This married couple are good brave human beings.
Hege Dalen and Toril Hansen have rightly become national heroes in Norway after they rescued 40 fleeing teens from the massacre on Utoya Island. Using their boat, they made multiple trips into the waters around Utoya where Anders Breivik was murdering 69 people and ferried as many as they could to safety. Bullet holes later discovered in their boat indicate Breivik fired upon them.
This is the very first I’ve heard of this, more than a week after the event. I guess the news media did not deem it particularly interesting. One wonders why.
First I’ve heard of it here in the UK. It saddens me that if this had been a couple of heterosexual males, this would almost certainly have been all over the news media (admittedly an assumption based solely on experience, not evidence). Does anyone know if this story has been featured more visibly in the Scandinavian media? I always assume (probably erroneously) that they are a little more liberal than the UK (the influence of too much Swedish porn as a youth, no doubt).
The conservative bias of our mainstream media is depressing in the extreme.
I read about them elsewhere (Skepchick?) last week. They are my new heroes. I always like to think I’d be brave and quick-thinking in a crisis, but I’d probably sit down and cry. JK, I’ve been able to keep my head in tough times and lose it later, but I’ve never dealt with gunfire. These women rock.
That brings new tears of an entirely different kind to my eyes than those I shed upon first reading about the tragedy in Norway.
Is the one on the left pregnant?
’cause that’s even better.
It’s interesting that others hadn’t heard of this. I thought it was all over the news. Mostly with the headline “Married Lesbian Couple Are Heroes” as if the fact that they are married to each other was more important than their heroism.
Of course, in an ideal world, the headline would simple be “Local Couple Are Heroes”.
Although, in an ideal ideal world, they’d have had no cause to be heroic in the first place.
Katrina,
I read about this a couple of days ago, and it seems that emphasis might have been put on them being married because
a) Someone (presumably from a country where gay marriage isn’t allowed) was baffled by the fact and couldn’t help mentioning it.
b) It was a subtle barb at those who oppose gay marriage with pathetic arguments like “gay marriage erodes ethics” and makes people immoral and whatever nasty accusation they can come up with.
I’ve seen the spread of this story over the last couple of days, and just tend to call bullshit on the way it’s being spun, which is (admittedly, not so much in the source cited) “the shooter was a Christian and got loads of publicity and these women are lesbians who are going unreported because the media hates teh gayz!!”
I think this spin is crap is for several reasons.
Firstly, the shooter was not a Chritian, or at the very least he wasn’t claiming to be motivated by Christianity – it was all about being anti-Muslim.
Secondly, I’m not convinced that the women’s sexual orientation has any bearing on the reporting of the story outside of Norway. That’s just the way international news works. Although I’m sure there were plenty of news stories in the US about heroic rescuers shortly after the September 11th attacks, I don’t recall seeing anything about that on the news in the UK, which was all about the attackers, consequences and possible international repercussions(the slew of documentaries pushed out a few weeks later were a different matter, I mean the actual news). Major disasters and terrorist acts are international news, acts of heroism struggle to get beyond the local papers.
My last reason for disliking the spin is a bit different. Even if this were being plastered all over the world’s media without the dig at the religious right, I would rather it just reported two brave women who heroically put themselves in harm’s way. Making an issue of their sexual orientation is, to my mind, actually implying that we have an expectation that gay people are less likely to be brave than straight people. I actually think PZ’s way of putting it is right – mention that they are married, since that would likely be in the piece if they were a married hetero couple, and leave it at that. More generally, if a gay man or woman does something heroic which is reported in the media, would you want sexual orientation to be in the reports? Would you expect to see a headline “left handed man saves boy from rabid bees”?
While I wouldn’t go into arguments whether Breivik was a true Christian or not, I agree that it’s not very likely that media didn’t cover this story before because they are lesbians. First of all, I’m not sure when the first article mentioning them was published. With such an overwhelming tragedy, focus has first been on the victims and the perpetrator. I see nothing strange in stories about rescuers trickling slowly in on the byway or a bit late when most bombastic titles about Breivik get old. Such it the nature of humans, I guess. First describe a bloody mess, then remember to credit those who were there to clean it.
I don’t agree with that assertion, although I have no more evidence to the contrary than you have in making that claim. My recollections are quite different, but I’m prepared to acknowledge that memory alone isn’t a reliable enough measure.
Best evacuation story since Dunkirk!
@Drawing Business: I’m going by memory too, so I could be wrong about the specific instance. However, my impression (yes, totally unfounded speculation again) is that the bad news and speculation about perpetrators is generally more widely reported than stories about heroic actions. Generally, the immediate news is full of reporting on the actual incident, the following days tend to be analysis of what went wrong or the identity/motivation of the perpetrators, and by the time stories about acts of individual heroism filter out, it’s no longer recent enough to be newsworthy.
Marcus,
Breivik was a Christian, a Knight Templar, in fact, he says so at great length, and he did this because he hates Islam and does not want to see it supplant Christianity in Europe. Why do you lie like that? Doesn’t your god have something to say about that?
