24/08/2012 Newsnight


How does liberal Norway deal with a mass murderer. Has the Sun gone too far with the Prince Harry photos? Why was cyclist Lance Armstrong banned? With Emily Maitlis.

Similar Content

Browse content similar to 24/08/2012. Check below for episodes and series from the same categories and more!



Declared sane - Norway's mass murderer is made accountable for


his actions. Victims greets the verdict with relief - but so does


Breivik. How should a liberal society respond to killings that


came from within? I wish to apologise to all militant


nationalistness Norway and Europe, that I wasn't able to kill more


people. 850 complaints to the press


commission, after the Sun newspapers publishes nude photos of


Harry. Has the papers actions made Leveson's job easier. It did the


death nel for people who print on trees.


And Lance Armstrong is striped off his Tour de France title and banned


for life. What proof of doping did Hello, good evening, can a man who


killed 77 people in cold blood ever be deemed sane? Yes, came the


emphatic answer from a nor weepbl court today. Judging the raveings


of Anders Breivik to be world views, not psychotic delusions. The


hearings in Oslo put not just one man but entire country's legal


system on trial before the world. The court sentence, Breivik 21


years in prison, but he sees him as a political prisoner and vows to


continue his extremist cause under lock and key.


It is the victims we should be talking about today. There were 77


of them. Some blown up by a car bomb, most gunned down at a summer


camp. People whose names most of us still haven't learned. People


murdered by a former nobody whose name is known right around the


world. In the mind of brick brick brick, that alone is a victory -


Anders Breivik is a victory. So too using a courtroom as a platform for


his hate-filled views. Something the judge prevented him doing today.


TRANSLATION: I wish to apologise to all militant nationalists in Norway


and Europe, that I wasn't able to kill more people...


TRANSLATION: No wonder he left the courtroom pleased. As far as he's


concerned he is a political prisoner, he avoided being declared


insane, a fate he would be worse than death n jail, where he will


spend 21 years, he will have three cells to himself. One is for


exercise, another is to for reading and writing, and though his


computer won't be on-line, he can use it to write messages, his


followers can take away and distribute around the globe. So is


this trial a fiasco, a triumph for the man in the dock? Actually no.


I don't think it is a victory for him, no. If it is a victory for him,


it is not important. Primarily it is a victory for the system and


accepting that he is a political terrorist, and not a mad man. You


could say that's a victory for him but it is the truth. We can't deny


the truth just because he wants it. Some people athe system bent over


backwards, was it too generous, with standards for somebody who


hates those standards? You could say so. But it is proud we didn't


choing our laws, after this incident. Every democratic society


faces the same delema. How far to apply its own tolerant values, to


people who despise those values, and would destroy them. This case,


where unusually liberal country faced an enemy highlighted that


dilemma in an extreme form. Today's result has seen Norway reaffirm its


own values. Even the decision to declare Breivik sane, as he himself


wanted has been good, many believe, for society, forcing it to confront


his views, and not dismiss them. The demise of his views, doesn't


come from the court, but it comes from the blowings, the debates, the


public discourse, all over Europe these days, that claims many of the


ideas that Anders Breivik claims. It claims we are at war and Muslims


are taking over. Hopefully, this verdict will take Norwegian society


face up to the political aspects of his deeds. How Breivik became the


man responsible for this cold- blooded carnage. Was much analysed


in court. How he lost contact with his father,


frightened his own mother, spent years without a job, obsess civil


playing video Games. And claimed to be an member of a anti-Islamic


group, but something, his biographies irrelevant. We've


looked in his eyes and asked who are you. We should ask how did you


become a right-wing extremist terrorist, what is in our society


that made you become that. After the massacre, Norwegians came


together to denounce any intolerance in their midst. Their


reply, many said would be more openness, more multi-culturalism.


