The trial of Anders Behring Breivik [Archive]

Viking

03-22-2012, 21:54

Now, if I got this right, his trial will start in a few weeks: 16 April, so I intended to start a general thread that can be updated.

Some sides of the trial has made me think of things that I have not thought of before; such as the first topic I will bring up below. While I was not in Oslo when the bomb went off, I'll be here during the trial, so if anyone wants his autograph, then that...I keed, I keed. He should get a bullet, but he won't - another dilemma.

Most of the articles that are written on the topic for the time being, are in Norwegian; so you will just have to take my word for the translations.

First out is the draft of a law that can keep people locked up as long as long it is thought that they will be at immediate risk if released. Sounds kind of creepy (especially with the article title); no idea how other countries deal with such issues (and that would be interesting to hear).

New law shall keep Breivik locked up for the rest of his life (http://nrk.no/nyheter/norge/1.8045098)

The government are hastily introducing a new law that can keep Anders Behring Breivik locked up for the rest of his life, for his own safety.

In a text which TV2 [Norwegian TV channel] has gained access to, it is suggested that a pasient can be kept locked up in a high-security instiution of treatment as long as the police is of the opinon that there is a danger that someone will attack him in an act of revenge for what he has done.

Part of the suggestion reads:

"In very special cases, a patient might have commited grave and highly provocative acts, such as massmurder."

It goes on to say that the condition for the transfer to and confinement of the patient in this special security unit shall be "based on that there is a particularly high risk for attacks against the patient himself"

Then something for the circus.

Breivik wants [Mullah] Krekar as witness (http://nrk.no/nyheter/distrikt/ostlandssendingen/1.8045914)

The defence lawyers of Breivik intend to use Islamists to convince the court that [Breivik] had reasons for believeng that Muslims want to take over Norway.

Mohyeldeen Mohammad, Mullah Krekar and Arfan Bhatti may have to witness in the trial against Anders Behring Breivik.

- This is now cleared with Breivik, and it is certain that we request the presence of Krekar, Geir Lippestad, lawyer of Breivik, tells VG Nett [online version of newspaper]

...

Defence lawyer of Breivik, Vibeke Hein Bæra, tells NRK that the witnesses are selected to show that Breivik was not necessarily controlled by paranoid delusions when he planned and executed the acts of terror; and that there instead exist more people in Norway that share his view of Europe being at war.

- We want to highlight the reason for Breivik fighting his battle. He has expressed that he is fighting because he is concerned that Norway will be taken over by Muslims. For this, we want to have witnesses that can tell us something about why he got this fear.

Those names are essentially Islamists currently residing in Norway. Should any of them show up, they'd probably say "yes, we would like Norway to be a nation of Islam", and some more gibberish.

HoreTore

03-22-2012, 22:08

The three loonies are called in to make a case that Breivik is sane. They share the same world-view, and thus Breivik cannot be insane as they are sane, is the logic.

rvg

03-22-2012, 23:03

New law shall keep Breivik locked up for the rest of his life (http://nrk.no/nyheter/norge/1.8045098)

Hey, that's not fair. The law wasn't on the books when he committed the murders. Retroactive application of a law -- now that's screwed up.

HoreTore

03-22-2012, 23:33

Hey, that's not fair. The law wasn't on the books when he committed the murders. Retroactive application of a law -- now that's screwed up.

This isn't the type of law you are judged by in a courtroom, this is a law concerning how medical staff should handle pasients.

Conradus

03-23-2012, 00:52

Hey, that's not fair. The law wasn't on the books when he committed the murders. Retroactive application of a law -- now that's screwed up.

procedural laws apply on ongoing cases, isn't that standard with these things?

Greyblades

03-23-2012, 02:39

...Why would they need new legislation, isn't intentional mass murder enough to get him life without parole?

PanzerJaeger

03-23-2012, 04:23

Yeah, don't let yourselves be talked into a Patriot Act-lite. Nearly every crime results in aggrieved victims that could conceivably want revenge.

lars573

03-23-2012, 06:47

...Why would they need new legislation, isn't intentional mass murder enough to get him life without parole?
Which would mean he'd be released free and clear by 2030 (assuming his trial only takes a year). You see in Norway the maximum someone can be imprisoned for is 17 years. Not a second longer, no matter what crime you were convicted of.

rory_20_uk

03-23-2012, 11:21

Fragony

03-23-2012, 11:24

Life in prison actually means just that here gladly, you will never get out if you get that verdict

The Stranger

03-23-2012, 11:51

just do like the americans do and give him 900 years in prison and 15 life sentences.

Viking

03-23-2012, 12:04

Which would mean he'd be released free and clear by 2030 (assuming his trial only takes a year). You see in Norway the maximum someone can be imprisoned for is 17 years. Not a second longer, no matter what crime you were convicted of.

Actually, it is 21 years - and that is the punishment. You can be kept in prison for the rest of your life if you are deemed a danger to society (re-evaluated every 5 years).

Even worse.

*Don't get me wrong, this dude deserves to rot and/or hang, but just the fact that a peice of vague and creepy legislation that might violate all of your human rights came out of it means that he won, and Norway lost. Sorry dudes.

It depends on the politicians' intent. The title I translated was probably misleading. The idea is if they expect someone to be assassinated/attacked when his time as a patient is over (depending on what the upcoming new psychiatric assessment concludes, he is likely to be sentenced to forced treatment). One would think that, as a free citizen, one has a right to police protection. Otherwise, it becomes part of the punishment rather than protection (not that psychiatric treatment is supposed to be punishment in the first place).

A complaint has been filed to the civil ombudsman (from the part of the article that I did not translate).

Fragony

03-23-2012, 13:03

GC has a point and that is how some will see it, but imho it's unfair. It should be obvious to anyone that this guy should never walk the streets again just because an atrocity like this was never considered when they made the laws. Was it really just a crime really, or is he just evil.

Fragony

03-23-2012, 13:08

Viking

03-23-2012, 22:33

That new law thing made it to the BBC now (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-17488391), and as far as I can see, they included some crucial details (bolded by me) that the article I linked to earlier somehow forgot to include (lulz). Excerpt:

Norway is rushing through laws to ensure that Anders Behring Breivik is kept in a new, top security hospital if a court finds him criminally insane.

The law would allow patients to be locked up for as long as police found they were "in danger of being attacked by someone seeking revenge".

Patients would not be kept in the unit for more than six months at a time.

After that period, medical staff would need approval to extend the stay, or transfer the patient to another unit.

This mental health bill has been in the making since 2010.

But last year's 22 July attacks accelerated the process and resulted in an urgent review of the health care system with respect to violent and dangerous patients.

The legislation is designed to accommodate the care of Breivik in the event a verdict finds him criminally insane.

Ila high security prison in Norway, where Breivik is being held
The bill says the law would apply in special circumstances whereby "a patient may have committed grave, atrocious and offensive acts, such as mass murder".

[...]

Opponents of the bill have expressed concerns that Norway risks ending up with draconian laws that could compromise the human rights of mental health patients and transfer too much power to police.

Crazed Rabbit

03-24-2012, 02:04

They caught some would be terrorist crossing into the USA from Canada with a bunch of bomb making materials.

He was sentenced to 22 years in prison - a sentence that was overturned for being too lenient (http://www.seattlepi.com/local/article/Circuit-court-Terrorist-s-sentence-too-lenient-3399985.php).

There's a lot wrong with the US legal system, but I think one shouldn't cap sentences at 21 years for all crimes.

They share the same world-view, and thus Breivik cannot be insane as they are sane, is the logic.

Would that help his case at all though?

CR

Fragony

03-24-2012, 08:52

What I don't understand is why it's treated as one crime, casualties in Oslo died because of an explosion, a bomb is one crime. But the rampage on that island are 76 crimes, for each victim he pulled the trigger after all. It would make more sense. I kinda share GC's concerns you can't just change the rules midgame. I fully understand it as this guy should never be released, but it's a slippery slope. These level-headed vikings have a way to good society to let it slip, they can trust eachother there but one ruling always opens up the possibilities. From what I read I agree with Breivik a lot, am I also insane or do we just disagree. Saying something on the internet can also be a crime, am I criminaly insane? I trust Norway's left with it but I certainly don't trust the Dutch left with such a tool, especially after the Wilders trial, they tried to cheat. It blew up in their face, but they tried.

HopAlongBunny

03-24-2012, 10:32

I just worry that they'll follow the trend of other countries that have been the victims of terrorism: over-reaction that harms the citizenry more than protects them, potentially to the point of undermining your democratic and citizen-driven society.

Which is essentially to hand the terrorists a victory; who's winning the war again?

lars573

03-24-2012, 16:01

They caught some would be terrorist crossing into the USA from Canada with a bunch of bomb making materials.

He was sentenced to 22 years in prison - a sentence that was overturned for being too lenient (http://www.seattlepi.com/local/article/Circuit-court-Terrorist-s-sentence-too-lenient-3399985.php).

There's a lot wrong with the US legal system, but I think one shouldn't cap sentences at 21 years for all crimes.

Would that help his case at all though?

CR
Compared to the rest of the western world the US penal codes are draconian and quite backward.

Kralizec

03-24-2012, 18:45

Hey, that's not fair. The law wasn't on the books when he committed the murders. Retroactive application of a law -- now that's screwed up.

Exactly. If anything deserves life imprisonment (or the death penalty, if you're so inclined) it's what Breivik has done. But ex post criminal laws are out of the question.

I get the impression however, that we're talking about a similar system that the Dutch have (called TBS for short). In essence, it's a psychiatric lockup, passed out alongside a jail sentence and applied (usually) after the jail sentence has been served out. When in TBS, the person gets treatment and isn't released until the institution and the judge are satisfied that the convict is unlikely to commit another (violent) crime. Which could be indefinitely.

However, even if it's not supposed to be a punitive measure on paper, it's widely regarded as de facto imprisonment that is potentially lifelong. I think retroactive application would be wrong in this case, also.

Compared to the rest of the western world the US penal codes are draconian and quite backward.

Meh. I quite agree with CR's statement. In fact, the Dutch legal system is one of the relatively few in western Europe where a life sentence actually is a life sentence. To top it, unlike most other systems, there's no way to get out earlier except by being pardoned or whatever.

lars573

03-24-2012, 18:58

And in Canada a life sentence means your under state supervision (of some form) for the rest of your life. But the actual incarceration is 20 to 25 years.

Fragony

03-24-2012, 19:02

Aye, it's rarely given but the worst of the worst get the worst of the worst. TBS is a chance you might one day wil be released, a life sentence is byebye. I believe we are the only European country doing this in fact

@Kraz

Dîn-Heru

03-24-2012, 21:16

What I don't understand is why it's treated as one crime, casualties in Oslo died because of an explosion, a bomb is one crime. But the rampage on that island are 76 crimes, for each victim he pulled the trigger after all. It would make more sense.

I assume (without being a lawyer) that §62 in the penal code is in effect. Basically if someone commits several crimes that each on their own is a criminal offence you get one sentene for all the crimes, but it has to be higher than the minimum punishment would be if the person had done only one of the crimes. Not sure how this is applied when the crimes all qualify for 21 years imprisonment, but I assume you can't go higher than the maximum... So yeah, assuming my interpetation of the law is correct the police treat it as one crime, because that is how it will be judged. (Like I said I am not a lawyer so I don't know the reasoning behind the paragraph)

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

03-24-2012, 21:30

I assume (without being a lawyer) that §62 in the penal code is in effect. Basically if someone commits several crimes that each on their own is a criminal offence you get one sentene for all the crimes, but it has to be higher than the minimum punishment would be if the person had done only one of the crimes. Not sure how this is applied when the crimes all qualify for 21 years imprisonment, but I assume you can't go higher than the maximum... So yeah, assuming my interpetation of the law is correct the police treat it as one crime, because that is how it will be judged. (Like I said I am not a lawyer so I don't know the reasoning behind the paragraph)

That's silly Francophone way of doing things. Much better for him to be charged seperately for all crimes, he would then be guilty of at least two seperate offences, possibly three if his manifesto were considered to breach some hate law. Then he could be given 42 years.

HoreTore

03-25-2012, 01:05

They're treated as different crimes when it comes to compensqting the victims though.

As for the mental health bill, the BBC also got it wrong; our mental health bill started a many, many yeara ago, and it will probably never be finished. The debate on when and how to use force won't be ended in the foreseeable future. It's amended every single year. One year, those who want more force in mental hospitals ain the upper hand. The next year their opponents get the upper hand, and so it drags on forever and ever.

ABB is looking at many years in prison(seems most likely right now) or an institution. When the day comes that the mental bill matters to him, the odds that the rules are the same are astronomically small.

a completely inoffensive name

03-25-2012, 10:55

Absolutely. Terrorism's goal is, obviously, to create terror. If you're so terrified you that you want to hand over your previously inviolable rights then certainly they win. After all, they don't generally care about their lives--they're out to create havoc and screw things up for idealogical reasons. The only victory a terrorist can have is a political one, why hand it to them?

Because people value their lives above most everything else. Politicians have "to do something". The incentives all line up. Maybe terrorism is the fundamental weakness to a liberal democracy. Our Charizard is trying to battle against Squirtle but this time Gary is much more determined than Ash.

Fragony

03-25-2012, 11:20

HoreTore

03-25-2012, 12:39

Problem is that he isn't insane, what he did makes perfect sense it's an act of war, he whiped out the next generation of the enemy. It may be twisted but it's not insane. Should have killed him on the spot, now you will have to play by your own rules

I prefer psychiatrists to make that decision. But as things look now, I believe he will be found sane.

HoreTore

03-25-2012, 13:43

Perhaps, perhaps. The only appropriate way to deal with terrorrism is high-mindedness and objectivity. Turning the other cheek, even. Any other response will make things worse as we've seen. Perhaps it is the fundamental weakness to a liberal democracy indeed.

Well said.

While I certainly don't approve of the reference to mass murder in the mental heath bill text, I don't consider themental health law as enough of a problem to riot just yet. Unlike real laws, the mental health law is mostly based on the doctors judgement, it just provides some absolute limits to what can be done(like: after x years, y must be done). I'll be grabbing my pitchfork if they start redoingthe penal code, however.

A Lex Behring Breivik, a term coined by a Dagbladet chronicle yesterday, is NOT something I would approve of.

The Stranger

03-25-2012, 14:22

I prefer psychiatrists to make that decision. But as things look now, I believe he will be found sane.

why... sif they know more about it.

Viking

03-25-2012, 17:04

But as things look now, I believe he will be found sane.

If the second psychatric assessment reaches the same conclusion as the first one, I don't really see that. And if it doesn't, then what.

HoreTore

03-25-2012, 17:30

If the second psychatric assessment reaches the same conclusion as the first one, I don't really see that. And if it doesn't, then what.

The prosecutor has opened up for asking for prison sentence regardless of what any report says. The defence is going to try its best to prove sanity. In other words, both defender and accuser wants prison sentence, and its far from given that an expert opinion will trump that.

For ABB to be found insane, the second report has to find him insane AND the court will have to go against both the defence and the prosecution. This means that the odds are he will be found sane and sent to prison, as the situation stands right now. Also, an insanity verdict will be appealed, but a prison sentence won't.

With a second report finding him insane, the odds will change of course. But even in that situation, I believe the odds are still slightly in favour of prison.

