Danish Prime Minister sued for breach of Constitution re war in Iraq

by Geoff Tue Oct 11, 2005 20:11

Hope it works. Jumped up little neo con/neo lib pricks, with that hyper intern look, from politician like the Danish Prime minister, to columnists and journos, to shouty little tadpoles in biased college debating socities, were all 1) gunning for this war and 2) verbally deriding, and slandering anyone oppossed to this madness.

Now the place is in a mess, those against are beyond 'I told you so', they're that jaded and most of the gunners are keeping shut for fear of looking stupid. Twats.

If this case works, there could be a legal precedent imitated in other countries...Unless George Bush's friend God decides to intervene again...

by Dr. Coilín Oscar ÓhAiseadha Wed Oct 12, 2005 05:40

Thanks for your comments, Geoff.

I also hope it works. Having previously worked very closely with the grassroots activists who organised this, I hope their case gets through the first phase, where a decision has to be taken as to whether the case can be considered in the courts at all!

Having said all that, I find your use of language offensive. I accept no part in your insults to the parties involved. I am in the business of promoting peace through peaceful means, not through aggression towards others - and that applies even though I find myself in deepest disagreement and active opposition to the policies of people like Bush, Blair and Fogh.

Poisonous language like "pricks", "tadpoles" and "twats" has no place in the vocabulary I use in my political work. Words like that served no purpose in the movement that persuaded the Danish defence minister - alone of the defence ministers of all the countries that participated in the invasion - to resign, in April last year. I watched how that happened. I was involved at an early stage in advising and assisting the journalists and politicians who made it happen, and I can say that it happened because activists, journalists and politicians stayed cool and focused on getting at the facts - like the fact that there were no WMD in Iraq. Nobody I know wasted their energies hurling insults at any stage.

So although the defence minister described the successful campaign to persuade him to retire as a "smear campaign", he would find it extremely difficult to illustrate that any aspect of this campaign was not based entirely on bald facts and probing questions.

More about how I work here:
Methods For Saving The World's Children
http://www.swans.com/library/art10/iraq/nagy.html
Read particularly the section headed "Successes of the Danish Peace Movement in Raising Political Awareness"

Keep well.
Coilín.

by Dr. Coilín Oscar ÓhAiseadha Wed Oct 12, 2005 05:45

One of the boys doing media work around this case phoned the BBC, and Julian Isherwood was delighted to provide the following excellent coverage:


Danish PM faces Iraq war lawsuit
By Julian Isherwood
BBC News, Copenhagen

An unusual constitutional battle is about to get underway in Denmark.
After two years of preparation, a group of 24 citizens have brought a suit against the Danish prime minister over Denmark's role in the Iraq war.

Read more:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4330578.stm

by Dr. Coilín Oscar ÓhAiseadha Wed Oct 12, 2005 05:56

Thanks are due to Billy O'Shea for this excellent translation of an article from the national centre-left newspaper, Politiken, providing expert comments on the legal basis for the case, theoretical problems, etc.


****


Danes drag the Danish state to court over war in Iraq

24 Danes believe that Denmark's participation in the war in Iraq is in violation of the Danish constitution, and are now summoning Prime Minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen to appear before the High Court. A professor in constitutional law is in agreement, but doubts whether the case belongs in court.

By Trine Maria Ilsøe

At 1.30 pm on Tuesday afternoon, 24 Danes delivered a 74-page writ to the High Court and summoned thereby Prime Minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen (Liberal Party) before the Court as representative for the state.

The plaintiffs are hoping to get the Court’s confirmation that it was illegal that a majority in the Danish Parliament on 21 March 2003 gave its permission for Denmark's participation in an attack on Iraq.

"For the sake of posterity it is important to establish that members of parliament must comply with the Constitution. A breach of the Constitution has been committed, and the Court must rule on this. Otherwise people can pick and choose as they please from the Constitution," said Christian Harlang, who is representing the plaintiffs together with Bjørn Elmquist.