We survived Breivik, we did better at integrating more immigrants,


having more tolerance and democracy. Many say, hostility to immigrants


is on the rise again. With demands for refugees to be deported.


hasn't changed Norway at all. What's happened is these, this


debate has become more cemented, harder and also, strangely enough


the people who agree with Anders Breivik, like to blowing a few, in


the defence league, they have now become a part of mainstream media


in Norway. It is natural to want something good to come out of such


horror. But nor weeks will have to summon up all the virtues to keep


asking of themselves, and their society, and not remain, as we all


so often are fixated by the killer. Joining us from Oslo now is Asne


Seierstad award winning aur author and journalist, who is writing


about this case. Thanks for joining us. That same verdict then, broadly


welcomeed by victims and also, by Breivik himself. But, it allows


himself to treat himself as a political prisoner, a legitimacy?


Yes. But this was not a political trial. It was not a political


verdict. And I think it was the right verdict. It was actually a


sane verdict because this was a sane man. It didn't mean he did


good actions, the opposite, he executed this, planned this, and


knew what he was doing, he was not psychotic, and this was the right


verdict and this is a verdict that Norway can be at peace with.


Does it worry you, that he can still use a political platform from


inside prison, he can talk to those who calls his followers?


definitely worries me if that will be as it has been from tomorrow on.


We don't know that. Nobody has been able to answer us that, but the


fact is that until now, he has had his computer, personal printer, he


has been able to post, with stamps to communicate with bloggerers with


followers, around the world, to put his opinions on the web. But, I


hope, and most Norwegians with me, hope now, this computer will be


taken from him, because it is rare, a prisoner has a computer in his


cell. It is only at the end of the sentence, if he does education, or


if he is preparing to get back to ordinary life. But the reason why


he's had so many privileges in the cell S that he is a good


manipulator and negotiator, and the first thing he said, when he was


captured on the island, was a policeman sitting on on top of him,


he said as soon as we start talking we can negotiate. What he wanted


was a computer, a printer, and another, a certain other demands.


And he got that, until now. I think maybe now that was the right


decision to make him co-operate. But it is a new reality now. It's


very interesting, because what we've heard in the piece S a man


who has unfortunately as this may be, got his own way. You've given


an example. We heard about hostility, potentially on the rise


towards immigrants, that some of these slightly extremist bloggers,


are encourageed into the mainstream immediatea. Are these changes that,


Norway welcomes? Well, I I don't really agree with that report. I


don't think we have more hostility in Norway, than towards immigrants


than any other country. I think this man, Breivik, he could have


appeared in any European country. He did appear in our country so. We


have to deal with it. And we have to take it seriously. But, I don't


really say that, I wouldn't say there's hostility on the rise


against immigration, yes there is tension, there are different


opinions, in Norwegian society, but this is still, the most non-violent


society in Europe, with a less murders, and crime. So I don't


think we should exaggerate and think Norway has become any more


dangerous, because of this one person. Do you think Norway has


changed? It is a cliche to say, that it has emerged stronger


through this. But do you think there has been a fundamental shift


in the country and the way it cease itself? We have changed, because


this is a wound that struck us, and we will have to try and heal it. Of


course, a heart of a country doesn't really change so quickly.


But, definitely, we have, we now have to question ourselves, serious


questions about how we deal with the others, the immigrants, those


from the outside world. And definitely, this is one of the core


issues across Europe. I think that whether we emerge stronger, it's


too early to tell. We're in the middle of it. Let me ask you one


last thought, he said he wants to destroy the Labour Party, this has


been one of his goals. Do you think he is succeeding? Is there a sense


that the Labour Party is in trouble as a result of the actions it's


witnessed? Well, the Labour Party is definitely in trouble for the


moment. The Government is in trouble. For several reasons, it's


in office for eight years, but also the devastating inquiry, the


independent inquiry looking at how Norway, the nor week police forces


and Norwegian authorities and crisis committees, they did not


work. There was a total failure and collapse of the system.


