Oslo Killer Posted On My Site
How did this worldview of war, death and destruction arise in my peaceful, beloved country of Norway? What is the relationship between a demonizing political debate and violence? Are regulations, laws or a stricter editorial policies part of the solution?
After the excruciating, but ultimately unanswerable, questions that all Norwegians have asked themselves over the last few days about an evil that we cannot understand, these thoughts have plagued my mind since Friday. I have asked myself these questions in part because they are important to us these days. More personally, though, I, as editor of the conservative Norwegian website Minerva, have been forced to confront the fact that Anders Behring Breivik, the mass murderer of my countrymen, has visited our website and posted comments in our forum. Though it was impossible to detect this extremism in his comments at the time, I have often worried about the increasingly aggressive tone that characterizes too many not only in our forum, but everywhere that the multicultural society is debated.
In Norway, Breivik has been particularly active at the anti-immigration website Document.no. The website has come under intense scrutiny in Norway over the last few days. Some have indicated that websites of this kind foster an atmosphere where the likes of Breivik can arise. At Document.no, Breivik has debated with others who share parts of his worldview: That Norway confronts a Muslim invasion and that those who allow multiculturalism to happen commit treason. That rhetoric is not confined to the obscure fringes of the web: Less than a year ago, two prominent members of the populist Progress Party wrote an article that accused the Labor Party of “cultural treason”; the term “cultural Quisling” has also been used used. Norway’s World War II collaborator was, of course, executed for high treason after the war.
The US had also had its debates about rhetoric, not least after the Tucson shootings in January. There is, of course, an enormous difference between hyperbolic talk of “don’t retreat, reload”, and a discourse and worldview where people are seen as actual traitors, actual invaders, causing an actual civil war. Disturbingly, however, growing fringes on the American right seem to be starting to see political opponents as actual, rather than political, enemies, increasingly approaching politics as an epic game between good and evil rather as a process designed to make legitimate policy choices. It is not always easy to distinguish between what is mere rhetoric, and what is fanatical political conviction. The US has its share of activists in the “counter-jihad” movement that Breivik, too, claimed to be part of. Following the debate about the Ground Zero mosque, there was an increase in “counter-jihad” rhetoric in the American blogosphere. Breivik cites several of the most prominent American counter-jihadis approvingly in his manifesto.
I have always been skeptical of limits on free speech, save for incitements to violence. My instinct has also been to be liberal in moderating Minerva’s forum. The line has been drawn at threats and direct racism, but we have allowed much that I find despicable. We have tried to push back against the most horrid views and theories with arguments, in a usually unfounded hope that some of these debaters are open to alternative, less cataclysmic interpretations of the world.
Right now, these instincts are barely noticeable. A part of me wants to agree with those voices in Norway who now call for stopping anonymous participation in forums, and who call for censorship of the vile anti-immigration rhetoric. A part of me today would like to encourage Document.no to shut down. A part of me does not want people who share even parts of Breivik’s worldview to be given a platform anywhere.
Right now, I have to struggle to formulate my arguments against regulation, in support of the obvious right of Document.no to continue their project, in support of anonymous Internet participation or in favor of continuing a liberal policy in our forum. Still, I will make an attempt to defend a continued vibrant debate on the multicultural society, which will include elements that I find tasteless. I make that attempt today, without conviction, and with more question marks than answers. And though my thoughts are shaped by an abiding belief in the principle of free speech, I find it hard to uncompromisingly push that principle today. Today, my arguments are practical.
I make the argument in spite of a deep worry about certain aspects of the debate about Islam. There are too many, in Norway, in Europe, as well as in the US, who have Islam as their only concern, their only evil, and who interpret all events in light of that one issue. They are willing to accept ever more illiberal measures against Muslims. And not accepting the legitimacy of today’s policies, some question our whole political system, and see democratically elected leaders as traitors.
Breivik shared these dystopian views. However, from what we know today, it appears that he was not a product of the increasingly hostile Internet debate over the last few years. He was a part of the discourse, but it was not what radicalized him. If we can believe his manifesto and other information we have today, the turning point for Breivik came as early as 1999: the NATO bombing of Serbia in support of Muslim Kosovars. In 2002, he visited a wanted Serbian war criminal in Monrovia, Liberia. He has harbored thoughts about going through with a terrorist attack since those days.
