NationStates Jolt Archive

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070305/ap_on_re_eu/denmark_clashes
http://d.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/ap/20070303/capt.cop81103031359.denmark_clashes_cop811.jpg?x=380&y=253&sig=uvymHvPxgcIc2rh.n39o6w--
Crews tear down Copenhagen youth center

COPENHAGEN, Denmark - Demolition crews started tearing down a graffiti-sprayed brick building Monday, prompting tears and cries of protest from youths whose eviction from the makeshift cultural center led to three nights of rioting.

Workers wore face masks under their helmets to conceal their identities as an excavator tore into the so-called Youth House.

As dust from the demolition filled the air, angry youth yelled obscenities at police who had cordoned off the area around the building. Others hugged and cried.

Riot police kept a growing crowd away from the demolition site. Six people were arrested in the area for refusing to obey police orders, or trespassing, but no violence was reported.

"They are breaking my heart. I cannot stand it," said Birgitte, a black-clad 21-year-old woman with dreadlocks. She refused to give her last name, saying using one name was the norm among the people frequenting the building.

A police anti-terror squad evicted squatters from the building on Thursday, triggering three nights of clashes with youths that turned parts of the city into a battle zone.

More than 650 people, including scores of foreign activists, were arrested and at least 25 were injured as protesters hurled cobblestones at riot police and set fire to cars and trash bins in Copenhagen's worst riots in 14 years.

The Youth House served for years as a popular cultural center for anarchists, punk rockers and left-wing groups.(mwahaha, tools: 0, Denmark: 1) The squatters considered it free public housing, but courts ordered them out after the city sold the building to a Christian congregation.

Ruth Evensen, leader of the small congregation that bought the Youth House in 2001, said the four-story structure had to be torn down because it was "a total wreck" and posed a fire hazard.

"It would cost us a fortune to have it fixed," she said, declining to reveal the congregation's plans for the site.

Local left-wing lawmakers and a construction workers union tried to halt the demolition, citing health hazards caused by dust containing carcinogenic asbestos, but a demolition company representative denied there was any danger.

Environmental officials visited the site and gave the green light for the work to continue.

Those arrested in the riots included more than 140 protesters from Sweden, Norway, Germany and the United States, police said.

They said 189 people were remanded in custody, while 26 were released. Others were still awaiting court hearings.

A demonstration was planned Monday afternoon outside Copenhagen jail, where many of the alleged rioters were being held. Organizers encouraged participants to make noise by banging drums, playing loud music and blowing whistles in a show of support for those in jail.

The riots were Denmark's worst since May 1993, when police fired into a crowd of rioters protesting the outcome of a European Union referendum. Ten protesters were wounded.

What do you guys think of this?

Fuck 'em.
:rolleyes:Who, exactly? :rolleyes:

So... they wanted to live on private property for free? Alright... I'm sure they can make a convincing case.

Wait, no they can't.

:rolleyes:Who, exactly? :rolleyes:

I prefer women, myself. Cant speak for Eve though.

Fuck 'em.

The Youth House served for years as a popular cultural center for anarchists, punk rockers and left-wing groups.(mwahaha, tools: 0, Denmark: 1)

25 years free use of Ungdomshuset? 'Tools': 1 Denmark: 0

I hardly count a few punk rockers and anarchists as requiring an anti terror squad. What were they expecting? Suicide bongers?

Flying cobblestones, apparently.
Most likely they were just being prepared, better safe than sorry and all that.

I hardly count a few punk rockers and anarchists as requiring an anti terror squad. What were they expecting? Suicide bongers?

They had 2000 rioters on the streets back in December. Not just 'a few'.

I hardly count a few punk rockers and anarchists as requiring an anti terror squad. What were they expecting? Suicide bongers?

I think it is a non-issue. This sort of thing happens often in urban centers and has been happening since Catal Huyuk and will do so for as long as there are poor people.

The only vaguely interesting note was the subsequent riots, which is also not that surprising when you hit a nerve with an already marginalised and radicalised community. Face it, how many punks and anarchists have access to lawyers and politicians who would be capable of halting this sort of deal? None. So when people have no aceess to legal recourse to protect their homes, then they must rely on illegal ones.

I hardly count a few punk rockers and anarchists as requiring an anti terror squad. What were they expecting? Suicide bongers?

Nothing that couldn't be handled with Tasers and pepper spray.

Does Denmark have anything like squatters rights?

Fuck squatters.

Fuck landowners.

What do you guys think of this?
What the hell... It's only Denmark. This is accepted free speech, isn't it?

Fuck squatters.

As long as you wear protection.

Does Denmark have anything like squatters rights?

Fuck squatters.

Two groups had conflicting interests and the group better prepared to defend its interests was victorious.

Has this anything to do with the impending doom of Christiania?

Has this anything to do with the impending doom of Christiania?

Bleh...hope not...that'd be one of the few places in the world I really want to check out.

Bleh...hope not...that’d be one of the few places in the world I really want to check out.
My flatmate’s been twice now, and apparently the place has changed considerably in the last five or so years. The authorities are really clamping down hard.

Though she says it’s still worth a visit.

My flatmate’s been twice now, and apparently the place has changed considerably in the last five or so years. The authorities are really clamping down hard.

Though she says it’s still worth a visit.

Bleh.

Fascists. >.>

[URL
What do you guys think of this?

I think its healthy that for once you're gloating over a minorities misfortune for reasons other that their race or religon, though it does rather confirm my view that while some cheer for the underdog, others just get a massive hard-on for authoritarian brutality of any sort.

Fuck squatters.
*squats in Eve Online’s unused property*

Bwa-ha-ha-ha-ha! Now as long as he doesn’t notice me for eight years....

I fully support this Church group and the Danish government in their manuevers to remove these violent radicals from private property.

Those protestors are selfish brats who like to smash windows and need an excuse, nothing else. They can go drown themselves until they realize theres a damn reason for living in a society, if they don't like it, let them move out in the damn woods. Its so dumb that they think the govt. would give in because they try to hold the city hostage with violence and such they're anti-democrats and should move to North Korea where they will find likeminded people. Bleh, spoiled welps.

*squats in Eve Online’s unused property*

Bwa-ha-ha-ha-ha! Now as long as he doesn’t notice me for eight years....

Doesn't happen, ha ha.

Never had a problem with squatters, though. A lot of acreage and NO buildings, far from urban centers...

some history (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ungdomshuset)

some pictures (http://www.indymedia.dk/article/887)

I think its healthy that for once you're gloating over a minorities misfortune for reasons other that their race or religon, though it does rather confirm my view that while some cheer for the underdog, others just get a massive hard-on for authoritarian brutality of any sort.

Quoted for veracity.

re: squatters and the people who don't like em:

DUH. Squatters squat because they have nowhere to live. Find them somewhere to live and some help to pay for it, and they won't squat. And of course they're gonna get angry if you chuck em out. DUH again.

Bought by a Christian congreation - my arse. Christians are supposed to help others, not throw them out onto the street and destroy community/cultural centres. They're about as Christian as an aethiest

re: squatters and the people who don't like em:

DUH. Squatters squat because they have nowhere to live. Find them somewhere to live and some help to pay for it, and they won't squat.

unless the squat is political...

unless the squat is political...

yeh. but it wasn't.

Never had a problem with squatters, though. A lot of acreage and NO buildings, far from urban centers...
Are you posting from the middle of the woods?

Watch out for Heffalumps!

I think its healthy that for once you're gloating over a minorities misfortune for reasons other that their race or religon, though it does rather confirm my view that while some cheer for the underdog, others just get a massive hard-on for authoritarian brutality of any sort.Isn't that ever the truth. When I came to the bolded sentence while scanning the OP I had to read it twice because I couldn't believe it didn't contain the word Muslim. :rolleyes:

Isn't that ever the truth. When I came to the bolded sentence while scanning the OP I had to read it twice because it didn't contain the word Muslim. :rolleyes:

Pffft, muslims, lefties....what's the difference? ;)

Are you posting from the middle of the woods?

Watch out for Heffalumps!

No, I live in a house. Hard to squat in a building that is constantly occupied.

Difficult to squat on unimproved property, at least 50 miles from the nearest human habitation.

No, I live in a house. Hard to squat in a building that is constantly occupied.

Difficult to squat on unimproved property, at least 50 miles from the nearest human habitation.
Hmmm. Better set some Heffalump traps just in case.

