| The Real Wizard 24.07.2011 14:04 |
Two threads about a dead singer, but nothing about the biggest Scandinavian mass shooting since WWII. Same thing on facebook. Dozens of people on my friend's list have posted about Amy Winehouse, but nothing about Norway. But I'm not the least bit surprised. When ever will we get our priorities straight in this world? Here are my thoughts.. The killer (whom the media is still calling a "suspect" for good measure) is a CHRISTIAN TERRORIST. But in the media, and even in public, you can't say that. The day before the shootings, the youth movement (labour party) denounced the Israeli occupation of Gaza, and they also put their voices behind the upcoming UN vote on recognizing a Palestinian state. The killer was a Christian Zionist who said he wanted a revolution, so we can easily put two and two together here. But the media won't do that for you - you have to do it yourself. Less than 1% of recent European terrorism acts and attempts are related to Islam, while most are related to separatists (source - link - but it's only Islamic terrorism that the media preaches about. But this time it's a Christian terrorist. Timothy McVeigh was a Christian terrorist too, and the media covered that one up. Ten bucks says the same will happen here. On that cheerful note, looking forward to everyone's thoughts on this pretty substantial situation. |
| david (galashiels) 24.07.2011 14:48 |
again,religion seems to be at the heart of the norway tragedy. seems we cant have a peacefull world,such a massive loss of life,and all so young. even countrys like norway seem to have religion troubles.. on the other matter,,,,,never liked her or her music.. and was a car crash waiting to happen.. and giving her god like status on the news,rubish. on a news report i saw,there were flowers laid along with bottle of vodka and malibu..........sums her up. |
| Mr Mercury 24.07.2011 14:57 |
SKy news said that the "suspect" was infact a Neo-nazi and that he will explain his decisions in court. Either way, he is still an evil bastard. |
| The Real Wizard 24.07.2011 15:02 |
Perfect, a convenient cover-up ... the word Nazi will get people's attention and the lies will begin. |
| Holly2003 24.07.2011 15:51 |
Sir GH wrote: Two threads about a dead singer, but nothing about the biggest Scandinavian mass shooting since WWII. Same thing on facebook. Dozens of people on my friend's list have posted about Amy Winehouse, but nothing about Norway. But I'm not the least bit surprised. When ever will we get our priorities straight in this world? Here are my thoughts.. The killer (whom the media is still calling a "suspect" for good measure) is a CHRISTIAN TERRORIST. But in the media, and even in public, you can't say that. The day before the shootings, the youth movement (labour party) denounced the Israeli occupation of Gaza, and they also put their voices behind the upcoming UN vote on recognizing a Palestinian state. The killer was a Christian Zionist who said he wanted a revolution, so we can easily put two and two together here. But the media won't do that for you - you have to do it yourself. Less than 1% of recent European terrorism acts and attempts are related to Islam, while most are related to separatists (source - link - but it's only Islamic terrorism that the media preaches about. But this time it's a Christian terrorist. Timothy McVeigh was a Christian terrorist too, and the media covered that one up. Ten bucks says the same will happen here. On that cheerful note, looking forward to everyone's thoughts on this pretty substantial situation. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- There has been huge coverage of this on UK television and while, at first, analysts thought this was another Mumbai (Islamic fundamentalist terror is real and not a media conspiracy) very quickly it was reported that the killer is a fundamentalist Christian who is anti-Islamic and against the multiculturalism that defines many European countries including Norway. I respect your suspicion of the media but in this case media coverage has been, I think, fair. |
| JoxerTheDeityPirate 24.07.2011 16:07 |
so,whats the difference between a christian fundamentalist and an islamic fundamentalist? if it was the latter,the US would already be invading the country by now or at least making military threats and imposing sanctions...double standards as usual,cant go against the god squad. |
| The Real Wizard 24.07.2011 16:17 |
Holly2003 wrote: There has been huge coverage of this on UK television and while, at first, analysts thought this was another Mumbai (Islamic fundamentalist terror is real and not a media conspiracy) very quickly it was reported that the killer is a fundamentalist Christian who is anti-Islamic and against the multiculturalism that defines many European countries including Norway. I respect your suspicion of the media but in this case media coverage has been, I think, fair. =================== I guess the difference is I'm in Canada - one of Israel's last few allies. |
| YourValentine 24.07.2011 16:40 |
The media coverage of the tragedy in Norway is quite extensive here - while the death of Amy Winehouse was just a headline. All sports events over the weekend started with minutes of silence for the victims in Oslo - football players wore black ribbons yesterday and today. All European leaders sent messages of condolence and solidarity to the people of Norway after this unbelievably cruel terror attack. Apparently the suspect released a 1500 pages "manifest" describing his totally crazed and maniac "ideology" to the internet as well as a 12 minute video on YouTube. I understand that both the manifest and the video were deleted from the net after the person was identified. The lawyer of the suspect said in Nowegian TV that he does not understand the "confusing" statements of his client and is totally unable to describe the thought process of the person. From what we learn it seems that he is anti-Muslim, anti-Socialist, anti-multicultural, anti-Marxist, anti-Humanistic, anti-global., anti-capitalist. Media reported that he called himself a fundamentalist Christian as well as a Freemason which would exclude each other in my opinion. Apparently he thinks he is a legal successor of the Templars and described himself as the protagonist of the "Western European resistance" - the massacre was designed to inspire as many "nationalist sleepers" as possible. Without rushing to any judgement I think it is very possible that he is a maniac who lived in his own world without any connection to reality. It is very depressing to read about all this maniac stuff but one thing is for sure: he is not "the devil" as man people write in their blogs - he is a human being coming from the inside the socitey and we have to live with the knowledge that people are capable of such cruelty and can pent up all this hatred without anybody really taking any notice - a very frightening idea. |
