Gunman in Norway Claims Self-Defense as Trial Begins

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/17/world/europe/trial-of-anders-behring-breivik-opens-in-norway.html?_r=1&ref=world

April 16, 2012                   

Gunman in Norway Claims Self-Defense as Trial Begins

The article that I have chose to blog about for my final religious and law assignment deals with the recent court case of a gunman who is accused of killing approximately 69 people on July 22, 2011 at a youth camp in Utoya Island Norway.  The defendant Mr. Anders Behring Breivk, age 33 acknowledges committing the act of mass murder, but on the grounds of self defense given his belief that these individuals were involved in a plot to overrun Norwegian society with Islamic immigrants.

 Mr. Breivk is claiming self defense due to precede threats from Islamic radicals.   Mr. Breivk, according to the article is using the intense media focus/and or coverage of his trial to deliver his radical ideology to a broader audience.  Initially it was believed that Mr. Breivk was acting in concert with some type of organized group, however this theory has been disproven by the investigation.  Mr. Breivk is apparently a long wolf acting solely on his own accord promoting hatred and division.  Mr. Breivk stated that he does not recognize the authority of the court and continue to be defiant throughout the legal proceedings by challenging legal protocols and court room etiquette.

In order for the court to proceed with the prosecution of Mr. Breivk, Norwegian law requires the court to determine the mental status of the defendant.  If Mr. Brevik is determined to be sane under the definition of Norwegian law, then he can be sentenced up to 21 years in prison with a provision to keep him behind bars longer if he is still considered dangerous.  If Mr. Breivk is found insane he can be kept in forced psychiatric care for as long as his illness persists.

I completely disagreed with the actions of Mr. Breivk, he is a criminal and deserves to be persecuted to the maximum extent in which Norwegian law allows.  However I believe that Mr. Breivk actions represent a broader problem that exists in Western Judicial Christian society regarding a prejudicial attitude.

Islam is viewed as a religion of uncivilized and barbaric people by many white Christians Europeans. This institutionalized religious discrimination goes beyond race or ethnicity but is deeply rooted in religious intolerance and bigotry stemming from mid-evil wars such as the crusades.  Islam is seen as an inferior form of Russia and Christianity is viewed as the correct way to believe in worship God.  These two religions are classified and separated based on imaginary line then ratified and stratified depending on the predominant society.

My final issue with this case involves the attention given to Mr. Breivk based on his mental health status.  The term used sane vs. insane are prejudicial and offensive.  It is clear that the court as well as most modern so called civilized societies would rather attribute criminal behavior to individuals with some sort of medical defect or illness rather than acknowledge the fact that individuals who are deemed normal are more capable and likely to commit heinous crimes than those who are quote (un-quote) insane.

In this secular modern  and civilized society it is regrettable that that the majority of citizens still hold on to fairytale of good and evil where the mentally ill are viewed in mid-evil terms similar to the devil or similarly evil characters, while sane individuals are viewed in more favorable and angelic terms maintaining hope for redemption and salvation.

.