Isn't that ever the truth. When I came to the bolded sentence while scanning the OP I had to read it twice because I couldn't believe it didn't contain the word Muslim. :rolleyes:
er what ,what this world caming too
Pffft, muslims, lefties....what's the difference? ;)
well one, oh wait no your right

I think its healthy that for once you're gloating over a minorities misfortune for reasons other that their race or religon, though it does rather confirm my view that while some cheer for the underdog, others just get a massive hard-on for authoritarian brutality of any sort.
Oh yeah...cuz supporting the governments securing of private property rights is just "authoritarian brutality"...:rolleyes:...though you're right about that massive hard-on. ;)
I fully support this Church group and the Danish government in their manuevers to remove these violent radicals from private property.
Thats actually exactly what I thinnk too.
Isn't that ever the truth. When I came to the bolded sentence while scanning the OP I had to read it twice because I couldn't believe it didn't contain the word Muslim. :rolleyes:
Meh...Mondays I'm on my anti-Islam break...plus establishing the unwavering backing of private property rights is just as important as the clash of cutures.:)
Pffft, muslims, lefties....what's the difference? ;)
They both smell a bit strange.;)

Hmm... my sympathy for the 'squatters' has diminished somewhat. Mainly because I don't see them as squatters, but tenants who have got behind on the rent.

For me to view squating as legitimate then a building must be left derelict for a substantial amount of time (thus in my view forfeiting their right to ownership of the property). Then if squatters move in and do something vaguely productive with the building then so be it - at least land in a crowded urban environment is actually being used.

However, the building was sold to the Copenhagen municipality, the tenants then got behind on their rent, refused to allow the local authorities to conduct renovation work on the building and continued to let the building fall into further disrepair until such a point where it is now considered unfit for human habitation.

It was subsequently sold to a Christian group who want to redevelop the site.

Hence, I'm believe that the Christian group has the right to the property. If the squatters had at least kept the site in good repair then I would have condemned the local authorities for selling the site. If they have kept up with the agreed rent then the squatters wouldn't be squatters at all and would be completely in the right.

why did they have to sell this house? wasn't there another one available? the danish governement could have expected stuff like this to happen.
and while i support the protest i don't like it that they use violence (against people).
i also wonder how this is reported in other parts of the world. it seems that this will be used to make all anarchists seem like children throwing with rocks oposing all laws and stuff.

the Christian group has the right to the property

man, christians are so much less cool than they were in the time of the apostles

yeh. but it wasn't.

really?

I totally support the riots in Copenhagen. When politicians sell out a youth house with an important historical value to a homophobic christian cult, it's enough reason to riot. When nobody want's to listen to the youths, they have to make their voices heard and if riots is what it takes, so be it. Unfortunatelly, Ungdomshuset is beeing tore down right now if they haven't already finished it, and I really hope that the youths will show their feelings on the streets for a long time in the future!

it seems that this will be used to make all anarchists seem like children throwing with rocks oposing all laws and stuff.Well if the shoe fits.....

Well if the shoe fits.....

:rolleyes:

why did they have to sell this house?Because the anarchist group seemed to be completely unreasonable. They resisted efforts by the local authorities to renovate the building after a fire and when large amounts of fungus rot was found. They then subsequently refused to pay any rent. The house needed to be redeveloped as it was becoming hazardous to those living nearby and in the house.

:rolleyes:
Si? Queres decir algo?

Si? Queres decir algo?

Eh?

Eh?

i think he wanted to know what you meant.

Because the anarchist group seemed to be completely unreasonable. They resisted efforts by the local authorities to renovate the building after a fire and when large amounts of fungus rot was found. They then subsequently refused to pay any rent. The house needed to be redeveloped as it was becoming hazardous to those living nearby and in the house.

hmmm and why didn't they want the building to be renovated?

i think he wanted to know what you meant.

I thought it was rather self explanatory, myself.

I thought it was rather self explanatory, myself.

yes it was, but i think he just want to understand you better, because he likes to learn about other views and cultures.

Obviously, the shoe DOES fit...as these are just a bunch of anarchist leftist "against the government" feel good punks.

So yeah, the shoe fits.

the problem is that people now think that all anarchists are like this.

Eh?
Obviously, the shoe DOES fit...as these are just a bunch of anarchist leftist "against the government" feel good punks.

So yeah, the shoe fits.

the problem is that people now think that all anarchists are like this.
Well, most are. Of course there are some that are anarchist libertarians in the sense that they want a free capitalist enviornment where the government stays out of peoples lives socially, for the most part...but even though ,its mostly just extreme "anti government feel goodness"...and regular Libertarianism is a much more workable likeable concept.

Most anarchists, espeacially the economically left wing types...are just anti-establishment idiots that have a bad place in the world and want to bring everyone else down to their level.

In my opinion.

Most anarchists, espeacially the economically left wing types...are just anti-establishment idiots that have a bad place in the world and want to bring everyone else down to their level.

In my opinion.

Unlike the "might is right especially my brand of might" brigade, who are content to bludgeon everyone and everything that doesn't meet with their approval into a coma and beyond. They want their level to stay where it is, as long as it allows them look down on somebody else.

In my opinion.

fair enough, but it seems to me that you don't have a lot of first hand experience with anarchists and that you are kind of biased against "left wing types".

Because the anarchist group seemed to be completely unreasonable. They resisted efforts by the local authorities to renovate the building after a fire and when large amounts of fungus rot was found. They then subsequently refused to pay any rent. The house needed to be redeveloped as it was becoming hazardous to those living nearby and in the house.

or rather, they had occupied a building for decades and then the state decided to sell it without their consent to a lunatic christian group. it wasn't the state's to sell, and they haven't offered the ungdomshuset collective an adequate replacement. as for refusing to let the government renovate - that's because they were squatting. if they let them come in and kick everyone out for 'renovation' you can bet that they wouldn't get the place back afterwards.

Let's see... I bought the land. I paid for the land. Therefore, I get to use the land.

Squatters don't fit in there.

but what if you don't use the land?

Let's see... I bought the land. I paid for the land...

that was stupid of you

but hey, i have this bridge in new york i'd like to sell you

Unlike the "might is right especially my brand of might" brigade, who are content to bludgeon everyone and everything that doesn't meet with their approval into a coma and beyond. They want their level to stay where it is, as long as it allows them look down on somebody else.

Let's see... I bought the land. I paid for the land. Therefore, I get to use the land.

Squatters don't fit in there.

Doesn't happen, ha ha.

Never had a problem with squatters, though. A lot of acreage and NO buildings, far from urban centers...

As long as your surveys were correct ... we found out a few years ago the last survey was incorrect from like 50 years ago when the new fencing was put in, a variant of the squatters right's rule allowed assumed property lines to be set in stone after that amount of time. Lost about 3 acres on that one all said and done.

Let's see... I bought the land. I paid for the land. Therefore, I get to use the land.

Squatters don't fit in there.

Which isnt the case here at all, as it was agreed that they had use of the building. Hence the court case.

Obviously, the shoe DOES fit...as these are just a bunch of anarchist leftist "against the government" feel good punks.

So yeah, the shoe fits.

They tried peaceful ways to keep the house. A foundation even gave an offer to "Faderhuset" of 5 million danish crowns which was considerably higher than what they had payed for it. They didn't want to sell. They asked for theese riots. The youths tried to keep the house by paying a ridiculously high price for it but theese christians still didn't want to sell. Their principles are clear. They wan't theese kids kicked out probably because they don't agree with the way they are(un-christian that is). It's obvious.

http://da.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ungdomshuset

As long as your surveys were correct ... we found out a few years ago the last survey was incorrect from like 50 years ago when the new fencing was put in, a variant of the squatters right's rule allowed assumed property lines to be set in stone after that amount of time. Lost about 3 acres on that one all said and done.

I had my surveys done by two separate firms, about a week apart, using GPS.

It's about as accurate as it's going to get.

I had my surveys done by two separate firms, about a week apart, using GPS.

It's about as accurate as it's going to get.

GPS was not invented the last time we had a survey done before my father inherited the land. I am not sure if they had changed from the original (the land was homesteaded about 150 years ago)

Because the anarchist group seemed to be completely unreasonable.


The christian cult, "Faderhuset", that bought the house even got an offer of 5 million danish crowns for the house which was a much higher bid than they had payed for the it, but they wouldn't sell it. So you tell me, who's the unreasonable here. The ones that even gave a ridicolously high bid to buy back the house, or the ones who didn't want to sell it just so they could tear the house apart?

