Talk:Freetown Christiania
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
|
||
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the assessment scale. | ||
| ??? | This article has not yet received an importance rating on the assessment scale. | ||
 |
Freetown Christiania falls within the scope of WikiProject Denmark, a project to create and improve Denmark-related Wikipedia articles. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, all interested editors are welcome! |
|
| Start | This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale. (FAQ). (If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.) |
|
| Mid | This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale. | |
I suppressed the last part. Seemed out of place and utterly useless. Correct me if I'm wrong... ^_^
In danish the name is 'Fristaden Christiania'. The 'Fri' part means 'free' and 'staden' means 'The town'. A more appropriate translation would be 'Free town of Christiania' not 'Free State of Christiania'.
However they may themselves translate it in that way, making my point moot - I don't know
--
Just popped over at their webpage - they call it 'The Freetown Christiania' - I corrected the article - but I don't know how to rename the page, or even if that is a proper thing to do...
- It is. Just use the 'Move this page' link on the left. Check with the help pages for more details (I think it's "How to rename a page"). However you do need to be logged in with a user name to do this - if you are not then it doesn't appear. If you don't have a username its easy to create one - again see the help pages for details. Also it's a good idea to sign your name on talk pages. Use ~~~~ (four tildes) to give your username and the time and date. Three tildes just gives your username.
DJ Clayworth 19:33, 1 Oct 2003 (UTC)
[edit] Police Brutality
Police brutality in Christiania and related research/evidence deserves a section here. Why is there such a lack of even mentioning the biggest problem in Christiania today? 85.82.195.131 20:56, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
-
- I agree, would you mind adding information about this in the entry? -Teetotaler —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.68.22.207 (talk) 05:43, 17 March 2007 (UTC).
[edit] tracking this story on a continuing basis
Christiania is obviously engaged in a fight for its life at the moment. See (or I suppose hear) for example, these two recent radio stories: [1], [2]. Does anyone know of an English-language news source that is specifically tracking this story on a continuing basis? -- Jmabel | Talk 07:43, Oct 25, 2004 (UTC)
Haven't found English-source, Developers are clawing to turn the village into another highrent underbuilt YADA-YADA. Sadly even the the two bike companies have moved to Cope' and I hear the stove company is leaving too-no more Pusher Street with "stalls" anymore. People still "sell" but its word-of-mouth. The only events on the agenda is Spring Equinox until at least summer, as long as you're cool the men in blue won't give any fat, rather cheery lads...July is another judicial hearing and the campaign is upbeat, but "When Quinn the mighty eskimo gets here, everbodys gonna run to him..." (Bob Dylan) Schlüggell 01:10, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
[edit] government now wants to demolish and put up condos
I am not sure how to properly update the page but there is now news the government wants to demolish the area and put up condos. http://www.cphpost.dk/get/93464.html
[edit] Should the title for this article be changed?
Is "Freetown Christiania" the correct name for this district? I actually has a great deal of difficulty finding this article. I used the name Kristiania and then Christiania and it came out nothing. Perhaps titling it "Christiania Copenhagen" might be better?Piercetp 22:00, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Unsolved murders?
My wife, who lived in Copenhagen for a short time, told me that Christiania had an unsavory reputation as being a place not to go at night and that locals would kill people they do not know and who did not belong there. She made the comparison this area as being like a housing project in a major US city. Although it was perfectly safe to go there during day time as long as you stayed on the main drag. Is there any truth to this? Is it possible that part of the anger that the Danish government has towards the Freetown has to do with people ending up dead?Piercetp 03:29, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
- I live in Copenhagen and have never heard anything to that effect. I suspect someone was pulling your wife's leg. There has been one murder in Christiania that I can think of, when rivalism between two drug gangs resulted in the killing of an innocent bystander. Some believe this was an effect of the reorganization of gangs that followed the normalization policy of the current administration. Prior to that, I cannot recall any major incidents. Mikkel 13:00, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks for the info. I think it was actually my wife's sister who was pulling both of our legs since she lives there now. We will be heading there at the end of this summer (YEA!!!) and I will find out for myself.
-
- Denmark sounds like such an awsome country. I might go and end up staying (though I heard there is a big crackdown on immigrants lately.) Piercetp 04:53, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Other places like this?
Maybe it would be a good idea to put some links of other squatter communities like this in a "See also" section? There's something a bit similar in my home city of Toronto as well, although without the hippy culture and drug trade - see Toronto Islands. Basically, it's a rather prosperous community of squatters, whose families were there for a hundred years in some cases but who for a long time had no legal right to be there. There was a big hoopla a while back when the government threatened to demolish their homes, but finally they made a deal - they now lease the land from the government for $1 a day for 99 years (so they're safe until the year 2094). There are no cars there (except for the fire truck) and it's a great place for biking and walking. Anyone else have anything like this in their own cities? Esn 16:22, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
In my opinion in correct English it should be Free town Christiania or Free town of Christiania. Regarding this sentence: "Christiania had been self administrative, meaning no permit was needed to 'build' new property or have trailers parked up on its grounds." This is not quite correct. It might have been like that in the beginning, but not for some time, I would say. To be able to build there, one has to be part of the society and know people.
