Should we view the Oslo attack as an arbitrary act or as a reflection of wider political and religious extremism?

He wrote he would “kill to avoid the islamicization of Europe.” His act was that of an insane person, but we would be deluded not to conflate his atrocity with the xenophobia of extremist political parties and right-wing hate groups in Europe that radiate anti-immigrant and anti-government messages in increasingly inflammatory language. Their words may now be toned down for a time. Insecure and weak leaders of mainstream parties will pull back on the temptation to drift to the populist right in their own messaging. But Europe has to get its asylum/identity/integration act together. It will require leadership able to rise above the EU’s now chronic economic crisis. PM Stoltenberg emerges as the strong and compassionate leader so depressingly absent elsewhere, with the exception of Poland’s Donald Tusk.

Email

Share

Like the shocked viewer of Goya’s stark rendering of Saturn devouring his own son we struggle to find meaning in the cold-blooded murders that took place in Oslo and at a summer camp for young women and men. Alas, there is no deeper, hidden meaning here and no mythology to find cold comfort. There is only monstrous evil poorly concealed in the half-baked political tracts and xenophobic ravings of a brutal, unrepentant killer. As Norway begins to bury its victims, we offer our heartfelt condolences and shed our own tears into this chasm of grief.

Email

Share

The attacks in Oslo were certainly not arbitrary. But while I would in no way seek to belittle or minimize the individual consequences of this tragedy, I believe that actions of this type must be very carefully considered and assessed.

Although the motives and techniques associated with terrorism have evolved over time,  political extremism and religious violence have been with the world for millennia. However shocking such expressions of anger, alienation,  deep disaffection, or whatever the animus, it is important to keep the significance of such events in perspective.  Terrorist incidents remain relatively rare, and as generators of mass casualties pale in comparison to war, pestilence, famine, and poor public health, to name just a few of the issues which warrant much more concern than they generally receive.

Put another way, persistent underdevelopment, state failure and abiding insecurity kill millions of people annually; terrorism kills thousands, and not every year even at that.

Car accidents represent a much more serious threat to individual well-being.

In my view, it is the reaction of Norwegian people which has been more instructive than either the violence itself, or the various interpretations of the media coverage of this story – and terrorism is fuelled by saturation coverage. The steadfastness, determination and commitment of Norwegians to maintaining their open and democratic society without recourse to excessive over-reaction or extreme security measures has been nothing short of inspiring.

It is also worth noting  that Norway, and not by coincidence, has chosen to play a leading  role internationally by encouraging collaboration in the pursuit of solutions to such pressing global challenges as climate change, diminishing biodiversity, food and water scarcity, conflict resolution, and so forth.

Unlike the USA and many other NATO members, participation in what was until recently referred to as the Global War on Terror has not been among Norway’s foreign policy priorities.

In that respect , and indeed in terms of many other domestic and international policy choices, Norway provides an excellent example worthy of further study and, in some cases, emulation.

Canada and Canadians could learn much.

Email

Share

The Oslo attack would appear primarily to be an arbitrary act, dressed up as something religious/political, but well within the practice of anarchism seen throughout the 19th and 20th centuries by individuals or very small, marginal groups.

Email

Share

Without irony, the answer is both.

The attacks appears to be the actions of a dangerously delusional arbitrary actor.  Part of his delusion appears to be that he thinks he is part of a larger group.

However based on events in the recent past in northern Europe, there seem to be more of these arbitrary actors seemingly motivated by similar fears of changing population patterns brought about by immigration. 

That is part of the irony. They have common motives but do not appear to have created any common organization.

Email

Share

Although the act itself seems to be the work of a single individual, it would be dangerous to deny that it does not reflect wider political and religious intolerance of Muslims in Europe. The perpetrator’s manifesto says as much. Recent controversy over Islamic symbols in European countries historically perceived as respectful of diversity also highlights the point; let us remember that three mosques were perceived to be sufficiently threatening to provoke a successful referendum to ban mosques altogether in Switzerland. Muslims have often claimed that Western powers implement a policy of “two weights and two measures” when it comes to matters related to Islam. They stand to be proven right if we accept to call the horrendous Oslo attacks an arbitrary act committed by a rogue killer rather than admit that this is the unfortunate expression of broader extremism that needs to be tackled. Let us not commit the error of calling Muslims who shoot others terrorists whilst calling non-Muslims who do the same rogue killers. The taking of innocent lives to make a political point, what Anders Behring Breivik did, is an act of terrorism that reflects an intolerant ideology. We owe his young victims the intellectual honesty of saying that much.

Email

Share