tag:theconversation.com,2011:/africa/topics/norway-killings-1080/articlesNorway killings – The Conversation2021-07-22T11:37:25Ztag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1648192021-07-22T11:37:25Z2021-07-22T11:37:25ZUtøya massacre 10 years on: what has changed in Norway?<p>It has been 10 years since 77 people – mostly teenage political activists – were massacred in a far-right terror attack in Norway that shocked the country and the world.</p>
<p>Anders Breivik was 32 years old on July 22 2011 when he detonated an ammonium nitrate fertiliser bomb at 15:25pm in the Regjeringskvartalet district of Oslo, attempting to assassinate government officials, killing eight. Ninety minutes later, as emergency services responded to the bomb, Breivik, posing as a police officer, arrived at Utøya Island, the site of a youth Labour Party summer youth camp.</p>
<p>Using legally acquired weapons, he murdered 69 members of the Workers’ Youth League summer camp. Hoping to target former Norwegian prime minister Gro Harlem Brundtland, whose appearance at the island that day was cancelled, he fired indiscriminately at adults and teens alike.</p>
<p>Norway, with strict gun controls, had only ever witnessed one mass shooting, at a shooting range in Farsund, in August 1988. Four people were killed with a shotgun and two were injured by a shooter with severe psychosis. </p>
<p>Breivik’s attack was labelled terrorism, joining only two other terrorist attacks in the country since the second world war (the 1977 bombing of a left-wing bookshop, and a bomb thrown into a peaceful demonstration in 1979). </p>
<p>Breivik’s attack differed from the horrors of other headline-making mass shootings in that his shots were not “random carnage”, but targeted at fledgling political figures of the future. His use of the bomb as a distraction to aid his main attack was even more impactful – <a href="https://arkiv.klassekampen.no/59186/article/item/null/-av--kjenner-rammede">one in four Norwegians</a> knew someone personally affected by the massacre. </p>
<h2>Mass shootings, 10 years later</h2>
<p>Ten years on from Brevik’s attack, mass shootings are still rare in <a href="http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?pubRef=-//EP//NONSGML+REPORT+A6-2007-0276+0+DOC+PDF+V0//EN&language=EN">Europe</a>, occurring mostly in countries with relatively relaxed firearm regulations, such as <a href="https://www.morgenpost.de/politik/article103911191/Bundestag-billigt-verschaerftes-Waffenrecht.html">Germany</a> and Finland.</p>
<p>In the US, there is a different story. In 2020, the country saw the <a href="https://theconversation.com/mass-shootings-in-the-us-have-risen-sharply-in-2020-why-150981">largest number of mass shootings in any year</a> in its history (610 incidents where 4 or more were injured or killed irrespective of motive).</p>
<p>Strict firearm laws in other countries have generally helped to stop mass shootings, for example in <a href="https://theconversation.com/obama-on-us-shootings-what-gun-laws-worked-in-australia-and-britain-48510">Australia and the UK</a>. However, those intent on causing mass carnage who are unable to access firearms have shown increasing use of vehicles as weapons, including attacks in Sweden, Germany, France, Spain <a href="https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/topics/cwernlw0el1t/london-bridge-attack">and in the UK</a>.</p>
<p>It is much easier to access vehicles than guns in many countries, and drivers can get unobtrusively close to potential victims. In response, the geography of public spaces in many major cities around Europe have been <a href="https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/1206331220985445">physically changed by bollards and barriers</a> as a way to keep citizens safe from vehicle attacks.</p>
<p>This raises important questions about the price to be paid for civilian safety, and how we want our public spaces to look and feel.</p>
<p>FBI director Christopher Wray acknowledged that surveillance is limited in preventing mass shootings or terrorist actions, and suggests “people-power” is the greatest ally, stating that all citizens have a critical role in prevention by overcoming a natural reluctance to report suspicious activity to authorities. </p>
<p>Brevik’s actions led to copycat attacks in the <a href="https://www.idnes.cz/zpravy/cerna-kronika/policie-chtyila-ceskeho-breivika.A120818_102846_ostrava-zpravy_mad">Czech Republic</a> and <a href="https://www.idnes.cz/zpravy/zahranicni/polsko-zmarilo-chystany-teroristicky-utok-na-predstavitele-zeme.A121120_081639_zahranicni_js">Poland</a> in 2012 and the <a href="https://www.smh.com.au/world/oceania/christchurch-suspect-claimed-brief-contact-with-norwegian-mass-murderer-20190316-p514pj.html">New Zealand Mosque attacks in 2019</a>.</p>
<p>Due to the contagious nature of mass shootings and the large amount of global media attention they receive, it is likely that this will continue to happen for years.</p>
<h2>What has changed</h2>
<p>A positive element of Breivik’s legacy is that Norway, which already prohibits civilians from owning automatic weapons, announced plans in 2018 to <a href="https://www.lifeinnorway.net/gun-ownership-ban/">ban semi-automatic gun ownership by 2021</a> (except for hunting and sport). Although the ban is yet to be enacted, there are over 40 different semi-automatic weapons slated to be largely outlawed. The ban would require current owners of semi-automatic weapons to surrender them to the authorities, and would prohibit future sales.</p>
<p>While Breivik believed that direct action was required over democracy, studies have shown that Norwegian youth are now more determined to use democracy than ever, with 67% of Norwegians aged 18-21 <a href="https://www.researchgate.net/publication/337605487_Why_Did_Young_Norwegians_Mobilize_External_Events_or_Early_Enfranchisement">casting a ballot in 2013 elections</a>, an increase of 10% from 2009.</p>
<p>Breivik was what researchers have called a <a href="https://www.researchgate.net/publication/334901353_Fame-seeking_mass_shooters_in_America_Severity_characteristics_and_media_coverage">“fame-seeking mass shooter”</a> –
he chose to be captured, and distributed photos and a manifesto to enhance his notoriety. </p>
<p>Court-ordered psychological assessment ultimately concluded that Breivik’s acts were the result of grandiose, delusional narcissism – his views were “extreme overvalued beliefs,” not delusions. </p>
<p>He wanted his audience to view him as a “freedom figher” acting against an imagined Islamist threat, when in reality he was a hate-filled fantasist who lacked any meaningful social connections or occupation. Like many similar perpetrators, he turned to mass shooting at a difficult and lonely point in his life.</p>
<p>Breivik was sentenced to preventative detention for 21 years in prison, the maximum sentence allowed by Norwegian law. This can be repeatedly extended by five years if needed. He may only be eligible for release if he is deemed rehabilitated. However, reports of his continuously <a href="https://www.latimes.com/world/worldnow/la-fg-wn-norway-breivik-hunger-strike-20140218-story.html#ixzz2tqGiYpbV">disruptive and litigious behaviour</a> make it unlikely he will be released anytime soon.</p>
<p>Ten years after the attacks, Norway’s strict gun laws are set to become more so, with fewer dangerous people accessing firearms. The youth of “generation Utøya” are more committed to political debate and less tolerant of violence, and better public understanding of the facts around mental illness and violence was a consequence of Breivik’s highly publicised trial. </p>
<p>Despite Breivik’s atrocity, he inadvertently made a civilised country even more so. Should he ever be released from prison, he may find himself in a Norway he no longer recognises.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/164819/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Craig Jackson does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Ten years after Anders Breivik killed 77 people in Norway, a look at how the country has changed.Craig Jackson, Professor of Occupational Health Psychology, Birmingham City UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/701602017-01-11T13:09:55Z2017-01-11T13:09:55ZNorway’s human rights appeal over the prison conditions of Anders Breivik – explained<p>A human rights appeal involving the detention conditions of Norwegian mass shooter Anders Behring Breivik began on January 10. </p>
<p>Breivik, who killed 77 people in attacks in Oslo and on the island of Utøya in July 2011, is serving his sentence in Telemark prison at Skien. Just as his conviction and sentencing gained much international attention, so too did the <a href="http://www.domstol.no/contentassets/9082215b86804731af6ddc9691116cf3/15-107496tvi-otir---dom-20042016breivik.pdf">judgment</a> of Oslo District Court in April 2016 that Breivik’s human rights had been violated in detention. Since then, it has emerged that his prison conditions <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-12-22/norway-mass-killer-has-jail-isolation-measures-slightly-relaxed/8140722">have been relaxed</a>, including that he no longer has to speak to his lawyer through a glass wall. </p>
<p>Very soon after the Oslo judgment was delivered, an <a href="http://www.thelocal.no/20160426/norway-to-appeal-breivik-human-rights-ruling">appeal was launched</a> by the Norwegian Ministry of Justice and Public Security, which is being heard in the prison at Skien. </p>
<p>The Oslo judgment dealt with arguments put forward by the prisoner’s lawyer based mainly on two sections of the <a href="http://www.echr.coe.int/Documents/Convention_ENG.pdf">European Convention on Human Rights</a>: Article 3 (prohibition of ill-treatment) and Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life). In spite of what was widely reported at the time – that Breivik <a href="http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/anders-breivik-demands-better-video-games-and-threatens-hunger-strike-over-jail-hell-9130592.html">complained</a> he did not have the latest version of PlayStation – the real issues in the case were related to the nature of his solitary confinement and repetitive strip-searching. </p>
<p>In its appeal, the Norwegian Ministry of Justice and Public Security will be highlighting a number of prominent European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) cases to try and persuade the appeal court that Breivik’s human rights have not been violated. </p>
<h2>Solitary confinement</h2>
<p>One of these significant cases is that of <a href="http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/app/conversion/pdf?library=ECHR&id=003-3906939-4510631&filename=Chamber%20judgment%20Babar%20Ahmad%20and%20Others%20v.%20the%20United%20Kingdom%2010.04.2012.pdf">Ahmad and Others v United Kingdom (2012)</a>. This is the incident involving Abu Hamza, Babar Ahmad, and other applicants who were all facing terrorism charges in the US and raised concerns about the conditions they would face if extradited. The ECHR ruled that isolation in prison would not immediately constitute inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. Instead it said: “The particular conditions, the stringency of the measure, its duration, the objective pursued and its effect on the person concerned had to be taken into account.” </p>
<p>One of the arguments put forward by the applicants in the Ahmad case related to the specific rigorous conditions in the “super-max” US federal facility at <a href="https://www.bop.gov/locations/institutions/flm/">ADX Florence</a>. The ECHR noted, among other things, that “although inmates are confined to their cells for the vast majority of the time, a great deal of in-cell stimulation is provided through television and radio channels, frequent newspapers, books” and so on. The ruling <a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/terrorism-in-the-uk/9590016/Key-events-in-battle-to-extradite-Abu-Hamza.html">allowed</a> the extraditions to go ahead.</p>
<p>Prior to the Ahmad ruling, the case of <a href="http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-76169">Ramirez Sanchez v France (2006)</a> had also been decided by the ECHR Grand Chamber. The applicant in that case, better known as “Carlos the Jackal”, endured isolation in detention for a period of eight years – notably longer than that experienced by Breivik who has been in isolation since 2011. During those eight years, Sanchez had no contact with other prisoners but was allowed visits from family and a substantial team of lawyers. The ECHR ruled that this meant his being held in isolation did not violate Article 3. </p>
<p>The Norwegian state will be pressing the point that other than the existence of a glass partition between Breivik and his visitors (which was absent in Sanchez’s case), the isolated conditions encountered by Carlos the Jackal lasted longer and were arguably just as restrictive as in the Norwegian case.</p>
<h2>Repeat strip-searching</h2>
<p>The other major issue the court will consider in the appeal involves strip-searching. As well as a gym facility, Breivik has access to an exercise yard in the prison where he can remain active, but still be kept separate from other prisoners and strictly supervised, including by surveillance cameras. He was strip-searched after visits to the exercise yard and when he was transferred between prison and police custody. On some occasions female prison staff were present when Breivik was strip-searched. </p>
