Breivik's Chilling Testimony: Should it be known or suppressed?

Last week the trial of Anders Behring Breivik commenced.  Breivik was the man who murdered 77 people, including 69 teenagers at a Labour Party Camp in Norway.  He claimed that he was on a mission to cleanse Norway of immigrants so that it could be solely inhabited by ethnic Norwegians.  During the trial he has provided chilling testimony about his beliefs, and details about exactly what he did on the day he perpetrated the killings.  He never denies the killings, and espouses a particularly virulent form of hatred.

Despite, or perhaps particularly in order to maintain national values, the Norwegian government and prosecutors have taken a firm stance that Breivik's horrific act should not disrupt the policy of transparency, nor a national commitment to fairness and civility.  At one point, prosecutors did censor the indictment, but due to complaints, reversed the decision.  Breivik has the ability to correspond with people from jail and he has been given a chance to give the reason for his actions.

I commend the Norwegian commitment to values of democracy and peace, even in the face of such a single-minded attempt to attack the social fabric of Norway.  However I wonder whether the articulation of hatred - whether through media or through the details surrounding a trial - perpetrates hatred, and therefore should be prohibited.

My dilemma over this issue comes from my strong personal feeling that violence and evil have a contagious quality.  I don't watch movies like The Exorcist or other movies that deal with Christian themes of evil.  To me, it is outrageous and grotesque to glorify or communicate such vile ideas as hell, demons, the devil and their like, even if ostensibly for the purpose of encouraging goodness.  To me, the use of fear to motivate goodness is an evil idea.  Further, having been exposed for many years to stories of abuses, I understand that once one hears a horrible thing, you integrate that horrible idea in some way.

However, I distinguish between fantasies of evil that exist in horror movies and the reality of acts of terror, abuses, crimes against humanity and other gross violations of human rights.  Many have the tendency to 'demonize' the perpetrators of these acts.  And by 'demonize' I mean that people want to put these people so far outside the personal frame of reference that their acts are non-human.  But I think this is dangerous.

I think that perhaps I prefer the Norwegian approach which seems to recognize that Breivik is indeed a dangerous man, but they do not make the jump to assuming insanity (despite a distinct possibility of such and some controversy of the findings of psychiatrists:  "Norway split on Breiviks likely fate in mental ward as mass killer himself insulted by ruling").  I think that this approach, of allowing people to see the reality of the perpetrator and the acts, means a less fantastical and distant view of the nature of humanity.  Because these acts are human, unfortunately, and we must know of them.

But what of my concern about the contagion of evil? People have been horribly affected by what is coming out of the trial.  People are traumatized by hearing of how hatred drove him to perpetrate absolutely heinous murders, simply to propagate his belief system.  And there is always the worry that Breivik will become a martyr and symbol for like-minded violent hate-mongers.  One thing that I have learned from the Norwegian approach is that people need to be trusted to come to their own conclusions.  With respect to trauma, when I read a recent article "Anders Breivik's islamophobic testimony painful" Oslo Muslims say I was interested to see that there was a range of views regarding whether or not Breivik's worldview should be aired.  Some feel that it is important for people to see his thought system because it is healthy to see how dangerous it is, and to discuss it.  Ignoring it may cause a dangerous suppression.

In terms of copycats, I am not sure that Breivik will embolden like-minded hate-mongers.  But I am not sure that he will not.....I suppose that is a risk that exists.  I think perhaps it is a risk that can be mitigated by severe sanctions against violence, and it is one that is balanced by the countervailing benefits of transparency and open discourse,  Discourse that is needed on the nature of humanity, evil acts, and what is required to maintain principles of peace in the face of radical violence and hatred.