Unfortunately, so many lives were lost, also, because of the failure


of the system. Of course, the Government is taking part of the


blame. And whether Breivik is sitting there rejoicing in his cell,


in the next election, which is in a year's time, seeing the Labour


Party going down to a right-wing Government, there's still a year to


go, to see that. It really depends, it is important what the Labour


Party is doing within the next year. Thank you very much. Riding to the


rescue of press freedom came the Sun. Its symbol sawed truth, trusty


shield of fair play was nude pictures of a Prince, most people


had seen on-line. 850 people complained to the Press Complaints


Commission for the decision to run them. While Boris Johnson said it


was deafings indifference, many people in the industry expressed


frustration, as it would give ammunition to the Leveson, with new


regulation. It was the Sun, what done it. Today, three days after


the pictures first appeared on-line, the best selling tabloid decide


today publish and be damned. But by that time, more tan 13 million


Brits had searched for Harry's nude pictures on the internet. Whether


or not this is in the public interest, there's no doubt the


prick are interested. Well, most of us, anyway. It is a kind of


deafening indifference, I don't know what my view, a kind of


spectacular... A scandal would be if you went to Las Vagas, and


didn't misbehave in some trivial way. Now the pictures have rld of a


an old-fashioned press, the debate of privacy has ratcheted up again.


The Sun said readers had a right to see the pictures, because they're


already on-line The pictures are a mouse click away from 77% of


households with internet access, it is absurd in the internet age


newspapers like the Sun could be stopped from publishing stories and


pictures, already seen by millions on the free-for-all that is the


web". Jiefplt this shows us from 2004:. Some digital gurus, agree.


Public interest is the public interest. And while we may say they


breached the laws or privacy concerns around this, when we see


the massive indication and people absorbing the news story from all


over the news, journalist integrity requires that they do this story


and they cover it appropriately, because the public declared their


interest, we have the tools to monitor that and track it. Now we


have those available, we should be using them in setting our news


agendas. There's a sense of editors the Sun has not only thumbed its


nose at the law, but the rest of the industry. None of the tabloid


editors I spoke to would go on the record but privately they were


furious. One editor said to me "we all decided together that none of


the papers were going to publish these pictures, now the Sun has


broken rank, for purely commercial reasons. At a time when we're


desperately trying to prove we can be trust today regulate ourselves".


Another one said "they've handed Leveson a loaded gun." 850 people


have tkphraind to the PCC but there are others who say somebody had to


break rank before the UK began to look like a dictatorship. As far as


the photographs are evidence to that story, on balance, it has to


be published. Imagine the Leveson Lion, the post-Leveson Lion, were


drawn here, in other words you couldn't publish privacy


infringeing material, even where there was an argueable case in the


public interest, even where there was an argueable interest, you


would leapfrog France and end up in abduer zie stand. There's a clear


law of privacy here, there was a case, jofg Jamie theeck son, and


that established the fact that newspapers, publishing images, is


far more intrusive than telling a story. As a result if you were


going to publish an intrusive image of somebody, you have to have a


very clear, public interest, which justifies not just the telling of


the story, but also, the publication of that image. In this


case, everybody has told thetor story but nobody has been able to


cast around and find a public interest which justifies the


publication of the actual image. That's a clear distinction in the


law and which one the Sun has chosen to ignore. While Harry


kavortd in red Bermudas, lit does he know, what happens in Vegas,


doesn't always stay in Vegas. Who needs the paparazzi, when you have


new best friend with camera phones. The regulators need to catch up


with the Facebook generation. They're looking at the issues to


find a new framework. And then instead of focusing on the


negatives around that, they should be looking at the positive aspects


what it could mean to open up this news agenda and allow media


organisation toss make those ethical choices. It is difficult in


the context of the Leveson Inquiry and phone hacking and all the


things that have come before, recently, but it is about time we


look at this. Back at the palace this afternoon it was keep calm and


carry on as they released a video of Harry, fully clothed, paying


tribute to Paralympians. Paralympics torve relay is a


curtain to the Games, :. It was a stark contrast the image on the


fropt page of the Sun. So was their decision to defy the PCC a bold


move to show the regulators there's life in the old tabloid dog yet? Or


have they, just handed Lord Leveson a loaded gun? John Prescott who


suffered privacy invasion, joining us from Hull. Here in the studio,


the former executive of News of the World, currently on police bail as


part of the phone hacking investigation, thus unable to


answer questions related to that this evening Neil Wallace do you


feel News International have done a whole British press a service


today? Yes. Of course I do. Yes. It is interesting to see that the BBC


take ago typical neutral stance? The way we're presenting this


discussion tonight. What I think is the truth of the matter is this is


Leveson's worse night mare. It is exactly the situation he wouldn't


have wanted, because the truth of the matter is these pictures were


published all over the world, and it is bonkers, and affront to


natural justice to suggest you can't print them on paper in this


country, when the rest of the world is looking at them. Lord Prescott?


