So, meanwhile back at the socialdemocratic paradise they are having a trial for Anders Behring Breivik; the guy accused of murdering ~70 kids at a political summer camp and exploding a bomb at the Government Office Building in downtown Oslo. This you all know, right?
Well, one of the jurors has now been removed; the reason? His facebook status of 23 July of last year (the day after the massacre) was "The Death Penalty is the only just outcome of this case!!!!!!!!!"
This is the second guy who has been removed, the first guy was the father of a officer of the political group organizing the summer camp.
Well, all things considered, I think this is a fairly sound reason for a juror removal. :huh:
The question is not really whether that juror should have been removed (he should have) but rather if they are going to be able to find enouh eligible jurors in Norway to give Breivik a fair trial. The same question was asked when they were considering trying 911 attackers in a US civilian court.
I'm not claiming his removal was wrong, I'm annoyed that the appearance of a fair trail is being diminished by sloppyness. The failure lies in allowing this man onto the jury to begin with. It was important to maintain not only the fact of a fair trial but also the appearance of a fair trial. This man is so blatantly guilty that there is no need to railroad him to guarantee a conviction.
he shouldn't be on trial anyway. He clearly has a couple of screws loose.
And locking up away in a loony bin and pumping him full of drugs really takes away this platform he wants to have and the legend he will become in prison.
Quote from: Tyr on April 17, 2012, 03:50:04 AM
he shouldn't be on trial anyway. He clearly has a couple of screws loose.
And locking up away in a loony bin and pumping him full of drugs really takes away this platform he wants to have and the legend he will become in prison.
Well, originally the doctors found him nuts. Then somebody pointed out that if he is found to no longer nuts he gets released. Then the parliament fast tracked a law through parliament allowing the state to prevent previously nuts people from being released. Then the court got a second opinion that found that he was not nuts. So he could stand trial and be sentenced to storage (think of a prison sentence of X years after which the government can decline to release you).
It should really be a matter of an hour or two in court then off to the gallows. But there it is, Norway is a socialdemocratic paradise as you say.
wouldn't it be ironic that at some pont in history he's proven right?
Ironic and miserable.
Maybe just miserable...
seems to me he's just a nuts as his muslim-counterparts: not really. It's ideologically motivated which is more dangerous than just lunacy.
Quote from: Crazy_Ivan80 on April 17, 2012, 07:03:34 AM
wouldn't it be ironic that at some pont in history he's proven right?
Ironic and miserable.
Maybe just miserable...
seems to me he's just a nuts as his muslim-counterparts: not really. It's ideologically motivated which is more dangerous than just lunacy.
That it's ok to murder dozens of teenage girls and boys ? :hmm:
Quote from: mongers on April 17, 2012, 07:23:02 AM
Quote from: Crazy_Ivan80 on April 17, 2012, 07:03:34 AM
wouldn't it be ironic that at some pont in history he's proven right?
Ironic and miserable.
Maybe just miserable...
seems to me he's just a nuts as his muslim-counterparts: not really. It's ideologically motivated which is more dangerous than just lunacy.
That it's ok to murder dozens of teenage girls and boys ? :hmm:
:rolleyes:
Quote from: mongers on April 17, 2012, 07:23:02 AM
Quote from: Crazy_Ivan80 on April 17, 2012, 07:03:34 AM
wouldn't it be ironic that at some pont in history he's proven right?
Ironic and miserable.
Maybe just miserable...
seems to me he's just a nuts as his muslim-counterparts: not really. It's ideologically motivated which is more dangerous than just lunacy.
That it's ok to murder dozens of teenage girls and boys ? :hmm:
Seconded mongers's question. What the fuck. How the fuck can he be "proven right"?
Quote from: Martinus on April 17, 2012, 10:13:37 AM
Quote from: mongers on April 17, 2012, 07:23:02 AM
Quote from: Crazy_Ivan80 on April 17, 2012, 07:03:34 AM
wouldn't it be ironic that at some pont in history he's proven right?
Ironic and miserable.
Maybe just miserable...
seems to me he's just a nuts as his muslim-counterparts: not really. It's ideologically motivated which is more dangerous than just lunacy.
That it's ok to murder dozens of teenage girls and boys ? :hmm:
Seconded mongers's question. What the fuck. How the fuck can he be "proven right"?
I think he means Breivik's hypothesis of quisling multiculturalism.
The idea that there is a political and philosophical class within a western society which is willfully sabotaging it's heritage knowingly turning over the society to barbaric non-western populations.
By the way ASEA Brown Boveri is annoyed that people use ABB for Breivik. I'm changing practice since I am a minion of big business.
http://translate.google.com/translate?sl=no&tl=en&js=n&prev=_t&hl=no&ie=UTF-8&layout=2&eotf=1&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.aftenposten.no%2Fnyheter%2Furiks%2FABB-vil-ikke-kobles-til-Breivik-6752686.html
QuoteABB will not be connected to Breivik
Persons charged with terrorist Behring Anders Breivik's name is often abbreviated to ABB in the media. The ABB Group will have the frabedt.
Breivik's full name is so long that it is not suitable for headlines and Twitter messages. The abbreviation "ABB" often shows up instead. This was the lead in the Swedish-Swiss ABB Group realized shortly after 22 July terrorist attacks.
The management of ABB takes a serious phenomenon. Director Helen Gunther Merge says to Stavanger Aftenblad that the company was considering including contact newspaper editors to ask them to avoid using the abbreviation ABB in the discussion of Breivik.
- We react when the press uses ABB on terrorist and believe they should have been more aware of this. Nevertheless, we chose to let it go. It would be impossible to limit the use of the abbreviation on social media, says Merge.
Brand and PR experts who spoke with the newspaper, said, however, that ABB does not need to worry about. - Since ABB is a company that is aimed at general consumers, this is unlikely to have much effect on them, says Håvard Hansen, a professor at the University of Stavanger.
The French company Lacoste has previously responded to the Breivik has been possible to see in a red Lacoste shirt on his way to questioning. In one of the PR pictures he made, he is wearing a black Lacoste sweater. Police had previously confirmed to Dagbladet Lacoste asked Norwegian police that Breivik had to dress differently. (© AP)
Quote from: Viking on April 17, 2012, 10:17:39 AM
I think he means Breivik's hypothesis of quisling multiculturalism.
The idea that there is a political and philosophical class within a western society which is willfully sabotaging it's heritage knowingly turning over the society to barbaric non-western populations.
It's a load of bollocks.
