41 replies to this topic

[Icewolf]

I definitely agree with the judgement here. 

 

Firstly, I don't think the size and space he lives in is relevant to the points in the case. Denial of interaction with other humans (which is known to have a severe impact on mental health over long periods), and sleep deprivation. Sleep deprivation being specifically recognised as a form of torture. So definitely this meets the test of a prohibition on torture and cruel treatment. 

 

Now, the European Convention on Human Rights prohibits such activity under Article 3 of the convention. There is no opt out. And just in case anyone thinks this is just those silly liberal Europeans, this is also the position of the Universal Declaration on Human Rights, the Convention against torture, and in some cases, the Refugee Convention. All of these have global applicability. 

 

When it comes to rights like these I really dislike the idea of an opt out just because someone is a criminal, or because of XYZ. These are all lines drawn by the state, and primarily the state is who these rights are designed to protect you against. I also especially feel that it is important for us as a society to not stoop to the level of violating peoples rights because we think they are somehow undeserving of them. "All Humans have rights apart from those that don't" is an argument that can be applied to serious criminals, or not so serious criminals, or those that are committing crimes that society later realises shouldn't be crimes (like the treatment of homosexuals in the past), or because they are black, or Jewish, or whatever reason is convenient to separate into the "deserving of rights" and the "not deserving of rights."

 

 

The final issue here is the one of who imposed this penalty. Judges imposed a prison sentence. Public officials imposed the isolation and sleep deprivation. Judges are subject to scrutiny and appeals procedure in a way that the prison officials are not. I am not comfortable with the idea that a faceless bureaucrat gets given the power to determine that an individual is not deserving of these rights, and can be given treatment that degrades their mental health.  

[ccabal86]

The main argumant from the "pro" side always seems to be that "that's what the law says". I retain my opinion that the "law" is way too lenient and should be reexamined to better suit today's needs and reality.

On a side note, trying to equate discrimination against someone being "black" or "jewish" with someoine being a "serial killer" is easily the biggest hyperbole I've seen so far in 2016, congratulations!

[onbekende]

Its a "one for all" type of law. it is one the people (by proxy) have put up for law. Either have it altered to suit your idea, move to a location that has the type of laws you like or go find a deserted island (without national resources ) if you don't find any nation with the laws you desire.

 

He already lost alot of "rights", being incarcerated being the most obvious one. Heck they will probably keep him locked away from society in general up until he loses the ability to communicate his ideology during the killings.

[Icewolf]

The main argumant from the "pro" side always seems to be that "that's what the law says". I retain my opinion that the "law" is way too lenient and should be reexamined to better suit today's needs and reality.

On a side note, trying to equate discrimination against someone being "black" or "jewish" with someoine being a "serial killer" is easily the biggest hyperbole I've seen so far in 2016, congratulations!

 

 Do you believe in fundamental human rights? If you answer is yes, then there is no question that this case is the right decision. 

 

If you don't believe in fundamental human rights you had better have a cast iron moral perspective that means you not only know where the line is, but can back it up with sufficient reasoning to stop others crossing it. Referring to Jews is not Hyperbole, it s a deliberate reference as to why we have these rights. This is where it all began. The European Convention on Human Rights was written in the late 40s with the express aim of preventing another holocaust by introducing the concepts of universal human rights. By strictly enforcing these rights you stop states moving down the slope from smashing windows, to burning homes, to building ghettos, to building work camps, to then building death camps. Because as soon as you step away from universal human rights you have a lot of moveable lines, that can inch further and further and further away from what we want the world to be. 

[ccabal86]

What you guys don't get is that sadly there are individuals that need to be removed from society - completely. You can spin it any way you like, but it's a fact. What happens during an outbreak of a deadly disease? You find the patients and and put them in quarantine. Half of the reason for this procedure is to give them the best possible care, the other half is to prevent them from infecting others. Would you object if an infectious Ebola patient suddenly got out of bed and insisted on leaving the hospital and took the subway home? I bet you would, for very obvious reasons. Would you object to them leaving their room and mingling with other patients in the cafeteria? My guess is yes. Terrorists like Breivik and Abdeslam are exactly like Ebola patients, except they spread toxic ideas instead of a disease. Now then tell me: why should they be allowed to do this? If you're enforcing strict rules on Ebola patients, who are not sick by choice, why are you being lenient on terrorists who CHOSE to do what they did and in fact even wish to continue spreading their ideology?