<p>The original Norwegian ruling that Breivik’s human rights had been violated in detention mainly cited the case of <a href="http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-60915">Van der Ven v Netherlands (2003)</a> on this point. This case involved weekly strip-search examinations and these were found to violate Article 3 – however the searches of the prisoner, Franciscus Cornelis van der Ven, involved intrusive internal inspection, which is not what happened to Breivik. </p>
<p>One case not mentioned in the Oslo District Court judgment, however, was that of <a href="http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-127413">S.J. (no.2) v Luxembourg (2013)</a>, which involved the strip search of a prisoner in facilities where third parties could see him. In this case, the ECHR emphasised the absence of any intention by the prison staff to humiliate or debase the prisoner and found no violation of the prisoner’s human rights under Article 3 of the convention. It could make sense for this case to be referred to by the Norwegian government in its appeal.</p>
<p>These are the points that the appeal hearing will be asked to address by Norway’s Ministry of Justice and Public Security, as it seeks to overturn the original ruling. The appeal court will have to determine whether the threshold has been met for degrading treatment, whether the humiliation or debasement of the prisoner has taken place, or been intended, as well as the impact upon the prisoner.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/70160/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>William Henderson does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>The European Court of Human Rights will consider whether Breivik’s human rights have been violated by his solitary detention.William Henderson, Lecturer in Law, Glasgow Caledonian UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/680352016-11-04T11:47:54Z2016-11-04T11:47:54ZDeadly combination: the psychiatric disorders that might have made Anders Breivik into a mass shooter<p>Anders Behring Breivik is serving a long sentence for a terrible crime. On 22 July 2011, the 32-year-old Norwegian bombed government buildings in Oslo and then went on a shooting spree on the island of Utøya, <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-14260297">killing 77 people</a>. He was sentenced to <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/aug/24/anders-behring-breivik-verdict-norway-utoya">21 years in prison</a> the following year.</p>
<p>Why did Breivik kill? It is not as simple as saying that he was a terrorist supporting an idealised religion, or dismissing him as insane. He himself has claimed that his actions were to save Europe from radical Islam – and that he was <a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/norway/9209977/I-would-have-done-it-again-Anders-Breivik-claims-his-massacre-was-motivated-by-goodness-not-evil.html">motivated by “goodness not evil”</a>. But after studying detailed assessments of the far-right terrorist, as well as Breivik’s own self-published manifesto, we have found that a condition known as “<a href="https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=rAOaiWWA9D8C&pg=PA131&lpg=PA131&dq=millon+narcissistic+decompensation&source=bl&ots=55_WBXrnrr&sig=L8s6M-2RHNjuimwhYZMGi-RW9Wo&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwii3L749o7QAhVkCcAKHQ_vBLM4ChDoAQgfMAE#v=onepage&q=millon%20narcissistic%20decompensation&f=false">narcissistic decompensation</a>” may have been behind his belief that he was waging a personal and political war.</p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/cHoyQd8JhiE?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
</figure>
<p>A “narcissistic decompensation” occurs when someone with a narcissistic personal disorder – a condition with which <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3619172/">Breivik has been diagnosed</a> – suffers from a major injury to their self-esteem. An “injury” can take many forms including rejection by one’s peer groups. What happens next is that they begin to isolate themselves from collective thinking, and move <a href="https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=rAOaiWWA9D8C&pg=PA131&lpg=PA131&dq=millon+narcissistic+decompensation&source=bl&ots=55_WBXrnrr&sig=L8s6M-2RHNjuimwhYZMGi-RW9Wo&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwii3L749o7QAhVkCcAKHQ_vBLM4ChDoAQgfMAE#v=onepage&q=millon%20narcissistic%20decompensation&f=false">into a paranoid disorder</a>. We would not like to speculate as to what it was that caused Breivik’s “decompensation” here: to do so would require a new psychiatric assessment of the shooter.</p>
<p>In Breivik’s case, it has been strongly suggested that in addition to his proven narcissistic disorder, <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2012/jun/18/anders-breivik-defining-sanity">he also had Asperger’s syndrome</a> – though the latter was not formally diagnosed. The two conditions together may form a particularly dangerous combination, making someone much more at risk of taking part in extreme violent behaviour. </p>
<p>Similar to <a href="http://ijo.sagepub.com/content/early/2014/07/23/0306624X14544155.abstract">previous studies</a>, our research found that there could be a link between narcissistic personality disorder and violence. However, in Breivik’s case, we think that the narcissistic decompensation, which may have occurred at a time when he was relying on an <a href="https://www-users.cs.york.ac.uk/alistair/survival/survival.pdf">Asperger’s coping mechanism</a> – following a specific routine to help himself through a social situation, for example – could have been the final push that <a href="http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00223980.2016.1175998">sent him along a violent path</a>.</p>
<h2>Intended violence</h2>
<p>Although little is known of the warning signs for what makes a mass shooter, the route itself <a href="https://books.google.co.uk/books/about/Contemporary_Threat_Management.html?id=9IndAAAACAAJ&source=kp_cover&redir_esc=y&hl=en">has been well defined in the aftermath</a>. Essentially, the “path towards intended violence” starts with harboured grievances, continuing with the development of an idea that, for example in Breivik’s case, Europe must be saved from terrorism. The person then comes to the conclusion that violence is the only way to remedy a situation. This is followed by research and planning and preparing for the violent actions. After this there is an act of breaching security – Breivik used GPS to scout paths across Utøya Island, for example – and finally the attack itself.</p>
<p>Narcissistic traits – or narcissism – have <a href="https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=OZ2tCAAAQBAJ&pg=PA91&lpg=PA91&dq=narcissism+potential+risk+factor+school+shootings&source=bl&ots=WseAdzePNM&sig=MPQFHzVFCJoq-R15NGKYFWEM370&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjq8u2psY3QAhViLsAKHbVJBFoQ6AEIOjAD#v=onepage&q=narcissism%20potential%20risk%20factor%20school%20shootings&f=false">already been put forward</a> as a potential risk factor for school shootings. In a study of <a href="http://ijo.sagepub.com/content/early/2014/07/23/0306624X14544155.abstract">seven such incidents in German schools</a>, researchers found that three of the four shooters who had received treatment for psychiatric disorders prior to killings exhibited detached symptoms of narcissism. The authors also found narcissistic traits were exhibited in two of the other three offenders. And in one of these two cases, a diagnosis of narcissistic personality disorder would have been met given the symptoms the shooter displayed. </p>
<p>What this indicates is that the prevalence of narcissistic personality disorder in school shooters is higher than in the general population. So narcissism certainly could be a risk factor in these mass shootings. Further studies in the US have found that narcissism has been exhibited in <a href="https://schoolshooters.info/sites/default/files/rampage_school_shooters_typology_1.1.pdf">one-fifth to one-seventh of school shooters</a>. </p>
<p>It is important to caution here that narcissistic traits are not a necessary condition for motivating a shooting. Likewise, simply having a diagnosis of an autism spectrum disorder combined with narcissistic personality disorder will not by itself necessarily propel an individual on the path to intended violence. There are other factors at play.</p>
<h2>Making a mass shooter</h2>
<p>There are significant gaps in our understanding of how mass shooters develop. In the case of Breivik, there were several other things that <a href="https://www.amazon.co.uk/One-Us-Anders-Breivik-Massacre/dp/1844089193">could have contributed to his violent acts</a>. He had a difficult relationship with his mother and his father was absent. Breivik wanted to be a millionaire – and seemed not to care whether this was by legitimate or criminal means. He had his sexual identity questioned, had difficulties dating and had apparently abandoned his pursuit of the “ideal woman”. He was rejected by his peers in elite gaming circles, as well as the political elite who he saw as not sharing his views – despite his plight to “save” Europe. His life experiences up until the day of the shooting can be summed up as a litany of failed attempts to gain positions of status and power, acceptance and admiration from others. </p>
<p>The pathway to violence – and the factors that drive some to become mass shooters – require urgent, detailed investigation. If we can identify early patterns of behaviour that can be recognised and flagged up, we could potentially predict those individuals which are at an increased risk of committing extremely violent acts.</p>
<p>Given the higher prevalence of narcissistic traits and autism spectrum disorder (including Asperger’s) found in mass shooters, the overlap between these two requires further analysis across a wider pool of subjects. It could very well be that the co-occurrence of both autism and narcissism is a particularly explosive combination.</p>
<p>In the aftermath of mass shootings, the question is always asked “<a href="https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/dec/14/the-role-of-gun-control-in-2015-worst-mass-shootings">could it have been prevented</a>”? Psychological analysis is just one way we can recognise the warning signs, and stop these atrocities before they ever begin.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/68035/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Clare Allely does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>New study finds potential cause of Breivik’s crimes.Clare Allely, Lecturer in Psychology, University of SalfordLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/90682012-08-25T03:30:18Z2012-08-25T03:30:18ZAnders Breivik is guilty: the fine line between bad and mad<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/14626/original/7rhrc8nn-1345863938.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Anders Breivik was sane when he murdered dozens of people in Norway last year according to a jury.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">EPA/Heiko Junge/Pool Norway</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>One of the most high profile court decisions on “madness” and crime has concluded. In a unanimous decision, the Oslo District Court in Norway has convicted Anders Behring Breivik of the murder of 77 people in the streets of central Oslo and on the island of Utoya in July 2011.</p>
<p>As is well-known, Breivik faced trial for multiple counts of murder, following gun and bomb attacks resulting in mass killing of adults and children. Since his apprehension, Breivik has admitted planning and carrying out the killings, and is on record as saying that they were necessary to start a revolution aimed at preventing Norway from accepting further numbers of immigrants.</p>
<p>Breivik’s conviction was based on a finding that he was sane at the time of the killings. In a strange twist, the court’s verdict is a victory for the defence; they had been instructed by their client Breivik to argue that he was sane. The prosecution had argued that Breivik was insane.</p>
<p>The finding that Breivik was sane and the conviction means that he can be punished and he has been sentenced to 21 years in prison. It is possible that Breivik will be detained beyond that period, under a regime of preventative detention. This means Breivik may never be released. The seriousness of Breivik’s offences and the enormous harm they have caused seems to indicate that Breivik’s conviction and sentence will be well-received in Norway.</p>
<p>The issue in Breivik’s trial was whether he was criminally responsible for the killings. If he was insane at the time of killings, he was not criminally responsible. Criminal responsibility concerns the capacities of the accused. If an accused lacks the necessary capacities, he or she cannot be called to account for his or her actions in the context of a criminal trial.</p>
<p>The question of criminal responsibility goes beyond the issue of liability for an offence: it addresses the issue of whether the accused is someone to whom the criminal law speaks. Criminal responsibility lies at the heart of our criminal justice system.</p>
