What does the the Eiffel tower mean?   
Hvad betyder Eiffeltårnet?  
  
"The participants of the 10th Congress of Scandinavian Media Studies in Reykjavík, August 11th-14th, had an exceptionally fine experience during the festive opening of the event as the poet, debater and translator Thorgeir Thorgeirson (b. 1933) delivered his speech.  
  Thorgeirson’s background explains the sophisticated poetic form of his essay.  
  The fact that Thorgeirson is a renown debater on cultural and social affairs explains the undelying polemic against modernity. His experience of documentary films and radio drama might also explain some of his dazzling insight into journalism."  
    Svennik Høyer in “ The Yearbook of The Press” 1991

When I was living in Paris, in the Saint-Germain-des-Prés neighborhood, 1955-1956, I had a plain view of the great Eiffel Tower  from my garret roof-window.   The tower was, at the time, built to commemorate the centennial of the Revolution bourgeois, and is deemed to be the world's first structure in modernistic style - that is, an overture to modernism.It seemed to me, therefore, that it was of utmost importance for a young artist to understand the tower's meaning. What does this tower, which Monsieur Eiffel chanced to build in 1889, have to say?       
  Or, in simple, straightforward terms: What does the Eiffel Tower mean?      

It is perhaps pathetic to think of this penniless son of a woman worker who has made it south to Paris in the spirit of ancient chieftains and sits there on a crate by his roof window immersed in hopeless puzzlement over the meaning of the Eiffel Tower.  I found no answer to my question at that time.          
  But 35 years later the answer struck me sitting on my living room couch, watching world news through a different view -window, my television set. The circumstances were somewhat particular.      

When "Operation Desert storm", or the invasion of Kuwait, was being prepared last winter, we Icelanders came into direct contact with world news by satellite.             
  The Ministry of Culture adjudged the turmoil in The Middle East  to be a watershed event, and our TV was granted a waiver for direct transmissions of satellite news in English from 2300 h to 0900 h.            
   The spiffy, international newsteams off SKY and CBS were suddenly evening guests in every living room.            
  These gate crashers were able to explain various things, often  indirectly. Obviously, for example, they were the models for Icelandic television announcers. Which again explained to me why our news announcers had developed such na al tones. Up until 1987 the Icelandic language, almost without an exception, was spoken through the mouth, but since that time certain groups have started to speak this ancient language with foreign sounds,  and mostly through the nose. This innovation springs from the unikeyed, unisex, uniform style of universal televisions news-casters.             
  What a demonstration on the power of style!            
  One sits at home in ones living room, and an interview  with President Bush about Operation Desertstorm suddenly breaks out from the television. But President Bush sits immovable before the camera, like the Eiffel Tower, and announces:       
  - I can promise you; this is not going to be another Vietnam!      
  The President continues to remind me of the Eiffel  Tower, and a 35-year-old question reoccurs.       
  What does the Eiffel Tower mean?       
  I will come to that later. First, a few words about the style of power.      

During the Vietnam War and Watergate, the media claimed power in the name of truth. Their style  was inquisitive, almost intense, powerful. But that did not last long.              
  Now the powers that be have again taken the media into their hands.              
  The new style is based on a cool, unikeyed, unisex, uniform character which others may have given a more appropriate name,  but I shall call collective narcissism.              
  It demonstrates self-centeredness without a link to any Self.      
  It is based on characters without personality.       
  It is swollen with cosmopolitan elegance, but devoid of  charm.  It commands as a matter of course.       
  For some time now the advertising industry has cultivated this paradoxical phenomenon.             
  The media which financially have become ever more dependent on advertisements are forced to adapt the style for their own use.             
  Nowadays one can read whole magazines without knowing where  pictures of the interviews end and the advertisements take over. One watches television and can hardly distinguish between soap ads and war news, or should I have said soap news and war ads?       
  The SKY news, broadcast direct by CBS, which I watched every evening for 15 minutes during the winter, was, from a technical view-point, a pure wonder, but they were completely devoid of any human view-point.       
  A thing that I still remember is the gradually growing  discomfiture at having become a subject to experiments in pure horror  vacui.      

It is, in fact, this unikeyed, unisex, uniform, universal style of news from which President Bush derives his power to announce:       
  - I can promise you; this is not going to be another Vietnam!      
  The time of truth probing in world television news is past.      
  Collective narcissism has taken over. And it neither has time for Vietnam nor any other reality.       
  It resides complete and undivided in its form.       
  This soon will lead me back to the question about the  meaning of the Eiffel Tower; but first a few  words about the essence of power.      

