Breivik: murderous fascist having a lend

If a measure of civilisation is the absence of violence (see Steven Pinker’s The Better Angels of our Nature), what is the civilised standard for the treatment of mass murdering terrorists?

Civilisation has come a long way, even in civilised society, in the treatment of villains. Samuel Pepys diary for 13 October 1660, reads: ‘Out to Charing Cross, to see Major General Harrison hanged, drawn, and quartered; which was done there, he looking as cheerful as any man could do in that condition. He was presently cut down, and his head and heart shown to the people, at which there was great shouts of joy… From thence… to the Sun Tavern (for) some oysters.’

Über-civilised Norwegians faced a more benign problem

In 2011, Anders Behring Breivik killed eight people with a car bomb in Oslo and shot to death 69 people, mostly teenagers, at a political youth camp. At trial, he was found to be sane, indeed, he bragged of his deeds, taking delight in murdering the next generation of leftist Norwegian political leaders, at a Labour Party’s youth organisation AUF camp. Breivik is an avowed fascist.

Breivik was imprisoned for the maximum sentence of 21 years. Norway abolished life in prison in 1971 (and capital punishment in 1905) as part of its goal of ‘rehabilitating and reintegrating’ criminals into society, but there is provision for lifers to be kept inside should they be deemed a danger to society.

Apparently, no current Norwegian prisoner has been detained for more than 21 years. Who knows, Breivik may, in time, be rehabilitated and reintegrated into Norwegian society. Breivik, bold chap that he is, has taken his gaolers to court for interfering with his human rights. The AUF chairman Mani Hussaini was quoted in Aftenposten as saying, ‘we are counting on that no human rights have been or are being violated.’ They really believe this stuff.

Civilised punishment?

On April 20 2016 Judge Sekulic of the Oslo District Court found that the human rights of mass murderer Breivik had been violated. The mass-murdering fascist Breivik was able to throw himself onto the mercy of a liberal court and a liberal judge to complain of the limitations that prison had placed on his human rights.

In the initial skirmish, he also sought the right to attend court, but the government sought to have him appear by video link from gaol. The compromise was for the court to attend the gaol.

Breivik complained that his human rights had been violated under articles 3 and 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. Article 3 states that, ‘No one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment’. This is a broad, dare I say, innocent looking provision. Article 8 states that, ‘Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence.’ Not so sure about this one. How a prisoner can maintain his home is difficult to imagine, but I understand the right to correspond.

The Convention does not come to life, however, until it sees a case. Judges in state courts have to put meat on the bones of such broad concepts as ‘degrading treatment’. Basically, Breivik complained that he was vulnerable, felt isolated and was treated differently to other prisoners which, he argued, was ‘degrading’. In addition, he could not correspond freely with whomever he wished. Breivik had access to 3 joined cells: bed cell, work cell and training cell, each with all mod cons, the latter including a treadmill exercise mat, multi-exerciser and spinning bike.

Recall the case of the surgeon of Crowthorne, imprisoned for murder in the Broadmoor Criminal Lunatic Asylum, near the village of Crowthorne in Berkshire, England. A major contributor to the Oxford English dictionary during his lifetime incarceration from 1872, the surgeon was granted adjoining cells, one for his extensive library.

Breivik has been allowed to study. One wonders what his contribution will be, ‘The Third Reich: notes from an admirer’?

Breivik has daily contact with prison personnel and weekly conversations with the prison chaplain. He has access to doctors and psychiatrists and the offer of a private telephone for 20 minutes per week. He receives regular visits from his lawyers. He is allowed to send letters, although these are censored.

He is offered time, on a daily basis, in an open-air special exercise yard measuring about 50 square metres. He may not work out in the prison gym and he is not allowed to visit the library.

He is isolated from other prisoners seeing them only from behind a glass wall. The government argued, plausibly, that his life would be at risk should he mix with other prisoners.

The judge dismissed the appeal under article 8 but granted the appeal under article 3, stating, ‘The prohibition of inhuman and degrading treatment represents a fundamental value in a democratic society. This applies no matter what – also in the treatment of terrorists and killers.’

My translation from the Norwegian via Google, although a marvellous thing, was very difficult to read. It seems clear, however, that the judge directed the government to reduce the extent of Breivik’s isolation, but did not specify how. Indeed, she did not appear to spend a great deal of time addressing the harm that may be caused by ‘solitary’ confinement. Methinks, she played the game. Give the human rights lawyers a pyrrhic victory, but leave the bastard to stew in his own, fairly comfortable, juice. Oh, and for all this, the taxpayer was ordered to pay costs.