“Once you decide to strike, it is better to kill too many than not enough…” — Anders Behring Breivik. Hate is like a heat-seeking missile acquiring a target. Once the target is identified, hatred finds meaningful expression that effectively decouples conscience from action. We need to begin to reduce the lexicon of adjectives used with men like Anders Breivik. The bitter fruit of his actions is a death toll of 76. But the root of his actions is hate. It is an emotion that can be controlled for the short-term but evolves into a predatory beast if it is nurtured unconditionally. Mr Breivik’s maddening downward mental spiral chose Muslims as the object of his hatred. He then added a twist of lime to his intoxicating drink. Killing fellow citizens in Norway became the outlet for his twisted emotion. His digital footprint did not catch the eye of an analyst. A profile was not constructed. He was free to enter the labyrinth of his mind to create a death trap. Hate always seeks warm flesh. If an individual blows up a statue in a square or sets a forest aflame, he cannot relive the final twitch of agony of his victims. From the loins of Nero…It was my first thought when the news broke that a lone citizen had mounted a bombing attack followed by a mow-them-down event on Norway’s youth. Reports emerged that after Breivik’s victims fell, he took a shotgun to them to assure a zero survival rate. Undoubtedly, he took a good look at the faces of a few of his victims. Emperor Nero hoisted his perceived Christian foes atop bonfires. They were drenched in garments of tar and stakes placed under their chins so that he and his guests could see the final grimace of death. The acrid smell of burning flesh was not enough. Screams of agony were insufficient stimuli. Nero had an underworld type of desire — to gaze at contorted Christian faces even as their souls fled the tent of flesh. A madman in a new century relished the same experience. But this time, his malice was directed against Muslims by use of proxy violence against fresh-faced kids. Warm flesh moved to stone slab does not cure the blood lust of men. Mr Breivik had 90 minutes to change his course of action. Instead, he continued to pump iron on the land and then take shots at youth fleeing into the water. Drops of blood turned to gallons and he remains dry-eyed to this moment. Never trust a man who has forgotten how to shed a tear. That is rule number one. The second rule is for the government. Never let a catastrophic event orchestrated by heat-seeking hatred force the hand of policy. Violence brings inorganic change and domestic policy must remain an organic process rooted within the soil of a nation and its culture. And beyond the realm of irrationality lies the domain of policy. The Wall Street Journal ran a piece on July 25th, ‘Inside the Mind of the Oslo Murderer’. Bruce Bawer is the author of While Europe Slept: How Radical Islam is Destroying the West from Within. He was stunned to discover that Breivik read his book and also his blog entries. It is interesting that Mr Bawer makes it abundantly clear that he believes Anders Breivik is completely insane. That a mass murderer left bloody fingerprints from the thoughts of another is disconcerting to say the least. The reasonable man must always fear the irrational man. I have also written in an uncompromising manner regarding Islam, immigration and impact on the west. These briefs have moved within narrow corridors. Islamic literature does exhibit a doctrine of expansionism combined with a doctrine of non-assimilation to a host nation. This core issue is especially troubling to Europe. What is the proper tension between human liberty and civic duty? How can western nations maintain a landscape where freedom of expression and freedom of religion for Muslims is encouraged? But what policies need to be developed that also disallow any encroachment and erosion of our cherished western heritage? Hatred has been given no quarter within my writing. But it is possible that a different madman could take my words and make it into his own twisted brand. So my policy concerns regarding Islam and the west are carefully navigated into the small and well-maintained ports, otherwise known as analytical communities. Governments in the west must provide guidance regarding both the liberty and limitations of the outflow of acts of private worship into the public square. This is especially difficult when pockets of Muslim immigrants residing within dense urban loci actively embrace an orthodoxy that challenges the very tenets of democracy and hard-earned progressive national character. The 21st century provides a strange dichotomy. Muslims within nations with restricted liberty seek greater freedom and wish to emulate the west. But some Muslims who migrate to the west seek to restrict the freedoms of the host nation and restrain the rational liberties of open societies. An example of Islam’s political impact is Harvard University’s decision to ban men from one of their gyms for several hours a week to accommodate the demands of Muslim women. This is the US’s oldest centre of higher education and a bastion of liberalism. What does the readership of the Daily Times think? Did Harvard University allow a soft shariah application within an open society? Anders Breivik perceived encroachment against western values. He read of valid concerns and created a manifesto. He noted policy deficits and turned toward the whisper of evil in his ear. He has left his indelible mark. The national wound for Norway will produce political scar tissue for years to come. The government’s task is to provide a clear policy voice regarding both the liberties and burdens of citizenship within their cultural settings. In the west, these freedoms must not bow to an unbending Islamic orthodoxy. And men like Anders Breivik must be prosecuted. He unleashed extreme violence in Norway. The writer is a freelance columnist. She can be reached at tammyswof@msn.com