| magicalfreddiemercury 24.07.2011 17:04 |
Holly2003 wrote: There has been huge coverage of this on UK television and while, at first, analysts thought this was another Mumbai (Islamic fundamentalist terror is real and not a media conspiracy) very quickly it was reported that the killer is a fundamentalist Christian who is anti-Islamic and against the multiculturalism that defines many European countries including Norway. I respect your suspicion of the media but in this case media coverage has been, I think, fair. ===== It is the same here in the US. Amy Winehouse's death has been a news banner and occasional 'in other news' topic. It's sad but her death was expected. What happened in Norway could not have been imagined, IMO. The news replayed the harrowing images repeatedly and I could swear we were watching footage from 9/11. You know what's really sad and disturbing? As I spoke to a few people about this right after it happened, when it was assumed that attack was carried out by muslim extremists, one person actually blamed Norway. She said if the government hadn't "coddled" foreigners and their ideals, this wouldn't have happened. This is a person who would never dream of blaming her own country (the US) for 9/11 but Norway is to blame for this. ??? It's gotten to the point where normal and meaningful conversations cannot be had. This is a tragedy and this man responsible is crazed. How no one can see the downward spiral of people like this is terrifying. But then, to go back to Amy Winehouse, she was a disaster clearly waiting to happen and no one did anything to prevent that either. |
| catqueen 24.07.2011 17:08 |
Sir GH wrote: Two threads about a dead singer, but nothing about the biggest Scandinavian mass shooting since WWII. Same thing on facebook. Dozens of people on my friend's list have posted about Amy Winehouse, but nothing about Norway. But I'm not the least bit surprised. When ever will we get our priorities straight in this world? Here are my thoughts.. The killer (whom the media is still calling a "suspect" for good measure) is a CHRISTIAN TERRORIST. But in the media, and even in public, you can't say that. The day before the shootings, the youth movement (labour party) denounced the Israeli occupation of Gaza, and they also put their voices behind the upcoming UN vote on recognizing a Palestinian state. The killer was a Christian Zionist who said he wanted a revolution, so we can easily put two and two together here. But the media won't do that for you - you have to do it yourself. Less than 1% of recent European terrorism acts and attempts are related to Islam, while most are related to separatists (source - link - but it's only Islamic terrorism that the media preaches about. But this time it's a Christian terrorist. Timothy McVeigh was a Christian terrorist too, and the media covered that one up. Ten bucks says the same will happen here. On that cheerful note, looking forward to everyone's thoughts on this pretty substantial situation. Good thoughts Sir GH... i thought i was fairly clued into anti-islamic stuff and how unfair that is, but i hadn't thought about it like this. I HAD thought about it that the media were saying (shock! horror!) it wasn't islamic, and i thought that was really racist and strange -- i mean nobody said hey it wasn't an atheist, or it wasn't a buddhist. But was it done under the guise of being on behalf of a religion? I mean, i don't believe that an islamic suicide bomber who claims that they are doing it because of religious reasons is truely following Islam, but that its a corruption of islam, but it has been claimed that it was fighting a holy war blaa blaa. So, is this person claiming the name of christianity as the REASON for doiing it? And as a muslim friend of mine said -- great, so he wasn't from pakistan, he wasn't muslim, clearly the guy who just invaded and shot a ton of people is 'just a madman' not 'a terrorist' cos only WE are called 'terrorists.' If you're not muslim and you shoot someone, your considered crazy, if you are muslim and you shoot someone, well doh, its clearly because of your religion. At least that was the general gist of what he said. Either way, its a tragedy... A terrible, terrible tragedy. (And btw, it was on my facebook) |
| john bodega 24.07.2011 22:33 |
I think you guys are ignoring the real issues here - what WAS that guy wearing in those photos that were released of him?? Talk about a fashion nightmare. |
| Mr Mercury 25.07.2011 03:47 |
Its just been announced through Reuters that the court hearing is to be heard behind closed doors. |
| magicalfreddiemercury 25.07.2011 05:54 |
Mr Mercury wrote: Its just been announced through Reuters that the court hearing is to be heard behind closed doors.===== Good. The more attention a person like that wants, the less he should get. |
| nepcker 26.07.2011 05:16 |
Condolences to all the victims! |
| pma 26.07.2011 05:45 |
What? So now the zionist Christian was a neo-nazi? What next? Perhaps a report that he was surely an Afro-Centric Muslim... The reports on his political ideology appear highly contradictory, perhaps he was very confused, or the media is. I am still waiting for the mandatory gun control debate to follow, I am especially waiting for the anti-gun control people to use this as a prime example of how strict gun control is a failure. Perhaps it's just not strict enough? Let's face it, it all sounds so very plausible to think that if the teenaged girls and boys at Utøya had also been packing heat, our gunman would have been gunned down by someone... Nordic countries need to face reality and the official birthday present given to every newborn baby should be a 9 mm handgun. Edit. Should have looked at Fauxnews first... No word on gun control though. link Edit. And Glenn Beck shows he is a class act... link |
