He has been described as a Christian fundamentalist, a far right-wing extremist and a neo-Nazi. But above all Anders Behring Breivik, the man responsible for the worst tragedy in contemporary Norwegian history, is a blatant attention seeker.
As he prepared to meet before a judge yesterday, he asked whether he would be allowed to wear a uniform, while seeming eager to testify as to why he killed 76 people in a car bomb and a subsequent shooting spree at a Labour Party youth camp.
The police immediately requested (and obtained) a court order that Breivik’s testimony be given behind closed doors in order not to give him a publicised platform which would give him the opportunity to further talk about his ideology. This request in very tolerant and liberal Norway was an unusual one but, given the magnitude of the tragedy, was completely justifiable.
In his 1,500-page document which he posted online just before the attacks on Friday, he described himself as a crusader against Muslim immigration into Western Europe. Giving him further exposure by allowing the media to report his testimony would have not only been heartbreaking for the relatives of his victims, but it would have simply fuelled the racist hatred which led to the killings. Worst of all, it would have given him the attention he so obviously craves.
Proponents of free speech might argue that all speech should be allowed, even if it is alarming and does not tally with what we ourselves believe – they say that such extremism should be exposed in order for it to be put under the microscope and ridiculed. However, the exception in every civilised country has always been hate speech. Manifestations of hatred against any group of people because of their race, colour, creed or political beliefs cannot and should not be given an equal chance to be heard as other types of speech are, for the simple reason that they can lead to incitement, and as we have seen, horrible violence.
Publicity for extremism legitimises it; it puts it on an equal footing with other political ideologies which are rational and sane – and as we saw on Friday, there was nothing rational about Breivik’s beliefs. He had convinced himself that Muslims should not be allowed to infiltrate Europe and his mind told him that the only way to stop them was through physical annihilation.
The parallels with Hitler’s Aryan ideology and his Final Solution are simply too close for comfort. It is the constant reminder of how Hitler was allowed to go unchecked as he rallied supporters with his anti-Semitic propaganda that serves as a reminder of how dangerous hate speech is.
After all, if Hitler were alive today, no self-respecting TV or radio station would give him airtime nor would any decent newspaper give him coverage to expound his views against Jews. Breivik’s ideology should likewise not be encouraged through further exposure in media outlets.