<p>The Breivik trial brings the complex issues surrounding criminal responsibility into sharp relief. It prompts us to where the line between “madness” and “badness” lies and to think about how to respond to offenders whose criminal responsibility is at issue.</p>
<p>Media reports indicate that Brievik has been examined by a total of 18 medical experts. Some of these experts concluded that he met the legal test of insanity, which, in Norway, requires that he acted under the influence of psychosis at the time of the crime. But Breivik himself disputed this diagnosis, claiming it is part of an attempt to silence him and stymie his message about “saving” Norway. Other medical assessments concluded Breivik was sane at the time of the offences, his actions motivated by extremist ideology not mental illness. The judges reached the same conclusion.</p>
<figure class="align-right ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/14627/original/qn3682k6-1345865221.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/14627/original/qn3682k6-1345865221.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=602&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/14627/original/qn3682k6-1345865221.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=602&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/14627/original/qn3682k6-1345865221.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=602&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/14627/original/qn3682k6-1345865221.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=757&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/14627/original/qn3682k6-1345865221.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=757&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/14627/original/qn3682k6-1345865221.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=757&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Anders Breivik murdered Sharidyn Meegan Ngahiwi Svebakk-Boehn on July 22 2011 on the Norwegian island of Utoya. He killed another 68 people on Utoya and eight others with a car bomb detonated in Oslo the same day.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">EPA/Svebakk Boehn Family</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>This difference of opinion among experts should not surprise us. Not only is the process of diagnosing a mental disorder complex, determining whether a disorder had a relevant effect on an individual at a specific point in time, is notoriously difficult. At what point, if any, does ideologically-driven fanaticism become “madness”?</p>
<p>It is tempting to think that Breivik’s crimes were so extreme that he had to be “mad”. How could he think he was performing a “duty” to his country, that such violence was “necessary”? According to this logic, the criminal acts tell us everything we need to know. And criminal responsibility appears to be a trade off between the severity of someone’s mental incapacity and the magnitude of harm resulting from their offence.</p>
<p>But, as a matter of law, in our system, responsibility and harm are separate matters. If an individual is not criminally responsible, the issue of the harm that their actions have caused must be dealt with by means other than punishment. Indeed, treatment for the relevant mental condition may be the most appropriate response when an individual is not criminally responsible.</p>
<p>If this seems too lenient, we must recall that it represents the flipside of a criminal justice system that works on the assumption that everyone is an independent agent, and, in a liberal democratic system, this assumption protects us from excessive paternalism on the part of the state. Our system requires that each individual accused of crime be respected as an autonomous subject of the law.</p>
<p>We must also recall that, even if an individual is not criminally responsible, legal options remain open. If Breivik had been found to be insane at the time of the killings, and not convicted of the offences with which he was charged, he could have been made the subject of a court order, which, in his case, would have seen him detained in a secure psychiatric unit inside a prison. This form of detention could have been just as long as any prison term.</p>
<p>If he had been tried here, and found not to be criminally responsible, Breivik could have been subject to detention – perhaps even indefinitely. But, in that case, our legal system’s response is not so much a moral condemnation of blameworthy conduct, but more forward-looking action aimed at avoiding further harm – to the individual and others – in the future. </p>
<p>The crucial difference with this response is that it is not based on the responsible subject otherwise at the heart of criminal law and process.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/9068/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Arlie Loughnan does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>One of the most high profile court decisions on “madness” and crime has concluded. In a unanimous decision, the Oslo District Court in Norway has convicted Anders Behring Breivik of the murder of 77 people…Arlie Loughnan, Senior Lecturer in Law, University of SydneyLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/63462012-04-20T04:15:11Z2012-04-20T04:15:11ZVideogames, aggression, Anders Breivik – let’s not join the dots<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/9804/original/6m58vddx-1334888515.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=0%2C91%2C490%2C356&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Playing violent games didn't make Anders Breivik a mass-murderer.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">alessio.sartore</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>“Violent videogames cause people to become violent in real life”. It’s a familiar refrain for anyone who has read a newspaper in the last 15 years.</p>
<p>Today, <a href="http://www.smh.com.au/technology/technology-news/norway-killer-sharpened-aim-with-video-games-20120420-1xas3.html">the media reporting surrounding the trial</a> of accused mass-murderer <a href="https://theconversation.com/search?q=anders+breivik">Anders Breivik</a> has dusted off this old chestnut to explain a shooting spree and bomb attack that claimed <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_Norway_attacks">the lives of 77 people in Oslo last year</a>.</p>
<p>Breivik has testified that he used <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_of_Warcraft">World of Warcraft</a> and <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Call_of_Duty_4:_Modern_Warfare">Call of Duty: Modern Warfare</a> to train for his attacks. He also testified to be a member of the anti-Muslim militant group Knights Templar and refused to recognise the authority of the federal court system.</p>
<p>The fact that <a href="http://heathenscripture.wordpress.com/2011/08/03/grand-theft-auto-nazareth-jim-wallaces-blame-wars/">videogames play no demonstrable part</a> in Breivik’s (or any other) act of violence hasn’t stopped the media from creating and re-creating this narrative, even to the point that university media officers are picking up the chant.</p>
<h2>The research shows what?</h2>
<p>A University of Gothenburg press release about a new study is entitled <a href="http://www.ufn.gu.se/english/News/newsdetail/researchers-questioning-the-link-between-violent-computer-games-and-aggressiveness-.cid1070001">Researchers questioning link between violent computer games and aggressiveness</a>.</p>
<p>The release reports that the authors are “questioning the whole gaming and violence debate”. The study itself, published in the <a href="http://ijcscl.org/">International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning</a> is entitled <a href="http://www.springerlink.com/content/d85648r035x12533/">How gamers manage aggression: Situating skills in collaborative computer games</a>.</p>
<p>Taken together, these two titles might lead one to interpret the study in a similar vein to researchers <a href="http://pss.sagepub.com/content/12/5/353.short">Craig Anderson</a> or <a href="http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1359178907000055">Christopher Ferguson</a>. That is, it would make sense to argue either that violent videogames do (Anderson) or do not (Ferguson) have a meaningful effect on players’ aggression levels in real life.</p>
<p>Instead, the research is actually a detailed study of how players of massively multiplayer online games (MMOs) – such as World of Warcraft – cooperate to manage the attention of powerful, dangerous enemy characters (known as <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boss_(video_gaming)">bosses</a>). In MMO parlance, that attention is known as “aggro”. </p>
<p>The aggression being managed, then, is not that of the players, but of the computer-controlled enemies. How, then, is this research linked to the <a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/leicestershire/3934277.stm">debate about media effects</a>?</p>
<p>Hint: it’s not.</p>
<h2>The ‘media effects’ narrative</h2>
<p>As <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/daniel-golding-2564">Dan Golding</a> pointed out in <a href="http://theconversation.com/gamers-tag-is-a-poor-fit-whichever-way-you-foldit-3519">an earlier article</a> on The Conversation, the media only seem equipped to discuss videogames in three ways:</p>
<ul>
<li>as <a href="http://www.smh.com.au/digital-life/games/from-fantasy-to-lethal-reality-breivik-trained-on-modern-warfare-game-20110725-1hw41.html">moral panic</a></li>
<li>in terms of (always surprising) <a href="http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/germany-video-games-sales-call-of-duty-modern-warfare-299040">economic profit</a> and</li>
<li>as an exotic artefact or <a href="http://voices.yahoo.com/the-subculture-video-games-534483.html">sub-culture</a>.</li>
</ul>
<p>The press release announcing this new study, as well as coverage of Breivik’s trial by the <a href="http://www.smh.com.au/technology/technology-news/norway-killer-sharpened-aim-with-video-games-20120420-1xas3.html">Sydney Morning Herald</a>, among others, falls right into the first category. </p>
<p>The notion of media effects and transfer (from medium to real-life) is perhaps as old as communications media themselves. Even <a href="http://classics.mit.edu/Plato/republic.11.x.html#470">Plato was wary</a> of the power of the poet “because he awakens and nourishes and strengthens the feelings and impairs the reason”.</p>
<p>Today’s “violence and videogames” narrative is well-worn. So much so that even a public relations officer at a university takes a study on videogames with the word “aggression” in its title to be examining a “link” between mediated depictions of violence and real-world aggression.</p>
<p>But the link to the media effects research such as Anderson and Ferguson’s is not entirely facetious: the Swedish team of researchers are in fact questioning the basis of the videogame violence debate; the “transfer” mentioned earlier.</p>
<p>Transfer, as the study points out, is a contentious construct of educational theory. It is, to quote from the article: “the appearance of a person carrying the product of learning from one task, problem, situation, or institution to another”. In this case, the “transfer” of aggression from videogames to real-life.</p>
<p>The authors of this study rightly point out that the nature of transfer is contentious, ill-defined, and rarely agreed upon. Thus, there are <a href="http://psycnet.apa.org/journals/bul/136/2/">disagreements</a> about how to empirically measure the effects of media on an audience.</p>
<p>But instead of pursuing this, the paper moves on to conduct a close study of [raid encounters](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raid_(gaming) (where numerous players attempt to take out a boss together), documenting the skills and knowledge used by players who cooperate successfully.</p>
<p>These skills include:</p>
<ul>
<li>spatial awareness and the importance of positioning one’s avatar in the immediate geography around the boss before and during the fight</li>
<li>case-specific knowledge about additional enemies entering the fray and appropriate responses</li>
<li>reacting to other unexpected events during the fight, such as the death of a healer (a team member who’s role it is to heal fellow players).</li>
</ul>
<p>The depth and precision of the details presented in this study are valuable and will certainly provide excellent reference material for future scholars who are researching and writing about MMO gameplay. But this study simply isn’t focused on violent videogames leading to aggression in the real world. </p>
<h2>Overcoming the narrative</h2>
<p>The aim of the study I’ve been discussing was, in fact, to take a step back from the debate entirely and avoid assuming the straightforward transfer of media, with regard to videogames.</p>
<p>The authors “approached collaborative gaming where aggression is represented as a practice to be studied on its own premises”.</p>
<p>To that end, the study is working around what media researcher <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Paul_Gee">James Paul Gee</a> calls “the problem of content”. That is, looking past the representations of violence shown on screen and measuring what the human players are actually learning to do while playing the game.</p>
<p>In this case, players deploy very specific knowledge about the geography of terrain, the behaviour of bosses and the various skills their individual avatar possesses. </p>
