An Empathy Fuse Gone Wrong

With parts of Europe (and the USA too, of course) on the verge of bankruptcy, a massive famine under way in Somalia, a Libyan crisis beginning to look like a new Afghanistan, the frightening legacy of Fukushima for the next, say, 1000 decades, most psychiatrists and distillers are not about to run out of business. We are all under stress, to quote the late Hans Selye. On a smaller scale, our own various local and family situations, though a lot less dramatic, bring that annoying buzz of added pressure, like a persistent wasp about one's ears. But it of course does not mean that any of us are about to load up and go on a wild shooting spree. While we turn our attention to stifling the openness of our political debates, by vilifying other ideologies that may seem to us quite unsavory, we should ask ourselves if democracy itself stands a chance once we begin excluding anyone from the process. Anyone sane, that is. And, I might add, having opposing political views is not scientific proof of insanity at this particular time in history.
 
The predictable barrage of information from all media channels over the ghastly shootings in Norway has set specialists alight with new theories. The spectrum is all encompassing: Breivik is mad, deranged, politically upset, twisted, socially misfit, evil, or just a cold and calculating body-builder who has spent too many hours in front of video games -- just a few of the many viewpoints. Some speak of how "good people can do bad things" which is of course true, especially in a collective environment driven by ugly warfare, extreme ideologies or a solid dose of spiritual-looking brainwash (or drugs too, of course). In Breivik's case, the fact that he acted alone opposes such "good people doing bad things" ideas, especially since he spent years planning it. So, allow me to doubt the "good people" thing.
 
Thinking of him as sane may satisfy an urge to have him go through an exhaustive, retributory, good-vs-evil legal process, since his penal journey will be wholly different if declared "insane". But how can ANYONE think that a guy pointing a weapon at another human being's head, at close range, could EVER be considered sane? Apologies here to all those comfortable with killing at close range, but personally, I quit fishing because I didn't want that violence in my life, and my mostly-vegetarian heart may be too "soft" to understand any of the theories suggesting that Breivik is "a good person doing a bad thing". I couldn't shoot a pig the way he shot those kids.
 
Terrorists with explosive turbans (as last week in Kandahar) or the temporarily mad neighbour-with-machete-and-club (as in Congo, Sudan, Rwanda not so long ago) are not functioning alone, which of course doesn't excuse their acts, but caught in a wave of ideology or simple temporary hatred, they foolishly go with the flow. A flash of madness and, as we have seen in certain communities, heartfelt reconciliations later if the perpetrator still has the good fortune of being alive, which is not the case, of course, once your hat has gone kaboom in the middle of a public market.
 
Breivik was not acting on a quick impulse. It was not just the influence of drugs, either, or sweet and just-departed Amy might have been a candidate with a gun nearby. I have no idea what exactly should be done with Anders Behring Breivik, but one thing seems to me certain: he should not be tried as a "sane" individual. There is nothing sane about him.
 
Denis Guiet