Breivik

Fascist Anders Breivik Defends Mass Killings As Trial Opens  in Norway - by Jordan Shilton

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2012/apr2012/brei-a18.shtml

"On day two of this trial, Anders Breivik gave an hour-long defence of his slaughter of 77 people - mainly members of the Norweigan Labour Party youth section - In Oslo and the island of Utoeya last July 22 and said he would do it again. Calling his massacre 'the most sophisticated spectacular political attack in Europe since the Second World War, Breivik described himself as a commander in an anti-communist, anti-Islamic 'resistance movement' at war against immigrants, Muslims and what he called a 'Marxist' dictatorship in Norway."

more on Breivik, the Norway massacre, connected right, racist networks formations:

http://rabble.ca/comment/1271416

NDPP wrote:

Breivik Says Only Death Penalty or Acquittal are Logical (and vid)

Grandstanding fucking coward. If he wanted to go out like James Cagney he had the opportunity last summer to take that step himself, and he could have saved everyone a lot of time, suffering, and money. But clearly he did not have the guts, contrary to the image he wants to put out with his military fantasy.

He missed his chance, and now he and his fucked up view of the world are not in control of this process, and he does not get to set the terms.

Though somehow, I don't think he'd be putting on such a brave face if he had even the remotest chance of winding up with his head in a noose.

quizzical wrote:

Empty speculation of that sort could come across to some as a sideways suggestion there should be death penalties in "certain cases" as a preventative strategy. Not saying it is just it could.

No it's not, because I don't think there should be a death penalty at all (speaking of speculation). 

But any grandstanding he is doing right now about a hero's death doesn't mean a damned thing. Norway has no death penalty. He knows he isn't going to be executed, and he is just talking out of his ass. By daring to bring up the subject  he is just causing even more pain to some of the people whose loved ones he murdered.

He's surprised he survived the day of the attack? Bullshit, because he had the opportunity then to seal his work in his own blood. That's generally the way a lot of them decide to do it.

I don't  think he wants to die at all. He just wants people to pay attention to him, and to cause as much outrage and pain as he can.

Actually, quizzical, I was calling bullshit on his claim that he was surprised he survived. Yes, he did say that.

And you did say that one might infer from my comment that I am making an argument in favour of the death penalty. I'm not sure where you were getting that from, but I just figured it might be prudent to clear that up.

As for the things he is saying and doing, he is at least sane enough to stand trial, and the fact that he was cut off from a making a tirade by the judge in an earlier court appearance says to me that he very much wants attention, and to cause outrage. 

I don't see anything wrong, nor even speculative, about weighing his words against his actions. And in this case, him saying that he wishes to either be aquitted or die is a bit hollow, since he knows he is not going to be killed. 

And it is particularly hurtful to the many people whose choice of whether to live or die was taken away from them by him - the same choice he is arrogantly musing about without any fear of actually having to face it.

Breivik isn't insane.  His opinions reagrding the Muslim threat are shared by millions of people.  The sources which inspired the Oslo killer are clearly described in detail in his 1500 page manifesto. Breivik was influenced by American bloggers and writers who have warned for years about the growing threat from Islam. His manifesto quoted Robert Spencer, who operates the Jihad Watch Web site, Pamela Geller, who operates Atlas Shrugs web site Baron Bodissey (pseudo-name), who operates The Gates of Vienna web site, Daniel Pipes who operates the Middle East Forum, Bat Ye'or of Dhimmi.org... and a host of other authors and websites which promote the idea that Muslims are a threat to the Western way of life and our democratic values. These people believe that Muslims intend to take over western nations by immigration and breeding. Once they out number us, they will elect Muslim fundamentalists who will impose Sharia Law and enforced Dhimmitude on non-Muslims.

Breivik embraced these ideas completely. His motivation is to "save" Europe from  becoming a part of Eurabia (A Muslim fundamentalist nation stretching from Iran to Ireland).  His actions (aka murderous rampage) were intended to punish Norway's current Labour coalition government for its treasonous immigration policies which allow Muslims into Norway.

Many people share Breivik's opinions regarding Muslims and Islam. For example:

Pat Buchanan: "Breivik may be right"
A fire bell in the night for Norway

Also these links:

http://www.islamophobia-watch.com/islamophobia-watch/2012/4/19/breiviks-...

http://www.islamophobia-watch.com/islamophobia-watch/2012/4/19/edl-debat...

My post isn't in support of Breivik, because I completely disagree with violence and religious intolerance.  I am proud of Canada's approach to multiculturalism.  My post is just an FYI, that Breivik's viewpoint regarding Muslims, multicultualism and immigration enjoys widespread support.  A significant number of Canadians, Americans and Europeans agree with Breivik.  Most (but not all) disagree with his actions.  As Muslim immigration increases, more and more people will come to share Breivik's opinions of them.  Brievik is hoping his actions will trigger violent revolution.  Its possible he could succeed.

I don't come here much, because this website doesn't allow much dissent.  It mostly consists of group of people agreeing with each other.  I am a tolerant, agnostic, fiscally responible socialist... So yes I can post here... but I find it boring debating a group of people who mostly agree with each other and share similar opinions as myself.

This place should be called bubble because you debate in isolation with people who mostly agree with each other.  Having an open mind is the ability to consider an idea without embracing it.  If you want to reach more people with your opinions, then you have to listen to their opinions too.

While I am against flaming people, being rude, or personal insults, I also like spirited, respectful and polite debate.  That means challenging people who oppose my viewpoint.   I find it sharpens my debating skills and keeps me informed.

