Writing about the Norway bomb and shootings so soon after the event is bound to run the risk of having my comments overtaken by subsequently revealed facts. But one thing that has struck me is the similarity between the perpetrator in Norway, Anders Behring Breivik, and the suicide bombers who carried out the attacks in London in July 2005. In both cases, descriptions of their backgrounds give the impression that, apart from their involvement in extremist politics, they were perfectly normal.  Breivik had plenty of childhood friends and was a competent, though not outstanding, student at university who later went on to run his own business. The 7/7 bombers included Mohammad Sidique Khan, a primary school classroom assistant, as well as Shehzad Tanweer who worked in a chip shop. All of their friends and acquaintances professed surprised at learning of their actions.

In one sense, of course, we shouldn’t be surprised. Anyone who is planning a terrorist atrocity is likely to be well aware of the need to have a public profile which deflects attention. But, even so, the idea that apparently normal people can do evil things is still shocking. We like our villains to be all bad, so that we don’t feel encumbered by any need to have sympathy for them.

We also like to think that there’s a clear divide between the good and the bad in general. That makes it easier to put everyone into neat little boxes, and condemn by association anyone who shares the views of those who commit atrocities. That, after all, is precisely what Breivik appears to have done with his hatred of Islam and his belief that there is a conspiracy among senior politicians to collaborate in the “Islamification” of Europe. Islam has spawned terrorists and so, according to this theory, Islam itself is a terrorist religion and those who fail to oppose its advance with sufficient vigour are complicit with terrorism. And that justifies shooting teenagers who happen to be members of a political party which hasn’t done enough to oppose Islam.

Put like that, it’s clearly an illogical chain of reasoning. But a similar leap of logic is being employed in the media as part of their attempts to explain Breivik’s actions. He isn’t just a lone nutter with a  grudge; much is being made of his previous links with the EDL and other far-right groups.

Now, I have no brief to defend the EDL and their ilk. They are, on the whole, both obnoxious and ignorant. But blaming them, or right-wing groups in general, for the actions of Anders Behring Breivik is missing the point.

Most people, whatever their politics and however extreme or wrong their beliefs, don’t go around shooting people or blowing them up. Being wrong does not automatically lead to violence. And that applies to the extremist wrong, such as the EDL, the BNP and the SWP just as much as it applies to the moderately wrong. There is still a key distinction between groups such as these and those, such as al-Queda, the Provisional IRA and the ALF, which are set up explicitly for the purpose of perpetrating violence.

On a related note, there’s been a lot of comment on Twitter about the fact that Breivik has quoted Daily Mail columnist Melanie Phillips in his widely-distributed “manifesto” (the wide distribution is something, of course, which is precisely what he wanted to achieve, but I’ll gloss over that for now). Several of the comments imply, or even go as far as stating outright, that Phillips bears some of the blame for Breivik’s actions because of her own anti-Islam comments.

Again, I have no reason to defend Phillips, someone who I disagree with more often than not. But it’s just madness to assert that the ramblings of one particular columnist (or even several of them) are all it takes to spur someone to mass murder. John Lennon’s murderer, Mark Chapman, was strongly influenced by J. D. Salinger’s novel Catcher in the Rye.

Apologies if this article seems a little incoherent. I’ve been tinkering with it off and on all day, and I’m still not happy with it. I was as close to pressing the delete key as I am to actually publishing it, but I’ve decided that it might as well have the chance to get read. I suppose what it all boils down to is this: Norway has suffered an almost unimaginable tragedy in the last couple of days. It would be nice if, just for once, people could resist the temptation to use it to make political capital. The actions of an evil man do not tar everyone that he used for inspiration. And people have the right to be wrong. It is not a crime to say something that is disagreed with. It’s getting late on Sunday evening, and I have work to go to in the morning. It’s time for bed, in both the literal and XKCD sense.