Ungdomshuset Evicted (1 Viewer)

[W.]

Right so in reply to W, from the post 03:26 on the 4th. Your first point is valid and indeed i cannot say it is wrong because it is a matter of opinion, my opinion would differ. I believe that if they were legally entitled to the house, then yes it should not be taken away from them, if it is not legal, I would say they aint then.

But the laws that enshrine property rights are laws written by those who own and control the wealth of society. Your support for these laws more or less stems from the fact that they're there and always have been so they must be right. The building served more people's interests as a social center than it will serve now as a pile of rubble or as it would serve as a block of apartments or church, the simple fact is they could be built elsewhere - Ungdomshuset had that place and put it to use, something which is far more important than capitalist private property rights.

Yes i have been searched, harassed and let down by guards before. My brother was held for a period of time, tortured and eventually released by scumbags, the guards when contacted did actually nothing. So yes i can understand feelings of annoyance and anger. But I grew up with neighbours who were guards, friends who have become guards and so on, these are good people and i would never say a bad word about them or wish any harm on them despite other guards behaviour.

It's not about individual police though, I don't think they're built in a factory. The role of the police (especially so during any time of protest or social conflict) is to protect property and enforce the rule of the dominant group in society. We see this time and time again from Bellenaboy to the Bogside to Baghdad. The police also investigate crime, but their practice reflects the class society we live in and if you are from privileged area you can expect decent treatment and swift response, if you are from a working class (sociologically) area then chances are you've already given up on calling the police when something goes wrong.

Contrast the case of the death of Terence Wheelock in store street garda station and how hard his family have had to work to get their story out there, how the gardai raided and attacked their house in summerhill with the case of the blackrock college lads who kicked someone to death outside annibels and got off scott free. It's a system of class justice and class privilege. It's not the fault of the garda but the gardai.

for society to work in its best capacity, eveyone has a role to play. I do not understand any alternative forms of society where labour is not exchanged for food,clothes etc. How would anything get done? If nobody worked, how would we have food, clothes etc.

How many people do you know on the dole? Most people on the dole are on it for very specific reasons, they're unemployable, maybe have personal problems or have to stay at home to look after a sick family member. Being on the dole (and im not) is no party, its a very pitiful existance on a tiny amount of money which amounts to poverty-wages. If some punx are on the dole and chose to live on the poverty line I don't see what business of yours it is, perhaps you could get a job as a dole inspector and boot them off. I suspect a lot of punx actually work jobs and dont fit into your stereotype.

As for society where labour is not exchanged for commodities well thats not the idea. We sell our labour under the current society (if could go into the marxist specifics on economics) but dont benefit fully from the wealth we produce as workers, our boss does. We say we should organise for social production a society where we control the product of our labour and produce for social need. From each according to his ability, to each according to his need.

The next point again, is aimed at the specific people who blast the dominant way of life, whilst not engaging in politics, local communities or voting, yet take the things like transport or hospitals for granted. THIS DOES NOT MEAN EVERYONE

Which people are you addressing though? The strawman punk that you have set up in your head to argue against. I engage in politics while criticising the capitalist state, I distribute anarchist literature door to door in communities every month and I still reject the politics of the ballot box as a dead end solution.

Of course i believe in the right to protest, just not violent protest. I understand your point, but what do the majority of the danish people think? I know that if riots occured in Ireland, I would be pissed off if people came over from other countries to take part. But protesting like you said is one our basic rights, cannot say anything bad about that.

I think that whatever tactic works should be used. Violence can alienate people away from struggle and is no substitute for a militant campaign but as we see in France last year a healthy mixture of political organising and street-violence (which mostly amounted to destruction of capitalist property or using barricades to take over colleges/streets) defeated the CPE laws.

I would argue that you are giving the inital cause for the I.R.A's existence, but forgetting to mention that the cause was twisted by some of its members for evil, i.e the killing of innocent people no way associated with the troubles.

Evil is a subjective term, there's no such thing.

Last point was about the police. The police have to protect families and the unprotected, so when riots occur, and it is not dispersing, they have to use force. I do not personally agree with it, but thats the way it is and the way they would argue.