 

I know how it all began, and that is exactly why your comparison is a hyperbole. Again, the difference is that you don't CHOOSE your color of skin, or your ancestry. Nobody should be penalized for things they don't have control over. However, you CHOOSE to become a terrorist, and you CHOOSE to become a mass-murderer. And since it is YOUR choice, you have to live with the consequences. I'm pretty sure the original intention of the lawmakers was not to shelter the worst possibly imaginable offenders from their just punishments.

 

Which brings us to why Human Rights have become a sad joke. If you look at the world today, you'll see that in pretty much all the places where human rights really should be improved...it's a lost cause, pretty much the last priority. Hilariously the UN's Human Rights Council (OHCHR) includes countries like China, Cuba, Ethiopia, Quatar, Saudi Arabia, and many other shining cities on a hill. I would say the only part of the world that takes them seriously is Europe. We've got the basics covered, which we should be happy about. Unfortunately, there will always be misguided ideologues who go overboard and fight tooth and nail to get the scum of humanity out of the punishments they justly deserve for their actions.

 

There are situations when eye for an eye is still the best option and an empty moral high-ground ("we will not stoop to your level") is only perceived as weakness by both the perpetrators as well as the public-at-large

 

And no, I'm not moving anywhere, at least not until the regressive left sells out what remains of the European foundations. At that point, we'll be the refugees, and can only hope the US or Australia will take us. They probably won't though, because they have half a brain.

[Icewolf]

The comparison to an ebola patient doesn't hold up. No one is saying that his deprivation of liberty is a breach of his human rights. However if someone was medically quarantined, and then was subject to sleep deprivation, and prevented from having any form of human interaction then that would be a breach of their rights. 

 

Your comment about choice also doesn't justify an overall stance that a certain class of people should be removed from the protection of the law. Yes individuals have a choice of what action they commit, but at the same time the decision to make that criminal is not the individuals. Yes in the case of Brevik it was fairly clear that his action was a choice and he knew the consequence. But the argument that someone should know the consequence of a crime has been used in the past to justify the brutal detaining of homosexuals. If a state outlawed homosexuality, and then imprisoned homosexuals and subjected them to sleep deprivation, would you consider the argument that they had a choice and knew what the consequence was as sufficient grounds to consider that acceptable?

 

This is what I mean by you must have a rock hard moral justification to deprive a class of people of something as fundamental as the right not to be tortured, because every argument I have seen to date about creating an exemption can be used, without too much modification, to justify some of the most horrifying acts in human history. 

[Fox Fire]

I definitely agree with the judgement here. 

 

Firstly, I don't think the size and space he lives in is relevant to the points in the case. Denial of interaction with other humans (which is known to have a severe impact on mental health over long periods), and sleep deprivation. Sleep deprivation being specifically recognised as a form of torture. So definitely this meets the test of a prohibition on torture and cruel treatment. 

 

Now, the European Convention on Human Rights prohibits such activity under Article 3 of the convention. There is no opt out. And just in case anyone thinks this is just those silly liberal Europeans, this is also the position of the Universal Declaration on Human Rights, the Convention against torture, and in some cases, the Refugee Convention. All of these have global applicability. 

 

When it comes to rights like these I really dislike the idea of an opt out just because someone is a criminal, or because of XYZ. These are all lines drawn by the state, and primarily the state is who these rights are designed to protect you against. I also especially feel that it is important for us as a society to not stoop to the level of violating peoples rights because we think they are somehow undeserving of them. "All Humans have rights apart from those that don't" is an argument that can be applied to serious criminals, or not so serious criminals, or those that are committing crimes that society later realises shouldn't be crimes (like the treatment of homosexuals in the past), or because they are black, or Jewish, or whatever reason is convenient to separate into the "deserving of rights" and the "not deserving of rights."

 

 

The final issue here is the one of who imposed this penalty. Judges imposed a prison sentence. Public officials imposed the isolation and sleep deprivation. Judges are subject to scrutiny and appeals procedure in a way that the prison officials are not. I am not comfortable with the idea that a faceless bureaucrat gets given the power to determine that an individual is not deserving of these rights, and can be given treatment that degrades their mental health.  

^

[onbekende]

icewolf voiced what I would have said less "wordy"

 

As for the "stretch" on the rights, they are as stringent as the will behind it to be uphold. Throwing the example of the UN at it won't help ya, that thing is a diplomatic organisation, not a judicionary (wordy word is bad for me ).