| spandan 26.07.2011 07:09 |
Condolences to the victims from my side too. The sad thing about this is that a massacre by a Christian extremist makes him a madman, but a massacre by a Muslim makes him a terrorist. And the funny thing about this is that I've seen more posts complaining about there being more posts about Amy Winehouse than Oslo than I've seen about Oslo. |
| thomasquinn 32989 26.07.2011 08:04 |
I would like to share with you a few points I have been researching the past two years, which appear to be confirmed by this horrendous act of mass-murder. 1. The far-right in Europe currently exists in two entirely separate and different forms, often hostile towards one another. The first is the traditional nazi-based far-right, like the Front National in France, Vlaams Belang in Belgium and the EDL in Britain. They are out of touch with the 'mainstream' of far-right voters, and are fighting a losing battle. However, those who *do* still subscribe to this ideology are extreme fanatics, and every single one of them is a potential danger to society. On the upside, they make up less than 3% of the population. The second kind is, in my view, more dangerous at the moment. This new far-right is not nazi-oriented, in that they are not race thinkers. However, many, like Geert Wilders in the Netherlands, *are* national-socialists in the *literal* sense of the word. They often have strong ties to orthodox Christianity, although they are hostile towards those Christian groups that subscribe to the so-called "social gospel". All their hate is channelled towards 'communists' (which they describe so broadly that it also includes liberal democrats and all kinds of non-marxist left-wing groups), which they see as not merely in league with but synonymous to Islamists. The few studies that have been carried out show that, like extreme left-wingers, a disproportionally large number of them are fanatical believers in conspiracy theories, with Masonic conspiracies at the top. This 'new far right', led by the Dutch and Scandinavian anti-immigrant and anti-Muslim parties, is greeted with a degree of decency by the established right, especially the right wing of the Christian Democrats (as, for instance, in the CDA of the Netherlands and the CDU/CSU in Germany). They usually denounce violence outright, though this is not necessarily true of their supporters. Anti-semitism plays no role of any importance, and a pro-Israeli agenda is no taboo, though it appears that a large number of their supporters view supporting Israel as a "necessary evil" to get to the Muslims. 2. This second kind of far right attracts many people who would formerly have voted for moderate parties, something that is not true of the first category. Most votes for these parties are cast from regions with very small immigrant populations, suggesting that it is (economic) fear rather than (economic) reality that drives the voters. I am not sure if this also applies to other countries, but the Dutch supporters of the new far right show a striking disregard for facts and statistics: if figures or facts contradict their ideology, they are either said to be forged or are ignored all together. 3. The new far right is, unlike the nazi-kind, *extremely* hostile towards *all* intellectuals/intellectualism. Formerly, intellectuals who subscribed to far-right views were welcomed by neo-nazis, but the new far right considers all intellectuals as the enemy. 4. One thing that hasn't changed is that the new far right is decidedly hostile towards democracy and democratic processes. They are, by their nature, authoritarian groups, and subscribe the leadership-principle, meaning that the decisions and motives of the party leader are not to be questioned. So far, this does not seem to have broken down in any of the new far right parties, suggesting that they have capable leaders. 5. They do not usually resort to violence, and will denounce it in public, but will not do anything to hinder it. Many of the representatives for the Dutch and Danish 'Freedom' parties have been convicted for or at least charged with acts of violence. This does not bother their electorate. 6. Whereas the traditional far right could never count on more than about 5% of the population to support them, the new far right can count on numbers as high as 25% or even 30%. This means that a legal takeover of power by the far right, such as the NSDAP did in 1933, is a real possibility. Because of the semblance of legality, this is a far more realistic danger than a coup d'êtat. 7. As was the case in the 1930s, but never after WWII, traditional conservative parties are quite willing to ally themselves with the new far right, in the false believe that the far right can be controlled and used for the conservatives' purposes. 8. The new far right attempts to (and succeeds in) attract(ing) voters by combining far-right views on crime, immigration, national security and foreign policy with decidedly left-wing economic policies. However, when a choice has to be made between their economic and their social policies, they are quick to surrender the economic points. All this combined makes me come to the conclusion that, while a resurgence of the far-right is a standard and predictable result of economic downturns and prolonged uncertainty, the danger of non-democratic regimes coming to power in Europe has not been a more realistic danger since the 1940s. The current situation absolutely dwarfs the 1970s resurgence. The fact that disturbingly large numbers of supporters of these far-right groups actually express their *support* and *sympathy* for the Norwegian mass murderer on party-related internet forums suggests that these parties are not to be expected to oppose any violence from their right flank. |