GPS was not invented the last time we had a survey done before my father inherited the land. I am not sure if they had changed from the original (the land was homesteaded about 150 years ago)

There's nothing like having it verified by two separate companies, and signed off by the state.

Both also researched prior claims, and discovered and resolved any discrepancies. I didn't want something coming up later.

There's nothing like having it verified by two separate companies, and signed off by the state.

Both also researched prior claims, and discovered and resolved any discrepancies. I didn't want something coming up later.

Smart ... my grandma was a stubborn old farmer, but a lovable lady. But at times she would NOT change her mind and it was before my father was old enough to really be a big help with things like that and my grandfather had passed away

Smart ... my grandma was a stubborn old farmer, but a lovable lady. But at times she would NOT change her mind and it was before my father was old enough to really be a big help with things like that and my grandfather had passed away

When you buy rural property, it's always a risk. Surveys are old, fences move, creeks change course, and everyone forgets...

or rather, they had occupied a building for decades and then the state decided to sell it without their consent to a lunatic christian group. it wasn't the state's to sell, and they haven't offered the ungdomshuset collective an adequate replacement. as for refusing to let the government renovate - that's because they were squatting. if they let them come in and kick everyone out for 'renovation' you can bet that they wouldn't get the place back afterwards.The state didn't sell the site to the current owners.

The landlord and the occupants, in this case the state, had a duty to keep the house in a good state of repair - such is the nature of urban society. You cannot be completely free as many of your actions will effect me as well as you. Please excuse me for not wanting to live next to a fungus infested building.

Now since there was a fire in the building and then fungus and rot was found in the building then I think it is fair to say that it probably did need renovation and the council weren't only trying to find an excuse to kick the tenants out.

The wiki article seems to suggest that there was a contract dating back to 1982. The tenants refused to pay the rent stipulated in the contract and refused to allow the owners access to repair the building, nor do they seem to have tried to negotiate an alternative arrangement to renovation. Still, even if they state did try and refuse access to the anarchists after renovation I believe such a contract would be adequate enough for the anarchist to claim the right to tenancy of the building in a court.

However, they didn't pay the rent. My understanding of my own national law (probably likely to be very similar to Danish law), is that no matter what contract you have, not paying rent is grounds for eviction. Period.

edit: and as I've said before I don't believe these people to squatters because they already had a contract in place in which they would have tenacy of the building if they paid a rent.

I hardly count a few punk rockers and anarchists as requiring an anti terror squad. What were they expecting? Suicide bongers?Depends on what kind of anarchists as they may have used the power of pot and beer to turn them into Vikings and then we see who would become the downtrodden.

Ahh, I would've joined them no doubt.

But dammit, I had to hand in homework that thursday :p

On a further note: I'd probably not have joined to participate in any of the violence. See, where there is violence, there is need for first aid and such.

Face it, how many punks and anarchists have access to lawyers and politicians who would be capable of halting this sort of deal?

They had twelve million kroners from a fund, a lawyer and nearly half the politicians of copenhagen backing them up.

But they decided to be arrogant and refuse to pay more than a single krone. Bloody stupid when you are given the means.

Depends on what kind of anarchists as they may have used the power of pot and beer to turn them into Vikings and then we see who would become the downtrodden.

Pot and beer doesn't match the power of tasers and pepper spray.

Fuck 'em.

Fuck hardline conservatives with a lack of sympathy.

The christian cult, "Faderhuset", that bought the house even got an offer of 5 million danish crowns for the house which was a much higher bid than they had payed for the it, but they wouldn't sell it. So you tell me, who's the unreasonable here. The ones that even gave a ridicolously high bid to buy back the house, or the ones who didn't want to sell it just so they could tear the house apart?Maybe there are reasons that the Christian group do not want to sell. They have the right not to sell if they do not wish to.

However, the tenants would have right of tenancy, but they broke the terms of their contract and thus lost the right of tenancy. If they had continued to pay rent then they would have retained their tenancy and have been able to bring the state to account for not arranging suitable alternatives to renovation (perhaps fixing parts of the building at time).

Pot and beer doesn't match the power of tasers and pepper spray.

What about home-made bombs and molotov coctails instead?

I in no way accept, or laud, the civil unrest seen in Denmark. However, I might qustion the logic in seeling such a location, or the Christian morals that compelled the new proprietors to disabuse so many people of a harmless place to meet and socialise.

On another note, the response of the police gladdens me somewhat. At least some European states, mine not included lamentably, are prepared to use force.

Water cannon work pretty well against molotovs.

Danish police do not use water cannons. (edit note: They do not have them)

Maybe there are reasons that the Christian group do not want to sell. They have the right not to sell if they do not wish to.

Heh, you should have heard some of the comments the group made in the newspapers here *laughs* Really, they're more with the Fred Phelps type people.

What about home-made bombs and molotov coctails instead?

Police today have to start with the small stuff, or they're accused of police brutality.

Water cannon work pretty well against molotovs.

And if you light the fuse on a homemade bomb, and get knocked back into your friends by a water cannon, they won't appreciate the explosion.

Police today have to start with the small stuff, or they're accused of police brutality.

Water cannon work pretty well against molotovs.

And if you light the fuse on a homemade bomb, and get knocked back into your friends by a water cannon, they won't appreciate the explosion.

Well then, too bad they're not using water cannons...

Heh, you should have heard some of the comments the group made in the newspapers here *laughs* Really, they're more with the Fred Phelps type people.*sigh* :( That may be, but they have the right not to sell if they so desire.

I think the anarchist group have been very foolish. They had a contract that was from the early-mid eighties. Those contracts are normally rock solid and rent can normally only rise at the rate of inflation, and can only be ended if the tenant agrees to end the contract, has arrears, or is a major and continued nuisance to their neighbours. They blew what was probably a very sweet deal.

*sigh* :( That may be, but they have the right not to sell if they so desire.

I think the anarchist group have been very foolish. They had a contract that was from the early-mid eighties. Those contracts are normally rock solid and rent can normally only rise at the rate of inflation, and can only be ended if the tenant agrees to end the contract, has arrears, or is a major and continued nuisance to their neighbours. They blew what was probably a very sweet deal.

They have been quite foolish I agree.

Anyway, my comment was more directed at the fact that if this had been fred phelps, which they are the direct equivalent of, then people would have been more supportive, I would guess.

But, the anarchists have been foolish. They've had oppurtunities and they didn't take them. The reason I initially supported them was because they seemed to be oppurtunitists (you know, using something which wasn't being used), but it seems that is incorrect.

Meh. Squats have been destroyed by the police for years. Shit happens. There'll be a new one. Until such a time, it's an opportune time to cause the police an equal headache by rioting in response.

Although I'm more given to the peaceful refusal to co-operate, by moving back onto the property after it is rebuilt, and continuing to do so. I don't like hurting people, so I'm not a big fan of riots.

What's a pity is that this house had so much history as a squat, and that rather than showing some common sense, and purchasing the house as a historical landmark, Denmark let it get taken over by a bunch of people who are (reportedly) Fred Phelps level yahoos.

*snip*
I was almost going to agree with FS that the State did not have a right to confiscate this land, but after reading what you wrote I've changed my mind. If they indeed did violate contractual obligations, they have little right to complain. The way the Danish government handled this was utterly moronic and lacked any degree of tact, but it had to be done I suppose.

Maybe there are reasons that the Christian group do not want to sell. They have the right not to sell if they do not wish to.

They didn't want to sell cuz they didn't want someone from "hell" to be in that area as they have said actually. They got the house from the goverment without the permission of the youths and they behaved like shitholes when they didn't want to sell it back just so they could tear the house down. They asked for this together with the politicians that sold a youth house with historical value to a homphobic christian cult in the first place.

However, the tenants would have right of tenancy, but they broke the terms of their contract and thus lost the right of tenancy. If they had continued to pay rent then they would have retained their tenancy and have been able to bring the state to account for not arranging suitable alternatives to renovation (perhaps fixing parts of the building at time).

The house already belonged to the youths, they had an agreement from before many years but the state still sold it. And if someone sold a place where I had spent so many years of my life I would also riot.

yes it was, but i think he just want to understand you better, because he likes to learn about other views and cultures.

Lol. :)


Most anarchists, espeacially the economically left wing types...are just anti-establishment idiots that have a bad place in the world and want to bring everyone else down to their level.

