David Mitchell takes on Breivik

[Thanas]

Damn son

Could Anders Breivik be pro-EU, I wonder? It seems unlikely – he doesn’t seem pro very much at all. Then again, he’s certainly not pro-Norway (or at least not pro-Norway-as-it-is-currently-constituted – he’s pro-some-horrible-fascist-reimagining-of-Norway), and Norway is anti-EU. Or rather, it’s outside the EU. I’m sure it’s thoroughly warm and loving in its thoughts about the EU, just like the Brexiteers say we in the UK will be once we’ve bravely, happily and optimistically told it to fuck off. Nevertheless Norway would warmly and lovingly rather not be in it.

For those who want Britain to leave the EU, Norway is surely a favourite example to cite. It’s a much more attractive case than Switzerland, which always vaguely smacks of amorality, Serbia, with its history of sectarian violence, or Iceland, which recently went bankrupt. Norway seems pleasant, prudent and, thanks both to its oil resources and its pleasant, prudent use of them, rich.

For liberally minded self-doubting Brits, the image projected by countries like Norway seems like an excellent national role model: humane, relaxed, affluent, sexually quite up for it but in a totally non-exploitative way, modern, tasteful and packed with all those fishy oils that are so good for the heart. One vaguely hears rumours about astronomically expensive booze and a high incidence of suicide but, even if those things are true, who’s to say they don’t also reflect a certain kind of cultural wisdom?

The only problem faced by the Brexit camp in deploying this lovely minimalistically-furnished-with-spectacular-views-of-a-wooded-lake image to advance its cause is that, of the countries like Norway, only Norway itself is outside the EU. The other three countries like Norway are in it. For countries like Sweden (excluding Norway, which is quite like Sweden, though more like Norway), such as Denmark, membership of the EU doesn’t necessarily clash with the Scandinavian idyll. And last week Denmark was declared, by the United Nations’ World Happiness Report, to be the happiest country in the world.

Still, Norway remains an attractive case study. Its only well-known embarrassments are its history of enthusiastically slaughtering whales and Anders Breivik with his history of enthusiastically slaughtering people. Everyone likes whales and no one likes Anders Breivik. So, if the whales came out against the EU, and Breivik came out in favour, it would be a great coup for Brexit.

The whales, as ever, will not be drawn. The same cannot be said for Anders Breivik who is, even his worst critic would have to admit, generous with his opinions. The problem is that Breivik’s views have tended not only to be evil, but also rather too grandiose for application to any real world issues. “Killer” and “Nazi” are slurs that get bandied around too often in the thoughtless hyperbole of lazy political debate and protest, but Anders Breivik is that rare thing: a self-confessed killer and Nazi.

He is a man who not only espouses Hitler’s views, he also thinks that admiringly citing Hitler and publicly performing Nazi salutes in courtrooms might be an effective way of advocating those views in a liberal democracy. Trying to use Breivik as a way of discrediting your opponents in any mainstream context would be like attempting to employ a thrashing, out-of-control fire hose to moisten the back of a stamp.

Until recently, that is. Breivik now seems to have turned his attention to more practical concerns. The just and forbearing treatment with which the Norwegian legal system responded to Breivik’s atrocities appears to be really winding him up – an outcome from which I can’t believe even the dispassionate Norwegian judiciary can entirely avoid deriving a certain satisfaction. He is suing the government for breaking human rights laws in the way he’s being imprisoned. “For five years the state has tried to kill me,” he said, claiming that his isolation was “torture” and that it would have been more humane to just shoot him, though his judgment on how humane it is to shoot people is partial, to say the least.

The conditions of his imprisonment sound exactly as benign as you’d expect from a country like Norway, and it’s clear that what Breivik is raging against is the realisation that all that now remains to him is a long, comfortable wait to die. He’s got three cells, a TV, a computer, books, puzzles and newspapers: if the state is trying to kill him, it’s certainly not trying very hard.

