Norwegians commemorate massacre

The massacre in Norway did not succeed in destroying the values of Norwegians.

By TIMOTHY SPANGLER
Flowers outside the building Breivik bombed in Oslo 370 (R) (photo credit: Leonhard Foeger / Reuters)
Flowers outside the building Breivik bombed in Oslo 370 (R)
(photo credit: Leonhard Foeger / Reuters)
As Americans mourned for the horrific developments in Aurora, Colorado this weekend, across the Atlantic an entire nation took time to mourn the first anniversary of an even larger killing spree.
One year ago, Anders Behring Breivik killed 77 people in Norway.  First, a car bomb planted near a government building in Oslo exploded, resulting in 8 deaths.  Shortly after, Breivik began a shooting spree at a summer camp for teenage members of the Young Labour Party on the island of Utoya.
Norwegian Prime Minister Jens Stoltenberg made clear at the remembrance ceremony that Breivik had not succeeded in destroying Norway’s values.  “The Norwegian people responded by embracing our values. The killer failed. The people won,” the PM said. Interestingly, Norwegian media went to great lengths to avoid using pictures of Breivik, or even his name, during the remembrance weekend.
Breivik pleaded not guilty to terrorism charges last month, claiming that his acts were justified as self-defense. He saw himself as part of a wider war on immigration that had become a “Muslim invasion.”  To Breivik, his killings were “cruel but necessary.”  His grand target was the multicultural society forming in Norway in recent years, but his individual targets were young men and women who he labeled “Marxists.”  During his trial, Breivick remarked that he was able to determine a potential victim’s political views simply by look at them.
The verdict, which will turn on whether or not he was sane at the time of the killings, is expected in August.  Psychiatric examinations have produced reports that support either conclusion.  If he is found sane by the five judges overseeing the trial, he would serve a lengthy prison sentence.  Otherwise, he would be remanded to a high-security psychiatric facility.
Norwegians are justly proud of their tolerant society.  In the immediate aftermath of the attacks, Prime Minister Stoltenberg had made clear that his government’s response would be “more democracy, more openness and more humanity, but never naivety.”
So far, the Norwegian government has not used the massacre as an excuse to tighten their internal security laws. Since Norway has strict laws against solitary confinement, which is deemed excessively cruel punishment, senior members of the prison service are already considering how to facilitate Breivik’s socialization with other inmates.  The difficulty is that he has been identified as a possible hostage taker, who could commit further violence while incarcerated.
Even the trial itself was thoroughly Norwegian in its civility and thoughtfulness. Rather than a judge and jury, the case against Breivik was put to a panel of five judges, three of whom are ordinary citizens, and the remaining two professional judges.  Rather than simply issuing a pronouncement of “guilty” or “not guilty,” the court produced a reasoned written opinion outlining what conclusions were reached and why.  Other than Breivik’s opening statement, the trial was broadcast on television.  Unlike the American system, where the prosecutors get to speak first, in Norway it is the defendant who has the first word and sets the scene for what follows.
But no amount of due process and procedural safeguards can obscure the fact that the Breivik massacre was a horrific and disgusting display of violence.  What makes these killings evoke so much concern is the scale of the damage that a single individual can cause in a single day, unaided and alone.
If the attacker is sufficiently armed and strongly motivated, the devastating power of the “lone gunman” is immense.  Mohammed Merah’s radical Islamist attacks in Toulouse, France during March 2012 demonstrated again the deaths that could steadily accumulate as police stood by without leads or insight into what was happening and why.
America, of course, has suffered through more-than-its-share of these attacks.
The shooting at the Century 16 cineplex in suburban Denver this week – which left 12 dead and over 50 wounded – were the result of meticulous planning that failed to give rise to any suspicion by friends, neighbours, or colleagues of the alleged perpetrator.
To date, there has been little indication that the Colorado killings were politically motivated, unlike the extreme views that drove Breivik and Merah.  Instead, these deaths appear to be the result of another case in a regular series of decisions by unhappy, isolated American men to go out in a blaze of glory.  Notably, the movie theater in Aurora is only a few miles away from the town of Littleton; where in 1999, Ed Harris and Dylan Klebold, both teenagers, killed 13 people in a rampage at Columbine High School that gained global notoriety.
Whether the shooter is a political extremist or simply emotionally unhinged, the end effects are equally tragic.  Both involve individuals who have found themselves, whether intentionally or unintentionally, outside of society, and that isolation fuels the anger and hatred that makes the horrific appear as the best option available.
This weekend’s commemorations in Norway have shown us a country that has pulled together in grief, regardless of political labels and divisive categories.  Prime Minister Stoltenberg declared that Breivik ultimately lost because, despite the killer’s personal ideology, the commitment of Norwegians to their values survived.
Let us hope that as the people of Aurora come to terms with their grief, they can take some comfort in the example set by the Norwegians over the past year.
The writer is a commentator who divides his time between the United Kingdom and Southern California. He has appeared on CNN, CNBC, BBC and Sky News, and has been featured in the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, the Washington Post, the Financial Times and the Economist.