a different type of mental disorder. Breivik understood what he was doing was murder and did it anyway because of his believe that politics can justify murder.

Quote:

Unlike Loughner, Breivik was a successful, fully functioning adult in society who also held a thoughtfully articulated, if rambling, ideology laid out in a 1500-page manifesto. That ideology led him to blame what he saw as the traitorous multiculturalist European elites for embracing the Muslim immigration causing the disintegration of Western culture. That ideology ultimately compelled him to declare war and to target an Oslo government office and the next generation of those elites at a leftist youth camp.

If he is insane, why not Osama bin Laden or another Islamic terrorist as well? When bin Laden declared all participants in democracy to be valid targets of violent jihad because Allah, not man, should rule man, did this statement stem from personal lunacy or from the “delusional universe” of Islamic fundamentalism to which he subscribed? When he described the worldwide Muslim ummah as being under attack from infidels and therefore justified in waging defensive jihad, could it not be said that, like Breivik, he considered himself “chosen to decide who shall live and who shall die,” and “chosen to save his people”?

http://frontpagemag.com/2011/12/14/crime-and-no-punishment-norway-killer...

 

If Breivik is judged mentally competent to stand trial I expect he will use a version of the Responsibility to Protect as part of his justification defense.


NDPP
Offline
Joined: Dec 27 2008

kropotkin1951 wrote:

I apologize for the fact that this piece is by a right wing commentator on a right wing site but he seems to lay out the facts well and his arguments are quite compelling.

NDPP

Yes, so was my last as well..


6079_Smith_W
Online
Joined: Jun 10 2010

According to this (the source is in Norwegian) a dengerous offender can be kept in prison in five-year increments, even after the 21-year-sentence is completed. So whether or not he is ultimately deemed sane, he can be kept incarcerated if he is seen as dangerous. There was a ruling earlier this month that he was sane, and the question is on the table in this trial, hence Breivik's claims of sanity.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_imprisonment_in_Norway


Buddy Kat
Offline
Joined: Sep 21 2006

'I see all multicultural political activists as monsters, evil monsters who wish to eradicate our people, our ethnic group, our culture and our country,' he said."

Where have I heard talk like that before?

'I see _______________ as monsters, evil monsters who wish to eradicate our people, our ethnic group, our culture and our country"

 

 Fill in the blanks ..Sounds just like your typical right wing conservative redneck/white supremest and if you insert the word environmentalists ..I will rest my point.

 

New http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zky2bn0Gtyg New

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J-QvXax88J8

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q0eQgUpkJ1Q

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ns8LD5Q8ecc


NDPP
Offline
Joined: Dec 27 2008

Breivik-Style: Europe, US, [Canada], 'At Risk' of Anti-Islam Massacre (and vid)

http://rt.com/news/breivik-trial-england-extremist-920/

"Counter-Jihad movements that inspired Anders Breivik's Norway massacre are growing in influence in the US and Europe: a recent report by UK activist group Hope Not Hate has mapped their spread, and the links between them.

The document identifies 300 organizations and individuals who use anti-Islam rhetoric to draw in supporters and votes. It highlights the UK as a hotspot for such groups, citing a total of 22 anti-Islamic groups currently operating in the country, naming the Luton based English Defence League (EDL) as one of the most influential..."

JDL-Canada is one such organization formally allied with EDL Luton.


Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Login or register to post comments