You can study power in an academic, historic or political context if you want to flee from the primal fact of human nature that the subjective basis of all power is narcissism. Before anyone assumes power over another human being, he has to have said to himself:      
   - I am better.       
  Sadism inevitably accompanies the exercise of power.       
  Thus, narcissism, power and sadism are inseparable elements of one and the same phenomenon. Three sides of the same thing.       
  We could read about this in the classical Saga of The St. King Olaf and later in Gerpla by Halldór Laxness. Both works discuss the emergence of monarchy. The sado-narcisstic streak of exercising power seems momentarily reflected in fear of consequent ostracism, fear which in formal language is called conscience.  Thus, emperors and kings accepted their power from the Holy Trinity which, in its own manner, bows to narcissism: The Son is reflected in the Holy Ghost and sees the Father. Thus religion connects to governmental power.      
  As a rule the monarch made religion his cloak, though religion could exceptionally be a warper, saveguarding against the sadism of the King and the Kings men.       
  But rarely though.     

Then came the Revolution bourgeoise of 1789.       
  Although its dream to hang the last nobleman by the last clergyman's guts was never fully realized, it nevertheless ended the power system of the Christian monarchs in Europe.       
  We still celebrate that to this day.       
  Neither could the dictatorship of the proletariat exist without religion. Thus, the Holy Trinity - Marx, Engels, Lenin - came into being. Marxism, which originally was a quasi scientific, quasi  philosophical study, had become a religion before you could blink.             
  This theology received a name: it was called Marxism- Leninism and sufficed for a while as an armour against the bad consciences of those in power. But it was the rigid sadism in the Communists' universal censorship which carried the seeds of the system's demise.      

Censorship is the shadow of power.      
  The more brightly an ideological sun shines, the sharper the censorship becomes.       
  It is all power's tendency to sweep inconvenient facts into its shadow.       
  The practical necessity of free expression lies not only in the author's or newsman's rights to speak the truth he knows. It lies also in the public's right to hear  all sides of the truth, specially facts about various subjects that those in power have been sweeping into their shadow.       
  Now we have come to the media's place in this "best of all modern worlds", that is the order of bourgeois democracy.       
The theme of this conference is in fact: Power and Media.      
  First, however, I shall return briefly to our main question.      
  What does the Eiffel Tower mean?      

As the cross symbolizes Christianity, the Eiffel Tower became the Holy symbol of capitalism.       
The thought struck me as I sat there in the living room and  watched this human Eiffel Tower on the screen.       
  It was no longer President Bush, but some news-man or announcer with the same unikeyed, unisex,  uniform, universal style.       
  This is the style of power, thought I.       
  Of course!       
  The Eiffel Tower, in and of itself, signifies nothing; it just looms there, saying:       
   - I am the Eiffel Tower!      

And this is just what makes the tower the initial theme of modernism. This is exactly what has made the self-contained world of modernism the dominant style of bourgeois democracy.       
  Monsieur Eiffel built his sky-high tower in 1887-1888 because it had to be ready for the centennial of the Revolution bourgeois, in 1889. And he accomplished to cast the fundamental paradox of  democracy in steel.       
  The sky-high towering monument in and of itself expresses nothing except its form. But thus it presented the world with a totally new sensation, collective narcissism, which is cool, powerful, impersonal, and  which refers to the soul of the masses, rather than the human soul  of the individual.       
  This is like a character without personality.       
  This is the democratic dream cast in steel: power without power  holders.      

And there I sit in my living room watching television news in the style of the future, and the celebrated modern poem by Gertrude Stein:          
 - A  rose is a rose is a rose is a rose is a rose ... starts to churn in  my old mind and naturally becomes:       
   - The Eiffel Tower is the Eiffel Tower is the Eiffel Tower is the Eiffel Tower.      

Since the Eiffel Tower was built, modernism has created numerous great monuments, but its confinement to collective narcissism is akin to power and censorship.      
  This is reflected in the advertising industry which is the heir of modernism and master of the media.       
  In an entirely different context, I have had opportunity to observe a radical change in the Union of Journalists' attitude towards  Freedom of the Press.       
  The Union no longer fights, as it once did, against the State's actions against freedom of the written word.       
  Quite the contrary.      

Nowadays our journalists stand steadfast in the State's shadow  and support the cause of darkness.       
  At the time this was a little difficult to swallow.       
  Until it dawned on me that this was due not to peronal reasons, but to fundamental changes in the very nature of the media.       
  The media under the control of the advertising industry have changed their employees' interests.       
  Human Eiffel Towers of power are also among media people. More and more of them now climb up through television and radio to high positions and power over our environment.       
  One such human Eiffel Tower is the Minister of the Environment, a former television reporter, whom we just a moment ago listened to giving his speech. And later in the week conference guests are invited to attend a reception by the Mayor of Reykjavík who is  a former Director of The National Broadcasting Service.       
  The media of today are dependent on the powers that be. Here in  the modern "best of all possible worlds", they are, thank God, not  governed by sadism of the power holders as under Communism, but by the department of collective narcissism.            
  This is a difference over which we shall rejoice. Because reality is relentless and most certainly will have its way.       
  If the odds prevail. 

