On July 22nd we lost some of our country's most precious assets: our youth. But we kept our dignity as a nation. Now we will find our way back to normality. But there will be new tests that are just as demanding as the ones we have passed.
I am proud of the way the Norwegian people faced this first big test. We were hit with a brutality that threw every one of us into emotional chaos. We could have gone astray. Instead, our people responded with roses and promises of more democracy and a more open society.
We passed the second test too. We bid farewell to our loved ones in an atmosphere of tranquility and respect. Every last goodbye requires strength. We stood together with those who mourned and needed a shoulder to cry on or a hand to hold.
Our third test is yet to come. It will also require a great deal of us, but in a different way. Slowly we are finding our way back to our everyday life again, but July 22nd has changed Norway forever. Yet, in time, we will again focus on work and school, TV shows and the weather. Some are already there, others need more time.
Remember that when everyday life resumes, some people will still be struggling. Those who have lost a family member or close friend. Young people who survived the shooting on Utøya and who in a few weeks' time will again have to focus on solving mathematical equations. Government employees who relive the explosion over and over again. Volunteers who are not finished telling their dramatic story. Others who are unable to rid themselves of the images of violence and death.
It is now that we must show that we are a nation that cares about each other. A nation where everyone is seen. Remember, too, that those who have no visible wounds are also suffering. They need our collective support. As a country we have built systems to provide services for people who are struggling. All those in need will be offered help from the authorities.
Just as important as our society as a whole are our small communities: our neighborhoods, workplaces and schools. In the surreal weeks we have just been through, we have truly learned what caring means. A mother and father watching over their young daughter were moved by friends mowing the lawn for them. When autumn darkness falls, what we will remember are the small acts of kindness: a cake, a hug, an invitation to talk, and every single rose. These are all expressions of a nation coming together and caring about its people.
The public debate and the private conversations will also find their form after July 22nd. From the rostrum of the Storting, I asked people not to start a witch hunt, not to go looking for things that should not have been said. I repeat this here. I hope with all my heart that the seeds of decent dialogue and tolerance take root. We have heard and read that more people are now taking the time to reflect on their own attitudes. To think about what they have said and written in the past.
With July 22nd in mind, some people may wish they had weighed their words differently, and in the future will express themselves with greater sensitivity. As I told the members of the Storting, this is understandable. We must all be allowed to learn from the tragedy. We must all be allowed to say "I was wrong" -- and be respected for it. It is a worthy response to the attack on democracy.
I also want to invite everyone who takes part in online debates to reflect on his or her choice of words and form. The Internet is a democratic asset. In blogs and debates, we can all participate on the same footing. At its best, the Internet is impressive. It enables us in principle to talk to the whole world, but this opportunity also entails responsibility.
By voting we add our voice to the chorus that forms opinions and the basis for actions. I ask each one of you to think about how you choose to express yourself. Do you speak anonymously? How could the words you use affect those you write about? Families should discuss these questions around the dinner table. They should be debated in classrooms. In media houses. All of us should reflect on these issues.
I hope that we can take with us the spirit of the days following July 22nd when the political work now resumes. I hope we can exercise the same prudence as that shown by the Norwegian people. We will not put a lid on opinions. On the contrary, it is more important than ever that political debates are open and free, even on the most difficult issues. Especially on the most difficult issues. The task is to encourage controversial debates in a form that strengthens democracy. This is an invitation to a debate about the debate. Out of respect for those who died, we choose to respond with dignity.
or does that apply only to others? those who don't have your ideology.
The tragedy happened because Norway did not give enough space for anti-immigration discussions. Those viewpoints were brushed aside tantamount to taboo because of ideology.
Say "I was wrong" and give space for immigration ideas. Ideas that may not be palatable to you but is required in free speech.
The eloquent philosophies of humankind and society are truly admirable.
If everyone thought more like this we might be in a much better place.
Kazinsky is still in jail. The death penalty has been abused historically. The people who can't afford legal representation are most often killed. I am not an absolute supporter of the death penalty, but I think that if there is physical evidence that places Breivik at the crime he should be put to death.
The law would hwr have to be changed prior to his trial in order to do so. This is the thing about the death penalty, the standard of proof for it has to be beyond the shadow of a doubt. If the proof is strong but not completely conclusive, the punishment for the accused should be a life sentence.
Absolutely right. Also, absolutely won't change, even with the death penalty. Not that it matters. To introduce any law with retroactive effect will violate fundamental principles of jurisprudence. To do so with the death penalty would be atrocious.
Finally, and importantly to many:
Breivik expected to die during the attack. He expected to be killed upon arriving at the courthouse. He was prepared for this, and he wanted this. He still does. Killing him won't punish him. On the contrary, it will efficiently protect him from all and any pain and punishment. Seeing how badly he miscalculated the effects of his actions will be better punishment. The worst punishment will be if he should mature emotionally, and realize the horror of his actions. I'm not holding my breath on that last one, but, depending on the personality, such things can happen.
There is however a question of laxity in justice. Just as the death penalty was too severe for crimes less than murder, not having the death penalty for murder that can be proven beyond the shadow of a doubt is too lenient.
Imprisonment presents a value to society. The criminal is not free to commit his crime again. Housing a mass murderer for life however forces society to pay for someone who took a large number of lives. The leniency suggests a laxity in justice that has a detrimental affect on many people.
Life in prison will force a murderer to face the consequences of murder, but the argument that it is better punishment for a mass murderer because it contradicts his expectation is spurious. This does not change the fact that physical evidence has to corroborate testimony and fiscal documentation in order to prove that the accused commit the crime.
I hope that those of us here will reflect on the importance of leadership that helps us strive to improve ourselves, rather than leadership that appeals to the worst in us, and sinks to the lowest common denominator.
but are convinced that this will improve with time, as we still are in grief over what has happened.
I do not vote leftside, but I'm terribly proud of Jens Stoltenberg, he got us all together against this insane act.
We have very few true leaders but a lot of small demigods
You would think we could learn from others
A statement like that needs qualification and support.
What about those victims whose numbers continue to grow?
Wait a minute... He didn't actually prove that, did he? In fact, it seems like he proved something else. Perhaps that extremists are the most dangerous people in the world? Yes, I think that must be it.
You wouldn't happen to be an extremist, would you?