We need more democracy rather than surveillance and paranoia

Before all the gruesome details of Friday's harrowing attacks in Norway had emerged, speculation was rife as to who was responsible and how Norway should respond. In international television studios and opinion pages several commentators remarked on Norway's 'lack of preparedness' and false sense of safety. There was outright condemnation of Norway's 'absurdly slack security' and hints that this is a wake-up call for a country that has long imagined itself to be one of the safest places on Earth. Surely, some suggested, Norwegians can't be so naïve as to believe that openness is a viable value in this era of global terror?

The proper response to this kind of chastisement came from Norwegian prime minister Jens Stoltenberg, who was asked at a press conference hours after the attack whether the events would make Norway a less open society. He said: 'Our answer must be more democracy, more openness, to show that we will not be cowed by this kind of violence.'

Norway and its Scandinavian neighbours are indeed known for their 'slack security' and for cherishing openness. Here, politicians still move about relatively freely and among Scandinavians there is still a measure of resistance against efforts to roll out surveillance regimes. For instance, being under the constant, watchful gaze of CCTV cameras, as Brits are, is an alien concept.

It is precisely this sense of security that terrorists like Anders Behring Breivik, the right-wing racist who carried out Friday's attacks, want to shatter. The aim of terrorism is not just to kill and maim, but also to instil a sense of insecurity and paranoia across society. And instead of giving in to this, the proper response should be a show of resilience, to demonstrate that the democratic values that terrorists - whether of Muslim or Christian persuasion - attack are not so easily done away with.

Unfortunately, however, in the past decade, politicians and law makers in Western societies have perpetuated a politics of fear, rather than resilience, in response to terrorist attacks. In the UK and elsewhere, there has been a rollout of heavy-handed security regimes, with increased surveillance, clamp-downs on free speech, the extension of police powers to issue stop-and-search orders, and so on - all in the name of 'counter terrorism'. As fundamental liberties are trampled on in the name of preventing attacks, our leaders are in fact doing the terrorists' dirty work for them.

As for Friday's attacks, the full picture is yet to emerge as to what Anders Behring Breivik's motives were, whether he acted alone or with the assistance of a wider network, and what precisely he imagined his heinous act would achieve. In statements to his lawyer, he said that he wanted to hurt the ruling Labour Party and its recruitment as much as possible, which is, presumably, why he chose as his targets the government quarters in Oslo and an idyllic, isolated island where the next generation of Social Democrats gather every year for a summer camp.

But this was no precisely-targeted attack. Instead, for Behring Brevik, this was a warning to Norway as a whole. He has said that he wanted to change the political climate in Norway through violence. In other words, he wants to re-shape Norwegian society to fit with his unhinged world outlook, as described in a 15,00-page document that he penned and titled 2083 - A European Declaration of Independence. In this diary-like pamphlet, compiled over nine years, Behring Brevik attacks everyone from Muslims to proponents of multiculturalism and members of the 'cultural Marxist elite'.

Too often over the past decade, terrorists have indeed been allowed to re-shape society through violence. Not because they have won large swathes of people over to their misanthropic causes but because political rulers have used the spectre of terrorism to justify clampdowns on some fundamental freedoms, infusing western societies with a climate of illiberalism. Now, instead of chastising Norway for being 'naïve' for holding on for so long to democratic values, it should be encouraged not to give them up.

Scandinavia is, of course, not immune to illiberal impulses. For instance, since Sweden experienced its first suicide bombing at the end of last year, it has seen an extension of the state's surveillance powers and some vocal lobbying for clamping down on freedom of expression and association as a way to prevent terrorism.

At the time, some Swedish politicians took the opportunity to defend the fiercely debated 'FRA law', which gives the Swedish intelligence bureau the right to snoop on every single email, telephone call, facsimile and SMS message crossing Sweden's borders. Others said that the Stockholm attacked justified the terror-prevention law that was introduced in December 2010. This law criminalises public incitement, recruitment and education 'for the purpose of terrorism and other serious crimes'. It is designed to meet the requirements of the European Council's convention on the prevention of terrorism. As similar laws in Britain have shown, these measures tend to blur the boundaries between speech and action, between thought and deed, as anything from championing Hamas to speaking ill of the West or criticising multiculturalism can be categorised as speech that 'incites terrorism'.

Not only can such laws have severe long-term consequences for citizens' liberties, while doing little practical to stop terrorism, but they also help instil a 'better safe than sorry' attitude that is paralysing and encourages a deep sense of distrust and paranoia.

Norway's security services may have misjudged the threat from right-wingers, as has been claimed, but it is impossible to predict fully the erratic behaviour of deeply disturbed individuals. It is also undesirable to organise society according to the presumption that a terrorist attack may always be about to happen.

Those now lecturing Norway on being too open, too free and too lax would do well to listen to some of the voices coming from within Norway itself. Rather than rallying for knee-jerk draconian measures, in the past couple of days many Norwegians have spoken up for liberty, stating that more intervention into the private lives of citizens is not a price worth paying. As one commentator put it, 'We will not have a Norway with new restrictions on movement, more uniforms and therefore also more interventions in the lives of those of us who do not want to comprehend the language of terror. Then the terrorists would win.'

Let's hope that Norway's leaders stay true to their promise of retaliating Friday's attacks 'with more democracy' - and that other leaders pay heed to it, too.

--------------

Texten är även publicerad i Huffington Post.

Nathalie Rothschild (3 artiklar)

Anmäl

Trackback URL: http://www.newsmill.se/trackback/38234

9 kommentarer I kommentarsfältet har kommentatorn juridiskt ansvar för sina inlägg.

