Leita Ý frÚttum mbl.is

BloggfŠrslur mßna­arins, j˙nÝ 2022

SvÝar og Finnar Ý Nato og aukin herna­arumsvif bandalagsins

Enn einu sinni er forsŠtisrß­herra ■jˇ­arinnar, KatrÝn Jakobsdˇttir mŠtt ß rß­sfund NATO. Ůar ver­ur ßkve­i­ a­ SvÝar og Finnar ver­i a­ildar■jˇ­ir a­ NATO og eru ■ß allar Nor­urlanda■jˇ­irnar a­ilar a­ varnarbandalaginu.á

Jafnframt hefur veri­ tilkynnt, a­ ßkve­i­ ver­i a­ fj÷lga­ ver­i grÝ­arlega Ý vi­brag­sher bandalagsins, ■annig a­ KatrÝn Jakobsdˇttir mun fyrir ═slands h÷nd sam■ykkja a­ taka inn nřjar a­ildar■jˇ­ir Finna og SvÝa og auka herna­arumsvif bandalagsins verulega.

HÚr heima berst h˙n hinsvegar fyrir ˙rs÷gn ═slands ˙r NATO og herlausu landi.á

Sennilega hefur aldrei veri­ Ý ■essu landi rß­herra eins mikils tvÝskinnungs og forsŠtisrß­herrann okkar. Hversu langt geta menn gengi­ Ý pˇlitÝk a­ tala tungum tveim og tjß sig sitt me­ hvorri.á

E­a eins og Hamlet Danaprins sag­i. "A­ vera e­a vera ekki ■a­ er spurningin"


HŠstirÚttur BandarÝkjanna og fˇsturey­ingar

Fˇlk hefur mismunandi sko­anir var­andi fˇsturey­ingar og ■a­ er e­lilegt Ý lř­rŠ­isrÝki. ═ Evrˇpu og vÝ­a annarssta­ar hefur veri­ sam■ykkt misfrjßlslynd l÷g um fˇsturey­ingu, sem n˙ kallast ■ungunarrof. ═ BandarÝkjunum dŠmdi HŠstirÚttur BandarÝkjanna ßri­ 1973 Ý ■vÝ frŠga mßli Roe v. Wade a­ kona hef­i stjˇrnarskrßrvarin rÚtt til a­ velja a­ lßta ey­a fˇstri innan ßkve­ins tÝma frß ■ungun.á

Ůeim dˇmi hefur HŠstirÚttur BandarÝkjanna n˙ hnekkt ß ■eim grundvelli, a­ ■a­ fˇsturey­ing sÚ ekki rÚttur sem mŠlt er fyrir um Ý stjˇrnarskrß BandarÝkjanna. Raunar kemst dˇmstˇllinn a­ ■eirri ni­urst÷­u, a­ stjˇrnarskrßin hvorki heimili nÚ banni fˇsturey­ingar og ■essvegna sÚ ■a­ l÷ggjafans bŠ­i einstakra fylkja og alrÝkisins a­ ßkve­a hvort fˇsturey­ingar skuli leyfa e­a ■Šr skuli banna.

HÚr ß landi hef­i ■a­ ■ˇtt einstaklega sÚrkennilegt hef­i HŠstirÚttur ═slands kve­i­ upp dˇm um a­ fˇsturey­ingar vŠru l÷glegar og mannrÚttindi kvenna svo fremi sem fˇsturey­ing vŠri framkvŠmd innan ßkve­ins tÝma frß getna­i. HŠstirÚttur hef­i ekki geta­ kve­i­ upp slÝkan dˇm ˙t frß stjˇrnarskrß Ýslenska lř­veldisins og ■a­ eru eing÷ngu l÷g um fˇsturey­ingar (■ungunarrof) sem mŠla fyrir um ■a­ hva­a reglur skuli gilda um ■essi mßl, en ■a­ hefur engum hÚr ß landi dotti­ ■a­ Ý hug a­ HŠstirÚttur Štti Ý ■essu efni e­a ÷­rum slÝkum, a­ grÝpa fram fyrir hendur ■jˇ­kj÷rinna fulltr˙a og b˙a til l÷g Ý landinu, en forseta ═slands og forsŠtisrß­herra finnst a­ ■annig eigi ■a­ a­ vera Ý BandarÝkjunum.á

