“The men the European public admires most extravagantly are the most daring liars; the men they detest most violently are those who try to tell them the truth.” So begins Anders Behring Brevik's manifesto, the words that explain his decision to set out to slaughter the women and men whose future he believed he was fighting for. No one knows precisely what he had on his mind this weekend past, when he set out with an explosive device and an assault weapon to impress upon the world the truth as he saw it — an act of terrorism that, in per capita terms, ranks high in the list of horrors and atrocities of our age. It is tempting to dismiss Brevik's acts as the work of a deranged man, which in weeks and months to come, psychiatrists may well determine him to be. But while Brevik's violence may have been psychopathic, it was also political. In his rambling manifesto, 2083: a European Declaration of Independence, he exhorts those who might follow in his footsteps to remember that their arrest will give the movement a “living martyr”; each “trial offers you a stage to the world.” Every act of terrorism — as opposed to ordinary crime, or demented rage — is, in this sense, an act of political theatre, a performance intended to reach out to an audience.
What was the message this mass killer intended to send out? Brevik's claims that multiculturalism had rendered Europe effeminate; his hostility to the egalitarian premises of the democratic movements that have shaped Europe since the French revolution of 1789; his invective at Muslim migrants whom he casts as an existential threat — these are well-established motifs of the neoconservative politics that emerged resurgent in Europe after 1978. Brevik's words and ideas are thus rhetorical amplifications of ideas that have become mainstream. His apocalyptic act of violence reflected his loss of faith in organised politics to deliver on its own promises. For India, there are serious lessons. It is not that there is a simple causal connection between jihadi terrorism and the overground Islamist movement; or between Hindutva violence and the mainstream politics of Hindu nationalism; or between Khalistanis and Sikh neo-fundamentalism. Yet each of these competing religious neo-conservatisms built a climate of hate that has spawned agents of horrific violence. Indian political parties, across the spectrum, are quick to attack terrorist violence — but only a few have the integrity and the courage to condemn the systems of thought and language that underpin it. The tragedy in Norway reminds us that words can kill just as surely as bombs and assault rifles. That is good reason to act hard and resourcefully against hate speech in our national political life.
Keywords: Utoya island shooting, Norway blasts, Anders Behring Breivik
People must understand the difference between rhetorical speech and honest speech. Hateful rhetorical speech can easily inspire some morons to act accordingly. Media must evaluate everything responsibly before giving it to audience. Hate speeches must be criticized everywhere so that it would not cause any stupid violence.
Hate speech doesn't kill, ideologies don't kill, guns don't kill neither do tools, only humans do. A criminal is a criminal, whether with a weapon or otherwise, the potential to kill lies with the individual, not what he says, thinks or wants - I bet half of the Indian men want to 'kill' their wives after a spat, what stops them from doing so? It all comes down to education, upbringing and understanding of socio-economic and political factors.
"The tragedy in Norway reminds us that words can kill just as surely as bombs and assault rifles." I don't quite understand this statement from the author. It was the rifles and bombs that killed people, not words. Even the most violent words can do no real harm until the violence they describe is truly carried out in deed.
Your Editorial 'How Hate Speech Kills,' is perhaps your understanding of this ideologically demented Norwegian killer.It is sad that the main problem behind this horrific and violent act is not understood by many when analysing the root cause of this incident.The Editorial just about misses the point:while you have come so far as to mention about Europe's neoconservatism since 1978 as a consequence of Europe's muticulturalism,you have only dwelt on how this maverick's manifesto has resulted in the killing.His manifesto is perhaps the outburst of many Breviks across Western Europe where African and other non European migration has resulted in various societal problems owing to multiculuralism and religious misgivings and the inherent inability of these migrants to merge with the European psyche and culture so much so that from being a source of help for which purpose they were permitted to migrate they have made the quiet and peace loving European psyche to react the way Brevik has done.
It is times like these that the media has the unique obligation to practice responsible journalism. On the contrary, in an attempt to sell news, the online media worldwide seems to be falling into the trap of publicizing the killer's ideology. Everything about the killer including his hate philosophy (labeled the 'manifesto') are now only a mouse click away on the internet, and news outlets, including The Hindu, are publishing quotes by the killer. Such publicizing have the danger of feeding back into the system - potentially helping another ill-guided monster to emerge.
Hate speech is a serious problem, and presents a particular dilemma - on the one hand we would like to be in a position to prevent anyone from spewing hate. It is offensive and may induce crime. On the other hand, too much regulation or censorship can stifle free speech which is an important aspect of democratic participation. Governments world over are attempting, each in their own way, to tread this fine line. It is interesting that many European countries are actually 'aggressively' democratic - and have strict rules censoring hate speech, and it is in these countries where there has been increased political conservatism. whether there is any co-relation, I cannot comment.
What happened is an act of desperation, considering the killer is not a lunatic. There are many such desperate people in the waiting in India. When they know they will not be heard or worse still tormented further, they wait for an opportunity to draw blood.The comment "The world is more complex than the simplistic view this article projects."from Sadasivan, misses the point of Occam's razor.