| thomasquinn 32989 26.07.2011 08:10 |
Incidently, as far as I have been able to uncover, there are only two things all the new far right supporters agree on: 1) All muslims are a threat to Western society 2) The Serbs were the good guys in the Yugoslav civil war. The second point is especially important, because it implies what they would do if they were ever to be the majority party. |
| catqueen 26.07.2011 12:24 |
Thomas Quinn, your post was really interesting... I have tried and failed to understand politics and the ideologies of different groups, esp across the Eu, and i just can't get them straight in my head... its hard to sort out the propaganda from the truth, and to tell what is MEANT by half the stuff thats said by/about them. Having said that, from what i have read and studied, it does seem like the current political 'middle ground' is fairly far right. Left seems to be becoming more right wing, apart from the extremist left groups. I have heard the argument that all parties are moving more to the centre to gain votes, but it does seem like its more of a centre-right then actual centre. And it is (imo) reflected in the general culture and ideology thats prevalant throughout society. Frighteningly right-wing attitudes are creeping in more and more regarding issues like racism, immigration, asylum seekers, medical care, care of the elderly, care of those with disabilities, etc. I had a teacher in college who on principle won't get health insurance, and people think she's nuts. Whether attitudes are changing or whether its just that people are expressing them more publicly, i don't know, but it is scary. For my last social policy exam i had to study the development of social policies in britain/ireland in the last number of years, esp those that came from liberal theory. And i found it disturbing to even read about extreme neo-liberalism. And yet, so much of those attitudes are common still. :/ |
| The Real Wizard 26.07.2011 12:25 |
Very fascinating read, TQ. Bleak .... but fascinating. Thanks for that. The world does seem to be moving to the right. Sure, Obama is in power in the US, but it looks like the Republicans set that one up (i.e. putting the Alaska buffoon and a decrepit old man in there) so that they could blame Obama for the pending default. Canada is moving right, and so is England ... and much of Europe. Conservatism in itself isn't a bad thing. Myself, I'm all in favour of fiscal conservatism, but centrist with most social issues. But the trend seems to be - when people get scared, they move right, not left. |
| catqueen 26.07.2011 12:32 |
ThomasQuinn wrote: The fact that disturbingly large numbers of supporters of these far-right groups actually express their *support* and *sympathy* for the Norwegian mass murderer on party-related internet forums suggests that these parties are not to be expected to oppose any violence from their right flank. Really??? On what basis? I mean whyyy would someone express sympathy for a mass-murderer? I do feel that people, no matter what, deserve humane treatment, etc, and i often do feel some sympathy for people -- i mean eg, in the Columbine shooting in Utah, the guys who did the killing were just kids themselves, and obviously extremely troubled. So i have every sympathy for those killed, their families AND for they guys who shot them and their families. And when Saddam Hussein was found, i felt really sorry for him (and yes i KNOW he was a horrible person -- but he was also a very sad looking old, old man). But this killing was horrific... Ok, ALL killing is horrific, but still... Anyway, i just read that he is being charged with terrorism and crimes against humanity. So the word 'terrorism' is being used. I have heard a lot of people differentiating from 'islamic terrorism' though, which seems odd. |
| YourValentine 27.07.2011 06:48 |
Interesting points. I believe that the current far right movements do not have much in common with Nazis - the Nazis had an ideology. It was crazy but they did have a vision about how the society should look like. Today right wing movements arise from fear within the middle class - fear to lose in the global world of capitalism. Imo the mainstream democratic parties have done a lot to fuel this fear since the decline of the communist world: values like worker rights, social justice, social security, equal chances for everybody seem to be disposable gimmicks from the 20th century when capitalism still had to compete with the other big social system. Politicians are quite often regarded as the puppies of the big banks and corporate industry with no concern about the people. I do not think that politicians were ever so despised in Europe as they are today. Many people feel that the European Union is a union of money and industry interests in which the citizens do not have a say anymore because commissions who were never voted into office by the public decide about very important issues throughout the whole continent. There a similar structures elsewhere - for example in the USA where banks are bailed out with tax money but people lose their homes and nobody really understands why. Right wing organisations draw from this widespread insecurity and fear in the middle class. The issue of integration of immigrants from other cultures - often Muslim cultures - is used to channel the fear and to simplify the discourse. It is very easy to create a feeling of acceptance and togetherness when you blame it all on "the Muslims". Unfortunately, there has been an actual, real problem with lack of integration which was ignored by mainsteam politics to an extent that you were called a racist even mentioning it. I believe that Wilders would have never had a chance to become that big if Dutch politics had addressed the issue of integration in a rational and sensible way instead of leaving it to the right wings. Now the right wing bloggers and parties all distance themselves from the Oslo attacks. Before Oslo "Islam" was the violent ideology threatening the world and now all of a sudden it is a blonde Christian soldier who has released a crude manifest quoting from about every anti-Islamic group there is. It will be very hard to maintain that hate speech and creating an oversimplified "enemy" does not have a potential to create such atrocities and bloodshed. maybe that will be the only good thing that can come out of this tragedy: that there will be a broader understanding that words can kill, after all. |