Viking

03-27-2012, 16:20

A image supposed to be from the 1800s shows a familiar face (http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Ole_H%C3%B8iland.jpg). (check the upload date: 3 October 2008).

The image was originally thought to show a Norwegian master thief (Ole Høiland), but back in 2010, this was found out not to be the case. An article using the image back in 2009 can be found here (http://nrk.no/nyheter/distrikt/sorlandet/1.6803885). Amusing.

The prosecutor has opened up for asking for prison sentence regardless of what any report says. The defence is going to try its best to prove sanity. In other words, both defender and accuser wants prison sentence, and its far from given that an expert opinion will trump that.

For ABB to be found insane, the second report has to find him insane AND the court will have to go against both the defence and the prosecution. This means that the odds are he will be found sane and sent to prison, as the situation stands right now. Also, an insanity verdict will be appealed, but a prison sentence won't.

With a second report finding him insane, the odds will change of course. But even in that situation, I believe the odds are still slightly in favour of prison.

I was given the impression that it is unusal for verdicts to go against the psychiatric assessment; or something like that.

HoreTore

03-27-2012, 20:31

It IS unusual for a court to go against an expert opinion(remember the debate on experts about a year ago), but it does happen from time to time, and this case in anything but usual.

Also, I wouldn't be surprised if this is the first time since Hamsun a defendant has gone against an expert stating insanity.

Rhyfelwyr

03-27-2012, 20:46

Viking

03-27-2012, 21:12

Wait... what was all that about?!

It is some (presumeably) random dude that looks a lot like Breivik, and the photo of him was incidentally earlier thought to be the photo of another high profile criminal Norwegian (who lived from 1797 to 1848). But it wasn't, the museum made a mistake when it got the photo in the early 1980s. No one knows who that random dude is, or why he was photographed.

It all should be clear as cucumber to you now.

Sasaki Kojiro

03-30-2012, 07:22

Absolutely. Terrorism's goal is, obviously, to create terror. If you're so terrified you that you want to hand over your previously inviolable rights then certainly they win. After all, they don't generally care about their lives--they're out to create havoc and screw things up for idealogical reasons. The only victory a terrorist can have is a political one, why hand it to them?

I'm curious why you think that's the goal of terrorism. You describe them as very rational.

Couldn't express what I was trying to say, so I went googling, check this out:

http://maxabrahms.com/pdfs/DC_250-1846.pdf

Whacker

03-30-2012, 07:48

I'm curious why you think that's the goal of terrorism. You describe them as very rational.

Couldn't express what I was trying to say, so I went googling, check this out:

http://maxabrahms.com/pdfs/DC_250-1846.pdf

Errr.. Help me out with this one. So if I'm reading this right, the paper is proposing that terrorists do what they do for the sake of... terrorism itself?

I'm having a bit of a hard time with this for a few reasons. First, I can't get a good idea of what they're defining as a "terrorist", but it seems to fit what I understand to be the generally accepted definition. They referenced the german marxist faction, the IRA, and a few middle eastern groups. Second, I can't help but think they're painting an overly broad picture of what terrorism's goals are. Some individuals and groups seem haphazard at best and not really unified under a cause, or really having clearly stated aims or goals. Other groups seem to be very cohesive, well run, and clearly stated aims and goals. I can't check his sources, and it'd take hours, but I'm curious what the actual sample base they use looked like for the data they drew their conclusions from. A half-dozen shoe bomber guys wouldn't really be a good working basis for something aiming to paint a broad picture, aye?

In short, I think the paper is maybe too broad, and each individual instance of a terrorist act, and the perpetrators should be evaluated individually and on a case by case basis. Thoughts?

Sasaki Kojiro

03-30-2012, 08:06

Errr.. Help me out with this one. So if I'm reading this right, the paper is proposing that terrorists do what they do for the sake of... terrorism itself?

No...

He says the organizations appeal to the socially alienated, the lonely, the dislocated, the unemployed, and target them for recruitment (rather than people who have proven commitment to the political cause)...that in interviews with members of terrorist groups they say that they didn't join for political reasons but for social reasons (social connections to people who were already members), that many of them don't understand the claimed political purpose of the group...the groups are naturally extremely close knit and rewarding to people who have felt alienated...

It's like a smaller more intense version of the standard psychology of people who join a mass movement, according to him.

Whacker

03-30-2012, 08:22

No...

He says the organizations appeal to the socially alienated, the lonely, the dislocated, the unemployed, and target them for recruitment (rather than people who have proven commitment to the political cause)...that in interviews with members of terrorist groups they say that they didn't join for political reasons but for social reasons (social connections to people who were already members), that many of them don't understand the claimed political purpose of the group...the groups are naturally extremely close knit and rewarding to people who have felt alienated...

It's like a smaller more intense version of the standard psychology of people who join a mass movement, according to him.

OK, I read it a slightly different way, but I follow. Even if people don't join for political reasons at first, if they at some point subscribe in whole or majority to the group's ideaology, wouldn't that make the original reason for joining moot? Not saying that every member of a terrorist org is politically motivated, but it would seem to me that the majority of them would be. So that's what this paper is saying is not true then?

HoreTore

03-30-2012, 08:31

Saw an interesting interview with a woman yesterday, who in her early years first was a member of Blitz(anti-fascists), then the neo-nazi's.

Her reasoning for it was the thrill and the action(when with the nazis: looking down at other people made me feel good about myself), not the political views itself. I don't see that just applying to her, I think it applies to many militant/radical youths. But this is of course just an opinion, I have no real facts to back it up.

Sasaki Kojiro

03-30-2012, 08:33

OK, I read it a slightly different way, but I follow. Even if people don't join for political reasons at first, if they at some point subscribe in whole or majority to the group's ideaology, wouldn't that make the original reason for joining moot? Not saying that every member of a terrorist org is politically motivated, but it would seem to me that the majority of them would be. So that's what this paper is saying is not true then?

I would think they immediately claim to be in agreement with whatever the groups ideology is at the moment, even if they don't understand it. That doesn't mean they are ever motivated by it. I don't think politics is that strong a motivator, at best it is an excuse for the real motivation. Eric hoffer says a lot of good stuff about this. People get meaning in life, a powerful sense of purpose and worth, and strong social affirmation. Think they are going to care much about the specific policy points?

Whacker

03-30-2012, 08:41

I would think they immediately claim to be in agreement with whatever the groups ideology is at the moment, even if they don't understand it. That doesn't mean they are ever motivated by it. I don't think politics is that strong a motivator, at best it is an excuse for the real motivation. Eric hoffer says a lot of good stuff about this. People get meaning in life, a powerful sense of purpose and worth, and strong social affirmation. Think they are going to care much about the specific policy points?

It would seem to me yes, if one is actively joining an organization that exists outside the law and performs illegal (and most likely immoral) actions, then the primary driver would be an ideological one. Having a good understanding of the ideological intricacies would therefore be important.

Dunno, I'm limited by my perceptions and experiences, but that's what makes the most sense to me. I can see a desire to social ties and bonds being a strong component, but if one is going to join and participate in an organization where one's livelihood and even life may be forfeit, it would not be a big leap to assume that it would take some strong consideration and require some actual belief in the group's raison d'etre.

Edit - So if I had to sum it up, it strikes me as a bit odd the paper suggests that most terrorist groups act the way they do. To me, the ones that we read about most frequently seem to be well organized, cohesive, politically motivated, and most often the risk vs. benefit factor is considered to a certain degree. The IRA for example. Perhaps that is just a result of the media and government(s) portraying them as such. Others, like Mr. Shoebomber, seem to be the outlying fringes that are unorganized, irrational, and foolish.

Sasaki Kojiro

03-30-2012, 08:57

Edit - So if I had to sum it up, it strikes me as a bit odd the paper suggests that most terrorist groups act the way they do. To me, the ones that we read about most frequently seem to be well organized, cohesive, politically motivated, and most often the risk vs. benefit factor is considered to a certain degree. The IRA for example. Perhaps that is just a result of the media and government(s) portraying them as such. Others, like Mr. Shoebomber, seem to be the outlying fringes that are unorganized, irrational, and foolish.

hmm well he does say

"In his study of the IRA, for example, Robert White found that nearly half of the terrorists he interviewed were unaware of the discrimination in northern ireland against catholics, despite the salience of this issue in IRA communiques"

Presumably there have to be at least a few people who come up with the ideological stuff though. But their motivations not be what we might think either.

gaelic cowboy

04-02-2012, 12:58

hmm well he does say

"In his study of the IRA, for example, Robert White found that nearly half of the terrorists he interviewed were unaware of the discrimination in northern ireland against catholics, despite the salience of this issue in IRA communiques"

Presumably there have to be at least a few people who come up with the ideological stuff though. But their motivations not be what we might think either.

Couldnt one say that about any organisation of pretty much any size we care to mention, did American troops in WW2 really join to rid the world of Nazis or was it a paying gig that promised adventure.

rvg

04-02-2012, 13:08

Couldnt one say that about any organisation of pretty much any size we care to mention, did American troops in WW2 really join to rid the world of Nazis or was it a paying gig that promised adventure.

We joined because Pearl Harbor got bombed to smithereens. That set us on warpath against Japan and her allies.

gaelic cowboy

04-02-2012, 13:23

We joined because Pearl Harbor got bombed to smithereens. That set us on warpath against Japan and her allies.

Everyone in America that joined up had the same motivation???

No the answer is the government entered the war and the population at large had there own reasons for signing on.

We should be careful to assign a motivation to any person who joins an army the reasons can be multiple even for the same person.

rvg

04-02-2012, 13:35

Everyone in America that joined up had the same motivation???

No the answer is the government entered the war and the population at large had there own reasons for signing on.

We should be careful to assign a motivation to any person who joins an army the reasons can be multiple even for the same person.

People enlisted because the country was at war. Even though at that time conscription was still in force the majority of people enlisted voluntarily. As for the reasoning of every single individual, I cannot say. Most people though do not go out risking their lives for "adventure". Some do, most don't.

Fragony

04-02-2012, 14:47

More concerned about his glorification among people that are an enrichment to culture and who are from a society that has shame, personally. The world will burn and it starts in France.

Fragony

04-05-2012, 20:00

France is always burning. They're like, what, on the 5th Republic now?

The situation in France is grim enough to make both the reasonable left and the populist right really uncomfortable. Got me thinking on how we really have to talk this over. The social situation of the poor that's ok to the blind-right and the cultural naivity of the blind-left We are all wrong.

rvg

04-05-2012, 20:38

The situation in France is grim enough to make both the reasonable left and the populist right really uncomfortable. Got me thinking on how we really have to talk this over. The social situation of the poor that's ok to the blind-right and the cultural naivity of the blind-left We are all wrong.

Looking at things now, France is lucky not to have kept Algeria.

Hax

04-05-2012, 21:23

More concerned about his glorification among people that are an enrichment to culture and who are from a society that has shame, personally. The world will burn and it starts in France.

You're talking about Mohammad Merah and not Breivik here, right?

It's also baffling to see that you're consistently pointing at Algerians, Moroccans and other people of Middle-Eastern or Arabic descent, when the first people Merah killed were in fact Algerian Frenchmen serving in the French army. It's not only biased, it's despicable and frankly disgusting. These people put their lives on the line in the service of their country and you regard them as potential traitors. You should be ashamed.

What you fail to see is that whenever a Muslim does something wrong, it doesn't have to be in the name of or inspired by Islam. Merah was a very troubled figure with a lot of psychological and psychatric problems. He and Breivik apparently have a lot in common.

As for Algeria, the departure of the pieds-noirs and the later departure of the Jews was one of the greatest blows to cultural diversity in Algeria. If Algeria would have stayed French, would we have had the same situation? Who the hell knows. It's a stupid question.

rvg

04-05-2012, 21:37

As for Algeria, the departure of the pieds-noirs and the later departure of the Jews was one of the greatest blows to cultural diversity in Algeria.

From what I understand they didn't have much of a choice.

Hax

04-05-2012, 21:50

It depends, are you talking about the pieds-noirs or the Jews?

rvg

04-05-2012, 22:10

It depends, are you talking about the pieds-noirs or the Jews?

Pieds

Fragony

04-06-2012, 05:59

'It's also baffling to see that you're consistently pointing at Algerians, Moroccans and other people of Middle-Eastern or Arabic descent, when the first people Merah killed were in fact Algerian Frenchmen serving in the French army. It's not only biased, it's despicable and frankly disgusting. These people put their lives on the line in the service of their country and you regard them as potential traitors. You should be ashamed.'

Why don't you think this over, how would a radical muslim see these soldiers. No need for boohooohoooisms

Hax

04-06-2012, 08:41

You're just like some of the Muslims I discuss religion with; they're always telling me to "think it over" and "do more research".

Fragony

04-06-2012, 09:44

You're just like some of the Muslims I discuss religion with; they're always telling me to "think it over" and "do more research".

And you are now just acting like the type of leftie I don't discuss anything with as it's as rewarding as pranking teh girlfriend, they just don't get it.

hellooooooo they are French soldiers, soldiers bad

Hax

04-06-2012, 13:20

Exactly. They are French.

Fragony

04-06-2012, 13:50

Exactly. They are French.

If that's an answer to something then what was the question?

Fragony

04-10-2012, 12:45

Found sane. I really come to respect how Norway handles this, declaring him insane would have been understandable but wrong. Hats off. Of course you have a bit of a problem now, you will have to release over 18 years.

Viking

04-10-2012, 18:59

It's not quite that (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-17667261) simple

However, the verdict of the case is far from given. With two conflicting reports, psychiatric issues are sure to become a dominant issue during the proceedings.

One lawyer who works for Norwegian police told the BBC that she was intrigued as to how the trial would pan out.

"The new report might not change much in the end," she said, "as courts are obliged to give the defendant the benefit of the doubt on the issue of sanity. The initial report created doubts, and the new report cannot undo that."

She said she therefore expected the court of first instance to deem Breivik insane although ultimately the High Court might reach a different conclusion.

[...]

What is particularly unusual about Breivik's trial is that his lawyer will be arguing that his client is sane. This, of course, is the opposite of what happens in most trials where there is a question of the perpetrator's sanity.

His defence team has even called the cleric who founded radical Islamic group Ansar al-Islam, Mullah Krekar, as a witness in an attempt to demonstrate how a person with extreme political views may be put on trial as sane. Krekar was recently sentenced to five years in prison by a Norwegian court for making death threats against officials.

and no, these assessments are supposed to be of a medical nature, not political. I doubt Breivik will ever be released from prison if given a prison term; he will probably be deemed too dangerous.

Fragony

04-11-2012, 07:04

and no, these assessments are supposed to be of a medical nature, not political. I doubt Breivik will ever be released from prison if given a prison term; he will probably be deemed too dangerous.

The law making that possible hasn't passed yet, can't apply it on him. In 18 years you will have to let him walk. I am going to be watching this, maybe psychology has too big a role, two reports contradicting eachother, going to be fireworks

Papewaio

04-11-2012, 07:28

Isn't it 21 years for the determinate penalty or thirty years for crimes against humanity
& 21 years plus rolling 5 years for the indeterminate life sentence in Norway?

Fragony

04-11-2012, 08:39

Isn't it 21 years for the determinate penalty or thirty years for crimes against humanity
& 21 years plus rolling 5 years for the indeterminate life sentence in Norway?

