In my title I put the month and year that the massacre took place, yet I don’t even think it’s necessary since it was an event of such measures that it stands alone in Norwegian history.
Anyhow, on November 15th I attended a lecture at my university about the Oslo massacre which took place this summer. This lecture was delivered by a famous criminologist, Nils Christie, who for those who don’t know is Norwegian. He is a professor at the University of Oslo, he’s known world wide and is still actively influential within the realms of sociology and criminology. He has written several books and articles and travels around the world delivering lectures to professors and students at various universities. I had never heard of him before this lecture, yet after doing a bit of research and listening to what he had to say, I instantly developed respect for this man and appreciated what he had to say and how he delivered it. He was knowledgeable, he didn’t hesitate to add personal stories and not to mention he has a pretty cool accent. It does not take long to realise that this man is pure boss. In this entry, I’m going to retell what he had to say, because it wasn’t at all what I was expecting.
He was in Oslo when the attack occurred and couldn’t believe what was happening, since Norway is such a peaceful country with few major conflicts, especially violent conflict or confrontation. At first it was believed that it must’ve been a terrorist attack from a foreign country. But soon enough it was revealed that it was actually an old-fashion extremely right-winged Norwegian. Christie explained to us that he felt a sense of political relief because if it had been a terrorist from a foreign country, then it would open up Norway and leave it vulnerable for political and ethnic conflict among the immigrants/minorities within the country. The building which Anders Behring Breivik (the attacker) bombed was a political building which had the Prime Minister’s office on the top floor. There was a second wave of relief when it was made known that the PM, Jens Stoltenberg, was not harmed, and very much alive. His immediate message to the public was the remain calm, to preserve the Norwegian way of life. He did not spark fear or give them a reason to be on defense; he was more concerned with everyone remaining steady. Maybe a couple days after the attack, everyone gathered along with the Prime Minister at the site of the event with roses in their hands which were laid in piles on the ground as a symbol of choosing love instead of hate in the face of destruction and adversity. Christie expressed how proud he felt in that moment standing there with that rose in his hand, surrounded by fellow Norwegians who were all making the same choice. The PM reinforced the message, by saying that we should meet hatred with love, because if one person can create so much pain and destruction with hate in his heart, than think of how much you can accomplish collectively with love. The piles of roses weren’t moved, and remained there until long after they wilted because they wanted to keep the message of love alive in the following weeks after the massacre. When a crime so heinous occurs, what do you do? How do you respond to it? And if the culprit is caught, how are they to be punished and how are they to repay their debt to society?
Norway, along with the other Scandinavian countries, don’t have much of a problem with violent conflict. Their prison populations are very low, and they don’t even have a life long sentence. The longest anyone could potentially stay in prison is 21 years. The only exception to this is if the person is considered dangerous to the rest of society, then they are to kept longer, but under a medical diagnosis. There was much pressure put on Norway to take stern measures in light of the event, to change policy to now incorporate what had happened, since now it was possible when once believed to be impossible. Christie also explained to us the history of the island of Utoya and its significance, and how opening fire on innocent people on that island was comparable to going into a cathedral and killing someone. It was very symbolic and it was clear what sort of message Breivik was trying to send: Norway was no longer sacred. Breivik’s attack was directed towards the system that allowed immigrants and refugees to enter Norway’s borders. He believed Norway was being polluted and decided to take such extreme actions against it. He showed no remorse, and to this day still believes what he did was right.
Norwegians don’t hesitate to criticize the system they live under, yet at the same time are fond of it. No system is perfect, but it works for them which is obvious since it has been able to maintain such harmony for so many decades. They value preservation of the system, which is common among small welfare states. It was a place where few feel any kind of threat. It’s very trusting of its neighbours and fellow citizens and have low murder rates. There’s a tradition of talks and dialogue of politics; they aren’t a society to express criticism through violent measures. So Breivik acted out of the Norwegian standard, he acted out of the ordinary. However, he will only get 21 years, even though he is the first to commit such a crime in Norway.
So then what is justice based on? What is punishment? Punishment, as I’m sure you know, is having people experience some form of suffering as a consequence to their actions of disobedience. Generally, punishment is decided based on a comparison of cases. However what do you do when it’s unheard of? How do you pay back? You can’t. An example Christie gave was in World War II with the Holocaust. How do you push those who killed millions? Is the hanging of one commander equivalent the thousands of people who died under their command? Doesn’t that just degrade the victims? But what do you do? He can never retribute, but he could always be turned away and kicked out in shamed. The fact is that there isn’t a balance and there never will be between the destruction caused by that one person, and the payback; some things can not be done. However, what about embracing forgiveness, grace and honour? Christie says such a crime can only be accepted and try not to let it effect or change us.
Christie went on to talk about crime and violence. He says that a system should be created such that you see the other as a person, you see them beyond their actions. The more we see the other, the more we will treat the other properly. Seeing the other is essential to being human. We have the ability to humanize those whom we under certain conditions don’t initially see as human. So there was this constant theme of unity, in all that the society does, even in grief as the Norwegians did. But then there’s the question of seeing the killer as human. It is more difficult to handle him as something outside of being human, however he sees himself as outside of human. He believes he is extraordinary. Breivik was obsessed with achieving his idea of the perfect human. He worked out, he even went as far as to get plastic surgery in order to ‘perfect’ himself. Breivik was an extraordinarily lonely person; he chose to stay isolated from society. Christie went on to say how he does not like the expression ‘he’s a monster’. He said it’s a strong and damaging word. The more we make him a ‘monster’, the less we can understand the reasons and roots behind this event; the further we ostracize him. There are two pillars of progression — the need for advancement, and the need for accomplishments. These pillars construct distance. If we loose track of each other, we loose track in our own insights, we loose knowledge in the place where we live. Wealth is a dividing factor, and there is a connection between crime and the division of wealth among a given population. These are the consequences of distancing ourselves. The Norwegian way of life is valued, and the people desire to preserve it as is. They don’t want a police state, they want to remain peaceful, and that is even extended to prisoners. So Christie concluded by saying that we should make him ordinary. Why should he be raised? How do we cope with such people? Treat them according to the laws that are in place. When he is released after serving his ordinary 21 years, the proper authorities and standard measures shall be taken to find a place for him to live, and then to let the system go on. If we deviate from ordinary than he has won.
I was fascinated by Christie’s message. In the Western world the accepted attitude in the face of a horrendous crime is to hang ‘em high. We’ve all heard the message of loving one another, even our enemies. But how many people actually believe that? How many people actually do that? The message is out there, and is also a very Christian concept which was preached by Jesus, but even Christians don’t follow it, especially when something so horrible has happened. It’s considered out of the ordinary and thus requires a punishment to match it, a punishment of a similar severity. The criminal is dehumanized and any human quality or need is completely stripped. His message of love in the face of adversity really made me think about our society and wonder why aren’t we comfortable with trusting the system, of accepting what happened and changing our attitudes towards it, meaning not letting it affect us. Is that giving the criminal too much power and control by making us change our attitude so that we’re not so deeply affected? Christie’s message very much reminded me of one of my favourite quotes, said by Martin Luther King Jr: “Darkness cannot drive our darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that’.