Also, I just searched their names on the Fox News Website:
Your Search for “Hege Dalen” did not return any results.
Does that convince you?
Helena Constantine, I don’t believe that Marcus Hill is Christian. The posts under that and a similar nym on the ‘old’ site seem to indicate that. At most, Marcus Hill could be a bit of a concern troll (noted here). Of course, Marcus Hill is still wrong. Breivik does claim to be Christian.
I also think that Marcus is wrong about the spin of this story. I rather like Beatrice’s take on it and agree substantially. The reason it’s being mentioned at all is because it’s novel to some people, and either is a subtle dig at, or a subtle provocation of, those internationally who are opposed to gay marriage for whatever reason.
Well, he calls himself a Christian, so unless you can prove that his Christian license was officially revoked by International Federation of Christendom, I call bullshit on that.
It really is a shark tank in here, isn’t it? I realise I’ve barely dipped my toe into the shallowest, quietest part of the tank, and that some of the fiercest sharks are still circling elsewhere (I’m a long time lurker, but only very occasional commenter on the SB site). But already I get the same feeling after hitting submit that I used to get after taking a corner a bit too fast on my motorbike, or that I still get taking a really bit throw at aikido: Wow, that was dangerous. But I’m still alive, so lets do it again!
@Drawing Business – hee! That describes it so well that I’m saving your comment. FOR POSTERITYYYYY. So there!
Marcus Hill says:
It is my understanding that Breivik self-identified as a Christian on Facebook and YouTube. News reports mention that he chose to be baptized at 16 and has posted regularly on the internet about his Christianity.
In your opinion, what exactly does it take to qualify as a Christian?
According to talk2action, he also
So, he had problems with multiculturalism insofar as it deviated from his preferred model of White Christian European society. As another poster just mentioned, he claimed to be a Knight Templar and his manifesto supported a war against Islam in the name of Christianity.
Sure, he wasn’t a religious fundamentalist. AFAIK, He never claimed that the Bible told him to murder or that Jesus spoke to him in his dreams. That doesn’t mean Christianity is not a salient factor in his motivation.
It was a subtle barb at those who oppose gay marriage with pathetic arguments like “gay marriage erodes ethics” and makes people immoral and whatever nasty accusation they can come up with.
This was the reason given at boingboing when some one asked why it was being featured with that wording. It makes sense to me.
The fact that they are a group of people whose rights are actively being attacked, and that they are simply by virtue of being married going to be demonized in places like the US, it makes some sense to highlight the fact that these people risked their lives to save other human beings.
Someone hasn’t been paying attention.
Point out the heroism of people ordinarily vilified in media is important, as has been mentioned previously. It not only serves to undermine the bigotry that gay individuals face by directly pointing to their nobility, but it also allows for greater public awareness of their existence.
As we know, the less people are aware of a socially marginalized group, the more likely they are to be hostile and treat those individuals badly. So the more people know that gay people (or atheists or women or ethnic minorities or disabled people) are real, living human beings, the more likely they are to treat them with respect and want equal rights and opportunities for them.
I would love for it not to be an issue, but until they are less of a social “other” we aren’t there yet.
If the Norwegian terrorist identified himself as a Christian then he’s a Christian. You can say he’s a bad Christian for preferring the violent lines from the New Testament (“I did not come to bring peace, but a sword,” Matt. 10:13; you must hate your family, Luke 14:26) instead of the peaceful ones (“turn to them the other cheek,” Matt. 5:39), but you don’t get to tell him what his religion is (unless, of course, you’re Bill O’Reilly, who is pope of the universe).
I think it’s fair to question the use of the term “Christian fundamentalist” in the terrorist’s case because “fundamentalist” carries a lot of extra baggage. Calling him a “Christian extremist” seems a better characterization, identifying both part of his philosophical motivation and his breach of the basic codes of civilized behavior in his actions. He is responsible for his own crimes and it does not follow that we can blame his co-religionists. But we needn’t let off the hook those non-homicidal Christians who spew hate speech and irresponsibly stoke the fire by treating all Muslims as integral parts of a unitary international terrorist conspiracy. Muslims are no more automatically sympathizers of terrorism than Christians are (even if both are to a greater or lesser degree deluded by their superstitions).
slignot:
QFT. Over in the Sb thread, we had someone who thought it was pithy and relevant to say “they had balls.” :sigh:
OK, I was off the mark about the guy not being a Christian – contrary to the assumptions people have jumped to, I’m neither a Christian nor a concern troll, merely misinformed on this occasion. I still maintain that the story would not have broken significantly quicker if it had been a straight couple. Sure, Faux may not run with it because they’re nuts, but I’m not so quick to label the rest of the media as homophobes.
As a scandinavian, I would take offense if a local scandinavian news medium added sexual orientation to describe people unless it was of great importance to the story. Which in this case it is not. Compare it to this storyline: “Midget Couple Are Heroes”. Smells bad.