Quote from: Sheilbh on April 17, 2012, 10:21:00 AM
Quote from: Viking on April 17, 2012, 10:17:39 AM
I think he means Breivik's hypothesis of quisling multiculturalism.
The idea that there is a political and philosophical class within a western society which is willfully sabotaging it's heritage knowingly turning over the society to barbaric non-western populations.
It's a load of bollocks.
If you, however, remove agency from that statement then there is a case to be made. It is quite possible that Breiviks paranoid delusion of plots will somehow be conflated with an agency free statement of a tendency within society like
"The idea that there is a political and philosophical class within a western society which is unintentionally sabotaging it's heritage unknowingly turning over the society to un-integrated non-western populations."
Can you stop making the same grammar error every time you repeat this idiotic statement? It is grating.
It should be "ITS heritage", not "IT'S heritage". :rolleyes:
Anyway, the only penalty fit for Breivik should be some form of damnatio memoriae. I don't care what they do to him personally afterwards.
Quote from: Viking on April 17, 2012, 10:28:43 AMIf you, however, remove agency from that statement then there is a case to be made. It is quite possible that Breiviks paranoid delusion of plots will somehow be conflated with an agency free statement of a tendency within society like
"The idea that there is a political and philosophical class within a western society which is unintentionally sabotaging it's heritage unknowingly turning over the society to un-integrated non-western populations."
I think that's a load of bollocks too. The case has been made, almost endlessly, in the past decade and I still think it's wrong. It seems to me more a sign of cultural insecurity than anything else.
Quote from: Sheilbh on April 17, 2012, 10:44:25 AMIt seems to me more a sign of cultural insecurity than anything else.
Or a sign of being a racist bastard.
Quote from: The Larch on April 17, 2012, 10:51:13 AMOr a sign of being a racist bastard.
:lol:
I'm too polite. That too. As I say whenever I hear anyone start using gay rights as a cudgel to beat up on Muslims with I get suspicious.
Quote from: Sheilbh on April 17, 2012, 10:21:00 AM
Quote from: Viking on April 17, 2012, 10:17:39 AM
I think he means Breivik's hypothesis of quisling multiculturalism.
The idea that there is a political and philosophical class within a western society which is willfully sabotaging it's heritage knowingly turning over the society to barbaric non-western populations.
It's a load of bollocks.
But powerful. Ask all the European Jews.... wait. There are none to ask.
Quote from: Martinus on April 17, 2012, 10:29:47 AM
Can you stop making the same grammar error every time you repeat this idiotic statement? It is grating.
It should be "ITS heritage", not "IT'S heritage". :rolleyes:
It's still less annoying than anything you post, so fuck you.
Quote from: Sheilbh on April 17, 2012, 11:01:46 AM
Quote from: The Larch on April 17, 2012, 10:51:13 AMOr a sign of being a racist bastard.
:lol:
I'm too polite. That too. As I say whenever I hear anyone start using gay rights as a cudgel to beat up on Muslims with I get suspicious.
At some point it's necessary to put one's foot down and call a spade a spade. If not, this kind of discourse starts getting legitimate after so much creeping around, and you end up with xenophobic parties controlling the fate of your country.
Quote from: Sheilbh on April 17, 2012, 10:44:25 AM
I think that's a load of bollocks too. The case has been made, almost endlessly, in the past decade and I still think it's wrong. It seems to me more a sign of cultural insecurity than anything else.
Seems to me the argument that it's a load of bollocks rests on one of two assumptions: either cultural capital is a meaningless term, or immigrants automatically aquire the local cultural mores through breathing the air.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 17, 2012, 06:38:42 PMSeems to me the argument that it's a load of bollocks rests on one of two assumptions: either cultural capital is a meaningless term, or immigrants automatically aquire the local cultural mores through breathing the air.
Explain that more. I'm slow.
Quote from: Sheilbh on April 17, 2012, 06:40:25 PM
Explain that more. I'm slow.
Can you narrow it down a little for me? I'm loathe to write an Oexmelin sized post and have you reply "oh yeah, I knew all that."
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 17, 2012, 06:44:03 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on April 17, 2012, 06:40:25 PM
Explain that more. I'm slow.
Can you narrow it down a little for me? I'm loathe to write an Oexmelin sized post and have you reply "oh yeah, I knew all that."
Alternatively, you could admit to the probability that its neither ie bollocks.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 17, 2012, 06:44:03 PMCan you narrow it down a little for me? I'm loathe to write an Oexmelin sized post and have you reply "oh yeah, I knew all that."
I think this "the idea that there is a political and philosophical class within a western society which is unintentionally sabotaging it's heritage unknowingly turning over the society to un-integrated non-western populations" is bullshit. I also think there's maybe two people in Europe who hold this view out of a genuine concern and belief in what's good about western society. The rest are mostly xenophobes who use 'muscular liberalism' as their current justification.
Quote from: Sheilbh on April 17, 2012, 06:48:11 PM
I think this "the idea that there is a political and philosophical class within a western society which is unintentionally sabotaging it's heritage unknowingly turning over the society to un-integrated non-western populations" is bullshit. I also think there's maybe two people in Europe who hold this view out of a genuine concern and belief in what's good about western society. The rest are mostly xenophobes who use 'muscular liberalism' as their current justification.
I was trying to address the point that the statement is bullshit, not that all people (except those 2) who espouse it are bigots looking for a good line to cover their bigoted asses.
Quote from: mongers on April 17, 2012, 06:47:50 PM
Alternatively, you could admit to the probability that its neither ie bollocks.
Alternatively, I could stand on my head while juggling pumpkins.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 17, 2012, 06:56:39 PM
I was trying to address the point that the statement is bullshit, not that all people (except those 2) who espouse it are bigots looking for a good line to cover their bigoted asses.
Okay. I disagree with more or less all parts of the statement. But I don't understand your two points. I'm sorry but could you spell them out a bit.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 17, 2012, 07:01:23 PM
Quote from: mongers on April 17, 2012, 06:47:50 PM
Alternatively, you could admit to the probability that its neither ie bollocks.
Alternatively, I could stand on my head while juggling pumpkins.
That's could work, it's certainly more attractive that your earlier strawman. :)
Quote from: Sheilbh on April 17, 2012, 07:09:07 PM
Okay. I disagree with more or less all parts of the statement. But I don't understand your two points. I'm sorry but could you spell them out a bit.
As soon as I catch this last pumpkin.
Native Norwegians have customs, some if not all worth preserving.
Immigrants to Norway presumably don't have all the same customs.
