Many of us were wrong to think that the Norwegian Anders Behring Breivik was a solitary lunatic who went berserk when he killed seventy-seven young people on the island of Utoya nine months ago. We are used to psychotic serial killers.
But Breivik is a different case. He is not an obvious madman but a right-wing extremist who has an elaborate political program. It has much in common with right-wing platforms everywhere. He has been looking forward to his trial and wishes to proclaim his ideas to the world. Whether or not the court will accept a plea of insanity is impossible to tell at this stage.
Conscientious media managers did not have to wait for the results of the French election on Sunday, which showed a considerable rise of the French right wing, to hesitate before giving substantial space to the trial. This is a real dilemma reminiscent of the dilemma newspaper editors and broadcasters faced in 1970 in Canada during the October Crisis. The question was whether or not to give the FLQ a platform by publicizing its manifesto.
On Sunday, The New York Times published an essay by the Norwegian novelist Karl Ove Knausgaard. This is an excerpt:
“To get an impression of the nature of a person, one has to see him in motion. So much is contained in the posture of the body, the position of the hands, the movement of the eyes. I had no idea what sort of charisma Breivik had. How he would react to the situation he found himself in. For some reason, this seemed important. So I sat down with my neighbor, Bo, and there was Breivik on the screen, filmed listening to his defense attorney. His body was relaxed, and his eyes expressed first surprise, as if he didn’t believe what he was hearing, then intensity and something like eagerness….
“An opinion poll published before the court case showed that two out of three Norwegians felt the media coverage was too extensive. I was among them. And yet I was drawn to the screen to see him, the perpetrator of the crime. Why? Not out of pity with the victims and the bereaved. More out of curiosity – who is this monster?”
Let us hope that the search for an answer to this cri de coeur will justify the extensive media coverage of those who choose to go ahead with it.
Some news coverage of this case is impressive, appropriate and useful.
For example, from Spiegel:
http://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/0%2c1518%2c829145%2c00.html
He is not solitary. There will always be those uncomfortable with the “others” who have joined their society. A peculiar, angry, defensive wish to keep those others away – haven’t we seen that many times, in many countries. Race, religion, creed, caste – any excuse for the defensive, or ruthless or angry to act.
This doesn’t mean that social irritations and adjustments are not part of any multicultural nation. Or look at conservative males in many nations so angry at any manifestation of women actually seeking some freedom to work and be…Why are you surprised this happened in Norway? Look at the tensions in
France, or Germany – or in the United States as Mexican and other immigrants bring Spanish and Latino culture into the mix – or look at Vancouver, where some areas are 40 – 50 percent South Asian or Chinese?
My city (Vancouver) is a wonderful mix – that doesn’t mean troubles don’t brew within it. Or look at Quebec, and the trouble the “pure laine” Quebecois have trying to accept others into their culture. They have a wonderful expression ‘Il ne son’t pas nous autres….”
p.s. Actually, maybe one should also concede that many identify with their nation, language and culture and do not want “others” to disturb this national identity. If that is so, maybe such nations should hold referendums on immigration and stop accepting refugees or immigrants. It might be what they need to do. Countries who rely on immigrants, meantime, can be as open as they able to be.