This Project aims to highlight the performative and communicative aspects of terrorism trials. Beatrice de Graaf opened the meeting outlining the aim of the research project: to highlight not only the purely judicial aspect of terrorism trials, but also their performative and communicative dimensions, which is achieved through an analysis of the behaviour of the actors in directly involved. This research project helps, in particular, to assess the role and impact of terrorism trials on society as a whole.
This intentional strategy was also evident outside the courtroom; for example, Breivik had chosen his lawyer deliberately, just as he had described in his manifesto outlining his far-right militant ideology.
The prosecution was less successful in their perfomative strategy, which was mainly due to the contentious psychiatric reports. The court as well as the defence lawyer, on the other hand, were viewed positively because they successfully upheld the rule of law, reinstalled faith and confidence in the judiciary, included victims in the process, and acted in a fair and transparent manner.
Their research largely confirmed the conclusions reached by the Norwegian panellists, with the general public approving the work of the court and of the lawyers involved by strongly sticking to set legal frameworks. The court will not however, allow Breivik's testimony or that of his witnesses to be broadcast. Some have questioned whether a self-confessed terrorist should be given such a platform to spread his violent ideology, whilst others stressed the need to keep the trial behind closed-doors for reasons of public order and security.
On the other hand, many feel that a trial of this magnitude demands public scrutiny, to ensure that those responsible for such grave crimes are brought to justice with full respect for the rule of law and human rights. These are important points. When it comes to trying terrorists, how can we ensure a fair and public trial, without turning it into a show trial and providing a stage to spread violent extremist propaganda?
One advantage to the public nature of the trial is that it provides for an unprecedented view into the dynamics of terrorist trials and the performative strategies employed by the various parties involved — the judiciary, defendant, victims, media, society at large etc.
Beatrice de Graaf. Accordingly, trials are viewed as the stage where the different actors adopt and act out strategies with the aim of convincing their target audience s , in and outside the courtroom, of their narrative of in justice. Hence, there is more to gain than only a legal victory. Trials can become a show run by the terrorists, but the stage provided can also be consciously used by the prosecuting authorities as an opportunity to demonstrate their respect for the rule of law and the potential for fair and just adjudication.
It is neither a Stalinist show trial nor a Hollywood-esque emotion-laden performance that wins over the judges in one sweep. Instead the prosecution is opting for a clear, detached summation of the facts. Breivik, on the other hand, is obviously very aware of the stage that has been given to him. Over the course of the trial we are likely to see him use this stage to the full extent to maximise the spread and impact of his ideology through symbolism and emotive actions.
After his handcuffs were removed on the first day of the trial, Breivik gave a clenched-fist salute — an interesting combination between a Nazi and a black power movement salute. Although he acknowledges his role in the acts presented by the prosecution, he pleads not guilty — arguing he was acting out of self-defense. Throughout the first day, Breivik showed almost no emotion, except for an occasional grin when footage was played of distressing phone calls by his victims.
As on previous days, Breivik remained impassive throughout the survivors' accounts, but complained about being unable to question the witnesses directly. For a third day, the court is told about the autopsies on the Utoeya massacre victims, including that of a year-old girl who was attending her first Labour youth event.
Another year-old found dead on the island was a cheerleader at school and planned to go on study in the United States. The Breivik trial continues to hear coroners' forensic reports on those who died on Utoeya. Among the fates detailed where that of a year-old boy who was the youngest to die on Utoeya. Freddy Lie, the father of a year-old girl who died on the island, said his daughter had talked to him on her mobile phone just before she died.
The court begins hearing coroners' reports about the autopsies on the 69 people killed on Utoeya Island. Lawyers for their families read out descriptions of those who died and showed pictures to the Oslo court. One young girl, sitting just metres away from Breivik in the courtroom, listened to how her mother died. As on previous days, Breivik seemed unmoved by the evidence. Coroner Torleiv Ole Rognum said the average age of the victims was Witnesses told how they helped Breivik get to Utoeya island because they thought he was a police officer.
Breivik was wearing a uniform and showed fake identification papers to a security guard at the quay, who then summoned the ferry. The ferry captain, Jon Olson, described how he helped Breivik carry a case, which proved to be full of weapons, on to the island. Mr Olson's partner was one of the first to die at the youth camp on Utoeya and his daughter was also there.