Da  jeg i årene 1955 og 1956 boede ned i Paris, Saint- Germain-des- Prés, kunne jeg hver morgen udaf mit lille  tagvindue observere det mærkværdinge Eiffeltårn, som blev  bygget til hundredårsfesten af  den borgerlig-demokratiske  revolution.     
  Tårnet siges at være den förste modernistiske bygning i verden,  d.v.s. modernismens optakt, derfor syntes jeg at det var uhyre   vigtigt for en ung kunstner at forstå dets mening.    
  Hvad er det som Monsieur Eiffels lykktræf fra 1889 udtrykker?    
  Eller helt simpelt og ligeud:   Hvad betyder Eiffeltårnet?    

Det virker næsten patetisk at tænke tilbage til den unge ludfattige  arbejderindesön som i hövdingetraditionens navn er kommet ned til storbyen Paris for at sidde der på en pakkasse ved sit tagvindue  i årelang håblös grubleri over  Eiffeltårnets mening.    
  Mit spörgsmål fik nemlig ikke noget svar dengang.    
   Men 35 år senere lynede svaret ned over mig, hvor jeg sad  i min  sofa og holdt udkik til den store verden gennem fjernsynets lille skærm. Situationen var lidt særlig.    

Da "Operation Desetstorm" eller invasionen i Kuwait forberedtes nu i vinters fik vi her på Island en mere direkte kontakt med verdensnyhederne gennem satelliter.     
  Kulturministeriet anså tildragelserne i Mellemösten som historisk vigtige og vores fjernsyn fik lov at udsende direkte satelit-nyheder  på engelsk fra klokken 23 hver aften til kl. 09 om  morgenen.     
  De flotte internatioale news-teams fra SKY og CBS var pludselig  blevet natlige gæster i vores stuer.    
  De nye gæster forklarede mange ting, mest indirekte. Man så for exempel straks at de var forbilleder til vores indenlandske  fjernsynsspeakere og speaköser. Således forklaredes det hvordan  islandsk fjernsynspersonale havde tilegnet sig den nasale udtalelse  af sproget. Indtil året 1987 blev islandsk nemlig udtalt gennem  munden, men efter den tid hörer man i visse kredser en fremmedartet tendens til at udtale vores sprog gennem næsen.     
  Det stammer fra fjernsynspersonalens unisone unisexede unifome universale stil.   
  Her handler det således om stilens magt.     
  Man sidder altså i sin sofa og ser på et indslag med President Bush som ydrer sig om Sandstorm- operationens fremgang. Urokkelig og  selvsikker som Eiffeltårnet sidder President Bush foran kameraet og kundgör: Jeg garanterer at det ikke bliver til et andet Viet-Nam. I can promise you: this is not going to be another Viet-Nam.    
  Presidenten ser stadigvæk ud som et menneskeligt Eiffeltårn og mit 35-årige spörgsmål dukker op igen.    
  Hvad betyder altså Eiffeltårnet?     
  Det skal jeg komme tilbage til. Imidlertid lidt om magtens stil.    

Under Viet-Namkrigen og Watergate-sagen overtog  medierne jo magten i sandhedens navn. Stilen var dengang hektisk, næsten  expressionistisk, voldsom. Men det varede ikke længe.     
  Nu har magten igen overtaget medierne.     
  Den nye stil bygger på coole unisone unisexede uniforme  universale principper som nogen måske har givet et bedre navn, men jeg kalder her for  kollektiv narcissisme.   
 Den virker som en person uden personlighed.    
  Den har alverdens elegance uden charme.    
  Den har autoritet uden videre.    
  I de senere år har reklameindustrien personificeret og koncentreret dette paradoksale fænomen.    
  Medierne som er blevet ökonomisk afhængige af  reklameindustrien bliver nödt til at overtage denness stil.    
  Idag læser man igennem et helt tidskrift uden at mærke hvor interviewernes billedematriale slutter og reklamen tager over. Man ser på fjernsyn og har svært ved at skelne mellem sæbereklame og krigsreportage, eller skulle jeg måske sige sæbereportage og  krigsreklame.     
  SKY-programmerne og CBS-simultan emissionerne, som jeg i vinters så hver aften ca. 15 minutterden , virkede teknisk set som et vidunder,  men humant, menneskelig set var de et fiasko.    
  Det eneste jeg husker nu er Den voksende irritation som stammer fra fornæmmelsen af at være subjekt til sminke-og frisuravdelingernes experimenter i horror vacui forekommer som selvhævdelse uden kontakt med sit selv.    
   

Det er altså nyhedernes unisone unisexede uniforme universale stil  som giver president Bush magten til at kundgöre: I can promise you: this is not going to be another Viet-Nam!     
  Sandhedens hektiske tid synes at være forbi i verdens fjernsyn.    
  Kollektiv-narcissismen har taget over.  Og den har ingen plads for hverken Viet-Nam eller nogen som helst anden realitet.    
  Den representerer kun sin form.     
  Nu kommer jeg snart tilbage til Eiffeltårnets mening; men först nogle grundbetragtninger om magten.    