As I understand it it's capped at 18 if suspect is found sane

HoreTore

04-11-2012, 09:43

The law making that possible hasn't passed yet, can't apply it on him. In 18 years you will have to let him walk. I am going to be watching this, maybe psychology has too big a role, two reports contradicting eachother, going to be fireworks

No, wrong.

Maximum sentence is life, meaning 21 years PLUS something called "forvaring"(I don't think an english term exists). It basically works likethis: once the 21 years are up, a hearing will take place. A court will decide if he is a danger to society or not. If he is, he will be given an automatic 5 years sentence. After those five years are up, the same heàring takes place. This goes on until the prisoner dies or is found not to be a treath. In ABB's case, it's safe to assume that he will spend his life in prison.

This law is quite new, I think it was made around 2000. No idea where you got 18 years from though.

spankythehippo

04-11-2012, 09:46

No, wrong.

Maximum sentence is life, meaning 21 years PLUS something called "forvaring"(I don't think an english term exists). It basically works likethis: once the 21 years are up, a hearing will take place. A court will decide if he is a danger to society or not. If he is, he will be given an automatic 5 years sentence. After those five years are up, the same heàring takes place. This goes on until the prisoner dies or is found not to be a treath. In ABB's case, it's safe to assume that he will spend his life in prison.

This law is quite new, I think it was made around 2000. No idea where you got 18 years from though.
Out of curiousity, how do they assess whether a criminal is a threat? What if they behaved well in prison, but bottled up his urges?

HoreTore

04-11-2012, 10:09

Out of curiousity, how do they assess whether a criminal is a threat? What if they behaved well in prison, but bottled up his urges?

I don't really know. I'll try digging around a little and see if I can find some info on that.

I assume it will be similar to how parole proceedings work.

Greyblades

04-11-2012, 11:46

Personally, I think for what he did he deserves the reinstation of the iron maiden, thumbscrews and the pear of anguish into european punishment system. But that's just me.

Fragony

04-11-2012, 13:20

No, wrong.

Maximum sentence is life, meaning 21 years PLUS something called "forvaring"(I don't think an english term exists). It basically works likethis: once the 21 years are up, a hearing will take place. A court will decide if he is a danger to society or not. If he is, he will be given an automatic 5 years sentence. After those five years are up, the same heàring takes place. This goes on until the prisoner dies or is found not to be a treath. In ABB's case, it's safe to assume that he will spend his life in prison.

This law is quite new, I think it was made around 2000. No idea where you got 18 years from though.

From what I gathered your system is pretty much what we call TBS, but TBS here is for people who are criminally insane. When sane it's just adieu, life is life without a chance of parol. But you only get that if you are sane here. If you are not sane and a danger to society you go to the 'longstay', which is basicly also a life-sentence. The 18 years I read somewhere I dindn't do any checks.

HoreTore

04-11-2012, 13:43

From what I gathered your system is pretty much what we call TBS, but TBS here is for people who are criminally insane. When sane it's just adieu, life is life without a chance of parol. But you only get that if you are sane here. If you are not sane and a danger to society you go to the 'longstay', which is basicly also a life-sentence. The 18 years I read somewhere I dindn't do any checks.

That's simply wrong, frags.

Our criminal system works like I described above.

Viking

04-11-2012, 13:51

This law is quite new, I think it was made around 2000.

2000? So before that, they would let dangerous people out if deemed sane?

HoreTore

04-11-2012, 13:57

2000? So before that, they would let dangerous people out if deemed sane?

2002 actually.

Forvaring was introduced as an improvement to the old system, sikring. I don't know how old that system is nor what, if any, system was in place before that.

rvg

04-11-2012, 14:06

2002 actually.

Forvaring was introduced as an improvement to the old system, sikring. I don't know how old that system is nor what, if any, system was in place before that.

What this guy needs is a good old fashioned viking style blood eagle.

Fragony

04-11-2012, 16:36

That's simply wrong, frags.

Our criminal system works like I described above.

If that is so why bother with sane/ insane in the first place. It's pretty clear that this man should never be released. I get this icky feeling over this if you already have the means to lock him up for good. You just might kill freedom of thought if you do it like this

HoreTore

04-11-2012, 17:04

If that is so why bother with sane/ insane in the first place. It's pretty clear that this man should never be released. I get this icky feeling over this if you already have the means to lock him up for good. You just might kill freedom of thought if you do it like this

Finding him sane is a much more certain way to lock him up for good.

Since the viking age(earliest reference I know is Snorre), however, Norwegian law has had the principle that if you wre not aware of your actions, you cannot be sentenced(held accountable) for them. Thus, it was necessary to figure out if he could be sentenced at all, hence the psych report.

If he is found insane though, it's worth noting that he will NOT be sentenced because of his actions AT ALL. He will then be sentenced to psychiatric care because of his illness, not his action.

Blame the softhearted vikings, I guess....

Fragony

04-11-2012, 17:39

Finding him sane is a much more certain way to lock him up for good.

Since the viking age(earliest reference I know is Snorre), however, Norwegian law has had the principle that if you wre not aware of your actions, you cannot be sentenced(held accountable) for them. Thus, it was necessary to figure out if he could be sentenced at all, hence the psych report.

If he is found insane though, it's worth noting that he will NOT be sentenced because of his actions AT ALL. He will then be sentenced to psychiatric care because of his illness, not his action.

Blame the softhearted vikings, I guess....

I really admiree the dignity of soft-headed vikings in dealing with this. But I also always consider what something could means to me, and having somewhat of an inpopular opinion about leftist self-percieved truths doesn't exactly sound like a worthwhile proposition for now to me to adhere to ight now.

HoreTore

04-11-2012, 22:01

I really admiree the dignity of soft-headed vikings in dealing with this. But I also always consider what something could means to me, and having somewhat of an inpopular opinion about leftist self-percieved truths doesn't exactly sound like a worthwhile proposition for now to me to adhere to ight now.

Do you consider a law-tradition dating back to the viking age as "leftist"...?

Fragony

04-11-2012, 23:06

Do you consider a law-tradition dating back to the viking age as "leftist"...?

What I call leftism is the stubborn habit to not recognise reality because reality doesn't always play nice, and that reality won't always comfirm that the world works that way. Leftism is a play in which we all have to act to please the director, a director who lives in a 100% white neighbourhood and puts his kids on a 100% white school

Papewaio

04-11-2012, 23:18

Fragony

04-11-2012, 23:37

Papewaio

04-11-2012, 23:49

Considering these ideas predate PC. And that the 30 year sentence is a modern addition. I can't see where being merciful is a act of being PC particularly if the end result is a rolling 5 year life sentence.

It is in effect the same sentence Charles Manson is under right now.

spankythehippo

04-12-2012, 02:13

So Odin is the director?

=][=

It is not left or right thinking. It is not just found in humanitarian circles. Not guilty because of insanity or extra mercy because of inability to understand ones actions is found throughout societies.

The basis of adult vs child sentencing is based on that premise that children are not fully responsible for their actions.

End of the day a merciless justice system that skips due process is a far more terrifying thing than a terrorist.

Is Breivik actually insane? He planned it out. He knew what he was doing. Many might claim that he is insane for committing those murders, but he had his own reasons. Insane criminals don't need reasons. They just do it. Although Breivik's reason's for his actions may be for his own personal beliefs, they were still committed by a man who did it deliberately, and who probably shows no remorse. That is not insanity.

If there exists a justice system where there is a limit to the punishment, regardless of the severity of the crime, you will always have people that go over the top.

Just say, the punishment for Breivik would be 20 years of excruciating torture, both mental and physical (as a hypothetical situation). I'm not sure he would have killed so many people. But he did. Because he knew that he most likely will go to gaol. In Norway. Norwegian prisons are like 5 Star hotels compared to the prisons in the rest of the world.

If he isn't executed, Breivik wins.

Fragony

04-12-2012, 09:43

He would love to be executed. The only way to not lose, can't win, from the likes of him is dignity. A fair trial is the ultimate humiliation

Papewaio

04-13-2012, 10:17

Yeap same arguement for Bin Laden.

Hippo - Not sure where I said Anders is insane. Just that the Norwegian system has a form of unlimited sentence.

Personally I think let him rot in jail and he can watch as all those he attacked participate in a vibrant democracy, have lives and children of their own.

He can keep his five star prison, I'll take my 1 star+ freedom as a much better deal.

Papewaio

04-13-2012, 10:17

Fragony

04-16-2012, 16:19

It was a morbidly fascinating thing to watch him live sitting there. The first word that comes to mind if I see him is pathetic. He is not getting the show he wanted, he will not get the recognision he craves for, he is not even a monster anymore he's just a loser with a gun. That has got to hurt.

HoreTore

04-16-2012, 19:09

His crying showed what a truly pathetic man he is.

His pathetic attempt to "make a stand" at the start would've been hilarious if not for the severity of the case.

Also, the press conference afterwards was interesting when they had to explain the peculiar aspects of the case to foreign journalists(one was chinese, I don't remember where the other was from). It seems we are quite an unusual nation...

Edit: and a special prize must of course go to the ignorant racist blogosphere, this time represented by Gates of Vienna, who labeled our justice system as "stalinist" because witnesses have a legal obligation to testify if summoned by the court. Yes, how dreadful it is indeed that every defendant has the right to present his case as acurately as he can....

Viking

04-16-2012, 19:54

He is really enjoying himself. Getting broad media coverage, even internationally. It must be exactly what he wanted.

HoreTore

04-16-2012, 20:26

He is really enjoying himself. Getting broad media coverage, even internationally. It must be exactly what he wanted.

I've come to loathe the "this is exactly what he hoped for"-comment in all its variants every other article about the case seems to include.

Why should we care even in the slightest what his wishes, aims and goals are?

Greyblades

04-16-2012, 20:30

Fragony

04-16-2012, 22:03

I cant speak for everyone but I think its because we want him to suffer, to have his entire reasoning shot down in front of him, that brevik sees the moster he is and that he is destroyed. The idea that he is enjoying it, that he wanted this to happen is pretty infuriating.

That's the beauty of it, what he is is simply being disregarded. He won't have the satisfaction of being treated any differently. Norway's ultimate revenge is simply not being out for revenge, people will still just get up, brush their teeth, have a coffee, a smoke if they smoke. Just a day as usual.

Fragony

04-17-2012, 16:25

I hope google translate does a good job here, excellent collumn by a Frenchie who got lost here and started writing good collumns.

http://www.trouw.nl/tr/nl/6849/Sylvain-Ephimenco/article/detail/3242055/2012/04/17/Breiviks-podium.dhtml

Fragony

04-18-2012, 12:06

Norski muca's, do any of you have a link to a transcript of his 30 minutes, kinda curious.

HoreTore

04-18-2012, 12:59

http://www.vg.no/nyheter/innenriks/22-juli/rettssaken/artikkel.php?artid=10065238

Knock yourself out.

Banquo's Ghost

04-18-2012, 13:10

That's the beauty of it, what he is is simply being disregarded. He won't have the satisfaction of being treated any differently. Norway's ultimate revenge is simply not being out for revenge, people will still just get up, brush their teeth, have a coffee, a smoke if they smoke. Just a day as usual.

This, I think, is ultimately the best punishment.

It appears that today, he is being questioned about this 'network of the Knights Templar' of which he is claiming to be the representative, and is finding it rather difficult. Rather plaintively, he is reported as requesting that the prosecutor refrains from ridiculing him. Poor baby.

As Fragony says, what this man fears most is ridicule and irrelevance. I read that yesterday, several of the family members observing his opening nonsense laughed out loud. I bet that really hurt his tragic little ego.

lars573

04-18-2012, 22:05

HoreTore

04-18-2012, 22:33

5 seconds of googlage. forvaring=containtment.

Is that the same legal term? If so, what system of law has such a law apart from us?

Kralizec

04-18-2012, 23:20

As I said earlier, the Dutch have a system called "Terbeschikkingstelling van de Staat" (TBS), literally "Being put at the disposal of the state". It's a measure that is formally not a punitive, but a psychiatric sanction. In cases where a judge rules that the culprit is (partially) insane and therefore can't (entirely) be held acountable, he can order that the convict is placed in TBS. If there's also a prison sentence included (in cases where the insanity is held to only partially reduce the accountability), then he has to serve out that before being placed in TBS.

Having google-translated the wiki page on Forvaring, I'm not sure it's quite the same thing. According to the translation Forvaring applies to sane convicts.

HoreTore

04-18-2012, 23:40

Fragony

04-19-2012, 09:14

Sorry I had to http://www.dumpert.nl/mediabase/2099341/2f212fc5/anders_breivik_in_tranen.html

(refresh skips add)

Viking

04-19-2012, 13:29

It's not the same thing at all, no. Not even related.

What we have instead of your tbs, is simply forced psychiatric care(tvungen psykisk helsevern). That term translates very well, and everyone gets the gist of what it is. If I translate "forvaring" as containment, nobody would have a clue what it is. And containment really isn't a very good translation. Containment would translate as either "oppdemming" or "inngjerding" depending on the context.

It is translated as permanent detention in this (http://www.domstol.no/no/Enkelt-domstol/22-7/Presse/Facts-/Frequently-asked-questions/) FAQ:

- What is the longest penalty?
The longest penalty is 21 years’ imprisonment – or permanent detention for 21 years. A sentence of permanent detention can be imposed if there is considerable danger of repetition. Permanent detention is not subject to any timeframe. However, the court always fixes a timeframe that may not exceed 21 years. When the timeframe expires the offender may be re-assessed. If the court concludes that there is still a danger of repetition the timeframe may be extended by up to five years at a time. There is no upper limit to the number of times that the court may extend the timeframe. In principle, a person that is sentenced to permanent detention can remain in prison for the rest of his or her life.
Only offenders that are of sound mind may be sentenced to permanent detention. Persons that were not of sound mind at the time of the crime may be sentenced to the special sanctions of involuntary commitment or compulsory mental healthcare.

the Norwegian word '"forvaring" does actually roughly translate to 'detention/custody' in non-legal terms, according to dictionaries.

Strike For The South

04-19-2012, 16:35

CrossLOPER

04-19-2012, 18:48

Greyblades

04-19-2012, 20:02

He also told the court he used computer games to rehearse attack scenarios (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-17766404).
Great, not only was he retarded psychomaniac, he's opened the flood gates to a new round of "videogames are murder simulators" sensationalism.

rvg

04-19-2012, 20:20

I don't mean to downplay the terrible nature of this guy's action, but it just seems like he is retarded or something.

After 16 hours of WoW per day I'm surprised he had the brainpower to tie his own shoes.

Greyblades

04-19-2012, 20:28

It makes sense, he spends days of meticulous planning and throws a hissy fit and has a mental breakdown when his plans dont go exactly as he wanted. Sounds like a WOW player to me! :wink:

HoreTore

04-19-2012, 21:40

But why is it wrong to kill? Isn't it only the ultimate misfortune? why why why why why why why why?

See how many times I asked why? Therefore my question is valid

Why it's wrong to kill is of course an interesting debate, and there are many arguments one could make. I would've given you one if I thought you were interested ~;)

And that question pops up quite often as well, though usually in a limited form, like war, criminals, abortion, etc. Heck, there are many people who want ABB shot, and those who try to counter those has to make an argument as to why it's wrong to kill ~;)

HoreTore

04-19-2012, 21:49

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-17766404

OK, I don't quite understand his plan.