Stjˇrnmßlamenn ß Vesturl÷ndum sem og Biden forseti og hans nˇtar hrˇpa n˙ hßtt um hverskonar ˇfremdarßstand sÚ Ý HŠstarÚtti BandarÝkjanna ■egar hann bendir rÚttilega ß, a­ stjˇrnarskrß BandarÝkjanna hefur ekkert me­ ■etta a­ gera ekki frekar en stjˇrnarskrß lř­veldisins ═slands.á

Ůa­ er dapurt a­ ■urfa a­ horfa upp ß a­ bŠ­i forseti lř­veldisins og forsŠtisrß­herra skuli bŠ­i falla Ý ■ß gryfju a­ gagnrřna og fordŠma ni­urst÷­u HŠstarÚttar BandarÝkjanna ßn ■ess a­ hafa kynnt sÚr mßli­, sama ß vi­ um ˇt÷lulegan hˇp ßlitsgjafa og frÚttafˇlks.á

Dˇmurinn bannar ekki fˇsturey­ingar. Hann segir einfaldlega a­ stjˇrnarskrßin Ý BandarÝkjunum veiti ekki stjˇrnarskrßrvarin rÚtt til fˇsturey­ingar. Hann segir lÝka a­ ■a­ sÚ ■jˇ­kj÷rinna fulltr˙a a­ taka ßkv÷r­un um hvort heimila skuli fˇsturey­ingar og nßnari reglur ■ar a­ l˙tandi.á

Ůessi ni­ursta­a HŠstarÚttar BandarÝkjanna breytir ■vÝ ekki a­ fˇsturey­ingar eru eftir sem ß­ur heimilar Ý ■eim rÝkjum, ■ar sem ■Šr eru leyf­ar en ■ar břr mikill meirihluti BandarÝkjamanna. Ůß liggur lÝka fyrir a­ konur sem vilja fß fˇsturey­ingu geta fari­ frjßlsar fer­a sinna til ■ess og ■a­ er ˇheimilt a­ meina ■eim slÝka f÷r.á

Hva­ sem lÝ­ur mÝnum vi­horfum, Gu­na Th. Jˇhannessonar e­a annarra var­andi fˇsturey­ingar ■ß ver­um vi­ a­ sko­a hva­ er um a­ rŠ­a hverju sinni og vi­ hljˇtum a­ vera sammßla um ■a­ vi­ Gu­ni og sjßlfsagt KatrÝn Jakobsdˇttir lÝka a­ Š­sti dˇmstˇll rÝkja skuli jafnan dŠma Ý samrŠmi vi­ l÷gin Ý samrŠmi vi­ hei­arlegt mat dˇmara sem byggist ß ■ekkingu ■eirra og dˇmgreind. Ůess ver­um vi­ a­ krefjast en vi­ getum ekki krafist ■ess a­ dˇmarar dŠmi Ý samrŠmi vi­ ■a­ sem vi­ vildum svo gjarnan a­ hef­i ßtt a­ vera til sta­ar en var ■a­ ekki.á

N˙ reynir ß Biden forseta a­ gangast fyrir l÷ggj÷f Ý BandarÝkjunum, sem tryggir ßkve­inn lßgmarksrÚtt var­andi rÚttindi kvenna til fˇsturey­inga. Ůa­ er hans og l÷ggjafans ■.e. ■ings BandarÝkjanna (Fulltr˙adeildarinnar og Íldungadeildarinnar) a­ ßkve­a framgang mßlsins. Ůa­ ßtti alltaf a­ vera ß ■eirra k÷nnu lÝka fyrir 50 ßrum, en ■vÝ mi­ur kva­ HŠstirÚttur BandarÝkjanna ■ß upp rangan dˇm a­ mÝnu mati, sem hefur komi­ Ý veg fyrir a­ BandarÝkin fŠru Ý gegn um ■ß umrŠ­u og lř­rŠ­­islega lagasetningu, sem hefur veri­ Ý Evrˇpu og vafalaust hef­i l÷ggj÷fin Ý BandarÝkjunum veri­ ÷nnur Ý dag hef­i sß dˇmur ekki veri­ kve­inn upp.á