Some Norwegian customs depend for their practice upon a critical mass of neighbors obeying the same unwritten rules. Paying taxes, crime in general, honesty, things like that come to mind. Leaving doors unlocked maybe. Whatever.
These benevolent customs could be lost if immigrants arrived in sufficient numbers and did not assimilate, i.e. aquire the same benevolent habits.
So evil liberal PC whatever guys (whatever term Viking used) who favor large scale immigration and who resisit efforts to "impose the dominant culture" on immigrants will achieve the end of destroying the native population's cultural capital.
Quote from: grumbler on April 17, 2012, 11:27:00 AM
Quote from: Sheilbh on April 17, 2012, 10:21:00 AM
Quote from: Viking on April 17, 2012, 10:17:39 AM
I think he means Breivik's hypothesis of quisling multiculturalism.
The idea that there is a political and philosophical class within a western society which is willfully sabotaging it's heritage knowingly turning over the society to barbaric non-western populations.
It's a load of bollocks.
But powerful. Ask all the European Jews.... wait. There are none to ask.
There are about 2 million Jews in Europe.
Quote from: Zoupa on April 17, 2012, 07:21:32 PM
Quote from: grumbler on April 17, 2012, 11:27:00 AM
Quote from: Sheilbh on April 17, 2012, 10:21:00 AM
Quote from: Viking on April 17, 2012, 10:17:39 AM
I think he means Breivik's hypothesis of quisling multiculturalism.
The idea that there is a political and philosophical class within a western society which is willfully sabotaging it's heritage knowingly turning over the society to barbaric non-western populations.
It's a load of bollocks.
But powerful. Ask all the European Jews.... wait. There are none to ask.
There are about 2 million Jews in Europe.
THAT NUMBER SEEMS ARTIFICIALLY LOW.
PUNCH WAS SERVED! CHECK VIT POLAND!
:lol:
France's greatest war crime was shipping off trains full of Jews and leaving Gertrude Stein.
That's all reasonably fair. I can't comment on Scandinavia specifically and wouldn't ask any of our Scandis for comment because they're all, I think, more or less suspicious of immigration. Though they're not all Slargos.
I'm unsure that the lack of assimilation is present, I'm also unsure that immigration's having the effect described. As I say I don't know Scandinavia well enough and I'm not willing to trust Slarg's comments about all rapes being committed by Somalis and so on.
However I cannot think of any mainstream party in Europe any more that is so PC as to oppose integration, or to favour large scale immigration. That conversation was pertinent a decade ago. Since then no single issue has so dominated European politics - the economy's probably overtaken it in the last year or two. Nothing has caused more politicians to give speeches ('multiculturalism has failed, failed utterly', 'state multiculturalism has failed', 'there are too many foreigners') and I can't think of any that was a defence of immigration or of a liberal and tolerant attitude to immigrants. All through this there have been numerous policy initiatives and tortured conversations over national identity.
There's no sabotage. There's no great threat in these 'un-integrated non-westerners'. And it's certainly not unknowingly. It's nonsense with, possibly, a grain of truth before 9/11 but even then I'm not convinced. That this is deliberate and imposed by a 'PC elite' is bullshit and it's the European populist right's new stabbed in the back myth. And I think it's now caused deaths and will cause more unless it's confronted not quietly acquiesced to as respectable opinion.
But let's be clear that in the context of Breivik and I think the comments around him we're not talking about a change in social trust brought on by mass migration from anywhere. The conversation's about a change in the nature of society because of Muslims.
Quote from: Sheilbh on April 17, 2012, 07:32:20 PM
But let's be clear that in the context of Breivik and I think the comments around him we're not talking about a change in social trust brought on by mass migration from anywhere. The conversation's about a change in the nature of society because of Muslims.
Not sure I see the importance of this distinction.
Quote from: Viking on April 17, 2012, 03:43:35 AM
I'm not claiming his removal was wrong, I'm annoyed that the appearance of a fair trail is being diminished by sloppyness. The failure lies in allowing this man onto the jury to begin with. It was important to maintain not only the fact of a fair trial but also the appearance of a fair trial.
I don't know how Norway does jury selection, but presumably they have to take people at their word when they talk about their prejudices and don't ordinarily do an extensive background check on prospective jurors...
Quote from: Capetan Mihali on April 17, 2012, 08:18:24 PM
Quote from: Viking on April 17, 2012, 03:43:35 AM
I'm not claiming his removal was wrong, I'm annoyed that the appearance of a fair trail is being diminished by sloppyness. The failure lies in allowing this man onto the jury to begin with. It was important to maintain not only the fact of a fair trial but also the appearance of a fair trial.
I don't know how Norway does jury selection, but presumably they have to take people at their word when they talk about their prejudices and don't ordinarily do an extensive background check on prospective jurors...
You mean that they don't read everything ever posted or written by all of the prospective jurors? That's very sloppy.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 17, 2012, 07:36:25 PM
Not sure I see the importance of this distinction.
I think these sort of views are a bit more insidious and suspicious when they're targeted against one group.
I don't know much about Norway (this is quite intentional) but for Sweden the following is true.
The mass immigration of uneducated people from strange cultures has always been at odds with the opinion of large parts of the population. The exact numbers are difficult to gauge since there never was a referendum and it's never been the main issue in a general election.
Questioning the wisdom of said mass immigration is and has been taboo. If you do you are branded a racist. Cracks in the taboo has begun to appear the past 10 years though.
Our PM has stated that only barbarism is native to Sweden, everything else has come from abroad. Considering Sweden's history and contributions to society this is an obvious lie, and it is also a lie that isn't appreciated by people with nationalist tendencies.
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.
Quote from: Zoupa on April 17, 2012, 07:21:32 PM
There are about 2 million Jews in Europe.
Yes, but the largest and most prominent group are sephardic jews who fled arab persecution after the creation of Israel to France.
Quote from: Sheilbh on April 17, 2012, 07:32:20 PM
That's all reasonably fair. I can't comment on Scandinavia specifically and wouldn't ask any of our Scandis for comment because they're all, I think, more or less suspicious of immigration. Though they're not all Slargos.
This is a general attitude which I dislike very much. I am fully aware how the topic of cultural conflict of immigrants and natives is ruled by xenophobic nazis, but that very attitude you show is the #1 reason for that.
What attitude? That you dismiss the "ground level" reports and opinion on the issue, because they all contradict your stance, and the "head to the sand" stance of the left on the whole thing.
Should you consider the Languish Scandis as statistically significant? No. Should you consider their concerns valid, if all seem to share them? Yes.
