More Breivik Trial Idiocy.

[Barrister]

Valmy, even if that was true, the issue still carried itself over time. I mean, JFK had to face oposition in the 60s for being a Catholic.

Yes but largely in the South where there were, at the time, few Catholic immigrants, or Texas where Catholicism was associated with Mexico (and the explanation for all its backwardsness) rather than immigration.

I don't think that's right.  Anti-catholic feelings were certainly prevalent in Canada at the time as well.

[Valmy]

Just as in Europe, where plenty of vitriol comes from people who live in places where they've never seen an inmigrant in their lives.

Of course now many Catholics happy count themselves as American as can be.  It makes me wonder if in a century Muslim Euros are going to be parading around with signs saying 'Germany for Germans!'

[Valmy]

Al Smith might disagree.

You mean the guy who won the nomination for President of the very party most of those KKK guys were voting for?

[Viking]

Al Smith might disagree.

You mean the guy who won the nomination for President of the very party most of those KKK guys were voting for?

The very party the KKK and Catholics were voting for.

[Josquius]

Is there evidence of a double standard?  Are non-Muslim immigrant groups, engaging in roughly the same pattern of culturally unacceptable behaviors, being given a pass?

Nobody has any issue with Jews despite the Orthodox ones being rather weird and withdrawn.
A lot of the same issues around poor Asian communities also afflict poor black communities. Things are often worse there in fact with there being more violent crime. Yet...despite the knife crime panic blaming this on nasty foreign culture, though it happens, isn't seen as often as anti-muslim rants. The far right never touches it.

Valmy, even if that was true, the issue still carried itself over time. I mean, JFK had to face oposition in the 60s for being a Catholic.

Yes but largely in the South where there were, at the time, few Catholic immigrants, or Texas where Catholicism was associated with Mexico (and the explanation for all its backwardsness) rather than immigration.

Just as in Europe, where plenty of vitriol comes from people who live in places where they've never seen an inmigrant in their lives.

True.
There were a lot of main BNP target seats in my area...
Despite it being pretty much the whitest part of England.
I guess it comes from not living alongside minorities day to day and seeing they're actually largely fine but instead only seeing on TV the rare occasions when things go wrong and there's a racial incident or the right wing gutter press ranting about the unwashed foreign hordes taking our jobs.

[Valmy]

The very party the KKK and Catholics were voting for.

The Democrats of that era were one of the strangest political forces of all time.  That was one big tent.

[The Minsky Moment]

Can anyone explain how the court procedure works?  Why was Breivik permitted to deliver a speech for over a hour on matters that appear to have no bearing on his guilt or innocence?  And why has the prosecution been permitted (or even bothered) to cross-examine him on matters like the consistency of political beliefs, which also seems to have no bearing on culpability?

[Barrister]

Can anyone explain how the court procedure works?  Why was Breivik permitted to deliver a speech for over a hour on matters that appear to have no bearing on his guilt or innocence?  And why has the prosecution been permitted (or even bothered) to cross-examine him on matters like the consistency of political beliefs, which also seems to have no bearing on culpability?

I of course can offer no comment on Norwegian court procedure, but having prosecuted my share of mentally unbalanced individuals I find a judge will often go out of their way to indulge an accused person even when it would not be proper procedure.  The very brief article I read in my crappy little commuter newspaper said that Beivik "threatened" that if he wasn't allowed to read his statement/manifesto he wouldn't participate in the trial at all.

[alfred russel]

Valmy, even if that was true, the issue still carried itself over time. I mean, JFK had to face oposition in the 60s for being a Catholic.

Yes but largely in the South where there were, at the time, few Catholic immigrants, or Texas where Catholicism was associated with Mexico (and the explanation for all its backwardsness) rather than immigration.

Al Smith might disagree.

Al Smith was the first democrat to lose a bunch of southern states since reconstruction. And basically the south went back to being a democratic stronghold until the 60s and civil rights. Al Smith learned what was up, if he didn't know to begin with.

[Viking]

Can anyone explain how the court procedure works?  Why was Breivik permitted to deliver a speech for over a hour on matters that appear to have no bearing on his guilt or innocence?  And why has the prosecution been permitted (or even bothered) to cross-examine him on matters like the consistency of political beliefs, which also seems to have no bearing on culpability?

Norwegian law allows the accused to explain himself to the court. The accused is allowed to explain himself within reason. The professional judges made it clear to him beforehand what limitations he was under. Specifially how he was going to be permitted to refer to the victims and a limit to which topics he could refer and for how long he could speak. Since his defense seems to be self defense through mass murder of little children the only real issue for the court to decide is if what the little children were doing justifies lethal self defense.

He was cross examined today.

Norwegian law is pretty clear on self defense and there is a strong requirement to escape, even to the detriment of the lives of others. Just recently a man was sentenced to the harshed sentence possible when he shot a wolf that was killing his dog; not the same I know, but the closes analogy.

The terrorist suspect will now begin his testimony when the court set at 09 It is set in five and a half days of his explanation in the Oslo District Court, writes Aftenposten.no.