<p>This study does not suggest that causing an avatar to swing a broadsword will incite the human player to do the same, or similar, the next time he or she steps out of the house for some milk.</p>
<p>Even though there’s no consensus on media effects nor the relationship between videogame and real-world violence, the international press still get completely lost in a frenzy as they pump out hysteria-filled headlines.</p>
<p>Gaming news outlet, <a href="http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2012/04/19/breivik-testifies-about-gaming-press-ignores-the-facts/">Rock, Paper, Shotgun</a> has called out a range of global outlets on their reporting of the Breivik case. Thankfully, publications such as these are interested in clarity and truth and refuse to allow the popular mythology of videogame violence to cloud basic reporting. </p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/6346/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Adam Ruch does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>“Violent videogames cause people to become violent in real life”. It’s a familiar refrain for anyone who has read a newspaper in the last 15 years. Today, the media reporting surrounding the trial of accused…Adam Ruch, PhD Candidate, Videogame Studies, Macquarie UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/65122012-04-18T05:52:26Z2012-04-18T05:52:26ZTerror on trial: should Anders Breivik’s views be heard?<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/9725/original/trgtr5rm-1334725933.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Should Breivik's hateful diatribe be made public?</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">AAP/Hakon Mosvold Larsen</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>The trial of Norwegian Anders Behring Breivik for the murder of 77 people has a special significance for journalists in Australia, and not just because Breivik summoned the names of John Howard, Peter Costello, George Pell and Keith Windschuttle in the manifesto he wrote before the slayings.</p>
<p>There are a number of issues newsrooms here will be considering. Should we broadcast or publish the five-week trial? If it is broadcast or printed, how can we do so responsibly? And is there any advantage to be gained from putting his extreme views on the public agenda for debate? Should journalists be publishing, broadcasting, tweeting and live blogging the trial? </p>
<p>By doing so, the media gives him the opportunity to do what he set out to do – publicise his anti-Islam manifesto. But Breivik has a <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/anders-breivik-trial-displays-norways-formal-legal-system-as-confessed-killer-gets-to-explain-fanatical-views/2012/04/17/gIQA5t8kOT_story.html">legal right in Norway</a> to explain himself. </p>
<p>His defence lawyer said on the first day, “He is obviously pleased that he will be able to explain himself and that there is an interest in the case, there is no doubt about that.”</p>
<h2>Competing interests</h2>
<p>Many of the survivors and the victims’ families will want to hear Breivik’s explanation. They will want to try to make sense of it. But equally there are those who survived the massacre who do not want to give him an international stage. </p>
<p>Survivor Tore Sinding Bekkedal <a href="http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/with-worldwide-attention-breivik-finds-pulpit-for-extremist-ideas/article2403861/">said</a>: “He stated he did this to gain attention and I don’t believe that he should gain attention to it.” </p>
<p>But the 800-odd journalists in attendance are being paid to report not just on what he says, but on the justice system. It is the journalists’ job to ensure that happens, regardless of what they think of Breivik’s behaviour. </p>
<p>It is not the job of a journalist or their editor to act as judge and jury, no matter how simple a case might seem.</p>
<h2>Digital opportunities</h2>
<p>Fortunately new technology is making it much easier for journalists who want to report the trial but do not want to spread hate. The court banned television cameras broadcasting his testimony to avoid giving him a direct platform to air his views, but live bloggers have been able to go one better. </p>
<p>Take for example, <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/apr/17/anders-behring-breivik-live-updates?CMP=NECNETTXT8187">The Guardian</a>. Not only are they reporting what is being said, but making sure that his incorrect statements are followed by correct information. For example: </p>
<p><em><strong>11.32am:</strong> Breivik claimed this morning that Norwegians would be a minority in their own capital “within five years”. That is not what the statisticians say.</em></p>
<p><em><a href="http://www.ssb.no/english/">Statistics Norway</a> predicts that immigrants are set to make up almost half of Oslo’s population by 2040 and its definition of “immigrants” includes children of immigrants (unlike in the UK where children of immigrants are not defined as immigrants), <a href="http://www.thelocal.no/page/view/half-of-oslo-dwellers-immigrants-by-2040">the Local reported last month</a>.</em></p>
<p>This may satisfy some. But for others, particularly survivors, there is a need to block the information completely. The best innovation seems to have been created by <a href="http://www.dagbladet.no/">Dagbladet</a>, one of Norway’s major newspapers, which has set up <a href="http://www.dagbladet.no/spesial/">a version of its website</a> with a button that removes any mention of the trial. </p>
<p>This wonderful use of digital technology – an opting in or out process – can provide a happy middle for those who are concerned about freedom of speech and justice, but don’t want to censor others’ access to it.</p>
<h2>The public domain</h2>
<p>That said, there is an advantage of putting his hateful diatribe in the public domain. It allows people to make their own decisions about his culpability. It may encourage others to express their support of multiculturalism. </p>
<p>It also prompts journalists to consider how many other people might echo his views. Are those views present in Australia? Is it a minority or a growing body? </p>
<p>After all, Breivik relied on some <a href="http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/world/john-howard-george-pell-cited-in-breivik-diatribe/story-e6frg6so-1226101697828">still prominent Australians</a> to back up his arguments. </p>
<p>As technology becomes more sophisticated, the public and the media are able to handle such thorny issues more deftly. As The Guardian and Dagbladet have demonstrated, it’s becoming easier to report the truth without harming those affected by tragedy, or providing a soapbox for some of the world’s most dangerous, extremist ideas.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/6512/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Alexandra Wake supports the work of the Multicultural Media Exchange, was an academic fellow with the Dart Centre, and worked in the Middle East from 2001-2004.</span></em></p>The trial of Norwegian Anders Behring Breivik for the murder of 77 people has a special significance for journalists in Australia, and not just because Breivik summoned the names of John Howard, Peter…Alexandra Wake, Lecturer, RMIT UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/26672011-08-04T04:26:51Z2011-08-04T04:26:51ZThe most dangerous 1,500 pages: inside the mind of Anders Breivik<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/2653/original/6004603776_922cb2d205_b.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=41%2C23%2C965%2C642&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Norwegians respond with love, not war, to Anders Breivik's murderous actions. </span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">marcinlachowicz.com</span></span></figcaption></figure><p><em>The Conversation asked Professor James Jupp to read through the infamous <a href="http://www.news.com.au/world/accused-killer-anders-behring-breivik-had-two-year-1500-page-plan-for-massacre/story-e6frfkyi-1226101017987">1,500 page manifesto</a> of Anders Breivik.</em> </p>
<p><em>This is his analysis of the document, giving an insight into the mind of the mass murderer who now stands trial in Norway.</em></p>
<p>It will take time to extract exactly what happened on that Friday in July when Anders Breivik detonated a bomb in the prime minister’s office in Oslo and then went into a political youth camp and murdered 70 Norwegian teenagers. </p>
<p>Often it takes years for the details of these kinds of terrible incidents to reveal themselves. But in this case, the accused published his plan and his justifications in great detail. He did so in English, online and on the very day that he struck down his victims. </p>
<h2>A sick mind?</h2>
<p>His manifesto runs into more than 1,500 pages and was to a large extent, influenced by material already on the internet over several years.</p>
<p>He wrote that he was not a “suicide bomber” but rather wanted to become a hero against what he saw as the Marxist multicultural conspiracy to Islamise Europe and destroy the distinct cultures of its varied people. </p>
<p>What immediately strikes the reader is that he is completely without the human characteristics of mercy, sympathy and respect for others. At the core of his manifesto is a chilling description of the need to eliminate the “traitors” who are destroying Europe, by assassination, bombing, the use of anthrax and even of nuclear weapons. </p>
<p>In the <a href="http://www.norvegia.com.ro/2011/07/24/anders-behring-breivik-manifesto-plots-european-civil-war-fighting-can-be-physically-such-as-hezbollah-or-ltte/">four generation civil war</a> which he plans for Europe, Breivik estimates that 140,000 traitors will need to be executed. He started with the young activists of Norwegian Labour at their annual summer camp. He advocates the use of flame throwers, so that some “traitors” will be marked for life but still survive. </p>
<h2>Not a Christian fundamentalist</h2>
<p>This dangerously intelligent and obsessed human being is not a Christian fundamentalist, a fascist, a Nazi, or any of the other labels stuck on him by journalists. </p>
<p>He calls himself a Christian only because “all Norwegians” are Christians and there is a state Lutheran church in which he was baptised. But he hates Muslims for all the struggles, crimes and wars of the years since the Crusades, nearly a thousand years ago. </p>
<p>He takes upon himself the title of a Knight Templar, leading a (non-existent) network of other knights defending Europe against Islam, right up to the Serbian battle against the Bosnians and Kosovars only a few years ago. </p>
<p>A large part of his manifesto goes into great detail about all these struggles. He relies heavily on the voluminous work of <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bat_Yeor">Bat Ye’or</a>, an Egyptian of Jewish background, and takes up her concept of Eurabia, the plot to draw Europe under the eventual control of Muslim Arabs.</p>
<p>Breivik is not anti-semitic and sees the Jews and Israel as allies. Another widely quoted source is Robert Spencer, American author of The Truth about Muhammad: Founder of the World’s Most Intolerant Religion. Spencer and Bat Ye’or agree with each other and are famous in Europe and North America for their hatred of Islam.</p>
<h2>Paranoid politics</h2>
<p>If you can stomach reading on, there is much more to come in this document. The manifesto begins by linking Marxism, multiculturalism and the Islamisation of Europe. The logic of this is not apparent until you realise that he sees links with the Marxist Frankfurt school, which inspired a generation of European and American radicals in the rebellious 1960s. </p>
<p>Chief among its theorists were <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herbert_Marcuse">Herbert Marcuse</a>, <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theodor_W._Adorno">Theodor Adorno</a> and <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J%C3%BCrgen_Habermas">Jürgen Habermas</a>. Their deconstruction of social beliefs, literature and ideas in general aimed to undermine the historic traditions which cemented traditional society. </p>
<p>Breivik is a very old-fashioned conservative and very conventional. Most of his hostility to Marxism, postmodernism and the Frankfurt School echoes a broader conservative consensus in Australia and elsewhere. But of course, he takes these arguments to incredible extremes. </p>
<p>He argues that Marxists should have been executed “after the war” and that deconstruction is the major weapon used by Islamists to sap the resistance of Christian Europe through political correctness and multiculturalism.</p>
<p>Put together like this, by heavy use of Google and Wikipedia, it all seems reasonable. But of course, it is fantasy. Fundamental Islamists are as far from the Frankfurt School as is humanly possible. But it allows the author to link up the politicians, the academics, the intellectuals, the socialists and the liberals, as “traitors” deserving to be executed. </p>
<h2>Those he left off the list</h2>
