NationStates Jolt Archive

Danish centre-right wins election

Mr Rasmussen was celebrating his third consecutive election victory
Denmark's governing coalition, led by Prime Minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen, has won a general election, but is one seat short of an absolute majority.
With all the votes counted, his Liberal-Conservative led government has taken 89 of the 179 seats in the Folketing, the country's parliament.

Mr Rasmussen could be forced to seek support from a new party headed by a Syrian-born Palestinian immigrant.

Turnout was higher than in the previous poll, held in 2005, at over 86%.

Mr Rasmussen, 54, who won a third consecutive election after the 2001 and 2005 victories was in a jubilant mood.

"Everything indicates that the government can continue," he told his supporters after victory became clear.

Social Democrat leader Helle Thorning-Schmidt has admitted her party had failed to gain enough votes, saying: "It was not enough."

'Kingmaker' Khader?

But Mr Rasmussen's Liberal Party lost six seats and most of these went to the recently formed New Alliance party headed by Naser Khader, which won five seats, holding the balance of power in the new parliament.

THE NEW DANISH PARLIAMENT
Liberal Party 46 (-6)
Social Democrats 45 (-1)
Danish People's Party 25 (+1)
Socialist Party 23 (+12)
Conservative Party 18 (no change)
New Alliance 5 (+5)
Others 17
Total 179

The minority Liberal-Conservative government has counted until now on the support of the anti-immigrant Danish People's Party.

And although Mr Khader has said his choice would be to side with the current prime minister, many expect negotiations along the way.

But such a coalition including the anti-immigrant DPP and Mr Khader's party would be unstable, some analysts say.

There has been much campaign wrangling about welfare and tax reforms, immigration and the environment.

But all the main parties seem to agree on the core issues and campaigning has been more about who wields power than a policy change, correspondents say.


Also.....

Danes in poll tussle over migrants

Immigration has become the central battleground in the Danish parliamentary election, which takes place on Tuesday.


Mr Fogh Rasmussen is tipped to win the election - and a third term

Denmark's relations with the Muslim world reached crisis point in 2005 over a Danish newspaper's publication of Prophet Muhammad cartoons.

The leader of the opposition Social Democrats, Helle Thorning-Schmidt, proposes to relax restrictions on asylum seekers.

The centre-right Prime Minister, Anders Fogh Rasmussen, warns that such a move could turn Denmark into "a magnet for refugees".

Strict immigration policies have been at the heart of his government's programme since 2001.

Mrs Thorning-Schmidt, daughter-in-law of former British Labour Party leader Neil Kinnock, wants to give a group of some 500 Iraqi failed asylum seekers permission to live and work outside their refugee camps until Iraq becomes safe enough for them to return. She says Denmark has a special responsibility to help the Iraqis because of Denmark's role in the Iraq conflict.

Although most Danes want to ease restrictions on asylum seekers, Mrs Thorning-Schmidt still looks unlikely to win.

Her party, like Mr Fogh Rasmussen's, would need the support of the centre-right New Alliance Party to form a government - but it is thought to be leaning towards the incumbent prime minister.

Cartoon row

New Alliance was founded in May this year by a popular immigrant politician, Syrian-born Naser Khader.


Syrian-born Naser Khader has shot to prominence in Denmark
He came to prominence in 2005 when he promoted reconciliation and religious tolerance to defuse the row over the Prophet Muhammad cartoons. Anti-cartoon protests across the Muslim world left more than 100 dead.

Mr Khader, who has "democracy" tattooed across his right arm, remains a cultural Muslim.

His party wants to reform Denmark's tax system. The country has one of the highest tax rates in the world - up to 68% - and New Alliance is keen to reduce it. The party also wants better conditions for asylum seekers.

Rival Muslim candidate

Mr Khader contrasts with the other prominent Muslim politician in the race, Asmaa Abdol-Hamid of the left-wing Unity List.

Mrs Abdol-Hamid - who wears a headscarf - has upset many by refusing to shake hands with men in public for religious reasons.

"There is absolutely no way we will bow to a terror organisation"

Pia Kjaersgaard, DPP leader

At the other end of the political spectrum is the anti-immigration Danish People's Party (DPP). The DPP has been the driving force behind the tightening of Denmark's immigration laws in recent years.

It has angered the Palestinian Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigade in Gaza by using an image of the Prophet Muhammad on one of its election posters, in direct reference to the cartoon row.

The image was accompanied by the text "Freedom of speech is Danish, censorship is not".

No TV debate

In an interview with Jyllandsposten, the newspaper that originally published the cartoons, a spokesman for the Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigade, Khaled al-Jabbari, said "this party is dealing with the blood of the Danish people. That is dangerous."


Mrs Thorning-Schmidt wants more welfare instead of tax cuts
"The DPP will not only be an enemy of the Al-Aqsa Brigade. They will be an enemy of many Muslims," he added.

DPP leader Pia Kjaersgaard said "this is insane - there is absolutely no way we will bow to a terror organisation".

"We did not draw the image. It is a 400-year-old drawing of Muhammad that we are using to symbolise freedom of speech."

Danish Foreign Minister Per Stig Moeller said "Al-Aqsa Brigade is a terror organisation that should not dictate the political life of Denmark".

Although he is the favourite to win the election, Mr Fogh Rasmussen has been reluctant to meet Mrs Thorning-Schmidt at live debates. He says such debates are too populist and distract from real politics.

However, some commentators suggest that his real concern is that Mrs Thorning-Schmidt, the first female prime ministerial candidate in Denmark, has a better connection with the audience. "

Whoever wins, immigration will remain high up Denmark's political agenda.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7091941.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7087474.stm

The Right will always need non-issues like abortion, immigration and homosexuality to distract common people from the lack of economic and social justice, and play their common ignorant racism against them. Some fool could be dirt poor and still be squabbling on about Asians taking over the country. Pity.

The Right will always need non-issues like abortion, immigration and homosexuality to distract common people from the lack of economic and social justice, and play their common ignorant racism against them. Some fool could be dirt poor and still be squabbling on about Asians taking over the country. Pity.

In before I go work out:

1. Immigration is not a non-issue....Please explain how it is if it is (as BBC says) THE CENTER ISSUE in the Danish election? That obviously makes it an issue, and not a non-issue. Your opinion is not only invalid but wrong.

2. Dirt poor fool analogies don't apply cuz Denmark is rich, biatch!

Now, I go work out.

Well looking at the stats, it looks like the socialist party and new alliance are the real winners.

Pff, in any case, the DPP or whatever they call themselves can never hold back the tide of Islam. We shall continue to reproduce, and their country shall be brown. It is only inevitable.

Well looking at the stats, it looks like the socialist party and new alliance are the real winners.
Yeah, it's interesting though. Aside from immigration, the main issue is the welfare state.

The socialist party got tons of votes for defending it and trying to increase it...yet the new alliance got votes even though they are for cutting the welfare state and lowering taxes...it's quite interesting.

The Danish People's Party remained in a steady third...which is good...still gives them a good amount of power mixed with the conservatives.

In before I go work out:

1. Immigration is not a non-issue....Please explain how it is if it is (as BBC says) THE CENTER ISSUE in the Danish election? That obviously makes it an issue, and not a non-issue. Your opinion is not only invalid but wrong.
It's a non-issue from any objective position, Denmark (like any country) has economic and social justice issues, and the Right as usual tries to distract from this by sprouting out these 'populist' racist anti-immigration stances, it's quite wrong to keep telling someone that their own ignorance and bigotry is somehow dignified and meaningful because the Right plays you like a chess piece.

2. Dirt poor fool analogies don't apply cuz Denmark is rich, biatch!
'A few rich requires an abundance of poor'

Pff, in any case, the DPP or whatever they call themselves can never hold back the tide of Islam. We shall continue to reproduce, and their country shall be brown. It is only inevitable.
If you really think that way...how racist of you.....

Words (in this moderated forum) cannot say what I feel about that above post....

If you really think that way...how racist of you.....

Words (in this moderated forum) cannot say what I feel about that above post....

Well it was kind of satire/a joke, but I suppose not everyone understands humour.

But it is true, we cannot be stopped.

It wasnt funny because Muslims look ugly. Many people wouldnt wanna see hot Danes replaced by ugly browns.

Are you kidding me! We're so sexy, we can stay inside 24/7 and still have an awesome tan. Besides, those Danes are just too white.

Are you kidding me! We're so sexy, we can stay inside 24/7 and still have an awesome tan. Besides, those Danes are just too white.
That awesome tan is...not so awesome in my book. And you guys don't carry any recessive genes ;) The Danes got you beat on that one.
It wasnt funny because Muslims look ugly. Many people wouldnt wanna see hot Danes replaced by ugly browns.
My reasons are a bit different than what is aesthetically pleasing, but yeah, Danes are generally hotter than Muslims.
But it is true, we cannot be stopped.
Yeah, we'll see about that. You can be if I have anything to do with it.

That awesome tan is...not so awesome in my book. And you guys don't carry any recessive genes ;) The Danes got you beat on that one.

My reasons are a bit different than what is aesthetically pleasing, but yeah, Danes are generally hotter than Muslims.

Yeah, we'll see about that. You can be if I have anything to do with it.

It's good not to have recessive genes, we're just so dominant.

Danes and Muslims aren't necessarily two different groups, in time, they shall be one.

The sad thing is, you're actually serious.

It's good not to have recessive genes, we're just so dominant.
Danes have both. PWND.
Danes and Muslims aren't necessarily two different groups, in time, they shall be one.
Not in my lifetime, thank God.
The sad thing is, you're actually serious.
100%

Wait a sec, the Liberal-Conservative coalition posts no net gain, and yet they "won the election." Does not compute. They're no better off than they were before, and indeed their coalition is shakier than it was before.

Wait a sec, the Liberal-Conservative coalition posts no net gain, and yet they "won the election." Does not compute. They're no better off than they were before, and indeed their coalition is shakier than it was before.

It doesn't matter, the muzlmz are evil!

Danes have both. PWND.

Not in my lifetime, thank God.

100%

Why the hell would I want recessive genes, I would want my kids to be just like me, perfect.

We'll see about that.

It's kind of sad that while I'm joking, you actually believe Muslims are somehow inferior to everyone else and should be kicked out of Europe.

It doesn't matter, the muzlmz are evil!
What country do you live in?
Wait a sec, the Liberal-Conservative coalition posts no net gain, and yet they "won the election." Does not compute. They're no better off than they were before, and indeed their coalition is shakier than it was before.
Because they are still dominant coalition, though the Socialist Party (like I admitted, due to the importance of the welfare issue) it seems had the post increase and is a winner in their own growth-y way.

What country do you live in?



The same one as you.

Why the hell would I want recessive genes, I would want my kids to be just like me, perfect.
No I idea...but you were saying how awesome your bodies are...I contested that....though I'm not taking this 'argument' seriously...:p

The arguments below, however...are very serious.