Not under attack
The identity of the 24 plaintiffs will be revealed at a press conference later today, Tuesday.

"Denmark was not under attack when the decision was taken. The argument that there were weapons of mass destruction which could hit Western Europe in 45 minutes was completely untrue," said Christian Harlang.

Only in self-defence
Constitutional cases are rare in Denmark. The last ones were in 1998 and 1999, to do with the Maastricht Treaty and the Tvind case, respectively. In this case, it is Section 19 of the Constitution that is the focus of attention.

The plaintiffs’ main case is that when the Constitution was amended in 1953, this section was brought into line with the Charter of the United Nations. This means that all use of force is forbidden unless in self-defence or in accordance with a resolution of the Security Council of the United Nations. Neither of these two conditions was fulfilled, they say.

The first hurdle to be cleared is to be allowed to continue the legal process, if the State challenges the right of the 24 persons to bring the case.

Constitution in more than name
But Christian Harlang does not believe there will be a problem.

"It is important to establish that we have a Constitution, not just in word, but in deed. This was a decision of great significance for the country, so the right to bring cases is extended," he said.

Henning Koch, professor in constitutional law at the University of Copenhagen, agrees with the plaintiffs that the war in Iraq is illegal. Nevertheless, he is not certain that the courts are the right place to consider the question, because foreign policy is not just about law, but at least as much about power.

"This is the most complicated question you can ask a court to decide, because you are requesting a legal body to set aside a foreign policy decision which was not just made by the government, but also had the stamp of approval of the Danish Parliament," he said.

"You must remember that the majority believe that the military action was in accordance with the UN Convention and thereby also with the Constitution. In this sense, you are asking the Court to reject their view."


****

Military force
This is what the Danish constitution says:
Section 19, subsection 2. With the exception of defence against armed attack on the realm or Danish forces, the Monarch cannot use military force against a foreign state without the consent of Parliament.

****

by Dr. Coilín Oscar ÓhAiseadha Tue Oct 18, 2005 02:52

I can't endorse Geoff's offensive language. Please see above.

(I wish the editors wouldn't juggle stuff around in such a way that the order makes no sense. As the dates show, my post above should follow Geoff's post.)

Best,
Coilín.

by Dr. Coilín Oscar ÓhAiseadha Tue Oct 18, 2005 02:58

I now see that I've been viewing comments in reverse order, with newest at the top. I didn't know I could do that! :)

Best,
Coilín.

by Mark C - Teacher Tue Oct 18, 2005 10:13

Very interesting article Dr Coilin, and may I add also that you were right to point out that abusive language should not be used. What is needed in this sort of arena is clear, prescise, and eloquent debate - just like a precision guided missile. I'm forever telling students that I have no problem with them not liking a Shakespeare play but when they are giving their criticisms it is imperative to remain level-headed. Emotive language and expressions are for pub talk.

by Seán Ryan Wed Oct 19, 2005 05:12

Let me firstly point out that I am a fan of Dr. Coilín Oscar ÓhAiseadha.
However I disagree strongly about the use of expletives. I'll not use any expletives in this reply out of simple respect for Dr. Coilín. This is not in itself proof that "foul language" is bad.
Sometimes I see great irony in what we consider proper. For example if I label George bush a "mother##cker," this would really upset people and would probably cause more offense than if I labelled him a "war criminal."
However I personally would prefer to be labelled as the former.
When people get hung up on sentiment it is easy to miss the point of what is being said. This is obvious. However this simple argument also comes down well for those who use expletives. It is those who cannot abide expletives who attach the value to them that they try so hard to prove don't exist.
Man is an emotional creature. All language is tempered by this fact. It could even be argued that emotion is responsible for evolving language. To remove the emotional content from speech is to turn it into contractual legaleese. If this movement succeeds in eventually nullifying emotional input, the reason for suing the likes of the Danish Prime Minister will be lost.
Let me point something out. Everybody has emotive outbursts. You might hit yourself with a hammer on the thumb and scream "Golly Gosh it anyways!" The fact is that you have conditioned yourself to say this rather than scream what would have arrived had nature taken its course. The point is I knew what you meant to say and further your repression of your emotional self has further taxed me in that I have to translate what you say.
There is some grey area I'll grant you, in that at some point of a persons communication, the emotional content being expressed may outweigh the intellectual content and therfore make this communication a burden to somebody. This is very different however in labelling any particular word as "bad." There are no "bad" words only "bad" people and deeds.