Magten kan man betragte i teoretisk, historisk eller politisk perspektiv hvis man vil komme bort fra det oprindelige menneskelige  faktum at magtens subjektive forudsætnig hedder narcissisme. Inden man beslutter sig til dominans over en anden person har man allerede bestemt:   
  - Jjeg er den bedste.    
  Magtens udövende kraft hedder sadisme.   
  Således er narcissisme, magt og sadisme tre forskellige faser af samme proces. Tre uadskillelige sider af samme sag.    
  Det læste vi allerede om i Kong Olaf den helliges saga og siden i Halldór Laxness "Kæmpeliv i Nord" som  begge to handler om kongemagtens  tilkomst.    
  Magtens narcisso-sadistiske gerning vækker individets  konsekvente isolationsskræk, som i sublimeret form kaldes for samvittighed. Derfor tog kongen eller kejseren sin magt fra den guddommelige Trinitet som jo også reflekterer narcissismens princip: Sönnen spejler sig í Den hellig ånd og ser Faderen. Således kommer religionen ind i magtbilledet. De monarkistiske traditioner smykker sig aldeles nödvendigt med religionens udflugter, men religionen indebærer naturligvis også mange faktorer som ofte er blevet hæmmende for en monarkitisk magtudövelse.    
  Men dog ikke altid.    

Så kom den borgerlig-demokratiske revolution 1789.    
  Selv om den aldrig helt realiserede sin ekstreme dröm om, at hænge den sidste adelsmand op i den sidste præsts tarme, så gjorde den efterhånden en ende på det kristelig-monarkistiske magtsystem  i Europa.   
  Det glæder vi os over den dag idag.     
  Proletariatets diktatur havde også brug for religion. Således Triniteten Marx, Engels, Lenin. Marxismen som oprindelig var en halv- videnskabelig halv-filosofisk samfundsanalyse blev snart til en tro.     
  I sin religiöse form kaldtes den for Marx-Leninisme og fungerede  forelöbigt til brugbare udflugter for magthavernes  samvittighedskriser og angst. Men kommunismens hårde censur som lå i den sadistiske fase af magtprocessen, blev systemets dödelige kim.    

Censuren er magtens skygge.    
  Desto stærkere magtsystemets religiös- ideologiske sol skinner desto skarpere bliver censuren.    
  Magtens tilböjelighed er altid den at skubbe ubekvemme realiteter og fakta indi skyggen.    
  Udtryksfrihedens praktiske side indebærer ikke kun forfatterens eller journalistens personlige rettigheder til sin sandhed men også borgernes rettighed til at höre alle sandheder for derigennem at få kontakt med hele virkeligheden, ikke mindst de realiteter som magten har placeret i sin skygge.    
  Nu er vi tilbage til mediernes situation i dagens "bedste af alle verdener", d.v.s. det borgerlig-demokratiske samfund.     
  Konferencens tema hedder jo magt og medier.    
  Men först må jeg kort behandle vores store spörgsmål.    
  Hvad betyder altså Eiffeltårnet?    

På samme vis som korset er kristendommens symbol så er Eiffeltårnet kapitalismens mystiske emblem, lynede det nedover mig hvor jeg sad  i min sofa og så på det menneskelige Eiffeltårn på skærmen.    
  Det var ikke længer president Bush, som sad der, men en eller anden reporter eller nyhedsspeaker i samme unisone unisexede uniforme universale stil.    
  Her handler det således om magtens stil, tænkte jeg.    
  Naturligvis!    
  Eiffeltårnet udtrykker i og for sig ingenting, det bare står der og siger:     
  - Jeg er Eiffeltårnet!    

Netop således er det blevet til modernismens  optakt.    
  Netop således er modernismens lukkede verden  efterhånden blevet den borgerlig-demokratiske samfunds dominerende stil.    
  Monsieur Eiffel byggede sit himml ragende tårn i årene 1887-888 for  det skulle være færdigt til hundredårfesten af den borgerlig-demokratiske revolution 1889. Det er akkurat lykkedes ham at forme demokratiets grundmodsigelser i stål.     
  Det himmelragende tårn udtrykker ingenting udover sin form, det præsenterer til verden en helt ny fölelse, den magtfulde kolde upersonlige kollektiv-narcissisme som kimer af selvophævdelse uden kontakt med noget selv.    
  Det er som en person uden  personlighed.  
  Det er demokratiets store dröm om magt uden magthaver.    

Jeg sidder altså i min sofa og ser på fjernsynsnyheder i futuristisk  stil mens Gertud Steins berömte modernistiske digt:     
- A rose is a rose is a rose is the rose is a rose ... forvandler sig i mit gamle hoved til det mer konsekvente:    
  - Eiffeltårnet er Eiffeltårnet er Eiffeltårnet er Eiffeltårnet er  Eiffeltårnet  ...    