But some of his specific gripes are fascinating. He bemoans cold coffee and the use of plastic cups and plates – I was horrified to realise that I agreed with him on more issues than the malignity of Isis (he’s definitely anti-Isis, whatever his faults, which picks a pretty big hole in the “The enemy of my enemy is my friend” approach to life). He also claims that having to eat microwaved meals, manufactured by firms such as the Norwegian company Fjordland, was “worse than waterboarding”, and that his growing enthusiasm for the reality TV show Paradise Hotel was “clear evidence of serious brain damage caused by isolation”.

You’d have to be quite a zealous adherent to the notion that no publicity is bad publicity to consider this revelation a boon for either Fjordland or the producers of Paradise Hotel. The quotes “worse than waterboarding” and “I loved it – clear evidence of serious brain damage” aren’t really usable for marketing purposes, even coming from so discredited a source. The fact that a mass murderer likes a work of entertainment or art is actively bad news for its originators, unfortunately for Paradise Hotel – and a reflection from such a person that it was only recent brain damage that rendered the work enjoyable does little to take the curse off the endorsement.

By that reasoning though, you’d think Fjordland would be pleased: “this evil man hates our product – so it must be good”. Sadly for the company, while that might hold true for a book, film or play, it doesn’t really work for food. Breivik’s mind may be twisted but there’s no reason to believe that his palate isn’t sound. I wouldn’t rush to read Stalin’s favourite novelist, but I’d feel no compunction not to give his favourite chocolate bar a try.

So, though Fjordland has defended its nutritional standards and dismissed Breivik’s comments as absurd, one can’t help suspecting that, over this, as with cold coffee, the mass-murdering fascist may have a point.

[Gandalf]

David Mitchell has yet to disappoint.

[Flagg]

You know this asshole killed all those people precisely so that people would give a fuck about him and what he thinks, because no one did prior? I'm not criticizing the poster, but the writer of the article in this regard: Congratulations idiot, you're giving a guy who killed dozens, exactly what he wanted and what he killed those people for; attention.

[Flagg]

And I don't know whether the fact that this multiple dozen murdering twat gets a suite of 3 cells, a tv, library, newspapers, and his own computer while a 19 year old caught with a pound of weed in the US gets a teeny cell with a pillow and blanket speaks ill of the US or Norwegian penal system, but if anyone deserves to get dropped in supermax like Manson to make little Hitler statues out of toilet paper and his own poop, it's Ander's Breivik.

[Iroscato]

And I don't know whether the fact that this multiple dozen murdering twat gets a suite of 3 cells, a tv, library, newspapers, and his own computer while a 19 year old caught with a pound of weed in the US gets a teeny cell with a pillow and blanket speaks ill of the US or Norwegian penal system, but if anyone deserves to get dropped in supermax like Manson to make little Hitler statues out of toilet paper and his own poop, it's Ander's Breivik.

Considering Norway has one of the lowest re-offending rates in the world whilst the US has one of if not the highest, I'd say the US system would be the one in need of scrutiny. Maybe the fact that they don't treat their prisoners like fecal matter contributes to this. Sure, maybe someone like Breivik "deserves" to teabag a bear trap every day for the rest of his life, but he's now removed from society at large, and is extremely unlikely to ever rejoin it. For Norway, that arrangement has worked for as long as it's been implemented, and it's enough. Plus according to Wikipedia, even after Breivik's massacre only 16% of Norwegians supported the death penalty, which means there's precious little public will for it anyway. Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_p ... _in_Norway

[Grumman]

You know this asshole killed all those people precisely so that people would give a fuck about him and what he thinks, because no one did prior? I'm not criticizing the poster, but the writer of the article in this regard: Congratulations idiot, you're giving a guy who killed dozens, exactly what he wanted and what he killed those people for; attention.

Breivik did not kill all those people to make his TV dinner preferences known. Mocking him by treating only his most superficial opinions as being worth listening to does not empower him.