@NATHALIE ROTHSCHILD

You should have read his manifest before you wrote the article. In the manifest he clearly describes himself as an anti-racist rather than the title you gave him.

Permalänk | Anmäl #1 Tom Box, 2011-07-24, 14:58

Bortsett från demoniseringen och den politiskt korrekta hatpropagandan så får man instämma i förhoppningen att Skandinavien får mer demokrati.

I Sverige borde statsministern föregå med gott exempel och dra tillbaka fatwan mot Sverigedemokraterna.

Det minsta man kan begära av en statsminister är väl att han behandlar sina politiska kollegor som människor och inte som rabiessmittade hundar som han gjort hittills.

Permalänk | Anmäl #3 Bo T, 2011-07-24, 15:41

These are wise words indeed.

Permalänk | Anmäl #4 u_3230, 2011-07-24, 15:47

Hey, plz wake up. This isn't a worlds-first. Where have you been earlier when the rest of the world has been attacked? You seem to have opened your eyes just suddenly. Perhaps because the suspected perpetrator is blond? FYI I can tell you that similar terrorist actions take place almost every day in Sweden. Fortunately, people seldom die though. Stockholm, the capital of Sweden, are very fortunate. Until recently, we've had no attack what so ever. Until just recentely. A man accidentaly blow himself to the next life, close to Drottninggatan, a very crowded street.

And yes. This perpetrator DID HAVE BEARD. He wasn't blond either.

Our world should try to make the most out of this. That is... Most likely, when a terror event occurs, a bearded man should be suspected. But, the police must know that neural brain damage can also occur within the (previously) homogen group of blond, pale, northen europeans. These brain damages can be the result of damage to the brain from unknown source, or it could be the result of inbreeding. Most likely, and opposite to Swedish law, the suspected person, might not be held responsible. Not yet. Not until further investigation has been conducted. Who would sentence the Austrian girl to jail if she does something wrong, when she's been imprisoned in her fathers cellar for more than 20 years?

Until we know more about this 'blond guy', just let the authorities do their job.

He has put up a manifest on internet. No one knows for a fact that this represents the same person's opinion. Not yet.

I could easily put up a manifest today, in order to clear myself in future mass murders. It doesn't work that way.

Whatever I write today, doesn't make it okay to kill anyone, ever.

Permalänk | Anmäl #5 Janne Berggren, 2011-07-24, 15:59

Baffling.
If anything, his cause is exactly to retain the democratic Norway. It's in the name of the secular and democratic Norwegian society he claims to have done this absurd deed.

His view on the world is absurdly paranoid and conspiratorial, but the truth of the matter is that the democracy you advocate the Norwegians need to stand up and defend is exactly the same democracy the terrorist sees himself defending.

The only difference is that he sees multi-culturalism as a threat (especially a future threat) to that democracy while the leading party in Norway doesn't.

These knee-jerk pieces do little to explain and analyse the horrid nature and possible implications of this sick, sick act.

That said I wholeheartedly agree that the western societies' tendency to sooner or later tighten the hold over its population in the aftermath of acts of terrorism is counterproductive. It just fuels more hate and more harsh rhetoric which ultimately leads to some narcissistic maniac turning those harsh words into action.

Swedish politicians are already busy arming for another ridiculous war of words trying their best to people of different opinions.
How can they ask for the people to seek peace and understanding when their own war of politics is so dirty?

Permalänk | Anmäl #6 Kim Lund, 2011-07-24, 16:16

Thankyou Nathalie Rothschild, wellwritten...

#1 Tom Box,

" he clearly describes himself as an anti-racist rather than the title you gave him."

It have no mening what so ever how he describes him self !!!
Anders opinions and actiones defines him as a racist...
In Swden you have the party "SD", they allso describe themselves as "anti-racists"...but...

Nathalie, you will find a lot of coments here that reminds of or even are identical to the opiniens of the terrorist Anders´, but pleas have in mind that those do NOT represent the people of Sweden in general...
Unfortenetly there are a very high cocentration os SD-people here...

The supporters of SD, (Sverigedemokraterna), are only 5-6 % of the swedish population....

Permalänk | Anmäl #7 Torsten Nilsson, 2011-07-24, 16:24

#7

How excacly does those deeds mark him as a racist? Not all of us who oppose excessive and incorrect labeling of people and their thoughts do so to glorify our own beliefs or the SD memberships we don't have. We simply do so because that type of propagandaism and hate-mongering is absolutely devastating to an free and genuinely open-minded society.

Maybe it is us and not SD voters who populate this site in such numbers?

Permalänk | Anmäl #8 Kim Lund, 2011-07-24, 16:42

Re #7:

"Anders opinions and actiones defines him as a racist."

In what matter? I have not seen anything, either in media or his manifest that makes him a racist. He does not seems to care much about race at all.
Can you (or Nathalie Rothschild who also claiming ABB to be racist) pleace specify one thing that makes ABB racist. Just one. I have not seen any, dispite massive reading about ABB. Either you know something no one else knows about ABB or you do not know what your talking about.

Permalänk | Anmäl #9 Leif D, 2011-07-24, 16:59

#7 Torsten Nilsson, "Anders opinions and actiones defines him as a racist."

Really, have you spoken to him lately? I prefer to trust his manifest where it's clearly written that he sees himself as an anti-racist.

Why do you start to mix SD into this? Are you the disgusting type of human that will utilize this tragedy for your own political purpose?

Permalänk | Anmäl #11 Tom Box, 2011-07-24, 17:26

Kommentarsfältet är stängt på denna artikel.