It is a very odd
trial where the prosecution argues that the accused is not guilty by
reason of insanity, but the defence demands a criminal trial. An
inversion of the usual order of things, unique to political cases as
far as I know.
When Anders Breivik carried out his
massacre, the Norwegian Prime Minister promised to respond to his
violence with 'greater openness'. When he came up for trial,
government psychiatrists proclaimed him insane, and attempted to
bundle him off to the madhouse. Out of sight, out of mind. He
protested vigorously, and a second set of psychiatrists have found
him fit to stand trial, pointing out the absurdity of the grounds
given for deeming him mad, which seem to be that he thought Norway
would be Moslem-dominated within twenty years. Of course, if the
first group had found that his desire to kill was madness, that would
have undermined the whole system of crime and punishment, so they
were left groping desperately for an excuse to shut him up.
In spite of their failure, the authorities have managed to arrange
to broadcast only parts of his trial, not his own statements or the
evidence of his defence witnesses. What happened to the PM's openness
then? Well, they've built a new courthouse to try him in, so the
taxpayer's wallet is open. The hypocrisy of the establishment is
pretty open, too.
"By their fruits ye shall know
them." What has been
established by this legal process is that the politicians believe in deceit, manipulation,
and trickery, not openness. 'What is new?' I seem to hear the reader
mutter. It's the sheer brazen effrontery of this example which I find
a bit shocking. Perhaps also that it is from Norway, which I had
naively believed to be a relatively enlightened place. It would be no
great surprise in the US or Britain, whose populations seem to have
given up expecting rationality, consistency or decency from their
leaders.
Some may ask:
could a sane man carry out such a slaughter? He shows no sign of the
confusion typical of the mentally ill. He does not think he has a
bird standing on his head, or that space aliens are talking to him
through his TV set. He seems calm and articulate. Probably he has
narcissistic personality disorder, with its characteristic grandiose
ideas and self-image. This is not classified as madness in successful
politicians or businessmen, among whom it is common. Other
politically-motivated killers have been tried in recent years, and
no-one said they were mad. Charles Taylor, the former tyrant of
Liberia, and Slobodan Milosevic of Serbia spring to mind. Somehow
their attempts at self-justification were seen as less threatening
than Breivik's. Some may think he is lucky to be alive at all.
Colonel Gaddafi and Osama bin Laden were crudely murdered rather than
tried, but then they knew too much, rather than merely talking too
much, like Breivik.
In any case, the
government of Norway has implicated itself in the recent bombing of
Libya, so it could be argued that one group of politically-motivated
killers is prosecuting another. Is the government insane too?
The recent raft of
political trials of former government leaders have undermined the
ancient distinction whereby government argued that it was authorised to
kill, and others were not. The sponsorship by Western governments of
paramilitary groups operating in Iran and Libya has also undermined
this idea. Maybe this is why Breivik, perhaps alone, thinks he is
not criminally guilty for the killings, even though he performed
them while of sound mind.
The authorities
also contend that Breivik acted alone, and his claims to belong to a
group are false. This is hauntingly familiar. One Lone Nut carried
out the killings, just as he also killed Martin Luther King, John
Kennedy, and Bobby Kennedy in rapid succession. Is Breivik's group of
Knights Templar merely fanciful? It is hard to know. One thing
killers have in common, is that after slaughtering people wholesale,
telling a few lies doesn't seem a very big deal. None of the parties
to the case are a reliable source of information.
