Leftist youth groups conduct street battles with police in Copenhagen

[Flubber]

Originally posted by Kidicious


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?

So your position is that an act might be completely ok if done for one reason but offensive beyond belief if done for another reason?

I find it startling beyond belief that although you proclaim your love for diversity you don't acknowledge the right of these CHristian fundies to "be different". They are obviously a minority with very different views and why shouldn't they forward those views in any legal manner they see fit?

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Arrian
I wonder... if the church group had used violence against the activists for refusing to vacate their lawfully purchased property, would that have been ok? I say no, but maybe others see it differently...

-Arrian

Well they have the police for that.

[Arrian]

Oh and before the court case even started the Christians broke into the house and violently kicked the person in there out.

I must've missed that part. Can you point me to the recap of that event?

Incidently, can the owner of a building "break in" ? If I'm renting and my landlord comes in w/o my consent I guess it would be "breaking in" or somesuch... hmm.

-Arrian

[Arrian]

Originally posted by Kidicious


Well they have the police for that.

Right, we're back to if the police arrest someone, it's violence.

Of course, the police are bound by rules. Due process and such things (Denmark =! USA, but I have to assume it's fairly close). Apparently pissed off activists, on the other hand, can do whatever they please.

-Arrian

[Flubber]

Originally posted by Kidicious


The Council can not buy back the property from someone they didn't sell it to.

That actually depends. If the council had a buyback right that was properly drafted it can be binding on future purchasers of the property ( in canadian law at least). I don't see why this would be impossible in ANY legal system

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Flubber


That actually depends. If the council had a buyback right that was properly drafted it can be binding on future purchasers of the property ( in canadian law at least). I don't see why this would be impossible in ANY legal system

I don't think it was drafted that way. I don't know why the activists would claim that the council couldn't buy back.

[Arrian]

The activist version of events seems to suggest that the council couldn't use its buyback right because of the shennanigans of the church group using a dummy corp. to buy the house. That sounds odd. I'm not terribly familiar with buy-back clauses, though.

-Arrian

[Flubber]

Originally posted by Kidicious


So they fight back.

Really? they fight back . . . .

-- stupidly since they could not think they would win through violence

--stupidly since it alienates moderates that may tend to support them

-- stupidly since it causes damage to uninvolved people in what I understand is NOT a wealthy neighborhood.


Instead of having a noble cause, they look like petulant children that throw a tantrum when they don't get their way

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Arrian


Right, we're back to if the police arrest someone, it's violence.

It's not just if they arrest someone. It's what they arrest someone for.

[Flubber]

Originally posted by Arrian
I wonder... if the church group had used violence against the activists for refusing to vacate their lawfully purchased property, would that have been ok? I say no, but maybe others see it differently...

-Arrian

No-- the church group should NEVER use violence in that situation. It is the role of law enforcement to deal with lawbreakers.

[ZEE]

Originally posted by Kidicious
I don't think it was drafted that way. I don't know why the activists would claim that the council couldn't buy back.

it seems to me that you will believe anything these activists say. they might be no better than the fundys, kid, but the fundys didnt cause a riot either. thats the whole point of this thread. dissecting the legalities of the purchace of the property is silly. but go ahead if you so wish...

[Arrian]

Oh, so if they arrest someone and you agree with them it's not violence, but if they arrest someone and you agree with the "criminal" then it's violence.

-Arrian

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Flubber
Instead of having a noble cause, they look like petulant children that throw a tantrum when they don't get their way

I don't care what you think of their cause. I do know that you want to have a nice economic and political system where you can make money without any threats and conflict like this. So we fight you.

[Flubber]

Originally posted by Kidicious


Oh and before the court case even started the Christians broke into the house and violently kicked the person in there out.

THat would be wrong to me-- If there was an assault on a person


But the Christians could not "break into " a house that they own-- plus wasn't this a pretty free and open centre that people could just walk into. I don't have visions of locked doors

[Arrian]

I do know that you want to have a nice economic and political system where you can make money without any threats and conflict like this. So we fight you.

And people wonder why folks like Flubber and I prefer the police...

-Arrian