For this reason, the “gay story” US centric people see, don’t, and shouldn’t, exist in a civilized society.
Diabolics,
Part of the problem between those two headlines you suggest is that I sincerely doubt that the term that your hypothetical couple chooses to identify with is “midget.” While medically specific terms like “dwarf” may be accurate descriptively, many of those with such conditions identify as “little people” for example. Moreover, while they are decidedly not privileged in society (no more than someone in a wheelchair is), they are not actively condemned as being morally inferior by nature.
By contrast, it seems clear that the couple in question do identify as lesbians, and they are most certainly condemned as being evil, sinful or immoral.
We are saying that it should not matter when valuing their heroism against a “normal” person but it still does have a sociological impact that they are gay. Given the number of “traditional family” groups that push bad science, misrepresent real science and latch onto any anecdote of negative outcomes relating to being gay, we need these counter anecdotes. (It’s one of the reasons that gay rights blogger Joe My God does a similar segment called “This Week in Holy Crimes.”) Because of this, it is newsworthy and not something I can condemn.
slignot:
I understand your sentiment. I am bread under different circumstances than, say people in the US, and that is evident to me now when I live in the US. Here, unfortunately, it makes sense to point out the orientation (or identity), in the general struggle for equality.
You write:
““little people” … they are not actively condemned as being morally inferior by nature.”
My point exactly. They are not now, in the US and most of the industrial world, but they used to be condemned.
I just hope the US can grow up fast and get to the same level for all people.
I am sorry if the use of the word “midget” offended anybody, that was not my intention.
I posted this story on FB on 26 July. It was out there to be seen for those who wanted to see. It came from a queer news site, while this one came from CNN.
The lesbian angle is not relevant to the women’s heroism. It is, however, very relevant to the media silence about it.
Um, Helena, just because a nutjob calls himself a Knight Templar doesn’t mean he is one. Though I do agree that the looney philosophy he built for himself was informed by Christianity.
Hmm, here’s a thought for you. Maybe it isn’t too important that these rescuers happened to be a married lesbian couple. But consider this: in Norway, they’re married. If they decided to move to the US, in 44 of the US states, they could not be married. What does that say about Norway and the US?
First I heard of it. It is heartening to know that for every gun-carrying son-of-a-bitch mass-murderer there are two married heroines! Evil is outnumbered, two to one.
I don’t know if the couple are Christians, atheists, or something else altogether, but the gun-toting d**khead stated that he is a Christian. His crazy purpose was based on his understanding of at least two religions (christianity and islam); the couple’s willingness to put their lives on the line and to save 40 odd people from the crooked murderer was a matter of common humanity. Good on them.
Oh, what a surprise. The WBC says their hateful god is punishing Norway for treating gays like human beings and they’re threatening to picket the funerals. Wouldn’t it be a slap in the face to these two women if the Norwegian government were to let them in.
http://www.newsinenglish.no/2011/08/03/westboro-baptists-to-picket-funerals/
I think the story has suffered from multiple translations, and been distorted. They are actually not married, the Norwegian press reports them as “samboare” (unmarried couple living together) since 1.5 years.
Translation of an interview with Hege Dalen in “Helgeland Arbeiderblad”:
Together, Hege and Torill established themselves as weekend and holiday campers at Utvika, with panoramic views to Utøya, where 68 people were shot and killed Friday. The family had started to celebrate the 10th birthday of Hege’s stepdaughter when the shots sounded from the other side of the water in the afternoon.
– We had been visited by more visitors. The cakes were on the table, but then there were bangs, and we felt a strong smell of gunpowder. We saw people who swam from Utøya. Then it was just take action, says Hege.
We did the job
————–
Torill Hansen took a speed boat and started to help both the injured and uninjured youths up from [the water of] Tyrifjord. Hege remained first on land, and received the desperate people, at among other places the cafe belonging to the campsite. A little later, she was with her partner on the last pick up trips by boat. Hege estimates that the two rescued 25-30 people this way. Several boats took part in the operation, which may have saved as many as 250 to 300 lives.
– This was before any professional rescue operation was launched. It was we at the campsite who did the job. We handed out blankets and transported people to Sundvollen hotel. The offender was not actually arrested when we took those first trips. It is scary to think about. Our boat was soon full, and I do not know what happened to them we could not take with us. We saw the bullets that went into the water, and we saw the bodies before they were covered. It was completely unreal. A bad movie, says Hege.
Mobile phone constantly in use
——————————
She tried to give as good care as possible to those who were rescued to safety in Utvika. People were naturally completely shocked.
– My mobile phone was constantly in use, and many could talk to their loved ones. But it was hard to experience that a girl made contact with her brother who still lay under a stone on Utøya. I do not know how it went with him, says Hege. She says that the camping place was a natural haven to search for those who swam in a panic.
– It is 700 meters to swim. Utvika is Utøya nearest neighbor. Just some meters from our caravan, we can see the whole Utøya.
http://mobil.helgeland-arbeiderblad.no/nyheter/article5681862.ece