Reykjavík Grapevine - 05.11.2010, Qupperneq 10

In the latest round of bick-
ering going on between
church and state, the Hu-
man Rights Committee of
Reykjavík city council recently drew
up a proposal that would forbid church
officials from visiting play schools or
grade schools for the purpose of mis-
sionary work. As the schools are under
the jurisdiction of the municipalities,
and Iceland has a distinct lack of re-
ligious nutjobs, you'd think that this
would be pretty cut and dry.
Almost immediately, though, con-
servatives were all over this, blogging
furiously, tossing out all sorts of slip-
pery slope fallacies, to the point where
city council actually had to reassure the
public that they were not going to ban
Christmas in schools; they just wanted
to prevent proselytising. This didn't
stop the Bishop of Iceland himself from
accusing city officials of "prejudice and
opposition to faith, especially Christi-
anity." And so the Human Rights Com-
mittee has withdrawn the proposal for
some language re-workings.
Now, I've come to expect that the
church will continue to act defensively
in justifying its place in the public sec-
tor. What I find puzzling is how the
Ministry of Culture and Education has
handled the situation.
Perhaps in an effort to mollify
church officials, the ministry has put
forth the legal opinion that parents
may request that their children not
be taught Christianity, and that if the
school is planning to take children to
church, or if priests are coming to teach
Christianity, that parents must be in-
formed ahead of time with ample notice
so that parents can ask their children be
excluded.
What is striking about this opinion
is that it establishes a default setting of
church in school, which I guess isn't
surprising, considering the source: the
national law on education allows for
Christianity to be taught in schools.
Just remembering the parliamentary
Education Committee meetings on
this clause alone is enough to give me
a headache. The logic behind it—that
Christianity teaches important values
such as compassion and forgiveness—
reminds me of the old American excuse
that defence spending is so important
because of all the technology in non-
military applications it brings. It both
cases, why do we need the middle man?
Do we not already teach compas-
sion and forgiveness in schools? Does
Christianity have a monopoly on those
values? This might be a crazy idea, but
maybe the default setting for school
should be education. If parents want
their kids to learn about Jesus, they can
still take them to church.
I have a playschool-aged daughter.
If I wanted to live in a country where
I actually had to deal with the whole
“war on Christmas” crap, I could move
to Kansas. We should be beyond this
point.
10
The Reykjavík Grapevine
Issue 17 — 2010
“On November 27,
Icelanders will head to
the polls to cast their votes
from this enormous list of
candidates. But how will
they ever make heads or
tails of their choices? Will
they read up on all 523
candidates?”
Opinion | Íris Erlingsdóttir
Iceland’s Constitution is a
legacy of our prior status as a
Danish colony and basically a
direct translation of Denmark’s
constitution.
The concerns of a 19th century colonial
power seeking to limit—but not abolish—
the previously unlimited powers of its
monarch resulted in a parliamentary sys-
tem in which most of the legislative and ex-
ecutive powers are held in the hands of the
heads of political parties, ergo, career poli-
ticians and party operatives. The parties
are anti-democratic. They cut deals to split
the funds they are supposed to be spend-
ing on our behalf among their friends and
family, and fill government bureaucracies
with incompetent, inexperienced political
hacks.
Iceland needs a strong chief executive,
along the lines of the American or French
president, chosen directly by The People.
A strong executive, elected by the entire na-
tion, would be able to rise above party poli-
tics, and guide the nation according to its
best long-term interests. A powerful chief
executive would also go a long way towards
rehabilitating Iceland’s image abroad—
and at home; we learned in the Black Re-
port that we don’t have a single political
leader who is responsible for anything. A
single chief executive would be held liable
for all failures. As Harry Truman famously
said: “The buck stops here.”
We must abolish all ties between the
state and the Icelandic Lutheran Church.
The current state-sponsored church is
anti-democratic. It has grown fat, lazy, and
corrupt from the lack of competition. It has
failed miserably in its important duty to in-
stil moral responsibility into the nation’s—
and its own—leaders.
It is also essential that the constitu-
tion define the limits of artificial limited
liability business entities. The proliferation
of such entities in recent years, as well as
the complexity of their interrelationships,
has resulted in situations in which it has
become nearly impossible to trace funds
or to hold criminals liable for their blatant
larceny. Thieves shift money from one
company to another with no limitations,
and laugh all the way to Tortola. Further,
it must be clear that the constitution’s hu-
man rights provisions apply to humans
only, not corporations, as has happened
in the US, where corporations now enjoy
freedom of speech rights (what’s next, a
corporation with the right to bear arms?)!