[ccabal86]

The comparison to an ebola patient doesn't hold up. No one is saying that his deprivation of liberty is a breach of his human rights. However if someone was medically quarantined, and then was subject to sleep deprivation, and prevented from having any form of human interaction then that would be a breach of their rights.

 

The claim that he's denied human interaction is a straight lie. He is regularly permitted to talk to a "lady friend" on the telephone, there is a designated person/psychologist who has a session with him every week, and he would be permitted to talk to his remaining family, an opportunity he has turned down, because his father refused to agree with his Nazi views. He may also talk to his guards. People he may NOT talk to include other prisoners and outside admirers - which is probably for the best. This is the most important issue which directly concerns the security of society, and which human rights watchdogs deliberately seek to harm. To be honest, I haven't heard anything about sleep deprivation, and for all I care he can sleep his whole life away. But I will say that I myself don't get 8 hours of sleep every day, so I'm expecting the army of human rights watchdogs to show up any minute now to campaign for a better work schedule.

 

Your comment about choice also doesn't justify an overall stance that a certain class of people should be removed from the protection of the law. Yes individuals have a choice of what action they commit, but at the same time the decision to make that criminal is not the individuals. Yes in the case of Brevik it was fairly clear that his action was a choice and he knew the consequence. But the argument that someone should know the consequence of a crime has been used in the past to justify the brutal detaining of homosexuals. If a state outlawed homosexuality, and then imprisoned homosexuals and subjected them to sleep deprivation, would you consider the argument that they had a choice and knew what the consequence was as sufficient grounds to consider that acceptable?

 

So, what, is homosexuality a choice now? That's a pretty homophobic view to have Icewolf

Sarcasm aside, homosexuality is NOT a choice, it's how people are born, a condition if you will. It occurs naturally in a percentage of the population, much like blue eyes and ginger hair. Compairing it to the decision to commit an act of terror is a massive stretch.

 

This is what I mean by you must have a rock hard moral justification to deprive a class of people of something as fundamental as the right not to be tortured, because every argument I have seen to date about creating an exemption can be used, without too much modification, to justify some of the most horrifying acts in human history.

 

As I said, the main goal should be to seal off individuals like Breivik from society permanently and in an air-tight fashion. As long as we can compromise on this I'm happy, I just prefer "cheap and quick" methods to keeping them in a luxury hotel room for the rest of their lives.
 
 

icewolf voiced what I would have said less "wordy"
 
As for the "stretch" on the rights, they are as stringent as the will behind it to be uphold. Throwing the example of the UN at it won't help ya, that thing is a diplomatic organisation, not a judicionary (wordy word is bad for me ).

 

The will behind it to be upheld? Whose will exactly? Judging by the uproar this particular ruling has caused, I'd wager it's not "the people"

Your claim that the UN is a diplomatic body alone without a judicial dimension is completely false, please at least do basic research next time: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations#Structure

In fact the ICJ was the primary driver of the codification of international law after WW2.

[Fox Fire]

So, what, is homosexuality a choice now? That's a pretty homophobic view to have Icewolf Sarcasm aside, homosexuality is NOT a choice, it's how people are born, a condition if you will. It occurs naturally in a percentage of the population, much like blue eyes and ginger hair. Compairing it to the decision to commit an act of terror is a massive stretch.

 

 

While I agree that homosexuality is not a choice, I'm not inclined to believe it's genetic, just based my own experience. 

 

The claim that he's denied human interaction is a straight lie. He is regularly permitted to talk to a "lady friend" on the telephone, there is a designated person/psychologist who has a session with him every week, and he would be permitted to talk to his remaining family, an opportunity he has turned down, because his father refused to agree with his Nazi views. He may also talk to his guards. People he may NOT talk to include other prisoners and outside admirers - which is probably for the best.

 

Yeah, but these interactions are likely quite limited. Solitary confinement is just torture. There is no better way to describe it. People should only be put in solitary if there is a reason to believe they are going to be harmed or harm others. Plenty of killers in general population, and he looks like he can handle himself. Worst case scenario, he gets shanked up and literally nobody (I'm assuming including yourself) anywhere gives two shits. 

[ccabal86]

1, I didn't say it was genetic, just that it occurs naturally, and not only in humans. It very likely has some sort of biological background.

2, Spreading terrorist ideals is a way to harm others, even if it's done by proxy. In fact, that's the intention. Thank you for reinforcing my point.