It does not mean that there is no relationship between worldview and action, between thoughts and deeds. Breivik’s deeds would not have been possible in the form they took without a worldview that shares common features with what is found in too many parts of the blogosphere. But it does imply that we ought not to rush to change our views on free speech in the wake of these atrocities. They were not caused by the websites or the rhetoric that we have seen in recent years.
What would be the effects of trying to rid forums of comments that espouse bits and pieces of Breivik’s distorted worldview, his demonization of Muslims and their “enablers” among establishment politicians? It seems likely that those who write them would to an even larger extent find refuge in websites where they only meet likeminded people. I understand that many websites for good reasons choose to prevent their forums from being dominated by such filth; but enforcing that policy on a larger scale does not prevent extremism.
We know that, among the websites Breivik expressed some admiration for, Document.no was by far the most moderate. He mainly sought what he thought to be likeminded people outside Norway, in websites such as JihadWatch, Gates of Vienna and The Brussels Journal. Absent global Internet censorship, the consequences of pushing these views out of the daylight might be dark indeed. For some, retaining some minimal level of engagement with the "lamestream media" might give useful alternative input.
Furthermore, reading postings of extremists might sometimes be useful. As editor of Minerva, I have frequently despaired while reading posts in our forum. However, in some regard, it is also useful, because when we discuss immigration, culture and religion, it is necessary to remember that we speak to many who share at least some extremist views. Though it often feels exceedingly futile to try to debate these people on the Internet, the effort of learning to debate immigration and religion in a way that addresses a broad range of legitimate concerns while remaining tolerant is necessary, and will become increasingly so in the years to come.
That leads me to the next point: Distinguishing between legitimate concerns, bigotry, demonization and extremism is, if not impossible, then at least subjective. What I consider bigoted opinions are shared by too many in the population to try to exclude them from being debated openly. And what I consider legitimate and important discussions, are by others considered bigoted. Recently, a report by a government appointed commission on the economic challenges of immigration, and the performance in the labor market of Norwegian immigrants, was labeled as a part of a “sick, hostile atmosphere”, devaluing the humanity of immigrants, by a columnist in one of Norwegian largest newspapers.
Finally, any wish to crack down on demonization of Islam is plagued by the the real and violent threat that Islamist extremists pose to any criticism of Islam. Our fellow Scandinavians in Denmark and Sweden have seen attacks against cartoonists Kurt Westergaard and Lars Vilks, who have been seen to ridicule Muhammad. It is paramount to safeguard free speech in this field. Drawing a legal line becomes almost impossible.
My preliminary conclusion is that we cannot let the evil of this one man determine how we think about the boundaries of free speech or healthy debate. But – and it is an important but – I don’t think we as a society can or should continue debating the challenges of immigration as if nothing had happened. Even if the new debate that I have described did not directly produce the monster that planned the killing of so many innocents in cold blood for so many years, we should not completely disregard the commonalities they share, or the many mechanisms through which extreme words and worldviews shape those who grow up in them, and provide sick souls with a framework to act.
Imagine Muslims saying after 9/11: “Yes, we believe that the US is the Big Satan, that Israel is the Small Satan, that Westerners who engage with the Muslim world should be seen as crusaders, that the Caliphate should be restored – but we categorically have nothing to do with terrorism.” It would not sound terribly convincing. Today, there will be those who continue to insist that Islam is the incarnation of evil, that there is no threat that is not ultimately connected to Islam, that Muslim immigration is just a polite word for Muslim invasion, that areas with a large Muslim population or a majority are occupied, and that politicians who allow immigration have lost all legitimacy and commit treason to their own nations. And they will categorically deny that they have any reason to rethink their rhetoric or approach in light of right wing, counter-jihadist terrorism. Read American counter-jihadi blogger Pamela Geller’s comments on the attacks. That attitude must be confronted.
No one should use the atrocities in Norway to silence debates about immigration or Islam. No one should use them to delegitimize political opponents. But those who are most hostile to Islam and most worried about the consequences of immigration must do some serious soul searching, make sure that their rhetoric in the future leaves no room for doubt about our fundamental values, and distance themselves from the rhetoric that I have described.
If they do, the debate on these tremendously hard questions can improve in the wake of the horrendous events. If they don’t, it will become unbearably difficult.