[edit] POV section
I have put NPOV dispute tag on Future of Christiania. Quote: "This is part of the government strategy to undermine the collective self-government of Christiania, as they plan to sell out building rights to private enterprises, in an attempt to force the freetown to accept the paradigm of private ownership and market capitalization of private property". Come on *sigh*... And there are other POV and weasel words here and there... 22:42, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
- Leaving aside that it is incredibly poorly written, is it not pretty much the case? Is there something inaccurate or misleading in this statement? Sunray 06:46, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
-
- "as they plan to sell out building rights to private enterprises, in an attempt to force the freetown to accept the paradigm of private ownership and market capitalization of private property" - how about some citations or proof for these allegations? 217.85.253.48 13:58, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
-
-
- This statement is opinion, thoug widely aproved as fact by moast people in and around Christiania this is not a fact!. Coax 13:11, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- I have edited the paragraph to make clear the POV. Drjon 12:50, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
-
-
[edit] hash sale Christiania
One week ago I've been to Christiania and talked to a guy who is living there for thirty years. He said that the native inhabitants of Christiania are not happy with the drug sellers on the Pusher Street which is the main street there. Sure, they like hash but they don't like to buy it from the newer drug sellers on the Pusher Street. The man who is a musician said to me that he does not buy this drugs from this sellers. Also, the sellers on the Pusher Street are the guys who don't allow visitors to take photos. Inhabitants of Christiania haven't any problems with taking photos in the towm. But the seller are scared that they could snapped by the police. So they get very angry if they see somebody taking photos near to the Pusher Street. It's not a problem if visitors take photos on other places in Christiania than Pusher Street. I've taken a lot photos there and no inhabitant said anything to me.
[edit] Neutrality
For stuff like "Nils Vest, a film director resident in Christiania, has accused the TV programme of being tendentious and biased [3], whereas others have taken the episode as a proof of faded collectivist ideals and bigotry within Christiania." this. - FrancisTyers · 14:10, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
- I added the section. My purpose was to tell about the interesting dispute arising from the tv documentary. The very existence and purpose of Christiania is a controversy in itself, and in some cases it is not possible to come down to ONE objective description. To compensate for this, I tried to add a double subjectivity, countering two points of view to each other. I think it is a reasonable solution. Please explain what you think is wrong with it. For most other parts of the article, I agree that they are ridiculously biased and belong more in a campaign folder.
--Sasper 05:25, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
-
- I don't see how outlining two opposing opinions and clearly stating them as such is a Neutrality problem. I've cleared the flag. Drjon 12:52, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Private and Collective Ownership
As a dane and a regular in christiania i have followed the debate about it for a long time and just wanted to say that the statement that the government is trying to undermine Christianias collective ownership and substitute it with private ditto IS accurate. Numerous politicians have argued for the normalization of christiania with exactly these words, have said that since private ownership exists in Denmark, christianites have to accept that too. It is explicitly said that the collective ownership model should NOT be allowed, (and this is by the way nothing new, several governments have attacked Christiania on the ownership model)not even as a social experiment. The statement is not an allegation, nor POV, but reflect the official government policy on christiania, which is to convert the ownership to private hands as opposed to common ones. Through out all of Christianias history there has been collective ownership, but last year the government literally forced every inhabitant to submit a claim of private ownership to where he or she lived. It was said that if the inhabitants did not do this, they would not be granted a permission to stay from the commune, they would be removed, and their houses torn down. So the christianites submitted the claims. As it happened none of the christianites that live at the beautiful area voldene (the lakes) were granted permission to stay. They have in other words not been allowed to remain there, and all their houses are to be torn down, even though the inhabitants submitted their rights as ordered. The clever thing on the part of the government is that through this manouver they now have documents with registered private ownership of land on Christiania, although these papers are not accepted by Christiania. This IS in other words an attempt to force through a new paradigm for Christiania.
Also, as we speak, apartments for around 400 new residents are schedualed to be constructed in the middle of downtown chistiania and then sold to whoever wants to pay the (high) price (a price ordinary christianites will not be able to pay). By comparison, in the entire history of Christiania not one building has ever been sold, or could be, since nobody has ever before owned a building there. If this is not an attempt to openly undermine the collective ownership model and swop it with a private one which will follow the known capitalistic dynamics (price inflation etc), I dont know what is. And, mind you, such a claim does not necessarily entail that the private-capitalist model is a bad thing as one above seems to think. Although it is not my view, im sure you can find people who consider undermining Christianias collective model a good thing because they find the capitalist model better, inherently good, or useful, etc etc. So to summarize, i think the statement is valid, and i think that if you asked the danish ministers concerned with the so-called normalization of Christiania they would say the same. This leads me to a little criticism of you, my fellow-editors. Please think twice before putting NPOV dispute-tags on discussions, one thing is to point out false claims, another is not knowing (or wanting to accept) all the facts surrounding the situation.Martinlemberg 19:43, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
Quotes from the government concerning Christiania:
Christiania-spokesperson for the Conservative (governmental) Party, Christian Wedell-Neergaard:
"Christiania is a dwelling for people who wish to live in a different manner...But it is crucial that varied ownership-models are introduced, so that there will be both private and partially owned houses."