Just like Yi outlined: there are various customs in different cultures which are simply not compatible, and one of these competing customs will eventually yield and die out.
This is not a matter of deciding which is better, by the way, since that is relative.
I just don't feel I have the right to deny the natives' right to try and defend their own cultural aspects which are, due to their nature, vulnerable to immigration by other cultures.
Quote from: The Brain on April 18, 2012, 12:47:02 AM
I don't know much about Norway (this is quite intentional) but for Sweden the following is true.
The mass immigration of uneducated people from strange cultures has always been at odds with the opinion of large parts of the population. The exact numbers are difficult to gauge since there never was a referendum and it's never been the main issue in a general election.
Questioning the wisdom of said mass immigration is and has been taboo. If you do you are branded a racist. Cracks in the taboo has begun to appear the past 10 years though.
Our PM has stated that only barbarism is native to Sweden, everything else has come from abroad. Considering Sweden's history and contributions to society this is an obvious lie, and it is also a lie that isn't appreciated by people with nationalist tendencies.
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.
This is pretty much Breiviks self justification only with conspiracy theories and murderous intent excluded. I don't think there is anything controversial about saying that you can't have western civilization without western ideas and values. I don't think there is any debate that the European approach to immigrants, guest workers and asylum seekers has not, in general, resulted in them adopting these ideas and values and in certain groups (people from tribal muslim societies) participation in society is falling while the proporting of the population is increasing. Here Breivik sees malicious intent while I see incompetence. Strangely Sheilbh sees malicious intent in pointing these things out and suggesting that something might be done.
The fact that I feel the need to point out that this "something" is to be more like the americans when it comes to naturalisation (putting me in the same camp as Gordon Brown on this issue) suggests to myself that I am worried about being branded a racist.
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.
I wish the police had just shot him instead of taking him alive.
Quote from: Razgovory on April 18, 2012, 04:00:35 AM
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.
But those were never of cultural differences of this scale.
Quote from: Viking on April 18, 2012, 03:35:55 AM
Yes, but the largest and most prominent group are sephardic jews who fled arab persecution after the creation of Israel to France.
They left Algeria after Algeria achieved independence.
Quote from: Sheilbh on April 17, 2012, 10:51:01 PM
I think these sort of views are a bit more insidious and suspicious when they're targeted against one group.
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?
Quote from: Tamas on April 18, 2012, 07:33:49 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on April 18, 2012, 04:00:35 AM
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.
But those were never of cultural differences of this scale.
Really? The people at the time thought so. Catholics and Jews have largely been accepted in American Culture. There was a great deal of resistance to that before. At least in the US. There were genuine beliefs that Catholics were a Fifth Column to bring about the end of American Democracy and bring about Papal Rule. Jews were often seen as radicals who planned to undermine the Republic with Socialism, Communism and Anarchism. Many of the statements made about Jews and Catholics in the 19th and early 20th century are indistinguishable from those made about Muslims in the 21st.
I believe there were similar ideas floating around Britain.
In the US resistance to these perceived interlopers was fierce and often violent. The second incarnation of the Ku Klux Klan (which was not a small origination, it had several million members) was more concerned with Jews, Catholics and suspected radicals then they were blacks. It was refounded by men who had just murdered a Jewish man.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 17, 2012, 07:01:23 PM
Quote from: mongers on April 17, 2012, 06:47:50 PM
Alternatively, you could admit to the probability that its neither ie bollocks.
Alternatively, I could stand on my head while juggling pumpkins.
Please do, and post a video online for us. :)
Quote from: Razgovory on April 18, 2012, 08:07:48 AM
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.
Quote from: Valmy on April 18, 2012, 08:46:24 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on April 18, 2012, 08:07:48 AM
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.
Quote from: Barrister on April 18, 2012, 08:49:09 AM
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.
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.
Quote from: The Larch on April 18, 2012, 09:01:21 AM
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.
Quote from: Valmy on April 18, 2012, 09:05:19 AM
Quote from: The Larch on April 18, 2012, 09:01:21 AM
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.
Quote from: Valmy on April 18, 2012, 09:05:19 AM
Quote from: The Larch on April 18, 2012, 09:01:21 AM
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.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.kevincmurphy.com%2Falsmith.jpg&hash=715519dec0a8874869707ec66b22760c08f191a3)
Al Smith might disagree.
Quote from: Valmy on April 18, 2012, 09:05:19 AM
Quote from: The Larch on April 18, 2012, 09:01:21 AM
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.
Quote from: The Larch on April 18, 2012, 09:09:02 AM
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!'
Quote from: Viking on April 18, 2012, 09:09:30 AM
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? :P
Quote from: Valmy on April 18, 2012, 09:14:21 AM
Quote from: Viking on April 18, 2012, 09:09:30 AM
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? :P
The very party the KKK and Catholics were voting for.
Quote
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.
Quote from: The Larch on April 18, 2012, 09:09:02 AM
Quote from: Valmy on April 18, 2012, 09:05:19 AM
Quote from: The Larch on April 18, 2012, 09:01:21 AM
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.
Quote from: Viking on April 18, 2012, 09:22:24 AM
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.
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?
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on April 18, 2012, 09:33:02 AM
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.
Quote from: Viking on April 18, 2012, 09:09:30 AM
Quote from: Valmy on April 18, 2012, 09:05:19 AM
Quote from: The Larch on April 18, 2012, 09:01:21 AM
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.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on April 18, 2012, 09:33:02 AM
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.
Quote from: schedule of events of april 17 in the courtThe 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.
Quote from: Barrister on April 18, 2012, 09:37:43 AM
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.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on April 18, 2012, 09:52:34 AM
Quote from: Barrister on April 18, 2012, 09:37:43 AM
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.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on April 18, 2012, 09:52:34 AM
Quote from: Barrister on April 18, 2012, 09:37:43 AM
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.
Quote from: Viking on April 18, 2012, 09:49:53 AM
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.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on April 18, 2012, 09:52:34 AM
Quote from: Barrister on April 18, 2012, 09:37:43 AM
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.
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.
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.
Quote from: The Brain on April 18, 2012, 10:06:38 AM
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?
Yes?
Quote from: Valmy on April 18, 2012, 09:00:06 AM
Quote from: Barrister on April 18, 2012, 08:49:09 AM
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. :huh:
Quote from: Martinus on April 18, 2012, 10:40:25 AM
You make it sound as if, by contrast, people like Breiviki were European mainstream. :huh:
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.
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
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on April 18, 2012, 10:55:24 AM
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.
