So today is the day we in Denmark, along with most states in the European Union, vote in the elections for the European Parliament. For those who don’t know, the European Parliament is the directly elected chamber of the European Union’s bicameral legislative branch. In Denmark, this election also coincided with a referendum regarding the Act of Succession, which sets out the rules of succession to the Danish throne.

In the elections for the European Parliament, I voted for Socialist People’s Party, which should pretty dang obvious given that I am a member of it, and, as you know if you have read my blog for a little while, I attended it’s 2008 party congress in April.
The candidate that I voted for is Emilie Turunen:

My vote in the 2009 election for the European Parliament

Emilie Turunen

Yes I know! Cute looking, however, I got to hear her give a speech, and got to talk to her at an SPP event some months ago, and let me tell ya, not only does she have some admirable visions/ideas, but certainly the kind of passion and, to me, integrity and honesty that I appreciate. Which is in stark contrast to a handful of candidates put on the ballot in Italy, by that absolutely moronic asshat Silvio Berlusconi! Why the Italians keep voting for this nutball is completely and totally beyond me!

Anyway, like I said earlier, this election also coincided with a referendum to slightly alter the Act of Succession, so that the part that says “On the death of a King the throne shall pass to his son or daughter, a son taking precedence over a daughter, and where there are several children”, so that it’s always the eldest child (If any) of the reigning monarch that inherits the throne. In the media and right-wing politicians, along with some moderately left-wing folks, have labeled this as “equality in the monarchy”. That term is to me, ABSOLUTELY ABSURD, and contradicts itself! It’s absurd to use the terms “equality” and “monarchy” in the same sentence, in the same context, because a the whole core and basic idea behind a monarchy is discrimination and that somebody has extra privileges. Not based on contributing something positive to society, not based on working towards achieving something, not EVEN based on actually being a good person (Hint: Charles, Prince of Wales). A monarchy is based on the fact that some time in the past, somebody managed to grab a hold of a certain position, and then their decedents somehow have a special right to inherit that position. A concept that not just is on contrast to the principles of Enlightenment that most democracies (Even the Danish democracy) and free countries is built upon, but also contradicts our modern understanding of humans being equal, and that a person decides who they are on their own, and not that they are good or bad, deserving or not deserving, based on the accident of birth, gender, race, income etc. etc.
To the people who think I am being an extremist or whatever, you’re welcome to try to counter my arguments, if you can prove to me that a monarchy is not fundamentally about discriminating among people, go right ahead, the comment section is open for you.
Another thing about this change to the Act of Succession is that it is legal-monkey’ing. Article 2 of the Danish constitution says:

Ҥ2
The form of government shall be that of a constitutional monarchy. Royal authority shall be inherited by men and women in accordance with the provisions of the Act of Succession to the Throne of March 27, 1953.”

Emphasis is mine. I am not a lawyer, but only a total dimwit would read that, and not see that the constitution refers to a specific version of the Act of Succession, the one that was adopted in 1953! But apparently our government seem to think “Oh, if we just follow the regular rules for amending the constitution, we can just change the Act of Succession and it will still be valid, without changing the reference, and thereby avoiding the need to amend the actual constitution”. I don’t know how on earth these goofballs can interpret article two of the constitution as being able to refer to an Act of Succession anno 2009, when it clearly says “1953”. Also, these cowards are too afraid to talk about actual, and proper constitutional revision. Because “Oh what we have is oh so sacred, and can’t be allowed to be defiled by these evil socialists!”. I mean what a bunch of absolute, sniveling, cowardly morons, if you’re afraid of socialists, and the suggestions we might make for constitutional changes, that speaks volume to me, and tells me that your counterarguments belong on the dung-heap of politics and not in a serious debate! And oh, while I am lashing out at people, the folks who want to use an amendment to the Act of Succession as a springboard for other amendments, the same goes for you, you’re an absolute, sniveling coward who’s too afraid to make your case.

For this referendum I “voted blank” as we say, meaning that I didn’t write anything on the ballot paper and just put it into the box as I received it. This will technically be counted as a no, but to me signals something else. Asking me a question like this regarding the monarchy, is like asking a vegetarian if he or she prefers beef or pork.

My vote in the 2009 referendum on the Act of Succession

Anyway, as a last remark, to those of you who thinks I have been very impolite in this post, let me tell you, I am not here to be polite, I am here to kick somebody’s ass!