Ungdomshuset Evicted (2 Viewers)

[Shorty]

Look, I can only speak from my own subjective experience, but I'm really stressed and emotional right now, I can't even imagine what others are feeling around me, people for whom this house has been an intimate part of their lives, for the majority if not entirity of their formative and adult years, people I care about deeply and truely. I can only echo cormy's comment

"Most of my friends are in jail and some of them are going to be there a long time."


Take a look at the picture above, police posing for a photo as the house is torn down. The fact of the matter is the house has been a thorn in the side of the danish state for a long time and they wanted it gone. Apart from the fact that I hold libertarian-socialist/anarcho-communist/anarchist views, I think the best and probably only understanding and analysis of this whole situation is to be found in the anarchist understanding of the state.

A very sad and very angry
Shorty

 

[nofunchee]

Well, I'd consider it relevant if 600+ arrests, who knows how many injuries, a school getting trashed and all the rest was based on an incorrect assumption (or deliberate misinformation?) and could have been avoided if someone had gotten their shit together and paid the rent a few years ago, but in the absence of any actual facts it's hard to judge.

Right now i'd be interested in knowing how its demolition is reconciled with its one time status as a protected historical structure.

i see what you're saying and i agree that if it was just a case of paying rent then it would have been preferable to the situation now if they had just paid it. but my point is that this is a prime example of legal wrangling over the right of ownership of property and how this is deemed more important than other issues. the use of that property and its historic significance are far more important than who owns what in my opinion. what i mean is that the building was being put to good public use, and this is more important to me than the issue of legal ownership rights. the idea that they stopped paying the rent and were possibly squatting if the council hadn't given ownership over to them is neither here nor there for me in this dispute.

 

[broken arm]

the use of that property and its historic significance are far more important than who owns what in my opinion. what i mean is that the building was being put to good public use, and this is more important to me than the issue of legal ownership rights.

this is a funny, and fundamental, issue as far as i see it. policy makers really struggle with the concept of benefits-transfer or qualitative measures for anything. They always struggle with the question "how can we measure or quantify social impact" .

If the "good public use", or as I could call it 'social-good potential', of the centre was framed and communicated differently then maybe the state would have a different relationship with the centre - but this would draw in major conflicts in terms of the relationship of the centre with the state. na mean?

 

[Janer]

Take a look at the picture above, police posing for a photo as the house is torn down.

Def throws weight behind your argument in my book.

 

[D0njo]

fuck sake
I'm crying in work
they're gonna think i'm a nancy-boy

 

[Willie Willions]

Fucking heart-breaking. Its time to DESTROY.

 

[nofunchee]

this is a funny, and fundamental, issue as far as i see it. policy makers really struggle with the concept of benefits-transfer or qualitative measures for anything. They always struggle with the question "how can we measure or quantify social impact" .

If the "good public use", or as I could call it 'social-good potential', of the centre was framed and communicated differently then maybe the state would have a different relationship with the centre - but this would draw in major conflicts in terms of the relationship of the centre with the state. na mean?

that's assuming that the state, or individual actors therein, would be open and reasonable (and not corrupt) in relation to what is considered a public good. the reality is that the activities of ungdomshuset (and i'm not an expert either) are probably pretty hard to define as one particular form of public service which provides a quantifiable 'public good'. some of the stuff would be explicitly against the idea of the state, other aspects would be providing something seemingly more politically neutral like practice space, cafe, social events. added to that a variety of political but not nessicarily or explicitly anti-state shit like queer positive, feminist, anti-racist, etc. stuff.

i'm sure any politician in a position of power is gonna find it hard to seperate the various activities of the centre but sure fuck them, they aren't the ones who need to use it.

 

[W.]

Fucking heart-breaking. Its time to DESTROY.

Is it though? With 600 people in jail I imagine it could be considerably harder to riot. Assuming that the most militant elements have already been locked away.

I would love to see a strong response to this provocation but from refreshing politiken.dk for the last two days it would seem that the Danish state has really fucked over the ungeren. The state knew how violent things would get when the house was evicted and let it happen, now they have everyone in jail and they've knocked down the house - removing the rioters and the focus of the riots. Knocking down the house was a psychological attack on the youth.

Don't doubt for a moment how far the state is willing to go to defend it's interests, as Shorty rightly pointed out earlier with the money spent on the police operation they could have bought the house many times over. But the loss of face this would provide for the state - showing that youth can organise militantly as a counterforce to their power and win, would be far too great.

A comrade from the WSM was suggesting a solidarity march as a starting point, anybody from here interested?

 

[pete]

The state knew how violent things would get when the house was evicted and let it happen, now they have everyone in jail and they've knocked down the house - removing the rioters and the focus of the riots. Knocking down the house was a psychological attack on the youth.

If the building was sold, what are "the state" doing demolishing private property?

 

[broken arm]

that's assuming that the state, or individual actors therein, would be open and reasonable (and not corrupt)

this may be irrelevant - but you're assuming that state actors are corrupt. I'm not starting with that assumption and I'm not assuming that some of the activities in the social centre are corrupt either.....

 

[W.]

If the building was sold, what are "the state" doing demolishing private property?

The point still stands even if the state did all the dirty work and the christians knocked down the house.

 

[nooleen]

If the building was sold, what are "the state" doing demolishing private property?

making it into a bit of a party and posing for photos, by the looks of it.

 

[pete]

making it into a bit of a party and posing for photos, by the looks of it.

maybe so, but it's not a patch on some of the riot porn posted earlier on this very thread. what is it about rioting that makes it so photogenic?

 

[nooleen]

maybe so, but it's not a patch on some of the riot porn posted earlier on this very thread. what is it about rioting that makes it so photogenic?

didn't see anyone posing for that though

 

[Willie Willions]

what is it about rioting that makes it so photogenic?

Cos its a deadly laugh.

 

[W.]

maybe so, but it's not a patch on some of the riot porn posted earlier on this very thread. what is it about rioting that makes it so photogenic?

It's only photogenic in the right cirumstances, because it's obviously appealing to the revolutionary in side.



I mean, nobody finds fascists rioting sexy,

 

[nooleen]

speak for yourself

 

[W.]

didn't see anyone posing for that though

 

[Space]

maybe so, but it's not a patch on some of the riot porn posted earlier on this very thread. what is it about rioting that makes it so photogenic?

The passion of the rioters for their cause, the emotional body language and the fires/burning stuff would be three hugely contributing factors.

The rest is probably in the eye of the beholder.!cheezy

 

[W.]

Semiotics, innit?