This has been a very special week. It has felt like going back in time – back to 22 July last summer, and the weeks following what happened on that day.
It’s odd, as a Norwegian, to see something happening back home being given so much attention in other countries. Because we don’t usually show that well on a global scale – we’re just a tiny, pretty insignificant place in the far north. But what happened in Oslo and on Utøya on 22 July last year can’t be described as such. It was the most horrendous thing that most of us have ever experienced – even for people like me who weren’t directly affected by it. Re-living the feeling that absorbed the country last summer is not pleasant, but absolutely necessary.
On the first day in court this week, one of the judges were dismissed from participating. The reason? On 23 July last year he wrote, on Facebook, that the perpetrator deserved the death penalty. He had probably, like the rest of us, just woken up to the news that nearly 80 people had been killed, many of them teenagers. The number had increased by about sixty during the night. It was hard to understand, and we reacted differently. Calling for the death penalty was his reaction, and I’m sure others thought the same. But because of that, he has no place in a Norwegian court of law – capital punishment, even suggesting its necessity, is not tolerated. Period.
I completely agree.
This week in court has been largely devoted to the defendant’s testimony – in total this is meant to take five days. Any person wanting to be present and listen to what he says can do so. There are journalists from all over the world, writing frantically on their laptops and sending it out to the rest of us. Some of those who were on Utøya that day last summer, and survived, have been present. People who lost their loved one’s as well. I don’t know if I would’ve been able to. Just reading bits of his testimony is disturbing enough.
I don’t know how much of what happened between 22 July and the present trial has been covered by global news. Basically, a few months after the attacks, the perpetrator was diagnosed as a paranoid schizophrenic by two psychiatrists. According to them, he was not sane before the attacks, nor when he committed the killings – he is delusional, and his life and actions are created within these delusions that have no connection to reality. The defendant himself reacted very strongly to this conclusion, which he has mentioned several times during the past few days. He finds it insulting and completely untrue. He accuses the psychiatrists of lying. Several others also criticized the final report made, and eventually two other professionals were appointed to made a second report on his sanity. Interestingly, their conclusion turned out to be the exact opposite of the first one – he is sane, and should be convicted as such. Now, it is up to the court to decide what’s right.
I have read articles about the present trial in Norwegian, German, French, English, and American news. One of the best reporters we have in Norway, Sidsel Wold, urged people to do this early on – to see ourselves from outside, as we always do to others. Aftenposten, one of our leading (and best) newspapers, had yesterday put together international coverage of the trial under the headline: Shocked by the friendliness, impressed by the dignity. One of the main prosecutors in the case, Inga Bejer Engh, has received praise from German press for her unyielding questioning of the defendant. Others, both reporters and bloggers, are astonished by the treatment of the defendant in court – how can a so-called monster who has killed so many be treated with respect? The actors involved, even the judge, come up to him and shake his hand. Some of them even smile back. The Times in the UK were one of few newspapers to address this politeness in an editorial this week, but also stressing the problems in letting a mass murderer talk so freely, taking advantage of liberal principles to spread his twisted propaganda. This is a view shared by many. Why should he be allowed this privilege after what he’s done? The answer is simple, really. We live in what we like to think of as a democracy, and within this society we all have equal rights, including legal one’s. Even though he has deprived many people of their lives, and many more of their loved one’s, he has a right to have a fair trial, and the more transparent it is, the better.
Yesterday was a day we all feared – it was the day when his testimony would revolve around what happened on Utøya, at the Labour Youth Summer Camp, 22 July last year. I cannot imagine how it must be like to hear for those who managed to escape from him that day. For the first time (in a Norwegian court, at least) the defendant, the so-called terrorist, warned listeners against the gruesomeness his testimony would include. He told those who didn’t need to hear it to leave, because it would be horrific. He was right. And many had to leave. And I’m glad to say that I don’t know the full details of what he said, of all the murders he committed. I’ve read quotes of him before, saying that the acts were horrible, but necessary. Necessary to save our Christian culture from multiculturalism. That he takes responsibility for what he’s done, and that he would do it again. But yesterday I made myself stop reading when it said: My goal wasn’t to kill 69 people on that island. My goal was to kill them all.
It’s so simple, and so brutal.
Outside the courtroom, in Oslo, flowers have begun to appear again, just like last summer. Red roses – the image of the Labour Party. There are greetings and messages of love and support. This is the heart of the trial, not the perpetrator. This is how we got through it last summer. I’ve never felt so much love for people who I don’t know, and I can’t believe how strong some of them continue to be, even with the trial going on.
The reason I read these small excerpts from the court and read the articles about it, is mainly curiosity. I want to understand, even though that wouldn’t make the situation any better. But I’m a huge fan of transparency and of justice, and I’m very happy our justice system is the what it is. It becomes evident in Andrew Rosenthal’s article in The New York Times last Monday that it could be a lot worse. By American standards, Norway’s maximum penalty of 21 years in prison is “shockingly lenient”. These 21 years, however, can be extended by a judge if the convicted is still considered dangerous. By comparison Rosenthal mentions George Zimmerman – the man who has now finally been arrested for the murder of Trayvon Martin in Florida. If he is convicted of second-degree murder, he’ll face a minimum punishment of 25 years. But the justice systems in Norway and the US are, thankfully, completely different. While the American one is revolved around punishment and revenge (i.e. the death penalty), Norway focuses on rehabilitation. Prisons in the US have a reputation of being degrading and dangerous, with harsh treatment being the norm. One example is the so-called Angola prison in Louisiana, where two people have now spent 40 years in solitary confinement. How does this deter crime, I wonder. It’s obvious that it doesn’t. The US provides a great example as to how the death penalty does not, in any way, contribute to lower crime rates. They should know better by now.
Thankfully, the trial in Norway has now started, and the media interest around it will soon die down slightly. There have been too many picture of the defendant this week – I’d rather not see his face, but I understand it’s something the media wishes to do. But one small Norwegian newspaper did a great thing today. Most of the front page was covered with loving pictures that they’d encouraged their readers to send in – they encircled a message we can all vouch for:
The first week of the trial is over. We have felt anger, sorrow and disgust over the meaninglessness. This front page is only to remind us that the most important thing in life is to take care of each other. Have a good weekend!
In a nutshell 