Denmark may strip radical imams of citizenship

[Slant]

Yeah, I know. We've got being part of EU in our constitution thanks to this, same with multiculturalism being something to strive for in Sweden. Most people don't even fucking bother to check what kind of changes the politicians wants to do.

As far as I know, france is already stripping people of their citizenship though.

Are they? First time I hear about it.

[Deleted]

You're aware that the constitution can be changed, right? IT'S NOT FROZEN IN THIS TIME AND CAN'T BE CHANGED. No conservative force can keep laws or the constitution frozen in this specific time, forever.

Yes, but you can only do so if you have 90+ votes - which the government never will get if changes they suggest isn't 100% legally sane and justifiable - remember, you have a opposition who just are waiting for the smallest error to strike against the government.
Rewriting the constitution without having a massive majority for it would easily be such a thing.

As i said - all governments could theoretically go rogue and for example rewrite the constitution as they see fit and then overrule the legislation (where they need the 90+) but they would be overthrown by a vote of confidence motion, probably end up in jail and never ever re-elected.
This is where you have to trust the democracy in action.

[Deleted]

Are they? First time I hear about it.

Yes, don't have an english or french source on it though, but it was reported about here in media in Sweden.
Page I linked to is this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6teborgs-Posten

http://www.gp.se/nyheter/varlden/1.2...-medborgarskap

[Xarkan]

I'm aware of this, you don't seem to be. If people at large would support throwing out all muslims from the country, they could vote that through.

They could but the law would be in violation of the constitution and thus be thrown out by a judge. [technically the prime minister would be sued and loose since.. violation of constitution. Seemingly one of the few cases where a member of parliament can be sued]

[Crispin]

Every part of the Danish constitution is changed through a referendum.

We have freedom of religion, a referendum could change it to everything but islam is ok, and I honestly think people would vote for it at this point "not that anyone suggested this"

Atm one of the topics in Denmark seem to be, if international norms and laws etc. Should really stop us from protecting our society from radical islam.

[Deleted]

They could but the law would be in violation of the constitution and thus be thrown out by a judge.

Holy shit, what are you people not getting? The constitution isn't something frozen either. Laws can be changed and the constitution is no different, saying "BUT THIS IS HOW IT IS NOW" doesn't have any relevance to such a situation, because it would get changed rather quick if people at a large would want to do that.

You people come off as some ultraconservative demagogues right now by refusing to realize that it can be changed or that it won't stay the way it is today, in the future.

[Xarkan]

Every part of the Danish constitution is changed through a referendum.

We have freedom of religion, a referendum could change it to everything but islam is ok, and I honestly think people would vote for it at this point "not that anyone suggested this"

Atm one of the topics in Denmark seem to be, if international norms and laws etc. Should really stop us from protecting our society from radical islam.

It is not a simple referendum.

Btw the constitution does not have to be changed to protect form radical islam, the radical sub elements are likely to be illegal same as political organizations that would excersize their will by force.

- - - Updated - - -

Holy shit, what are you people not getting? The constitution isn't something frozen either. Laws can be changed and the constitution is no different, saying "BUT THIS IS HOW IT IS NOW" doesn't have any relevance to such a situation, because it would get changed rather quick if people at a large would want to do that.

You people come off as some ultraconservative demagogues right now by refusing to realize that it can be changed or that it won't stay the way it is today, in the future.

Ofcourse the constitution can be changed but the parliament cannot simply change it. The constitution defines how it is done.

[Deleted]

Ofcourse the constitution can be changed but the parliament cannot simply change it. The constitution defines how it is done.

I didn't say it's simple, I said it can be changed but you went "but the constitution says", as if that's some valid argument against the fact that laws and the constitution isn't frozen in this specific time and will change in the future as peoples opinions changes. If we were to go the conservative route like you do, we shouldn't have made it illegal to rape your wife, same-sex marriage would still be illegal and so forth, because that was the law at one time.