In my opinion.

Most righties, especially the socially conservative types, are just bigoted, closed-minded idiots with a hard-on for authority and would like nothing more than to see their views rammed violently down everyone else's throat.

In my opinion.

Makes me proud to support the Danish economy by buying and selling fine briar pipes and pipe tobacco.

My kingdom for a job tuning anarchists :)

They have been quite foolish I agree.

Anyway, my comment was more directed at the fact that if this had been fred phelps, which they are the direct equivalent of, then people would have been more supportive, I would guess.Maybe... although I loathe Fred Phelps and I would probably loathe this christian group if I knew more about them, that still doesn't negate their right to the property having bought it.But, the anarchists have been foolish. They've had oppurtunities and they didn't take them. The reason I initially supported them was because they seemed to be oppurtunitists (you know, using something which wasn't being used), but it seems that is incorrect.That's pretty much my reasoning too.They didn't want to sell cuz they didn't want someone from "hell" to be in that area as they have said actually. They got the house from the goverment without the permission of the youths and they behaved like shitholes when they didn't want to sell it back just so they could tear the house down. They asked for this together with the politicians that sold a youth house with historical value to a homphobic christian cult in the first place.

The house already belonged to the youths, they had an agreement from before many years but the state still sold it. And if someone sold a place where I had spent so many years of my life I would also riot.They didn't get the house from the government. The government sold the house after the anarchist group broke contractual obligations. The house I believe was then subsequently sold to the christian group by a private company.

The house was owned by the government before the anarchist group moved in, and from what I can gather they were invited to move in by the government if they paid rent. The anarchist group stopped paying rent, thus losing their right of tenancy. And so losing any right they may have had to challenge the government's selling off of the property.

Yes, the house does have historic significance, but it has been allowed to fall into a state of disrepair with there being rot and fungus infestations. It is highly likely that the building is/was not fit for human habitation anymore, hence the Christian groups desire to knock it down and rebuild.

I was almost going to agree with FS that the State did not have a right to confiscate this land, but after reading what you wrote I've changed my mind. If they indeed did violate contractual obligations, they have little right to complain. The way the Danish government handled this was utterly moronic and lacked any degree of tact, but it had to be done I suppose.From what I can gather the state did not confiscate the land and already owned it from before and had actually invited the anarchist group as tenants.

I agree that the Danish government handled this in a bad way and I'm saddened that it had to come to what was probably a good community project being evicted and be replaced by some Danish 'Fred Phelps'. :(

I agree that the Danish government handled this in a bad way and I'm saddened that it had to come to what was probably a good community project being evicted and be replaced by some Danish 'Fred Phelps'. :(

On the contrary, the youths were offered an abandoned school (other than the fact that it used to be a school for handicapped people, I have no further details regarding it), but refused, saying that they'd only pay a single krone.

They had, at their disposal, twelve million kroners that had been offered to them freely to first buy back the house (which failed, sucks, but hey, not much you can really do about it), and then to get them a new house.

At this time, I can pretty much understand the fund and the lawyer that represents it (for being irritated at the sheer arrogance the youths have displayed). They've said they're going to buy a house for the youths whether they like it or not and this time, the youths won't be involved in the decision.

There was more support for them in the beginning, but people didn't want the government to make a specific exception just for them, and the house was not deemed of significant historical value since... Kulturarvsstyrelsen vil ikke frede ”Ungdomshuset”, Jagtvej 69 i København. Ejendommen er blevet vurderet i 1999 af den daværende fredningsmyndighed,
...1999. Since the christian cult didn't want to sell, I can understand the youths would be pissed at them (and rightly so) but hey, what are you going to do? Alienate yourself completely? That's just silly. They could have had a new, potentially better house. In getting it, they could have supported handicapped people, but they were selfish and only wanted to support themselves (stating that either they only pay a single krone or all the money gets put back into the "skæve samfund" which means christania, them, etc...).

So really, they had their chance and they blew it.

On the contrary, the youths were offered an abandoned school (other than the fact that it used to be a school for handicapped people, I have no further details regarding it), but refused, saying that they'd only pay a single krone.

They had, at their disposal, twelve million kroners that had been offered to them freely to first buy back the house (which failed, sucks, but hey, not much you can really do about it), and then to get them a new house.

At this time, I can pretty much understand the fund and the lawyer that represents it (for being irritated at the sheer arrogance the youths have displayed). They've said they're going to buy a house for the youths whether they like it or not and this time, the youths won't be involved in the decision.

There was more support for them in the beginning, but people didn't want the government to make a specific exception just for them, and the house was not deemed of significant historical value since...http://www.kulturarv.dk/tjenester/nyheder/ungdomshuset.jsp
Kulturarvsstyrelsen vil ikke frede ”Ungdomshuset”, Jagtvej 69 i København. Ejendommen er blevet vurderet i 1999 af den daværende fredningsmyndighed,...1999. Since the christian cult didn't want to sell, I can understand the youths would be pissed at them (and rightly so) but hey, what are you going to do? Alienate yourself completely? That's just silly. They could have had a new, potentially better house. In getting it, they could have supported handicapped people, but they were selfish and only wanted to support themselves (stating that either they only pay a single krone or all the money gets put back into the "skæve samfund" which means christania, them, etc...)

So really, they had their chance and they blew it.Interesting. I didn't know that about the handicapped school.

I have no idea what the quoted website says as I can't read Danish.

So... they wanted to live on private property for free?

It wasn't private property. It was a property of the city council in the last 40 years afaik, then someone in the city council decided to sell it at bargain prices to their fundie friends.
Fuck them fundies...

By the way, it was an historical building - the Woman's Day (8th March) was proclamied there by Rosa Luxembourg about 100 years ago.

:upyours: to the Danish executive.

Interesting. I didn't know that about the handicapped school.

I have no idea what the quoted website says as I can't read Danish.

I'll try to find an english source for the handicapped school.

The quoted website says that the Culturalheritage Committee is unwilling to (safeguard? what's the word for that thing they do?) "Ungdomshuset", Jagtvej 69 in Copenhagen. The important part was the year though :p

Alright, it seems they'd be sharing the school, here you go! (http://www.cphpost.dk/get/100463.html)

However, I still don't see why they had to be stupidly arrogant and say they shouldn't have to pay for it...

...when they're not the ones who are paying for it >.<

If nothing else, I tihnk we can agree that those are some shitty Christians.

If nothing else, I tihnk we can agree that those are some shitty Christians.


Fuck shitty christians, let's get to the important issue at hand here; is Copenhagen safe for me when I arrive there on friday for some R&R?

BTW: I like local folklore so is it okay to throw a brick at any law enforcement officer I encounter or are there special ones one should be aiming for? "Just blending in officer....".

Fuck shitty christians, let's get to the important issue at hand here; is Copenhagen safe for me when I arrive there on friday for some R&R?

BTW: I like local folklore so is it okay to throw a brick at any law enforcement officer I encounter or are there special ones one should be aiming for? "Just blending in officer....".

Aim for the ones without armour.

Aim for the ones without armour.

I think I'll aim for the fat & short ones with a heavy armour. When chased I'll only need two blocks max to outrun the fascist*.

(*Authenthic Copenhagen slang for police officer within the left-wing sub-culture.)

Note: if somebody wants to go 'Copenhagen for Dummies' on me and provide some inside information about do's and dont's in Copenhagen please feel free.

I think I'll aim for the fat & short ones with a heavy armour. When chased I'll only need two blocks max to outrun the fascist*.

(*Authenthic Copenhagen slang for police officer within the left-wing sub-culture.)

Note: if somebody wants to go 'Copenhagen for Dummies' on me and provide some inside information about do's and dont's in Copenhagen please feel free.

Do:
Pelt police with bricks
Squat in "youth centres"
Fight the power
Don't:
Get caught doing any of the above

Do:
Pelt police with bricks
Squat in "youth centres"
Fight the power
Don't:
Get caught doing any of the above

I guess I'm more of a middle-of-the-road kind of guy so i'll probably:

Ask a police officer for directions to the nearest brothel. And probably ask him politely to join me there so he can visit his mother.
When leaving my Executive Twin room in a 4* hotel I will steal the bathrobe and towels. That'll teach the establishment not to fuck around with the establishment.
And I'll fight the Power of overcharging my restaurant bill. Capitalist greed will not mess with my Platinum CreditCard! Workers Unite!

