The British press at work

Anyone who has been reading the British press in recent days can’t help but notice that the American-owned blog Gates of Vienna has been mentioned in several articles about the Scandinavian spree killer, Anders Breivik. In the absence of any causal link between the two, some journalists have resorted to guilt by insinuation. Their readers are given one or two decontextualised facts about the events of 1683. They are then invited to draw certain conclusions about the blog. What most people don’t know (after all, they have no reason to know) is that Vienna in 1683 was a defensive conflict, one of the few times when Ottoman aggrandizement in Europe, and throughout the Mediterranean, was successfully checked. The siege of Malta in 1565 was another. On that occasion one of the largest armed fleets ever assembled descended upon Malta and laid siege to the island. The forces of Suleyman the Magnificent ended up being fought to a stalemate by the Knights of St. John, who were based on Malta, together with a handful of fighting men and of course, the Maltese islanders themselves. If Suleyman’s forces had prevailed, they would have attempted to do what the Allies did in WWII and from the island of Malta, invaded Sicily. From Sicily, Italy. From there, onwards and up into the “soft underbelly” of Europe. Anyone wishing to understand the significance of someone naming their blog Gates of Vienna must therefore ask themselves: Why Vienna? What was the Ottoman army doing laying siege to Vienna in the first place? What would have happened if they had not been repelled? And just as important: Why would it have happened? The historian Niall Ferguson recently made a TV series about, among other things, the Gates of Vienna. (See link.) Anyone wanting to know more than the bare details provided in the British press recently could do worse than watch Ferguson’s series. (It’s available here.)

Like many people throughout the West, I knew practically nothing about either the teachings or history of Islam prior to 9/11. And for a long time afterwards, I remained ignorant. However, as the list of terrorist attacks grew longer, and it became clear that Muslims were carrying out those terrorist attacks, the question inevitably arose: Maybe not all Muslims are terrorists, but why on earth are all these terrorists that we’re seeing Muslims? I decided to investigate.

It seemed to me that it would be best to avoid any new, post-9/11 authors. So I started reading books on Islam by writers such as William Montgomery Watt and Hugh Kennedy. I also started to read some history books by writers like Ernle Bradford and Roger Crowley. I discovered that although the Islamic prophet began his career in prophecy as a moderate, as one might say nowadays, he went on to become a far more bellicose character. Unfortunately the Islamic principle of abrogation insists that the verses in the Koran from his later years take precedence over earlier, more moderate, verses. Given the Islamic view of the Koran, this is problematic. I also discovered that as a matter of doctrine, Islam denies that Jesus was the Son of God, and it denies the crucifixion. So the teachings of Islam can never be reconciled with Christianity. And that’s just the tip of the iceberg.

There is, of course, no problem in studying religion or history. Nor is there any difficulty with discussing immigration. Former British PM Gordon Brown said in November 2009, “Immigration is not an issue for fringe parties, nor a taboo subject. It is a question to be dealt with at the heart of our politics; a question about what it means to be British.” David Cameron, Nicolas Sarkozy, Angela Merkel, former Australian PM John Howard and former Spanish PM Jose Maria Aznar have all said that multiculturalism has failed. Gordon Brown has also said that he does not agree with the “lazy elitism that dismisses immigration as an issue, or portrays anyone who has concerns about immigration as a racist”. Quite so.

All those different politicians have reached the conclusion that multiculturalism is a failed policy. The question is: What information did they have access to that led them to that conclusion? If there is information available that will lead educated, rational, reasonable people to believe that multiculturalism is a failed policy – to put it another way, if it is possible to research the issue properly and reach that conclusion – then there’s no problem with the owners of a website doing the necessary research, and reaching that same conclusion.

And if there is no problem with someone discussing immigration, or religion, or history, then it’s difficult to see how journalists can justify smearing a blog by associating it with the Scandinavian spree killer Anders Breivik, without providing any evidence of a causal link between the two. Apparently Breivik also watched Top Gear. Is Jeremy Clarkson, who has made many outrageous, politically incorrect statements over the years, responsible for the actions of Anders Breivik? No? Then neither is some American-owned blog on the internet.

In the final analysis, there are plenty people who have appeared in the writing or in the internet life of Anders Breivik, but who are clearly not responsible for his actions: The makers of Dexter, John Stuart Mill, Niccolo Machiavelli, George Orwell, Homer, the owners of Gates of Vienna, the makers of the movie 300, the makers of The Shield, and of course, Mr. Clarkson from the BBC’s Top Gear.

Only one person is responsible for the actions of Anders Breivik, and that is the man himself.

The spree killing in Norway

The only thing to write about this week is what has happened in Norway. Geir Lippestad is the lawyer representing the alleged perpetrator of the spree killing at Oslo and Utøya Island, Anders Breivik. His lawyer is currently saying that Breivik appears to be insane, but that it’s difficult to describe him further, because Breivik is ‘not like anyone else’. This hasn’t stopped journalists from trying to describe Breivik, or from going further and trying to suggest what his motives might be for carrying out such a wicked act.

Journalists are trained to report on events, not to analyse them. And they have their own agenda when covering stories like this. One journalist on Sky News’ press review a couple of nights ago pointed to a front page photo of Breivik and said that as journalists, that was what they wanted. A photo of a killer’s face. He quickly apologised to the families of the victims, who obviously might feel just a tad upset at the thought of seeing Breivik smirking at them over their cornflakes in the morning, then he repeated his point that as journalists, they wanted such a photo on their front cover. The presenter of the programme quickly moved on.

