The attacks in Norway: A plea for consistency

This post was written by Owen on July 25, 2011
Posted Under: Minorities,Racism/Fascism,Terrorism

If it wasn’t for the tragic loss of dozens of lives, the intellectual gymnastics which have followed the shootings in Norway would actually be quite funny. As it is, they’re just the icing on a particularly depressing cake. It’s not just the screeching u-turn the punditocracy (and the editorial staff at the Sun) performed after realising the attack wasn’t actually carried out by Islamic fundamentalists. It’s not even the way an atrocity magically stops being “terrorism” as soon as people realise it wasn’t masterminded by a bloke with brown skin and a beard. No, what really gets me is the blame game, and the glaring inconsistencies which get ignored on all sides as a result.

Over at LibCon, Adam Bienkov takes Boris Johnson to task for denying that Anders Behring Breivik’s rightwing political leanings had anything to do with his decision to carry out the shootings, pointing out the obvious discrepancy between his denial that rightwing anti-multicultural and anti-Islamic rhetoric were a causal factor in this case and his assertion in the Spectator in the wake of 7/7 that Islam – rather than a few isolated fanatics – were “the problem”. Now, if you were feeling charitable you could perhaps interpret Johnson’s assertion that “[Breivik] killed in the name of Christianity – and yet of course we don’t blame Christians or “Christendom”. Nor, by the same token, should we blame “Islam” for all acts of terror committed by young Muslim males” as a renunciation of his previous position, rather than evidence of inconsistency. If he has altered his views however, he clearly doesn’t have the gumption to make this change of heart explicit, so it seems fair to assume Bienkov’s right to criticise Johnson for this. The trouble is, Bienkov doesn’t really do so well in the consistency stakes himself.

The news that Breivik was a fan of Melanie Phillips and seems to have had links to the EDL is taken by Adam Bienkov as evidence that

“the hard-right ideology pushed by certain pundits in the press has questions to answer now…whilst we shouldn’t entirely blame right-wing ideologues for helping form those packs, we shouldn’t entirely absolve them from their responsibilities either”

…which is fair enough. Except that he’s also derisive of this now-notorious Jerusalem Post editorial which suggests that Breivik was motivated by an aversion to multiculturalism – a view which, the editorial makes clear, he shares with much of the mainstream Right across the Western world. So rightwing commentators in the mainstream media who are vocally opposed to multiculturalism and whom Breivik admired shouldn’t be “entirely absolved” from responsibility for his actions, but suggesting that his actions are an expression of discontent with multiculturalism is a disgraceful attempt to make political capital out of a tragedy? Please. We can do better than this.

Here’s what we need to remember. First, when someone performs a voluntary action, there’ll be a number of reasons why they do so. Those reasons might be good or bad (morally or otherwise), as might the action itself. Seeking to explain the reasons for a morally reprehensible action is not the same thing as justifying or excusing it, whether the person performing that action is an Islamic fundamentalist or a far-right Christian. Second, when someone writes something that motivates someone else to do something terrible that the writer wouldn’t condone, how far the writer is responsible for the actions of their more deranged violently fanatical readers is pretty much impossible to state with any certainty. Any attempt to do so is almost inevitably going to be coloured by one’s ideological leanings. Is Marx responsible for the gulags? Hayek for sweatshops, or the murders of trade unionists in Latin America? Jesus for the Spanish Inquisition? The Prophet Muhammad for 9/11? It’s easy to be self-righteous when it’s not your set of cherished values being called into question, but it doesn’t do much to advance the debate.

[Edited to remove a pejorative term related to mental illness, in response to this article]

Like this article? Print it, email it, Stumble, Facebook and Tweet it:
  • Print
  • email
  • StumbleUpon
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Google Bookmarks
  • Digg
  • Mixx
  • Yahoo! Bookmarks
  • Live

Reader Comments

The Marx: gulags, Hayek: sweatshops is about the most miguided thing i’ve read all week

Written By Kit on July 26th, 2011 @ 10:54 am

Apologist for hate mongering opinion makers much?

Written By Dani Nobody on July 26th, 2011 @ 12:33 pm

100% correct, Owen. Dani Nobody, back to the drawing room.

Written By Carl on July 26th, 2011 @ 12:59 pm


actually this point is well made, and about how rhetoric cannot always be an excuse for atrocious action – no matter how vile the rhetoric. It stems from a deep-rooted, inability to accept that some people want to do bad things, without being cajoled into it by external forces. The Left are rather good at this: examples with Islamists (their crimes are merely a reaction to Western imperialism) and sometimes the white working class (oh they know no better, do they – we shouldn’t tolerate racism but it’s hardly surprising they do it, because they’re poor), but many are seldom able to accept that evildoing can occur without an immediate externality.

Written By Carl on July 26th, 2011 @ 1:07 pm

We can’t state an exact cause and effect relationship between Melanie Phillips and the massacre, but given the fact Breivik deliberately, through 1500 pages, embedded his actions within a particular anti-islam, outsider-hating discourse occurring across Europe, I think there are some tough questions to be asked.

I don’t blame Phillips for Breivik killing people, but I do blame her for promoting hatred and fear. And all across Europe, within mainstream commentary, people are promoting hatred and fear. It’s not good enough just to say ‘His extremism doesn’t represent their views’, because it is not an extreme form of a defensible or acceptable view – it is an extreme form of an already nasty, anger-inciting, dehumanising philosophy.

I don’t blame people whose ideas get distorted by nutters – unless the ideas didn’t need that much distortion in the first place, because they were already destructive ideas, with violence contained within them. I like to think I can apply this idea to both left and right.

Written By J on July 26th, 2011 @ 6:19 pm

Phillips and her ilk might well have helped contribute to a climate which raised the likelihood of zealots like Breivik coming out of the woodwork, but how far and in what way any set of ideas relates to actions carried out in the real world is very tricky, and I find it incredibly depressing that people’s judgments about how far this or that atrocity was influenced by these or those ideas tend to divide along political lines with little to no critical examination of our political preconceptions and possible biases. That’s not apologism.

Written By Owen on July 26th, 2011 @ 7:16 pm

Add a Comment

required, use real name
required, will not be published
optional, your blog address

Please leave these two fields as-is:

Protected by Invisible Defender. Showed 403 to 491,216 bad guys.