Fuck shitty christians, let's get to the important issue at hand here; is Copenhagen safe for me when I arrive there on friday for some R&R?

Thing seem quiet. So say the police and the youths.

But, nobody really knows, so you might just get to throw a few bricks.

From what I've seen and heard about this, I can't really put myself on either side. In the end, the youths didn't own the property and it needed to be either torn down or renovated. The police shouldn't have been using excessive force. Perhaps a few less cars would have been burned if they hadn't tried to stamp out the peaceful, albeit unlawful, protests. No surprise that people pick up rocks if the police attacks them first.

From what I've seen and heard about this, I can't really put myself on either side. In the end, the youths didn't own the property and it needed to be either torn down or renovated. The police shouldn't have been using excessive force. Perhaps a few less cars would have been burned if they hadn't tried to stamp out the peaceful, albeit unlawful, protests. No surprise that people pick up rocks if the police attacks them first.

You must be thinking of former actions.

This time, the police were ordered to clear the house. The youths were already long overdue their warnings, so as far as the police were concerned, they did not use excessive force.

Now, that the police did not use excessive force does not mean that the youths are automatically wrong, but it does mean that even if it was the right thing to do for the youths to continue occupying the house until they did, it was reasonable that the police cleared them out. It wasn't, after all, the choice of the police.

I fully support this Church group and the Danish government in their manuevers to remove these violent radicals from private property.

Sorry, man, but that church group is a bunch of radicals. Maybe not physically violent, but there are many tales of their mental abuse of people.
I was for the clearance of the house, not the demolition though.
The users of the house (you can hardly call them squatters, as they've had the right to use the house for 25 years, and had electricity and heating) have to respect the danish laws and the fact that someone else owned the place.
The municipality made a mistake selling the house to Human A/S, as they had not researched the company thoroughly. The deal was that even though the municipality sold the house, the new owners had to continue that cultural stuff that was going on in the house.

I think it's a sad case, but it had to end up the way it did.

It wasn't private property. It was a property of the city council in the last 40 years afaik, then someone in the city council decided to sell it at bargain prices to their fundie friends.
Fuck them fundies...

By the way, it was an historical building - the Woman's Day (8th March) was proclamied there by Rosa Luxembourg about 100 years ago.

:upyours: to the Danish executive.

Huh?
The city of Copenhagen has owned it since the early 80's. I don't know what you mean by fundie friends, but I doubt the city council were well acquainted with Faderhuset.

And yeah, the building was THE SHIT! It was a place for the workers to gather back in the days, when all the halls and places like that were owned by the rich.

Oh, the excessive force was concerning the peaceful protest from three days ago that the police responded to with massive use of tear gas, to which the protesters responded with rocks and burning cars.

I don't mind the house being cleared, but all parties involved could have used a lot more restraint and reason in the process.

The only peaceful demonstration I've heard of that occurred three days ago, there was no teargas involved, no rocks and no burning cars.

Just lots of bikes, good sun and a good bit of yelling.

Certainly, the newspapers reported that everything around here went peacefully. If you have a source that says otherwise, I'm curious to get my hands on it.

Edit: timewarp ftw!

You must be thinking of former actions.

This time, the police were ordered to clear the house. The youths were already long overdue their warnings, so as far as the police were concerned, they did not use excessive force.

Now, that the police did not use excessive force does not mean that the youths are automatically wrong, but it does mean that even if it was the right thing to do for the youths to continue occupying the house until they did, it was reasonable that the police cleared them out. It wasn't, after all, the choice of the police.Oh, the excessive force was concerning the peaceful protest from three days ago that the police responded to with massive use of tear gas, to which the protesters responded with rocks and burning cars.

I don't mind the house being cleared, but all parties involved could have used a lot more restraint and reason in the process.

Oh, the excessive force was concerning the peaceful protest from three days ago that the police responded to with massive use of tear gas, to which the protesters responded with rocks and burning cars.

I don't mind the house being cleared, but all parties involved could have used a lot more restraint and reason in the process.

Due to a timewarp, I shall repeat :p

The only peaceful demonstration I've heard of that occurred three days ago, there was no teargas involved, no rocks and no burning cars.

Just lots of bikes, good sun and a good bit of yelling.

Certainly, the newspapers reported that everything around here went peacefully. If you have a source that says otherwise, I'm curious to get my hands on it.

Have you possibly gotten it confused with the fact that there were three days of rioting starting Thursday? Because Sunday was three days ago and not only was it peaceful, but it never turned violent either way.

Fuck shitty christians, let's get to the important issue at hand here; is Copenhagen safe for me when I arrive there on friday for some R&R?

In total seriousness, yes. Keep your head up if you're in Nørrebro or Christiania at night, but I'm pretty sure the violence is over.

Oh, the excessive force was concerning the peaceful protest from three days ago that the police responded to with massive use of tear gas, to which the protesters responded with rocks and burning cars.

If you're talking about Skt. Hans Torv on Friday night and Saturday morning, I was there. The rocks (and Molotov cocktails) came first. Sure, it started out as an ostensibly peaceful protest, but people were digging up cobblestones right from the beginning.

I don't care at all for Faderhuset and I think the city put the Ungdomshuset in a bad situation by turning a blind eye to the squat for so long, but in two nights on the street the only excessive violence I saw came from the protesters.

Certainly, the newspapers reported that everything around here went peacefully. If you have a source that says otherwise, I'm curious to get my hands on it.

Have you possibly gotten it confused with the fact that there were three days of rioting starting Thursday? Because Sunday was three days ago and not only was it peaceful, but it never turned violent either way.Sorry, I got the days slightly confused. It was on March 2nd. Source is here (http://www.tagesschau.de/aktuell/meldungen/0,1185,OID6474896,00.html), but you need to know German.

Good riddance! damn hippies.

Trust those reactionary Christians to try and ruin the good welfare socialism in Denmark.

The building did not belong to the people occupying it, therefore they had to be made to leave.

The owners wanted their building torn down so they could build a new one, therefore it had to be torn down.

The people violating the rights of the building's owners decided to disturb the peace, throw stones, set fires - therefore they had to be arrested.

Nothing out of the ordinary or wrong here.

x2

x3

x4

Trust those reactionary Christians to try and ruin the good welfare socialism in Denmark.
That's ALMOST a good enough reason to like them. Almost. :p

But anyway, this entire affair is irrelevant to that, as Seathornia has explained.

The building did not belong to the people occupying it

did so in every respect worth having

The building did not belong to the people occupying it
did so in every respect worth havingdid so in every respect worth havingDoesn't matter that they didn't own it. They had a tenancy contract. If they had kept to the terms of the contract then no one would have been able to evict them.

did so in every respect worth having

Silly me, here I thought some wacky christian group paid the government - which previously owned the building - some large sum of kroners in consideration for the right of ownership of the building.

I see though, the squatters "did so in every respect worth having," whatever that means.

Silly me, here I thought some wacky christian group paid the government - which previously owned the building - some large sum of kroners in consideration for the right of ownership of the building.

I see though, the squatters "did so in every respect worth having," whatever that means.Yes, silly you, some christian group did not pay the government for the building. Nor was it a some large sum of kroners. In fact I believe it was quite a paltry sum as the government had quite a lot of trouble getting a company to take the property off their hands.

Yes, silly you, some christian group did not pay the government for the building. Nor was it a some large sum of kroners. In fact I believe it was quite a paltry sum as the government had quite a lot of trouble getting a company to take the property off their hands.

"Courts ordered the squatters out by Dec. 14 after the city sold the building to a Christian congregation six years ago."
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17470092/


"The eviction had been planned since last year, when courts ordered the squatters to hand the building over to a Christian congregation that bought it six years ago. "
http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,,-6458246,00.html

"but the courts ordered them out after the city sold the building to a small Christian congregation. "
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/06/world/europe/06briefs-buildingdemolished.html


So... are you guys liars in addition to vandals and hooligans?

Silly me, here I thought some wacky christian group paid the government - which previously owned the building - some large sum of kroners in consideration for the right of ownership of the building.

and i have a bridge in new york that i will gladly sell you

.. they try to hold the city hostage with violence and such they're anti-democrats and should move to North Korea ...what the..??

what did the North-Korean-peasants ever do to you?
:confused:

and i have a bridge in new york that i will gladly sell you

I prefer to buy Ungdomshusets and kick out the sqatters and tear them down, thanks though.