Well, Neil Wallace was in the News of the World which got closed down


because of its activities of releasing information on to the


internet and using as a justification, in the Max Moseley


case to print. What is going on here? 8 70 people complained,


they're useless as we've been pointing out zsh the PCC but the


editors actually said, what they wanted to do was shorpen up the


editors code, they were going to act together, get a definite of


public interest. As soon as they meet one day, and agree this is a


breach of the editor's code, and wouldn't print, some agreed and


changed its mind. And now talks about public interest. Do you


concede Neil's point we end up looking ridiculous, when we make a


difference pictures circulating you will over the place on the internet,


and one newspaper, one bit of paper. Leveson is beginning to look at


these things. Don't lose sight, all the editors got together and agreed


this was a breach of the editors code. The industry still wants to


keep self-regulation and work the editors code. So obviously they


want to put the best face on. The Sun changes its minds, within a 24


hours, and Murdoch, who is upset how they're treated here. They've


changed and raised the question now, can the editors code work in self-


regulation? No it cannot Why would you break rank when the industry is


over trouble over an issue like this? Can I just say, that that is


the biggest load of garbage I have heard in a long time. You come from


the News of the World, God blimey. What you have is here, a news


reporter who says she's spoken to a number of editors. I spoken to


those editors over the last two days, and let me tell you, they


gave me a different version. You have a group of editors, who


haven't run the story. Most of them didn't run the story because they


were told note to. As indeed the sup was by the xeef executive.


These journalists all champing at the bit, and all in the bidding for


the pictures, but the decision came from on high, because of Leveson,


they should not do it. You're on high as well, Murdoch. Let's just


cut to the chase, our reporter talked to people, saying you have


done Leveson's job for them. I say you, News International, because


you made it easy for him This is leaf Leveson's night mare, because


how can you castigate newspapers, that are simply following the rest


of the world's media? It wasn't the Sun, the Mirror, the BBC the


Telegraph who discovered these pictures, they were published,


there will 200 million hits on the pictures around the world. Are you


trying to intelligently tell me, they shouldn't be print on bits of


paper in this country. It is farcical, and the idea you have an


elderly politician trying to say that young people of today should


not enjoy the privileges of, that he did of a free press is frankly


insulting and stupid. Lord Prescott you can come back on that one,


isn't it better to defend the big problems, than to worry about this


one. We have Leveson to look at it. Is Neil saying ignore the law and


whatever our law says privacy and public interest, as long as it is


on the internet and they push it in the internet sometimes ahead of the


story, it is our law cannot apply. It is hard, isn't it, to make an


argument about privacy, when he clearly invited a lot of people he


didn't know, into a public space? Well, I mean, that sounds silly to


me, but it happened. The editors code, which the editors agreed,


presumably, Neil should be aware of it, you cannot without consent


print a picture, without the private circumstances. That isn't


true. It is untrue, that's not what the code says. Tifplt does. Read


the code. I've read the code. not what it says. It is use useless


in controlling you guys, and everybody accepted we have to


change it. Because you people in the News of the World and Murdoch,


didn't care a damn about the law. If you were now waveed goodbye to


self-regulation over over a case like this, would it be a waste?


Please, let's be sensible. Around the world, the British press have


followed, a story that went around the world. This is what Leveson has


stood there and said. So everyone had seen it. What's the point of


coming in there so late? So the BBC are suggesting along with elderly


Labour politicians that we should now cens sore the press S that


where you're coming from? This is ageism. Why did the Sun change its


mind tell us that? Because Rupert Murdoch realised how Murdoch was


the one who gave instruction, the man before our courts and inquiries.