I don't know what pre-emptively attacking political protestors, confiscating all of their documents, jailing entire organisations (ABC) and so on has to do with protecting families.

 

[W.]

like who?

 

[nooleen]

like who?

Unge politideltagere i "Young Police Programme" ses her på Garda College in Templemore, Irland i forbindelse med IPAs 33. International Executive Council (IEC) møde, 29 august til 4. september 2005. Rasmus Kloppenborg og Rasmus Christensen ses i bageste række.

from International Police Association Kobenhavn website........bertie with danish pigs

This photograph was taken at the Garda College in Templemore, when An Taoiseach Bertie Ahern met the participants of the Young Police Programme. Included in the above picture are:
Inspector Conor O'Higgins (Ireland), Garda Paul Clancy (Ireland), Mila Keso (Finland), Steve Livingstone (USA), Nicoletta Tyrimou (Cyprus), Rasmus Kloppenborg (Denmark), Bertie Ahern (An Taoiseach), Ernst Trummer (Austria), Erik Eriksen (Norway), Nicole Pollard (Australia), Rasmus Christensen (Denmark), Johnny Languno (Norway), Christof Philipp (Austria), Sergeant Marie Daly (NEC Ireland), Assistant Commissioner Nacie Rice (Ireland).

 

[W.]

 

[needleinthehay]

W, just to respond to your points you made.

1)I don't know if i support these property laws just because it has been that way for a while, I would not know enough about the history of property law to give an expert opinion but i do believe if it was so wrong, which im sure some of it is, a large majority of Irish people would make a stand, i cannot say what happens in other countries because i do not live there. To be fair, you can not guess the future so you do not know what exactly will happen to the location of the cultural centre so you can not be definite.

2)This is interesting. Your examples are right and no one could argue that justice or the idea of justice is equal on all crimes or similiar crimes because it is not. But the sentencing handed down in the Annabel case has nothing to do with the guards but the judiciary. I dont really believe in class myself, maybe i just dont like that term, i dont mind saying poor or rich, but the terms upper or middle or working class are not accurate anymore, as there is not much divide and each level can only now be based on money, and money does not give you class

3)I know a hell of a lot of people on the dole for no reason. Whether it is our business or not, it is being debated, it is purely the idea not a specific person we are talking about. Saying it's none of our business is not really true in the cases of people taking advantage of the system. Even though a lot of people here are not Danish or have never visited that house, they still want to talk about it, but its not really any of their business, but we should never stop them talking about it.

4)Well, there are people like that out there, I have met many people who blast everything but do nothing. That would be pretty common in my experience. What do you mean, "reject the politics of the ballot box"?

5)I dont think whatever tactic works should be used. That could be dangerous thinking in the wrong hands. I know you probably do not mean extreme violence. Do you mean whatever it takes to get the changes done should be used by protesters?

6)Evil is a subjective term? Is that a bit of a distraction technique? It is a word, i could have easily said bad or wrong or illegal or mean. I would believe evil does exist.

7)Thats your opinion, your truth. If i was talking to a police officer from the same event, what would he say? There is your side of the story, his side of the story, and in between there lies there truth.

 

[needleinthehay]

Nooly, why did you put the picture of those police and Bertie Ahern up? what does it mean?

 

[Buzzo]

I don't know if i support these property laws just because it has been that way for a while, I would not know enough about the history of property law to give an expert opinion but i do believe if it was so wrong, which im sure some of it is, a large majority of Irish people would make a stand

Man the majority of people in this country are too comfortably off to think about these things. The legal system that operates here (and in most of the industrialised (?) western world) is based on principles that originate back to the late eighteenth century. When feudalism broke down, the propertied people needed to protect their interests from the newly emancipated serf-dudes and so devised what was considered at the time to be a relatively humane system of controlling the poor. It hasn't changed that much. The origins (and development of law since then) are obviously way more complex than that but it's a perspective worth considering if you haven't thought about questioning existing property laws.

 

[nooleen]

Nooly, why did you put the picture of those police and Bertie Ahern up? what does it mean?

it's a picture from templemore.