He wanted to behead "former Prime Minister Gro Harlem Brundtland during the rampage" and then post a video of it, while on an island where he intended to die, assuming he would have plenty of time to set up the cameras and everything and have a good internet connection, and assuming that the bomb going off would not alert Brundtland. All the while he was going to force 600 people into a lake so they would drown, even though there were not that many people there to begin with. In his fervor, he wanted to make 3 bombs, but got tired and decided to go for 1. Also, his idea of a "Sabbatical" is to play World of Warcraft all day every day for a year, as any true Christian would. In the end, he said that he was surprised that he survived, even though he surrendered without a fight.

I don't mean to downplay the terrible nature of this guy's action, but it just seems like he is retarded or something.

1. The beheading was meant to be shot with a small camera, which he carried his person. As it turned out the batteries didn't work, which is the only reason why he didn't make any recordings on the island.

2. The internet connection works just fine, he should've had no problems uploading it.

3. When the bomb went off, those on Utøya considered it the safest place to be. If Brundtland had been present, she would likely had stayed put. Bodyguards are a rare thing in Norway, and she did not have any.

4. There were 536 people on the island, IIRC. He never made a specific number, he said he wanted to kill everyone. His reasoning was that people in panic wouldn't be able to swim. Fortunately he was wrong.

5. Back in 2010, he was looking at several targets and plans. One option was to make three bombs. The bomb-making took longer than he planned, so he settled for one.

Fragony

04-19-2012, 22:36

Most importantly, he is closer to radical islam than he is the populist right. The ussual blamed it all to Wilders but this is really something quite different

Kralizec

04-19-2012, 22:40

"Only" in the methods used. Maybe I've missed it, but I haven't heard Wilders or any of his cattle put forward a good argument that their political positions are all that different from Breivik. And they've had ample time.

Viking

04-19-2012, 22:42

4. There were 536 people on the island, IIRC. He never made a specific number, he said he wanted to kill everyone. His reasoning was that people in panic wouldn't be able to swim. Fortunately he was wrong.

Did anyone actually swim all the way across? I thought all the swimmers were picked up by boats.

HoreTore

04-19-2012, 22:46

Did anyone actually swim all the way across? I thought all the swimmers were picked up by boats.

Yeah, some made it across, including a friend of mine, but he's quite a good swimmer.

a completely inoffensive name

04-20-2012, 02:20

spankythehippo

04-20-2012, 03:25

rvg

04-20-2012, 03:33

Breivik is adding fuel to the fire. Australia already has heavy censoring, especially with Left For Dead 2. Now this? Goddamn.

Boo! Down with pointless censorship.

Fragony

04-20-2012, 06:46

Great mistake GC, you will hardly find a rightwinger, including me, that disagrees with him when it comes to what he calls cultural marxists. I call them multicultists but it's basicly the same thing. This was bound to happen someday but I never expected this

Fragony

04-20-2012, 07:44

You don't go kill people because you don't like multiculturalists though do you?

You're the one making a mistake in thinking that anything this man says can be taken at face value. He killed those people because he was an escapist and despised his own life. Everything he says is just his ego trying to rationalize away from that conclusion. Don't hurt your political cause by tying it in with this loser.

Do I really have to explain with what I don't agree with. Breivik is a product of leftist arrogance and it kicked back in the most horrible way.

a completely inoffensive name

04-20-2012, 08:12

Do I really have to explain with what I don't agree with. Breivik is a product of leftist arrogance and it kicked back in the most horrible way.

This is as dumb as saying that the Congresswoman who was shot in Arizona was a product of right wing talk radio. I know I have may have said that myself, and if I did in the thread then I was an idiot.

Some people are broken, you can't think for one second someone like Breivik is a fully rational man simply responding to "leftist" policies.

Fragony

04-20-2012, 08:27

This is as dumb as saying that the Congresswoman who was shot in Arizona was a product of right wing talk radio. I know I have may have said that myself, and if I did in the thread then I was an idiot.

Some people are broken, you can't think for one second someone like Breivik is a fully rational man simply responding to "leftist" policies.

He IS completely rational, in the worst possible way. He has whiped out the next gen of the elite. He's no ordinary terrorist this was all thought out until the tiniest detail

HoreTore

04-20-2012, 10:36

NDL, the norwegian affiliate of the EDL, refuses to disassociate themselves from Breivik.

Ronny Alte, the leader of NDL, is called as a witness(by the defence, I believe). He wants to distance himself as far as possible from Breivik in his testimony. Theleadership of NDL doesn't want that, so he has stwpped down as leader.

Viking

04-20-2012, 11:11

The organisation that was disgracefully infiltrated by commies. Who's who?

Sigurd

04-20-2012, 13:56

This piece of garbage is giving the media everything they want about the dangers of video games.
http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2012/04/19/breivik-testifies-about-gaming-press-ignores-the-facts/

He is doing more damage than Jack Thompson.
I have been following the case a little and about the part where he explains about the weapons he acquired and video games, the prosecutors wanted to know if he chose the weapons based on the games he played (Modern warfare etc.).
Breivik explained that it was the other way around. He first acquired the guns and then consciously acquired video games where these guns were used, to train with the different optics, as he so delicately puts it. And further, he uses these games as preparation for his assault, to desensitize. But it is not enough, and as he explains, he needs to condition his mentality over a longer period by mental exercises to be able to go through with this horrible but necessary act. Without it he wouldn't be able to endure the police questioning and the trial.

He basically rejects the prosecutors insinuation that it was because of the games that he planed the details of the assault.

CrossLOPER

04-20-2012, 15:33

He IS completely rational, in the worst possible way. He has whiped out the next gen of the elite. He's no ordinary terrorist this was all thought out until the tiniest detail
The "elites'" recruitment quota was exceeded by a magnitude of several times over because of his actions. He made a bomb and shot some kids in a nation where security was low. He also brought plenty of negative attention to those who hold his beliefs.

I must admit, I am still somewhat confused as to what this "multiculturalism" thing is that WEuropeans won't shut up about. Is this where your immigrants fail to integrate or something?

I have been following the case a little and about the part where he explains about the weapons he acquired and video games, the prosecutors wanted to know if he chose the weapons based on the games he played (Modern warfare etc.).
Breivik explained that it was the other way around. He first acquired the guns and then consciously acquired video games where these guns were used, to train with the different optics, as he so delicately puts it. And further, he uses these games as preparation for his assault, to desensitize. But it is not enough, and as he explains, he needs to condition his mentality over a longer period by mental exercises to be able to go through with this horrible but necessary act. Without it he wouldn't be able to endure the police questioning and the trial.

He basically rejects the prosecutors insinuation that it was because of the games that he planed the details of the assault.
I'm not sure if the journalists are contractually required to put out some sensationalism or they are just incapable of reading.

Viking

04-20-2012, 16:06

I must admit, I am still somewhat confused as to what this "multiculturalism" thing is that WEuropeans won't shut up about. Is this where your immigrants fail to integrate or something?

Multiculturalism is the logical consequence of mass immigration in an open society: immigrants will not give up their own culture as long as they can mingle with plenty people of their own, foreign background. It runs in parallel to intregration, mostly. More well-integrated immigrants do not have to contribute less to multiculturalism; integration is more about getting along better with people from the majority culture/other sub-cultures in the society.

One could say that the Jewish minorites here are an example of a well-integrated exoculture (a fancy word I just invented for "outside culture"), as they make little noise but still have their own distinct sub-culture. It seems accurate to say that when ABB talks about multiculturalism, he is only/mainly considering the muslim part of it. I have not heard him talk about other sub-cultures.

For the record, Oslo is by far the most multicultural city in Norway, both in terms of intensity and diversity. It is thus no surprise that ABB is from Oslo.

EDIT: and of course, Breivik's view is that the mass immigration has the purpose of creating a multicultural society, which becomes something else entirely.

Lemur

04-20-2012, 17:06

Rhyfelwyr

04-20-2012, 17:28

Interesting piece here (http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/04/15/us-norway-breivik-idUSBRE83E03S20120415). I especially like this bit:

"This guy wanted to kill me because I believe in democracy, openness, tolerance and dialogue," Wennesland, dressed in a hooded top and Converse shoes, said. "Well, **** it. If that is what he wanted to kill me for, I am going to carry on fighting for it."

Well Breivik didn't really target him for any of those things, save perhaps tolerance for Muslims.

Looks like a lot of things have been projected on to the guy when he didn't really believe them.

But then again people have been pretty gung-ho with associating Breivik with every ideology they don't like.

I place Breivk less with the likes of political extremists eg Al-Qaeda, and more in the same category of people that carry ouf high-school shootings.

He wasn't part of a serious terrorist network, he was a loser with a crap life looking for a cause. He could have just done the world a favour and topped himself but every once in a while one of those types feels the need to take as many people as they can down with them.

HoreTore

04-20-2012, 20:25

I must admit, I am still somewhat confused as to what this "multiculturalism" thing is that WEuropeans won't shut up about. Is this where your immigrants fail to integrate or something?

I'm not sure if the journalists are contractually required to put out some sensationalism or they are just incapable of reading.

Multiculturalism in Breivik and his comrades view is the conspiracy by the political elite to destroy european culture by inporting a bunch of muslims. The end goal is complete control over every european, and a europe where no freedoms exist. They see this as a version of communism, hence the term culturalmarxism. The soviet version was economic marxism, ie. the planned economy. ABB believe that western marxists realized that was going to fail, and so chose a different path. They adopted a mixed economy, and instead infiltrated higher education, arts, media and of course politics. Thus, they control everything needed to brainwash the masses.

This is of course all rubbish, taken from thin air. The sane definition of multiculturalism is simply a state where one culture is not given preferential treatment over other cultures.

HoreTore

04-20-2012, 20:36

Viking: ABB is from Skøyen, which is as white as you can get. Didn't stop him from bitching like a baby about his "rough teenage years". A wannabe gangstah kid who got smacked when he got uppity, is my conclusion. Heck, my own teenage years were rougher than his.

@Rhy: he most certainly are against those things. In alphabetical order:

Democracy: his vision of the perfect state is run by a council of the most senior knights of his imaginary order, who make sure his doctrine is followed by all of its subjects, in all parts of life. Ie. the very definition of a totalitarian state.

Openness: of course you won't get a lot of openness in such a system. He also advocates the systematical extermination of everyone who voices opinions he doesn't agree with. In fact, women should be barred from any influence in society, because he believes a statistically larger proportion of women vote left.

Tolerance: nothing he dislikes will be tolerated. Period. This ranges from sex to opinions to religion. Everyone has to adhere to his views or face punishment.

Dialogue: he has already proved that he prefers violence, because entering the public debate takes a certain level of dedication. He doesn't have that, so he decided to give it up and whine instead.

I find the lengths you go to defend racists and extremists quite interesting, Rhy.

Rhyfelwyr

04-20-2012, 20:37

Multiculturalism in Breivik and his comrades view is the conspiracy by the political elite to destroy european culture by inporting a bunch of muslims. The end goal is complete control over every european, and a europe where no freedoms exist. They see this as a version of communism, hence the term culturalmarxism. The soviet version was economic marxism, ie. the planned economy. ABB believe that western marxists realized that was going to fail, and so chose a different path. They adopted a mixed economy, and instead infiltrated higher education, arts, media and of course politics. Thus, they control everything needed to brainwash the masses.

This is of course all rubbish, taken from thin air. The sane definition of multiculturalism is simply a state where one culture is not given preferential treatment over other cultures.

It has already been proven that in Britain at least, Labour deliberately allowed mass immigration (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/6418456/Labour-wanted-mass-immigration-to-make-UK-more-multicultural-says-former-adviser.html)to generate a multicultural society.

Rhyfelwyr

04-20-2012, 20:47

I find the lengths you go to defend racists and extremists quite interesting, Rhy.

Woah, I have not in any way defended Breivik. I have defended racists and that I openly admit, but not Breivik.

If Breivik did indeed plan to run the country through a mysterious order of knights, than I hold my hands up and apologise, I was wrong.

From what I understood, his political views weren't that radical, and that his extremism was more in the lengths he went to to promote them. All I remember is that he seemed to oppose communism, Islam and Nazism, so everything from far-left to far-right. IIRC he subscribed to the Vienna school of thought on the economy, which would I think make him some sort of libertarian, and it is at least compatible with democracy. Didn't he see Muslims as a threat to democracy?

HoreTore

04-20-2012, 20:49

It has already been proven that in Britain at least, Labour deliberately allowed mass immigration (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/6418456/Labour-wanted-mass-immigration-to-make-UK-more-multicultural-says-former-adviser.html)to generate a multicultural society.

Ah, that quote again, eh? Why should you bother about it being retracted the day afterwards, when one can push it for all it's worth instead, eh?

Why care about things like truth, honesty and integrity, when one gets the chance to build on the Grand Conspiracy?

In short, you need more than one comment by a former advisor which was subsequently retracted as false by the author to build a conclusion like the one you did.

Rhyfelwyr

04-20-2012, 20:59

Ah, that quote again, eh? Why should you bother about it being retracted the day afterwards, when one can push it for all it's worth instead, eh?

Why care about things like truth, honesty and integrity, when one gets the chance to build on the Grand Conspiracy?

I don't think that there is a conspiracy, especially not with the Conservatives in power. Although I don't find it hard to believe at all that elements within Labour would be happy to take the measures described in the article.

As for the guy retracting the statement, I think that "truth, honesty and integrity" took a backseat to political pressure in his case.

gaelic cowboy

04-20-2012, 21:08

Well a man could of course say that the British have being encouraging immigrants for years.

Tis only lately they started getting upset about there former subjects following them home.

Rhyfelwyr

04-20-2012, 21:12

Well a man could of course say that the British have being encouraging immigrants for years.

Tis only lately they started getting upset about there former subjects following them home.

There was opposition to it from the start, look at the protests against the Asian Ugandan's that came here after Idi Amin chased them out.

And they were actually model citizens, they put the ordinary Briton to shame.

HoreTore

04-20-2012, 21:29

I don't think that there is a conspiracy, especially not with the Conservatives in power. Although I don't find it hard to believe at all that elements within Labour would be happy to take the measures described in the article.

As for the guy retracting the statement, I think that "truth, honesty and integrity" took a backseat to political pressure in his case.

A standard conclusion for conspiracy theorists. When someone points out holes in the conspiracy theory, it does not disprove it, it only proves that the conspiracy is even more powerful.

What a wonderful world.

Nonetheless, it is still way too little evidence to build your concusion. You're an educated man, Rhy, you know how proofs are built in social sciences.

Greyblades

04-20-2012, 21:30

And they were actually model citizens, they put the ordinary Briton to shame.
A headlouse puts an ordinary briton to shame.

Seriously though, it makes sense, the smart people in the world jump ship and move to more developed countries when possible, leaving behind the regular people and brain dead twits. First gen immigrants in britain are the cream while the natives are the same mix of cream and scum we started with.

Viking

04-20-2012, 22:22

a completely inoffensive name

04-20-2012, 23:58

He IS completely rational, in the worst possible way. He has whiped out the next gen of the elite. He's no ordinary terrorist this was all thought out until the tiniest detail

And yet, by openly declaring his intentions and his "logic" he has made it so easy for the general public who is repulsed by him to go in the exact opposite direction of what he wants.

