Anders Behring Breivik's murderous rampage should not be used as a political football
Frank Furedi rightly notes that many on both sides of politics are seeking to use the recent Norway tragedy to score political points:
Competing views about the tragic loss of lives in Norway are often informed by the speaker’s political interpretation of the problems facing European society. Those who regard radical Islam as the problem could often barely conceal disappointment that the perpetrator of this act of terror was not a hardened jihadist terrorist. In turn, advocates of multiculturalism went to great lengths to remind their audience that this was the deed of a blond, white right-wing Christian fundamentalist. In Europe, where one person’s fear of home-grown terrorism is dismissed by another as an expression of Islamophobia and where culture contact can be described as multiculturalism or an invasion of foreigners, the interpretation of Anders Behring Breivik’s murderous behaviour is often driven by concerns that have little to do with this episode.
Almost immediately, the blame game acquired grotesque proportions. Glenn Beck, a well-known right-wing shock jock, compared the Norwegian teenage victims of the massacre to members of Hitler Youth. On the opposite end of the political divide, bloggers were implying that conservative commentators such as Andrew Bolt, Keith Windschuttle and Melanie Phillips, who were cited with approval in Breivik’s 1500-page manifesto, were in some sense responsible for his violent behaviour. It is almost as if for some zealous moral entrepreneurs the massacre provided a wonderful opportunity for settling old scores.
The self-serving politicisation of the search for an explanation of this event can only promote the agenda of the perpetrator of this act of terror, which is to disorient the public.
Now contrary to the assertions of many right-wing commentators, it is clear that Breivik’s views can be accurately described as “extreme right” – in contrast to the disturbed young man in the United States who shot Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords.
But on the other hand, it is absurd that those who are mentioned approvingly in Breivik’s manifesto cannot possibly be accused of having inspired Breivik’s rampage for that reason alone. Which is why Jeremy Sear’s spinning to that effect is so contemptible, intellectually dishonest and inappropriate for someone who wants to be seen as a serious commentator. On Howard, Costello and Pell, he writes that:
But it appears to be the case that their words, their actions, their preferred target, their rhetoric of destruction were apparently part of the inspiration for this psychopath’s actions.
According to Sear and his ilk, any criticism of Muslims or any other migrant groups should be discouraged as they might incite violence. Which of course ignores the fact that violence and extremism is only promoted by attempts to silence politically incorrect speech. And of course the influence of the right-wing blogosphere in creating individuals and political organisations capable of violence is at best grossly exaggerated.
What then are the political implications of Breivik’s crimes? Whilst there is some suggestion he was a member of an extreme right group, his actions have no more effect on the credibility of conservatives as they do on the left side of the political spectrum. In fact, what they show is that like the extreme left and radical Muslims, the extreme right is also willing to employ violence as a means of terrorising people who disagree with them.
It would seem that the Norway massacre’s primary lesson is that security forces in Norway and some other countries should increasingly monitor activities of the ultra-right, so that such attacks can be prevented in the future. Another implication that might arise is the need to publicly address and refute the ideas of the various political extremes by ensuring that basic facts which are anathema to their explanations of the world are disseminated. Perhaps there are also lessons in terms of community integration and cohesion that should also be taken note of.
But if we really do care for the victims of the Norway massacre, let us not use their untimely deaths at Breivik’s hands to score political points. Let’s instead look at the situations objectively and think about how similar incidents can be prevented.
I have actaully made a point of NOT reading this madman’s manifesto and I am like you disgusted that Sear et all have taken the line that they have about his atrocity. Sadly they don’t have capital punishment in Norway and they are likely to be far to soft on this scumbag, perhaps the only hope for the future safety of the Norwegian people is that he will be found to be criminally insane and locked up for the rest of his life on that basis.