Re: [kraken] VERBOD RONDOM KRAKEN, DE STAND VAN ZAKEN

Auteur: Martijn le Noble <m.lenoble1@chello.nl>
Datum: 14 jun 2006 15:27 uur

Hoi,

hier opgemaakte versie.
http://www.krakendrotterdam.org/pdf/state_of_things2.pdf

Verbeteringen nog altijd welkom! Naar mijn smaak is de tekst toch iets
te technisch voor een Engelstalige versie. Voorlopig kan het misschien
toch handig zijn. Hoe meer propaganda hoe beter!

mvg,

Martijn

On Tue, 2006-06-13 at 18:18 +0200, decoy wrote:
> jop kaal wrote:
>
> >thanx martijn, iemand tijd en talent om dit te vertalen voor onze niet nederlandse medekrakers?
> >
> >
> bij deze
>
> Prohibition of Squatting, the state of things:
>
> On Friday 9th of June, minister Dekker presented a plan to the house of
> parliament
> which shall make squatting as difficult as possible.
> The parliament has demanded this from the minister at an earlier date by
> official request.
> De intention is to prohibit squatting completely. This plan does not
> have the status of a legal
> draft yet, therefore it is impossible to study the letter of the law yet.
> It is to be expected, though, that the legal draft will soon be on the
> table.
> Furthermore, there are unsettling plans in development outside the area
> of criminal law.
>
> To read the complete text (in Dutch) of Dekker's presentation look it up
> on krakenrotterdam.org
> under the term "voorstel Dekker" under the topic "politics and policy".
>
> The most important change relative to the current situation which
> threatens to be implemented
> by this legislation, is the adjustment of the article 429 subsection of
> the criminal law.
> That article says, that a house may not be occupied except if it had
> been empty for a year.
> Now this condition is supposed to be lifted, which makes squatting a
> criminal offense at any time.
>
> If there were a complete prohibition to come, then this does not
> implicitly mean that the police will
> always enforce that law in case of occupation of an empty building.
> There are experts on legislation who claim that initiating an eviction
> is actually not a competence of
> law enforcement, but has to be called for by court order as part of a
> civil procedure. This already applies
> now in case one gets caught red-handed at the time of breaking the door
> to access a building.
> Even now it is police practice to evict houses without consulting a
> judge, for example if they do not believe that a house was empty for a
> year already.
>
> One can expect, that a squatting prohibition will put the police in the
> self-assumed position that they can evict
> on their own initiative. (although with a warrant for trespassing issued
> by a state prosecutor).
> Looking at this from the current legal position of squatters, this is of
> course completely worthless.
>
> (trouwens, ik snap niet echt wat deze bovenstaande zin in de context wil
> zeggen. misschien kan martijn dat nog toelichten en in de vertaling ook
> verwerken):
>
> As a short term remedy, one can wait and hope that there wont be any
> action following an occupation.
> The state prosecutor shall not always initiate procedures. Regarding
> this, a special set of regulations
> has to be implemented into the law. One of those is supposed to be, that
> the owner is expected to
> have taken steps to actually make proper use of the building in
> question. The proposed plan seems to
> indicate, that housing anti squatters could already constitute proper use.
> With this, the minister proves how twisted her concept of proper use is:
> Four people living in a house
> where hundreds could live? Long live the prevention of emptiness!
>
> Even if squatting is going to be prohibited, it shall continue
> nevertheless.
> At the end of the day, a rather mild prosecution regime is better than a
> very strict one.
> If the respective regulations for prosecution are made public, one can
> appeal to them as citizen.
> That is actually not general courtroom practice and could lead to a very
> weak position for the
> accused in a criminal case, even if the prosecution itself might be
> completely senseless.
>
> Up to a certain degree, one is left with second-guessing intentions at
> this time.
> General practice, however, is, to elaborate on the upcoming legal draft
> while it is being formulated.
> It remains as a fact, though, that this legislation wants to damage
> alternative infrastructure, just before
> this right-wing cabinet, which wants to follow the American example so
> much, has come to the end of it's term.
> Time for action!
>
> --
> decoy
> mimeographic designer
> memecraft.org
>
> get my gpg key: gpg --keyserver wwwkeys.nl.pgp.net --recv-keys B1E95FAD
> key fingerprint: D557 EA54 BEFB 2A13 606A 327E 0CAE 5D73 B1E9 5FAD
>
> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> Indeed, we believe in the proverbial 'rough consensus and running code'
> Still, we sometimes run out of consensus and end up with rough code
> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>
>
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------
> Afmelden, e-mail: kraken-post-unsubscribe@dvxs.nl
> Opnieuw aanmelden: kraken-post-subscribe@dvxs.nl
> Faq: kraken-post-faq@dvxs.nl
> Website: http://www.krakenpost.nl
> [13 Jun 18:00u]: 260 abonnees + 379 niet-abonnees
> --------------------------------------------------------------
>
>

--------------------------------------------------------------
 Afmelden, e-mail: kraken-post-unsubscribe@dvxs.nl
 Opnieuw aanmelden: kraken-post-subscribe@dvxs.nl
 Faq: kraken-post-faq@dvxs.nl
 Website: http://www.krakenpost.nl
 [14 Jun 15:00u]: 260 abonnees + 379 niet-abonnees
--------------------------------------------------------------
 
ontvangsttijd Wed Jun 14 13:27:58 2006