Quote from: Viking on April 18, 2012, 11:02:42 AM
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on April 18, 2012, 10:55:24 AM
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.
Quote from: Barrister on April 18, 2012, 08:49:09 AM
Quote from: Valmy on April 18, 2012, 08:46:24 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on April 18, 2012, 08:07:48 AM
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.
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on April 18, 2012, 10:55:24 AM
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
:rolleyes: 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.
Quote from: Valmy on April 18, 2012, 09:00:06 AM
Quote from: Barrister on April 18, 2012, 08:49:09 AM
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.
Quote from: Razgovory on April 18, 2012, 11:13:44 AM
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.
Quote from: Razgovory on April 18, 2012, 04:00:35 AMI 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.
QuoteIs 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.
QuoteJust 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.
QuoteIn 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.
QuoteI 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.
The problem is the liberal society in the first place.
Quote from: Viking on April 18, 2012, 03:35:55 AM
Quote from: Zoupa on April 17, 2012, 07:21:32 PM
There are about 2 million Jews in Europe.
Yes, but the largest and most prominent group are sephardic jews who fled arab persecution after the creation of Israel to France.
Ok?
http://www.businessinsider.com/explained-the-norwegian-legal-system-where-mass-murderer-breivik-is-on-trial-2012-4
QuoteEXPLAINED: The Norwegian Legal System Where Mass Murderer Breivik Is On Trial
Sinead O'Carroll, thejournal.ie
Read more: http://www.thejournal.ie/explainer-how-the-norwegian-courts-operate-420142-Apr2012/#ixzz1sQxgWzfJ
THE VERY PUBLIC trial of self-confessed mass murderer Anders Behring Breivik has brought up many questions about how the criminal justice system in Norway operates.
What is a lay judge? Why did court officials shake the hands of a man who has admitted to killing 77 innocent people? Why is the maximum sentence only 21 years?
Here, TheJournal.ie answers the queries that have been raised during the first two days of what has been described as Norway's trial of the century.
Is there a jury in the Breivik trial?
No. There is a five-judge panel but this includes three lay judges, who are members of the public. Criminal cases in district courts are always decided by either a guilty plea or by a mixed panel.
In ordinary criminal cases, the District Court sits as a mixed panel of one professional and two lay judges. In lengthy or other special cases, such as the Breivik trial, the court is allowed to be "extended" to a five-member panel.
The two professional judges – Wenche Elizabeth Arntzen and Arne Lyng – will take the lead in the courtroom over the next 10 weeks.
However, the professional judges and the lay judges participate on an equal basis with regard to the question of guilt and the sentencing.
What is a lay judge?
Norway says the lay judge system ensures that citizens who do not have a law qualification also play a key role in Norwegian "juris-prudence". The system was started about 100 years ago "provide a corrective counterbalance against official power and the establishment".
The idea of being judged by one's peers is upheld as a central principle in the criminal justice system.
...Independent citizens, by acting as lay members of the judiciary and by sitting on juries, should use their common sense and good judgement to determine questions of guilt and innocence.
Lay judges are selected by municipal councils for four years at a time. Anyone between the ages of 21 and 70 selected is obliged to accept the office with only a few exemptions offered to judges, police officers, prosecutors, employees of the courts and those in ill-health.
It was one of the lay judges (non-professionals), Thomas Indreboe, who was removed from the bench this morning after it was discovered that he wrote messages about the trial on a website, claiming that death penalty was the only outcome for this case.
He was replaced by one of the reserve magistrates and no real delay to the proceedings was incurred.
Does Norway even have the death penalty?
No. Although it was only officially abolished in 1979, the last execution in peacetime was back in 1876. In fact, the country's penal system is based on rehabilitation and its maximum sentence is just 21 years.
However, that does not mean Breivik will walk free by 2033. If he is found to be clinically insane, he can be held in psychiatric care for life and if he is found criminally guilty, the sentence can be extended (by five years at a time) if a parole board believes he still poses a threat to society.
The court explains:
A sentence of permanent detention can be imposed if there is considerable danger of repetition. Permanent detention is not subject to any timeframe. However, the court always fixes a timeframe that may not exceed 21 years. When the timeframe expires the offender may be re-assessed. If the court concludes that there is still a danger of repetition the timeframe may be extended by up to five years at a time. There is no upper limit to the number of times that the court may extend the timeframe. In principle, a person that is sentenced to permanent detention can remain in prison for the rest of his or her life.
Who is defending Breivik?
The accused has four counsel, led by Geir Lippestad (pictured here).
There are two public prosecutors, Inga Bejer Engh and Svein Holden, working with three co-ordinating counsel for the aggrieved parties (victims). Both Engh and Holden are employed by the Oslo Public Prosecutor's Office.
The role of the legal counsel for the aggrieved parties is to protect the rights of the deceased and the bereaved. Altogether there are 162 legal counsel for the victims. Their three co-ordinating counsel, Mette Yvonne Larsen, Frode Elgesem and Siv Hallgren, present in court for the main hearing and have to prepare reports for all the other lawyers each day.
Why did some of the court staff shake hands with the accused?
The courtesy extended to the 33-year-old killer in court yesterday surprised many people and raised eyebrows in other countries. However, in the Norway court is was deemed neither normal or abnormal.
The Guardian's Helen Pidd offered the following explanation:
Various colleagues and Tweeters have asked why Breivik shook hands with court staff when he arrived in court for the first day of his trial yesterday. I checked with a judicial press officer and she said there is no convention – "what he did was neither normal nor abnormal". No one had to shake his hand. But the judicial authorities have have been at pains to treat Breivik's trial as a normal trial as much as possible. Even though Breivik has admitted the killings, he is pleading not guilty, on the grounds of "necessity". And in Norway, as in Britain and beyond, the accused is innocent until proven otherwise. So to refuse to shake Breivik's hand could have been seen to be not affording him the respect given to other "normal" defendants.
Why broadcast some of the trial but not all of it?
Although Norway's system prides itself on equality and fairness, the courts wish to prevent giving Breivik a platform to express his far-Right extremist views.
He was given 30 minutes to read a statement this morning but this was not aired across any television station or the official live stream. The judge asked him to stop speaking when his time was up but he continued to read well past the half-hour limit, according to reports.
There are 190 places in the courtroom which were reserved for reporters and and victims, including families of the deceased and survivors. About 2,500 people are watching the proceedings from special broadcasts in 17 local courts around the country.
Tweeting from the courtroom has been permitted for the duration of the trial.
Survivors have implemented their own system of restrictions, with some wearing badges to indicate whether they are open to approaches from journalists.