His action is inherently irrational. You don't publicly massacre innocents if you want to mold the world closer to your image. Whatever damage he has done to "the bad guys" will be healed and the public will welcome it. Despite the logical procession to get to his ultimate conclusion, the basic axioms must be off base to begin with.

HoreTore

04-21-2012, 00:07

In his own words, his actions have caused short term losses for his cause, but there will be a long term gain.

The persecution of what he calls "moderate cultural conservatives"(I believe he refers to those unwilling to kill people) is what he wants, as he believes such persecution will cause a number of them to radicalize and turn to violence.

His laywer has always said he has an 80-year perspective.

a completely inoffensive name

04-21-2012, 00:09

In his own words, his actions have caused short term losses for his cause, but there will be a long term gain.

The persecution of what he calls "moderate cultural conservatives"(I believe he refers to those unwilling to kill people) is what he wants, as he believes such persecution will cause a number of them to radicalize and turn to violence.

And thus according to his end game, the ideology dies out. Unless his logic is that the radicalized moderates will take control somehow?

HoreTore

04-21-2012, 00:19

And thus according to his end game, the ideology dies out. Unless his logic is that the radicalized moderates will take control somehow?

That's the plan. I don't have his own words on this, so this is my own thinking, but I believe he believes that the current society will create moderate conservatives, while actions like his will radicalize them. Also, in about 30 years, he believes that a civil war will break out. In this war, his radicalized conservatives will rally the white europeans, and a lot of people will join them.

a completely inoffensive name

04-21-2012, 00:29

HoreTore

04-21-2012, 00:40

Sooooo a bunch of nonsense?

To us, yes.

But you should've gotten that clue already, from his claim that muslims are trying to take over europe, that there is no free speech here or that the left-wing governments act like dictators....

But hey, Hitlers views on jews were utter nonsense as well, and look where that got us.

rvg

04-21-2012, 00:41

...that there is no free speech here...

At least he got this part right.

a completely inoffensive name

04-21-2012, 00:45

To us, yes.

But you should've gotten that clue already, from his claim that muslims are trying to take over europe, that there is no free speech here or that the left-wing governments act like dictators....

But hey, Hitlers views on jews were utter nonsense as well, and look where that got us.

Well it just all seems to prove what I am saying. He has followed rational, logical steps in an inherently illogical based system. One where a wealth liberal democracy that has relatively decent long term wealth management polices has the potential of devolving into a civil war within 30 years.

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

04-21-2012, 00:46

At least he got this part right.

Have you ever been here, to Europe I mean?

Kralizec

04-21-2012, 00:46

That's the plan. I don't have his own words on this, so this is my own thinking, but I believe he believes that the current society will create moderate conservatives, while actions like his will radicalize them. Also, in about 30 years, he believes that a civil war will break out. In this war, his radicalized conservatives will rally the white europeans, and a lot of people will join them.

Just like the Rote Armee Fraktion's spree of abuction and murder unleashed a proletarian revolution in western Germany last century and established a communist society....oh wait

(note: to clarify, I only agree with Fragony insofar that all radicals have a lot in common)

rvg

04-21-2012, 01:02

Have you ever been here, to Europe I mean?

Of course.

Fragony

04-21-2012, 09:04

Multiculturalism in Breivik and his comrades view is the conspiracy by the political elite to destroy european culture by inporting a bunch of muslims. The end goal is complete control over every european, and a europe where no freedoms exist. They see this as a version of communism, hence the term culturalmarxism. The soviet version was economic marxism, ie. the planned economy. ABB believe that western marxists realized that was going to fail, and so chose a different path. They adopted a mixed economy, and instead infiltrated higher education, arts, media and of course politics. Thus, they control everything needed to brainwash the masses.

This is of course all rubbish, taken from thin air. The sane definition of multiculturalism is simply a state where one culture is not given preferential treatment over other cultures.

It is? Why don't you google the Strasbourgh resolutions

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

04-21-2012, 14:47

It is? Why don't you google the Strasbourgh resolutions

There is no "sane" definition of multiculturalism. By definition it frustrates the sort of co-operation required to produce one, it's a useless concept.

Fragony

04-21-2012, 15:00

There is no "sane" definition of multiculturalism. By definition it frustrates the sort of co-operation required to produce one, it's a useless concept.

GWe will see who was right, I expecr it was me

HoreTore

04-21-2012, 20:37

At least he got this part right.

What nonsense. I'll put that statement in the bin using just two examples:

ABB killed 77 people, either a member of or connected to the ruling party. And yet he is under no restrictions when it comes to free speech. He can say what he wants in the trial, assuming it has something to do with the case. No restrictions. He is also allowed to freely communicate with whoever he wants from prison. He can even do interviews. The only thing that will stop a letter to or from him is if he mails plans for new criminal offences. Heck, even the courtroom is open to everyone.

After 22/7, Fjordman had several chronicles published in every single major newspaper. He gave several interviews. No censorship. A lot more space than anyone could've hoped for. Aftenposten, for example, recieves over 30.000 chronicles per year, and can only publish a couple each day, so his access to the media has been extreme.

In short, to say that we have a problem with free speech here is utter rubbish. The reason why certain right-wingers whine and moan is that in addition to their opinions, we also allow opinions they do not hold. Their idea of free speech is a place where only their opinions are legal.

It is? Why don't you google the Strasbourgh resolutions

Yes, it really is just a conspiracy theory. Like all such theories, it's just nonsense.

I blame the human mind. Our brains are made in such a way that we see connections even when there is no connections at all.

He has followed rational, logical steps in an inherently illogical based system.

This is my opinion as well.

Fragony

04-21-2012, 20:46

Classical leftist mistake, can't just decede it isnn't real, it has to be wrong to be tnot true. And it's true, it has all been written down

HoreTore

04-21-2012, 20:51

Classical leftist mistake, can't just decede it isnn't real, it has to be wrong to be tnot true. And it's true, it has all been written down

Sure.

rvg

04-21-2012, 20:52

What nonsense. I'll put that statement in the bin using just two examples:

ABB killed 77 people, either a member of or connected to the ruling party. And yet he is under no restrictions when it comes to free speech. He can say what he wants in the trial, assuming it has something to do with the case. No restrictions. He is also allowed to freely communicate with whoever he wants from prison. He can even do interviews. The only thing that will stop a letter to or from him is if he mails plans for new criminal offences. Heck, even the courtroom is open to everyone. After 22/7, Fjordman had several chronicles published in every single major newspaper. He gave several interviews. No censorship. A lot more space than anyone could've hoped for. Aftenposten, for example, recieves over 30.000 chronicles per year, and can only publish a couple each day, so his access to the media has been extreme.
In short, to say that we have a problem with free speech here is utter rubbish. The reason why certain right-wingers whine and moan is that in addition to their opinions, we also allow opinions they do not hold. Their idea of free speech is a place where only their opinions are legal.

I admit that things in Norway aren't as bad as in, say, Britain, but Norway does have laws against hate speech. If I wanna engaged in some good ole fashioned muslim-bashin' or gay-bashin' I may end up charged. That's not cool. Still, I will definitely admit that things in Norway are markedly better than in some other EU countries.

HoreTore

04-21-2012, 20:59

I admit that things in Norway aren't as bad as in, say, Britain, but Norway does have laws against hate speech. If I wanna engaged in some good ole fashioned muslim-bashin' or gay-bashin' I may end up charged. That's not cool. Still, I will definitely admit that things in Norway are markedly better than in some other EU countries.

While I do not think it was just to punish Tore W. Tvedt for saying that Jews are parasites we need to cleanse ourselves of, I do not see that it's fair to say that we have "no free speech" because of it. In fact, I still believe that people saying that are slightly deranged.

The same goes for the situation in Britain. While they also may have laws I do not like, there is no way I can say that there is no free speech in Britain. Of course there is free speech in Britain.

If you want to see real concerns for the freedom of speech, take a look at the wave of anti-gay laws the Russosphere just invented. It's now illegal to speak positively about gay people in St. Petersburg and Belorussia, with Ukraine among those considering it.

rvg

04-21-2012, 21:06

While I do not think it was just to punish Tore W. Tvedt for saying that Jews are parasites we need to cleanse ourselves of, I do not see that it's fair to say that we have "no free speech" because of it. In fact, I still believe that people saying that are slightly deranged. The same goes for the situation in Britain. While they also may have laws I do not like, there is no way I can say that there is no free speech in Britain. Of course there is free speech in Britain.
My problem is this: a country that calls itself free and prides itself on its freedom punishes a person for expressing an opinion. Yes, it's a stupid and hateful opinion, but if we start to criminalize stupidity, we'll be in serious trouble. This is a dangerous precedent, because today hate speech may be defined narrowly, while tomorrow its definition might widen. Western society owes its success to freedom of expression. This is what makes us great, we shouldn't just toss it away for the sake of preserving someone's precious feelings.

If you want to see real concerns for the freedom of speech, take a look at the wave of anti-gay laws the Russosphere just invented. It's now illegal to speak positively about gay people in St. Petersburg and Belorussia, with Ukraine among those considering it.
Yeah, but words "freedom" and "Russosphere" are mutually exclusive anyway.

HoreTore

04-21-2012, 21:20

My problem is this: a country that calls itself free and prides itself on its freedom punishes a person for expressing an opinion. Yes, it's a stupid and hateful opinion, but if we start to criminalize stupidity, we'll be in serious trouble. This is a dangerous precedent, because today hate speech may be defined narrowly, while tomorrow its definition might widen. Western society owes its success to freedom of expression. This is what makes us great, we shouldn't just toss it away for the sake of preserving someone's precious feelings.

Yeah, but words "freedom" and "Russosphere" are mutually exclusive anyway.

I agree, but don't confuse things. If we owe our success to free speech, then that would mean that law against hatespeech is no problem at all, since we have never had as much free speech as we do now. Whatever laws we have now, there have never been a time when we had fewer of them.

rvg

04-21-2012, 21:49

I agree, but don't confuse things. If we owe our success to free speech, then that would mean that law against hatespeech is no problem at all, since we have never had as much free speech as we do now. Whatever laws we have now, there have never been a time when we had fewer of them.

Perhaps it's just my American perspective speaking. We take for granted our ability to deny Holocaust, blaspheme against any and every religion, burn holy books and insult people of all races and ethnicities with absolutely no fear of legal repercussions. Anything less seems....oppressive.

a completely inoffensive name

04-21-2012, 21:52

Perhaps it's just my American perspective speaking. We take for granted our ability to deny Holocaust, blaspheme against any and every religion, burn holy books and insult people of all races and ethnicities with absolutely no fear of legal repercussions. Anything less seems....oppressive.

Then why can't I yell fire in crowded movie theater? America has already been stripped of its freedom as well.

HoreTore

04-21-2012, 21:59

Perhaps it's just my American perspective speaking. We take for granted our ability to deny Holocaust, blaspheme against any and every religion, burn holy books and insult people of all races and ethnicities with absolutely no fear of legal repercussions. Anything less seems....oppressive.

And yet you too have had your fair share of laws against free speech.

Montmorency

04-21-2012, 22:00

Then why can't I yell fire in crowded movie theater? America has already been stripped of its freedom as well.

Private property.

rvg

04-21-2012, 22:03

Then why can't I yell fire in crowded movie theater? America has already been stripped of its freedom as well.
Because it puts people in direct danger.

rvg

04-21-2012, 22:06

And yet you too have had your fair share of laws against free speech.
We don't. The only kind of speech that is not protected by the First Amendment is libel (which allows your target to sue you for defamation) and speech that puts people in danger, such as calls for a violent of overthrow the government. One oddball law is that you can't directly threaten to kill the president.

that's it.

HoreTore

04-21-2012, 22:15

Yeah, you have.

For example, one of the most famed defenses of free speech was written by a US supreme court judge during ww1 in a case against a couple of commies. He was the dissenting opinion, and the two commies were punished for speaking out against the draft.

But then again, free speech can be stopped by forces other than the government. Censorship is done and has been done by several other agents. Like "lists of naughty words" and other such guidelines US media has lived under(and ours as well, of course).

rvg

04-21-2012, 22:23

HoreTore

04-21-2012, 22:25

That law was overturned back in 1969.

Read my posta again and pay special attention to the conjugation ~;)

(did I use conjugate correctly btw? Just learned the word! :p)

Edit: and a man like Breivik wouldn't even be allowed to vote in the US ~;)

rvg

04-21-2012, 22:30

Read my posta again and pay special attention to the conjugation ~;)

(did I use conjugate correctly btw? Just learned the word! :p)

The naughty word list only applies to a few public and basic cable channels. Anything you want, naughty words, porn, whatever can be found on premium channels, you just have to subscribe to them.

HoreTore

04-21-2012, 22:33

The naughty word list only applies to a few public and basic cable channels. Anything you want, naughty words, porn, whatever can be found on premium channels, you just have to subscribe to them.

"And yet you too have had your fair share of laws against free speech."

I bolded the relevant part for you ~;)

rvg

04-21-2012, 22:37

"And yet you too have had your fair share of laws against free speech." I bolded the relevant part for you ~;)

Thanks, I needed that. Yes, you are of course correct, but we did nip the problem in the bud.

HoreTore

04-21-2012, 22:50

On the whole, I'd say the western world is equal when it comes to freedom of speech. Americans may lament our laws against hate speech, while we euros may whine and moan about US prisoners losing their right to vote.

Cultural differences, I'd say.

rvg

04-21-2012, 23:17

a completely inoffensive name

04-22-2012, 01:30

Private property.

What if the movie theater is chill with it? I know a couple of laid back dudes....

Because it puts people in direct danger.

Yeah I am sure someone can come up with a convincing argument why hate speech does as well.

Point was that your claim was ridiculous. Every country has their limits and a rationale on why those limits exist. Just because you disagree doesn't mean you can claim they have no free speech.

rvg

04-22-2012, 01:52

Yeah I am sure someone can come up with a convincing argument why hate speech does as well. Point was that your claim was ridiculous. Every country has their limits and a rationale on why those limits exist. Just because you disagree doesn't mean you can claim they have no free speech.

No, I think your strawman needs more straw.

a completely inoffensive name

04-22-2012, 02:35

No, I think your strawman needs more straw.

Oh yes, when HoreTore makes the point it's "perhaps", when I make the point it's a strawman.

Continue defending an absurd statement. I feel very bad for all the Europeans who have to live under such tyranny which you have very clearly exposed.

rvg

04-22-2012, 02:39

Oh yes, when HoreTore makes the point it's "perhaps", when I make the point it's a strawman.

Continue defending an absurd statement. I feel very bad for all the Europeans who have to live under such tyranny which you have very clearly exposed.

Horetore actually puts together a coherent counterargument. Yours is akin to doubting God's omnipotence because he cannot create an immovable object.

Sasaki Kojiro

04-22-2012, 03:13

a completely inoffensive name

04-22-2012, 03:27

But the hate speech laws are horrible. I don't get it acin. Where are the convincing rationales you refer to?

All this felons movie theaters ancient history bad words bleeped out stuff is irrelevant.