| Amazon 27.07.2011 14:58 |
catqueen wrote: "Anyway, i just read that he is being charged with terrorism and crimes against humanity. So the word 'terrorism' is being used. I have heard a lot of people differentiating from 'islamic terrorism' though, which seems odd." Oh, it absolutely was terrorism. One of the things that infuriates me is that a lot of right-wing commentators have (unsurprisingly) not used the word terrorism, when they would have used it if a Muslim was responsible. There is a lot of Islamophibia on the right. Anyway, terrorism refers to the killing of civilians for political purposes such as an Islamic group blowing up civilians because of the government's involvement in Iraq, and as such his killing civilians because of the government's policies is no different. |
| tero! 48531 27.07.2011 16:08 |
JoxerTheDeityPirate wrote: so,whats the difference between a christian fundamentalist and an islamic fundamentalist? According to some of the locals interviewed by our correspondent, it was "a relief that the massacre wasn't caused by islamic fundamentalists"... I know it doesn't really answer your question, but it does tell us that humans tend to see the outsiders as a bigger threat than the insiders. Even when it isn't the reality. |
| The Real Wizard 27.07.2011 18:48 |
YourValentine wrote: Today right wing movements arise from fear within the middle class - fear to lose in the global world of capitalism. Imo the mainstream democratic parties have done a lot to fuel this fear since the decline of the communist world: values like worker rights, social justice, social security, equal chances for everybody seem to be disposable gimmicks from the 20th century when capitalism still had to compete with the other big social system. ================= Brilliant post, YV .. particularly the above highlighted section. You've hit it bang on. |
| The Real Wizard 27.07.2011 18:50 |
Tero! wrote: humans tend to see the outsiders as a bigger threat than the insiders. Even when it isn't the reality. =============== Exactly. This is a basic part of the human condition, and has been so for tens of thousands of years. The fear of the 'other tribe' or the guys who dress differently has always been our race's biggest fear. This is how governments succeed in keeping people afraid. Now their hands are tied because a white person did it. |
| magicalfreddiemercury 28.07.2011 06:38 |
Sir GH wrote: Tero! wrote: humans tend to see the outsiders as a bigger threat than the insiders. Even when it isn't the reality. =============== Exactly. This is a basic part of the human condition, and has been so for tens of thousands of years. The fear of the 'other tribe' or the guys who dress differently has always been our race's biggest fear. This is how governments succeed in keeping people afraid. Now their hands are tied because a white person did it. ======== ======== I don't know if it's 'just' fear of the other side, though that's definitely a huge part of it. I think there's also a feeling of comfort when it's not 'islamic militants' because the belief is that a christian fundamentalist who carries out a violent act is a lone wolf, while islamic fundamentalists travel in packs. There's greater fear with that, of course, because there is no way to know when or where THEY will strike next, while HE has already created and ended his horror. Also, there is indignation on the part of the Right. Bill O'Reily's take on this (which I found through a link someone posted in this thread) was incredibly ignorant and frightening - not that I should be surprised by that. He refused to acknowledge this guy as a "christian" because, as he said, a true "christian" would never do what he did. However, as far as I know, O'Reilly has never made that same distinction between muslim extremists and 'true' muslims. So, christians KNOW christianity and therefore anyone who carries out a violent act in the name of christianity is labeled as non-christian or insane. While anyone who carries out a violent act in the name of islam must, of course, represent all of islam. Which goes back to the original thought that outsiders are seen as the bigger threat even though these assailants will not be officially recognized as 'insiders'. |
| The Real Wizard 28.07.2011 17:26 |
magicalfreddiemercury wrote: So, christians KNOW christianity and therefore anyone who carries out a violent act in the name of christianity is labeled as non-christian or insane. While anyone who carries out a violent act in the name of islam must, of course, represent all of islam. ========= Yup, gotta love the double standard. |
| catqueen 28.07.2011 18:18 |
Amazon wrote: catqueen wrote: "Anyway, i just read that he is being charged with terrorism and crimes against humanity. So the word 'terrorism' is being used. I have heard a lot of people differentiating from 'islamic terrorism' though, which seems odd." Oh, it absolutely was terrorism. One of the things that infuriates me is that a lot of right-wing commentators have (unsurprisingly) not used the word terrorism, when they would have used it if a Muslim was responsible. There is a lot of Islamophibia on the right. Anyway, terrorism refers to the killing of civilians for political purposes such as an Islamic group blowing up civilians because of the government's involvement in Iraq, and as such his killing civilians because of the government's policies is no different. I agree -- the first day or two, i avoided reading or hearing much about it, but yesterday and today i did read a bit more. i completely agree that it was terrorism -- the first day, i had heard that it was a 'madman' who went on a (fairly inexplicable) killing spree. I assumed from what i had heard (from media) that it was someone with mental health issues, or other serious issues, who just shot people, but obviously