If he has already confessed, why the trial?
The judges' main job is to determine if Breivik is sane and accountable for his actions or clinically insane. That will determine if he is held in psychiatric care or sentenced to prison.
Norway's political system is also keen to offer the same treatment to Breivik as it would to any other person charged with a crime. Many of the victims' families are also searching for answers for what happened on the 22 July 2011.
Over the next five days, the accused will give his testimony and there will be a detailed run-through of the events of the day that has terrorised the Norwegian population. A schedule for the rest of the 10-week trial can be found here.
Forensic psychiatry evidence will be heard from the 18 to the 20 June with closing arguments provisionally planned for 21 and 22 June.
But what is this self-defence plea all about?
Some clarification has been offered on this by court translators on Tuesday. The official Oslo court Twitter account warned journalists that the term 'self-defence' is a misleading translation. A better word is 'necessity', it said, because Brevik is referring to a clause about defence of property and others (against multiculturalism and Muslims) in his plea.
Section 47 of the Penal Code offers an explanation of his plea:
No person may be punished for any act that he has committed in order to save someone's person or property from an otherwise unavoidable danger when the circumstances justified him in regarding this danger as particularly significant in relation to the damage that might be caused by his act.
The courtroom looks pretty new?
That's because it is. The Oslo District Court build the new, custom-made room just for Breivik's trial. It also spent millions refurbishing two floors to allow extra people into the courthouse to follow the trial.
A bulletproof screen has been added to offer extra protection to Breivik. Armed police officers also stand guard outside the entrance to the courthouse.
How do the judges come to a verdict?
After the main hearing, judges withdraw to decide the case. The majority rules if there is not a unanimous verdict. As we said earlier, the judges' votes have the same weighting, regardless if they are professional or lay members of the bench.
Can any verdict be appealed by Breivik?
Judgements of the Oslo District Court may be appealed to the Borgarting Court of Appeal within two weeks of the initial decision. The appeal may concern the question of guilt, the sentencing, procedural errors or the application of the law.
An appeal to the court of appeals cannot usually be denied in a case which involves a sentence of more than six years.
Read more: http://www.thejournal.ie/explainer-how-the-norwegian-courts-operate-420142-Apr2012/#ixzz1sQxoX8VO
Quote from: Valmy on April 18, 2012, 11:17:53 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on April 18, 2012, 11:13:44 AM
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.
Really? What are you basing this on?
Quote from: Sheilbh on April 18, 2012, 11:20:26 AM
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.
That's fine. I've convinced you to change the terms of debate from it's bollocks/anyone who thinks this is a bigot to an empirical test of the acceptability of immigrant behavior. My work is done. :)
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 18, 2012, 05:47:48 PM
That's fine. I've convinced you to change the terms of debate from it's bollocks/anyone who thinks this is a bigot to an empirical test of the acceptability of immigrant behavior. My work is done. :)
It's still bigoted bullshit. The two aren't mutually exclusive.
Quote from: Sheilbh on April 18, 2012, 06:13:30 PM
It's still bigoted bullshit. The two aren't mutually exclusive.
I don't get it. You mean it could be true but it's still bullshit?
Quote from: Barrister on April 18, 2012, 08:49:09 AM
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.
The KKK had some pretty numerous associated political parties, and the Wiki article just notes that the KKK claimed those big numbers. Since actual membership was only some 30,000 in 1930 according to that article, I don't think one could call it "mainstream" nationally, though it certainly was, locally.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 18, 2012, 06:23:28 PM
I don't get it. You mean it could be true but it's still bullshit?
Actually yeah. In terms of emphasis or importance something can be both true and a crock.
What I actually meant though was that based on my empirical observation this argument's bollocks and most people who espouse it are bigots.
Quote from: Sheilbh on April 18, 2012, 11:20:26 AM
... My view is if our culture's open to immigrants who arrive then it is attractive enough that most will join over generations.
As if in this day and age of instant communications we had generations to wait for culturally inferior people to adopt superior Western values. Really Sheilbh! :rolleyes:
In this day and age of instant communications, mass travel, globalized economy and globalized 'lingua franca', there's no such thing as 'immigration' anymore. People no longer immigrate - they simply relocate where work is and where there are better living conditions. An immigrant no longer feels the pressure to integrate beyond the daily superficials; after all he or she is only a mouse click away, or a phone call away, from the comfortable background noise of the old country.
Now this isn't a problem with immigrants of Western origins but when it comes to those arriving from sub standard societies ... The bigger the gap between the prevalent mores in the host society and those of the old one - the harder said immigrants will cling to the latter. And nowadays they can. Where before globalization those immigrating had no choice - it was either adapt or be ostracized - now they do have a choice: put on smiling mask to get by at work during the day then surf home country sites and tear up watching 'brothers' decapitate 'infidels' live online in the evenings. And of all the sub standard cultures, those saturated with Islam are the most toxic. So you can imagine what you get when you allow people from such background withing your borders.
G.
Quote from: grumbler on April 18, 2012, 06:39:37 PM
Quote from: Barrister on April 18, 2012, 08:49:09 AM
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.
The KKK had some pretty numerous associated political parties, and the Wiki article just notes that the KKK claimed those big numbers. Since actual membership was only some 30,000 in 1930 according to that article, I don't think one could call it "mainstream" nationally, though it certainly was, locally.
Using the numbers after it's collapse is a bit misleading, don't you think?
Quote from: Grallon on April 18, 2012, 06:45:38 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on April 18, 2012, 11:20:26 AM
... My view is if our culture's open to immigrants who arrive then it is attractive enough that most will join over generations.
As if in this day and age of instant communications we had generations to wait for culturally inferior people to adopt superior Western values. Really Sheilbh! :rolleyes:
In this day and age of instant communications, mass travel, globalized economy and globalized 'lingua franca', there's no such thing as 'immigration' anymore. People no longer immigrate - they simply relocate where work is and where there are better living conditions. An immigrant no longer feels the pressure to integrate beyond the daily superficials; after all he or she is only a mouse click away, or a phone call away, from the comfortable background noise of the old country.
Now this isn't a problem with immigrants of Western origins but when it comes to those arriving from sub standard societies ... The bigger the gap between the prevalent mores in the host society and those of the old one - the harder said immigrants will cling to the latter. And nowadays they can. Where before globalization those immigrating had no choice - it was either adapt or be ostracized - now they do have a choice: put on smiling mask to get by at work during the day then surf home country sites and tear up watching 'brothers' decapitate 'infidels' live online in the evenings. And of all the sub standard cultures, those saturated with Islam are the most toxic. So you can imagine what you get when you allow people from such background withing your borders.