Indian political parties, across the spectrum, are quick to attack terrorist violence — but only a few have the integrity and the courage to condemn the systems of thought and language that underpin it.
Well said, the thoughts behind all these acts of violence need to be criticises rather condemning the acts in superficial manner. The hatred spreading article of S Swamy in DNA would germinate another Brewik ,who knows? May be prosecution,putting in jail or the utmost hanging based on laws of land would be a measure to curb these violences. But the breeding hatred between religions caused by the manifestos never been fought. The need of the hour to develop a co-existant dialogue wherein these systems of thought is defeated.
This article deftly summaries an otherwise ignored reality.Hate speech is by far the most potent and damaging weapon even more than atom bombs for they spew venom of hatred,violence and brutality.It is rightly said that we condemns acts of terrorism calling them inhuman and sheer savagery, but the fundamentalist idelogies and jingoism that provides a fertile ground for terrorism is not spoken against or rebuked. This macabre incident in norway should surely set the bells ringing in india for more aggressive approach to supressing agencies delivering hate speech.
In my perspective, the ills in India are only an outcome of the commissions and omissions of the GoI.
In case of Samjauta Express case, the reprisal terrorism is an outcome of the GoI's unwillingness to punish the perpetrators of terrorism.
Why are those sentenced to death still enjoying in the jail, isn't it because of the vote-bank politics of UPA? - The other forces are just opportunistic in using the anger already existing to their advantage.
Had the UPA sent a strong message that the lives of Indian citizen is more significant than their communal vote-bank politics, the Hindutva or other such forces wouldn't have an opportunity to make a 'Hate speech'.
This is just one example of how the acts of the Govt. is directly the cause for these incidents. Of course, it differs in Norway whose culture is much different to us. I can make a lot of cases pointing the acts of Govt. that are the actual causes for reprisal and 'hate speech', but stop here due to word limit imposed.
You are right people should have the courage to stand up against the rhetoric and the hate speeches which spawns the violence. There is less effect in criticising terrorist violence than in trying to stop hate speeches.
There is no mandate that an ideology or teaching must espouse peace and co-existence to qualify as a religion; but it is imperative that civilized society can survive only if it is based on non-violence. To achieve this, it is essential that corruption and violence are not tolerated regardless of the espoused end. When common man sees no justice, they become resentful and become corrupt or violent themselves. In India, we tolerate political violence (Shiv Sena, MNS, the Communist Parties, the Hindutva Brigade); for non-violence and rule of law to be accepted by the people, such violence should be prosecuted as severely or even harsher as a homicide or massacre. When Kasab and Afsal Guru are experiencing our hospitality rather than wrath, there is no hope of it soon.
Thanks to the work of journalists and newspapers such as The Hindu the idea that terrorism is synonymous with Islamic faith has been firmly displaced in India. I think the Western world is also likely to open its eyes to this reality. However, in seeking a hard response to hate speech, this editorial may be missing a point. Hatred only begets more hatred. People of all idealogical persuasions who thrive in a climate of hate want exactly such a response since it will help them mislead a few thousands more. A civil response would be to organise a civil movement to show them for what they are. A civil response would be to build a culture of compassion in our society. We need ground level changes in how we manage our childern, families and societies.
Well. A person should not become a terrorist in name of religion. But in the name of ideology he can become terrorist. All poors in India or throughout the wolrd has to accept Marxist/Maoist ideology and become terrorist. Please note. A person can be poor, but he need not be a terrorist.
I applaud the good intentions of the editorial, but the last five sentences are at the very least incoherent if not self-contradictory. The real problem with 'hate speech' is that one can identify it as criminal (if that is what one wants to do) only after the corporal crime it induces has been committed. At best, 'hate crime' can increase the penalty of a crime behind which 'hate speech' was a motive, in the hope that the increased penalty would serve as a deterrent. Unfortunately, for the committed sociopath, like Bervick, there is no real deterrent.
It is the human beings who show feelings of intense hate and love for one's country or religion or both. It is education plus upbringing during childhood/ teen age that help an individual to become a decent human. Education alone does not guarantee that we humans will behave decently. If as a child, he/ she is continuously 'bombarded' with words of hatred or words of praise for some eminent personality, past or present, it is all likely that he/she will be influenced by that bombardment and stops thinking rationally.We in India are having any number of examples of fundamentalists, whether Hindus, Muslims or Christians, creating atmosphere of hatred for other communities. Oslo killings are just a reminder of the grave consequences of creation of such hatred. Would we learn a lesson and work for creation of atmosphere of peace?
The world is more complex than the simplistic view this article projects.Please google for 'Gladio' , for starters.
No religion can claim to be a religion, if it spreads hate among the people, for any reason. It is all nothing but mental disorder to call for the superiority of a religion and spill hate on others. Politicians, who speak of a religion's superiority, is a matter of tactical approach to be in power and carry on his exploitation. It is for the people to understand, identify and isolate such people.
Please Email the Editor