Breivik awaits decision in Norway massacre trial
One year after the massacre on the Norwegian island of Utøya and the bomb attack in the government district of Oslo, in which a total of 77 people lost their lives, the trial of Anders Behrig Breivik has made waves in the international press – not least due to his incredible statements in court.
Breivik said that the attacks 22 June 2011, which he readily admits to, were part of a “cultural revolution” against the alleged Islamisation of Europe, and Norway in particular.
Throughout the trial he interrupted testimony from witnesses and survivors and used every opportunity for showmanship. During the testimony of psychiatrist Arnhild Flikke, who analysed the self-styled anti-Muslim militant, he said that the experience for her “must be like meeting Hannibal Lecter”.
However, Breivik – a former member of the right-wing populist Fremmskrittspartiet (Progress Party) – also underlined his desire to serve his sentence in prison and not in a psychiatric institution.
Indeed, the question of Breivik’s sanity – and therefore his criminal responsibility – is the key element of the trial, which saw court-appointed psychiatrists present their analyses in its last week of hearings.
A number of former friends of the “Norwegian Hannibal” were also summoned before court in an effort to get to the bottom of the mystery behind his actions. Most of them reported that Breivik had a shady worldview, especially after his decision to vacate his flat to isolate himself.
Statements given by Breivik in an attempt to justify his racism, such as the story of a Pakistani youth who allegedly fractured his nose as a teenager, were discredited as lies by one former friend.
Meanwhile, Breivik’s defence lawyer called a number of fellow right-wing sympathisers as witnesses in an effort to show that he is not the only person who views the suggested Islamisation of Norway as a danger. British political magazine New Statesman commented on this notion, saying: “To prove Breivik’s sanity, they rolled out the crazies.”
One of those “crazies” was Arne Tumyr, chief of the organisation Stop Islamisation of Norway, who merely complained about being filmed by the court’s cameras without being helpful to the trial, according to journalists present.
Another witness was Tore Tvedt, founder of the racist organisation Vigrid, who said that he does not accept violence “except [when] you have to defend yourself”. He added that Norway “is in a civil war” and described the country as in a “terror state.”
On 21 June, after the hearing of evidence, prosecutor Svein Holden advocated Breivik’s referral into a psychiatric hospital because of what he called his paranoid delusion. Holden said it would be “harder to be in prison for a mentally ill person than to be in a mental hospital for a mentally healthy person”.
A day later, defence lawyer Geir Lippestad argued in favour of imprisonment because it is “a human right to assume responsibility for your deeds”. Officially he advocated a verdict of not guilty because Breivik acted in self-defence, according to the defendant himself.
The judges in the trial will decide no later 24 August the question of whether Breivik is fit to serve his time in prison or in hospital.
In Breivik’s closing remarks he said that his attacks were vicious but justifiable in their being done for the “protection of the country”. He added: “I was acting for my nation, my religion and my country.”
