The Swedish Election in Sept 19:th 2010 shows that Demoex is neither a failure or success. We kept our single mandate and we didn’t win any new. But something else happened: Sweden Democrats took place in the National parliament and a seat in the local parliament of Vallentuna.
Demoex wants to increase the degree of democracy. In my opinion, the Sweden Democrats want it to cease. The Sweden Democrats want to restrict immigration, thus violating the Human Rights articles 13 and 14, which are fundamental to worldwide democracy. But the Sweden Democrats are also protected by Human Rights. Violating the Democracy to protect it from undemocratic ideas is a really bad idea. I think the best defense would be to increase the degree of democracy even more.
A failure or success? 
September 20, 2010 at 7:11 pm |
Hello Per,
congratulations with the results. It could be better but also it could be worse. Next time better, we all support you in our thoughts but it is in Vallentuna that it must happen.
But I am not at all sure that a regulation on immigration is per definition “not democratic”, or against “human rights”.
Immigration can be devastating, ask the native people in America or Australia in our recent history. And there was never any “human rights” declaration accepted by the people. It certainly is no law of nature but it is written by politicians.
When I look at the declaration of 1948 I can’t see any objection to any rules about immigration. The subject is not even mentioned.
Article 13
1.Everyone has the right to freedom of movement and residence within the borders of each state.
2.Everyone has the right to leave any country, including their own, and to return to their country.
Article 14
1.Everyone has the right to seek and to enjoy in other countries asylum from persecution.
2.This right may not be invoked in the case of prosecutions genuinely arising from non-political crimes or from acts contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.
And in Switzerland, asylum and immigration are often subject of referenda. That way some tensions may be detected far before any political initiative reacts on people’s feelings. And those feelings even may be common fear for some aspects of a religion as something else.
In discussions about several “declarations” about human rights it seems that the first declaration of 1789 was the least manipulated by politicians and acceptable of all , if ever put to popular vote.
Paul
September 23, 2010 at 11:05 pm |
Hello Paul,
You are right in that a regulation on immigration per definition is not against the UN human rights declaration. But the freedom to move or leave a country and seek asylum is worth nothing if there are no countries you can move to. If we want laws and rules standing on ‘universal principles’ we must accept a certain degree of migration, I think. Of course direct democracy can also be an exclusive right – only for popularly elected politicians i.e…
The parol “EVERY CITIZEN – EVERY POLITICAL DECISION – ONE VOTE” isn’t worth much if the number of citizens is hardly restricted. The Minaret Ban would never have won majority if all muslims in Switzerland were Swiss citizens.
September 24, 2010 at 8:01 am |
Hello Per,
talking about asylum is a whole other story than immigration. I think that a certain amount of immigration and emigration is to the benefit of all people. In a way it is like travelling.
But I think there is a limit for peaceful and harmonic absorption of people of a total different kind of way of living, including religion, in a given time frame. In time most things settle down and we adapt to a new environment but time and proportion are crucial.
But “human rights” are not only about where I want to live but also how I want to live as a community or family. And no guest has the right to enforce himself on that. Or even politicians don’t have the right to enforce that on us.
Lets also not forget that immigration is of great economic importance and influential groups have great financial interests in this subject.
We only have to read the documentation of the Commonwealth Bank of Australia where they clearly make the link with immigration and the house market.
http://www.debtdeflation.com/blogs/2010/09/15/more-on-the-commonwealth-bank/
We are talking about human rights ant they are thinking money.
Paul
October 5, 2010 at 1:07 am |
Hi Paul,
The difference between Average and Total degree of Democracy is similar to the discussion on utilitarianism: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Total_utilitarianism Both of the ideas are hardship.
So let it be an open question what is most important – to raise the average or the total degree of Democracy?