For God sake. Thank you very much. There are thierd American cyclist


has been striped of the seven titles, banned from competitive


cycling for life, the OCDA. The cyclist declares his innocence but


weary of fighting the allegations. Allegations he has been fighting


for years. Lance Armstrong's never failed an official drugs test we


know off, except when he was cleared in '99. The evidence


against him has yet to be published. But it may be the testimony of


other cyclists, and fresh examination of old samples. US


doping authorities of course say it is them who have the authority and


so does the sports governing body who have yet to comment and see the


evidence. The anti-doping boss, described that as the fox guarding


the hen house. It is not clear the US za, can clear, there's eight


year of statistics, only two of the titles fall within that window.


And will the runners up to Armstrong inherit his titles? Well,


probably not. Apart from anything else, some of the cyclists have


also been banned for doping, it looks like there are no winners


here. Well, Andy Parkinson, Chief Executive of UK anti-doping, is


here. Are you surprised he pulled out of the fight? I am somewhat


surprised. If I was a clean athlete, what I would want to do, is test


the evidence put against me. And obviously, as of today, that's not


going to happen. But he says, he's innocent and taken numerous tests,


nothing has actually been found, there's about no evidence against


him. If he says he's weary, you'd have sympathy wouldn't you? Yeah, I


can see that argument. I think the flip side of that, is gone are the


days when anti-doping authorities relied on positive tests. We rely


on a multitude of different evidence we package up. And the


United States authoritys have said they've got overwhelming evidence,


from eyewitness statements that, corob rate doping. It can't be


enough to take eyewitness statements when you have scientific


ways of proving or disapproving can it? It is a balance. What you


ideally have a positive test, because it is simple to prosecute.


But, in the criminal justice system, you rely on eyewitness statements


and test the evidence, and that was the purpose of the tribunal that


Lens has opted out tf. The US za, asked a question to hand over the


anti-doping case, they say it is like a fox guarding the hen house,


so essentially what the authorities, are part of the problem? What the


United States authorities said is we have the evidence, we've got


joust diction to prosecute, we don't need you the cycling


federation, and also, we have to bear in mind there's a wider


conspiracy case going on, and the cycling federation has an appeal of


any result of that. Do you think they're part of the problem?


don't know. And what we haven't seen is that evidence tested


because Mr Armstrong has withdrawn from the case. When you take, into


account the idea you can't even hand those titles, to the sort of


next in line, necessarily, because there are doping problems, all over


the place, I mean, what a murky period, potentially, for cycling,


that whole time was? Yeah it is probable matic, I have to say, the


redistribution of those titles. But, it was murky. The late 90s, was a


very difficult time for cycling. Can we not trust any of the tests


that are being done? What we can do is trust the, that at the time the


test was taken with the substances we were able to analyse this were


negative tests. What we cannot say is negative test means no doping.


We had the same example around the Olympic Games. The only people who


can tkpwrarn tee the performance sincere the athletes. If Lance


Armstrong is not willing to clear his name, and he backed out, what


happens, does that investigation go on without him, will you still


bother to pursue that now? United States authorities, remember


there's a conspiracy case of five other individuals, all based on the


same evidence, so that case will continue. And, in tirms of the


again public, we'll start to see the transparency once the hearings


have been held. Thank you very much for coming in. We're going to bring


you the front of the papers in a second. But I haven't got them. So


second. But I haven't got them. So this will be interesting. Telegraph


is first, minister signals Heathrow expansion, and the hen party


surprised by lack of security to the Prince, that's the Vegas story


there. The stiems, the Government sends in


the Scouts to right hot spots. Scouts guides and police, to go


into private hot spoots. The start of the countdown to the Paralympics


Independent, GCSE row, Michael Gove threatened with legal action over


the C/ D boundary, we had last night. And Charles summons Harry


for crisis talks. A heart to heart talk. The FT weekend, Greece has


not been written off as Merkel welcomes Samaras to Berlin. That's


Download Subtitles