Helt fra sin eiffeltårnske begyndelse har modernismen skabt utallige mægtige ting men dens selvcentrede lukkede verden er trods alt af magtens slægt.    
  Det viser sig i reklameindustrien som er modernismens unge efterkommer og mediernes nye hersker.  
  I en anden sammenhang har jeg haft lejlighed at observere en diagonal forandring i journalisternes fagforenings stilling til udtryksfrihed eller censur. Foreningen kæmper ikke længere, som för i tiden,  mod statmagtens begrensninger af udtryksfriheden.    
  Tværtimod.  

Dagens journalistforening står urokkelig i magtens skygge og stötter  mörkets principper.    
  Det har man i begyndelsen svært ved at begribe.    
  Indtil man realiserer at det  ikke beror på nogen personlig basis. Det er mediernes natur som har forandret sig.    
  Den reklamebestyrede mediemaskine har forandret mediepersonalets stilling.    
  Magtens menneskelige Eiffeltårne finder vi også blandt mediepersonalet. Og flere og flere kommer nu op gennem fjernsyn og radio til höje stillinger og magt over vores miljö.    
  Vi har lige hört et sådant menneskeligt Eiffeltårn, vores  Miliöminister som för i tiden arbejdede som tv- reportör hos Rúv, og senere denne uge bliver I til  gæst hos vores nye borgmester, den forhenværende radiocheff.    
  Medierne kommer i våres tid mere og mere under magtprocessens kontrol.    
  I "den bedste af alle dagens verender" kommer de gudskelov ikke under magtens sadistiske fase, som kommunismen plejede at behandle dem, de kommer under magtens kollektiv-narcissistiske fase.    
  Det er en forskel som vi kan glæde os over. For den smidige påtrængende realitet finder sikkert en anden udvej.    
  Som sædvanligt.

Löngu seinna grípurðu kannski sögustautinn þinn og málar á léreftið myndir sem enginn veit hvort heldur eru af landinu í skini sálargaldurs eða manneskjunni sjálfri.          
  Sem vonlegt er.           
  Sálin og myndin eru af sama kyni. 

Recently a problem that for several years had been bothering - if not obsessing  -  my mind, all of a sudden came into the spotlight of the press. A  journalist of your own very progressive party- newspaper - Tíminn - had a difficult experience and returned with some injuries from the jungle of the  Reykjavík night-life.  

Often the perils of the jungle and other alien regions can help usvisualize the hardships that missionaries have had to endure. This was the case with Stanley and Livingstone, even if they were  rather preaching Gods own Kingdom than the idea of the cooperative Utopia.     
  In our case one of your political missionaries, journalist Skafti  Jónsson, met hardship in the jungle of the night and his facial  injuries have clearly been exposed in four-colomn pictures in the  press. Of course we are scandalized when we see this. We do   not like to realize how our policemen have treated the handsome face of this journalist who tells us that he innocently was looking for his overcoat when the uniformed beasts of the aforementioned  jungle  attacked him.     
  In my mind mr. Jónsson's case is of little importance. But as it   has cought much attention and been widely discussed, I would like to use the opportunity to point out to you that the real problem is in fact bigger and much more horrifying. The case of mr. Jónssons is but a top of an iceberg that news-people have brought to our  attention. Beneath, in the dark sea of silence lurks a problem nine times bigger.     
  That is the part I should like to make you aware of, because you  are Minister of Justice and thus in command of those uniformed  beasts that creep around, silently or not, in the jungle of our nightly jollification.  

I am certainly not underestimating the hardships and pains that this young man unnecessarily has had to endure. But on the   other hand mr. Jónsson obviously is going to recover. The blue  spots on his  face will turn violet and then brown. In due time they  finally will disappeare. Mr. Jónsson shall return to his job at your  newspaper and his case will be forgotten under the snow of future  daily scandals that incessantly will be comming down.  Unless we use this opportunity to study the real problem.    
  Several years ago I had to spend some weeks at the Surgery  Department of our Communal Hospital. In a room of the same  corridor a boy of twenty was lying in his bed. A promising and a  charming young person. But his paralized condition on the other  hand did not allow him to move any part of his body, except the eyes. He was able to read with the    aid of special machinery and a helping hand who would turn the pages for him.     
  I was told that his hopes for recovery were minimal.     
  That boy's room-mates told me that his injuries had been caused by bouncers of a restaurant and some policemen. I refrained from believing this instantly so I inquired among the hospital staff and;  

- Yes, right they were: there we had a vicitim of the Reykjavík night-squad.     
  The picture of this paralized youngster somehow followed me out of the hospital and I couldn't help talking about his case. Then I found out that most people knew various stories of persons who had a similar or even worse experience from the uniformed beasts. Individuals had been brought back to the  intellectual capacity of a newborn child as a result of choke- holds that policemen and bouncers learn and use with brutal spontanity instead of handling people with prudence and care. Such stories are abundant and you can hardly treat them as simple lies any more. 