G.
I suppose people didn't immigrate to Quebec before late 20th century so you guys don't have much experience, but immigrants in the past tended to congregate together, first generation immigrants often didn't assimilate and they tended to keep in contact to family members outside the country. They also tended to send them money.
Quote from: Razgovory on April 18, 2012, 06:54:29 PM
I suppose people didn't immigrate to Quebec before late 20th century so you guys don't have much experience, but immigrants in the past tended to congregate together, first generation immigrants often didn't assimilate and they tended to keep in contact to family members outside the country. They also tended to send them money.
Hey now, Montreal was actually an advanced, civilized place before they let the Frenchies take the province over.
Quote from: Capetan Mihali on April 17, 2012, 08:18:24 PM
Quote from: Viking on April 17, 2012, 03:43:35 AM
I'm not claiming his removal was wrong, I'm annoyed that the appearance of a fair trail is being diminished by sloppyness. The failure lies in allowing this man onto the jury to begin with. It was important to maintain not only the fact of a fair trial but also the appearance of a fair trial.
I don't know how Norway does jury selection, but presumably they have to take people at their word when they talk about their prejudices and don't ordinarily do an extensive background check on prospective jurors...
Now having read Viking's article about what "juries" are, I'd expect a little more examination by the govt.
Quote from: Grallon on April 18, 2012, 06:45:38 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on April 18, 2012, 11:20:26 AM
... My view is if our culture's open to immigrants who arrive then it is attractive enough that most will join over generations.
As if in this day and age of instant communications we had generations to wait for culturally inferior people to adopt superior Western values. Really Sheilbh! :rolleyes:
In this day and age of instant communications, mass travel, globalized economy and globalized 'lingua franca', there's no such thing as 'immigration' anymore. People no longer immigrate - they simply relocate where work is and where there are better living conditions. An immigrant no longer feels the pressure to integrate beyond the daily superficials; after all he or she is only a mouse click away, or a phone call away, from the comfortable background noise of the old country.
Now this isn't a problem with immigrants of Western origins but when it comes to those arriving from sub standard societies ... The bigger the gap between the prevalent mores in the host society and those of the old one - the harder said immigrants will cling to the latter. And nowadays they can. Where before globalization those immigrating had no choice - it was either adapt or be ostracized - now they do have a choice: put on smiling mask to get by at work during the day then surf home country sites and tear up watching 'brothers' decapitate 'infidels' live online in the evenings. And of all the sub standard cultures, those saturated with Islam are the most toxic. So you can imagine what you get when you allow people from such background withing your borders.
G.
Are you even being realistic? Yes, I'm sure that most immigrants from Africa find it to just be one click away via the internet. :rolleyes:
Quote from: garbon on April 18, 2012, 08:49:08 PM
Are you even being realistic? Yes, I'm sure that most immigrants from Africa find it to just be one click away via the internet. :rolleyes:
Now, now. You just know that immigrants from the Congo are in touch with their fellow tribesmen.
Sure, they may wear a suit and have a styling haircut, working in sales and accounting or whatever, and smile nicely at everyone as they get coffee at Starbucks ... but at night, when no-one is watching them, they download youtube videos of cannibal feasts, witchdoctor sacrifices and head-hunting. :menace:
Don't say you weren't warned, when you wake up one day as a shrunken head decorating some accountant's cubicle.
I'm sorry. :(
Quote from: Neil on April 18, 2012, 08:14:01 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on April 18, 2012, 06:54:29 PM
I suppose people didn't immigrate to Quebec before late 20th century so you guys don't have much experience, but immigrants in the past tended to congregate together, first generation immigrants often didn't assimilate and they tended to keep in contact to family members outside the country. They also tended to send them money.
Hey now, Montreal was actually an advanced, civilized place before they let the Frenchies take the province over.
It was just a guess since grallon seems to unaware of tendencies with immigration.
Basement trolls presuming to lecture me on current immigration trends... *shakes head*
This place has really gone downhill.
G.
I don't think that Raz presumes to lecture anybody about anything.
Quote from: Grallon on April 18, 2012, 09:21:34 PM
Basement trolls presuming to lecture me on current immigration trends... *shakes head*
This place has really gone downhill.
G.
"Basement troll" is higher up on the ladder then "Child molester"."
The more I hear of his testimony, I'm reminded of some of the less bright Euros over on Paradox OT. :hmm:
I would not be at all surprised to hear he'd posted over there, or at least read the forum.
Quote from: Grallon on April 18, 2012, 09:21:34 PM
Basement trolls presuming to lecture me on current immigration trends... *shakes head*
This place has really gone downhill.
G.
Raz's posts show to me as:
"You are ignoring this user. Show me the post."
I found this makes them much more bearable. (Hint: I don't click on "Show me the post")
Well, Grumbler and Marty are ignoring. If you can judge a man by who he offends I'm doing pretty good. I wonder if I made Marty cry.
Quote from: Razgovory on April 19, 2012, 01:15:47 PM
Well, Grumbler and Marty are ignoring. If you can judge a man by who he offends I'm doing pretty good. I wonder if I made Marty cry.
Be funnier if you made grumbler cry.
Quote from: Razgovory on April 19, 2012, 01:15:47 PM
Well, Grumbler and Marty are ignoring. If you can judge a man by who he offends I'm doing pretty good. I wonder if I made Marty cry.
Carry on good sir.
All clear! It's been evil videogames all along for Breivik!
At least according to mainstream media as quoed by RPS:
http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2012/04/19/breivik-testifies-about-gaming-press-ignores-the-facts/
QuoteIt is inevitable that during the trial of Norwegian mass murderer, Anders Breivik, that the matter of videogaming will come up. Soon after the horrendous events I dug into what Breivik had actually said about gaming in his ghastly manifesto, and it was pretty much nothing of relevance. But with the press still not having found the next nasty to leap on, gaming is the scapegoat. It seems reasonable to point out how inaccurate this remains, and how attempting to shift the blame onto things uninvolved only makes it more likely that whatever led to Breivik's state of mind will not be discovered. But now that Breivik has testified about how important playing WoW was to him, and his peculiar understanding of Modern Warfare 2, it's all happening again.