We'll see about that.
Indeed we will. In the future I'll be getting more involved with the Swiss-Peoples Party to secure Switzerland's borders...so even if Europe goes to hell and back, Switzerland will remain secure.

It's kind of sad that while I'm joking, you actually believe Muslims are somehow inferior to everyone else and should be kicked out of Europe.
Islam is an inferior ideaology. Don't get me wrong, I have the same issues with a blonde haired, green eyed, Swedish convert to Islam that I have with a Iraqi immigrant to Sweden, for example....

The same one as you.
Islam is quite a different issue in Europe than it is in America.

No I idea...but you were saying how awesome your bodies are...I contested that....though I'm not taking this 'argument' seriously...:p

The arguments below, however...are very serious.


Indeed we will. In the future I'll be getting more involved with the Swiss-Peoples Party to secure Switzerland's borders...so even if Europe goes to hell and back, Switzerland will remain secure.


Islam is an inferior ideaology. Don't get me wrong, I have the same issues with a blonde haired, green eyed, Swedish convert to Islam that I have with a Iraqi immigrant to Sweden, for example....


That makes you just as much of a bigot as if you had said that you hate brown or white people. What is your basis on all of this?

Islam is quite a different issue in Europe than it is in America.

Why so?

That makes you just as much of a bigot as if you had said that you hate brown or white people. What is your basis on all of this?
Not quite. Islam is an idealogy, a religion, a value system and a legal system. Being White or being Brown...is not...any of those things.
Why so?
Just is. Do you follow European politics at all? There just are not the same issues with Islam over here as there are over there.

Here, read up..there's more here than I could possibly summarize:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_in_Europe#Relations_between_Muslims_and_non-Muslims_in_Europe

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_dress_controversy_in_Europe

I don't think immigration is as central as the OP makes it seem. I have a feeling most Danish have more immediate concerns, like their taxes and where they're spent.

http://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/0,1518,515500,00.html
'Denmark Is Not a Racist Country'

What is at stake in Danish elections next Tuesday? SPIEGEL spoke with bestselling Danish author Leif Davidsen, 57, to find out.

Not quite. Islam is an idealogy, a religion, a value system and a legal system. Being White or being Brown...is not...any of those things.

Just is. Do you follow European politics at all? There just are not the same issues with Islam over here as there are over there.

Here, read up..there's more here than I could possibly summarize:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_in_Europe#Relations_between_Muslims_and_non-Muslims_in_Europe

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_dress_controversy_in_Europe

This proves virtually nothing, I will explain further tomorrow if I have time, but for now I must rest.

The very fact that muslims are flooding to the west says something about how well the arab muslim system works.

Edit: other wise we would se a flood of immigrants from europe to the middle east..hmmm there must be some reason...I wonder what.

I don't think immigration is as central as the OP makes it seem. I have a feeling most Danish have more immediate concerns, like their taxes and where they're spent.

http://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/0,1518,515500,00.html
To be fair, it doesn't really matter what you think or feel, nor what I "made it seem"...I quoted directly from BBC, which in turn said this:
"Immigration has become the central battleground in the Danish parliamentary election, which takes place on Tuesday."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7087474.stm

Also, terrible article from Der Spiegel...being nationalist is "un-Danish"....:rolleyes:

According to the final results yesterday, New Alliance will NOT be the able to demand anythings as The Conservatives, The Liberals and The Danish People's Party have enough votes to carry on as they have. So if New Alliance wants to be part of the government they are not in a position to make demands.

being nationalist is "un-Danish"....

Yet the Danish People's Party have gained popularity being just that..

Also I hope that Asmaa Abdol-Hamid does not get votes enough to get into Parliament...

According to the final results yesterday, New Alliance will NOT be the able to demand anythings as The Conservatives, The Liberals and The Danish People's Party have enough votes to carry on as they have. So if New Alliance wants to be part of the government they are not in a position to make demands.
Do you have a source on this? This would be very good news but it does not line up with what I've been seeing.....? Any source would be nice.
Also I hope that Asmaa Abdol-Hamid does not get votes enough to get into Parliament...
Ugh, I also hope not, he's terrible!

Yet the Danish People's Party have gained popularity being just that..
Agreed. Not only that, but they've also managed to convince Denmark to give itself the strictest immigration in the EU.:)

It would be very hard to do all that if they are so "un-Danish".:rolleyes:

On a completely unrelated note, Anders Fogh Rasmussen looks creepy.

Uhhhh, the poor exclusive welfare capitalist elite in Europe don't like immigration...

I would like to point out that the recent election had more to do with welfare than immigration.

1. Immigration is not a non-issue....Please explain how it is if it is (as BBC says) THE CENTER ISSUE in the Danish election? That obviously makes it an issue, and not a non-issue. Your opinion is not only invalid but wrong.

It was not the center issue. It was, in fact, a non-issue.

The issue in this election was welfare and taxes.

'A few rich requires an abundance of poor'

I suggest you look up on the economic situation of your average dane.

It is near the complete opposite of the US.

Danish and muslim are not anymore mutually exclusive than Danish and atheist. This to Atlantian, who fails to understand the difference between religion and ethnicity.

"Immigration has become the central battleground in the Danish parliamentary election, which takes place on Tuesday."

Funny how the ONLY party that tried to talk about immigration was DF.

Funny how they got left out in the cold, as usual.

Ugh, I also hope not, he's terrible!

Right, that's it.

Your ignorance is showing. Stop discussing Danish politics until you at least know the gender of the people you're talking about.

Oh yeah.

The center right coalition depends entirely on being able to get a vote from the North Atlantic.

Assuming New Alliance doesn't join in.

Also, terrible article from Der Spiegel...being nationalist is "un-Danish"....:rolleyes:
First of all, you shouldn't take quotes out of context. She said: "It would really be great if the Danish People's Party would finally be sidelined. It's retrograde, populist and very nationalist. And that is very un-Danish."

And Spiegel continues with: "Denmark's reputation as a tolerant and cosmopolitan country has suffered due to the country's rigid policy on foreigners but also due to the controversy over the caricatures of the Prophet Muhammad published in Danish daily Jyllands-Posten in September of 2005."

So that's the whole statement. Denmark has built a reputation as being a very nice, agreeable place. They give a lot of foreign aid and generally their governments on the international stage have done what they could to make the world (and Europe) a better place, knowing fully well that for such a small country good outcomes depend on how well their neighbours are going moreso than any nationalism. And in so far, throwing hissyfits about foreigners outbreeding Danes are indeed not particularly Danish.

OP snip
So, the coalition, including the 'People's' Party, loses a net total of five seats, primarily to the Socialist People's Party. This is a victory for the centre right, how, exactly?

I suggest you look up on the economic situation of your average dane.

It is near the complete opposite of the US.
Either way, if immigration is the biggest issue they have to argue about then the public is either stupid or being mislead, probably both.

It's a non-issue from any objective position, Denmark (like any country) has economic and social justice issues, and the Right as usual tries to distract from this by sprouting out these 'populist' racist anti-immigration stances, it's quite wrong to keep telling someone that their own ignorance and bigotry is somehow dignified and meaningful because the Right plays you like a chess piece.
Ah it burns! It burns!

Must..resist.....urge...to..forcefully...remonstrate!

Huzzah! More wacko rightists for us to laugh at :D

Seems like pretty much stalemate and some very, very interesting coalition negotiations from here.

Immigration's an issue, though I think it's often overplayed; I don't know what the population density is in Denmark (quite high though, I'd expect) but I would consider that the main argument for tighter immigration controls. It is much harder for a nation already very densely populated (such as the Netherlands, or the south-eastern corner of the UK) to assimilate population inflows (of any origin, and non-nationals add separate issues) than it is for a more sparsely populated nation.

Seems like a split on welfare and taxes has grown. I hope that any reform increases productivity more than it does inequality.

Pff, in any case, the DPP or whatever they call themselves can never hold back the tide of Islam. We shall continue to reproduce, and their country shall be brown. It is only inevitable.

It's odd to see someone who at the same time claims to be a muslim AND fuels islamophobia.

It's odd to see someone who at the same time claims to be a muslim AND fuels islamophobia.

I think they are being sarcastic.

Islam is an inferior ideaology. Don't get me wrong, I have the same issues with a blonde haired, green eyed, Swedish convert to Islam that I have with a Iraqi immigrant to Sweden, for example....

Islam helped bring back Civilization to Europe genius

Well it was kind of satire/a joke, but I suppose not everyone understands humour.

But it is true, we cannot be stopped.
When you take an attitude like that it's certainly understandable why so many are against the spread of islam in their countries. And anyone can be stopped through force of arms.

I BEFRIEND CHESTNUTS;13215506']When you take an attitude like that it's certainly understandable why so many are against the spread of islam in their countries. And anyone can be stopped through force of arms.

I wonder something... would the general response here have been different if Zayun had said the inevitable spread of Christianity instead of Islam?

I wonder something... would the general response here have been different if Zayun had said the inevitable spread of Christianity instead of Islam?
Less hostile, because Christianity seems to be much less of a threat (Particularly in Europe) than islam.

I BEFRIEND CHESTNUTS;13215588']Less hostile, because Christianity seems to be much less of a threat (Particularly in Europe) than islam.

How about the simple fact that the person was obviously joking?

I BEFRIEND CHESTNUTS;13215588']Less hostile, because Christianity seems to be much less of a threat (Particularly in Europe) than islam.

Only in comparison. It can easily be viewed as a threat as much as Islam. Maybe not as violent but it is a threat to civil rights given the interpretation and the propensity of the zealous followers to force their morality on to the rest of the unwilling population (unwilling not just being the non-religious but those of different sects as well).

How about the simple fact that the person was obviously joking?
Joke or not, it's not the sort of thing that gets friendly reactions in the current climate.

Only in comparison. It can easily be viewed as a threat as much as Islam. Maybe not as violent but it is a threat to civil rights given the interpretation and the propensity of the zealous followers to force their morality on to the rest of the unwilling population (unwilling not just being the non-religious but those of different sects as well).
Which is why I said "Particularly in Europe". What you said may be the case in the US, but in the vast majority of Europe it isn't the case. Anyway, as far as I'm concerned, even some of the more ultra-conservative Christian sects are less of a threat than a lot of 'moderate' islamic ones.

Islam is an inferior ideaology. Don't get me wrong, I have the same issues with a blonde haired, green eyed, Swedish convert to Islam that I have with a Iraqi immigrant to Sweden, for example....

Meh. "Islam" is so many things: there are various islamic cultures (at least, as many christian cultures), there are lay ideas about the State in countries whose main religion is islam (I'm not thinking just about Turkey, but also to the Baath party), there is the shaaria, there is the islamic culture of moresque Spain, there is the islamic culture of pre-Mongolic-invasion Baghdad, there are islamic fundies who are terrorists and islamic fundies who aren't terrorists, etc, etc.