Another thing that goes with those stories as unevitably as brutality follows stupidity is the statement that suing a policeman in such a case would be hopeless. The investigation would take place at another department of the same police and  be carried out   by a troop of persons who see their duty in washing any policeman clean of all accusations.    
  Therefore the vicitims of our police brutality rest in agony and  many years can pass without an opportunity to discuss their  problems reasonably.     
Now there might be one of those rare occasions.    
  That  is the reason for this letter of mine.     
  I have little doubt that there is something essentially wrong in a system where the rersons in charge seem to disregard all justice and misinterprete their duties by allowing brutes and sadists to  practice their perverted mentality - no matter who is the vicitim.   
  In my opinion the Reykjavík chief of police shows a stubborn  attitude by refusing to release the accused policemen from their duties while the "Jónson- case" is being investigated. And he   seems to loose little of his selfconfidence, even in a case where he is facing one of your own partisans.     
  But we shall see.   

Even if mr. Jónsson wins his case this will be an exception and shall change nothing. Other vicitims of this brutality would continue to pile up in silence as before.     
  My opinion is that the real problem lies with a system where one policeman investigates another policeman's violations of correct professional conduct. This opinion I share with other much more competent persons - who bviously hesitate to pronounce their opinion on his matter fearing the revenge and beatings that might follow.     
  The matter is all that serious.     
  Two of your predecessors in office have rceived letters from me regarding these problems. Neither of them had the courtesy to answer.     
  Recently I have had the opportunity to observe pictures of you in the press and I have noticed their fair expression of distinct honor.     
  This indeed is the very kind of facial expression that anytime could easily penetrate into your character even if it originally had only been ment for the photographer.     
  Therefore I am writing to you as well.     
  And proposing my idea for the third time:   

Please remove all cases of policebrutality from this automatic and hopeless washingmashine where they have been treated. As long as policemen are allowed to clean up one anothers filth you will never have a possibility to even consider most urgent things like character-tests that policemen should pass before they are thought fatal tricks to exersize on people, or their very own responsability in cases where they temporarily have lost the control of their furiousness - all of which is the condition for a competent police- force worthy of the power given to them.     
  But how can we get rid of the old system?     
You have to form a committee of trustworthy people to investigate the rumors, gradually becomming public opinion, that brutality is growing within the Reykjavík police-force and being unfairly protected. Such a committee could ad- vertize for vicitims of police-brutality and gather their testimonies for eventual verification. Hopefully the committee might find out that a tiny minority of policemen are responsible. Those individuals should be advised to look for other jobs.    
  I assume that our police-problem could be compared with the so-called  "Youth- problem" in the sense that comparatively few individuals are responsible for this negative public opinion.    
  And those individuals would not exactly be the typical nor the most inteligent ones of either group.     
  I have seen our policemen perform many a good deed and some of the very fine people I know are policemen.    
  We can not do without them. 

But I owe it to the young man I met at the Communal Hospital to gather my courage and forward this proposal: let us do a cleaning so that the adventurers who choose to risk their skin in the jungle of the Reykjavík nightlife in the future can at least be assured that a policeman in uniform is not among the perils of this jungle.     
  The other beasts will certainly do.     
  In court you sometimes forward a secondary claim in case that your main demand will not be accepted. Should you, minister Helgason, fail to have this neutral investigation realized I call upon journalists ( Skafti Jónsson for ex. ) to start this investigation and publish the results in a book that very probably would become a bestseller.   
  I would at any time be prepared to participate in this job.     

Yours sincerly with respect,     

Thorgeir Thorgeirson 
 

Um þessar mundir fellur skært ljós fjölmiðla á vandamál sem  mér  hefur verið hugleik ið,ef svo vægilega má til orða taka,  nokkur undanfarin ár. Blaðamaður við málgagn ykkar  framsóknarmanna - Tímann - hefur lent í mannraunum og orðið sár í frumskógi hins reykvíska næturlífs.  

En það er með ógnir þess frumskógar eins og hrellingar annara myrkviða að þá helst gera menn sér grein fyrir háska þeirra ef  trúboðar lenda þar í hrakningum. Má nefna þá Stanley og  Livingstone til áréttingar því. Þeir boðuðu  að vísu ekki samvinnustefnu heldur Guðsríki.  
  Nú hefur semsé einn af trúboðum framsóknarstefnunnar,  Skafti  blaðamaður, lent í hrakningum í næturlífinu,fengið  nokkra áverka sem vel ágreina á fjórdálka andlitsmyndum  hans í blöðunum. Og  vitaskuld sitjum við hneyksluð og horfum á  þessar myndir. Okkur líkar ekki að sjá hvernig löggæslumenn hafa leikið þennan  bráðmyndarlega pilt að ósekju,enda segist hann bara hafa verið að  leita að frakkanum sínum í fatahengi þegar einkennisklædd villidýr  fyrrnefnds myrkviðar réðust að honum.  
  Í mínum huga er mál Skafta bara  smámál  en hefur af fyrr greindum orsökum fengið verulega umfjöllun og athygli svo mér þykir rétt að nota tækifærið og benda þér á það, að vandamálið alt er miklu stærra, víðtækara og ógnvænlegra.  
Mál  Skafta er svo sem  eins og toppurinn á ísjakanum sem við höfum komið auga á þegar kastljósi blaðanna er beint að þessu. Niðri í  koldimmum þagnarsjónum bíður hins vegar nífalt stærri hluti þessa  máls.  
  Um  þann  hluta  langar mig að ræða við þig úr því þú ert nú  dómsmálaráðherra og þar með yfirmaður þeirra einkennisklæddu  villidýra  sem læðast -  ekki mjög þófamjúkum frumskóga næturlífsins hér um slóðir.  

