Leftist youth groups conduct street battles with police in Copenhagen

[Arrian]

I'm not getting this "right of usage" concept.

Their intentions are clear. Faderhuset are cynical speculators in quest for money.

Even they think it's just redevelopment, not spite. Of course, redevelopment is done for money, and seeking profit is eevil...

The politicians sold our political and cultural centre to a right-winged Christian sect. The politicians are to blame, the legal system is not an option and the police are coming.
We have to no choice! We must defend what we have spent 24 years creating!

Buwahahahahaha!

Yes, the politicians sold your house. You probably could've bought it via a fundraising drive but apparently didn't think that was necessary, as you assumed you had "right of usage" and thus would be able to continue using the building even after the sale. Then, when the new owners wanted to do something else with the building, you woke up.

Incidently, the legal system was an option but ruled against them. I don't know if the trial was fair to them, but suffice it to say I suspect it was.

The key here, is this agreement between the group and the city concerning their "right of usage." I don't get that - it sounds like a poor translation, or a legal concept that does not exist here. Can a Dane explain that further?

-Arrian

[Kidlicious]

Here is something in English

http://www.emoware.org/ungdomshuset.asp

Ruth Evensen held a "victory speech" for the congregation in Faderhuset on Sunday. A journalist from the magazine "Ingenioren" was present and describes the event from their blog. Ruth Evensen said, among other things, that the young people at Norrebro are possessed with demons, but that God was victories over Satan. The next thing to fight would be homosexuality, paedophilia, pornography, abortion and satanistic toys. Read more about it here (in danish): http://mrkab.com/2007/03/05/ruth-eve...un-begyndelsen

[Arrian]

Heh, gotta love Fundies.

By the way, I've no doubt the fundy group considers these activists their enemies. From what I could gleen from the activist propoganda, the fundy group purchased the house (via the use of a dummy corporation?) in 1999, but it took until 2006 to evict the activists. 7 years of conflict - yeah, that will generally make people hostile to one another.

-Arrian

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by AAHZ
kid,

this is activist propaganda. YOU know this.

And this is your propaganda.

[ZEE]

arrian is right. this is just a war between two "factions." one "faction" just happen to beat the other. no reason to riot and cause havok though. someone just got a little angry, and BOOM, the cops show up.

[Arrian]

The activist version of events has been posted. Good. The fundy group's version hasn't, but I suspect it's just as slanted, if not moreso (they do sound like good 'ole nutty fundies to me). What I'd like to hear is more from the authorities. Best would probably be a good english translation of the court ruling(s).

-Arrian

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Arrian
Yes, the politicians sold your house. You probably could've bought it via a fundraising drive but apparently didn't think that was necessary, as you assumed you had "right of usage" and thus would be able to continue using the building even after the sale. Then, when the new owners wanted to do something else with the building, you woke up.

You will notice that in their opinion the City Council did try to keep from selling to the Christian sect, but that the Christian sect got a hold of it anyway. Then the council couldn't buy it back.

[Flubber]

Originally posted by Kidicious


So you just support the law. Well people might get pretty pissed about this sort of thing. I don't think they are going to be able to pass laws or stop this in the court. They might demonstrate, maybe even riot. Hell I'll over throw the ****ing govt if I can. Do you understand now?

yes I do support our laws on this issue. I do not always completely support the ways that they are applied.

Lets change the scenario-- An owner closes a business that employs primarily ethnic minorities because it is losing money. Do you riot now?? Who gets to judge if the closure is offensive enough to riot and destroy property belonging to uninvolved parties?

[Arrian]

I did notice that. I wonder if the courts addressed that issue at all.

-Arrian

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Arrian
I did notice that. I wonder if the courts addressed that issue at all.

-Arrian

There is no legal issue.

[Flubber]

Do you know these people? I mean these particular people?

I don't . . . but I do know they had a rent free building for years and that riots ensued when they lost that

[BlackCat]

Originally posted by Arrian
I'm not getting this "right of usage" concept.

The key here, is this agreement between the group and the city concerning their "right of usage." I don't get that - it sounds like a poor translation, or a legal concept that does not exist here. Can a Dane explain that further?

-Arrian

Means that the council and some representatives for the youngsters has made an agreement that while the public owns the building, pays rent, electricity etc, the youngs can use the building as seems fit. Don't know the specifics, except one - this right of usage can be revoked with a three months warning - it's not a grant for eternity.

[Flubber]

Originally posted by Kidicious


I've got quite a lot in common with them. I live in a red state. I think I can relate bud.

Ah yes -- red state and Denmark-- EXACTLY the same

[ZEE]

Originally posted by Kidicious
There is no legal issue.

oh really? so its political? personal? please stop being vague. you have taken a stance here kid, but have not really defended ANY of your points so far.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Flubber
Who gets to judge if the closure is offensive enough to riot and destroy property belonging to uninvolved parties?

Some individuals destroyed personal property. The destruction of personal property was not intended by the group as a whole, I am sure. The intention is to fight back against this perceived oppression.

Suffice to say that this depends on whether the buyers of the building did this for economic or political reasons, and I think it's pretty clear that they were political. But can you agree that it matters whether or not the reasons are political or not?