[Flagg]

And I don't know whether the fact that this multiple dozen murdering twat gets a suite of 3 cells, a tv, library, newspapers, and his own computer while a 19 year old caught with a pound of weed in the US gets a teeny cell with a pillow and blanket speaks ill of the US or Norwegian penal system, but if anyone deserves to get dropped in supermax like Manson to make little Hitler statues out of toilet paper and his own poop, it's Ander's Breivik.

Considering Norway has one of the lowest re-offending rates in the world whilst the US has one of if not the highest, I'd say the US system would be the one in need of scrutiny. Maybe the fact that they don't treat their prisoners like fecal matter contributes to this. Sure, maybe someone like Breivik "deserves" to teabag a bear trap every day for the rest of his life, but he's now removed from society at large, and is extremely unlikely to ever rejoin it. For Norway, that arrangement has worked for as long as it's been implemented, and it's enough. Plus according to Wikipedia, even after Breivik's massacre only 16% of Norwegians supported the death penalty, which means there's precious little public will for it anyway. Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_p ... _in_Norway

I never said he deserved to be treated the way US prisoners are, I said that IF anyone did (no one does) then he did.

[Flagg]

You know this asshole killed all those people precisely so that people would give a fuck about him and what he thinks, because no one did prior? I'm not criticizing the poster, but the writer of the article in this regard: Congratulations idiot, you're giving a guy who killed dozens, exactly what he wanted and what he killed those people for; attention.

Breivik did not kill all those people to make his TV dinner preferences known. Mocking him by treating only his most superficial opinions as being worth listening to does not empower him.

Even mentioning him empowers him. There are reasons that members of shooting/mass murder victims families will only refer to the perpetrator(s) as "the shooter(s)/killer(s)". Even mocking them gives them credibility as it gives the perception that they matter in any way shape or form.

[Iroscato]

Just as a side note - I think I've been Mondayed. I dunno why I suddenly started talking about the death penalty in particular in my post. Probably because in past discussions about him the DP is always brought up. Sorry for any confusion that might cause - head ain't screwed on right today.

[Flagg]

Just as a side note - I think I've been Mondayed. I dunno why I suddenly started talking about the death penalty in particular in my post. Probably because in past discussions about him the DP is always brought up. Sorry for any confusion that might cause - head ain't screwed on right today.

Yeah, I'd tried to edit it in that I wasn't for the death penalty. But I am for DP, as long as all 3 parties are in agreement.

[Thanas]

You know this asshole killed all those people precisely so that people would give a fuck about him and what he thinks, because no one did prior? I'm not criticizing the poster, but the writer of the article in this regard: Congratulations idiot, you're giving a guy who killed dozens, exactly what he wanted and what he killed those people for; attention.

Breivik did not kill all those people to make his TV dinner preferences known. Mocking him by treating only his most superficial opinions as being worth listening to does not empower him.

Even mentioning him empowers him. There are reasons that members of shooting/mass murder victims families will only refer to the perpetrator(s) as "the shooter(s)/killer(s)". Even mocking them gives them credibility as it gives the perception that they matter in any way shape or form.

It really does not.

[Flagg]

It keeps his name in the papers, though doesn't it? I mean this is just a difference of viewpoint here not much else, but I don't think these wastes of biological machine-parts should be remembered by the public at large once legal matters are settled simply because it fuels them. That's why most of them who don't stick the gun in their mouths before getting nabbed do it, to get attention to their cause or to gain notoriety.

But I've said my piece, I won't post about it any more.

[Iroscato]

Just as a side note - I think I've been Mondayed. I dunno why I suddenly started talking about the death penalty in particular in my post. Probably because in past discussions about him the DP is always brought up. Sorry for any confusion that might cause - head ain't screwed on right today.

Yeah, I'd tried to edit it in that I wasn't for the death penalty. But I am for DP, as long as all 3 parties are in agreement.

Well now you owe me a new screen, ya prick. This one's got tea all over it