The trial heard harrowing testimony from people wounded in the Oslo bomb attack. Breivik appeared unmoved as a father, Jan Erik Lund, spoke of seeing his daughter Anne Helene seriously injured in hospital.
About 40, people gathered on a central Oslo square to sing a popular old peace song, Children Of The Rainbow, which Breivik had mocked in court. The singer Lillebjoern Nilsen, accused by Breivik of being a Marxist who sought to brainwash children, led the singing on Youngstorget Square, close to the courthouse.
Breivik sought to persuade the trial that he was sane, insisting that his actions were motivated by a political ideology, and that he was accountable for them. He dismissed an initial psychiatric report that found him insane as "a lie". He said his argument was "entirely logical" and there was "not the slightest possibility" he would be judged insane.
Breivik said the compilers of the report had no experience in dealing with political extremists and, because they had spoken to him so soon after the attacks, they themselves were still in shock. Security guard Tor Inge Kristoffersen described the moment the car bomb exploded at Norway's government headquarters. He watched on CCTV as a car parked and a man wearing what looked like a guard's uniform got out. Mr Kristoffersen said: "Half of our screens, the images disappeared.
There was a deep rumbling, the entire block shook, the ceiling bent like water. The police officer who co-ordinated the emergency response, Thor Langli, also gave evidence describing how the bomb squad searched for more bombs. He said a witness saw a small car leave the area, but he felt he could not take any officers away from the site to follow this up. He suggested if CCTV footage had been relayed live to the police, this might have saved vital minutes and could have given them the opportunity to pursue the car.
On the last day of giving evidence, Breivik justified his acts as "a small barbarian act to prevent a larger barbarian act". Saying the killings had been a "gruesome" experience for him as well, he explained how he had to force himself to do something which felt so "against human nature".
He offered an apology for "innocent" people who died in the Oslo bombing, referring to those who were passing by and who had no political connections. But asked if he extended that apology to those he killed on Utoeya, he said: "No, I do not. He reiterated his belief that they were "legitimate targets", and added that there were many others in Norway "who deserve to be executed, eg journalists and members of parliament".
He said he understood the loss he had inflicted on victims' families because he had lost his own family and friends after the attack. Breivik described his rampage on Utoeya in chilling detail. Before shooting his first two victims, he said he had " voices" in his head telling him not to do it - but pulled the trigger anyway.
Displaying no emotion, Breivik said he proceeded to go to a cafe where several people were hiding, "completely paralysed" with fear. He said he reloaded his gun after running out of ammunition and killed people as they were begging for their lives. He also shot in the head others who pretended to be dead.
Breivik - who was dressed as a police officer - continued his rampage around the island, luring youths from hiding places by telling them he was there to protect them.
When they came out, he told the court, "I shot towards many of them aiming at their heads. Breivik said he intended hundreds should die in his attack on the Labour Party summer camp, and that a primary target was a former prime minister, Gro Harlem Brundtland. He claimed he planned to behead Mrs Brundtland, who he thought would be on the island, and post a video of this on the internet. In fact the ex-PM left Utoeya before Breivik arrived. He also hoped his car bomb in Oslo would kill the entire government.
Breivik told the court he used computer games to rehearse scenarios ahead of his attacks. He said he had planned three car bombs but opted instead for one bomb attack and one gun attack when he discovered how difficult it would be to make the bombs.
The BBC's Steve Rosenberg, at the trial, said Breivik was behaving differently from his irritable performance on Wednesday and he seemed calm. He abstained from giving his usual salute as proceedings began, following a request by the defence team. The prosecution continued its cross-examination of Breivik by trying to disprove his claim of the existence of a far-right European network.
They also questioned him on his supposed contacts with Serb nationalists in Liberia, and with English nationalists in London. Breivik was also questioned about his religious beliefs by a lawyer for the victims.
He said he wanted to prevent the "de-Christianisation of Europe". The BBC's Matthew Price, who was in court, said Breivik appeared to be on the back foot - less relaxed than before, and more defensive.
0コメント