Iceland’s bankruptcy laws do not per-
mit honest individuals who, as result of
illness or forces beyond their control, have
lost their jobs, their savings, and in whose
houses they have no equity despite years of
payments, to escape the yoke of personal
debt. Although limited liability entities are
free to (often fraudulently) discharge their
debts and start over, ordinary people have
no shot at a fresh start. The constitution
must make clear that individuals who have
not acted dishonestly have the opportunity
to start over without enduring a lifelong
stigma.
The constitution must explicitly define
property rights and state that our national
resources are owned by the State, by The
People. It must clarify the conditions un-
der which government resources may be
used by individuals. The concentration of
wealth in the hands of a few individuals
has been the result of the government’s
wasting our wealth, giving away fishing
licenses and banks in recent years.
Our current constitution purports to
guarantee the freedom of expression, but
in fact you may be thrown in jail for of-
fending your neighbour. It must be made
absolutely clear that no such laws will be
tolerated in our society.
Given Iceland’s size, the high level of
education among its citizens, and the ubiq-
uity of electronic media, there is no reason
why specific matters should not be submit-
ted to the voters directly. Although techni-
cal details should remain in the hands of
those who can devote themselves to such
matters, issues that are basic—such as the
sale or privatisation of public resources,
the means of funding the government,
and the acceptance of treaties—should be
decided by referendum.
Why A New
Constitution?
Opinion | Paul Nikolov
Leave Those Kids Alone
Farmers, students, salesmen, chefs,
stay-at-home-Dads, film directors, en-
gineers, preschool teachers, architects,
lawyers, painters, mechanics, security
guards, museum directors, business-
men, veterinarians, psychiatrists, hotel
managers, retirees, doctors, journal-
ists, driving school instructors, the
unemployed and priests – they’re all
running to be part of a Constitutional
Assembly, which will convene this Feb-
ruary to review Iceland’s constitution
for the first time in history.
Although a constitutional review
of this sort has always been option, the
banking crisis and dissatisfaction in
the nation provided the necessary mo-
mentum to roll this into action. “After
the financial meltdown, there was a
strong demand from society for greater
participation from the people and the
current government is meeting those
demands,” Ministy of Finance press of-
ficer Rósa Björk Brynjólfsdóttir tell us.
Lo and behold, 523 people collected
the necessary 30-50 unique sponsor
signatures required to make it onto the
ballot. So, on November 27, Icelanders
will head to the polls to cast their votes
from this enormous list of candidates.
But how will they ever make heads or
tails of their choices? Will they read up
on all 523 candidates? Will they know
what kind of agenda the candidates
have? Will they go through the list and
spot familiar names? Will they simply
not show up to vote?
Needless to say, it won’t be an easy
task! For the first time ever, people
are permitted to bring their notes and
whatnot into the voting booth. And it’s
a good thing because to further compli-
cate things for the voter, but to make
things easier for the counter, they are
supposed to cast their votes by four
digit candidate ID numbers: 4217, 7154,
9915, 8287, 4624, 3205, and 2578 (ran-
domly selected). Then, the Weighted
Inclusive Gregory Method will be used
to count them. We won’t even go there.
Nonetheless, Rósa says this is a ma-
jor step toward greater direct democra-
cy. Nobody really knows how it will turn
out. “It’s a highly interesting experi-
ment in democracy being followed by
political scientists around the world.”
News | Constitutional Review
Stay-At-Home-dad To perform
Surgery on Iceland’s Constitution?
If he gets enough votes, he will...
Meet Some Candidates
We didn’t have time to speak to all
523 of the candidates, but we ran-
domly polled a few of them:
Eiríkur Hans Sigurðsson, driv-
ing school instructor
He wants to ensure Iceland’s natural re-
sources are in the hands of the people,
and he wants to have more clearly de-
fined boundaries between the executive,
legislative and judicial branches.
Katrín Fjeldsted, doctor
She believes it is important to go in with
an open mind, says she is interested in
boosting Iceland’s democracy with safe-
guards for greater participation and con-
sensus from society.
Ægir Geirdal Gíslason, 64-year-
old unemployed security guard
He says it is important for the unem-
ployed to have a voice. He would like to
change the Constitution so that Alþingi
stops commissioning all of these expen-
sive committee’s to investigate things
for them. Instead, he would like them
to take on more responsibility and rely
instead on advisers.
ANNA ANdERSEN
519 CANdIdATES, 4 ARE MISSING
Would you trust yourself to write a nation's constitution? If so, we admire your
gall. Hats off to y'all!
?