Are you joining the Anarcho-communo-syndicalo-pacifo-bolshevo-capitalo-liarists too?

Another one denying, for some bizzare reason, that the building was sold to wacko christian group?

I don't think that these people were squatting. I think that the church bought it as a homeless shelter and continued to operate it like one until it became too old and hazardous. The people who stayed there were mad. They probably had a lot of memories of that place. But I don't think the church did anything wrong in tearing it down. Perhaps they will rebuild it.

Yes, silly you, some christian group did not pay the government for the building. Nor was it a some large sum of kroners.So... are you guys liars in addition to vandals and hooligans?The cultists were turned down by the city as not being serious. The city later sold the building to a not fully established company called Human A/S, with the clauses that the building couldn't be resold for two years, and that the users should retain full usage rights.
Human A/S was established by and immediately after buying the building, bought up by the cultists. This is why the user group lost the case in the courts.

The city council had no business selling the place to begin with though, as it was a violation of the agreement they themselves made in '82 with the user group. They managed to stall the process of making the agreement stick for so long the house was sold, and with that, the problem went away. Because the city can't just say "Oops, give it back, please. We fucked up".

What they could've done was to expropriate the building, if for no other reason than the cultists desire to demolish it. The place was of significant historical value, after all. Anything from Danish museums, to architects, to lawyers, to unions, to the Danish Feminists pushed for this, but to no avail. 57% of the people in the city also thinks the city coulcil should've done it, by the way.

The cultists have rejected numerous offers to buy the building, IIRC the last was about 6 times as much as they bought it for.

Speaking of squatters, the cultists raided Ungdomshuset, changed the locks & physically assaulted the legitimate users of the building. Of course, they didn't last very long, but they're the squatters. Not the user group.

The city council's failure to provide an alternative to the building is a direct violation of the original agreement with the user group. They've now offered to sell a private fund a building for more than 2 times the sum the cultists bought Ungdomshuset for. The usergroup has refused. They're perfectly willing to relocate, but maintain that this is a problem created by borderline criminal politicians, and they maintain that an avenue of this type is a legitimate need. Thus they feel forced to decline the offer as long as the price is more than 1 Euro.

Yes, it's a matter of principle. Since 1999 the changing city councils have waged nothing short of war against a significant group of the citizens, who happen to have no resources and virtually no means of fighting back (unless you call throwing stinkbombs at council members 'fighting back'). They have now won this war & they have their price: a return to the pre-Ungdomshuset days of exploding social problems, riots & a significant minority of people with nowhere to go & nowhere to stay.

It's a fucking disaster, but blaming the user group makes about as much sense as blaming your mechanic when your car won't start. They're the solution, not the problem. The politicians are the problem. Sure, the cultists are loons with an axe to grind (they think punkers are possessed by daemons... Yes really), but it's the politicians who used them as a means of getting rid of what some of them have called "Copenhagen's leftwing spawning ground".

Oh noes!! K1ll teh 3bil leftys!!1!

But I guess facts never bothered you much, New Granada. You should watch who you call a liar though.

Human A/S was established by and immediately after buying the building, bought up by the cultists.

The cultists have rejected numerous offers to buy the building, IIRC the last was about 6 times as much as they bought it for.


But I guess facts never bothered you much, New Granada. You should watch who you call a liar though.


Like the fact that the government sold, by a proxy company (like how the russian government bought up Yukos Oil, for instance) to a group of christian nuts, which as owners, wanted the squatters removed so they could do as they pleased with their property?

You're a hundred percent right, the fact that the building was sold, ultimately, to a group of christian nuts who decided they didnt want squatters in their property Doesn't bother me at all. It is called a free country, where people are free to do what they like with what they own.

I can't imagine you would complain if I were to decide on using a window to get into your house and then using your keys so that I could use your car for a few years, would you?

I don't think that these people were squatting. I think that the church bought it as a homeless shelter and continued to operate it like one until it became too old and hazardous. The people who stayed there were mad. They probably had a lot of memories of that place. But I don't think the church did anything wrong in tearing it down. Perhaps they will rebuild it.

Right...One of the representatives for theese racist homophobes even said that they didn't want someone from hell on that street and that is why they bought the house. If they rebuild it I hope it doesn't stand long before someone vandalizes it.

You're a hundred percent right, the fact that the building was sold, ultimately, to a group of christian nuts who decided they didnt want squatters in their property Doesn't bother me at all. It is called a free country, where people are free to do what they like with what they own.

It bothers me because it shows us in which way our society is going. Instead of letting youths have a house where they have spent a lot of their time, the goverment sells it to some christian nuts just to get money. They must have really been desperate considering who they sold it too.

Like the fact that the government sold, by a proxy company (like how the russian government bought up Yukos Oil, for instance) to a group of christian nuts, which as owners, wanted the squatters removed so they could do as they pleased with their property?Not by, to a proxy company. The only known motive for buying the building was to 'fight' the daemonic youths. There's no reason to think the city council, who by an agreement of their own making had no right to sell, didn't sell it for eerily similar reasons.

But hey, there's no reason not to apply a double standard.You're a hundred percent right, the fact that the building was sold, ultimately, to a group of christian nuts who decided they didnt want squatters in their property Doesn't bother me at all. It is called a free country, where people are free to do what they like with what they own.The situation is not real different from, say, your bank levelling your house to the fucking ground while you're in it, not because you didn't pay on time, but because you brought the place with their money, so they can do whatever they wan't with it, right? - It being a free country & all that...I can't imagine you would complain if I were to decide on using a window to get into your house and then using your keys so that I could use your car for a few years, would you?Substitute 'for a few years' with 'slam the fucker into a wall, after running over a coulpe of pedestrians' and you've summed up what the city council did.

Don't get me wrong. I'd like nothing better than to piss on the collective graves of the cultists (and being good little Jonestown'esquer wankers, I suspect I might get to do just that), but as unreasonable as they are, they're not the real problem.

Still, I'm delighted you agree calling TID a liar makes you one yourself.

The city council broke their agreement selling the house. They then refused to expropriate the building. Now they're refusing to provide the user group with a suitable alternative for a symbolic price. That the cultists only bought the house to try to smite the legitimate users & thus wouldn't sell regardless of the offers, is besides the point.

There's another thread about squatting/usage rights/property rights on the front page here. I'd suggest you vent your ... Whatever it is .. There, because it's got fuck-all to do with topic here.

So... they wanted to live on private property for free? Alright... I'm sure they can make a convincing case.

Wait, no they can't.

I second this.

It bothers me because it shows us in which way our society is going. Instead of letting youths have a house where they have spent a lot of their time, the goverment sells it to some christian nuts just to get money. They must have really been desperate considering who they sold it too.

Yeah, because Christians are evil.

And anarchist extremists are okay.

Yeah, because Christians are evil.

And anarchist extremists are okay.


No, because insane Phelpsoids are evil (and they are). Not everyone who lives in a squat is an anarchist. Plenty are just people who didn't fit in in the normal world, and so they had to escape somehow. Besides which, these anarchists are mostly harmless. As long as you leave them be, they'll leave you be, for the most part. They just want their autonomous zone and a place where they can feel safe.

Either way, these people only rioted after their building was essentially stolen by the city council, and they were being forced out of their home by a bunch of psychos who honestly believed that they were demons. Worse yet, the city insulted them by offering to sell them a new place after the city stole their home to sell it to these whackos. While I think rioting is always a poor response, these people are certainly entitled to some civil dissobediance. In their place, I would move on to the land every day and remain there until evicted. The next day, repeat the process.

No, because insane Phelpsoids are evil (and they are). Not everyone who lives in a squat is an anarchist.


These guys are, though, at least according to the media.

Either way, these people only rioted after their building was essentially stolen by the city council

It wasn't stolen, the city council owned it.

[quote] and they were being forced out of their home by a bunch of psychos who honestly believed that they were demons.[/qyote]

That's interesting, according to all the articles it's being brought down because it's a safety hazard and because it's cheaper to build a new one then to fix it.

I don't think that these people were squatting. I think that the church bought it as a homeless shelter and continued to operate it like one until it became too old and hazardous. The people who stayed there were mad. They probably had a lot of memories of that place. But I don't think the church did anything wrong in tearing it down. Perhaps they will rebuild it.

The people were squatting or at least, overstaying their welcome.