as the numbers went up, it was clear that that wasn't really the case. It was political, and it clearly was terrorism (although i still dont understand why his terrorist act is being (in the media) differentiated from 'islamic' terrorism -- i mean what difference does it make? and that is when they dare to actually use the term terrorism). I am finding the responses of people very disturbing and interesting though. I said to a couple of people today, just to see what reaction i would get, that it is interesting that if you're white and kill for political reasons, you're considered insane, if you're brown, the question of insanity doesn't arise at all. The responses i got were varied: blank stare and 'um... yeah... he's crazy, it was so sad what happened' 'yeah... i wonder why he did it... he must be crazy' 'yeah, well i'm very intimidated by muslims' (me: 'but if he WAS muslim, he'd be called a terrorist, not a madman. So why is it different just because he's blonde and christian?') them: 'yeah, but i am very intimidated by muslims, i can't help it. i have muslim friends, and i've told them that i find it intimidating when i see muslims in the street' (me: ready to tear hair out 'yeah, well i suppose thats what the media WANT us to feel, isn't it. But most muslims aren't terrorists. Same as most christians. But we aren't intimidated by THIS guy simply because he's white, and yet, he did exactly the same thing!') them: 'yeah... but i still find them intimidating' and my favourite: 'yeah well, a TERRORIST kills themselves too -- i mean muslims blow themselves up when they kill people, so they aren't around to deal with it. So they aren't insane. I mean this guy obviously feels like he was right, because he didnt kill himself. So he must be insane, cos u just wouldn't do that.' (me: 'yeah, but it was still a political reason for killing... so he was a terrorist, just he was a christian and white, but he is still a terrorist, he was protesting political issues...') them: 'yeah, but it was terrible what he did, but he has some balls... i mean he doesnt care, he stayed around to face it... terrorists just kill themselves as well and then they don't have to deal with it... so i suppose he wanted to do something and isn't afraid who knows, but a terrorist escapes from it and kills themselves too.' (me '... but there is no question asked if someone is brown and blows people up, so why is it different when he's white?!') them: 'yeah, well, thats cos it was just crazy what he did' They are paraphrased, but u get the idea. Quite scary really. Another girl involved in the 'muslims are intimidating' convo said that she understands people being scared of muslims, because thats all we know of them. And that if it was someone irish who was blowing people up, the world would be afraid of irish people, cos thats all they would know of us. BUT i think that, while she has a point, it is more that media is powerful and manipulates us into thinking that muslims are a threat. I said that, and nobody understood it. :( |
| catqueen 28.07.2011 18:23 |
Sir GH wrote: Tero! wrote: humans tend to see the outsiders as a bigger threat than the insiders. Even when it isn't the reality. =============== Exactly. This is a basic part of the human condition, and has been so for tens of thousands of years. The fear of the 'other tribe' or the guys who dress differently has always been our race's biggest fear. This is how governments succeed in keeping people afraid. Now their hands are tied because a white person did it. I just think its going to be so interesting if he gets away on an insanity charge. It will be extremely telling if he does... I support having an insanity plea in general, and i know its hard to satisfy the criteria, and i know of people who didn't plead insane and should have, and were found out years later to be suffering mental illness. BUT we (the west) just had a 10 year 'war' on terrorism, and just killed bin laden WITHOUT A TRIAL... so it will be extremely interesting to see if a white guy gets off on an insanity plea. I dunno... i don't understand why we can't accept that we are all the same race, we are all the same species, i mean the whole race thing has very little scientific clout (as far as i know, in my very uneducated opinion/half remembered stuff), and WHY are we scared of each other and fightiing each other. :( |
| Holly2003 29.07.2011 03:37 |
catqueen wrote: I just think its going to be so interesting if he gets away on an insanity charge. It will be extremely telling if he does... I support having an insanity plea in general, and i know its hard to satisfy the criteria, and i know of people who didn't plead insane and should have, and were found out years later to be suffering mental illness. BUT we (the west) just had a 10 year 'war' on terrorism, and just killed bin laden WITHOUT A TRIAL... so it will be extremely interesting to see if a white guy gets off on an insanity plea. I dunno... i don't understand why we can't accept that we are all the same race, we are all the same species, i mean the whole race thing has very little scientific clout (as far as i know, in my very uneducated opinion/half remembered stuff), and WHY are we scared of each other and fightiing each other. :( ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Does he strike you as someone entirely sane? Anyone who resorts to the kind of cold-blooded violence of the Taleban, the IRA, the UVF, the Shining Path the PLO or this nutter isn't entirely sane, as I understand the term. |
| The Real Wizard 29.07.2011 09:09 |
Genuine question here for our Euro friends - Does the insanity (or 'mentally unstable') plea work in Europe as well as it does in Canada and the US ?? |
| Saint Jiub 29.07.2011 18:58 |
Holly2003 wrote: Anyone who resorts to the kind of cold-blooded violence of the Taleban, the IRA, the UVF, the Shining Path the PLO or this nutter isn't entirely sane, as I understand the term. The above are organizations. Anders seems to be a lone wolf. Whether the political violence against civilians is sponsored by an individual or an organization, it is still terrorism. However, an organized band of lunatics is more of a constant threat than an isolated one trick pony like Anders. |