[Fox Fire]

1, I didn't say it was genetic, just that it occurs naturally, and not only in humans. It very likely has some sort of biological background.

2, Spreading terrorist ideals is a way to harm others, even if it's done by proxy. In fact, that's the intention. Thank you for reinforcing my point.

Ahh. So what you're saying here is that the idea is to oppress freedom of opinion or speech? Reminds me of something I was thinking just the other day. That is, I assume this is why G Bay exists and why we don't simply put them in regular prisons. On one hand it sounds reasonable. On the other it's inhumane treatment, of course so is locking someone in a cage in general. 

[ccabal86]

While I am a big advocate of free speech, active incitement to commit violenece is NOT that. Free speech has to have reasonable limits, and it pretty much does everywhere in the world.

Denying the holocaust is free speech. Saying Israel has no legal right to exist is free speech. Calling for the extermination of people with jewish origin is NOT free speech. The difference is pretty clear IMO

[onbekende]

 

icewolf voiced what I would have said less "wordy"
 
As for the "stretch" on the rights, they are as stringent as the will behind it to be uphold. Throwing the example of the UN at it won't help ya, that thing is a diplomatic organisation, not a judicionary (wordy word is bad for me ).

 

The will behind it to be upheld? Whose will exactly? Judging by the uproar this particular ruling has caused, I'd wager it's not "the people"

Your claim that the UN is a diplomatic body alone without a judicial dimension is completely false, please at least do basic research next time: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations#Structure

In fact the ICJ was the primary driver of the codification of international law after WW2.

 

 

Measuring something by the "pitch" of the noice doesn't help, it should be done by the "volume", for which by my understanding there actually is't a majority about the complete deal. Sure people are singulary offended about his personal case, but if you widen the whole deal there are alot less people "voicing an uproar".

 

Hence it will be "upheld", cause while in a singular case you will always find people opposed, but in general speaking you won't find a majority so readely to give way to the overly generalized law. Heck they are probably already treating him in a very specific and "first and only person ever" mode.

 

As for the UN thing, it is formost a "speaking club". Generally only used for leadership off a nation to be held before the ICJ in Den Haag and not for a singular person. When was the last time they stringintly made a verdict to a nation that was to be uphold? Seems you like to google so by my guest

 

 

 

btw, Norway filed an appeal

[ccabal86]

We're talking about terrorists and mass murderers here, fortunately it's fairly rare when they get a soft sentence from the courts. But if they do, people generally don't like it.

International law cannot be stringently upheld, because there is no sovereign "above" the state level to enforce rules. The "internatonal community" polices itself, and this is about as effective as you'd imagine. But this is just how international law is by nature, not the way the ICJ operates.

I use google to support my arguments when I have the time/energy for it instead of just throwing statements out there.

[onbekende]

indeed, terrorists and mass murderers, of which you can catagorize him. Already forgot he got the heaviest prison sentence possible in Norway? Already forgot he will be getting a psych review the moment a release is possible, ever consider they might just keep him in a pshyciatric hospital indefinatly afterwards?

 

The rule of law applicable to him was used to sentence him, as it is now used to sentence his warden for infringements on the same lawbook his conviction prior were decided. Perhaps a more empathic understanding of Norway in general is needed before either of us starts spoiting generalisations >_>

 

Perhaps the next elections in Norway will see this becomming a point, obvious the various parties will take a stance then, perhaps thats a good time to take note of what norwegians think of it all. Wait about 18 months.

 

 

Indeed, the ICJ is not a binding judicionary (wonder howmany different spellings I will rake up in this thread ) force and as such I don't count it as one. Then again this might delve down in "but what is?" >_>

 

 

but I like throwing out statements, I just use google for images

[ccabal86]

Technically, the ICJ's rulings are binding, but whether states observe them are ultimately their own decision. Systematically disregarding international law has repercussions, but it's a soft regime that every state breaks once in a while.

[onbekende]

soft regime backed by 5 asshats with a red card to pull on a moments notice. The people brought before the UJC have 1 thing in common, those 5 asshats have dropped them a bar of soap

[ccabal86]

The jurisdiction of the ICJ only extends to states, so no one is going to drag individuals there. This is because international law doesn't apply to individuals directly. The only international court that deals with individuals at all is the ICRC, but that's a different thing altogether

[onbekende]

Hence I was mildly confused by you jumping on the UN fire bandwagon. It basically goes with "as long as you sign your name on this paper, we are bestest buddies!".