[Slant]

Yes, don't have an english or french source on it though, but it was reported about here in media in Sweden.
Page I linked to is this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6teborgs-Posten

http://www.gp.se/nyheter/varlden/1.2...-medborgarskap

Meh, don't take this the wrong way, but ever since Tilly just started randomly quoting swedish news sources that couldn't be found anywhere else, I won't just believe it at face value unless there's a wider international news coverage of it. Sweden is a bit hysterical when it comes to citizenship, immigrants and such things.

[Deleted]

Meh, don't take this the wrong way, but ever since Tilly just started randomly quoting swedish news sources that couldn't be found anywhere else, I won't just believe it at face value unless there's a wider international news coverage of it. Sweden is a bit hysterical when it comes to citizenship, immigrants and such things.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articl...of-citizenship

Hollande’s cabinet on Wednesday approved his plan to modify the French constitution to extend the government’s power to remove French nationality from people convicted of terrorism if they have another passport. The government also agreed to formalize the basis for the state of emergency that has been in effect since last month’s attacks in and around Paris. Parliament will start reviewing the changes in February.

France has stripped seven terrorists of their nationality since 2007, though they were all born outside the country. The constitutional change will mean the government can also rescind the rights of French-born dual nationals.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...tizenship.html

François Hollande's controversial change to the constitution, introduced after the Paris attacks, narrowly wins backing in National Assembly

[Slant]

I didn't say it's simple, I said it can be changed but you went "but the constitution says", as if that's some valid argument against the fact that laws and the constitution isn't frozen in this specific time and will change in the future as peoples opinions changes. If we were to go the conservative route like you do, we shouldn't have made it illegal to rape your wife, legalize same-sex marriage and so forth, because that was the law at one time.

Hum, it depends on the constitution really. The German constitution can be changed quite easily, but certain core aspects of it are untouchable. The human rights and the core structure of the German federalism cannot be changed no matter what at this point in time.

- - - Updated - - -

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articl...of-citizenship

That is talking about dual citizenship terrorists. We're discussing single citizenship people that would become stateless, though. Nobody has any problem with removing one citizenship if the dude has another to fall back on.

[Xarkan]

I didn't say it's simple, I said it can be changed but you went "but the constitution says", as if that's some valid argument against the fact that laws and the constitution isn't frozen in this specific time and will change in the future as peoples opinions changes. If we were to go the conservative route like you do, we shouldn't have made it illegal to rape your wife, same-sex marriage would still be illegal and so forth, because that was the law at one time.

Vote it through.. i assumed you meant parliament from the context. The parliament can do nothing no matter who gets voted in

Edit: Well it can do a lot including ditching the support for the human rights convention. I meant nothing like throwing out religious freedom

[Deleted]

You people come off as some ultraconservative demagogues right now by refusing to realize that it can be changed or that it won't stay the way it is today, in the future.

You make it sound like Denmark is some kind of third world country who do not take democracy very seriously though (the constitution is the foundation of our democracy) - last time we changed the constitution was in 1953.

TO change the constitution you need - quote:

-First Parliament must adopt the constitutional amendment (90+ - which wont be found if the changes arent legally sound).
-Then The government must call an election. (where the people can vote on the opposition instead of the government who suggested these changes)
-After The election Parliament must re-enact the change.(90+ again)

-Finally, there will be a referendum. And the majority needs to represent at least 40%of all voters.

[Xarkan]

You make it sound like Denmark is some kind of third world country who do not take democracy very seriously though (the constitution is the foundation of our democracy) - last time we changed the constitution was in 1953.

TO change the constitution you need - quote:

-First Parliament must adopt the constitutional amendment (90+ - which wont be found if the changes arent legally sound).
-Then The government must call an election. (where the people can vote on the opposition instead of the government who suggested these changes)
-After The election Parliament must re-enact the change.(90+ again)

-Finally, there will be a referendum. And the majority needs to represent at least 40%of all voters.

And i doubt you can get a majority to overthrow religous freedom. Maybe in the parliament but not in the population

Edit: Also Tillii if you persist using fascist arguments insinuating a comparison of people to rape supporters i shall compare you to the nazi you lean up towards

[Barnabas]

You can charge these people with breach of the peace and just arrest them each time they say these types of things. They'll eventually get tired of being arrested. You can also increase the penalties of subsequent arrests. Most countries have these types of laws. In the US you can be denied entry because of moral turpitude.