or
"(Christianias) demand that there be a collective fund is not fair, It doesnt meet the wish for a normalization. We (the government) have emphazised that there should be varied ownership-models, such as private ownership."
or
"...it is natural that there are also privately owned buildings in an area like Christiania...Because it is the case for the surrounding society in general, that there are variety in the ownership." (all quotes from Politiken,29.january 2006, pg.6)
or
the Minister of Finance, Thor Pedersen, from the government-party Left (Venstre), who to the question in parliament whether the new buildings at Christiania were only economically motivated, answered:
"It is a political priority that there be build new houses as suggested, to ensure a development of the Christiania-area with varied ownership-models." (Information, 6.june 2006, pg.3)
Two things are important to note here, one is the recurrence of the phrase "varied ownership-models" from both politicians, the other is Thor Pedersens claim that it is a political priority. Regarding the first aspect, then the fact that the two politicians in effect sound like the echo of one another shows us that this is a keyword in their argumentation and thus in their political priorities. HOWEVER, even though it may sound very liberal to demand "varied ownership-models" we should realize that there is, of course, no such thing as collective ownership in the entire state of Denmark - EXCEPT in Christiania. This means that what the government means with variety is, in effect, as Thor Pedersen phrases it "the development of Christiania" towards accepting private ownership - effectively REDUCING the total variety of ownership in Denmark. Of course, if what the government really wanted was variety, then there should be no problem in allowing at least partial collective ownership (of, say, some areas or buildings) in Christiania (or for that matter in the rest of Denmark), but, of course, this will not happen. As Wedell-Neergaard says: a collective fund doesnt meet "the wish for normalization" - the wish presumably being held by him and the governmental politicians - and private ownership should be introduced in Christiania because "it is the case for the surrounding society in general". It is worth noting that in order to reach this conclusion, Wedell-Neergaaard motivates changing the ownership-model first via "a need for variety", then by what might be dubbed "a wish for conformity" - two terms not easily fused together.
The issue of Christiania as a social experiment with collective ownership, it seems, is simply not allowed in the governmental discourse and this reflects the "political priorities" that Thor Pedersen speaks of. Because just as we in a discussion should grant that some find private ownership valuable or inherently good, the same ought also to be the case when assessing the collective ownership model. However, what we DONT find in the governmental debate about ownership in Christiania is even the notion that collective ownership can be good, instead, as we have seen, all changes are motivated by either variety or conformity - with collective ownership being excluded from both categories. Of course, one could be forgiven for thinking that in this context the true million dollar question - what ought to be examined before any legislation is undertaken - is whether private or collective ownership really IS the best thing for Christiania, also taking into consideration that the collective model already has been applied there for over 30 years. Unfortunately, the very framing of the argumentation by Wedell-Neergaard and Pedersen, does not alow for this comparison to be made.Martinlemberg 13:59, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
- Interesting, but wrong. Collective ownership is quite common in Denmark, it exists in many types of Coops, such as andelsboliger, andelsbevægelser, andelsbrugsen, kolonihavehuse, strandret, skovret, kollektiver, etc. The idea is very intergrated in danish laws, and has been upheld often in Danish courts. Carewolf 13:12, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
- Interesting but also wrong. You confuse a different principle of ownership with the collective one. Share-owning (andele) of houses or estates is not the same as collective ownership. Share-owning only gives you ownership over your own share, while collective ownership gives everybody the same unrestricted ownership of the entire area (as it is in Christianias case). You are right pointing out that beaches, parks, forests in Denmark have common ownership, and it was inaccurate of me not mentioning them, but I was referring to the fact that in all of the Danish urban city development, the option of a collective ownership-model like Christiania is strangely missing.
- Given that there do exist natural areas or parks which are owned collectively by the people (many more areas like this used to exist), it is relevant to enquire whether these places are successful, loved and used by the people, and in the Danish context I this idea is very popular - you mention the beaches and forests yourself. So the question is how the government in its argumentation can assume that collective ownership doesnt meet the demand for normalization, and will not allow the only city/nature-variant of the principle we have - Christiania - to remain collectively owned, when other areas owned like this are popular indeed?Martinlemberg 13:51, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Map is wrong
The map is inaccurate. The two northernmost bastions on the western side of the moat, as well as the square just east of Torvegade and the strip including to small bastions from Torvegade and almost up to the little bridge over the moat are not part of Christiania. I'll go and check where the accurate borders are one day. My own street is visible on the map though I am (luckily) not a direct neighbour.
--Sasper 05:48, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Cleanup for formal encyclopedic tone required
Added the template to this effect. See Wikipedia:Guide to writing better articles WP:BETTER. -- 201.50.248.179 15:16, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
POV template also added. Many parts of this article are flawed. Sidar 01:57, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