Stating that "Islam is an inferior ideaology" (it's ideology btw, but nevermind) is a gross oversimplification of such a vast world as Islam is. Oversimplification leads to lack of knowledge. Lack of knowledge leads to fear. Fear leads to hate.

So, avoid oversimplification, please.

I BEFRIEND CHESTNUTS;13215620']Joke or not, it's not the sort of thing that gets friendly reactions in the current climate.
It is if it's a joke.

Just as Maddy McCann jokes are, at least by me, very warmly recieved, even if statements that little girls should be kidnapped/killed are not.

Pff, in any case, the DPP or whatever they call themselves can never hold back the tide of Islam. We shall continue to reproduce, and their country shall be brown. It is only inevitable.

Not if we Indians beat you to it! Nyah Nyah!

Only in comparison. It can easily be viewed as a threat as much as Islam. Maybe not as violent but it is a threat to civil rights given the interpretation and the propensity of the zealous followers to force their morality on to the rest of the unwilling population (unwilling not just being the non-religious but those of different sects as well).

It took us Europeans 17 centuries to have christianity evolve from angry mobs of fundies who burned the Library of Alexandria and crucified pagans in revenge for past wrongs to a religion (mostly) respectful of human rights.

So, really, do we expect that european Islam will "europeise" in 17 days, or weeks? Give them time.

I BEFRIEND CHESTNUTS;13215620']Joke or not, it's not the sort of thing that gets friendly reactions in the current climate.

I think that humour is important. In today's climate, poking fun at the bigotry and xenophobia so prevalent in European 'nationalist' movements is probably one of the best weapons we have.

If people get upset by jokes like that, perhaps they should examine themselves for such bigotry and xenophobia.

It took us Europeans 17 centuries to have christianity evolve from angry mobs of fundies who burned the Library of Alexandria and crucified pagans in revenge for past wrongs to a religion (mostly) respectful of human rights.

So, really, do we expect that european Islam will "europeise" in 17 days, or weeks? Give them time.

In a way, it's almost like the development of people. It was innocent and childlike in its infancy, starting throwing temper tantrums in Rome until it got its way, became a curious child, then an angsty teenager. The Middle Ages were its Goth phase, the Renaissance was when it finally got interested in its future and starting getting a broader perspective on the world, and the Victorian Age was its age of sexual experimentation. Now it's a mellow post-college kid with a few loose ends to tie up.

Either way, if immigration is the biggest issue they have to argue about then the public is either stupid or being mislead, probably both.

As I said, Atlantian is misleading when he claims this election was based on immigration.

It took us Europeans 17 centuries to have christianity evolve from angry mobs of fundies who burned the Library of Alexandria and crucified pagans in revenge for past wrongs to a religion (mostly) respectful of human rights.

So, really, do we expect that european Islam will "europeise" in 17 days, or weeks? Give them time.
Why should they be given time? If muslims move to European countries it should them who are expected to adapt to the European way of life. I'm glad dark ages attitudes are gone from European countries, I certainly don't want them given back to us by another religion!

Besides, islamic fundamentalism only seems to have really taken off in recent decades. A lot of Arab and other muslim countries in the 60s and 70s seemed to be getting more secular, particularly when pan-Arabism was a force.

The Right will always need non-issues like abortion, immigration and homosexuality to distract common people from the lack of economic and social justice, and play their common ignorant racism against them. Some fool could be dirt poor and still be squabbling on about Asians taking over the country. Pity.

Immigration is not a non-issue, especially if goverment manages to f*ck it up. But indeed, abortion and homosexuality are completely trivial.

Rasmussen obviously won using doping :rolleyes:

I BEFRIEND CHESTNUTS;13215661']Why should they be given time? If muslims move to European countries it should them who are expected to adapt to the European way of life. I'm glad dark ages attitudes are gone from European countries, I certainly don't want them given back to us by another religion!

Besides, islamic fundamentalism only seems to have really taken off in recent decades. A lot of Arab and other muslim countries in the 60s and 70s seemed to be getting more secular, particularly when pan-Arabism was a force.

Do you have any support for the underlying assumptions in your post? Like your idea that Muslims are choosing not to integrate, or your implication that Muslims wish to bring Europe into some sort of Muslim dark ages.

Well it was kind of satire/a joke, but I suppose not everyone understands humour.

But it is true, we cannot be stopped.

You could be if you were castrated.

That was satire/a joke as well.

But it is true, that would stop you.

Like your idea that Muslims are choosing not to integrate, or your implication that Muslims wish to bring Europe into some sort of Muslim dark ages.

Im sure I BEFRIEND CHESTNUTS can speak for himself, but have you heard of Shariah law? Based on the Qur'an and Hadith, its a lovely little system of law and order, go read about it, and ask a Muslim what he/she thinks of Shariah law.

Olmedreca;13215668']Immigration is not a non-issue, especially if goverment manages to f*ck it up. But indeed, abortion and homosexuality are completely trivial.

Immigration is a non-issue for many European nations. This is because of the economic reasons for immigration. As the European population ages, the dawning labour shortage will worsen. In order to maintain their economic strength, the nations of Europe will have to import workers.

If a politician says that they will stop immigration, they are either lying or economic idiots.

The very fact that muslims are flooding to the west says something about how well the arab muslim system works.


Yeah, same with McDonald's. The very fact that so many people eat McDonald's means McDonald's makes good quality food.


My reasons are a bit different than what is aesthetically pleasing, but yeah, Danes are generally hotter than Muslims.

Must be really confusing if you're a Danish Muslim. But please, everyone on this forum is aware of your paranoid, bigoted views and we don't really need a recap.

The very fact that muslims are flooding to the west says something about how well the arab muslim system works.

People do realize Islamic Civilization was very advanced while Christian Europe was stuck in barberism?

People do realize Islamic Civilization was very advanced while Christian Europe was stuck in barberism?

Generally, no.

Im sure I BEFRIEND CHESTNUTS can speak for himself, but have you heard of Shariah law? Based on the Qur'an and Hadith, its a lovely little system of law and order, go read about it, and ask a Muslim what he/she thinks of Shariah law.

This would only be applicable if you could show me some source that demonstrates that the majority of European Muslims wish to instate Sharia law.

Do you have a source that shows that?

Generally, no.

Will people are ignorant

countries always rise and fall and become instable, I believe it's the instability that's causing problems in Islam and not Islam itself

Do you have any support for the underlying assumptions in your post? Like your idea that Muslims are choosing not to integrate, or your implication that Muslims wish to bring Europe into some sort of Muslim dark ages.
I was just responding to Risottia's suggestions that muslims should somehow be treated with kid gloves and not expected to act like modern, civilised people.

This would only be applicable if you could show me some source that demonstrates that the majority of European Muslims wish to instate Sharia law.

Do you have a source that shows that?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/02/19/nsharia19.xml&sSheet=/portal/2006/02/19/ixportaltop.html

Thats just the percent of people willing to say it out loud, there are organisations all over Europe dedicated to the establishment of divine law. Mostly with a Hizb ut Tahrir flavour to them. Its not a majority but 40 percent is about 40 percent too high. Imagine if a survey asked Germans would you like to see the Nazi party back in power, imagine if 40 percent of Germans wanted it back even after all the harm its does has been proved.

Ah, lies, damned lies, and statistics.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/02/19/nsharia19.xml&sSheet=/portal/2006/02/19/ixportaltop.html

Thats just the percent of people willing to say it out loud, there are

Yeah I was reading that article and it said 500 people were surveyed. I could be wrong, but I think the population of Europe is significantly larger than that.

If polls are not good enough to substitute for elections (let's see, would you want the country decided not by YOUR vote, but by someones CALCULATION of your vote?), then I don't think they are good enough to decide what a majority of actual people believe.

Ah, lies, damned lies, and statistics.



Yeah I was reading that article and it said 500 people were surveyed. I could be wrong, but I think the population of Europe is significantly larger than that.

If polls are not good enough to substitute for elections (let's see, would you want the country decided not by YOUR vote, but by someones CALCULATION of your vote?), then I don't think they are good enough to decide what a majority of actual people believe.
During, I might add, the cartoons controversy. Perfect time to produce a representative poll...

During, I might add, the cartoons controversy. Perfect time to produce a representative poll...

Not to mention that people seem to think that only muslims are capable of immigrating.

Ah, lies, damned lies, and statistics.



Yeah I was reading that article and it said 500 people were surveyed. I could be wrong, but I think the population of Europe is significantly larger than that.

If polls are not good enough to substitute for elections (let's see, would you want the country decided not by YOUR vote, but by someones CALCULATION of your vote?), then I don't think they are good enough to decide what a majority of actual people believe.

As far as analogies go that was a poor one, it could be that there was a massive coincidence and the 500 Muslims serveyed were all just coming out of a "how to deal with the dirty kuffar in the most inhumane way possible" meeting, but i doubt it. Surveys are usually wrong by no more than 5 percent. This is a small sample considering there are between 1 and 2 million muslims in Britain and the survey can't account for feelings about shariah law Europe wide because such a survey has never been done. However considering all that, i doubt that the percentage would be much lower in the suburbs of Paris or in Turkish majority areas in Germany because Britain is not the only nation that suffers from Islamic militancy.

During, I might add, the cartoons controversy. Perfect time to produce a representative poll...

As if such pathetic trivialities count as an excuse.

As far as analogies go that was a poor one, it could be that there was a massive coincidence and the 500 Muslims serveyed were all just coming out of a "how to deal with the dirty kuffar in the most inhumane way possible" meeting, but i doubt it. Surveys are usually wrong by no more than 5 percent.

Mm, sure. So you wouldn't mind abolishing elections, and having The Telegraph simply poll 500 people to decide the government?

Or is there perhaps merit in asking what someone believes, instead of taking what 200 people say and generalizing it to populations of millions or billions?

I dunno, I guess you don't see that there is. Back in the rational world however, 200 people do not a ZOMG MUSLIM INVASION make.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/02/19/nsharia19.xml&sSheet=/portal/2006/02/19/ixportaltop.html

Thats just the percent of people willing to say it out loud, there are organisations all over Europe dedicated to the establishment of divine law. Mostly with a Hizb ut Tahrir flavour to them. Its not a majority but 40 percent is about 40 percent too high. Imagine if a survey asked Germans would you like to see the Nazi party back in power, imagine if 40 percent of Germans wanted it back even after all the harm its does has been proved.

The same poll also showed that an even larger percentage did not want sharia law imposed anywhere in the UK. So, that must mean that a majority of Muslims do not want that. Thanks for proving my point.

I BEFRIEND CHESTNUTS;13215765']I was just responding to Risottia's suggestions that muslims should somehow be treated with kid gloves and not expected to act like modern, civilised people.

They are expected to act like modern, civilised people, and the vast majority of them do. Just like people of any other religion.

