Over the past five days, a new and disturbing variation of the classic “I’m not racist, but…” has came into international rhetoric. While the people of Norway have come together as one to reject the hatred harboured by Anders Breivik, in the English-language media and amongst English-language far-right groups, we hear “I don’t agree with what Breivik did – it’s deplorable, but with the rise of Islam, it’s not surprising.”

Let me be clear: In a situation like this there are no buts. You cannot condemn a mass murder with one hand, then justify it with the other. And it is justification, the insinuation that somehow his actions are understandable in the circumstances.

So let’s take a look at what exactly it is that is deplorable and awful but in some situations ok. Lets add the details of the case back into the argument: “I don’t agree with what Breivik did – it’s deplorable, but setting a bomb that kills seven people and destroys numerous government buildings, then going on, dressed as a policeman, to a youth camp and shooting dead 68 teenagers and young adults is understandable, given the threat of Islam.”

Anders Breivik may not chime with what your idea of a terrorist is or looks like. His philosophy, laid out meticulously in his blogs and so-called manifesto, may not be what you think normally drives terrorists (i.e. he’s not a Muslim). However this does not change the facts of what happened or the original assessment of what he is: a terrorist. So while the idea of a right wing, anti-Islam, anti-multicultural attacker may be uncomfortable for some, before inserting that ‘but’ into “I don’t agree with what Breveik did…” think very carefully about what you are justifying with that simple word.