Nú vil ég engan veginn fara að gera lítið úr raunum þessa pilts né þeim sársauka sem hann ófyrirsynju varð að þola. Hinu er þó ekki að leyna að Skafti mun ná sér. Marblettirnir á honum verða smám saman fjólubláir, síðan brúnir og hverfa að lokum. Hann snýr til vinnu sinnar á Tímanum og þetta atvik fennir von bráðar á kaf í orrahríð dagsins.  
  Nema við notum tækifærið tilað skoða nú í heild sinni hið  raunnverulega vandamál.  
  Fyrir nokkrum árum þurfti ég að dvelja fáeinar vikur á  handlækningadeild Borgarspítalans. Þar lá þá á sama gangi maður á  þrítugsaldri, hið gjörvilegasta ungmenni í alla staði.  
  Viðkunnanlegur piltur.  
  Ástandi hans var á hinn bóginn svo varið að hann gat varla hreyft nokkurn líkamspart,nema helst augun. Lesið gat hann   bók með  sérstökum útbúnaði væri einhver til að fletta blaðsíðunum fyrir hann.  
  Mér  skildist  að  batavon  hans væri harla lítil.  
  Stofufélagar þessa unga manns sögðu mér  að bæklun hans væri af völdum útkastara og lögreglu. Þessu vildi ég þá ekki  trúa alveg fyrirvaralaust og spurði því bæði lækna og sjúkralið að þessu.  

- Jú, rétt var það.  Þarna  var komið eitt eitt af fórnardýrum  löggæslunnar  í  næturlífi Reykjavíkur.  
  Myndin af þessum lemstraða pilti fylgdi mér svo einhvern vegin út   af spítalanum og  ég var þaðan af sítalandi um þetta fyrirbæri. Þá brá svo við að hvarvetna hitti ég fólk sem kunni sögur af mönnum sem  lent höfði  jafnilla  eða ver í þessum einkennisbúnu óargadýrum. Sumir höfðu jafnvel verið sendir aftur á vitsmunastig frumbernsku sinnar með kyrkingatökum sem lögreglumenn og útkastarar kunna  en fara ekki með af skynsamlegu viti heldur  fautaskap og hugsunarleysi. Sögur þessar eru svo gjörsamlega samhljóða og margar að það verður æ örðugra að vísa þeim frá sér einsog hverjum öðrum uppspuna.  

Annað er þaðsem fylgir þessum sögum eins og harðneskjan heimskunni. Það er sú fullyrðing að tilgangslaust sé með öllu að  hefja mál út af þvílíkum tilvikum. Þau fari bara í ransókn hjá annari lögregludeild þarsem sitji einvalalið og líti á það sem konunglega  skyldu sína að hvítþvo kollegana. Þess vegna liggja fórnardýr lögregluhrottanna úti í vonleysinu og  þurft getur að bíða árum saman eftir tækifæri tilað ræða málefni þeirra af nokkru viti.  
Nú er kanski eitt af þessum sjaldgæfu tækifærum. Því er ég einmitt að skrifa þér bréfið að tarna.  
  Mér sýnist harla augljóst að hér sé verulega pottur brotinn í sjálfu  því  kerfi  sem yfirmenn þess virðast hafa brenglaða réttlætisvitund og misnota aðstöðu sína  tilað  lofa hrottum og illmennum að þægja sínu  brenglaða tilfinningalífi - og virðist þá  einu gilda hver fyrir  verður.  
  Mér sýnist lögreglustjórinn í Reykjavík meir að segja þónokkuð  borubrattur þegar hann nú neitar að  víkja  barsmíðamönnum  sínum  úr starfi meðan á ransókn Skaftamálsins stendur. Virðist harla öruggur með sig þó skjólstæðingur framsóknar eigi í hlut.  
  Við sjáum hvað setur.  