<p>He lists political parties of Europe who are responsible for this ideological treachery. Not a single parliamentary party is left free of the accusation. The only ones who are exonerated are the <a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8250017.stm">English Defence League</a>, <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-11443211">Geert Wilders</a> in the Netherlands and other marginal Rightwing nationalists. All have now repudiated him except for the elderly Jean-Marie Le Pen. </p>
<p>But in his mind, these figures are not the hardcore of the European resistance. This will be the Knight Templars with Breivik as their leader. As yet, there is no evidence that such people exist.</p>
<p>This construction of the enemy and their enemies then lapses into an extensive account of Muslim crimes throughout history. But according to Breivik, Muslims are not the traitors and will simply be deported back to where they came from after victories in the four generation European civil war, due to end in 2083. </p>
<h2>The danger of influence</h2>
<p>The really disturbing part of the manifesto is towards the end, which appears to have been written very shortly before his attack on the young Labor camp. This details, day by day, the processes for setting up the bombing and assassination exercise, which he then executed so efficiently. This was placed on the internet the day before he struck and is still there for anyone else who wants to emulate him. </p>
<p>The manifesto suggests that he is fully aware of the potential and power of the Internet, having obviously spent years of his life isolated in its fantasy worlds. He sees Facebook as a revolutionary weapon – rather like Lenin who saw the same potential in the newly invented telephone. </p>
<p>This final message to the world is where the whole thing becomes potentially dangerous. It tells anyone with similar obsessions just how to get hold of fertilisers and other chemicals, how to construct a bomb, how to set up a rural base on a small farm, what weapons to buy and what targets to attack. </p>
<p>The whole manifesto is in English, can be reached throughout the world and could be the basis for terrorist mobilisation for any cause by any group or individual. Even Islamist terrorists could use parts of this 1,500 page attack for their own purposes, if they threw away the attacks on themselves. But they probably know the practical stuff already and do not need the theory, which is pure fantasy.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/2667/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>James Jupp does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>The Conversation asked Professor James Jupp to read through the infamous 1,500 page manifesto of Anders Breivik. This is his analysis of the document, giving an insight into the mind of the mass murderer…James Jupp, Adjunct Associate Professor, Australian Demographic and Social Research Institute, Australian National UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/26512011-08-03T04:25:58Z2011-08-03T04:25:58ZMorrissey, Anders Breivik and the claim that all meat is murder<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/2620/original/PIC_-_Rosewarne_Morrissey.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Legendary British singer Morrissey is well-known for his activist vegetarianism.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">AAP</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>A qualification of how much I love Morrissey’s music needs to be made. Merely thinking about <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DRtW1MAZ32M">There is a Light</a> cuts me raw; I adopted <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X3PhKOKOdms">It’s Not Your Birthday Anymore</a> as a power anthem the second I heard it. Morrissey is up there in my top 5 music talents list. (A top 5 that sometimes includes 10 or 11 artists, but he’s up there, nonetheless). </p>
<p>Of course, loving his music does not mean I consider the man himself as beyond reproach. A salient point given his <a href="http://media.brisbanetimes.com.au/news/world-news/outrage-over-morrisseys-norway-comparison-2523760.html">idiotic recent comments</a> about the Norway massacre:</p>
<p><em>Millions of beings are routinely murdered every single day in order to fund profits for McDonalds and KFCruelty, but because these murders are protected by laws, we are asked to feel indifferent about the killings, and to not even dare question them.</em></p>
<p>Like Morrissey, I’m a vegetarian. I haven’t eaten meat in twelve years, albeit with a minor exception of a 2003 flight involving “Vegetarian pork” which presumably involved last-minute tray re-labeling. Like Morrissey, I also quite love animals - dogs mainly, puppies particularly: I love them so much I was once nearly hit by a car when I raced across a road to pat a spaniel. I perfectly understand the yen for not wanting them in a deep fryer.</p>
<p>But daring to use a human tragedy like Norway as some kind of opportunity to beat the drum for vegetarianism is repugnant of a calibre that listening to <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OKxvkx7v7dQ">Ask</a> on repeat won’t dilute. </p>
<p>Generally I have no qualms with celebrities using their power for good. Marlon Brando sending Sacheen Littlefeather to <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2QUacU0I4yU">collect his Godfather Oscar</a>. Perhaps. Merlin participating in his Big Brother exit interview with a <a href="http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/06/14/1087065072743.html">taped mouth</a>. Maybe. Big mouth Bono shouting out political platitudes during his concerts. Caveat emptor. </p>
<p>There’s a time and place for protest, for metaphor, for analogy drawing. In the wake of mass slaughter is not such a place. </p>
<p>To his credit, Morrissey did make some interesting points about the blood lust of contemporary news coverage. About the horribly familiar and gratuitous focus on the perpetrator; about victims becoming faceless statistics. And this is where he should have shut up. </p>
<p>My opposition to Moz’s analogy isn’t even grounded in offence. While I think his comments were actually much more egregious than the media coverage he chides, those likely to be most offended by him are too busy nursing broken hearts than to listen to a ranting Manc.</p>
<p>Rather, my opposition lies in just what a bloody bad PR move his diatribe was for vegetarianism.</p>
<p>Even as a vegetarian myself, I frequently find other vegetarians mercilessly annoying. There’s that wonderful scene in the Simpsons were the Dirt First eco-terrorist <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RtuMIaOGRy8">claims to be a Level 5 Vegan</a>: “I won’t eat anything that casts a shadow.” Vegetarians are too often either actually like this, or thought of like this: as holier-than-thou, preachy, pocket-mulching pedants.</p>
<p>Just like the cultee who’s just read a book on sugar addiction, like the taxi driver who’s just discovered talkback radio, or the newest Fitness First devotee, some vegetarians outrageously feel perfectly at liberty to tell people what to think, what to worship, what to eat. Hideous.</p>
<p>But not all vegetarians are like that. And the annoying qualities of some shouldn’t overshadow what a refrain from flesh consumption is actually all about.</p>
<p>Given the already troubled reputation of vegetarianism, the question needs to be asked as to whether stunts like Morrissey’s help or hinder the plight.</p>
<p>Non-vegetarians always assume vegetarians to be high-maintenance born-agains. Kinda like the way I think about people who separate their rubbish, wear clothing made of hemp and who listen to the John Butler Trio.</p>
<p>Having Morrissey present such a barbaric analogy puts Moz in a camp of extremists, of loonies, of people completely out of touch with reality.</p>
<p>He – and in turn the cause – then becomes complete unpalatable. Unappealing. Irrelevant.</p>
<p>No, Morrissey’s diatribe won’t stop me listening to his music – <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QN0w2ulyZ4I">Viva Hate</a> is on right now for motivation – but this spectacle serves as a timely warning about the need to separate the art from the antics. And for artists to think very carefully before anointing themselves as a spokesperson.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/2651/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Lauren Rosewarne does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>A qualification of how much I love Morrissey’s music needs to be made. Merely thinking about There is a Light cuts me raw; I adopted It’s Not Your Birthday Anymore as a power anthem the second I heard…Lauren Rosewarne, Senior Lecturer, The University of MelbourneLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/24892011-08-01T20:58:10Z2011-08-01T20:58:10ZWhat do the Norway attacks mean for multiculturalism?<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/2570/original/aapone-20110731000335187243-norway_attacks-original.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=34%2C349%2C1865%2C1485&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Right-wing extremism is threatening multiculturalism in Europe EPA/JON ARE BERG JACOBSEN/AFTENPOSTE </span> </figcaption></figure><p>The recent massacres by Anders Breivik in Norway drew the attention of the world to a growing reactionary element in Europe who resent the three Ms – Muslims, multiculturalism and Marxism. </p>
<p>So how do these attacks relate to multiculturalism in Europe? If multiculturalism is deemed to have failed <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/oct/17/angela-merkel-german-multiculturalism-failed">by some</a>, are the countries with the most immigrants and the most muslims the ones leading this popular shift towards anti-immigration, anti-muslim politics?</p>
<h2>Breivik’s links to the right-wing</h2>
<p>The assassin, Breivik was a demented and psychotic megalomaniac, showing no remorse and defending himself as saving Europe from itself. But he was also a member of the conservative anti-immigration Norwegian Progress Party – the second largest in Norway after Labor and one which scored 23 per cent in the 2009 Norwegian election. </p>
<p>Moreover, he had regular links with other anti-multicultural parties. These included the new English Defence League, a group who believes in controlling the streets, rather than running for office like the British National Party. Of course, the Progress Party renounced him, as did his own very respectable family.</p>
<h2>Norway’s multiculturalism </h2>
<p>Norway is one of the richest and most peaceful countries in the world. It gives more of its national wealth to overseas aid than anyone else and takes in refugees in preference to more adaptable migrants. </p>
<p>While figures for religion are unreliable in most of Europe (unlike Australia and Britain) the latest numbers show that only two percent of Norway’s 4.5 million people were Muslims. </p>
<p>The core of this small population was formed by Pakistanis who came over from England, because they believed Norway to be a more friendly and understanding society and have since become a prosperous and well-regarded group. However, later arrivals from wartorn societies like Afghanistan, Iraq and Somalia have changed the picture, as in other Scandinavian democracies.</p>
<h2>The popular shift towards anti-immigration</h2>
<p>There have been very large shifts towards anti-immigrant parties in Europe. The largest votes have been in Austria, Denmark, Finland, the Netherlands, Norway and Switzerland. Sweden surprised everyone last year by giving nearly six percent of its vote to the far right party, the Swedish Democrats and turning out a Social Democratic government which had ruled for most of the last thirty years. </p>
<p>In all cases, these were rich and liberal democracies, most but not all of which had endorsed and practised multiculturalism for many years. Similar results were not recorded in the larger states of Germany and Britain, but there are well-established right-wing parties in Italy, France and Spain. </p>
<p>In this political environment the conservative leaders of Britain, France and Germany all announced that “multiculturalism has failed”. This aroused some amusement among those who noted that it had never been tried in France and Germany and had largely been left to local authorities in Britain and Italy.</p>
<p>What has failed is not so much multiculturalism as the European Union management of immigration and the collapse of political and social systems outside Europe and especially in Africa, the former Soviet block and the Middle East.</p>
<h2>Little relationship between number of immigrants and right-wing parties</h2>
<p>One feature of the resentment against diversity has been the fear of the smaller European Union states that they are losing their characteristic and unique local cultures in a vast, borderless Europe dominated by larger states. </p>
<p>There is the perception that they are being swamped by Muslims, Africans and Asians. As most European Union states have smaller populations than Australia there is some basis to these fears. </p>
<p>However, there is little relationship between the size of Muslim communities and the degree of voting support for anti-Muslim parties. In recent national elections the greatest support was registered in Austria (29%), Denmark (25%), Finland (19.1%), Norway (22.9%), Spain (39.9%), and Switzerland (28.9%). </p>
<p>The percentage of Muslims in the smaller states range from 0.1 per cent in Finland, through two percent in Norway to a high point of 5.9 percent in Belgium. The latest Australian level was 1.5 per cent in 2006, less than one third of that in Britain.</p>
