The No Longer Forbidden Debate in Denmark

Zonka has returned from vacation in order to cover the current political and constitutional crisis taking place in Denmark. He has been hard at work translating articles and editorials into English for the benefit of interested parties outside of Denmark.

The groundswell of Danish resistance to the dictates of the EU continues to grow. Here is the opening part of Zonka’s translation of an editorial in today’s Jyllands-Posten:

Editorial: The Forbidden Debate

What exactly should they have been asking? How should the question to the voters have been framed?

It is a natural and close counter-question, when we ask why the Danish immigration policy has never been subjected to a referendum — why the public have never been asked their opinion about the immigration policy.

The answer is quite simple: One could have put the whole text of the foreigners law to a referendum: Yes or no!

There is hardly any doubt that the foreigners law would have been accepted with overwhelming majority, if it had been put to a referendum in 1983, and if the population had had to vote according to the information available at the time and the feelings emanating from the political establishment.

However, part of a referendum is a prior debate, and such a debate requires real information. This real information the population didn’t have. It was more or less suppressed by gun-shy politicians. A critical opinion to immigration was forbidden speech.

Any critical remark was immediately shot down by verbal machine gun salvos, where the projectiles were the bad words racism, discrimination, xenophobia, immigration-hostility and such.

The few politicians and other in the debate who warned, were immediately demonized, marginalized and if possible ridiculed.

The law was accepted. The population wasn’t asked.

As the catastrophe took shape, more — but still few — politicians raised the issue. The mayors in the most affected municipalities warned, but were ignored or met with the now obligatory invective.

Read the rest of the editorial over at Zonka’s blog.

On the same topic, here is Zonka’s translation of a post brought to our attention last night in the news feed by Fjordman:
– – – – – – – –

Open conflict between Denmark and EU

By Nina Hjerpset-Østlie, 2008.07.31

The ECJ activities undermine the broad political and public supported Danish immigration law. Neither the government coalition, Venstre (V), Danish People’s Party (DPP) and the Conservative (C), nor the opposition party the Social-Democrats (S) have any intention of accepting the ECJ’s judicial attempt to dictate Danish immigration policy. Now the Danish government — with support from the opposition — gives notice that a showdown against the increasingly more political and activist line of the jurists of the ECJ is underway — to ensure that the individual countries immigration policies remain a democratic and national issue.

All of Denmark’s requirements for family reunions are voided according to several ECJ rulings. The court further makes clear that the 24-year rule, the attachment requirement, the self-support requirement and the Banquer’s Guarantee is subordinate to EU’s free movement rules.

  • Spouse or children who want to be united should previously have had permanent residence in another EU country. This requirement is void after the ECJ ruling in the Metock case.
  • The Danish citizen should previously have had work or be self-employed during the stay in another EU country. This requirement is now limited to a few weeks of work [In some interpretations being actively job-seeking for a couple of weeks is sufficient. — ed.]
  • The Danish citizen should be self-sufficient, when returning to Denmark. This requirement was voided by the ECJ Eind ruling in December 2007.
  • The EU rules also allow family reunions regardless of the Danish restrictions such as the 24-year requirement, association requirement, hosing requirements, special self-sufficiency requirements, demands of Banker’s guarantees and the so-called cousin-rules.

Danish lawyers have already been put to work to investigate how Denmark can remain in control of the immigration policy that has been in effect since 2001. A majority of Danish politicians intends to fight to keep the right of forming and executing a sovereign immigration policy in the hands of the Danish parliament (Folketinget), without being overruled by non-elected lawyers in the EU bureaucracy.

Once again, read the rest of the translation at Zonka’s place.

3 thoughts on “The No Longer Forbidden Debate in Denmark

  1. An interesting thing happened on the way to the protest…the protesters weren’t met by counter protesters.

    In other words Europeans, Danes anyway, long intimidated into following a proscribed way of thinking are finding out that if they are bold enough to speak out that there is little to no resistance to their way of thinking. When a people usually afraid to speak out lest they be insulted as racists, xenophobes, “right” wingers, etc. find out that they aren’t in limited company after all, are emboldened and the growth of the counter-insurgency suddenly finds new life. The new found support of a person’s political position by friend and family emboldens the dissenter and soon a self-reinforcing movement begins.

    More Europeans need to speak out, they will be pleasantly surprised to know that many more of their countrymen support them than oppose them. Too many people are intimidated by the vocal and aggressive minority. Once they learn that the bullies are all bark and no bite the long bullied will find new courage to bark back and maybe even bite when necessary.

  2. Politiken and its Bilderberg-coordinating editor-in-chief Tøger Seidenfaden is in perfect panic over this.

    Now, Politiken has a very nice blog, and I took the opportunity (in Danish) to walk in and shred today’s editorial, line by line.

    A weird thing one may notice when reading this editorial is that Tøger seems to assume that he knows better than everyone else, while in reality he quite obviously knows less, in particular with regards to the role of the ECJ. That makes him an easy target for people (like Messerschmidt) who know the details, in particular when said details have become commonly known.

    I wonder if this would also apply to other Bilderbergers?

Comments are closed.