As if such pathetic trivialities count as an excuse.
Excuse? No. This isn't about right and wrong. This is about whether the context of a poll makes its results any more or les reliable. If you take a poll in an unusual context, be prepared to get an unusual response. It is no different to expecting a higher poll response for, say, restrictions on civil liberties just after a terrorist attack than any other time, regardless of whether such a response is right or wrong.

Mm, sure. So you wouldn't mind abolishing elections, and having The Telegraph simply poll 500 people to decide the government?

Or is there perhaps merit in asking what someone believes, instead of taking what 200 people say and generalizing it to populations of millions or billions?

I dunno, I guess you don't see that there is. Back in the rational world however, 200 people do not a ZOMG MUSLIM INVASION make.

Again here comes your little analogy, not that anyone said a survey ever constitutes a referendum, not that anyone said that a survey can be relied on for 100 percent accuracy (neither can an election for that matter), yet it raises it ugly head regardless. All we can say from this survey is that of those 500 people asked 200 of them would like to see beheadings for homosexuals, stoning for adulterers and amputations for pickpockets. We can also say statistically but not definitively that between 35 and 45 percent of the muslim population of the UK will likely think the same, unless some million to one coincidence has occured.

The same poll also showed that an even larger percentage did not want sharia law imposed anywhere in the UK. So, that must mean that a majority of Muslims do not want that. Thanks for proving my point.

Incorrect. The same poll showed that a slightly larger percentage of Muslims did not want sharia law imposed in the UK. That proves that a slight majority of British Muslim do not want that. You have yet to prove anything.

Incorrect. The same poll showed that a slightly larger percentage of Muslims did not want sharia law imposed in the UK. That proves that a slight majority of British Muslim do not want that. You have yet to prove anything.

I have yet to prove anything because I'm not arguing for anything. I made no claim. Our squirrel like friend made some implied assertions in post #62. I asked him (or her) to provide some evidence. You tried to present such evidence and failed.

Is it clear now?

Again here comes your little analogy, not that anyone said a survey ever constitutes a referendum, not that anyone said that a survey can be relied on for 100 percent accuracy (neither can an election for that matter), yet it raises it ugly head regardless.

Right. Elections aren't accurate and neither are polls. So why use elections (costly, time-consuming) when we can use polls?

Why is it good enough to "extrapolate" someone's opinion on X, but not to "extrapolate" their vote?

All we can say from this survey is that of those 500 people asked 200 of them would like to see beheadings for homosexuals, stoning for adulterers and amputations for pickpockets.

And?

We can also say statistically but not definitively that between 35 and 45 percent of the muslim population of the UK will likely think the same, unless some million to one coincidence has occured.

You give a political opinion poll being incorrect million to one odds against?

You're off your rocker.

About the whole "Islam is developing" thing:

Islam isn't a new religion. It's 700 years younger than Christianity - only 400 years, really, when you consider how Christians were persecuted for a few centuries, but Islam took about as much time to establish itself as the Internet (I think - could someone check the timeline in the Koran?). So Islam should be about 400 years behind Christianty. Where was Christianity 400 years ago? Let me check my timeline - uh-oh, this doesn't look good...

400 years ago, Christian Europe was about to enter its darkest hour - the Thirty Years' War. I'd say Islam is having its equivalent of the Thirty Years' War right now - a time of religious nutjobs and sectarian violence resulting in untold bloodshed. What happened in Germany 400 years ago is being repeated in Iraq. Islam will get out of this period, but not without a lot of people dying.

Frankly, the Muslims are doing way better than the Christians did. I'd say that Western influence is the reason for this - not only are we trying to prevent massive bloodshed, but we make such excellent targets, that the Muslims are focusing a lot of their anger on us instead of each other. And frankly, I think that's better. Western soldiers are harder to kill than Muslim civilians, so the overall death toll is lower. However much destruction is happening in the Middle East today, the Thirty Years' War was much worse.

I'm not offering any opinions on the specific study being discussed here because I haven't read it, but I thought I'd chime in with some of the actual math involved in such surveys. Given a British Muslim population of 1.591 million and a true random sample of 500 from that population, there's only a 1 in 100 chance of a result that differs by more than 5.8% from the figures you'd get if you polled the entire population. That's the way the math works out. I'm ill-equipped to explain it myself, but I've taken statistics courses and seen it done, and it does work.

Here is one website that talks about Muslim Civilization

http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/introduction/woi_history.html

Islam is a religion for all people from whatever race or background they might be. That is why Islamic civilization is based on a unity which stands completely against any racial or ethnic discrimination. Such major racial and ethnic groups as the Arabs, Persians, Turks, Africans, Indians, Chinese and Malays in addition to numerous smaller units embraced Islam and contributed to the building of Islamic civilization. Moreover, Islam was not opposed to learning from the earlier civilizations and incorporating their science, learning, and culture into its own world view, as long as they did not oppose the principles of Islam. Each ethnic and racial group which embraced Islam made its contribution to the one Islamic civilization to which everyone belonged. The sense of brotherhood and sisterhood was so much emphasized that it overcame all local attachments to a particular tribe, race, or language--all of which became subservient to the universal brotherhood and sisterhood of Islam. The global civilization thus created by Islam permitted people of diverse ethnic backgrounds to work together in cultivating various arts and sciences. Although the civilization was profoundly Islamic, even non-Muslim "people of the book" participated in the intellectual activity whose fruits belonged to everyone. The scientific climate was reminiscent of the present situation in America where scientists and men and women of learning from all over the world are active in the advancement of knowledge which belongs to everyone. The global civilization created by Islam also succeeded in activating the mind and thought of the people who entered its fold. As a result of Islam, the nomadic Arabs became torch-bearers of science and learning. The Persians who had created a great civilization before the rise of Islam nevertheless produced much more science and learning in the Islamic period than before. The same can be said of the Turks and other peoples who embraced Islam. The religion of Islam was itself responsible not only for the creation of a world civilization in which people of many different ethnic backgrounds participated, but it played a central role in developing intellectual and cultural life on a scale not seen before. For some eight hundred years Arabic remained the major intellectual and scientific language of the world. During the centuries following the rise of Islam, Muslim dynasties ruling in various parts of the Islamic world bore witness to the flowering of Islamic culture and thought. In fact this tradition of intellectual activity was eclipsed only at the beginning of modern times as a result of the weakening of faith among Muslims combined with external domination. And today this activity has begun anew in many parts of the Islamic world now that the Muslims have regained their political independence.

This is a documentry on the moors and their positive influence on Europe

http://youtube.com/watch?v=nhptmIKXTnI

About the whole "Islam is developing" thing:

Islam isn't a new religion. It's 700 years younger than Christianity - only 400 years, really, when you consider how Christians were persecuted for a few centuries, but Islam took about as much time to establish itself as the Internet (I think - could someone check the timeline in the Koran?). So Islam should be about 400 years behind Christianty. Where was Christianity 400 years ago? Let me check my timeline - uh-oh, this doesn't look good...

400 years ago, Christian Europe was about to enter its darkest hour - the Thirty Years' War. I'd say Islam is having its equivalent of the Thirty Years' War right now - a time of religious nutjobs and sectarian violence resulting in untold bloodshed. What happened in Germany 400 years ago is being repeated in Iraq. Islam will get out of this period, but not without a lot of people dying.

Frankly, the Muslims are doing way better than the Christians did. I'd say that Western influence is the reason for this - not only are we trying to prevent massive bloodshed, but we make such excellent targets, that the Muslims are focusing a lot of their anger on us instead of each other. And frankly, I think that's better. Western soldiers are harder to kill than Muslim civilians, so the overall death toll is lower. However much destruction is happening in the Middle East today, the Thirty Years' War was much worse.

I guess, but I'd put more emphasis on the enlightenment and possibly the reformation (though it did result in an alarmingly high number of Calvinists and puritans) rather then the thirty years war itself. Though it's still incredibly dangerous to scrutinise the Quran (and I don't just mean insult or make general criticisms), so a Muslim enlightenment will be hard to come by.

I guess, but I'd put more emphasis on the enlightenment and possibly the reformation (though it did result in an alarmingly high number of Calvinists and puritans) rather then the thirty years war itself. Though it's still incredibly dangerous to scrutinise the Quran (and I don't just mean insult or make general criticisms), so a Muslim enlightenment will be hard to come by.

What makes you think that anymore than Christianity?

About the whole "Islam is developing" thing:

Islam isn't a new religion. It's 700 years younger than Christianity - only 400 years, really, when you consider how Christians were persecuted for a few centuries, but Islam took about as much time to establish itself as the Internet (I think - could someone check the timeline in the Koran?). So Islam should be about 400 years behind Christianty. Where was Christianity 400 years ago? Let me check my timeline - uh-oh, this doesn't look good...

400 years ago, Christian Europe was about to enter its darkest hour - the Thirty Years' War. I'd say Islam is having its equivalent of the Thirty Years' War right now - a time of religious nutjobs and sectarian violence resulting in untold bloodshed. What happened in Germany 400 years ago is being repeated in Iraq. Islam will get out of this period, but not without a lot of people dying.

Frankly, the Muslims are doing way better than the Christians did. I'd say that Western influence is the reason for this - not only are we trying to prevent massive bloodshed, but we make such excellent targets, that the Muslims are focusing a lot of their anger on us instead of each other. And frankly, I think that's better. Western soldiers are harder to kill than Muslim civilians, so the overall death toll is lower. However much destruction is happening in the Middle East today, the Thirty Years' War was much worse.

So you are saying that muslims will always be 400 years backward than Christians?

Latest from AP. It seems that Liberal-Conservative coalition w/ the support of Danish People's Party does not need the support of Muslim's party. Danish PM will try to include them but he will have to prefer DPP if there's any disagreement , since DPP is 5 times stronger than the Muslim's party.

http://img155.imageshack.us/img155/8805/27941562bm2.jpg
Kinda funny pic. "New Alliance party leader Naser Khader peers over at Danish People's Party leader Pia Kjaersgaard, far right, Wednesday Nov. 14, 2007 in Copenhagen, Denmark. Danish Prime Minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen started thorny coalition talks with his political allies Wednesday, hoping to expand the center-right bloc after winning re-election for a third term. The nationalist Danish People's Party, known for its harsh rhetoric, especially against Muslims, is a key ally in Fogh Rasmussen's government. (AP Phot/John McConnico)"


Danish PM Starts Coalition Talks

By KARL RITTER – 14 minutes ago

COPENHAGEN, Denmark (AP) — The prime minister began thorny coalition talks with political allies Wednesday, hoping to expand the center-right bloc after winning re-election for a third term.

As Prime Minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen began the talks, his partners started bickering, with an anti-immigrant party hurling insults at the Syrian-born leader of a new centrist group seeking to join the alliance.

Results from Tuesday's election showed the Liberal-Conservative government can stay in power with the support of its nationalist Danish People's Party.