<p>There is no comparable support in the English-speaking democracies, with only 1.9 per cent supporting the British National Party in 2010. </p>
<h2>Are there anti-Muslim parties elsewhere?</h2>
<p>Several conservative parties which call for reductions or tighter controls over immigration do not make hostility to Islam a major issue. Those which do, no longer have much of a following in Germany, Britain, New Zealand, Canada or Australia. </p>
<p>However, it remains true that multiculturalism has been associated with the moderate Left side of politics for many years and that most of these parties (including the Labor party in Australia) have not been doing well in recent elections. </p>
<p>Comparisons with the United States are difficult as the party system is different and much more strictly two-party than in Europe. Many American conservative and business interests are not hostile to a continuing high level of immigration, while few politicians endorse multiculturalism.</p>
<h2>What has all this to do with Australia?</h2>
<p>Not that much. Lone mass murderers can arise anywhere and did in 1996 at Port Arthur without warning. The same year saw the election of Pauline Hanson and the rise of what became One Nation, followed by its collapse by 2007. </p>
<p>However, there is a network of racist and extremist groups and individuals here as elsewhere. Many sustain internet links with overseas organisations like Stormfront or the English Defence League and many more are hostile to Muslims, Jews or non-Aryans in general. </p>
<p>The Australia First party inherits a long line of such groups and was said to be active at the <a href="http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/mob-violence-envelops-cronulla/2005/12/11/1134235936223.html">Cronulla riot in 2005</a>. The difference does not lie in the greater decency and common sense of Australians, so much as in isolation from the massive movements which have swept over Europe in the last decade. </p>
<p>Australia has absorbed a large population of overseas immigrants since 1947, numbering 26.5 per cent of the population. Of these, at least one quarter are from English-speaking sources. Only one in eighteen is Muslim. </p>
<p>In Europe, virtually all immigrants since 2000 have been from a different culture and religion and the majority have been refugees from poorer and more unstable societies in Africa, the Middle East and the Balkans. </p>
<p>Moreover, despite the “common barrier” erected by the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schengen_Agreement">Schengen agreements</a> and the “borderless society” behind those barriers, not all states exercised tight control, especially Spain, Italy and Greece with long coastlines facing Africa. </p>
<p>Asylum seeker applications escalated in the late 1990s and Europe is much more accessible to Iraq, North Africa, the Horn of Africa or even Afghanistan when compared with Australia. The overall result of all this has been widespread anxiety and hostility. Australia has also become anxious about immigration but with fewer reasons.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/2489/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>James Jupp does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>The recent massacres by Anders Breivik in Norway drew the attention of the world to a growing reactionary element in Europe who resent the three Ms – Muslims, multiculturalism and Marxism. So how do these…James Jupp, Adjunct Associate Professor, Australian Demographic and Social Research Institute, Australian National UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/25612011-07-28T20:57:17Z2011-07-28T20:57:17ZNorway killings open a can of worms – who’s watching who, and why?<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/2542/original/5967983496_e5ed6b8859_b.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Increased intelligence data adds more noise, but not always more useful information.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">ssoosay</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>Commentary from some sections of the IT community on the <a href="https://theconversation.com/topics/norway-killings">recent killings in Norway</a> reminds us national security is still haunted by two visions:</p>
<p>1) With enough data it will be possible to comprehensively identify would-be terrorists or other offenders to prevent their destruction of lives and property. </p>
<p>2) Privacy law, in its current form, is fundamentally impeding, if not preventing, action by officials to save lives and prosecute criminals. </p>
<p>Neither of these views is realistic, although cold hard facts haven't prevented the waste of billions of dollars and millions of words.</p>
<p>An omniscient national security scheme, with tireless programs seamlessly parsing public and private sources of information to discern terrorist needles in digital haystacks, is an attractive idea. </p>
<p>The desire for such a scheme reflects the ambitions of IT researchers, the commercial interests of technology vendors, popular faith in the wonders of technology and the need for policymakers to be seen to be doing something. </p>
<p>Unsurprisingly, the US Government hyped a <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information_Awareness_Office">Total Information Awareness initiative</a>, which would gather extensive digital data on every single person in the States in the name of security. </p>
<p>Other governments have embraced less ambitious, but still expensive, programs. </p>
<p>Given the opacity of these security programs, it’s difficult to say for sure whether watching everyone all the time would, or could, produce consistently useful results. </p>
<p>But one oft-heard lament in the intelligence community over the last 50 years is this: adding more data often just adds more noise, not more useful information. </p>
<p>Terrorist outrages often can’t be addressed in advance precisely because analysts have too much, not too little, information: the data is there, but its significance is only discernable in retrospect. </p>
<p>Effective anti-terrorism activity is often distinctly low-tech (for example neighbours reporting suspicious activity, guards challenging fake identity documents, people keeping doors locked and passwording databases) and will remain so in a world where humans are still central to data analysis. </p>
<h2>Privacy law</h2>
<p>So given the amount of data is not an issue, it might seem fair to assume, as mentioned above, that privacy law is preventing effective policing – and that therefore privacy (indeed law) is something that can and must be sacrificed. </p>
<p>One distinguished academic claimed this week <a href="http://theconversation.com/why-didnt-google-catch-the-norway-killer-2514">on The Conversation</a> that privacy law in Europe doesn't allow law enforcement bodies access to anything. </p>
<p>That claim is demonstrably incorrect. </p>
<p>It would greatly surprise officials whose access to electronic information isn’t prevented by privacy law, or any other law. </p>
<p>It would also surprise those criminals currently in prison or being prosecuted in Europe. </p>
<p>Privacy, data protection and other laws in Europe <a href="http://ec.europa.eu/commission_2010-2014/malmstrom/archive/20110418_data_retention_evaluation_en.pdf">quite explicitly allow law enforcement access to electronic information</a>. </p>
<p>Such laws represent a balance between the rights of individuals and the community. This is not something that should be abandoned lightly.</p>
<p>Australia’s national Parliament is currently considering the <a href="http://www.aph.gov.au/house/committee/jscc/cybercrime_bill/index.htm">Cybercrime Legislation Amendment Bill 2011</a>. </p>
<p>That legislation strengthens <a href="http://www.efa.org.au/Issues/Privacy/privacy.html">Australian data protection law</a> (useful in dealing with unauthorised access to, and use of, financial databases or attacks on the <a href="http://theconversation.com/evil-descends-on-the-nbn-erm-not-quite-2529">NBN</a>). </p>
<p>It also enables Australia to join the <a href="http://conventions.coe.int/Treaty/EN/Treaties/html/185.htm">Council of Europe Cybercrime Convention</a>, an international agreement that facilitates sharing by law enforcement agencies of information about the voice, email and other electronic communications of Australian consumers. </p>
<p>Contrary to claims made in the previous Conversation article that privacy law stops policing in the EU and elsewhere, police continue to use traditional and new tools. </p>
<p>The Cybercrime Convention will see Australian police legally access information on a targeted basis. (No-one should want them to access information illegally, given memories of <a href="http://www.aic.gov.au/publications/previous%20series/lcj/1-20/wayward/ch3.aspx">past abuses</a> by state police forces, the CIA, the FBI, the UK Metroplitan Police and other agencies).</p>
<p>In contrast to early proposals, the Cybercrime Legislation Amendment Bill doesn't involve phone companies and ISPs having to retain the traffic data of all customers for several years, and doesn't give police carte blanch to listen to all calls or read all emails before passing that information to a foreign partner. </p>
<p>As with traditional <a href="http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0308596105000911">wiretapping law</a>, it involves independent supervision and authorisation by judges and magistrates. </p>
<p>Officials who can demonstrate a reasonable cause for requesting access to private communications will be able to do so, and will be authorised to convey information to foreign governments. </p>
<p>Privacy law will otherwise protect personal communications.</p>
<p>So where does that leave us? Should we be concerned about our online behaviour and exposure. </p>
<p>Let’s put it like this. Intelligence and IT enthusiasts are free to place all of their data health records, tax files, financial records, bedroom videos in the public domain. </p>
<p>Very few have yet to do so – and that should tell you all you need to know.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/2561/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Bruce Arnold teaches Intellectual Property Law and Information Law at the University of Canberra. He is General Editor of Privacy Law Bulletin and has written widely on data protection in digital environments. He has no investments or commercial participation that would be reasonably construed as a conflict of interest.</span></em></p>Commentary from some sections of the IT community on the recent killings in Norway reminds us national security is still haunted by two visions: 1) With enough data it will be possible to comprehensively…Bruce Baer Arnold, Assistant Professor, School of Law, University of CanberraLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/25422011-07-27T04:33:38Z2011-07-27T04:33:38ZAnders Breivik, Australian anti-multiculturalists and the threat to social cohesion<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/2506/original/PIC_-_Jaku_Norway.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Norwegian soldiers stand in front the government building bombed by Anders Breivik.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">AAP</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>The discovery of an Australian link to the horrifying murders of dozens of people by Anders Breivik in Norway has demonstrated the reach of connection in today’s globalised world.</p>
<p>As a result of the ability of a disturbed young man in Oslo to read Australian papers and publications online, our own anti-multicultural ideologues sometimes get caught up in situations not of their own desire. </p>
<p>Before Anders Behring Breivik was arrested as the Oslo killer, he had sent out a manifesto to some 5700 contacts. </p>
<p>The document, grandly titled “<a href="http://www.kevinislaughter.com/wp-content/uploads/2083+-+A+European+Declaration+of+Independence.pdf">2083- A European Declaration of Independence</a>” and circulated under the pseudonym Andrew Berwick, offered a compendium of every extremist White Power fantasies current among such groups. </p>
<p>The central tenet of the argument (summarised in the <a href="http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=89a_1311444384">video of the book</a>) is a simple equation: promoting the saving of Europe through the annihilation of cultural Marxism, multiculturalism, and the Islamic threat. </p>
<p>Cultural Marxism supposedly harbours a relativism that undermines western culture; in support of this view Berwick/Breivik draws on the writings of an anonymous blogger called <a href="http://fjordman.blogspot.com/">Fjordman</a>, who quotes British libertarian theorist Roger Scruton, followed by author Dan Brown of Da Vinci Code fame, and then Sydney ex-Marxist and now neo-liberal writer <a href="http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/opinion/charge-of-deadly-provocation-is-false/story-e6frg6zo-1226102316185">and columnist</a> for The Australian Keith Windschuttle, as evidence for his claim. </p>
<p>He further argues that cultural relativism underpins multiculturalism, which has almost doomed the West as its governments flail against but cannot prevent the influx of Muslims. </p>