The sect did not buy it as a homeless shelter nor did they ever intend to operate it like one. In fact, they hate people who can make their own decisions (read: autonomous) or who are leftie-commies (read: rebellious youths).

You are right that the people were mad. Maybe rightfully so, but any support they had, they lost through arrogance.

They weren't the only ones with memories of that place. It was a worker's rights place and a women's rights place before it became a youth house.

And it was probably for the best that it was torn down, because whether or not the youths had kept the house, it was a hazard not only to those in it, but everyone around it.

They are going to be rebuilding the house. I'm rather curious how it will turn out, but no doubt that it will be vandalized.

The sect did not buy it as a homeless shelter nor did they ever intend to operate it like one. In fact, they hate people who can make their own decisions (read: autonomous) or who are leftie-commies (read: rebellious youths).



Proof?

Proof?

You could take my word for it, or you could take Ruth Evenson's word for it. She hates them, seriously. And they hate her too.

Her creating a sect (http://avisen.dk/ruth-mod-ungeren-201006.aspx)

Zomg, kid refuses to marry and Ruth declares him possesed by demons! (http://ekstrabladet.dk/nyheder/samfund/article239809.ece)

They could have sold it back to the youths for a large sum of money (http://www.dr.dk/DR1/Profilen/Udsendelser/2006/11/28102005.htm)

But hey, since you need to know Danish, it might be hard for you to understand, so here's an english one

Notice how the moment it was sold to the sect, they demanded that the squatters be evicted. (http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,2144,2373724,00.html)

If you search (http://www.thatswhy.dk/faderhuset.html) you might just find (http://www.infoshop.org/inews/article.php?story=20061214134918699) more references to them being a sect. (http://acclaim.nomasters.com/informations/index.html)


“When we take over the house, they (the present users) will simply not be able to step through the doors, because the light of God will be too strong for them. The reason for this is that God is stronger than Satan”. Ruth Evensen, priest in Faderhuset.

Judging from her hatred, no, this wasn't a homeless shelter and never was supposed to be either.

There's nothing wrong with being a sect.

And had I bought the house, I would have evicted everybody in it, too.

That's just common sense - you buy a house, you evict the squatters.

Frankly, I don't care if they want to make the house into a church, or a strip club, or whatever.

It's their house.

There's nothing wrong with being a sect.

And had I bought the house, I would have evicted everybody in it, too.

That's just common sense - you buy a house, you evict the squatters.

Frankly, I don't care if they want to make the house into a church, or a strip club, or whatever.

It's their house.

They brainwash people. This is wrong.

And I was responding to the fact that you said "maybe they'll turn it into a homeless shelter" to which I could quite plainly say:

No

Not by, to a proxy company. The only known motive for buying the building was to 'fight' the daemonic youths. There's no reason to think the city council, who by an agreement of their own making had no right to sell, didn't sell it for eerily similar reasons.

But hey, there's no reason not to apply a double standard.The situation is not real different from, say, your bank levelling your house to the fucking ground while you're in it, not because you didn't pay on time, but because you brought the place with their money, so they can do whatever they wan't with it, right? - It being a free country & all that...Substitute 'for a few years' with 'slam the fucker into a wall, after running over a coulpe of pedestrians' and you've summed up what the city council did.

Don't get me wrong. I'd like nothing better than to piss on the collective graves of the cultists (and being good little Jonestown'esquer wankers, I suspect I might get to do just that), but as unreasonable as they are, they're not the real problem.

Still, I'm delighted you agree calling TID a liar makes you one yourself.

The city council broke their agreement selling the house. They then refused to expropriate the building. Now they're refusing to provide the user group with a suitable alternative for a symbolic price. That the cultists only bought the house to try to smite the legitimate users & thus wouldn't sell regardless of the offers, is besides the point.

There's another thread about squatting/usage rights/property rights on the front page here. I'd suggest you vent your ... Whatever it is .. There, because it's got fuck-all to do with topic here.


From the wikipedia article:

In 1982 Folkets Hus was assigned to a group of young people — the original founders of Ungdomshuset — although the municipality of Copenhagen still owned the building. It was at this time that the building was given its current name: Ungdomshuset.

In 1999 the building was set for sale to the highest bidder by the municipality following controversy on the renovation of the building and a refusal from the inhabitants to pay the rent agreed upon in the original contract. This prodded the users of the building to post a large banner on the facade with the message: "For sale along with 500 autonome, stone throwing, violent psychopaths from hell.". Despite this ominous warning, a company called Human A/S bought the building in December 2000 (although ownership did not actually change hands until 2001), after which Human A/S was sold to the independent Christian cult[6] "Faderhuset".[7] However, the squatters refused to leave the house. Until 1 March 2007 the young squatters used the house as if the change of ownership had not happened and the new owners were not allowed inside at any time.

The plot thickens, the people illegaly occupying the place (after a court orders you out, in a nation of laws, it becomes illegal to occupy a place - in case you were unaware) refused to pay their rent, tisk tisk.

I assume you would be happy with me if I were to use your window to get into your house and then change all the locks and refuse to let you in, and continue to use your house for a protracted number of years, without any compensation to you.

After all, a free country must mean everything is free to use!

They brainwash people. This is wrong.

And I was responding to the fact that you said "maybe they'll turn it into a homeless shelter" to which I could quite plainly say:



I didn't say so. Rainbowws did.

They brainwash people. This is wrong.

Do you mean they actually use North Korean torture techniques to indoctrinate? Somehow I doubt that.

Those arrested in the riots included more than 140 protesters from Sweden, Norway, Germany and the United States, police said.
Don't these people have jobs?

I think the world would be alot better without Christian fundies.
I think it would be a lot better without Christian fundies and radical waistoids.

I think the world would be alot better without Christian fundies.

I didn't say so. Rainbowws did.

You asked for a source and I provided several.

Do you mean they actually use North Korean torture techniques to indoctrinate? Somehow I doubt that.

I mean they use methods similar to that of scientology and other sects to brainwash their members. So say the people who manage to get out of the sect and who didn't get out when it was turning into one.

Brainwashing is a very particular term. It should be used sparingly.

But I suspect we'll be heading into general ACM (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-cult_movement) territory here?

Don't these people have jobs?

Haven't you ever seen South Park? :p

I'm getting so confused as to who's arguing what now.

My stance is:

- There was a contract whereby the youth group had tenancy of the building and that they must pay rent, that the council could not sell the building on, nor evict the group.
- The tenants, not squatters, violated the contract by not paying the rent
- The council sold the building at auction - this was legal as the youth group had broken the contract
- The building changed hands, and was now owned by a christian group
- The youth group attempted to buy the building outright from a christian group after announced their intentions to evict the youth group. The christian group rejected all offers.
- The youth group were offered an alternative building to use - they effectively rejected this offer by only offer 1 kroner for the building (unsure if this was rent or for ownership)
- The youth group have now been evicted

The youth group shot themselves in the foot by not paying the rent as stipulated by their contract. If they'd continued paying the rent then this could never have legally happened.

I haven't found a reason for why the youth group stopped paying rent.

too many big words

too many big wordsBigger is better, or at least that's what watching american TV has taught me. Who cares what something really means, or what it really is or does. Just so long as it's big. Or should I say 'gargantuan'

In 1982 Folkets Hus was assigned to a group of young people — the original founders of Ungdomshuset — although the municipality of Copenhagen still owned the building. It was at this time that the building was given its current name: Ungdomshuset.You seem to be implying usage rights weren't granted the current user group. That's not the case.In 1999 the building was set for sale to the highest bidder by the municipality following controversy on the renovation of the building and a refusal from the inhabitants to pay the rent agreed upon in the original contract.The city council failed to abide by the contract with the user group. The user group's only means of trying to get the city council to abide by the contract, was to withhold 'rent'.
The cultists' rent claims should've been directed to the city, as the usage rights and contract violation was between them & the user group, not the cultists and the user group.This prodded the users of the building to post a large banner on the facade with the message: "For sale along with 500 autonome, stone throwing, violent psychopaths from hell."Which is how the users were described in the press, after police used armoured vehicles to ram a legal, peaceful demonstration. The 'From Hell' bit was added by the users.Despite this ominous warning, a company called Human A/S bought the building in December 2000 (although ownership did not actually change hands until 2001), after which Human A/S was sold to the independent Christian cult[6] "Faderhuset".According to the cult leader, the banner is what made the cult decide to buy the building in the first place. She wanted to kick out the daemon possessed youths.
The city council declined to sell the building to the cultists, giving the reason that the cultists weren't serious buyers - meaning the city council had faith the cultists wouldn't honour standing contracts with the user group & the like.However, the squatters refused to leave the house. Until 1 March 2007 the young squatters used the house as if the change of ownership had not happened and the new owners were not allowed inside at any time.The city council didn't at any time seek to end their contract with the user group, in fact, they made the sale of the building depend on the buyer accepting the agreement - which they did.
In terms of usage rights, the owenership change had no immediate legal consequences for the user group and the usage of the building, effectively making the cultists squatters when they illegally invaded the building, tried to physically beat the occupants out of it & changed the locks.I assume you would be happy with me if I were to use your window to get into your house and then change all the locks and refuse to let you in, and continue to use your house for a protracted number of years, without any compensation to you.If you owned the building, I was the legal occupant of the building and neither one of us had sought to terminate our contract, then it'd be a fair analogy to what happened.