 

[shea_belfast]

is there anyway of getting the names of the people injured or arrested?

 

[needleinthehay]

Buzzo, just a few questions

1) Why would the western world want to keep the poor poor? what is in it for these people that makes it worth it?

2) I do not understand when you say they property laws protect the wealthy and keep the poor from getting a better life. Where is this done and how is this done in property. I have never seen in my time, when people i know have bought houses, i have never seen this type of consiracy. Can you explain it more?

 

[jane]

Man the majority of people in this country are too comfortably off to think about these things. The legal system that operates here (and in most of the industrialised (?) western world) is based on principles that originate back to the late eighteenth century. When feudalism broke down, the propertied people needed to protect their interests from the newly emancipated serf-dudes and so devised what was considered at the time to be a relatively humane system of controlling the poor. It hasn't changed that much. The origins (and development of law since then) are obviously way more complex than that but it's a perspective worth considering if you haven't thought about questioning existing property laws.

There's property law, and then there are the planning regulations. Moreover, there is the way planning is handled in this country, which is absolutely nuts. It's amazing to think about how historians will treat this period in Irish history, and it won't be pretty, but it will provide lots of thesis topics for people doing studies of stuff like internal colonialism and the social geography of late capitalism. Especially amazing is that with Ireland's dodgy history of being the tenant underclass, absentee landlordism, etc, this is conveniently forgotten when it comes to today's tenants, whether in Dublin or in some Tiger Cub's investment property in Sofia.

And needleinthehay, despite saying you can't predict what everyone thinks or what is going to happen, you rest your point about property law on the idea that if there were actually something wrong with it, people would be making more of a fuss. But the problem is, people either won't make fusses about injustices, or they just accept and normalise them, or worse, they're aware of how little anyone higher up actually cares about how the laws are affecting them, so they don't bother complaining. Or, they aren't aware of alternatives, so they don't see the point in just making a stink.

People have a million reasons for not complaining, but just because they aren't marching en masse in the streets doesn't mean the laws are fair. It's mostly that the people getting the most screwed are the ones who have the most difficult time being heard in the political arena.

I didn't grow up in Ireland, and you may not notice class differences, but I find it impossible to ignore here, and it's pretty unsettling the way people are pigeonholed.

 

[needleinthehay]

But how do property laws do that now? I know about the things i the past you mentioned, but what about now? i am not disagreeing with you merely looking for some info on how this is done

 

[taubstumm]

Buzzo, just a few questions

1) Why would the western world want to keep the poor poor? what is in it for these people that makes it worth it?

2) I do not understand when you say they property laws protect the wealthy and keep the poor from getting a better life. Where is this done and how is this done in property. I have never seen in my time, when people i know have bought houses, i have never seen this type of consiracy. Can you explain it more?

hi needleinthehay... it looks like there might be an underlying assumption in what you're saying - an assumption that a state is a force for good, or at least a neutral force.

one of the most widely-accepted definitions of a state is that it is a central authority with a monopoly on the use of violence in a given area.

some states need more force, some need less. all claim the authority to use it. all of them, to varying degrees, protect property - either state territory or private property, or both.

everything else flows from that.

 

[needleinthehay]

thanks for reply. please ignore my naive ways but you guys are telling me this, but it sounds like therory from a college text book. I am looking for how this is done in Ireland know. If i have money, i can buy a house. What and who would try to stop me?

 

[needleinthehay]

My spelling has got worse!

 

[jane]

Buzzo, just a few questions

1) Why would the western world want to keep the poor poor? what is in it for these people that makes it worth it?

2) I do not understand when you say they property laws protect the wealthy and keep the poor from getting a better life. Where is this done and how is this done in property. I have never seen in my time, when people i know have bought houses, i have never seen this type of consiracy. Can you explain it more?

It's not so much that the western world has a conspiracy against the poor, it's that the sort of economies that have evolved in the west are actually dependent on the cheap labour and resources in the developing world. And if everyone made a living wage, things would cost a lot more than they do in the west. Even fair trade is only a start -- the fair trade farmers get paid more, but it means non-fair trade businesses lose money, and the people most affected will be the people who work for that company because the company will be interested in maintaining a profit margin and cheap prices in order to remain competitive.