[Deleted]

Edit: Also Tillii if you persist using fascist arguments insinuating a comparison of people to rape supporters i shall compare you to the nazi you lean up towards

You really have no clue what I lean towards it seems, because nazism isn't anywhere close to what I lean towards. And I'm not sure where I've compared people to rape supporters here.

[Crispin]

It is not a simple referendum.

Btw the constitution does not have to be changed to protect form radical islam, the radical sub elements are likely to be illegal same as political organizations that would excersize their will by force.

- - - Updated - - -



Ofcourse the constitution can be changed but the parliament cannot simply change it. The constitution defines how it is done.

http://www.ft.dk/Demokrati/Grundlove...rundloven.aspx

Yep, a referendum will change the constitiution. Anyone who'd seriously begin a new election because of the referendum is out of his/her mind, this is obviously done after a 'scheduled' election. Knowing our politicians, they'd make it a rewording into something like "incite hate", and skip the re-election part as they did with the 2009 heir to the throne change.

And banning sub elements of religion still messes with freedom of religion, the danish consitution is seriously outdated in many paragraphs and is often completely up to interpretation, f.ex we have freedom of religion "only confined by the regards to public order and morality", there is no way that we can sideline this with something like neo-nazi's since it's not a religion.

[Cannibalus]

This sets a stupidly dangerous precedent. If these imams have committed a crime, then apply the legal system. If they haven't (as seems to clearly be the case), then you're stripping citizenship because some citizens dared to express speech that the government disapproved of. It's a naked attack on free speech. We're not talking about speech that breaks the law, like threats of violence or even hate speech, because if it qualified as such, they could charge the imams under the law. We're talking about any speech that someone in the government decides they don't like for some reason.

I don't like what these guys are saying, but I also don't like what the Westboro Baptist Church is saying, or the KKK. That doesn't mean I think they should have their citizenship stripped for speaking.

I think it's about what the majority wants. And the majority doesn't want radical muslims secretly funding/supporting terrorist organisations or feeding them stupid and indoctrinated children. I don't think Westboro Baptist Church is telling people to go on the streets and kill gays with a knife or strap a bomb to themselves and blow up a mosque or an airport in the Middle East.

This whole bullshit of "free speech" and "human rights" needs to be revised. When someone says something along "i'm going to behead you and your whole infidel family, Allah is great and his word is law!" in the street or on Twitter/Facebook etc, you would be stupid to turn away.

[Slant]

I think it's about what the majority wants. And the majority doesn't want radical muslims secretly funding/supporting terrorist organisations or feeding them stupid and indoctrinated children. I don't think Westboro Baptist Church is telling people to go on the streets and kill gays with a knife or strap a bomb to themselves and blow up a mosque or an airport in the Middle East.

This whole bullshit of "free speech" and "human rights" needs to be revised. When someone says something along "i'm going to behead you and your whole infidel family, Allah is great and his word is law!" in the street or on Twitter/Facebook etc, you would be stupid to turn away.

I think you need to revise your history lessons.

But I'll bite... let's assume free speech is revoked. That means you get put into jail for saying the wrong thing. Who decides what's the wrong thing? You? Me? If it was me, you'd be in jail already. Now what? Are you going to man up and take the punishment, because that's what you wanted?

[Cannibalus]

I think you need to revise your history lessons.

But I'll bite... let's assume free speech is revoked. That means you get put into jail for saying the wrong thing. Who decides what's the wrong thing? You? Me? If it was me, you'd be in jail already. Now what? Are you going to man up and take the punishment, because that's what you wanted?

I didn't say revoked i said revised aka looked over and improved as it no longer defends people. Also, tell me what happens if you tattoo a swastika on your head? In my country and quite a few other countries you might be put in jail. And you didn't even mention the fact that you hate anyone, you just thought it was going to be cool, just like the reply you just wrote. The funny fact is i'm not afraid on the radical muslims yelling "i'm gonna cut your head off", i'm more afraid of the ones sitting quiet in their apartments putting bombs together.

Also why do i need to revise my history lessons exactly?