Jafnvel þó Skafti fengi sitt fram væri  það undantekning sem engu  breytir og fórnardýr þessa hrottaskapar mundu halda áfram að  hrannast upp. Og þögnin umlykja þau framvegis sem hingaðtil.  
  Mér sýnist  þetta  alvarlega mein liggja í sjálfu því  kerfi að lögreglumenn skuli ransaka það hvort aðrir lögreglumenn hafi orðið offari í starfi sínu. Og þetta er líka álit margra annara mér hæfari manna - enda þótt enginn þeirra áræði að kveða uppúr með skoðun sína. Af hræðslu við barsmíð og aðrar hefndir.  
  Svona er málið alvarlegt.  
  Tveim forvera þinna í stöðu dómsmálaráðherra skrifaði ég um þessi mál. Hvorugur þeirra hafði kurteisi tilað svara bréf- um mínum,hvað þá annað.  
  Undanfarna daga hef ég verið að skoða myndir af þér í blöðunum og mér sýnist á þér svo heiðríkur og drengilegur  svipur með þvílíkri festu að ég  hef um  það vísa von að slíkum svip gæti hæglega slegið inní sálina. Jafnvel þó hann væri upphaflega bara hugsaður fyrir ljósmyndarann.  
  Þessvegna reyni ég að skrifa þér líka. Tillaga mín til þín er sú sama og ég hefi áður borið fram:  

Taktu þessi barsmíðamál  lögreglunnar út úr þeirri sjálfvirku kattarþvottavél sem  þau nú eru í. Meðan lögreglumenn fá hver öðrum að þvo í þessum skilningi verður aldrei hugað að því sem máli skiptir: að greindarprófa þessa menn og reyna karakter þeirra áðuren farið er að kenna þeim lífshættuleg fantabrögð,að láta þá svara til saka fyrir stundaræði sitt ef þá henda mistök,að gera lögregluna að hæfu liði sem óhætt væri að fela það vald sem þessir menn lögum samkvæmt hafa.  
  En hvaða leið er þá útúr kerfi þessu?  
  Skipa verður óháða nefnd valmenna til að kanna  það í botn hver fótur er fyrir því almenningsáliti sem óneitanlega er staðreynd,að hrottaskapur Reykjavíkurlögreglunnar færist óðum í vöxt og sé verndaður með óeðlilegum hætti. Þessi nefnd gæti auglýst eftir fórnardýrum lögreglunnar, safnað frásögnum þeirra og sannprófað þær í fjölmörgum tilvikum. Komist þannig að niðurstöðu um það hvort hér sé ekki um að ræða tiltölulega fáa einstaklinga sem þá mætti ráðleggja að fá sér annan starfa.  
  Ég hef það á tilfinningunni að lögregluvandamálið sé nokkuð svipað því margumrædda unglingavandamáli að því leytinu til að það eru tiltölulega fáir einstaklingar sem koma óorði þessu á lögregluna alla.  
  Og þá ekki þeir greindustu né bestu.  
  Margt gott hefi ég séð til lögreglunnar hér í bæ og margan fyrirmyndarmanninn hef ég þar fyrir hitt.  
   Án þeirra getum við ekki verið.  

En mér finst ég skulda piltinum unga  þarna á Borgarspítalanum forðum það að herða mig nú upp í þessa tillögugerð: Að reynt verði að hreinsa til svo það  ævintýrafólk sem leggur út í myrkviði næturlífsins hér í Reykjavík sé minsta kosti nokkurnveginn óhult fyrir lögreglunni.  
  Nóg er samt um önnur villidýr.  
  Fyrir dómi er stundum sett fram varakrafa til að fylgja eftir ef meginkrafan ekki næst fram. Sinnir  þú, Jón  Helgason, ekki þeirri kröfu að láta ransaka fyrrgreind mál skora ég á einhvern dugandi blaðamann (t.d. Skafta) að setjast við þessa ransókn og birta hana í bók sem vafalaust mundi renna út eins og heitar lummur.  
  Sjálfur væri ég reiðubúinn að taka þátt í slíku starfi hvenær sem er.  

Með vinsemd og virðingu,   

A statement on police-captain Einar Bjarnason's behavior in a television program on the evening of last December 13th.  ( publ. in Morgunblaðið 20.12.1983 )

      Thorgeir Thorgeirson     

Ps: Of course I am not going to sue captain Bjarnason for violating the law on radiobroadcasting. He needs to be clean of all  guilt otherwise he might lose his job. And my belief is that  policemen only profit in character by the experience of minor  criminal acts as long as their sins are executed in public and not  behind the curtains.       
  A direct TV-emission might exactly be a convenient place.       
  Old folks used to say: The best future awaits the best man.  

Þorgeir Þorgeirson  

PS: Auðvitað fer ég ekki að kæra Einar Bjarnason fyrir brot á útvarpslögunum. Því miður er það víst svo að lögreglumenn þurfa   að hafa hreint sakavottorð. Ég trúi því á hinn bóginn að menn  verði  betri lögregluþjónar af  því að lenda sjálfir í smávægilegum lögbrotum  -   ef þau gerast ekki bak við tjöldin. 
  Afbrotum í sjónvarpsal til að mynda. Og batnandi er manni best að lifa.