So what's in it for the west is our entire way of life, really, and the reliance of the west on cheap goods and labour from the developing world is so pervasive that it will be many generations before there can be even a small perceptible shift. Anyone with a knowledge of global economics could tell you this. I had an interesting debate with someone on this, which was surprisingly reasoned. We both agreed that it's fundamental to western economies, but our arguments were different: his was that it's so pervasive that it can't change, and mine was that it's so pervasive that it must change.

Similarly, it's not that there's actually a cabal sitting around figuring out new ways to oppress the have-nots, it's that when decisions are made, they are made by the haves, in the interest of other people who have similar lifestyles, social values, and economic lifeways. It's the way the world works. Just by way of comparison, I was reading a report from a Dail committee on sport and gender, and it was pointed out that until women became more involved in making decisions, it didn't cross decision-makers' minds to provide creche facilities in community centres. It's not that it was a conspiracy, it was that they just hadn't thought of it -- they even admitted it themselves.

When it comes to property, it's also not necessarily about oppressing the poor, it's about serving the needs of the people who speak your language and can do something for you and your mates. The result is that the people with the least suffer the most, which is why people need to speak up and let their interests be known. In the situation of the Irish rental market, the interests and rights of tenants are only recently recognised as an important issue. This isn't because there's more of a sense of economic justice, it's because now there are people who have a bit of political and economic power who can no longer afford to buy and are becoming more conscious of the need for better tenancy agreements. Basically, now that middle-class people are renting more frequently, it's become more visible as an issue.

To be honest, even your questions reflect this mentality: you suggest that it's not a problem because you've never personally seen it. That's pretty much how the rich stay rich and the poor stay poor. Because people make decisions and judgements about the world based on their own narrow view of it. When you broaden your view to see other perspectives and experiences, decisions become more difficult and complex, but if other interests are considered, they also have the potential to be fairer.

I'm not really sure what you are implying when you say that you haven't seen the conspiracy when people you know have bought houses -- could you explain this?

 

[Buzzo]

Buzzo, just a few questions

1) Why would the western world want to keep the poor poor? what is in it for these people that makes it worth it?

2) I do not understand when you say they property laws protect the wealthy and keep the poor from getting a better life. Where is this done and how is this done in property. I have never seen in my time, when people i know have bought houses, i have never seen this type of consiracy. Can you explain it more?

I don't think there's a conspiracy at work. I'd imagine it's down to people being comfortable with their lot and not being arsed rocking the boat (baby). I don't want to undermine the actual topic of this thread by getting into a big abstract political discussion (for once) but if you're really interested I can point you in the direction of some cool shit I've read on the poverty/crime thing (fascinating stuff).

Also, I'm not sure if I've missed your point, but are you saying that your friends who have bought houses are poor?

 

[taubstumm]

I don't want to undermine the actual topic of this thread by getting into a big abstract political discussion (for once)

possibly a good idea, so on that topic - does anyone know where shorty is? he wasn't one of the arrestees, was he?

 

[needleinthehay]

well, lets just say, a friend of mine and her boyfriend are deciding to buy a house,they have saved up for a deposit and are able to get a mortgage. So then they buy a house. These people are not rich, they have enough money to get by, but they work very hard and get a good house. Where is the property laws benefiting the upper class here?

I do not wish to get into the world property area as thats huge. By simply talking about Dublin, can you explain how that works. I know renting is a waste of money overall, and you never end up owning anything. I do rent, my grandmother rented her entire life and never owned her house. But it is only one part of life. This therory just sounds too conspiracy like, i just would need a lot of evidence to start taking it seriously

 

[needleinthehay]

Buzzo,

Yeah cheers for any info you can recommend. Well,no they are not poor nor are they rich, they work hard and are able to save well. A lot of the houses around the corner from my old house were all corporation housing. Initially they were rented but they were all given the chance to buy their property and most did. This is not a recent thing but years ago. Is the property laws really that bad in Dublin, do you guys know any figures?