This is going to be an interesting (for me) article to write. Can I defend what at first glance appears to be the indefensible?
Well whilst it might not be possible to provide a defence for Philip Horn who has been arrested and held in custody on suspicion of racial hatred for comments made on Facebook, in which he appears to support the actions of Anders Breivik, it might be just possible to understand just what made him post the comments he is alleged to have made.
Anders Breiviks motives in blowing up a government building in Oslo before going on to finally kill 77 adults and teenagers are well known. He saw himself as a soldier fighting for his race and country whose people were being betrayed by its government.
The government building (to him at least) was therefore a legitimate target and those working within, were the enemy in much the same way that our air force considered the civilians working in the radio station in Belgrade to be "the enemy" when they blew them and their tea trolley lady to bits.
But how could Breivik justify what he did next when he slaughtered the young adults and teenagers on the Island of Utoya in July of last year? To Breivik, angry and frustrated by his governments flooding of his country with Islamic Colonisers, quite correctly deduced that the fire of Islam sweeping across Norway was not solely the fault of the moslems but the arsonist politicians who had started the fire of Islam by allowing them into the country in the first place and those are the ones he wanted to make suffer and to feel the same pain as the Norwegian people.
And what better way to have revenge on someone you hate than to kill their children - and how easy must it have been to justify (in his mind) the killings, by the fact that these teenagers were mainly marxists and liberals who were being trained to be the future leaders of Norway who would also betray his country further down the road. To Breivik, he was just stopping nits developing into lice.
So whilst we cannot condone Breivik or his actions and must in fact condemn them, we can at least understand why Breivik acted the way he did.
Now let us turn our attention back to Philip Horn and his wrongful arrest. Below are the comments he is alleged to have made and also statements it is claimed he made to the press.
'Well done Anders Breivik. I take my hat off to you sir.
'You proved you were not insane and that you are just one of many like myself who wish their country to return to the way it was before it was invaded by the Muslim population. Respect to you.'
He was also filmed by a national newspaper saying: 'If someone came to my door in a uniform and said they were going to bang me up for six months then fine. I’m not going to retract any remarks I made.
'To a certain extent I do defend what he’s [Breivik] done. Go back 40-50 years ago to Norway, would you have seen people walking around in burkas and all that?
'I am a racist to a certain extent. Of course it’s wrong to kill children, but if he had to do it that way to get his point across, so be it.'
Now let us go through these "comments".
It is clear in the first instance that he is taking his hat off to Breivik because Breivik had proven that he was not insane and that he acted because he believed himself to be a patriot fighting the enemies of his country. That is not incitement to racial hatred.
He then goes on to correctly point out that people want their countries back and the moslem invasions of europe reversed. If this was a crime then all True Brits would all be in jail. That wish to reclaim our country is not incitement to racial hatred.
Now, Mr Horn is reported as saying that he will not retract his words (although he has since said that some of his comments were taken out of context and I can believe that) even should he be jailed for six months. Well the truth is from what I have read and understood so far he should never have been arrested in the first place, let alone face the prospect of six months in jail.
But here is the sentence that they will try hang Mr Horn with; "I am a racist to a certain extent. Of course it’s wrong to kill children, but if he had to do it that way to get his point across, so be it".
Now we all know that the word "racist" is a marxist construction to attack the white race and it will be used in the context that Horn is a self avowed "racist". They will omit the "Of course it's wrong to kill children" bit and emphasise Mr Horns apparent support for Breivik with; "if he had to do it that way to get his point across, so be it".
Now some people will find that last sentence, that may well hang Horn offensive but the real truth is that is his opinion and is not incitement to racial hatred. However we can learn from this.
The way we use words is important, especially if we are to avoid being sent to jail on trumped up charges but one thing is for sure. As the situation gets worse for white people across Europe, there will be more Breiviks and more commenters like Mr Horn.