I don't live in Europe and I don't have the judicial rulings from European countries on me. Besides, whats convincing for one person is not convincing for another. I have heard people complain about the fire in the movie theater rationale saying that simply shouting there is a fire doesn't put people in danger, individuals panicking and trampling others does.

When it comes to degrees of free speech it's easy to paint with broad strokes what countries are relatively free and what countries are not. Getting into specifics of "you can't say this therefore I am more free. I can't say this but it hurts people to say it so I am still freer despite despite being banned from saying such things." is not really a water proof argument.

Sasaki Kojiro

04-22-2012, 03:55

I don't live in Europe and I don't have the judicial rulings from European countries on me. Besides, whats convincing for one person is not convincing for another. I have heard people complain about the fire in the movie theater rationale saying that simply shouting there is a fire doesn't put people in danger, individuals panicking and trampling others does.

You're killing me. So the law doesn't effect you. So some people don't find it convincingly bad. So some people complain about the fire deal. SO WHAT?

When it comes to degrees of free speech it's easy to paint with broad strokes what countries are relatively free and what countries are not. Getting into specifics of "you can't say this therefore I am more free. I can't say this but it hurts people to say it so I am still freer despite despite being banned from saying such things." is not really a water proof argument.

Are you really just objecting to bragging, and not arguing about whether imposing heavy fines on people for "denigrating religion" is terrible?

I wish our culture would accept bragging and start hating on people who self-deprecate instead.

a completely inoffensive name

04-22-2012, 04:02

You're killing me. So the law doesn't effect you. So some people don't find it convincingly bad. So some people complain about the fire deal. SO WHAT?
What is your argument here?

Are you really just objecting to bragging, and not arguing about whether imposing heavy fines on people for "denigrating religion" is terrible?
I am saying attempts to quantify freedom is a load of garbage. RVG made a dumb blanket statement of "hurr durr, we americans are freer than you euros". And all you are doing is defending it by saying "look at what a terrible law they have!". Because the US doesn't have it's fair share of dumb laws.

Bragging and other obnoxiousness breeds stagnation, humility breeds constructive discourse.

I wish our culture would accept bragging and start hating on people who self-deprecate instead.

Our American culture seems to be perfectly fine with bragging about itself. It's obnoxious enough. Maybe you are sick of your negative nancy professors, but they are not the culture at large.

Sasaki Kojiro

04-22-2012, 04:31

What is your argument here?

You don't find it convincing? Well some people might. :mellow:

I am saying attempts to quantify freedom is a load of garbage. RVG made a dumb blanket statement of "hurr durr, we americans are freer than you euros". And all you are doing is defending it by saying "look at what a terrible law they have!". Because the US doesn't have it's fair share of dumb laws.

Imagine being fined thousands of dollars for what you just said.

Bragging and other obnoxiousness breeds stagnation, humility breeds constructive discourse.

Our American culture seems to be perfectly fine with bragging about itself. It's obnoxious enough. Maybe you are sick of your negative nancy professors, but they are not the culture at large.

Yeah this is really what it's all about.

If someone brags just leave it. They exaggerate? So what. I'm glad many Americans brag, I wish the rest of them would not make a fuss about it. I don't get the mentality at all. If it's something you'd object to regardless of their tone then object to it. I mean, I can imagine objecting to rvg by saying "don't kid yourself, our laws are unquestionably better, but our social environment is far too toxic towards serious debate about this stuff, you won't get fined for saying it but you will get fired". But it's not inherently offensive to brag.

We shouldn't reflexively reward people who say that they suck and criticize people who claim quality. It's a form of radical leveling, egalitarianism gone wild.

We would be scratching away at dirt farms to this day if we were humble rather than agonistic. Bragging does the opposite of breed stagnation, it incites other people to make a counter argument. Humility and "well we each have our own fair share etc" is the true conversation killer.

Sasaki Kojiro

04-22-2012, 04:48

Humility is the most important virtue we should all strive for. The more capable you are, the more important that becomes. It amazes me that we've got such a strong christian background in this country and people can't even appreciate modesty.

Ah, I'm judging now. Shouldn't do that either. :book2:

It's not the most important virtue. Generally it's just a precondition for virtue--you need the realization of your own defects to correct them and so on. That's the problem with praising people for going about being humble about something specific. If they admit, say, that they are ignorant about X, it's bad that their ignorant and it's bad if they aren't going to learn about it (assuming X is something worthwhile).

a completely inoffensive name

04-22-2012, 05:18

Imagine being fined thousands of dollars for what you just said.
Yeah that's bad. About as bad as being deported to Guantanamo Bay like GC suggested. About as bad as being an 85 year old grandma who has to be physically groped because her metal hip set off the detector.

We got problems, they got problems. We both need to work on improving ourselves, not measuring what little carrots we still have.

If someone brags just leave it. They exaggerate? So what. I'm glad many Americans brag, I wish the rest of them would not make a fuss about it. I don't get the mentality at all. If it's something you'd object to regardless of their tone then object to it. I mean, I can imagine objecting to rvg by saying "don't kid yourself, our laws are unquestionably better, but our social environment is far too toxic towards serious debate about this stuff, you won't get fined for saying it but you will get fired". But it's not inherently offensive to brag.

We shouldn't reflexively reward people who say that they suck and criticize people who claim quality. It's a form of radical leveling, egalitarianism gone wild.

We would be scratching away at dirt farms to this day if we were humble rather than agonistic. Bragging does the opposite of breed stagnation, it incites other people to make a counter argument. Humility and "well we each have our own fair share etc" is the true conversation killer.

You are arguing against a position I never made. I countered RVG's claim because I think it is a wrong statement not because I am trying to pretend everyone is equal. Merely that our typical standards of judgement are really dumb.

You seem to have confused what bragging and confidence is. Confidence brings about counter arguments, bragging is just Football Jock chest thumping.

Remember: "America, love it or leave it!" Yeah, it's arrogance taken to its extreme where people will reject the American-ness of someone if they disagree with its policies.

I reject the "we each have our own fair share" argument and I will agree that that does kill many conversations. But I also reject rampant patriotism because that is just as toxic to the health of a country than egalitarian gone wild. History proves both cases.

Sasaki Kojiro

04-22-2012, 05:37

Yeah that's bad. About as bad as being deported to Guantanamo Bay like GC suggested.

Criticism rejected--people are starving to death in africa.

About as bad as being an 85 year old grandma who has to be physically groped because her metal hip set off the detector.

Criticism rejected--women are stoned to death in iran. Isn't this pointless?

We got problems, they got problems. We both need to work on improving ourselves, not measuring what little carrots we still have.

You are arguing against a position I never made. I countered RVG's claim because I think it is a wrong statement not because I am trying to pretend everyone is equal. Merely that our typical standards of judgement are really dumb.

No you aren't. He's right that the hate speech laws are terrible, and the exaggeration to "you have no free speech" is completely unremarkable. You're objection is to what you say it is here:

You seem to have confused what bragging and confidence is. Confidence brings about counter arguments, bragging is just Football Jock chest thumping.

Remember: "America, love it or leave it!" Yeah, it's arrogance taken to its extreme where people will reject the American-ness of someone if they disagree with its policies.

I reject the "we each have our own fair share" argument and I will agree that that does kill many conversations. But I also reject rampant patriotism because that is just as toxic to the health of a country than egalitarian gone wild. History proves both cases.

What on earth is wrong with football jock chest thumping? And that's not the definition of confidence anyway.

We vastly overrate humility (probably because of our religious background) and are far too averse to bragging in our culture. People will attack someone for saying the simple truth about themselves or for exaggerating. It leads directly to the hamfisted "log in your own eye" kind of thinking. Neither hypocrisy nor bragging are the sins they are made out to be.

a completely inoffensive name

04-22-2012, 06:05

Criticism rejected--people are starving to death in africa.
Criticism rejected--women are stoned to death in iran. Isn't this pointless?

Yeah, thanks for proving my point. Simply pulling out things that are bad about a country is a dumb way of making a point. Hence, why I opposed RVG's statement.

No you aren't. He's right that the hate speech laws are terrible, and the exaggeration to "you have no free speech" is completely unremarkable.
Did you even read what RVG said.

At least he got this part right. Referring to Breivik's statement about there being no free speech. Only when called on it did he say, "Well there are some stupid hate speech laws I don't like."
Oh what a wonderful argument. Yep, that means Europe definitely is the monster that our massacring sociopath (Breivik) claims it is.

What on earth is wrong with football jock chest thumping? And that's not the definition of confidence anyway.
When the country is treated as a football game with get dysfunctional policies, dysfunctional politicians, dysfunctional country. Root for your team R or D and don't give them an inch, otherwise we might have to use our system of governance properly and make compromises.

We vastly overrate humility (probably because of our religious background) and are far too averse to bragging in our culture. People will attack someone for saying the simple truth about themselves or for exaggerating. It leads directly to the hamfisted "log in your own eye" kind of thinking. Neither hypocrisy nor bragging are the sins they are made out to be.

And of course history proves you right. When countries experience extreme nationalism marvelous things happen. From the US empire being drained from two wars to the constructive decades of the early 20th century in Europe.

Sasaki Kojiro

04-22-2012, 06:36

When the country is treated as a football game with get dysfunctional policies, dysfunctional politicians, dysfunctional country. Root for your team R or D and don't give them an inch, otherwise we might have to use our system of governance properly and make compromises.

I meant literally, what's wrong with chest thumping by an athlete?

And of course history proves you right. When countries experience extreme nationalism marvelous things happen. From the US empire being drained from two wars to the constructive decades of the early 20th century in Europe.

Patriotism has often been a very positive force in history. Who is talking about extreme nationalism?

Yeah, thanks for proving my point. Simply pulling out things that are bad about a country is a dumb way of making a point. Hence, why I opposed RVG's statement.

Did you even read what RVG said.
Referring to Breivik's statement about there being no free speech. Only when called on it did he say, "Well there are some stupid hate speech laws I don't like."
Oh what a wonderful argument. Yep, that means Europe definitely is the monster that our massacring sociopath (Breivik) claims it is.

This is just your aversion biasing you. Europe's hate speech is very worth criticizing. An exaggeration is not worth mentioning, let alone equating with extreme nationalism and "dysfunctional everything".

"...no freedom of speech" --breivek
"at least he got that right"--rvg
*talk about Europe's hate speech laws*

Why would it be more complicated than that.

a completely inoffensive name

04-22-2012, 07:05

I meant literally, what's wrong with chest thumping by an athlete?
Oh. Well, nothing really if the athlete did something awesome. I don't really like that NFL touchdown celebration penalty because the creativity of the players makes me laugh.

Patriotism has often been a very positive force in history. Who is talking about extreme nationalism?
Idk, who is talking about extreme egalitarianism?

This is just your aversion biasing you. Europe's hate speech is very worth criticizing. An exaggeration is not worth mentioning, let alone equating with extreme nationalism and "dysfunctional everything".

"...no freedom of speech" --breivek
"at least he got that right"--rvg
*talk about Europe's hate speech laws*

Why would it be more complicated than that.

Because how do you go from a vague statement about no free speech to discussing details until the discussion has already been mucked up such as Europeans that respond with their own vague counter statements "Have you ever been to Europe?".

The way a question or statement is presented is one of the biggest factors in how constructive a discussion about an important subject can be. I can go through the backroom and find examples, most of them probably Vuk's. Coming from a state of bragging only serves to hinder what could be.

Sasaki Kojiro

04-22-2012, 07:31

Idk, who is talking about extreme egalitarianism?

Me, because I want to talk about why chest-thumping or bragging would be seen as so intolerable that it has to be attacked and hypocrisy has to be suggested. I think the Christian concept of humility and pride is backwards and that the conception is still too pervasive in our society. It should not be seen as sinful to claim superiority, even when the claim is exaggerated or silly. It should be seen as shameful to cheerfully claim inferiority or mediocrity.

And this comes up in country debates all the time too. Liberals need to ditch their aversion to expressions of patriotism, and quit with the retarded "yeah, I'm going to sew a Canada tag on my backpack when I go to Europe" type stuff. Remember, patriotism is not nationalism. Pride is not arrogance. A realistic view of a flaw is supposed to be a spur for change not an ornament to show how enlightened and humble you are.

Fragony

04-22-2012, 07:42

We Dutch have many good qualities, subtlety isn't one of them. That is good I say, the mood is much better here. Immigrants have gotten used to our bluntness. Scandinavian countries are still thought-police states that imprint to worship multiculture. Bit like us in the eighties. Same mistakes, especially Sweden is absolutely stubborn in it's wishfull thinking. But there is a difference, we got Geert Wilders who sometimes almost crosses the line of what's acceptable, Scandinavia got Breivik who went on a rampage

rvg

04-22-2012, 13:10

Did you even read what RVG said. Referring to Breivik's statement about there being no free speech. Only when called on it did he say, "Well there are some stupid hate speech laws I don't like."
That's very significant actually. It basically amount to suppression of dissent, and it's a big problem. If you personally have no problem with it, that's okay. Doesn't mean that I can't have a problem with it or bring it up.

Yep, that means Europe definitely is the monster that our massacring sociopath (Breivik) claims it is.
This is your extrapolation, not mine. Let's stick to stuff that I actually typed, shall we?

When the country is treated as a football game with get dysfunctional policies, dysfunctional politicians, dysfunctional country. Root for your team R or D and don't give them an inch, otherwise we might have to use our system of governance properly and make compromises. This isn't a football game. Nor are we talking about a rival or an enemy. It's pointing out to a friend that they have a problem, even if they don't know it yet. It's a two way street, and people here criticize America quite often. I do not have a problem with that, but in turn reserve a right to do the same. It's not done out of retaliation but rather out of genuine concern. Freedom of speech is easy to dismiss while you still have it, once it's gone, that's when you realize just how important it is.

And of course history proves you right. When countries experience extreme nationalism marvelous things happen. From the US empire being drained from two wars to the constructive decades of the early 20th century in Europe.Extreme nationalism? This is absolutely ridiculous, you're just throwing around epithets with nothing to back them up.

Viking

04-22-2012, 14:15

Scandinavian countries are still thought-police states

On the contrary, the Norwegian public sphere is highly pluralistic and Breivik is just part of the full spectrum.

Fragony

04-22-2012, 17:17

On the contrary, the Norwegian public sphere is highly pluralistic and Breivik is just part of the full spectrum.

Sure but I kinda doubt you don't understand what I'm talking about, political correctness is what caused these deaths. In the most complicated way.

Viking

04-22-2012, 17:56

Hardly. Apart from an obsession with the term "cultural marxist" and the violence, Breivik brought little new to the table. Even labour politicians (http://translate.google.com/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&js=n&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&layout=2&eotf=1&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.nrk.no%2Fnyheter%2F1.6522530) have tried to boost popularity by playing on strings of the "Islam problem".

rvg

04-22-2012, 18:37

I don't know about yelling fire in a movie theatre, but I assure you guys that you'll find out just how "free" your speach really is(n't) if you go make a bad joke in airport. You know which one I'm talking about.
Bomb Voyage... Seriously though, how is this a problem? If you go and pretend to rob a bank, you'll get cops called on you. If you flat out tell a TSA worker that you have a bomb, why shouldn't they take you seriously? They're doing their job (and probably hating it), and here you come along and make their job more difficult. TSA has many problems, but holding people to their word isn't one of them. You wouldn't get smart with a cop, why be any different at the airport? A bad joke may delay a flight, and at that point if the authorities do nothing, the irate passengers just might take the matter into their own hands.

