I WASN'T going to write about the Norwegian massacre because it has rather fallen from the front pages – then I realised that was precisely the point.
Had it been the al-Qaeda atrocity that many initially suspected, things would have been different. Today’s press would have been dominated by commentary about “Norway’s 9/11” and the “new Nordic front in the war on terror”. We would be told there was now “nowhere to hide” from Islamist fanatics.
As it happened, of course, this was not an act of Islamic fundamentalist terror, but Christian fundamentalist terror. Commentators and newspaper editors have been embarrassed, particularly, the Daily Mail’s Melanie Phillips, whose columns were cited in Anders Behring Breivik’s “manifesto”. Mind you, the Independent’s Robert Fisk was once cited by Osama bin Laden, which just goes to show that you can’t always be sure the right people agree with you when you write opinionated commentary.
But there were no calls for censorship of right-wing views, or any crackdown in Norway against the anti-immigration parties. Norway provided a textbook demonstration of how a civilised country should respond to these rare and random acts of unspeakable barbarity – with stoicism and measure. Despite having been the prime target of the Oslo bombing, the Norwegian Prime Minister, Jens Stoltenberg, avoided the temptation to declare another pointless “war on terror” or promulgate an agenda of repressive measures to “protect the people”.
Instead he turned this tragic event into a chance to unite the country, celebrate liberal values and heal divisions. “The Norwegian response to violence is more democracy, more openness and greater political participation,” he said. The people took his lead, and mounted huge peaceful demonstrations holding flowers to show their respect for the dead and their commitment to their values. Unfortunately, that isn’t as newsworthy as a war on terror, so Norway slipped into the foreign news pages.
Compare Britain’s response to 7/7 in 2005. Within days, then Home Secretary, Charles Clarke, under pressure from Tony Blair and The Sun, had put together an agenda of repressive legislation. Top of the list was 90-day detention for terrorists and the outlawing of what was called “indirect incitement to terrorism” – the nearest Britain has come to legislating against thought crime. The 90-day detention plan was dropped after it was realised this could mean suspects receiving the equivalent of a six-month prison sentence, with remission, without being charged with any offence. But Blair had no qualms about abolishing the thousand-year-old right of habeas corpus – the right not to be held without charge.
A repressive response is precisely what the terrorist wants because it engenders hate between communities. In Chris Morris’s brilliant satire on religious terrorism, Four Lions, one of the suicide bombers insists they should target the local Mosque. That way, peaceful Muslims would be roused to anger against the “kuffar” (non-believers), the government would crack down on them and there would be a religious civil war hastening “the end of days”.
If only, after 9/11, George W Bush had appealed for calm and urged citizens to hold firm to their democratic values. Instead he promised to get bin Laden “dead or alive”, declared war on international terror, and then invaded Iraq, a country that had no connection whatever to al-Qaeda. In doing so, he played right into bin Laden’s hands, igniting a furious response throughout the Middle East to the illegal invasion of a nominally Muslim country.
Of course, there are those who say it was only because Breivik was a “Christian” bomber rather than a Muslim one, that the response was so responsible. Aren’t far-right groups on the march already in Northern Europe? The Freedom Party in Holland, the Sweden Democrats, the True Finns. The Arab News last week slammed the West for hypocrisy, saying the Norway shooting was played down because it didn’t fit the “racist” mould of “Islamic terrorism”.
There may be an element of truth in that. Certainly, UK papers which had prematurely pronounced the massacre as the work of al-Qaeda, curiously became less interested after it was discovered the perpetrator was white and right-wing.
But if the killer had fitted that profile, I don’t believe the Norwegian response would have been markedly different. The security services and the Norwegian police – who were heavily criticised for their delayed reaction to the events – might have stepped up security at immigration points and known Muslim extremists might have been questioned. But there would have been nothing like the British reaction to 7/7.
So, why has Norway reacted so calmly? Let’s put it the other way: why was Britain’s first reaction a repressive one? Britain is a phlegmatic country with firm values, not unlike Norway. For three decades, Britain took the IRA terror bombings in its stride and even Margaret Thatcher, a target of the IRA Brighton bombing in 1984, never proposed detention without trial on the British mainland. Why was Britain so different in 2005?
Perhaps the presence of Rupert Murdoch, the “24th member of Blair’s cabinet” according to former Number 10 staffer Lance Price, might have had something to do with it. Blair was obsessed with pleasing the tabloid press. In Norway, they don’t allow foreign proprietors to dictate government policy. But more importantly, Norway is a small, robust and relatively homogeneous community, used to adversity, and confident in itself and its democracy. Belligerence is a sign of weakness. Let’s hope political leaders learn from Norway’s example, because we will probably be here again.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article