| YourValentine 30.07.2011 02:49 |
Bob, I do not know how the insanity bargain works in Canada - I believe in Norway it works similar as in other Euopean countries: mentally ill people are not jailed but put into mental hospitals. Security in mental hospitals can be stricter than in a jail when the mentally ill person is considered dangerous. In Norway the highest possible jail time is 30 years for crimes against humanity (murder is 21 years, therefore crimes against humanity will probably be the charges). A dangerous mentally ill person will probably never get out of the hospital again which will certainly be the aim of the trial: to put him away for life. I believe there is another possibility to jail him for life if the judge finds there will be an ongoing danger after 30 years. In this case he would be held in security arrest after the usual jail time. I agree that the sanity of a murderer does not make much of a difference for the victims. Often people feel better to think that such a "monster" is not a "normal" member of our society. For the outcome of the trial it should not make much of a difference: the idea that someone with such an insane "ideology" can be resocialised in the next 30 years is pretty far away from everybody's minds imo. I have the highest respect for the Norwegian people and govenment. While in my own country the tragedy was already used to promote stricter "preventional" control of citizen phone data and stricter laws etc in Norway the government makes it clear that this person will not win in a sense that Norway will take away anything from their open society and democratic way of life. This is probably the only good thing in this whole senseless tragedy. |
| catqueen 30.07.2011 17:13 |
Holly2003 wrote: catqueen wrote: I just think its going to be so interesting if he gets away on an insanity charge. It will be extremely telling if he does... I support having an insanity plea in general, and i know its hard to satisfy the criteria, and i know of people who didn't plead insane and should have, and were found out years later to be suffering mental illness. BUT we (the west) just had a 10 year 'war' on terrorism, and just killed bin laden WITHOUT A TRIAL... so it will be extremely interesting to see if a white guy gets off on an insanity plea. I dunno... i don't understand why we can't accept that we are all the same race, we are all the same species, i mean the whole race thing has very little scientific clout (as far as i know, in my very uneducated opinion/half remembered stuff), and WHY are we scared of each other and fightiing each other. :( ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Does he strike you as someone entirely sane? Anyone who resorts to the kind of cold-blooded violence of the Taleban, the IRA, the UVF, the Shining Path the PLO or this nutter isn't entirely sane, as I understand the term. He doesnt strike me as sane, but neither do any terrorists. Or murderers. I think to get to a point where you can plan and carry out any murder, there has to be a lot going wrong in your head. (unless its in self defence or something, when it just happened). But then again, cold blooded violence of the Taliban, IRA, etc... i agree, yes, they are horrible, violent, evil organisations. On one hand i do think you couldn't be fully sane and do that. On the other, few people condemn soldiers as insane, and they also kill for an ideology. And ok, they generally are supposed to kill other soldiers, but if you look at stuff that happens in Iraq (or any war), many (not all, but it happens) are cruel, and kill/harm/do other stuff that they shouldn't, also for an ideological reason. One is socially sanctioned by the majority, one is not. And i'm not saying that an 18 yr old kid who is sent off to the front line is the same as an IRA member who blows up kids, but also, if someone is on the front line and does kill unnecessarily or kill civilians, why is this seen as 'sane' and the other not? There was an experiment done once which had to be stopped, which involved a group of people, some were made 'prisoners' and some 'prison guards.' the experiment had to be stopped because the guards became so extremely cruel. So maybe it is human nature to play god and harm others when we feel we have power. I do believe in an insanity charge, it is necessary, and if someone can be helped by psychiatric treatment, then they should be. But i also think that should go for everyone, not just people who happen to not be muslim. It would definitely make a lot of people feel a lot better if we could just say the guy is crazy, but maybe he isn't. Maybe we just don't want to admit what we are capable of. I certainly do not want to think that i could ever get to a point where i would be capable of doing something like that, but if this guy is found to be sane, then that means that any one of us could. The same thing happens when people look at people who join extreme cults-- there must be something wrong, how could they do that, how could they feel it was ok to make their families drink cyanide or whatever... and yet, they were probably 'normal' people who met the wrong person at the wrong time, and ended up in a situation they could never have foreseen. And please understand, im not saying the guy ISN'T insane, i'm just saying that maybe we aren't as civilised as we like to think. And really its just ideas, i have no 'basis' for it, i'm just trying to make sense of the world in my own head. And i have enough muslim friends that i would be extremely sad for the muslim world if the white european guy gets off on an insanity plea when half the islamic world has been invaded over similar acts. |
| catqueen 30.07.2011 17:41 |