Heck, if you're really unlucky you'll get sent to Gitmo. I hear they have so much freedom there that they're practically dying from it.
:creep:
Oh please, just give me evidence of one person being sent to Gitmo for an airport joke. Just one.

Tellos Athenaios

04-22-2012, 20:33

Bomb Voyage... Seriously though, how is this a problem? If you go and pretend to rob a bank, you'll get cops called on you. If you flat out tell a TSA worker that you have a bomb, why shouldn't they take you seriously? They're doing their job (and probably hating it), and here you come along and make their job more difficult. TSA has many problems, but holding people to their word isn't one of them. You wouldn't get smart with a cop, why be any different at the airport? A bad joke may delay a flight, and at that point if the authorities do nothing, the irate passengers just might take the matter into their own hands.

Not if you're intending to visit LA: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/01/30/tweet_deportation/

rvg

04-22-2012, 21:30

Not if you're intending to visit LA: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/01/30/tweet_deportation/

So, what's the problem?

Tellos Athenaios

04-22-2012, 21:38

Quick, gather round: here's a case of a SEP field in action people!

rvg

04-22-2012, 22:08

Funny thing about Gitmo is that you don't really know who's there, or why, or for how long. That's kind of the point.

But you're right, you'd have to be a total idiot to yell bomb in an airport and you probably wouldn't go to Gitmo--but you would land on a no-fly list and your entire life would be turned upside down. Is that fair? Maybe. Either way, it goes to show that your speech isn't really free. Truly free speech would require a nation full of people who were capable of not taking things personally, and that's something we don't have anyway.
It's not about taking things personally. People may act on emotions, governments do not (with the exception of despotic regimes like North Korea). As for your life being ruined if you put a show at an airport: nobody is required to deal with you. The society at large owes you nothing. That does not jeopardize your freedom in any way. Suppose you end up on a no-fly list, there are other ways of getting to your destination. If you want to fly, don't do stupid things at the airport. If you insist on that course of action, that's okay, but nobody is obligated to accommodate you.

Sasaki Kojiro

04-22-2012, 22:44

Either way, it goes to show that your speech isn't really free. Truly free speech would require a nation full of people who were capable of not taking things personally, and that's something we don't have anyway.

In that case ruly free speech would require people incapable of being offended or reacting negatively to anything that anyone said, then. And to have true free will would require omnipotence. And I suppose we couldn't have free speech without free will.

That's just not what free means. Although I agree that we should often be more worried about social restrictions than about legal ones, you can't really argue that social restrictions are inherently bad. You're placing too much value on "true freedom". Saying we don't have "truly free" something is not by itself a cause for concern.

I think this conversation is far too abstract and all we have to do is look at the specifics of what we're talking about here.

Avoiding the sentiments that come into play when we have the words "free" "truly free" "free speech" etc floating around in our heads, we are comparing someone getting fined thousands of dollars for "denigrating a religion" to someone causing a panic for no reason.

HoreTore

04-22-2012, 23:05

This thread has derailed hard.

Sasaki Kojiro

04-22-2012, 23:32

This thread has derailed hard.

If we can't derail a thread, we don't have freedom of speech.

Montmorency

04-22-2012, 23:47

If we can't derail a thread, we don't have freedom of speech.

Private property.

rvg

04-23-2012, 04:28

Are you familiar with all the ways you can land on a no-fly list? I was on one during active military service because of something my step-father did in the '70s. It was very hard to get off it.

The difficulty associated with getting off the list is irrelevant for the purposes of this discussion. As for you ending up on it, I presume it was a mistake and has since been rectified. Sadly, mistakes occur under any system. As long as there are humans making decisions, mistakes will be made. It is inevitable.

Fragony

04-23-2012, 10:19

This thread has derailed hard.

Nope, it's firmly on rails, you just don't like where it's heading. You simply cannot disregard genuine concerns. The great burden is a wreckball, the house you want to sell will not be bought, as nobody wants to buy it. Building an extra one won't help, people will still buy somewhere else. It's a maelstrom of destroying capital and all it leaves are ghettos

HoreTore

04-23-2012, 10:25

Nope, it's firmly on rails, you just don't like where it's heading. You simply cannot disregard genuine concerns. The great burden is a wreckball, the house you want to sell will not be bought, as nobody wants to buy it. Building an extra one won't help, people will still buy somewhere else. It's a maelstrom of destroying capital and all it leaves are ghettos

Nonsense. I haven't even read page 7 beyond the first three posts. Right-wing paranoid accusations fail again.

It may be an interesting discussion, but perhaps it is better explored in its own thread? There are plenty of new things in the trial people might want to discuss, and this would be the place to do it...

Fragony

04-23-2012, 11:01

Nonsense. I haven't even read page 7 beyond the first three posts. Right-wing paranoid accusations fail again.

It may be an interesting discussion, but perhaps it is better explored in its own thread? There are plenty of new things in the trial people might want to discuss, and this would be the place to do it...

It isn't that much of a thought experiment that importing people who can't read or write is not good for the economy. Solid numbers, the great burden costs us 8.000.000.000 a year.

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

04-23-2012, 11:04

Do you consider a law-tradition dating back to the viking age as "leftist"...?

The concept is present in Anglo-Saxon Law in exactly the same way, we call it Mens Rea, the the "Guilty mind".

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

I don't know how the issue is dealt with in Roman Law, you would need to ask a Frenchman.

In any case, Breivik clearly has a Guilty Mind, so I think the question is moot - the man is clearly sane and rational, declaring him otherwise actually sets a disturbing precedent about who is and is not sane.

HoreTore

04-23-2012, 11:21

It isn't that much of a thought experiment that importing people who can't read or write is not good for the economy. Solid numbers, the great burden costs us 8.000.000.000 a year.

...And that has what relevance to a discussion of free speech differences between the US and Europe?

The concept is present in Anglo-Saxon Law in exactly the same way, we call it Mens Rea, the the "Guilty mind".

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

I don't know how the issue is dealt with in Roman Law, you would need to ask a Frenchman.

In any case, Breivik clearly has a Guilty Mind, so I think the question is moot - the man is clearly sane and rational, declaring him otherwise actually sets a disturbing precedent about who is and is not sane.

And needless to say, it's handled differently in Norwegian law, hence the need for a trial to determine it.

Fragony

04-23-2012, 11:36

...And that has what relevance to a discussion of free speech differences between the US and Europe?

Nothing and everything. It's simple, multiculture is a faillure. Lefties don't like that because things aren't supposed to be like that, and instead of allowing any doubt they unite in silence over very real problems and mentally block the world.

You are wrong get over it.

Viking

04-23-2012, 11:51

In that case ruly free speech would require people incapable of being offended or reacting negatively to anything that anyone said, then. And to have true free will would require omnipotence. And I suppose we couldn't have free speech without free will.

That's just not what free means. Although I agree that we should often be more worried about social restrictions than about legal ones, you can't really argue that social restrictions are inherently bad. You're placing too much value on "true freedom". Saying we don't have "truly free" something is not by itself a cause for concern.

I think this conversation is far too abstract and all we have to do is look at the specifics of what we're talking about here.

Avoiding the sentiments that come into play when we have the words "free" "truly free" "free speech" etc floating around in our heads, we are comparing someone getting fined thousands of dollars for "denigrating a religion" to someone causing a panic for no reason.

It was rvg who first talked about freedom [of speech] as an absolute; a formulation which you defended agains ACIN, and now you are slamming GC for exactly the same thing.

---

I was reading a Norwegian commentary published two days ago titled The price of racism (http://translate.google.com/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&js=n&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&layout=2&eotf=1&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.aftenposten.no%2Fmeninger%2Fkronikker%2FRasismens-pris-6811286.html%23.T5UsHavrqSp). Essentially, it is a story about a Filipino that was adopted to Norway and experienced a lot of racism, and, related or not, ended up killing himself.

This bit is fine, grave injustice was made. But the big problem is that the author naively keeps connecting the racism to fascism, and to the likes of ABB. With the demographic development that is going on in the capital, it seems inevitable that white people will experience trouble/get unwanted attention because of their ethnicity. This is precisely why ABB went on his rampage, the alienation of ethnical Norwegians in parts on the capital. The author is completely out of touch with the new reality - and not surprisingly, the author comes from nowhere near Oslo, but from a different part of the country.

This (http://translate.google.com/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&js=n&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&layout=2&eotf=1&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.nrk.no%2Fnyheter%2Fdistrikt%2Fostlandssendingen%2F1.7165491) is the new reality for Oslo (from 2010):

In some Oslo schools there will this autumn be very few pupils with an ethnically Norwegian backgorund, if any at all.

- We are likely to get 75 pupils for first grade, all of them multicultural, says principal of Mortensrud School, Leif Arne Eggen.

Far between Norwegian pupils

Similar conditions hold true for Tøyen School, says principal Tor Helgesen:

- Today, we only have one [ethnic Norwegian pupil for first grade] that we are certain of.

Rommen School in Groruddalen are also among the schools that expect only one Norwegian pupil for the first grade this autumn.

So, I am really provocated by the commentary, but not for the reasons that the author intended. The ignorance is staggering.

rvg

04-23-2012, 13:10

It was rvg who first talked about freedom [of speech] as an absolute;
I did? Where?

Viking

04-23-2012, 16:57

Here (https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?140695-The-trial-of-Anders-Behring-Breivik&p=2053442325&viewfull=1#post2053442325):

...that there is no free speech here...At least he got this part right.

rvg

04-23-2012, 17:32

Here (https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?140695-The-trial-of-Anders-Behring-Breivik&p=2053442325&viewfull=1#post2053442325):

I don't see any mention of absolutes in there...

Viking

04-23-2012, 20:48

If all it takes to go from "is" to "is not" is the absence of a single criterion that is not more vital to the definition of the concept than any other criterion, then the concept must necessarily have an absolute nature, as the absence of any other criterion would also yield the same result.

rvg

04-23-2012, 21:28

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

04-23-2012, 23:19

And needless to say, it's handled differently in Norwegian law, hence the need for a trial to determine it.

Uh, we have a trial too, unless he's, you know, claiming to be Jesus.

ICantSpellDawg

04-24-2012, 01:12

In a world where right and wrong is just the passing fancy of a plurality of people, I can't fault a guy like Breivik for doing what he did. It's alot more interesting than playing soccer; it think this is an objective statement.

Right or wrong, we each have an interest in stopping people from doing things like this, but we have to understand why they might.

Jolt

04-24-2012, 06:15

The concept is present in Anglo-Saxon Law in exactly the same way, we call it Mens Rea, the the "Guilty mind".

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

I don't know how the issue is dealt with in Roman Law, you would need to ask a Frenchman.

In any case, Breivik clearly has a Guilty Mind, so I think the question is moot - the man is clearly sane and rational, declaring him otherwise actually sets a disturbing precedent about who is and is not sane.

It is the same thing. It's called "Dolo" in Portuguese, "Dolus" in Latin. It can be translated to intention. In a simplified manner, if the criminal had Dolus in his action, then he is guilty. Whereas if it was a negligent crime, then there is no Dolus.

Viking

04-24-2012, 08:32

What if it is more vital, then what?

If that criterion was particularly vital to the definition, it would be a highly non-standard definition.

rvg

04-24-2012, 12:54

If that criterion was particularly vital to the definition, it would be a highly non-standard definition.

How so?

Viking

04-24-2012, 15:02

https://img403.imageshack.us/img403/4730/gwhcok0xlqjdq4z3pydgg1k.jpg

CCTV images from the bomb blast shown in court today (source (http://nrk.no/227/dag-for-dag/slik-sa-eksplosjonen-ut-1.8096364), including video of the controlled detonation of a replica; slow-mo eye candy (http://www.nrk.no/video/rekonstruksjon_av_bomben_med_hoyhastighetskamera/B870957B41998F07/))
The bomb had an estimated effect equivalent to 400-700 kg TNT. In comparison, the Oklahoma bomb had an effect of somewhere around 2000 kg TNT (source in "pounds" (http://www.fema.gov/rebuild/mat/mat_fema277.shtm))

How so?

The average definition of free speech does not include hatred or wishing other people's death in particular. It is just one of many topics related to freedom of speech. At the core of freedom of speech is simply a person's ability to express himself without getting detained by the state. The less he can say without getting detained, the less freedom of speech he has. "No freedom of speech" is virtually impossible with this definition - even in North Korea, you can at least talk about the weather and what you think about it.

If person A tells person B to kill person C, person A can invoke freedom of speech as his words did no direct harm; and logically, he should have a stronger case than one that wishes indviduals dead as part of a demonstration, as the latter can cause the target to feel unsafe and thus suffer (particularly if repeated often), whereas person A do not intend his words to reach person C, and most likely, they will not.

rvg

04-24-2012, 15:12

The average definition of free speech does not include hatred or wishing other people's death in particular.
Says who?

It is just one of many topics related to freedom of speech. At the core of freedom of speech is simply a person's ability to express himself without getting detained by the state. The less he can say without getting detained, the less freedom of speech he has.
And the ability to freely express an opinion that runs contrary to the establishment is pretty damn important. No regime, no matter how repressive will ever penalize anyone for agreeing with its policies. That spectrum of opinion is useless when assessing freedom of speech.

"No freedom of speech" is virtually impossible with this definition - even in North Korea, you can at least talk about the weather and what you think about it.So according to your definition, freedom of speech exists everywhere. I'd say there's a problem with your definition.

Viking

04-24-2012, 15:48

Says who?

Thinking of the various reference works.

And the ability to freely express an opinion that runs contrary to the establishment is pretty damn important. No regime, no matter how repressive will ever penalize anyone for agreeing with its policies. That spectrum of opinion is useless when assessing freedom of speech.

And all topics come in degrees - from calling the president a fool to openly calling for armed revolt against his government.

Considering the endless amount of different topics one can talk about, and the endless amount of different opions you can have for each one of them, being able to say that you agree with the government would per definition add very little to the freedom of speech, but it is a start. The more oppressive regimes do generally not want the average citizen to voice his opinion at all.

So according to your definition, freedom of speech exists everywhere. I'd say there's a problem with your definition.

Not at all, common usage tends to focus on the more extreme ends of whatever topic without this being specified. Firework is as much an explosion as a supernova is, but that does not make the two particulary equivalent. One talks about little and much freedom of speech.

rvg

04-24-2012, 16:00

Thinking of the various reference works.
And?

...being able to say that you agree with the government would per definition add very little to the freedom of speech, but it is a start.
No, it doesn't add a thing to freedom of speech.

The more oppressive regimes do generally not want the average citizen to voice his opinion at all.
This is false. Despotic regimes put on rallies all the time, and at those rallies they expect to hear a confirmation of undying allegiance from the masses. Just look at Syria or Iran. Pro-government rallies are a big deal and very much encouraged.

Not at all, common usage tends to focus on the more extreme ends of whatever topic without this being specified. Firework is as much an explosion as a supernova is, but that does not make the two particulary equivalent.If a fireworks produces the same effect as a supernova, then yes, they are equivalent.

Viking

04-24-2012, 16:24

And?

That's where you will find the most common definitions.

