Leftist youth groups conduct street battles with police in Copenhagen

[Arrian]

Originally posted by Kidicious


Actually this is exactly what they are fighting for, and the Fundies are fighting to prevent that. This has NOTHING to do with rent.

Except that "being who they are" apparently means getting stuff for free from the government.

I'll have to dig up the post, but I quoted the youth group's own online version of events, where they specifically stated that the whole conflict was about the "right" to the building for free in perpetuity.

-Arrian

[Arrian]

Originally posted by Kidicious


I seem to remember you saying that it didn't matter what the Fundies were doing. Now you say that you don't like it? The way it appears to me is that you really don't like the Fundies, but as long as they are attacking the left you will ignore it or say it doesn't matter.

No, that's not what I'm saying, or what I said.

What I said was that the identity of the buyer didn't really matter - it happened to be a bunch of religious loons, but it could've been a developer who wanted to turn the place (back) into a theatre. Either way, the youth group would've been evicted.

-Arrian

[Flubber]

Originally posted by Kidicious

Hell, I'll admit that I'm prejudice. I hate Fundies and I have a tendency to support the Left too quickly.

Well duh. You are one of the most biased people on here . . thats not a newsflash

Originally posted by Kidicious

I don't get defensive about it though, because I need people to tell me when I'm full of **** and people who tend to agree with me don't do that.

Everyone needs that. A bunch of "yes-men" do not serve to expand your views

[Flubber]

Originally posted by Kidicious


Actually this is exactly what they are fighting for, and the Fundies are fighting to prevent that. This has NOTHING to do with rent.

Then why did they reject having a building purchased for them. Did you read the activist sourced materials?

Oh and I have very little interest in the Fundies motivations. Those folks scare me but as long as they act lawfully . .. I would leave them alone.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Arrian


Except that "being who they are" apparently means getting stuff for free from the government.

Yes, but a lot of people get free things from the govt or get tax credits etc.. Why can't they have a damn house that they have been in for 17 years when they really can't afford the rent? Is that so damn bad? I'll tell you what though if they would have been able to buy the place from the buyers that it wouldn't have ended up like this. So it isn't just about getting something for free, it's about the people who bought it.

[Flubber]

Originally posted by Arrian


Except that "being who they are" apparently means getting stuff for free from the government.

I'll have to dig up the post, but I quoted the youth group's own online version of events, where they specifically stated that the whole conflict was about the "right" to the building for free in perpetuity.

-Arrian

Exactly-- Their demand was a free building forever

[Arrian]

Ok, IN THEIR OWN WORDS:

Update on the Struggle of Ungdomshuset (Youth House) in Copenhagen, Denmark
Thursday, February 22 2007 @ 01:56 PM PST
Contributed by: Anonymous
Views: 621

While representatives of Ungdomshuset met with the head mayor of Copenhagen French activists occupied the Danish consulate in Lyon. Also Berlin and Moscow activists have carried through support actions within the last week.

A meeting in Copenhagen and actions in France, Germany and Russia
from http://ungdomshuset.dk

While representatives of Ungdomshuset met with the head mayor of Copenhagen French activists occupied the Danish consulate in Lyon. Also Berlin and Moscow activists have carried through support actions within the last week.

At a meeting at city hall today people from the house met with politicians of the Social Democratic Party to re-present the four demands from the house. Stating that a new house has to be in our local area, has to be as big or bigger than Ungdomshuset, has to be self governed and has to be given to us.

The politicians still refuse to give us a house despite the fact that they have sold the one we have today. So the meeting did not lead to a solution to the ongoing conflict. But the politicians and the foundation supporting us will look at one more unexplored option. Still nobody is getting there hopes up. Never trust a politician.

While the meeting was being held at city hall the local government got a fax from France stating that the Danish consulate was occupied in solidarity with Ungdomshuset. 15 had made there way into the consulate and 50 others handed out leaflets on the street.

Just a week ago activist in Berlin demonstrated in front of the Danish embassy and handed over a letter of support to the Danish delegates.

The day after the action in Germany activist in Moscow did street theater at the Danish embassy there.