Sir GH wrote: Genuine question here for our Euro friends - Does the insanity (or 'mentally unstable') plea work in Europe as well as it does in Canada and the US ?? I did part of my law exam relating to the insanity plea in ireland in third year. It isn't as easy to plea insanity as people think it is -- you do need to have a fairly strong basis for it. There are several main factors (which i presume are fairly standard). There is a 'rebuttable presumption of sanity.' (people are presumed to be sane unless proven otherwise) The person must have been at the time of the act suffering from a 'disease of the mind' which CAUSED a defect of reason or prevented him from knowing the nature or quality of his actions. If the accused is suffering from partial delusions, but knows that his actions were illegal, he will NOT have an insanity defense. Someone suffering from a partial delusion must be treated as though the delusion were real. (eg, if person a has a mental disorder and suffers from delusions, and thinks that person b is trying to kill them, and person a kills person b first, they should be treated as though they were actually under that threat.) The accused is unfit for trial if BECAUSE of a mental disorder he is unable to understand the nature or course of the proceedings and so is not able to: plead to the charge, instruct a representative, elect a jury, make a proper defense, challenge a juror or understand the evidence. If the accused BECAUSE of a mental disorder did not know that the act was wrong, or were unable to refrain from committing the act, they are not responsible. A person accused of murder may have diminished responsibility (sentence reduced to manslaughter) if they had a reduced ability to refrain from the act because of a mental disorder (this can happen in cases of domestic violence as far as i know, where someone is held down and held down for years and finally lashes out and kills their partner, and can be used in cases of infanticide carried out by the mother.) In Ireland, there is an issue though about this, because if someone is found not guilty by reason of insanity, they are basically acquitted, and therefore come under civil law, rather then criminal law. And the civil definition of mental disorder is more specific then the criminal definition, and doesnt include some (newer) disorders, such as personality disorders. So basically, if you are given an insanity plea on the basis of this, you come under civil law, and you can't actually be involuntarily detained under civil law on that basis. (for most mental disorders you can, but personality disorders and some others you cant). There were also issues with the older legislation regardiing this, as people got off on the basis of epilepsy and stuff, as it was a 'disease of the mind.' |
| FriedChicken 01.08.2011 18:22 |
Yet again, my opinion about politics and religion have sunk to an even lower point. |
| Mr Mercury 02.08.2011 04:21 |
Sir GH wrote: Genuine question here for our Euro friends - Does the insanity (or 'mentally unstable') plea work in Europe as well as it does in Canada and the US ??Technically it does - its classed as "diminished responsibility". Our courts insist on medical records to be obtained first before this plea can be entered. |
| thomasquinn 32989 02.08.2011 07:54 |
catqueen wrote: ThomasQuinn wrote: The fact that disturbingly large numbers of supporters of these far-right groups actually express their *support* and *sympathy* for the Norwegian mass murderer on party-related internet forums suggests that these parties are not to be expected to oppose any violence from their right flank. Really??? On what basis? I mean whyyy would someone express sympathy for a mass-murderer? ====== Disturbing as it is, they did so on the basis of him killing social-democrats. The hate towards social-democrats in Europe is just plain scary. The far-right have actually managed to convince large segments of the population that, despite the fact that coalitions between classical liberals and Christian-Democrats have ruled the countries in question (Holland, Belgium, Germany) for almost the entire post-WWII period, the social-democrats are responsible for everything that is wrong with these countries. The hatred of the new far right towards socialists and social democrats is in no way less than the hatred of nazi's or McCarthyists (whom these new far-right freaks most resemble) towards the left. There are likely to be more murders the next year or two. |
| catqueen 02.08.2011 10:37 |
ThomasQuinn wrote: catqueen wrote: ThomasQuinn wrote: The fact that disturbingly large numbers of supporters of these far-right groups actually express their *support* and *sympathy* for the Norwegian mass murderer on party-related internet forums suggests that these parties are not to be expected to oppose any violence from their right flank. Really??? On what basis? I mean whyyy would someone express sympathy for a mass-murderer? ====== Disturbing as it is, they did so on the basis of him killing social-democrats. The hate towards social-democrats in Europe is just plain scary. The far-right have actually managed to convince large segments of the population that, despite the fact that coalitions between classical liberals and Christian-Democrats have ruled the countries in question (Holland, Belgium, Germany) for almost the entire post-WWII period, the social-democrats are responsible for everything that is wrong with these countries. The hatred of the new far right towards socialists and social democrats is in no way less than the hatred of nazi's or McCarthyists (whom these new far-right freaks most resemble) towards the left. There are likely to be more murders the next year or two. So scary that normal people can be convinced into crazy stuff like that. WHY can't people just work together :( |
| catqueen 02.08.2011 11:06 |
What the heck!!!!! link I quote: The far-right extremist admits killing eight people with a bomb in Oslo and shooting dead 69 on Utoeya island. Meanwhile, the leader of the right-wing Progress Party has warned that Norway still faces a serious Islamist threat. "All the debates that we had prior to 22 July will come back. All the challenges that Norway was facing and the challenges that the world was facing are still there. Al-Qaeda is still there," Siv Jensen told the AFP news agency. "The new thing is that we have been in a horrible way reminded of the fact that terrorism can come in many different forms, with different rhetoric behind it, with different crazy ideas behind it." Um.... okie??? |