All that said, and irregardless as to whether you agree or not, I wish you every success Dr. Coilín. Your very actions say many things in many ways and my version says you kick "@r#e."

Sláinte.

Seán Ryan

by Mark C - Teacher Wed Oct 19, 2005 10:52 mark at markconroy dot net

It's a pity that so many of these threads seem to end up talking about something completely different to what they set out to talk about - and I know I am partly responsible for this degeneration, but it is also a subject I happen to enjoy debating.

That is the nature of conversation. Sean, I'd like to address some of what you say (although I do find myself in agreement with you for the most part). I do not see how expletives work in an arena where you are putting a Minister or President on trial. Of course you are going to scream to the high heavens when you hit your thumb with a hammer, or your house is bombed from above (or perhaps Golly Gosh is what I had meant to say. I think you are wrong to say that "I knew what you meant" when infact you probably meant "I know how you feel" - we can never predict what a person is going to say until the hammer has arrived). My point I suppose is that in an argument of this nature, i.e. impeachments or ministerial trials, people use expletives often because they do not have (or are too lazy to use) a more appropriate vocabulary, but the person or group that the expletive is used against will have to take it out of the argument and see how much rational prose is left, and often you'll find there is not very much. When putting a Danish Prime Minister on trial the judges will not be interested in the emotions involved, only in the validity of the arguments used.

Whilst you are right that there are no "bad" words only bad people, I think that you could also add onto this that there can be badly constructed sentences and phrases.

Sin a bhfuil,
Mark.

by Seán Ryan Thu Oct 20, 2005 09:06

Hi Mark,
this is one of my favourite debate topics too.

I suppose we could debate this topic for many threads to come, but you know what, in the long run it eventually boils down to opinion, and more importantly group opinion or morality.

I'm not saying this is good or bad, it's just the way things are.

But something that, at its essence, reduces to mere opinion, has no true value, in terms of right or wrong.

Look at the situation of the Danish prime minister, he is accused of something that can be concretely deduced in a court of law. ie. whether he is guilty of violating the Danish constituton, or not. But it could not be reasoned out in court, that I am a bad person because I use "foul language" all the time.

Do you see where I'm going with this? (I'm sure you probably saw it the first time I went there lol)

Admittedly "foul language" has no place in a legal argument, particularly in a courthouse. But this is not because it is evil, it is because it in no way aids a logical argument in fact it tends to blur it somewhat. In other words don't bring a sense of humour, your cd collection or your problems to court either.

Going back to the Danish PM: Isn't it the case that if he loses, that we will be branded a traitor to his flag and country?

This is one of the things that this legal proceeding is all about. No ammount of namecalling, using expletives or not, will equal what the Danish court system may eventually call and label this man.

A simple chap like myself does not possess the legal clout or power to legally label anyone a traitor
so I label him something a bit more earthy.

I'd like you to imagine a scenario.

Imagine walking into a village in Iraq, before either Bush got started. Imagine standing in the middle of some area and screaming at the locals using every expletive at your command.

Now imagine either Bush carpet bombing the very same village and killing many of the people you previously insulted.

Which of you is the lesser being?

Why therefore would you be worried about insulting either George, whilst you accuse them of war crimes? Or rather I mean why would one manner of addressing these crimes be right and the other wrong? If I accuse George of being a war criminal using expletives I might offer him insult. So what? Insult is the least of his worries.