I've watched some footage of Breivik being transported back and forth from prison to court, and he is clearly drinking up the attention -- truly enjoying himself, delighted with his new-found celebrity.

While psychosis is an aspect of mental illness, being a psychopath doesn't necessarily imply insanity.  Given the depth of planning and successful execution of his rampage, he's  a psychopath, for sure, but seems completely sane.  People suffering from psychotic episodes aren't usually that well organized and goal-oriented during psychosis, and often cannot recall what they said or did during the episode.  Breivik knew exactly what he was doing, while he did it, and was completely aware of his actions and their aftermath after he was apprehended.

The best thing to do is conlude this trial quickly and dump him into an anonymous hole for the remainder of his days.

there's more than a few that think like him, alas...and like the Mohamed Merah case, there are also disurbing 'contradictions' with respect to his travels, his weaponry and his relationship to the police and other authorities. If Breivk were a 'state' instead of a person,  a bit of mass murder to precipitate an anti-Muslim societal backlash might be nothing novel at all for these times...eh?

You are prosecuted for crimes if you understand that what you are doing is wrong and do it anyway. If you are having a psychotic breakdown where angels are telling you to kill your family you are sent to a mental health facility until it is determined you will not have those kinds of breaks again.  This guy is clearly legally competent to stand trial in the Canadian context.

He apparently is being given a pulpit because the doctors couldn't decide whether he was psychotic at the time.  In Canada the preplanning he enegaged in would make this a no brainer and he would have been charged with crimes. Given his confession and all the evidence his motivation political or otherwise would not be part of a criminal trial except maybe in sentencing.

Criminal Code of Canada wrote:

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

Daily Mail wrote:

Since Breivik has confessed to the July 22 attacks - claiming they were necessary to protect Norway from being taken over by Muslims - the key issue that remains unresolved is his mental health.

The 33-year-old Norwegian was found insane in one examination that recommended committing him to compulsory psychiatric care, while a second assessment found him mentally competent to be sent to prison.

It will be up to the judges in Oslo's district court to decide which diagnosis they find most believable.

If deemed mentally competent, he would face a maximum prison sentence of 21 years.

Alternatively, he could be kept in custody for as long as he is deemed a danger to society.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2130364/Anders-Behring-Breivik-t...

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. 

They would like for the whole world to believe he is insane …Everything he say is jibberrish..Nothing to hear folks ..Go on your way….try it , you won’t like it.

We are supposed to forget about his HARDCORE CONSERVATIVE view on everything..He sounds like yer typical right wing extremist conservative …Plenty of what he says we’ve all heard on conservative media outlets ..Especially the anti Muslim baloney…

Of course no one is going to advocate killing but when you see targets placed between the eyes of democrats like the conservative repubs in the US did ..It is very suggestive. If not implying the same kind of radical extremist views the wacko Norwegian promotes….You think the racist , sexist , bigoted cons here in Canada are any different….Shit they want you to think that environmentalists are radicals and terrorists like they think Muslims are …the biggest danger is Islamism..WTF?

Demolay …..For you all that don’t know is the male child/teen branch of the Masons …just like Jobs daughters are for the female child/teen branch and the eastern star with the upside down pentagram as a symbol are for the masons wives.  I wonder if anyone can verify that Harper was once a Demolay mason.?or even if he still is?

DeMolay is the crusader knight that steadily creeps up when talking about the Norwegian and his Conservative connection. His anti multiculturism god that represents his conservative ideology.

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 wrote:

@ kropotkin1951

I'm not an expert, but I am not so sure that is true. There certainly have been cases of people who had serious mental illness, and even delusion, yet had their day in court. Vicnent Li is one example.

 

Define "that".  Please quote my post so I can figure out why you think I said that people with serious mental illness don't ever stand trial. In fact our prisons are crammed to the gunnels with people with FASD who just don't get it and that lack of getting it gets them into trouble.

As for Vincent I would argue it was not he who got his day in court but instead it was the prosecution team. They could have accepted his plea but instead chose to go for a conviction that would keep him in prison forever. If he had been convicted he also would not get the care that he would at someplace like Colony Farms in BC. 

I have actually met a man who had murdered part of his family while in a delusional state and he thought GOD was talking to him. He is recovering because he is getting good care.  Being sent to a regular prison without proper mental health care would likely constitute cruel and unusual punishment. Nothing I have read about Brevik reminds me of the person I met.  Its the sophisticated planning over a long period that stands out for me.

This:

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.

That is the norm in Canada. Could you please point me to the cites that you are referring to when you say you are not sure it is true. Or are you just saying you don't accept it without any basis in something you have read about the issue.

Breivik Describes Hunting Down Teenagers

http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/story/2012/04/20/norway-massacre-breivik.html

"He said his goal was to kill all of the nearly 600 people on the island. He said he thought about wearing a swastika on his chest as a pure fear factor, but decided against it, because he didn't want people to think he was a Nazi.

'You will die today Marxists', I yelled," Breivik recalled..."

Anders Behring Breivik Reflects Changing Face of Modern Far Right  - by Nick Lowes

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/apr/18/anders-behring-breivik-moder...

"Breivik comes from a culturally conservative Christian background and this has shaped much of his political outlook. Into this he has incorporated more traditional nationalist and racist ideologies and adopted the politics and language of the 'counter-Jihad' movement which believes Islam is a major threat to Western civilization.

I do not believe Breivik's Knights Templars exist. Perhaps he got the idea from Paul Ray, one of the founders of the English Defence League, who claims to run the Ancient Order of the Templar Knights.."

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 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.

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.

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? 

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

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.

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.

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

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.  

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.