However, Fogh Rasmussen said he would seek "broad cooperation" from all parties who support him. He met with center-right leaders, including Naser Khader, the Muslim who heads the New Alliance party that calls for more humane treatment of asylum-seekers.

That would boost the government bloc's majority in Parliament but also make it harder to agree on major policies including taxes and immigration where New Alliance and the Danish People's Party have opposing views.

"I have never said it would be easy but that is what political talks are all about," Fogh Rasmussen said after briefing Queen Margrethe, Denmark's figurehead monarch, on the election result.

The government bloc won 90 of the 179 seats in Parliament, including one seat given to Fogh Rasmussen's sister party in the Faeroe Islands, a semiautonomous territory in the North Atlantic. The leftist opposition led by the Social Democrats won 84 seats.

The result meant Fogh Rasmussen did not need the support of Khader's New Alliance, which had five seats, to secure a majority.

However, Faeroese lawmaker Edmund Joensen raised news questions about the majority when he refused to commit his support, saying he did not want a decisive role in Danish domestic politics, Danish news agency Ritzau reported.

Joensen did not immediately return calls seeking clarification of his position.

Fogh Rasmussen called the early election three weeks ago, taking advantage of favorable approval ratings buoyed by Denmark's strong economy. The jobless rate is 3.1 percent, the lowest in three decades, and the economy grew 3.5 percent last year.

Immigration, welfare and taxes were the main issues in the campaign, although there was broad agreement on keeping Denmark's cradle-to-grave welfare system.

Turnout was 86.5 percent of the country's 4 million voters, up from 84.5 percent in 2005.

Khader said he wants to pull the prime minister away from the influence of the Danish People's Party hard-line leader, Pia Kjaersgaard.

Even though it holds no Cabinet seats, Kjaersgaard's populist group has been instrumental in shaping Denmark's tight immigration laws, which have cut the number of asylum-seekers by 84 percent since 2001.

Underscoring it was not about to compromise its hardline stance on immigrants, the Danish People's Party wants a ban on halal meat for Muslims in public schools.

Mogens Camre, who represents the party in the European Parliament, dismissed Khader as an amateur who had tried to sway voters with "big words and Arabic carpet-trading logic."

The main opposition Social Democrats got 45 seats, their poorest showing since 1906, while their left-wing partner, the Socialist People's Party, doubled its support to win 23 seats.

Associated Press writer Jan M. Olsen contributed to this report.

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5ibwMzZLAEYNQhC1B7by__ty0jbagD8STLKD00

What makes you think that anymore than Christianity?

Christianity has been scrutinised to death, you can say what you like about Christianity, and there really isn't a threat of death, there wont be any fatwa's issued. It may have been like that in Europe 400 years ago, but not now. It's a different story in the middle east however. Look up Rushdie for an example.

Wait a sec, the Liberal-Conservative coalition posts no net gain, and yet they "won the election." Does not compute. They're no better off than they were before, and indeed their coalition is shakier than it was before.

If they won the election last time, and posted no net gain this time, it still means they won this election. Duh...

Christianity has been scrutinised to death, you can say what you like about Christianity, and there really isn't a threat of death, there wont be any fatwa's issued. It may have been like that in Europe 400 years ago, but not now. It's a different story in the middle east however. Look up Rushdie for an example.

Before you said

I guess, but I'd put more emphasis on the enlightenment and possibly the reformation (though it did result in an alarmingly high number of Calvinists and puritans) rather then the thirty years war itself. Though it's still incredibly dangerous to scrutinise the Quran (and I don't just mean insult or make general criticisms), so a Muslim enlightenment will be hard to come by.

So what would be the difference between with an Islamic version of the reformation?

Before you said



So what would be the difference between with an Islamic version of the reformation?

Nothing much hopefully, but since it has already been done before, some people may speculate that these new western standards simply force the east into a more reactionary state.

Nothing much hopefully, but since it has already been done before, some people may speculate that these new western standards simply force the east into a more reactionary state.

That makes since sense

Okay: Why does the religion of Islam have to be a campaign issue? I mean, I have tons (tones? tonnes? how is it spelled?) of Muslim friends. I just think that some of what people are saying is mean.

On a lighter note, Asmaa Abdol-Hamid is pretty attractive.

Okay: Why does the religion of Islam have to be a campaign issue? I mean, I have tons (tones? tonnes? how is it spelled?) of Muslim friends. I just think that some of what people are saying is mean.

On a lighter note, Asmaa Abdol-Hamid is pretty attractive.

You think she is pretty attractive?

http://politiken.dk/archive/00184/Asmaa_Abdol-Hamid_184339c.jpg

Ok...

http://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/0,1518,517415,00.html
Danes Re-Elect Conservative Prime Minister

Denmark's right-left political blocs will remain in place, but political relations will be more uncertain as a result of Tuesday's poll. Danish Prime Minister Rasmussen will enter into a third term in office, but right-wing populists are also demanding more influence in government decision-making as a result of his victory.

Looks, like New Alliance failed and things will continue as they are. So the beating (of my belief in democracy) continues.

THE NEW DANISH PARLIAMENT
Liberal Party 46 (-6)
Social Democrats 45 (-1)
Danish People's Party 25 (+1)
Socialist Party 23 (+12)
Conservative Party 18 (no change)
New Alliance 5 (+5)
Others 17
Total 179

Wait...What's the difference in Denmark between the Social Democrats and Socialist Party? Also the Danish People's Party seems like a misleading name for a Conservative Party...

http://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/0,1518,517415,00.html


Looks, like New Alliance failed and things will continue as they are. So the beating (of my belief in democracy) continues.

You have to remember that the prime minister has far less power than parliament as a whole. It is an important position to be sure, but to point out how the smaller parties make good use of their power, I'd like to refer to the Red-Green Alliance (AKA Enhedslisten).

Essentially, as a small party, they did exactly what small parties should do - ask a lot of questions. It's about the best thing you can do in a democracy: Make sure that the politicians in power don't get away with doing things that they can't or won't explain. And they did that, by collectiving asking more questions than the rest of parliament.

Remember, we're talking six mandates (back then), compared to the 100+ seats of the danish parliament.

So in essence, Anders Fogh might be prime minister, but seeing as how his block as a whole has moved backwards, I'm not too worried. In any case, the Social Democrats are still as scared of immigration as they always have secretly been (you want SF and beyond for the socialists that actually like immigration), the conservatives are just too traditional and DF will always be DF. Those three alone are enough to form their own little anti-immigrant wing.

Then, given that the left-wing is quite strong in power, it's enough to push for welfare reforms, whatever they might turn out to be. In this sense, it's important to note that while the conservatives and venstre aren't too happy about welfare (despite saying the opposite in the election), DF is. So there is balance there too.

Finally, given the the right-wing is quite strong in power (contradiction - I know), you can expect taxes to either stay the same or fall. How they will fall is a very good question, if they do at all. However, it does seem unlikely that they will rise. There's simply no point in raising the taxes, at this time.

However, the real loser in this election remains the environment. Venstre certainly don't care about it enough to give it more than a moment's thought. Same with DF and conservative. Certainly it's going to be hard to have a unified position on how to solve a very real problem, in a time while the Danish economy is still doing good (after all, if it is going to hurt the economy, better to do it while it can stand the pressure, rather than kicking it when it's down).

Wait...What's the difference in Denmark between the Social Democrats and Socialist Party? Also the Danish People's Party seems like a misleading name for a Conservative Party...

Social Democrats and Socialist People's Party are led by different people with different opinions. Can't put it more plainly. Wikipedia has good info on their differences.

Danish People's Party is a nationalist party. There is already a Conservative party, which is not a nationalist party.

-snip-
The thing is that the opposition has been either unable or unwilling to stop anti-immigration and nativist policies. So my disappointment is more general: every time people vote in such a way that DF-type parties get into positions of power, they are voting people's rights away. The violation of a person's extremely basic freedom is plainly obvious, but they don't care.

I used to think that freedom and democracy were compatible because voters would share some sort of basic respect for other people's rights. But they don't, and it's becoming painfully obvious.

So the choice is now between the protection of the individual and the slavish adherance to a majority vote. I'm not sure the latter can compete.

So you are saying that muslims will always be 400 years backward than Christians?

Not really. Their advancement will be accelerated by the presence of Western civilization. I could see them making the leap to democracy very quickly once this particular conflict is over. Peace will come to the Middle East, eventually. It did to Europe.

As for Hydesland, I was comparing the Thirty Years' War - which was featured levels of sectarian violence that would probably make Zarqawi puke his guts out - to the conflict in the Middle East, especially Iraq. An Islamic rennaisance is another story - but I think it's happening right now. The parallels aren't exact - but they are there.

The thing is that the opposition has been either unable or unwilling to stop anti-immigration and nativist policies.

A mixture of both, from what I have seen.

So my disappointment is more general: every time people vote in such a way that DF-type parties get into positions of power, they are voting people's rights away. The violation of a person's extremely basic freedom is plainly obvious, but they don't care.

A girl I heard in the bus couldn't have put it better, but I will paraphrase and not quote directly: She was amazed that people thought it strange that she had voted for DF. She claimed that she wasn't racist or anything.

Now, I certainly would believe her in that claim. She needn't be racist to vote for DF. That doesn't stop the fact that her vote, which apparantly had nothing to do with immigration from what I could hear, went to a party who has the primary purpose of limiting immigration.

As long as people are stupid enough to rationalize any sort of behaviour similar to this, you will get irrational, unthoughtful actions. I'm not singling DF out in this one, but I can't think of a more precise example. New Alliance certainly has a lot of the same rationalizing without thinking.

I used to think that freedom and democracy were compatible because voters would share some sort of basic respect for other people's rights. But they don't, and it's becoming painfully obvious.

I think half the time people don't realize what they're doing. I remember one girl was amazed when I explained to her the difficulties that any non-dane has in moving to Denmark. By comparison, me, a dane who had never lived a single day in Denmark, could merely move there and declare my residency.

That comparison served the useful purpose of making it painfully obvious that of course the Danes don't feel the immigration problems - they never have to go through what the immigrants have. So naturally, they have no idea why the immigrants are so "ungrateful".

So the choice is now between the protection of the individual and the slavish adherance to a majority vote. I'm not sure the latter can compete.

There never was a 100% slavish adherance to majority votes. Certainly the idea of constitutions was to leave it up to more than a majority vote.

Certainly the idea of constitutions was to leave it up to more than a majority vote.
Yep, and I think that's where I'm going right now. You can't get an absolute human ruler, because he'll have all sorts of interests, just not that of the individuals he rules.

But you can get absolute rule through a constitution, and if set up properly, that won't change. A "do what you like, just don't hurt anyone" constitution, enforced by police and courts bound to it and nothing else seems like a much better "least bad" option than modern democracy.