There are very few journalists who have sufficient knowledge of theology or philosophy to be able to begin putting acts of evil into any kind of meaningful context. The best that most journalists can do is pore over the alleged perpetrator’s internet life, and then report that apparently Breivik had read lots of different books. One of these was On Liberty, by John Stuart Mill:

“The object of this Essay is to assert one very simple principle, as entitled to govern absolutely the dealings of society with the individual in the way of compulsion and control, whether the means used be physical force in the form of legal penalties, or the moral coercion of public opinion. That principle is, that the sole end for which mankind are warranted, individually or collectively, in interfering with the liberty of action of any of their number, is self-protection. That the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not a sufficient warrant. He cannot rightfully be compelled to do or forbear because it will be better for him to do so, because it will make him happier, because, in the opinions of others, to do so would be wise, or even right. These are good reasons for remonstrating with him, or reasoning with him, or persuading him, or entreating him, but not for compelling him, or visiting him with any evil in case he do otherwise. To justify that, the conduct from which it is desired to deter him, must be calculated to produce evil to some one else. The only part of the conduct of any one, for which he is amenable to society, is that which concerns others. In the part which merely concerns himself, his independence is, of right, absolute. Over himself, over his own body and mind, the individual is sovereign.” (John Stuart Mill, On Liberty)

As anyone familiar with On Liberty knows, Mill argued that if individuals are not violating what is known as the ‘Harm Principle’ then they should not be subject to the powers of the state, or even be coerced by their fellow citizens, to make them behave differently. The young people who lost their lives last week at Utøya Island were of course harming no one.

Even if one believes that another person is somehow wrong, either in their thinking or behaviour, Mill argued that, at most, one may remonstrate with them, reason with them, or try to persuade them that they are wrong. A far cry from blowing people up with a car bomb or shooting them with a rifle.

So it’s strange to see journalists mentioning Mill when they write about the horrific events at Oslo and Utøya Island. I can’t help noticing that they provide no linkage between Mill’s writing and the spree killing itself. This is because there actually is no causal link.

Playing devil’s advocate, it may be said that Anders Breivik, the alleged perpetrator of the spree killings at Utøya, had at some point physically turned the pages, and allowed the words of Mill’s On Liberty to pass before his eyes. Then again, so have thousands of undergraduate philosophy students. Breivik also appears to have read George Orwell’s 1984. This book is regarded as one of the greatest novels ever written, and it has been read by millions of people. Ask any of those millions of people to give their moral assessment of the spree killing at Oslo and Utøya, and they will inform you that it was an act of almost unparalleled evil. This is because there is nothing in either of those books to make anyone reading them believe that murdering innocent teenagers is anything but an evil act. There is therefore no legitimate reason to link either George Orwell or John Stuart Mill to the spree killing in Norway.

It’s natural to try to find some kind of explanation for acts of wickedness, and of course, journalists are paid to say something about whatever has happened on any given day. Given the time constraints they’re working udner, it’s understandable that journalists would trawl the internet for any information they can find about the alleged perpetrator, and use that information to help them write an article. But saying that Breivik read Mill and Orwell, or some Scandanavian blogger, sheds no light on his motives. Apparently, Breivik was a big fan of Jeremy Clarkson. Are we supposed to think that watching Top Gear drove him to murder?

There’s a fundamental problem with reporters noting that the alleged perpetrator of the spree killing in Norway read certain books or watched certain TV programmes at some undefined point in the past, and then allegedly carried out a wicked act in July 2011. One TV programme most of us will remember is The West Wing, starring Martin Sheen as President Jed Bartlet. In Season 1, episode 2 of the programme, entitled post hoc, ergo propter hoc, Bartlet discusses that fallacy with his advisors. (Watch the scene here.) In the scene Leo McGarry, played by John Spencer, tells us what the latin expression means: After it, therefore because of it. Martin Sheen explains the fallacy itself to us: “It means one thing follows the other, therefore it was caused by the other. It’s not always true. In fact it’s hardly ever true.” The logic is clear enough: Even if event x happens before event y, that does not mean x caused y.

Much has been made of the alleged perpetrator of this spree killing having read essays written by a Scandanavian blogger. But by mentioning this in newspaper reports covering the spree killing at Utøya, readers are quietly being invited to commit that fallacy. Although like many others, I read Orwell and Mill years ago, I must admit that I’ve only read one essay by Fjordman. I recently looked up his work, and read the first of his series entitled The History of Beer. It was interesting enough, if a little dry and uninspiring. The point here is that, as someone who has been sober for more than ten years, I can state categorically that if I were to fall off the wagon and return to my old ways it would not be because I read Fjordman’s thoughts on the history of beer. If I choose to act in a destructive way, then that is my decision and no one else’s. Reading an essay by a Scandanavian blogger would have nothing to do with it.

One thing may precede another, but that doesn’t mean that it caused it. There is no actual causal link between anyone reading an essay or a book, at least not an everyday book that does not claim to be divinely inspired, and their deciding years later to commit a wicked act. The responsibility for such an act belongs to the perpetrator alone. If Anders Behring Breivik has chosen to do evil, then it is he who will face judgement for it, both in this world and the next.