Earlier Coilín described how a minister had resigned from the Danish government. And that this act had been accomplished via reasoned debate. It was then pointed out that this former minister could not prove anyone "smeared" him. It seems to me that if anyone described this minister using expletives after he left that this would be ok, since he had been shown to possess a less than admiral character. If the shoe fits wear it etc. But if the label fits after the truth is ascertained then it is also applicable before truth is derived. In that this man was what he is before we were able to prove it. The "foul language" has no place in this reasoned proof simply because it again does not add to a logical argument, not because "foul language" is evil.

Before I go I'd like to address one point. I made a "dogs dinner" (I'm wondering here, if you have re-translated "Dogs dinner" into anything else lol) of it earlier I'm afraid, and you rightly took me to task for it. With reference to the part where I talked about having to translate someone's modified expletive, the "Golly Gosh" bit, when I said it needed to be translated. What I didn't point out is that it is not translated into an expletive, but into pure emotion, but this translation occurs in steps, it is my contention that the expletive is further down on the ladder in this descent into pure emotion, it is more primal than the sophisticated "Golly Gosh." It's not the the "Golly Gosh" translates into the expletive but that I shall encounter the expletive on the way down to discovering the pure emotion. Fair enough it does not tax one much to have to translate this more sophisticated approach, but it does seem to equate them in some fashion, does it not.

And finally, I totally agree, there is such a thing as a badly constructed sentence. It's not all good I'm afraid, but nonetheless a flaw is something by which we may also gauge beauty. I think "swearing" is best described by Nietzche's turn of phrase: "Beyond good and evil." It's is just another light shining into the soul of another, it is descriptive of that soul yes but more importantly it is only descriptive, it is not definitive.

Anyways it has been fun talking to you Mark.

Sláinte.

Seán Ryan.

by Mark C - Teacher Thu Oct 20, 2005 11:57 mark at markconroy dot net

Hi Sean,

Thanks for the personal touch, and compliments on a well written and argued piece above. It's great to read something that is phrased and punctuated properly, too often people (not just on forums) write pieces with mis-spellings and disastrous punctuation. I know I also make mistakes (there'll probably be one or two on this comment alone, but I comfort myself by knowing that my spelling, grammar, and punctuation mistakes are genuine errors rather than, for example, laziness).

If our disagreement boils down to opinion then we have nothing to worry about, because I think we both agree with each other. No you would not be a "bad" person just because you use "bad language", just a bad user of language - which would make you a bad person in my (and your eyes, judging by the conversation - Mark laughs like Dr Evil). However, on the notion of foul language, I will say, as feel that you'll agree, that there is a time and a place for it (the pub as I suggested above) and the time and place for it is not in the media (and Indymedia.ie does try to be a professional-style media outlet and for posters to call other people motherfuckers or whatever just takes the down of this medium down). Personally I don't have any problem with so-called foul-language and I use it plenty myself, but when I am trying to make a point - rationally - I try to leave expletives out of it.

Your quoting of Nietzsche is interesting, but to take it to its limits you could not judge dropping bombs as good or evil actions I don't think. Nietzsche would just see them as actions, not good or bad. In a transvaluation of all values they would be beyond good and evil since there is no such thing, for Nietzsche, as truth - there are only truths. This is very dangerous water to get into in the context of the Danish Minister getting arrested. Under Nietzschean philosophy would we (i.e. anyone, not just me and you or a Danish court) be to convict the man? It could perhaps be argued that the act of dropping bombs was good for some people and evil for others and that since there is a balance it is all okay or something similar. Hey, I managed to bring the thread back to its original topic.

To supplement your Nietzsche quote, allow me to introduce Mr Leonard Cohen: "There is a crack in everything, that's how the light gets in".

Look forward to meeting you on more threads,
Le Meas,
Mark Conroy.