This will not be televised, a decision of Norwegian Editors' Association and the Norwegian Press Association appealed to the Supreme Court, where the appeal was finally rejected.

But the press is free to refer the explanation within the framework Norway-Media newspapers are reasonable and relevant.

Many details can be so cruel that it is unnecessary and offensive to reproduce them. We are going to pay attention to victims and their families who have a particularly difficult time during the trial.
- Ugly, but necessary

- His explanation is scheduled to last until Monday 23 april said Attorney General Svein Holden during his innledingsforedrag.

Behring Breivik has signaled in advance that he would like to explain why he believes his actions July 22 was cruel, but necessary.
The right to free explanation

Behring Breivik has the right to a free explanation. During the free explanation, he is not questioned by the prosecutor or defense, but speaks freely.

But the judges can still club him down and ask questions. Later in the week he will be questioned by the prosecutor and his defenders.
Did not admit guilt

First day in court went into the prosecutor's opening speeches and reading of the indictment.

-I recognize the actions, but not guilt, and I invoke the principle of necessity, said Behring Breivik when he was asked to answer how he relates to the indictment.

Behring Breivik remained calm when the charge was read in court, but attorney Svein Holden in his opening argument played by the defendant's own terrorist propaganda video produced 33-year-old began to cry.

[The Minsky Moment]

I of course can offer no comment on Norwegian court procedure, but having prosecuted my share of mentally unbalanced individuals I find a judge will often go out of their way to indulge an accused person even when it would not be proper procedure.  The very brief article I read in my crappy little commuter newspaper said that Beivik "threatened" that if he wasn't allowed to read his statement/manifesto he wouldn't participate in the trial at all.

My first answer is so what?  He can choose not to mount a defense and then take the consequences.
My second answer is even so, why two days of cross on the Templars, his failed business ventures, his sympathies for the Serbs, etc.?  Seems to me the prosecution could have just rested after Breivik's statement, which was self-condemnatory.

[The Brain]

I of course can offer no comment on Norwegian court procedure, but having prosecuted my share of mentally unbalanced individuals I find a judge will often go out of their way to indulge an accused person even when it would not be proper procedure.  The very brief article I read in my crappy little commuter newspaper said that Beivik "threatened" that if he wasn't allowed to read his statement/manifesto he wouldn't participate in the trial at all.

My first answer is so what?  He can choose not to mount a defense and then take the consequences.
My second answer is even so, why two days of cross on the Templars, his failed business ventures, his sympathies for the Serbs, etc.?  Seems to me the prosecution could have just rested after Breivik's statement, which was self-condemnatory.

Every law guy in Norway wants a piece of the ABB pie. And the bigger the better. Opportunities like this are rare.

[Viking]

I of course can offer no comment on Norwegian court procedure, but having prosecuted my share of mentally unbalanced individuals I find a judge will often go out of their way to indulge an accused person even when it would not be proper procedure.  The very brief article I read in my crappy little commuter newspaper said that Beivik "threatened" that if he wasn't allowed to read his statement/manifesto he wouldn't participate in the trial at all.

My first answer is so what?  He can choose not to mount a defense and then take the consequences.
My second answer is even so, why two days of cross on the Templars, his failed business ventures, his sympathies for the Serbs, etc.?  Seems to me the prosecution could have just rested after Breivik's statement, which was self-condemnatory.

Breiviks choice was to make the statement in a civilized manner or not make it at all, he eventually choose to make it in a civilzed manner.

[The Minsky Moment]

Norwegian law allows the accused to explain himself to the court. The accused is allowed to explain himself within reason. The professional judges made it clear to him beforehand what limitations he was under. Specifially how he was going to be permitted to refer to the victims and a limit to which topics he could refer and for how long he could speak. Since his defense seems to be self defense through mass murder of little children the only real issue for the court to decide is if what the little children were doing justifies lethal self defense.

Many common law courts have procedures to limit testimony to relevant matters.  E.g. one could have the court issue a legal ruling before the trial itself starts that defines the contours of the self-defense justification - in this case that could involve a ruling that self-defense is limited to imminent physical harm or threat, thus precluding testimony about political theory.  I assume Norway is a civil law system, but I would have assumed that civil law jurisdictions would be much more strict about this sort of thing.

[Barrister]

I of course can offer no comment on Norwegian court procedure, but having prosecuted my share of mentally unbalanced individuals I find a judge will often go out of their way to indulge an accused person even when it would not be proper procedure.  The very brief article I read in my crappy little commuter newspaper said that Beivik "threatened" that if he wasn't allowed to read his statement/manifesto he wouldn't participate in the trial at all.

My first answer is so what?  He can choose not to mount a defense and then take the consequences.
My second answer is even so, why two days of cross on the Templars, his failed business ventures, his sympathies for the Serbs, etc.?  Seems to me the prosecution could have just rested after Breivik's statement, which was self-condemnatory.

In a trial like this the judge wants to avoid any remote possibility of an appeal.

As for the second... fair point.  It can sometimes be hard to resist the temptation to gild the lilly when you have more than ample means to do so.