<p>Here the quoted armoury of support includes former Liberal Prime Minister John Howard and his Treasurer Peter Costello, as well as Australian Roman Catholic Cardinal George Pell, all hailed as exemplary heroes defending white Christian civilisation from its combined erosion by Marxists and Muslims, presented as a particularly perfidious alliance against which western Christianity has struggled for decades/centuries. </p>
<p>Leaving aside Breivik’s image of himself as the reincarnation of the leader of mediaeval Christian order, the Knights Templar sent to rescue Christendom from its enemies, the litany of White Power fears and aspirations he has systematically assembled contribute to a not-unfamiliar case for exclusion and suppression of non-Christian elements in Western society.</p>
<p>For such people, internal fifth columns made up of Marxist academics and secularist liberals march to the beat of the jihadist drum, destroying their own societies as they engage in the self-delusion of multiculturalism. </p>
<p>Much of the Manifesto comprises clips from the blogs of this “Fjordman”; Fjordman is described in his <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fjordman">Wikipedia</a> post as an “anonymous” blogger, who also posts to Atlas Shrugged and <a href="http://gatesofvienna.blogspot.com/">Gates of Vienna</a>, well known anti-Muslim and libertarian right-wing sites. </p>
<p>His own site was open for a year in 2005, but has now closed with pointers to many other places he posts. As one reads these many posts and counter-posts (we now have one conspiracy running that Breivik was a possible Mossad agent or drone), the current extent and depth of the European hostility to Islam and Muslims becomes ever more apparent. </p>
<p>While Breivik’s own psycho-pathology may have prompted his specific acts, he was swimming in a sea of hate that bolstered his sense of purpose and justification. Fjordman has posted a denial that he is Breivik, and has distanced himself from the killer’s actions, though not his ideology.</p>
<p>As a critical (erstwhile Marxist) friend of multiculturalism, a liberal, a secularist and an academic (and a Jew, I forgot that one though Breivik surprisedly does not pursue a Protocols of the Elders of Zion conspiracy as part of his tome, and is described elsewhere as a Super Zionist), I have personally experienced many of these critiques. </p>
<p>Unfortunately Breivik is far from isolated in his vision of the approaching Armageddon, nor alone in his world-view about its causes. What Breivik had that these other lesser lights lack, was a sustained energy and discipline that he invested in the construction of his conspiracy view of the world. </p>
<p>He then followed it through with a cruelly and coldly calculated plan of attack, becoming an avenging Angel of his benighted God who touched the lintels of the households and then personally dispatched the first-born within. </p>
<p>His Australian “mini-me” versions can be found all over the place. Some of his paranoias about Muslims can be found in the public utterances of radio shock-jocks and populist newspaper and television commentators, or indeed in the sometimes unrehearsed statements of politicians such as Howard or Costello. </p>
<p>Others lurk on Internet chat sites and blogs railing against Jews, communists, multiculturalists and Muslims, promoting comments that read like out-takes from Mein Kampf. Still others have taken the opportunity of the current Parliamentary inquiry into migration and multiculturalism, to contribute their raves as submissions (<a href="http://aph.gov.au/house/committee/mig/multiculturalism/subs/sub456.pdf">see this for example</a> among far too many others in the 482 submissions). </p>
<p>A recent paper by Australian sociologists of Muslim faith canvases “<a href="http://jos.sagepub.com/content/early/2011/03/09/1440783310386829.abstract">what Australia’s Muslims really think</a>”. </p>
<p>Based on interviews with over 400 Brisbane Muslims at the Eid festival in 2009, the findings indicate strong support for democracy, though low confidence in the Australian media and the Australian government, especially over support for Israel. </p>
<p>Research undertaken by my UTS team for the Australian government, also using 2009 Eid interviews and school interviews of Muslim youth, produces similar outcomes – pointing to a strong moral conservatism but also an alienation from the practices of the political system, though not the values it espouses. </p>
<p>One of the implications for Australia of the Oslo murders will be how Australia’s Muslim communities interpret the events, and the impact on their sense of security and safety; that will depend heavily on Australia’s media and political responses and the lessons taken from those horrific events. </p>
<p>On past history, the prognosis is not great.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/2542/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Andrew Jakubowicz received funding from the Department of Immigration and Citizenship for research with colleagues at UTS. However the Department has no connection to this article.</span></em></p>The discovery of an Australian link to the horrifying murders of dozens of people by Anders Breivik in Norway has demonstrated the reach of connection in today’s globalised world. As a result of the ability…Andrew Jakubowicz, Professor of Sociology and Codirector of Cosmopolitan Civil Societies Research Centre, University of Technology SydneyLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/25142011-07-26T04:20:22Z2011-07-26T04:20:22ZWhy didn’t Google catch the Norway killer?<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/2486/original/5971049633_1cffb48584_b.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Search engines can flag up "dubious" searches on request.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">ssoosay</span></span></figcaption></figure><p><em>We know the self-confessed perpetrator of the Norway killings Anders Breivik purchased six tonnes of fertiliser, a key ingredient of explosives, in recent months.</em> </p>
<p><em>We know he was under surveillance by the Norwegian Police Security Service. We know he spent an alleged 200 hours on Google searching for terms relating to bombs.</em> </p>
<p><em>We know he emailed a copy of his 1,500 page “<a href="http://www.kevinislaughter.com/wp-content/uploads/2083+-+A+European+Declaration+of+Independence.pdf">manifesto</a>” to thousands of people just hours before the bombing and shooting that claimed at least 76 lives.</em> </p>
<p><em>So why wasn’t any of this picked up and acted upon sooner?</em></p>
<p><em>Craig S. Wright, an expert in computer forensics, shines a light on online surveillance.</em></p>
<p><strong>Anders Breivik is said to have spent 200 hours googling phrases such as “how to make a bomb”. How easy would it be for Google and other search engines to trace a user based on their search terms?</strong></p>
<p>That would be possible, but extremely difficult. You’ve got to remember the <a href="http://searchengineland.com/by-the-numbers-twitter-vs-facebook-vs-google-buzz-36709">large amounts of data</a> a site such as Google filters every day. To then assess the reasons <em>why</em> people do these kind of things would be even more challenging.</p>
<p>Of course, there are also freedom of speech requirements to consider and potentially there are academics and other people with valid reasons for using for such search terms, and so it becomes difficult. </p>
<p>Also, if you are going to bust down someone’s door because they’ve done a search for bomb-making the question is: where in the world are they anyway?</p>
<p>Earlier in the year, I had to go to Venezuela because of online child porn being delivered out of that country. The difficulty is that Venezuela doesn’t have any extradition to the US or other countries. </p>
<p>I was even able to meet with some of the people behind the material, the organised crime groups, and they were quite blatant about what they’d done for the simple fact that no-one can take them out of the country and prosecute.</p>
<p><strong>Do search engines have a flagging system whereby they are alerted whenever someone searches for words such as “bomb making”?</strong></p>
<p>No, but they can set up this kind of system on request. The problem is that Google is a US company and most of their servers reside in the US. </p>
<p>If you look at the furore around the <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2010/may/15/google-admits-storing-private-data">wireless network scanning issue a little while ago</a>, any time Google starts monitoring anything, it has privacy advocates screaming at it. That’s a bit of a double-edged sword: they’re damned if they do, damned if they don’t.</p>
<p>On the other hand, if an organisation such as the FBI or Australian Federal Police (AFP) make a request with a court order and Google becomes protected to some extent, they can monitor and flag certain search terms. The difficulty is that they need something legally sanctioned in order to do so.</p>
<p><strong>So unless an individual is already being watched by Google – at the request of a law enforcement agency – their search terms won’t be monitored?</strong></p>
<p>That’s correct, and that was one of the issues with Norway. When you’ve got a person <a href="http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2018646/Anders-Behring-Breivik-Norwegian-secret-service-watchlist.html?ito=feeds-newsxml">who’s being monitored by security forces in some capacity</a>, but by no means high on the radar, then there’s no-one out there actively looking for them.</p>
<p>Even if they are a person of interest, unless someone’s gone to a court of law and got an operational certificate or warrant requesting online monitoring, then nothing is going to be done.</p>
<p><strong>Should search engines be monitoring dubious search terms and tracing the individuals responsible?</strong></p>
<p>The problem is that this course of action will drive people to alternate websites that aren’t monitored at all.</p>
<p>Any real activist or “<a href="http://www.thehacktivist.com/whatishacktivism.pdf">hacktivist</a>” out there wanting to find this information is even better off going to sites such as <a href="http://www.astalavista.com/">Astalavista</a> and others that are actually tied to finding this sort of material.</p>
<p>Websites such as Astalavista are hosted offshore, so even if the FBI or AFP wanted to access them they generally can’t – not legally anyway.</p>
<p>So even if search engines did more in terms of monitoring search terms, and tracing those who make the searches, it would actually make it more difficult to catch people – that’s the paradox.</p>
<p>On top of that, sites such as Google are corporations that exist to make a profit. If they start having to do all of this extra work monitoring and filtering search results, then it’s going to bring in opportunities for websites that don’t do it, who have lower costs. </p>
<p>As a result, things move away to less secure sites.</p>
<p><strong>How common would search terms such as “how to make a bomb” be?</strong></p>
<p>I wouldn’t see it as being all that uncommon. Being involved with universities and uni students, I know there are people that look up such things just because they can, as their way of rebelling against the system. </p>
<p><a href="http://www.righto.com/anarchy/">The Anarchist’s Cookbook</a> is a good example: there are so many copies of it floating around it’s not funny. People just like to say: “Hey, look, I’m rebelling against the system. I’ve got a copy!”</p>
<p>Whether or not those people actually do anything mentioned in the cookbook – other than blow off their own fingers – is another question, but it’s the “I own it” mentality that goes through a lot of people when they go through uni.</p>
<p><strong>Are we likely to see any changes in the way search engines monitor user behaviour as a result of the Norway attacks?</strong></p>
<p>I can see calls for changes being made in some European countries where the privacy requirements currently protect the user to the point they don’t allow law enforcement to get access to anything. </p>
<p>There may be moves towards greater monitoring, but less privacy for users.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/2514/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Craig S Wright does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>We know the self-confessed perpetrator of the Norway killings Anders Breivik purchased six tonnes of fertiliser, a key ingredient of explosives, in recent months. We know he was under surveillance by the…Craig S Wright, PhD; Adjunct Lecturer in Computer Science, Charles Sturt UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/24922011-07-25T04:26:11Z2011-07-25T04:26:11ZNorway killings a sign of extremism on the rise in Europe<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/2474/original/aapone-20110723000333575447-norway-attacks-suspect-original.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=4%2C144%2C1811%2C1782&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">The suspected killer, Anders Behring Breivik's extreme views motivated his twin attacks on Norway AFP/Facebook</span> </figcaption></figure><p>As the self-confessed perpetrator of the Norway attacks, Anders Behring Breivik is <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/news/2011-07-25/norway-attacks-suspect-to-face-court/2808692">due to face court</a> today, The Conversation spoke with <a href="http://www.rmit.edu.au/browse/About%20RMIT%2FContact%20Us%2FStaff%2Fby%20name%2FK%2F;ID=4dbbuf6knl6d;STATUS=A">Dr Binoy Kampmark</a>, lecturer in Global Studies at RMIT about whether Breivik’s actions are a sign of right-wing extremism on the rise in Europe.</p>