Yep, and I think that's where I'm going right now. You can't get an absolute human ruler, because he'll have all sorts of interests, just not that of the individuals he rules.

But you can get absolute rule through a constitution, and if set up properly, that won't change. A "do what you like, just don't hurt anyone" constitution, enforced by police and courts bound to it and nothing else seems like a much better "least bad" option than modern democracy.

Only works as long as people respect it.

And if a majority of power (doesn't have to be an actual majority) have the will and possibility to enforce their own rule, we can only refuse it and fight back.

So, the constitution is actually still dependant on a majority. It's just that, the more equal the countries residents are in terms of "power", the larger the majority is required to "overthrow" the constitution.

Only works as long as people respect it.
Indeed. It seems disgusting that I have to depend on the acceptance of white trash for my livelihood, but that seems to be the way it is.

So for the time being, there's nothing for it but work towards the ultimate goal through the gradual implementation of policies that go in that direction. Open borders and smaller "countries" would definitely be a big step because it would offer the option of simply leaving rather than having to overthrow the constitution.

But once you have that constitution and no more, I don't think a majority that wants to overthrow it could possibly be justified in doing so. And as you say, in that case I don't think I'd be wrong in defending it with force.

Social Democrats and Socialist People's Party are led by different people with different opinions. Can't put it more plainly. Wikipedia has good info on their differences.

Danish People's Party is a nationalist party. There is already a Conservative party, which is not a nationalist party.

what I meant is that DPP is a right wing party but the word "People's" is almost always associated with the extreme Left-Wing Parties/Countries

what I meant is that DPP is a right wing party but the word "People's" is almost always associated with the extreme Left-Wing Parties/Countries

That's because the terms left and right don't work in this case.

DF would, on the political compass, be on the economic centre-left, socially far-right. Well, that would be my evaluation.

Also, SF, also a people's party, isn't communist. It's socialist. They went to great pains to distance themselves from the Soviet Union. Just thought to make that clear. The communists are the Red-Green Alliance.

The thing is that the opposition has been either unable or unwilling to stop anti-immigration and nativist policies. So my disappointment is more general: every time people vote in such a way that DF-type parties get into positions of power, they are voting people's rights away. The violation of a person's extremely basic freedom is plainly obvious, but they don't care.

I used to think that freedom and democracy were compatible because voters would share some sort of basic respect for other people's rights. But they don't, and it's becoming painfully obvious.

So the choice is now between the protection of the individual and the slavish adherance to a majority vote. I'm not sure the latter can compete.

Yep, and I think that's where I'm going right now. You can't get an absolute human ruler, because he'll have all sorts of interests, just not that of the individuals he rules.

But you can get absolute rule through a constitution, and if set up properly, that won't change. A "do what you like, just don't hurt anyone" constitution, enforced by police and courts bound to it and nothing else seems like a much better "least bad" option than modern democracy.

Indeed. It seems disgusting that I have to depend on the acceptance of white trash for my livelihood, but that seems to be the way it is.

So for the time being, there's nothing for it but work towards the ultimate goal through the gradual implementation of policies that go in that direction. Open borders and smaller "countries" would definitely be a big step because it would offer the option of simply leaving rather than having to overthrow the constitution.

But once you have that constitution and no more, I don't think a majority that wants to overthrow it could possibly be justified in doing so. And as you say, in that case I don't think I'd be wrong in defending it with force.

So once you set up the "constitution" (LOL), you would defend it against the majority? Ie: Dictatorship. And the funny thing is that you talk about people's freedom. LOL. How retarded.

That's because the terms left and right don't work in this case.

DF would, on the political compass, be on the economic centre-left, socially far-right. Well, that would be my evaluation.I wouldn't try to pigeonhole them like that. It's only partially true as long as you compare them with other political parties within Denmark, and it is a consequence of them being populists, so it's a highly unreliable assessment. They're a bit left of center economically, in some ways, because their anti-immigrant agenda appeals most to people who either already or shortly will be relying on the state for support. Alienating those through their economic policies would scare off half their voters. Same thing for the socially far-right thing. It's not altogether true, at least not at the moment. The Christian Democrats are just as far right in some ways.The communists are the Red-Green Alliance.They aren't communists, they're socialists. The closest thing you have to communists right now is the Minority Party, and only because they want a Citizen's Living Wage.

So once you set up the "constitution" (LOL), you would defend it against the majority? Ie: Dictatorship. And the funny thing is that you talk about people's freedom. LOL. How retarded.
Well, my constitution would be very freedom-orientated so it would provide for an extremely limited state.

It's not a dictatorship though because there wouldn't be a ruler as such. There'd be a supreme judge and a chief of police, but there wouldn't be a parliament with coercive power, so the head of the government would have very different functions and basically only be able to act to defend the constitution.

So the only reason to be against this constitution is if you want to be able to use the coercive power of the state to force people to do stuff against their will. And therefore any rebellion against this constitution would only be asking for the freedom to hurt others, which I'm quite happy to help fight against.

If you can come up with a better solution that doesn't make the individual a hostage of someone else, I'd honestly like to hear it.

So once you set up the "constitution" (LOL), you would defend it against the majority? Ie: Dictatorship. And the funny thing is that you talk about people's freedom. LOL. How retarded.It is only retarded if you retard the definition of freedom; ei, redefine it as the right of the majority to do whatever the hell it pleases, regardless of how much the majority violates the autonomy of the individuals.

But that's no less retarded than me claiming I'm unfree because I'm not allowed to eat babies.

Freedom is the state of being exempt from external controls and restraints. As such, freedom involving more than one solitary, isolated being, is only freedom as long as the acts of the individuals keep the other individuals exempt from external controls and restraints. Anything else is oppression; the opposite of freedom.

The idea you've subjected to your nearsighted ridicule, is an attempt to force people not to infringe on the freedom of others. And amusingly, you dismiss this exactly because it keeps people from infringing on the freedom of their peers.

Personally I think there's a better way to achieve the same thing NL wants (which is why I'm a syndicalist instead of an ANCAPer), but I certainly agree with his goal and most of his reasoning.

I wouldn't try to pigeonhole them like that.

I don't do it willingly, but it is closer than just saying that they're a right-leaning party.

They aren't communists, they're socialists. The closest thing you have to communists right now is the Minority Party, and only because they want a Citizen's Living Wage.

The closest we have to communists right now is the Danish communist party. I, however, ignore the parties who have not got enough signatures to run for government. That puts the Red-Green Alliance as the most communist party, considering both the way they run the party, their ideals and their goals. It may not be communist, but it is the party closest to the ideology that can currently run for a place in the government.

The Right will always need non-issues like abortion, immigration and homosexuality to distract common people from the lack of economic and social justice, and play their common ignorant racism against them. Some fool could be dirt poor and still be squabbling on about Asians taking over the country. Pity.

You would enjoy the Bob Dylan song "Only a pawn in their game."

Protest songs don't change anything really, but sometimes it helps to cry...

Not really. Their advancement will be accelerated by the presence of Western civilization.

As the "Enlightenment" depended on the rediscovery of classical knowledge preserved by none other than the Christian and Islamic establishments it then crippled.

We struggle in our contradictions, and become stronger ... the only tragedy in it is the suffering and death of individuals.

I could see them making the leap to democracy very quickly once this particular conflict is over. Peace will come to the Middle East, eventually. It did to Europe.

Well said. Perhaps the Middle East will learn from our mistakes, and do democracy better ... and perhaps "we" will again learn something from Islam ... while Asia takes us both back to school. Or perhaps the technology of transport and communication will make us all one.

Still, individuals will suffer and die. We are no more than cells in a body, really. And this cell is a drunk.

As for Hydesland, I was comparing the Thirty Years' War - which was featured levels of sectarian violence that would probably make Zarqawi puke his guts out - to the conflict in the Middle East, especially Iraq. An Islamic rennaisance is another story - but I think it's happening right now. The parallels aren't exact - but they are there.

I'll read the thread tomorrow. This post caught my eye, and played my mind most flatteringly.

EDIT: I.e. I liked your post and replied. Carry on, you all.

It is only retarded if you retard the definition of freedom; ei, redefine it as the right of the majority to do whatever the hell it pleases, regardless of how much the majority violates the autonomy of the individuals.

But that's no less retarded than me claiming I'm unfree because I'm not allowed to eat babies.

Freedom is the state of being exempt from external controls and restraints. As such, freedom involving more than one solitary, isolated being, is only freedom as long as the acts of the individuals keep the other individuals exempt from external controls and restraints. Anything else is oppression; the opposite of freedom.

The idea you've subjected to your nearsighted ridicule, is an attempt to force people not to infringe on the freedom of others. And amusingly, you dismiss this exactly because it keeps people from infringing on the freedom of their peers.

Personally I think there's a better way to achieve the same thing NL wants (which is why I'm a syndicalist instead of an ANCAPer), but I certainly agree with his goal and most of his reasoning.

Well, my constitution would be very freedom-orientated so it would provide for an extremely limited state.

It's not a dictatorship though because there wouldn't be a ruler as such. There'd be a supreme judge and a chief of police, but there wouldn't be a parliament with coercive power, so the head of the government would have very different functions and basically only be able to act to defend the constitution.

So the only reason to be against this constitution is if you want to be able to use the coercive power of the state to force people to do stuff against their will. And therefore any rebellion against this constitution would only be asking for the freedom to hurt others, which I'm quite happy to help fight against.

If you can come up with a better solution that doesn't make the individual a hostage of someone else, I'd honestly like to hear it.

If it is not a dictatorship, then it'd be an oligarchy. An oppressive police state. Similar to Nazi Germany, Stalinist USSR, Iran etc. The similarity is the taboo which the majority can not change. In your stupid suggestion, the taboo is the "constitution". In Nazi Germany, it was race; in Stalinist USSR, ideology; in Iran, religion.

Of course what your and Similization's small brains do not get is the extent of personal freedom. A person is not allowed to burn toxic waste in his backyard just because it is his own backyard. Similarly a suicide bomber should not be allowed to blow up himself in a crowded area just because he is blowing up himself. Because these actions EFFECT OTHERS.

Similarly, open borders EFFECT OTHERS as well. Going from the Danish example, if Denmark opens its borders and 5 m people immigrates, this would have a huge impact on Denmark from social changes (sexist and homophobic attitudes are much more prevelant among Muslims than Danes) to overloaded social services to a possible economic crises (huge migrations usually cause unstability and unstability may cause economic crises) to etc. The end result (if economic crises or any other major disruption occurs) may even be worse for both Danes and immigrants themselves (they came to work but fucked up the economy).

Going with a more specific example, if Muslims immigrate to Denmark in masses, many more women would be subject to sexism. Your "constitution" in theory is supposed to protect these women but can the police punish every muslim men who harras a women? This does not mean that only muslim men harrass women but it is simply relevant to attitudes towards women prevelant in the majority of muslim societies which is significantly different than western ones.
So, if my assumption is correct, your open borders would infringe on the rights of Danish women since

a)"no one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment." is a human right.

b) muslim immigration would increase the prevelance of sexism.

