Amok: Framing Discourses on Political Violence by Means of Symbolic Logic

Abstract

After the then 32-year-old Anders Behring Breivik placed a car bomb outside the office of Norwegian Prime Minister Jens Stoltenberg, he proceeded to the nearby island of Utøya armed with a hunting rifle and a pistol. There, over the course of an hour in the early evening of 22 July 2011, he shot at the mainly young participants at a summer camp of the ruling Labour Party. Shortly beforehand, he had sent an Englishlanguage manifesto with the title "2083: A European Declaration of Independence" to roughly a thousand email addresses. In the 1,500page screed, which Breivik had patched together from various ideologies and in parts simply copied from the internet, he sets out the abstruse motives for his attack and disseminates a world-view that is every bit as self-contradictory as it is radical. 1 On 16 April 2012 Breivik's trial began before the district court in Oslo. He was charged with terrorism and multiple counts of premeditated murder. From the very outset, the question of Breivik's criminal liability was at issue. While forensic psychiatric assessments came to different conclusions about Breivik's mental condition, 2 the prosecutor pleaded for criminal insanity and called for the committal of the assassin to a secure psychiatric hospital. By contrast, the defence sought a finding of sanity for their client. Breivik saw himself as a "political activist" and wanted to be treated as such before the court. He repeatedly denied being insane, which he described as "a fate worse than death". 3 At the start of the trial, Breivik confessed to having killed 77 people, but declared himself not guilty and appealed to "emergency law". 4 He argued that he, as a "Knight Templar" and "liberator of mankind", had to defend Europe against Islamic infiltration and Norway against 160 D. Ziegler et al. (eds.

The Multi-Party System in Indonesia: Reviewing the Number of Electoral Parties from the Aspects of the National Defense and Security

“…However, to simplify the number of parties, we believe that the discourse needs to be enriched with studies that have the perspective of national defense. The context of enrichment needs to be in line with what was stated by Supriyanto and Mellaz (2011, p. 5) that the application of the threshold of representation in an election needs to be limited, because if not, the number of political parties in the DPR is believed to affect the effectiveness of decision making, which in turn will affect the performance government, and can even undermine democracy (Klimczak & Petersen, 2015). Furthermore, suitability and balance must be calculated so that the reduction effort does not sacrifice the significance of votes (damaging democratic development), and do not let the application of the threshold cause an increase in the number of votes that are not converted into seats, or wasted votes.…”

Terrorist und Amokläufer: Attentäter im öffentlichen Diskurs 2016

“…Den Mehrheitsoperator, der wie etwa der im Folgenden noch verwendete Allquantor ∀(x) nicht zu den Standardoperatoren zählt, verdanke ich ebenso wie eine Reihe von formalen Überlegungen in diesem wie im folgenden Abschnitt ausdrücklich Peter Klimczak. Siehe hierzu wiederum Klimczak und Petersen (2015). 14 Formal gilt ∀(x) µ(x) → W(x) µ(x).…”