More Breivik Trial Idiocy.

[The Minsky Moment]

Look as an American I am hesitant to throw stones at other countries' legal systems; the glass is a bit too thin in my own house.

But this whole procedure strikes me as a bit bizzare.  There is no conceivable self-defense justification that has been proferred here and to proceed as if there could be some theoretical basis for one stemming from political views of the child victims is offensive in itself.  If he has evidence that the party organization or the individuals personally threatened him in some way or used force against him, let him present that evidence.  Otherwise STFU.

[The Brain]

Well this is the same country that at first thought that a guy who could plan and carry out this kind of advanced operation was legally insane.

[PDH]

Well this is the same country that at first thought that a guy who could plan and carry out this kind of advanced operation was legally insane.

Ted Nugent?

[The Brain]

Yes?

[Neil]

his sympathies for the Serbs, etc.?

Hang him.  Now.

[Martinus]

Wasn't it fairly mainstream in the 1920s?  Wiki said it had 4-5 million members at its peak, which would be a noticeable percentage of the entire country.

That was its height thanks to a certain movie but even then it was considered an extreme organization.  There was certainly anti-immigrant feeling but there was also lots of pro-immigrant feeling and those pro-immigrant interests won elections and enjoyed much more support than the explicitely anti-immigrant ones.

You make it sound as if, by contrast, people like Breiviki were European mainstream. 

[Valmy]

You make it sound as if, by contrast, people like Breiviki were European mainstream. 

I was responding to Raz's assertion that American response to immigrants was characterized by fierceness and violence.  I had nothing to say about Europeans at all until my joke about German Muslims.  So I fail to see how I made it sound like that.

[Richard Hakluyt]

The Guardian is treating the trial in an interesting way. They have grouped all the news about Breivik with stories about right-wing movements in a page called "The far right" :

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/far-right

[Viking]

The Guardian is treating the trial in an interesting way. They have grouped all the news about Breivik with stories about right-wing movements in a page called "The far right" :

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/far-right

That puts them in lock step with the Norwegian Labour Party.

[Neil]

The Guardian is treating the trial in an interesting way. They have grouped all the news about Breivik with stories about right-wing movements in a page called "The far right" :

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/far-right

That puts them in lock step with the Norwegian Labour Party.

It's understandable that the Labour Party would use this as an excuse to criminalize any and all opposition to their policies.  That's what people do.

[Razgovory]

In the US resistance to these perceived interlopers was fierce and often violent.

You talk like the KKK is some sort of mainstream organization that can be used as evidence of general sentiment.

Wasn't it fairly mainstream in the 1920s?  Wiki said it had 4-5 million members at its peak, which would be a noticeable percentage of the entire country.

Yeah, I'd say it was fairly mainstream.  It was also not relegated to the South or even Democrats.  In the North the Klan was sometimes Republican.  Such as in Indiana and Maine.  At the time the organization was a bit different the the later Klans and first Klan.  It was a semi-respectable fraternity of mutual aid.  Most of it's members were not terrorists or murderers (though make no mistake, some were).  To it's members it was an organization to defend American Democracy, Christianity, and cultural heritage.  In that sense it was to the Orange Order.  The problem was the hood.  Men wear masks to make themselves invisible to the law.  And when people believe the law can't touch them, they do bad things.  Which is why the Klan collapsed.

[Barrister]

The Guardian is treating the trial in an interesting way. They have grouped all the news about Breivik with stories about right-wing movements in a page called "The far right" :

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/far-right

at the Guardian.

There is a world of difference between those who hold distateful political views, and those who commit mass-murder.

I understand why Breivik wants to make this trial about his political views, but I don't understand why the media is actually giving him any coverage about those views.

[Razgovory]

Wasn't it fairly mainstream in the 1920s?  Wiki said it had 4-5 million members at its peak, which would be a noticeable percentage of the entire country.

That was its height thanks to a certain movie but even then it was considered an extreme organization.  There was certainly anti-immigrant feeling but there was also lots of pro-immigrant feeling and those pro-immigrant interests won elections and enjoyed much more support than the explicitely anti-immigrant ones.

The movie predated the Klan (and led to it's founding).  The movie was also made 10 years earlier.  4-5 million people is a significant portion of the eligible male population.

[Valmy]

4-5 million people is a significant portion of the eligible male population.

True but, as I said, it was still considered an extreme political organization even at its height.

[Sheilbh]

I can't speak for Britain, but the US has long seen arguments that immigrants are undermining Democratic ideals and civilization.  They were always bullshit.  I suspect Britain has seen such arguments in it's past as well with Catholic Irish immigrants to England and Jews from Eastern Europe.

This is true but also even worse arguments over black immigrants in the 60s, Enoch Powell's 'Rivers of Blood' speech for example.

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?

You seem to be assuming a basic level of 'culturally unacceptable behaviour' by Muslims.  We should establish what that behaviour is and whether it exists first. 

How much of it is like that Daily Mail story of the cafe owner forced to close because of the extracted smells of bacon offending Muslims.  Only the cafe owner's husband was Muslim and the guy who complained about the extractor fan wasn't but used his 'Muslim friends' to strengthen his argument?  In that article I posted on the Daily Mail the editor of the Mail Online said that they were only interested in stories that boost the ratings 'anything relating to climate change, American politics, Muslims'.  As I've said before another tabloid has a specific reporter whose job is to find a daily story about Muslims behaving badly in some way - most of the stories aren't strictly true.

I am not convinced that Muslim immigrants demonstrate a pattern of culturally unacceptable behaviour.

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.

This is true.  Polls in this country show the most concern about immigration is in the areas with least immigrants. 

In short, the idea of a conspiracy may possibly be wrong, but if so it's not very wrong. What's problematic about ABB's ideas isn't that mass immigration of the kind we have is retarded (it probably is) but that the answer to it is terrorism.

Which is fine.  I support requiring integration and citizenship classes and reducing immigration in general. 

But let's please stop pretending that these views are some persecuted minority and that the political class in Europe's so PC they're doing nothing about it.  I'm sick of people posing as victims over this and suggesting that the only answer to this 'threat' to our liberal society is to impose deeply illiberal policies.  My view is if our culture's open to immigrants who arrive then it is attractive enough that most will join over generations.

Also I think there should be more honesty about it because right now its counter-productive.  In this country when people say they want to cut immigration they mean less Poles and less Muslims.  We can't do the former because of the EU and we can't do the latter because of anti-discrimination laws.  But the Tories campaign on reducing immigration 'from the hundreds of thousands to the tens of thousands'.  Because so much immigration is actually from the EU this has led to cutting student visas and decreasing the length of time people with student visas are allowed to stay and try and find work.  I know there've been issues with fake colleges but those were largely sorted out under the last government.  That to me seems mad and damaging to our economy and our universities.

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.

I think under Norwegian law the defendant has a right to put his side across and make a statement.  Though I'm not sure, that's simply the understanding I've got from a couple of articles.