This is just one example of how certain personal freedoms that dont individually infringe on the rights of others can indeed infringe on other's freedom when it is expressed in a massive manner. Another example would be this:

A man using 10k Kw energy per month is not infringing on the rights of others. However if 100,000 people do this, this may pollute the environment. And that would infringe on the rights of others and cause regulation of a personal freedom which, when excersized individually does not infringe on the rights of others but only effects the community when its cumulative effects are considered. That's why it is retarded for you to talk about personal freedoms and then talk about a police state. And that's why it is silly for Similization to accuse me of nearsightedness, when he is only considering personal freedoms w/o thinking its cumulative effects on society (farsightedness). In turn, the effects on society will be felt by individuals as well since they are the ones who make up the society. (Duh)

The other retarded side of your suggestion is its rigidity. By making the constitution a taboo, you do not leave room for contingencies. In normal conditions, everyone is entitled to their privacy. But if a crises, such as a pandemic, occurs, the goverment would be justified to override certain personal freedoms and in this case, that would be enforcing mandatory health checks for all of the population and disregarding their privacy rights.

Since there wouldnt be a parliament with coercive power in your "system", and you are prepared to defend that "constitution" w/ force, your "constitution", which is supposed to protect people would cause massive deaths. And if you include contingency clauses to your "constitution", this would give the judges the right to change the constitution. And they may use this right to consolidate the power using false crises.

PS: Oh and I just remembered this. There are so many moronic sides of your suggestion that they keep popping up in my head. Your "system" would also infringe on another fundemental human right which is:

"Everyone has the right to take part in the government of his country, directly or through freely chosen representatives."
http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html

since "there wouldn't be a parliament with coercive power".

I like how NMG's main debating tactic seems to be calling people "small brains" and "retarded." It reminds me that his views are safely marginalized by the simple fact of his apparent inability to communicate at an adult level.

The pattern in western europe seems to be that the locals want to protect their nice social democracies by electing right wingers to keep the brown people in their place.

Of course what your and Similization's small brains do not get is the extent of personal freedom. A person is not allowed to burn toxic waste in his backyard just because it is his own backyard. Similarly a suicide bomber should not be allowed to blow up himself in a crowded area just because he is blowing up himself. Because these actions EFFECT OTHERS.
Rest assured that economic and environmental externalities would be dealt with in the framework set up in the constitution by a combination of tradable pollution permits, attempts to make information public and thus reduce negotiation costs between the parties and even a few outright bans.

Similarly, open borders EFFECT OTHERS as well.
Not legitimately. There are basically two ways they could:

1) If brown people offend you, in which case you have no right not to be offended - but you do have the right to stay away from them if you really hate them that much.

2) If a brown person commits a crime against you, which is a case for the police.

Going from the Danish example, if Denmark opens its borders and 5 m people immigrates, this would have a huge impact on Denmark from social changes (sexist and homophobic attitudes are much more prevelant among Muslims than Danes) to overloaded social services to a possible economic crises (huge migrations usually cause unstability and unstability may cause economic crises) to etc. The end result (if economic crises or any other major disruption occurs) may even be worse for both Danes and immigrants themselves (they came to work but fucked up the economy).
"Social changes"? What the hell does that even mean? Either you're sexist or your not. Whether your neighbour is doesn't matter.

There would be no social services under my constitution, you could only survive either through work or through voluntary charity.

And I really don't see the economic crisis developing in such a world. Either the immigrant finds a job and contributes rather than damages, or he doesn't, in which case he has little choice but to leave or starve.

But perhaps you want to explain how immigration hurts an economy. You make bold claims, so I'm sure you've thought about this a lot. Is this according to a Keynesian IS-LM model, or a more modern neoclassical approach?

Your "constitution" in theory is supposed to protect these women but can the police punish every muslim men who harras a women?
That's up to the police, isn't it? If it turns out there is a significant issue with harrassment, I would expect the police to expand its resources devoted to fighting that particular crime, lest a private company offers superior protection.

This is just one example of how certain personal freedoms that dont individually infringe on the rights of others can indeed infringe on other's freedom when it is expressed in a massive manner.
Sorry, I don't see it. Whether you have 10 million sexist immigrants or one, if you meet the guy and he harrasses you, it made no difference. We're still dealing with individuals being nasty to each other.

But if you're talking about probabilities, then I have to wonder what you think about murder. I'd argue a murder is worse than harrassment, so minimising murder should be high on our list. Can the police prevent every single murder? Probably not.

The solution is obvious: forbid everything that could potentially be a weapon, keep people in fat, protective suits and lock them in padded cells for their own safety.

Face it: you're pretending you have a rational argument here, when in fact you're trading freedom for the probability of safety. But you don't offer a reason for why that particular trade is in fact worthwhile, but mine presumably isn't. Your reason for putting this argument out there is not the rationality of the "minimise harrassment" argument, it's something else that presumably has to do with a dislike for immigration.

That's why it is retarded for you to talk about personal freedoms and then talk about a police state.
Actually, I'm talking about the ultimate Rechtsstaat (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rechtsstaat), which is the exact opposite of a police state.

The other retarded side of your suggestion is its rigidity. By making the constitution a taboo, you do not leave room for contingencies. In normal conditions, everyone is entitled to their privacy. But if a crises, such as a pandemic, occurs, the goverment would be justified to override certain personal freedoms and in this case, that would be enforcing mandatory health checks for all of the population and disregarding their privacy rights.
If there is an obvious need for measures like that, I don't know why you couldn't mention it in the constitution. The police would presumably have to ask the courts, the courts would weigh the request against the constitution, conclude that there is in fact a pandemic and grant the request. And I don't see many people then disagreeing with the health checks anyways, considering the situation.

But I remain unapologetic and rigid about the basic principle of this state: that it is not right to hurt an innocent person, even to make another person better off.

Since there wouldnt be a parliament with coercive power in your "system", and you are prepared to defend that "constitution" w/ force, your "constitution", which is supposed to protect people would cause massive deaths.
Not really, their rebellion would cause massive deaths. I don't see this any different than defending the Weimar constitutions against mobs of brownshirts and communists - their cause is quite obviously without merit (especially since they can set up their own agency devoted to helping others and pay "taxes" to it) and their method is force (first the force of the mob, then the force of the state).

And if you include contingency clauses to your "constitution", this would give the judges the right to change the constitution. And they may use this right to consolidate the power using false crises.
What power? The judges have no power other than to judge criminal and tort cases and stop the police from acting against the constitution. There's not gonna be a contingency clause about that.

The only way I could see this happening is a massive conspiracy in which the media, the judges and the police are all working together to pretend there is, for example, a pandemic in order to get for themselves the right to do mandatory health checks.

"Everyone has the right to take part in the government of his country, directly or through freely chosen representatives."
http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html
I don't think I ever pretended my idea was particularly democratic. As I said in this thread, my belief in the "demos'" ability to actually make good decisions, and particularly its willingness to refrain from infringing the lives and livelihoods of the minority, has been taking quite a battering.

But a constitution that would take away the majority's right to do this to a minority would also be one that makes a traditional government as we have it right now a pointless exercise. So I propose we might as well do away with it, it couldn't pass any meaningful laws anyways.

Look, I still put democracy way above pretty much every other system. I still support the Burmese monks and the Pakistani lawyers. I still think the American system is fucked up.

I'm just not so sure we can't do any better than that anymore.

If it is not a dictatorship, then it'd be an oligarchy. An oppressive police state. Similar to Nazi Germany, Stalinist USSR, Iran etc. The similarity is the taboo which the majority can not change. In your stupid suggestion, the taboo is the "constitution". In Nazi Germany, it was race; in Stalinist USSR, ideology; in Iran, religion.

Of course what your and Similization's small brains do not get is the extent of personal freedom. A person is not allowed to burn toxic waste in his backyard just because it is his own backyard. Similarly a suicide bomber should not be allowed to blow up himself in a crowded area just because he is blowing up himself. Because these actions EFFECT OTHERS.

Similarly, open borders EFFECT OTHERS as well. Going from the Danish example, if Denmark opens its borders and 5 m people immigrates, this would have a huge impact on Denmark from social changes (sexist and homophobic attitudes are much more prevelant among Muslims than Danes) to overloaded social services to a possible economic crises (huge migrations usually cause unstability and unstability may cause economic crises) to etc. The end result (if economic crises or any other major disruption occurs) may even be worse for both Danes and immigrants themselves (they came to work but fucked up the economy).

Going with a more specific example, if Muslims immigrate to Denmark in masses, many more women would be subject to sexism. Your "constitution" in theory is supposed to protect these women but can the police punish every muslim men who harras a women? This does not mean that only muslim men harrass women but it is simply relevant to attitudes towards women prevelant in the majority of muslim societies which is significantly different than western ones.
So, if my assumption is correct, your open borders would infringe on the rights of Danish women since

a)"no one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment." is a human right.

b) muslim immigration would increase the prevelance of sexism.

This is just one example of how certain personal freedoms that dont individually infringe on the rights of others can indeed infringe on other's freedom when it is expressed in a massive manner. Another example would be this:

A man using 10k Kw energy per month is not infringing on the rights of others. However if 100,000 people do this, this may pollute the environment. And that would infringe on the rights of others and cause regulation of a personal freedom which, when excersized individually does not infringe on the rights of others but only effects the community when its cumulative effects are considered. That's why it is retarded for you to talk about personal freedoms and then talk about a police state. And that's why it is silly for Similization to accuse me of nearsightedness, when he is only considering personal freedoms w/o thinking its cumulative effects on society (farsightedness). In turn, the effects on society will be felt by individuals as well since they are the ones who make up the society. (Duh)

The other retarded side of your suggestion is its rigidity. By making the constitution a taboo, you do not leave room for contingencies. In normal conditions, everyone is entitled to their privacy. But if a crises, such as a pandemic, occurs, the goverment would be justified to override certain personal freedoms and in this case, that would be enforcing mandatory health checks for all of the population and disregarding their privacy rights.

Since there wouldnt be a parliament with coercive power in your "system", and you are prepared to defend that "constitution" w/ force, your "constitution", which is supposed to protect people would cause massive deaths. And if you include contingency clauses to your "constitution", this would give the judges the right to change the constitution. And they may use this right to consolidate the power using false crises.

PS: Oh and I just remembered this. There are so many moronic sides of your suggestion that they keep popping up in my head. Your "system" would also infringe on another fundemental human right which is:

"Everyone has the right to take part in the government of his country, directly or through freely chosen representatives."
http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html

since "there wouldn't be a parliament with coercive power".
Well said, very well said.

*...*

I'm just not so sure we can't do any better than that anymore.