<p><strong>Is European right-wing extremism on the rise, particularly in Scandinavia? Why has this happened?</strong></p>
<p>First of all, there is definitely a rise in extreme movements. How do we know? Because it has been documented by the police forces from the various countries in Scandinavia, the Norwegian police have certainly mentioned a rise in extreme activity.</p>
<p>The reasons for this rise are because of a perceived encroachment of Islam specifically, and more generally, the encroachment upon the cultural and political institutions by immigrants who are deemed not to have assimilated or integrated properly in these societies. </p>
<p><strong>Have there been signs before now that right-wing extremism is bubbling over?</strong></p>
<p>One of the signs which has allowed such extremism to come to the fore has been the legitimisation of more conservative policies and political groups in Northern Europe. And one of those is the emergence of the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Danish_People's_Party">Danish People’s Party</a> as a political force and certainly the rise of its leader Pia Kjærsgaard. Of course, she herself would not justify acts of violence but there is no doubt the cultural climate has been created that would allow acts of violence, potentially, to take place. </p>
<p><strong>You say the populist parties have been encouraging this kind of extremism, how have they been appealing to their supporters? Has it been through fear?</strong></p>
<p>They certainly have been and just to give you a sense of where this fear stems from, one of the documents that was left behind by the accused Oslo bomber, [Anders Behring] Breivik was <a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/norway/8657727/Norway-shooting-quotes-from-Anders-Behring-Breiviks-online-manifesto.html">this enormous manifesto</a> of his, and the title demonstrates this kind of fear that it targets, it’s called the European Declaration of Independence. That title gives you an idea about the sense of encroachment of religion, of other cultures on the independence of Europe and the European ideal, in his case specifically the Scandinavian ideal.</p>
<p><strong>On this sense of encroachment‚ do people feel a loss of what being Scandinavian or being Norweigian means?</strong></p>
<p>Yes, exactly, this is the whole perception about the European idea and does this particular idea incorporate the idea of cutltural tolerance – I think this is certainly something that is problematic. The emergence of fringe parties, such as the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stop_Islamisation_of_Europe">Stop the Islamisation of Europe Party</a> and so forth, would indicate that this is a serious problem.</p>
<p>These groups see multiculturalism as a kind of apologist idea for ghettos, for separatism in the country and this is an idea that has gained a lot of traction, particularly in Scandinavia. </p>
<p><strong>Beyond the populist parties, there are also underground extremist groups, how have these networks come about? How have they connected with each other?</strong></p>
<p>They have been connecting and making full use of different medias, particularly with social networking media. They use these various channels to communicate policies, platforms and ideas. And with this particular activism, there’s a lot of traffic there that police have been monitoring and this is quite significant. According to the Norwegian police, after the Breivik shootings, there were discussions between different extremist groups across borders – in Norway, Sweden and also in Russia. </p>
<p><strong>Is Islam specifically perceived as a threat?</strong></p>
<p>Very much so, there’s no question about it. Islam is the enemy and that’s deemed as fundamentally problematic. It’s also worth noting that someone like <a href="http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/world/oslo-killer-anders-behring-breivik-the-son-of-a-diplomat-inspired-by-the-unabomber/story-e6frg6so-1226101265687">Breivik</a> has a curious mingling of culture, multiculturalism and what he terms cultural marxism. It’s important to remember this was also an attack on the Norwegian Labor government which he perceives as nothing shy of Marxist and Communist, and so he sees the culture of multiculturalism as a blend of Marxist conspiracies. </p>
<p><strong>Do Breivik’s actions signal the demise of a peaceful and tolerant Scandinavia?</strong></p>
<p>It may well be, it’s one of the sad realities that the tolerant regime that has been put in place in these countries has been questioned and in the most spectacular and grim way. So whether this will continue into a broader sense remains to be seen, but all governments concerned will have to now take measures to openly confront the problem otherwise it will get out of hand. </p>
<p><strong>What do you think this may mean for multiculturalism in Europe? Whether this revives it or ultimately that this is the sign of the end of multiculturalism?</strong></p>
<p>It could go either way, some countries will follow what Germany’s Chancellor, Angela Merkel <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/video/2010/oct/18/angela-merkel-multiculturalism-germany-video">has suggested</a> which is the multicultural is a hard one to implement in Europe. Or after what’s happened, there may be a sense that tolerance is the only way forward. The only problem with that, of course, is that it’s fine to promote a tolerant platform, but how does a platform deal with the violence that we saw on the weekend.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/2492/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Binoy Kampmark does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>As the self-confessed perpetrator of the Norway attacks, Anders Behring Breivik is due to face court today, The Conversation spoke with Dr Binoy Kampmark, lecturer in Global Studies at RMIT about whether…Binoy Kampmark, Lecturer in Global Studies, Social Science & Planning, RMIT UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/24912011-07-25T02:51:30Z2011-07-25T02:51:30ZNorway tragedy exposes pundits’ tunnel vision on terrorism<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/2473/original/aapone-20110725000333820161-topshots-australia-norway-attacks-original.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=16%2C1530%2C2354%2C1829&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">aapone topshots australia norway attacks original</span> </figcaption></figure><p>When injustice is done, when the innocent are threatened, a common expression of sympathy is “I am one of you”. </p>
<p>So, as the famous movie line goes, “I am Spartacus,” or a little more recently, “Ich bin ein Berliner.” After 9/11, for a moment, we were all New Yorkers; after 7/7, Londoners; after the atrocious terrorist attacks in Oslo and Utøya, we are all Norwegians.</p>
<p>If only this were true.</p>
<p>The reaction from the Norwegian public and from its politicians alike has been nothing short of exemplary in its intelligence and even-handedness. </p>
<p>No Kevin Andrews in the Norwegian government sought feeble excuses to round up the usual “ethnic” suspects in some sort of echo of the Mohamed Haneef affair.</p>
<p>Nobody there even seemed to engage in gratuitous speculation about the motives of the attacks before the first facts emerged. </p>
<p>Instead, Prime Minister Jens Stoltenberg showed extraordinary principle and resolve, saying in <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/blog/2011/jul/24/norway-attacks-live-updates#block-21">his speech on Sunday</a>, “We are a small nation, but a proud people. We will never abandon our values. Our reply is: more democracy, more openness, and more humanity.” </p>
<p>Such humanity makes for a stark contrast with the frenzied, sometimes rabid, response of the global media. </p>
<p>Talking heads all over the world had a field day when news of the attacks broke, attempting to out-do one another in their knee-jerk, inherently racist conclusions that undoubtedly, these attacks bore all the hallmarks of islamist terrorism. </p>
<p>Absent any evidence, a commentator on BBC World’s live broadcast identified the attackers as “Islamist extremists linked to extremist Islamic groups.” The <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn/post/norway-bombing/2011/03/29/gIQAB4D3TI_blog.html"><em>Washington Post</em>’s Jennifer Rubin</a> wasted no time in unscrupulously exploiting the tragedy to attack “those who think it’s too expensive to wage a war against jihadists”. She <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn/post/evil-in-norway/2011/03/29/gIQAtsydVI_blog.html">fails to show any remorse</a> for such blatant misleading of her audience in a follow-up post that continues to trot out tired old lines about an “ideological war with the West,” – and no, she doesn’t mean the ideological war which Anders Behring Breivik and fellow Christian fundamentalists have declared. </p>
<p>News International’s remaining tabloid <em>The Sun</em> ran a cover that read <a href="http://twitpic.com/5u6n2l">“‘Al-Qaeda’ Massacre: Norway’s 9/11”</a>.</p>
<p>The list goes on; in the UK, the US, and many other nations, for a few hours after the events, a conga-line of “terror experts” and “homeland security” pundits was given free rein to speculate and scare. </p>
<p>Their collective failure to exercise even a skerrick of scruple or introspection before blathering on about “the Muslim threat to our democracies” exposes a deeper truth: scaring is good business. </p>
<p>They’re paid to convince us that there is a need for more tasers, more private prisons; to frighten us into buying those fearmongering newspapers, into believing that “it could happen here”, and that we must change our lifestyles in order to protect them.</p>
<p>But as the pompous and self-assured lined up to have their fifteen minutes of fear broadcast on 24-hour news channels, an alternative story also began to gather pace – slowly, at first, but ever more visibly. Criticism of the pundits’ knee-jerk Islamophobia made their voices heard where they could, especially online, to debunk what they could of this nonsense. </p>
<p>Twitter was abuzz with news that the attacker turned out to be white, blond, Norwegian; with links to far right politics in his home country and connections to fellow extremist travellers like the English Defence League. </p>
<p>Not an image which fit the media narrative, and even ignored for a while by some of the stations covering the event – but eventually, no longer deniable.</p>
<p><a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/blog/2011/jul/24/norway-attacks-live-updates#block-34">The <em>Guardian</em>’s live blog</a> on the Norway attacks has collected some of the least conscionable punditry in their aftermath, as well as some of the responses to it; they make for chilling reading. </p>
<p>By now, many critics of the self-proclaimed “experts” have noted that of the 294 terrorist attacks reported in Europe in 2009, <a href="http://www.scribd.com/doc/48948075/Europol-Terrorism-Report-2010">only one was linked to Islamists</a> – and yet, many journalists seem to reserve the term “terrorist” purely for Islamist attackers. </p>
<p>By contrast, people like Breivik are described as “lone madmen”, in an obvious distortion of the facts.
Whatever else we might learn about the horrific events which took place in Oslo and Utøya, then, and whatever other terrorist attacks the world will be forced to endure in the future, we can only hope that our response can be as measured and as human as that which we are witnessing in Norway. </p>
<p>May the Norwegians continue to follow their own instincts, rather than listen to the rantings emanating from the political churn cycles in Washington and London. </p>
<p>May they resist the temptation to turn Oslo into the capital of a police state, as other countries have done, and thereby to betray the social-democratic values of openness and democracy which Breivik evidently hated so much. </p>
<p>Perhaps they may even manage to resist an all-too-human desire for revenge, and sentence even Breivik in a way that maintains a hope for rehabilitation, rather than merely satisfying hunger for punishment.</p>
<p>And as we are confronted with terror – whether by Christian fundamentalists, Islamic fundamentalists, or anyone else – may we all be a little more Norwegian in our response.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/2491/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Axel Bruns receives funding from the Australia Research Council: Discovery Project DP1094281, New Media and Public Communication: Mapping Australian User-Created Content in Online Social Networks; ARC Centre of Excellence for Creative Industries and Innovation.</span></em></p>When injustice is done, when the innocent are threatened, a common expression of sympathy is “I am one of you”. So, as the famous movie line goes, “I am Spartacus,” or a little more recently, “Ich bin…Axel Bruns, Associate Professor, Creative Industries, Queensland University of TechnologyLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.