It's pretty relevant to note much of what the killer said in his opening statements, in which he described secret societies, battles for purity, global conspiracy, and refused to recognise the jurisdiction of the courts. Very few press outlets took his comments at face value nor reported them as fact, strangely enough, but rather pointed out that he was either mad, or trying to appear mad. Now he has told the courts that he played World Of Warcraft for apparently 16 hours a day for a year, and saw Modern Warfare 2 as a police-shooting simulator, and not only is the press at large taking it as fact, but most are twisting Breivik's words to their own interests. Something has gone very wrong when the horror of his actions is being used to fuel irrelevant agenda.
Yesterday Britain's Daily Telegraph spoke to Oslo University professor of sociology, Thomas Hylland Eriksen, who believes that one factor that "hasn't sufficiently been taken into account" was Breivik's so-called "fascination" with World Of Warcraft. Because Breivik likes order and doesn't like chaos, erm, something something, it's gaming's fault.
(Article continues after quote)
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on April 19, 2012, 01:25:09 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on April 19, 2012, 01:15:47 PM
Well, Grumbler and Marty are ignoring. If you can judge a man by who he offends I'm doing pretty good. I wonder if I made Marty cry.
Be funnier if you made grumbler cry.
It's possible.
Quote from: Razgovory on April 19, 2012, 01:47:49 PM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on April 19, 2012, 01:25:09 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on April 19, 2012, 01:15:47 PM
Well, Grumbler and Marty are ignoring. If you can judge a man by who he offends I'm doing pretty good. I wonder if I made Marty cry.
Be funnier if you made grumbler cry.
It's possible.
Grumbler's tears cure cancer. Unfortunately, he has never cried. :(
He shed a tear for Tim. :contract:
Call of Duty has a lot to answer for. I read an article that it was where the Libyan rebels learned most of their tactics before the revolution :mellow:
Given some of the loons I've encountered recently I'd be more interested in his youtube viewing habits rather than he played WOW obsessively for a while or other computer games had.
Quote from: Sheilbh on April 19, 2012, 02:04:14 PM
Call of Duty has a lot to answer for. I read an article that it was where the Libyan rebels learned most of their tactics before the revolution :mellow:
No wonder it took so long. Half the rebel casualties were probably TKs.
Quote from: Syt on April 19, 2012, 01:47:32 PM
All clear! It's been evil videogames all along for Breivik!
At least according to mainstream media as quoed by RPS:
http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2012/04/19/breivik-testifies-about-gaming-press-ignores-the-facts/
QuoteIt is inevitable that during the trial of Norwegian mass murderer, Anders Breivik, that the matter of videogaming will come up. Soon after the horrendous events I dug into what Breivik had actually said about gaming in his ghastly manifesto, and it was pretty much nothing of relevance. But with the press still not having found the next nasty to leap on, gaming is the scapegoat. It seems reasonable to point out how inaccurate this remains, and how attempting to shift the blame onto things uninvolved only makes it more likely that whatever led to Breivik's state of mind will not be discovered. But now that Breivik has testified about how important playing WoW was to him, and his peculiar understanding of Modern Warfare 2, it's all happening again.
It's pretty relevant to note much of what the killer said in his opening statements, in which he described secret societies, battles for purity, global conspiracy, and refused to recognise the jurisdiction of the courts. Very few press outlets took his comments at face value nor reported them as fact, strangely enough, but rather pointed out that he was either mad, or trying to appear mad. Now he has told the courts that he played World Of Warcraft for apparently 16 hours a day for a year, and saw Modern Warfare 2 as a police-shooting simulator, and not only is the press at large taking it as fact, but most are twisting Breivik's words to their own interests. Something has gone very wrong when the horror of his actions is being used to fuel irrelevant agenda.
Yesterday Britain's Daily Telegraph spoke to Oslo University professor of sociology, Thomas Hylland Eriksen, who believes that one factor that "hasn't sufficiently been taken into account" was Breivik's so-called "fascination" with World Of Warcraft. Because Breivik likes order and doesn't like chaos, erm, something something, it's gaming's fault.
(Article continues after quote)
I bet he was a blood elf paladin as well, they all need to be rounded up and put in camps.
So check this out.
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2012/04/23/anders-breivik-adian-pracon-spared_n_1446133.html
Quote
"All he had to do was squeeze the trigger," he described later, in a book produced with writer Erik Moller Solheim.
"He rested his cheek on the rifle and creased his brow. 'No!' I yelled, with the little strength I still had in my lungs. My arms hung limply at my sides."
"Don't shoot!"
... And then Breivik let him go.
Eventually Adrian was shot - in the shoulder, at point-black range, while playing dead near a pile of bodies - but he survived his harrowing experience. And ever since, the question has plagued Adrian's mind: why did Breivik spare his life?
On Monday he got his answer.
"Certain people look more leftist than others," Breivik said in his final day of testimony at his trial for the murder of the 69 victims on Utoya and eight others in a bombing in Oslo. "This person appeared right-wing, that was his appearance. That's the reason I didn't fire any shots at him.
Can you really tell a person's politics by looking at him? In some ways maybe, but why would this guy have been on the island if he were actually right-wing? Duuurrrr.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on April 25, 2012, 05:54:14 PM
So check this out.
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2012/04/23/anders-breivik-adian-pracon-spared_n_1446133.html
Quote
"All he had to do was squeeze the trigger," he described later, in a book produced with writer Erik Moller Solheim.
"He rested his cheek on the rifle and creased his brow. 'No!' I yelled, with the little strength I still had in my lungs. My arms hung limply at my sides."
"Don't shoot!"
... And then Breivik let him go.
Eventually Adrian was shot - in the shoulder, at point-black range, while playing dead near a pile of bodies - but he survived his harrowing experience. And ever since, the question has plagued Adrian's mind: why did Breivik spare his life?
On Monday he got his answer.
"Certain people look more leftist than others," Breivik said in his final day of testimony at his trial for the murder of the 69 victims on Utoya and eight others in a bombing in Oslo. "This person appeared right-wing, that was his appearance. That's the reason I didn't fire any shots at him.
Can you really tell a person's politics by looking at him? In some ways maybe, but why would this guy have been on the island if he were actually right-wing? Duuurrrr.
You're trying to understand his 'reasoning' ? :hmm:
edit:
didn't the most sadistic of camp guards, on occasion show what appeared to be an act of kindness, not that it was ?
Quote from: Sheilbh on April 19, 2012, 02:04:14 PM
Call of Duty has a lot to answer for.
:yes: Like formating and levellling down the entire video game market, not only the FPS sub-genre.
Quote
I read an article that it was where the Libyan rebels learned most of their tactics before the revolution :mellow:
:lmfao: I understand now the early phase of the revolution now.