The dispute is between the municipalty and the user group, not the cultists. The city council could have resolved the dispute easily enough, but decided against it.
While you can (and appaently will) try to spin this into it being an issue of property rights, the facts are that the user group got screwed because of the city council's (probably deliberately) failure to take measures to protect the user group from the buyer, and that the new buyer solely bought the place to attack the occupants.

To resist is our duty when injustice is law. And in this case, that's exactly what it is.

or rather, they had occupied a building for decades and then the state decided to sell it without their consent to a lunatic christian group. it wasn't the state's to sell, and they haven't offered the ungdomshuset collective an adequate replacement. as for refusing to let the government renovate - that's because they were squatting. if they let them come in and kick everyone out for 'renovation' you can bet that they wouldn't get the place back afterwards.

In the wiki article you posted it stated that the house was sold to the highest bidder which was a company called Human A/S. It then states that Human A/S was then sold to the Christian group. Therefore the state did not sell it to a Christian group as you assert.

Your article also stated that it was the states because it was sold to the state because the owners couldn't pay for the repairs of a burst water main. The building was assigned to a group of young people (though state retained ownership) with an agreed rent. The article states why the state wanted to get rid of the accommodation, the reasons being unable to renovate it and being unable to obtain the agreed rent from the inhabitants.

In my view the inhabitants had no leg to stand on because they refused to fulfil their part of the original contract with the state.


Here is the link you posted earlier for others to look at incase they skipped your post. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ungdomshuset

Has this anything to do with the impending doom of Christiania?

Bleh...hope not...that'd be one of the few places in the world I really want to check out.

You've missed Christiana's glory years anyway. Nowadays (or at least this is the impression I got visiting last summer) there's certainly at least an atmosphere of impending doom about the place anyway. Crime and tourism are not a good combo.
Plus the dope's not really that great, you get much better in Amsterdam.
(not that I am in any way advocating the use of drugs, drugs are bad, m'okay?)

I'm getting so confused as to who's arguing what now.You too eh?My stance is:

- There was a contract whereby the youth group had tenancy of the building and that they must pay rent, that the council could not sell the building on, nor evict the group.Yups.- The tenants, not squatters, violated the contract by not paying the rentYups. in response to the city failing to fulfill their contractual obligations.- The council sold the building at auction - this was legal as the youth group had broken the contractNo. Neither party sought the break the contract. Both violated the terms of it, but the contract's still in effect.- The building changed hands, and was now owned by a christian groupYups. This was achieved by buying the place by proxy.- The youth group attempted to buy the building outright from a christian group after announced their intentions to evict the youth group. The christian group rejected all offers.Yups. But in all fairness, I don't think the cult qualifies as Christian. They've got fuck all to do with the Bible, Christ & similar Christian things.- The youth group were offered an alternative building to use - they effectively rejected this offer by only offer 1 kroner for the building (unsure if this was rent or for ownership)The user group itself has no funds to speak of and the city's still obligated to provide an alternative to Ungdomshuset.
The city's now demanding that the user group (or a party acting on behalf of the group) pay a ca. 2.5 million Euro bribe before they'll fullfill their obligation.
Though a private fund is willing to do this on behalf of the user group, the user group refuses to bribe the city, but recognises the city can't legally give away property to a private party. Hence the 1 kroner demand.- The youth group have now been evictedYups.The youth group shot themselves in the foot by not paying the rent as stipulated by their contract. If they'd continued paying the rent then this could never have legally happened.No. As already mentioned, the contract between the city and user group is still binding, and no attempts has been made to change this by either party. Had the city sought to end the contract because of the withheld rent, or had the usergroup sought to end the contract because of the city's failure to fulfill it's obligations (mainly maintenance, in a deliberate attempt to let the building fall into disrepair so the fire authorities would close it, which, unsurprisingly, is what the withheld rent money was used to counteract), then you would be right. But neither's the case.I haven't found a reason for why the youth group stopped paying rent.Look above :)

Brainwashing is a very particular term. It should be used sparingly.

But I suspect we'll be heading into general ACM (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-cult_movement) territory here?

I won't deny either of that. But then, I was raised with a general distrust of cults.

What do you call the "brainwashing" that cults, those who conduct mass suicides and mass embezzlement and similar stuff, do?

No. Neither party sought the break the contract. Both violated the terms of it, but the contract's still in effect.

The contract, in Danish (http://web.ekstrabladet.dk/grafik/aftale1997.pdf)

Right, most important to note: This contract is binding from 1997 to 1998, after which the contract be voided by giving a notice of eviction three months early.

The users can give a one week warning before vacating the premises.

Costs related to the use of the house are to be paid by the users.

KUC (København's Ungdom Centre, Copenhagen's Youth Center) will pay the cost of rent, heating, lighting, water and renovation.

The contract also states that the house may not be used to sleep in overnight.

The house may not at any point be a nuisance to other locals, nor may the noise level exceed an acceptable level. If either of these are violated, the contract will end immediately

At the end of the contract, the house must be returned in a clean state.

Just a few highlights that I picked out. Now, first of all:
The house may not at any point be a nuisance to other locals, nor may the noise level exceed an acceptable level. If either of these are violated, the contract will end immediately.
Locals have complained about the users of the house vandalizing local property. This alone would be enough to end this contract (which was the last one to be signed).

KUC (København's Ungdom Centre, Copenhagen's Youth Center) will pay the cost of rent, heating, lighting, water and renovation.

For anyone saying they weren't paying rent - They weren't supposed to.

This contract is binding from 1997 to 1998, after which the contract be voided by giving a notice of eviction three months early.

One could argue that they were given five years worth of notice of eviction. But, it doesn't matter, they broke the contract that they had from 1997.

So they did not, in fact, uphold their end of the contract and they were given ample warning. Therefore, the contract is null and void.

For a source that also says the exact same thing (http://politiken.dk/indland/article215203.ece)

The only peaceful demonstration I've heard of that occurred three days ago, there was no teargas involved, no rocks and no burning cars.

Just lots of bikes, good sun and a good bit of yelling.

Certainly, the newspapers reported that everything around here went peacefully. If you have a source that says otherwise, I'm curious to get my hands on it.

Edit: timewarp ftw!


I am a reliable source on this one because I was there the whole time. It was peaceful all the way from the Radhuspladsen to the little square where it ended near Norreport. I was not ín the demonstration but on the outskirts following the trail of some Dutch policecars I spotted and I was eager to take a picture of them. (Danish police didn't have enough cars suited for riot control so they borrowed some from Holland and Sweden). It's strange to see your "own" police cars with foreign plates on them driving through a foreign city.
But anyways, according to some police officials at the scene with whom I talked a bit there where about 1500 (!) policemen available that day for riot control. Don't know if it where that much but I've never seen so much police as last saturday in Copenhagen. The protesters where fun too, lot's of ordinary folks with it, some senior citizens, people with young children. Some where shouting, one was playing an electric guitar while his buddy was carrying the amplifier, some doing circuslike acts. Only saw some real hard-core squatters, some even from the Hamburg scene carrying a flag from the German "Autonomen" movement.

Talked with some Danish people about the issue. Some agreed with the local authorities, some didn't. Well IMHO it is a shame that the issue at hand causes so much controversy and emotion to all people involved. Such a beautiful city with such sympathetic inhabitants living in it doesn't deserve this.

Edit: Probably not a reliable source after all while the demonstration I saw was a few days after Seathornia posted his message. Damn Tuborg Classic, it's fantastic brew but is messing with your synapses.