No, it doesn't add a thing to freedom of speech.

Of course it does, you are just taking it for granted.

This is false. Despotic regimes put on rallies all the time, and at those rallies they expect to hear a confirmation of undying allegiance from the masses. Just look at Syria or Iran. Pro-government rallies are a big deal and very much encouraged.

And how much "speech" and how many opinions do they offer at such rallies? What I am having mind, is being able to praise the government without first having to go through censorship, without having to show up at a rally, et cetera. If the only place where you can show your opinon is at government held rallies a few times a year, then obviously you have severe limitiations. If you can write a commentary to a newspaper and have it published tomorrow if you like, then you are much freer.

What oppressive governments know, is that you can use praising to manipulate the public opinion in a manner that is not favourable to the government.

If a fireworks produces the same effect as a supernova, then yes, they are equivalent.

And "the same effect" depends entirely on how you chose to look at it. Exactly because they are at very different parts of the spectrum of explosions, their natures are radically different in most aspects.

rvg

04-24-2012, 16:53

That's where you will find the most common definitions.
Care to show one?

Of course it does, you are just taking it for granted.
Nah. If all you can do is express adoration for the status quo, it's the equivalent of not saying anything.

And how much "speech" and how many opinions do they offer at such rallies? What I am having mind, is being able to praise the government without first having to go through censorship, without having to show up at a rally, et cetera. If the only place where you can show your opinon is at government held rallies a few times a year, then obviously you have severe limitiations. If you can write a commentary to a newspaper and have it published tomorrow if you like, then you are much freer.

What oppressive governments know, is that you can use praising to manipulate the public opinion in a manner that is not favourable to the government.
The difference being that the favorable opinion will likely go through, while the dissenting opinion will land the author in a heap of trouble.

And "the same effect" depends entirely on how you chose to look at it. Exactly because they are at very different parts of the spectrum of explosions, their natures are radically different in most aspects.If either one of the destroys a star system, they are functionally the same.

Viking

04-24-2012, 17:52

Care to show one?

Since I am lazy, I am going to throw in Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech) (Freedom of speech is the political right to communicate one's opinions and ideas via speech); though since you are making a claim as much as I am, the burden of proof lies with you as well.

Nah. If all you can do is express adoration for the status quo, it's the equivalent of not saying anything.

It isn't, you are bringing the attention whatever topic you want ("kudos to government for reducing the infant mortality rate from 998 to 992 per 1000"). Saying "the president has an ugly nose" is not likely to lead to anything at all, so by your thinking, it's no big deal if it becomes illegal to speak ill of the facial features of the president.

What you are saying goes against the core of free speech: to say "whatever" you like. If you were detained for praising the government, you lack one certain aspect of freedom of speech (note that it is not specified who is detaining you). It could be included in the constitution that "thou shalt not talk in a positive manner about the current government", for whatever reason; perhaps to inspire creative thinking.

The difference being that the favorable opinion will likely go through, while the dissenting opinion will land the author in a heap of trouble.

The key is that in undemocratic countries, it is generally harder to voice your opinion, no matter what it is. For instance, the Internet is not available to the average person in North Korea.

If either one of the destroys a star system, they are functionally the same.

The fireworks you can get your hands on will not do that, which happens to be the firworks that I am thinking of.

rvg

04-24-2012, 18:05

Since I am lazy, I am going to throw in Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech) (Freedom of speech is the political right to communicate one's opinions and ideas via speech); though since you are making a claim as much as I am, the burden of proof lies with you as well.
So it says...
"Freedom of speech is the political right to communicate one's opinions and ideas via speech. The term freedom of expression is sometimes used synonymously, but includes any act of seeking, receiving and imparting information or ideas, regardless of the medium used. In practice, the right to freedom of speech is not absolute in any country and the right is commonly subject to limitations, as with libel, slander, obscenity and incitement to commit a crime."

Freedom to communicate an opinion lies in the very definition of freedom of speech. I rest my case.

It isn't, you are bringing the attention whatever topic you want ("kudos to government for reducing the infant mortality rate from 998 to 992 per 1000").
Attention? Perhaps. Wrong kind of attention though. If you can't say that you're disliking something, then saying nothing is the next best thing you can do as opposed to praising it. And freedom to say nothing hardly qualifies as freedom of speech.

Saying "the president has an ugly nose" is not likely to lead to anything at all, so by your thinking, it's no big deal if it becomes illegal to speak ill of the facial features of the president.By my thinking? Not at all. But please elaborate how, I'd be curious to hear.

What you are saying goes against the core of free speech: to say "whatever" you like. If you were detained for praising the government, you lack one certain aspect of freedom of speech (note that it is not specified who is detaining you). It could be included in the constitution that "thou shalt not talk in a positive manner about the current government", for whatever reason; perhaps to inspire creative thinking. Can you provide just one example of this actually happening? Just one example of somebody genuinely praising the government and getting into trouble over that.

The key is that in undemocratic countries, it is generally harder to voice your opinion, no matter what it is. For instance, the Internet is not available to the average person in North Korea.There was no internet back when the Bill of Rights was passed. That did not impede freedom of speech.

The fireworks you can get your hands on will not do that, which happens to be the firworks that I am thinking of. Then perhaps you're defining as fireworks something that shouldn't be defined as such.

Viking

04-24-2012, 18:43

So it says...
"Freedom of speech is the political right to communicate one's opinions and ideas via speech. The term freedom of expression is sometimes used synonymously, but includes any act of seeking, receiving and imparting information or ideas, regardless of the medium used. In practice, the right to freedom of speech is not absolute in any country and the right is commonly subject to limitations, as with libel, slander, obscenity and incitement to commit a crime."

Freedom to communicate an opinion lies in the very definition of freedom of speech. I rest my case.

This is what you intially responded to

The average definition of free speech does not include hatred or wishing other people's death in particular. It is just one of many topics related to freedom of speech.

which is is to say that hate speech is not mentioned in the definition. It is not to say that freedom of speech does not include hate speech; freedom of speech must include any opinion.

Attention? Perhaps. Wrong kind of attention though. If you can't say that you're disliking something, then saying nothing is the next best thing you can do as opposed to praising it.

You are not using you imagination well enough. The negative aspects of the topic does not even have to be known by the general public; the exact aspects that your praising will bring to light. It is also a way of communicating with the government what you'd like them work more on. I could go on.

By my thinking? Not at all. But please elaborate how, I'd be curious to hear.

Because you are assessing the value of the opinions as a method of deciding what is worth protecting with freedom of speech and what is not. This sets a dangerous precedent.

Can you provide just one example of this actually happening? Just one example of somebody genuinely praising the government and getting into trouble over that.

That is completely irrelevant, freedom of speech is a principle.

There was no internet back when the Bill of Rights was passed. I did not impede freedom of speech.

Which is not relevant to sub-topic you are replying to.

Then perhaps you're defining as fireworks something that shouldn't be defined as such.

I see now that you wrote "either one", so I have no clue what you were trying to say. Fire work = small explosion, supernova = big explosion. The West = much freedom of speech, North Korea = very little freedom of speech.

rvg

04-24-2012, 19:06

This is what you intially responded to which is is to say that hate speech is not mentioned in the definition. It is not to say that freedom of speech does not include hate speech; freedom of speech must include any opinion.
And that includes hate speech.

You are not using you imagination well enough. The negative aspects of the topic does not even have to be known by the general public; the exact aspects that your praising will bring to light. It is also a way of communicating with the government what you'd like them work more on. I could go on.
It does not alleviate the problem of you not being able to directly confront the government. If you aren't allowed to say something that is a polar opposite of the official views, then you lack freedom of speech.

Because you are assessing the value of the opinions as a method of deciding what is worth protecting with freedom of speech and what is not. This sets a dangerous precedent. Not the value of the opinion, but whether or not the opinion is a dissenting one. Freedom to agree is meaningless, freedom to dissent is what separates free societies from tyrannies.

That is completely irrelevant, freedom of speech is a principle.
It is very relevant. You are basing your argument on a principle has not been impeded by anybody and likely never will be impeded. If the government is taking away your freedom to disagree, it is automatically pushing on your so called "freedom" to agree. Take any statement, it is either true or false, there is no in between. If the government is taking away your right to say that something is false, that automatically means that it expects you to say that it's true.

Which is not relevant to sub-topic you are replying to.
It's very relevant: after all, you brought up the lack of Internet in North Korea as an argument.

I see now that you wrote "either one", so I have no clue what you were trying to say. Fire work = small explosion, supernova = big explosion. The West = much freedom of speech, North Korea = very little freedom of speech.
Except that it doesn't work like that. It works like this:

FREEDOM_OF_SPEECH = FREE_TO_EXPRESS_ANY_OPINION
SELECT CASE [FREE_TO_EXPRESS_ANY_OPINION]
CASE TRUE
FREEDOM_OF_SPEECH = TRUE
CASE FALSE
FREEDOM_OF_SPEECH = FALSE
END SELECT

Pure and simple.

a completely inoffensive name

04-24-2012, 19:38

If either one of the destroys a star system, they are functionally the same.Supernova create star systems. Without supernova there wouldn't be the heavy elements that the earth and other inner planets are made of.Just a fun science fact for todaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay. -end jingle plays-

Viking

04-24-2012, 20:10

And that includes hate speech.

No more than any other form of speech.

It does not alleviate the problem of you not being able to directly confront the government. If you aren't allowed to say something that is a polar opposite of the official views, then you lack freedom of speech.

You lack total freedom of speech, as you lack anywhere in ther world. The mere presence of other people is problematic for your freedom of speech, as the audience, be it your grandmother or the president, will in effect have an impact on how you should formulate yourself in order to get where you want to.

Freedom to agree is meaningless

That is a completely absurd statement to make. Freedom is being able to do what you want, and if you cannot do what you want, you lack [a] freedom.

It is very relevant. You are basing your argument on a principle has not been impeded by anybody and likely never will be impeded. If the government is taking away your freedom to disagree, it is automatically pushing on your so called "freedom" to agree. Take any statement, it is either true or false, there is no in between. If the government is taking away your right to say that something is false, that automatically means that it expects you to say that it's true.

The principle is freedom of speech, of which being allowed voice your agreement is a tiny, and largely irrelevant, subset.

It's very relevant: after all, you brought up the lack of Internet in North Korea as an argument.

In dicatorship, there are strong restrictions to voice any opinion at all, that is the point. That's where North Korea is a prime example; whether you want to post bad things about the leader online or post something positive about him, you can't, because the government does simply not want the average citizen to express himself.

Except that it doesn't work like that. It works like this:

FREEDOM_OF_SPEECH = FREE_TO_EXPRESS_ANY_OPINION
SELECT CASE [FREE_TO_EXPRESS_ANY_OPINION]
CASE TRUE
FREEDOM_OF_SPEECH = TRUE
CASE FALSE
FREEDOM_OF_SPEECH = FALSE
END SELECT

Pure and simple.

You are not free to express any opinion anywhere in the world, so then there would be no free speech in this world; in no country.

rvg

04-24-2012, 20:28

No more than any other form of speech.
The point is that there's no free speech if hateful opinions are not allowed.

That is a completely absurd statement to make. Freedom is being able to do what you want, and if you cannot do what you want, you lack [a] freedom.
Freedom to agree only matters if you have the freedom to disagree, and vice versa. If you aren't allowed to disagree with something, then your ability to agree with it is worthless.

The principle is freedom of speech, of which being allowed voice your agreement is a tiny, and largely irrelevant, subset.
It's logically impossible to prevent someone from agreeing with something and disagreeing with it at the same time. You can't [not agree] and [not disagree] with a statement all at once. It's an either/or proposition.

In dicatorship, there are strong restrictions to voice any opinion at all, that is the point. That's where North Korea is a prime example; whether you want to post bad things about the leader online or post something positive about him, you can't, because the government does simply not want the average citizen to express himself.Pick up any North Korean newspaper. I bet you'll find a whole bunch of articles praising the latest Kim.

You are not free to express any opinion anywhere in the world, so then there would be no free speech in this world; in no country.
This is utterly false. On American soil I can hold and publicly express any opinion I want.

a completely inoffensive name

04-24-2012, 21:00

This is utterly false. On American soil I can hold and publicly express any opinion I want.

Unless your opinion is that there is a fire in this here movie theater.

Viking

04-24-2012, 21:01

The point is that there's no free speech if hateful opinions are not allowed.

The speech is not completely free. See last reply.

Freedom to agree only matters if you have the freedom to disagree, and vice versa. If you aren't allowed to disagree with something, then your ability to agree with it is worthless.

Not at all, I have already provided how it can be useful.

It's logically impossible to prevent someone from agreeing with something and disagreeing with it at the same time. You can't [not agree] and [not disagree] with a statement all at once. It's an either/or proposition.

I forgot to read the enitre block I was quoiting, here is a proper reply: that you are not allowed to voice your dissenting opinion, does not mean that you have to voice agreement. You can chose to remain silent.

Pick up any North Korean newspaper. I bet you'll find a whole bunch of articles praising the latest Kim.

Written not by your average North Korean citizen.

This is utterly false. On American soil I can hold and publicly express any opinion I want.

You wish. Here (http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/95-815.pdf) is a list.

rvg

04-24-2012, 21:07

Not at all, I have already provided how it can be useful.
Doesn't make it useful.

I forgot to read the enitre block I was quoiting, here is a proper reply: that you are not allowed to voice your dissenting opinion, does not mean that you have to voice agreement. You can chose to remain silent.
So remaining silent is your substitute for free speech? Great.

Written not by your average North Korean citizen.
But cheerfully supported by each and every one of them.

You wish. Here (http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/95-815.pdf) is a list.
Not a single one of these exceptions involves opinions.

rvg

04-24-2012, 21:08

Unless your opinion is that there is a fire in this here movie theater.
You can hold and state that opinion as much as you like.

HoreTore

04-24-2012, 21:08

Can you publicly state that [insert name of random celeb here] had sex with prostitutes dressed as nazi guards in America?

rvg

04-24-2012, 21:10

Can you publicly state that [insert name of random celeb here] had sex with prostitutes dressed as nazi guards in America?

You can state that you think that they screwed some Nazi hookers. That would be an opinion. If you flat out state that they screwed Nazi hookers while they didn't, that'll open you up for a libel lawsuit.

HoreTore

04-24-2012, 21:16

You can state that you think that they screwed some Nazi hookers. That would be an opinion. If you flat out state that they screwed Nazi hookers while they didn't, that'll open you up for a libel lawsuit.

Indeed, and libel is America's way of "censoring free speech". Libel and hate speech lawsare founded on the exact same reasoning, the only difference between the two is that the former is for individuals while the latter is for groups.

Defending one while calling the other horrible sounds strange, to put it nicely.

Do we have to drag out that story about the food critic who was sued for a bad review which was posted here some time ago?

rvg

04-24-2012, 21:21

Defending one while calling the other horrible sounds strange, to put it nicely.

Not at all. Libel law is not the tool of a government. It's there for an individual or an organization to protect themselves against false accusations. If you start publicly saying that I am screwing Nazi prostitutes, the government won't lift a finger to stop you. Neither will anyone else other than myself. I might (and most likely will) choose to do so, and in doing that I will be protecting my personal reputation from lies. I see nothing wrong with this picture.

Ironside

04-24-2012, 21:25