Read more about the action in Berlin, Germany

http://indymedia.dk/article/854

See the video from the action in Moscow

http://indyvideo.ru/video/2006/20061216_daniya.wmv

20. februar 2007
------------------

To all friends of Ungdomshuset
Ungdomshuset has said no to buying another house but has left a door open for the politicians. We will not pay to solve a problem they have created. If they want us to move they can try offering us a house for free, But since they are not willing to do so we expect an eviction soon.

The present situation of the house is as follows: The mayor of Copenhagen, Ritt Bjerregaard, has last week put up a ridiculous 'solution' to the conflict. She has suggested that the foundation 'Jagtvej 69', which was originally established by supporters of the house to attempt to buy back the Ungdomshuset, should just buy another house for us who use the house.

We have answered: 'NO ****ing way!' and and have explained this answer by saying that there�s no way that the city council can escape the trouble they themselves have started by offering to sell us a house. Secondly, more importantly, the existence of self governed free spaces must never depend on having enough money to buy them.

Ungdomshuset has put out one simple re-demand to the mayor: If she presents a house (of same or larger size, with the same facilities as the present one) under the exact same terms as those under which Ungdomshuset was given to the squatter movement in 1982, then we'll talk to her, not before. The '82 terms were simple: An unbreakable contract from the city, giving the usage of the house to the squatters for free, forever.

As we write this, rumors of an upcoming eviction attempt are swirling. Some are no doubt born from stirred up paranoia, but some are not. What we know is this: A large number of cops have been called from other cities to Copenhagen, and they are preparing a larger action. This could very well be a sign that eviction is near at hand. We hope that our comrades far and wide will be ready to react when the time comes. If you have the possibility to go to Copenhagen in the days before and following an eviction, there will be arranged sleeping places and accommodation around the city.

It's a time for action and no matter what happens; Ungdomshuset will not go quietly into the night.

See you on the barricades!

Ungdomshuset February 9th 2007

9. februar 2007

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Arrian


No, that's not what I'm saying, or what I said.

What I said was that the identity of the buyer didn't really matter - it happened to be a bunch of religious loons, but it could've been a developer who wanted to turn the place (back) into a theatre. Either way, the youth group would've been evicted.

-Arrian

Well that's just not true.

[Arrian]

Originally posted by Kidicious

Yes, but a lot of people get free things from the govt or get tax credits etc.. Why can't they have a damn house that they have been in for 17 years when they really can't afford the rent? Is that so damn bad? I'll tell you what though if they would have been able to buy the place from the buyers that it wouldn't have ended up like this. So it isn't just about getting something for free, it's about the people who bought it.

They ended up with a bunch of money that was donated by people sympathetic to them. It was too late to buy the house they were in, but they also specifically (and vehemently) rejected the idea of using that money to purchase a new house.

-Arrian

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Flubber


Then why did they reject having a building purchased for them.

Of course it is because they wanted THAT building.

[Arrian]

Originally posted by Kidicious


Well that's just not true.

What isn't true? That had the buyer been a private developer the youth group wouldn't have been evicted? Of course they would've been! The developer would be wanted to, um, develop the building and then use it!

-Arrian

[Flubber]

Originally posted by Kidicious

Yes, but a lot of people get free things from the govt or get tax credits etc..

So you would support riots to protest the end of a tax credit?

Originally posted by Kidicious

I'll tell you what though if they would have been able to buy the place from the buyers that it wouldn't have ended up like this.

Obviously . . . and if the group had accepted a new building it would have ended differently as well.

Originally posted by Kidicious

So it isn't just about getting something for free, it's about the people who bought it.

There you go blaming the buyers again. The bought something from the people that owned it. What SHOCKING behavior!!!

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Arrian


They ended up with a bunch of money that was donated by people sympathetic to them. It was too late to buy the house they were in, but they also specifically (and vehemently) rejected the idea of using that money to purchase a new house.

-Arrian

Why is this important?

[Flubber]

Originally posted by Kidicious


Of course it is because they wanted THAT building.

Or any other FREE building-- read the activist blog. they wanted an aknowledgement of their right to a free building of same or larger size in the same area in perpetuity

[Arrian]

It's a response to this:

This has NOTHING to do with rent.

But it does, you see. Their argument is that they have some sort of right to a free (and "self-governed") building provided in perpetuity by the city. This means no rent.

-Arrian