English

The proceedings in the case against massmurderer Anders Behring Breivik took a new turn Friday when the judges appointed two new psychiatrists to undertake a new judicial review.

The presiding jude expressed the hope that another review would shed new light on the case.

However, the result could be confusion. Behring Breivik refuses another observation, and his lawyer Geir Lippestad supports this stance. Ever since the first judicial review was presented on Tuesday 29th of November, there has been a flood of leaks, from the report and from the testimonies given to the police. They have become so numerous that they create their own momentum in the case. Thus the decision to have another review could be interpreted as a concession to the press, that they are running or influencing the case unduly.

The first review concluded that Behring Brevik was insane, and thus could not be sentenced to prison, but had to be incarcerated and subjected to forced treatment.

To a number of people this was an intolerable idea. They felt that Behring Breivik’s political views were somehow exonerated or compartmentalized. They want not to see not just Breivik, but also his ideas and all who share them, in the dock.

But this raises the question: where do you draw the line? Soon after 22/7 the media started a hunt for the people who had contributed to what they called a climate of xenophobia and islamophobia and they started with the Progress Party and some of its leading members. A number of people have been forced to recant statements they made before 22/7.

If the defenders of political correctness have their say, it will be not just Breivik in the dock, but a number of people to are critics of the multicultural experiment, both in Norway, but also a number of welknown people who Breivik cites in his manifest: Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Fjordman, Robert Spencer, Daniel Pipes, Lars Hedegaard, Bat Ye’or, Bruce Bawer.

Since the media are fairly and squarely in the hands of political correctness, this conflict is not presented as starkly as it is. It presents itself as subterfuge.

Today the newspaper VG published the judicial review in full. It is a very interesting document, and should be translated so the international press could read with their own eyes.

Document will try to make a selected translation available.