You have surely lost most of the audience, but I find your politics interesting. :)

Well said, very well said.

Perhaps you'd like to paraphrase it, since you like it so much.

See if you can summarize the argument, a little shorter if you don't mind ...

The pattern in western europe seems to be that the locals want to protect their nice social democracies by electing right wingers to keep the brown people in their place.

What utter bullshit. If you want to see marginal gains by parties having immigration-control as part of their right-wing platform, while ignoring that those policies are strongly opposed by the majority in every case (including Switzerland and Denmark) as a pattern then you're obviously looking for just that pattern. You're looking at what is ... er, hang on ...

You're joking, right? I'm finding it hard to 'get' anyone in this thread.

What power? The judges have no power other than to judge criminal and tort cases and stop the police from acting against the constitution. There's not gonna be a contingency clause about that.

The only way I could see this happening is a massive conspiracy in which the media, the judges and the police are all working together to pretend there is, for example, a pandemic in order to get for themselves the right to do mandatory health checks.

And such a massive conspiracy would in any case be the powers that be not respecting the constitution, which justifies a revolution.

some massive snippage

I don't quite agree with everything here, but that boils down to ideological differences, mainly. Fortunately

Well said, very well said.
You do realise he didn't say anything at all, right? Most of the post is because I haven't gone to the lengths of precisely describing the details of this constitution, and the one argument in it is an attempt to clothe "I just plain don't like immigration" into something that sounds more reasonable.

Reduce the probability of "Bad Event X" is occuring is not an argument for immigration in and for itself. There are a bunch of things to be shown:

1) Immigration causes X
2) X would be significantly reduced by cutting immigration
3) X is bad enough to justify cutting immigration
4) It is actually possible to cut immigration
5) The bad side-effects of cutting immigration would be outweighed by the reduction in X
6) We could fit cutting immigration into a consistent system of public policy
7) We would be morally and ethically justified in cutting immigration to reduce X

Not sure whether I forgot something. Anyways, he didn't address the important points, namely 3, 5 and 6. Instead he talked about economics which, frankly, I don't think he knows all that much about.

You need to be a little bit more critical and analytical in your approach sometimes. Just because someone's goal is similar to yours doesn't mean that they can do no wrong or you should stop looking for the wrong - and that goes beyond just this thread.

Perhaps you'd like to paraphrase it, since you like it so much.
Why the hell would I like to do that? What a gigantic waste of finger skin cells.....Read it yourself you freedom hating free-loader. No. Free. Rides.

You do realise he didn't say anything at all, right? Most of the post is because I haven't gone to the lengths of precisely describing the details of this constitution, and the one argument in it is an attempt to clothe "I just plain don't like immigration" into something that sounds more reasonable.

Reduce the probability of "Bad Event X" is occuring is not an argument for immigration in and for itself. There are a bunch of things to be shown:

1) Immigration causes X
2) X would be significantly reduced by cutting immigration
3) X is bad enough to justify cutting immigration
4) It is actually possible to cut immigration
5) The bad side-effects of cutting immigration would be outweighed by the reduction in X
6) We could fit cutting immigration into a consistent system of public policy
7) We would be morally and ethically justified in cutting immigration to reduce X

Not sure whether I forgot something. Anyways, he didn't address the important points, namely 3, 5 and 6. Instead he talked about economics which, frankly, I don't think he knows all that much about.

3. Yes, X is bad enough to justify cutting immigration. If you want to keep a generally united populace, removed from ethnic and religious tensions and much more progressive when dealing with women, Jews and gays, instead of a divided populace with ethnic and religious tensions and much more uncivilized towards women, gays and Jews. So yeah, I think it is worth cutting immigration for.

5. Sure. It very well does outweight it.

6. Why not? The Danish People's Party has the Danes interest at heart. It is nationalist and for the welfare state. It's only natural that it does not want more foreigner's to come suck off the welfare teet when the party puts welfare at such a high priority for it's Danes. It's a DANISH Nationalist Party....why would it want to look out for people who are not Danish and who, often times, don't put into the system enough yet take out alot....thus causing an inbalance in the system.

You need to be a little bit more critical and analytical in your approach sometimes. Just because someone's goal is similar to yours doesn't mean that they can do no wrong or you should stop looking for the wrong - and that goes beyond just this thread.
Oh he CAN do wrong, but I agree with his immigration position. I suppose, I'll admit it was a mistake to quote the whole thing, but that was lazyness. I really don't care about that argument you and him were in....I wasn't commenting on that. But thank you for your advice, honestly.

As I said, Atlantian is misleading when he claims this election was based on immigration.

Yes, he is. Moreover, the OP was two quotes, with Atlantian's only contribution being some bolding.

Why the hell would I like to do that?

I thought you might have the pride in your own opinion, to pick even one phrase out of NGM's drivel which you agreed with. Apparently not.

What a gigantic waste of finger skin cells.....Read it yourself you freedom hating free-loader. No. Free. Rides.

I have wred the entire thread. I get what NGM was saying, and as NL just said, it is racial intolerance thinly clothed in an abstract political argument.

I will assume that these are the parts of NGM's post which you endorse:

"oppressive police state. Similar to Nazi Germany" ... "your stupid suggestion", "your and Similization's small brains", "sexist and homophobic attitudes", "fucked up", "it is retarded", "it is silly", "retarded","massive deaths", "so many moronic sides of your suggestion".

You applaud because you don't have the guts to say what you mean.

3. Yes, X is bad enough to justify cutting immigration...5. Sure. It very well does outweight it...6. Why not? The Danish People's Party has the Danes interest at heart....
And I don't think so. Who's right?

Why the hell would I like to do that? What a gigantic waste of finger skin cells.....Read it yourself you freedom hating free-loader. No. Free. Rides.

Funny that. DF is for the Welfare state. The Welfare state will always give free rides to some people. Therefore, DF will give free rides to some people.

3. Yes, X is bad enough to justify cutting immigration. If you want to keep a generally united populace, removed from ethnic and religious tensions and much more progressive when dealing with women, Jews and gays, instead of a divided populace with ethnic and religious tensions and much more uncivilized towards women, gays and Jews. So yeah, I think it is worth cutting immigration for.

The word I bolded covers a grievous flaw in your argument.

Take that one word out, and what you are arguing for is "keeping a united populace." United in what?. United in the colour of their skin? United in their opposition to oppression?

You value "unity" while flogging "Us and Them" for all its worth. How bizarre.

Now look at the advantages you highlight: "removed from ethnic and religious tensions and much more progressive when dealing with women, Jews and gays"

Overlook for a moment that "dealing with Jews" falls into either the "ethnic tensions" or the "religious tensions" catagory.

What you are saying is that "a unified society" includes tensions, within manageable limits. Women having equal rights in employment causes problems for some people, and those are their problems. Lazy men don't have a right to a job or to be protected from competition from women ... but it is still a tension. It is being very slowly resolved by social change.

Likewise, our "dealing with gays" (overlook that gays are already and have always been a part of society and you can't define a Subject, society, which acts apon an Object, gays) is a process of tension, tension which is gradually resolved by social change.

5. Sure. It very well does outweight it.

NL did not specify what the advantages of immigration might be. But by this statement, you must.

Don't accuse me of being lazy. Your statement is incomplete.

Replace "it" in the sentence by the advantages and disadvantages. Your statement is a clear "the disadvantages of immigration very well outweigh the advantages."

Do you agree with your own statement, now that it has the vagueness taken out?

6. Why not? The Danish People's Party has the Danes interest at heart. It is nationalist and for the welfare state. It's only natural that it does not want more foreigner's to come suck off the welfare teet when the party puts welfare at such a high priority for it's Danes. It's a DANISH Nationalist Party....why would it want to look out for people who are not Danish and who, often times, don't put into the system enough yet take out alot....thus causing an inbalance in the system.

I don't support the Danish Nationalist Party, and don't know enough about them to know whether this is their rationale. So I'll leave this.

Oh he CAN do wrong, but I agree with his immigration position. I suppose, I'll admit it was a mistake to quote the whole thing, but that was lazyness. I really don't care about that argument you and him were in....I wasn't commenting on that. But thank you for your advice, honestly.

You are an urger. You revel in conflict, and dip your oar in just barely enough to stir that conflict up.

A lazy urger, at that. Enjoy your free ride! :D

Lol!

http://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/0,1518,517526,00.html
Xenophobia Scuppers EU Far-Right Group

The Identity, Tradition, Sovereignty Group is no more. The bloc of far-right parties in the European Parliament has been disolved following a racism row: The Romanians refused to work with Alessandro Mussolini after her derogatory comments about their compatriots.

:D

Lol!

http://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/0,1518,517526,00.html


:D

AWESOME.

I hope rejecting Mussolini's heir is a sign Europe is waking up to the real threat, fascism.

AWESOME.

I hope rejecting Mussolini's heir is a sign Europe is waking up to the real threat, fascism.
Not that I like Mussolini's party, but do you think that Fascism is a near threat to Europe than the backwardness of Islam?

I'm not a fasicst nor do I like that style of government, but I don't see it as a realistic threat to Europe while Islam most certainly is.

I’m not a fasicst nor do I like that style of government, but I don’t see it as a realistic threat to Europe while Islam most certainly is.
How exactly is Islam, a religion with varied sects, a range of beliefs and a very small amount of fundamentalist supporters, any bigger a threat than European fascism, an outdated political ideology supported by a handful of mindless goons?

Not that I like Mussolini's party, but do you think that Fascism is a near threat to Europe than the backwardness of Islam?

Considering that Fascism has a far greater influence, yes.

I'm not a fasicst nor do I like that style of government, but I don't see it as a realistic threat to Europe while Islam most certainly is.

Funny that. All the parties that you seem to root for are essentially fascists - DF certainly isn't far from it.

See, while Islam might be a threat in the same way that Christianity is, it also means that muslims are a threat in the same way that christians are. The simplest solution is to keep religion out of politics and to keep it private.

If religion is kept private, then all is good.

Still, you can't begin banning articles of clothing, because what if I wanted to wear a scarf to protect myself against the sun, whilst I was working out in the garden? And no, a hat is not very efficient when you're working close to branches.

Not that I like Mussolini's party, but do you think that Fascism is a near threat to Europe than the backwardness of Islam?

Because fascism seems to go hand in hand with naming a religious or ethnic group as "backwards" and a "threat." What difference if it's Jews or Muslims. The fascists - i.e, people you apparently applaud - would gladly have them wear special identifying insignia, put them on leaky boats to nowhereland, maybe put them in special happy camps when the "terrorist alert" level and media support sufficiently high enough.

That seems like more a threat to me than a religion you don't like. But maybe it's because as a Jew I kind of learned from history to be wary of the 'purge the backwards religion's followers from the land' mentality.

I'm not a fasicst nor do I like that style of government

Yeah, that's debatable, but I'm not going to.