MÚr finnast ummŠli Kavanaugh dˇmara vi­ HŠstarÚtt Ý BandarÝkjunum vera ■au bestu var­andi skřringar ß ni­urst÷­u meirihlutans hva­ var­ar ■etta mßl og set hÚr a­ ne­an allt sem mßli skiptir Ý ■vÝ sem hann setur fram var­andi dˇminn.

á

JUSTICE KAVANAUGH, concurring.

Abortion is a profoundly difficult and contentious issue because it presents an irreconcilable conflict between the interests of a pregnant woman who seeks an abortion and the interests in protecting fetal life. The interests on both sides of the abortion issue are extraordinarily weighty. On the one side, many pro-choice advocates forcefully argue that the ability to obtain an abortion is critically important for women’s personal and professional lives, and for women’s health. They contend that the widespread availability of abortion has been essential for women to advance in society and to achieve greater equality over the last 50 years. And they maintain that women must have the freedom to choose for themselves whether to have an abortion. On the other side, many pro-life advocates forcefully argue that a fetus is a human life. They contend that all human life should be protected as a matter of human dignity and fundamental morality. And they stress that a significant percentage of Americans with pro-life views are women. When it comes to abortion, one interest must prevail over the other at any given point in a pregnancy. Many Americans of good faith would prioritize the interests of the pregnant woman. Many other Americans of good faith instead would prioritize the interests in protecting fetal life—at least unless, for example, an abortion is necessary to save the life of the mother. Of course, many Americans are conflicted or have nuanced views that may vary depending on the particular time in pregnancy, or the particular circumstances of a pregnancy. The issue before this Court, however, is not the policy or morality of abortion. The issue before this Court is what the Constitution says about abortion. The Constitution does not take sides on the issue of abortion. The text of the Constitution does not refer to or encompass abortion. To be sure, this Court has held that the Constitution protects unenumerated rights that are deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and tradition, and implicit in the concept of ordered liberty. But a right to abortion is not deeply rooted in American history and tradition, as the Court today thoroughly explains.1 On the question of abortion, the Constitution is therefore neither pro-life nor pro-choice. The Constitution is neutral and leaves the issue for the people and their elected representatives to resolve through the democratic process in the States or Congress—like the numerous other difficult questions of American social and economic policy that the Constitution does not address. Because the Constitution is neutral on the issue of abortion, this Court also must be scrupulously neutral. The nine unelected Members of this Court do not possess the constitutional authority to override the democratic process and to decree either a pro-life or a pro-choice abortion policy for all 330 million people in the United States. Instead of adhering to the Constitution’s neutrality, the Court in Roe took sides on the issue and unilaterally decreed that abortion was legal throughout the United States up to the point of viability (about 24 weeks of pregnancy). The Court’s decision today properly returns the Court to a position of neutrality and restores the people’s authority to address the issue of abortion through the processes of democratic self-government established by the Constitution. Some amicus briefs argue that the Court today should not only overrule Roe and return to a position of judicial neutrality on abortion, but should go further and hold that the Constitution outlaws abortion throughout the United States. No Justice of this Court has ever advanced that position. I respect those who advocate for that position, just as I respect those who argue that this Court should hold that the Constitution legalizes pre-viability abortion throughout the United States. But both positions are wrong as a constitutional matter, in my view. The Constitution neither outlaws abortion nor legalizes abortion. To be clear, then, the Court’s decision today does not outlaw abortion throughout the United States. On the contrary, the Court’s decision properly leaves the question of abortion for the people and their elected representatives in the democratic process. Through that democratic process, the people and their representatives may decide to allow or limit abortion. As Justice Scalia stated, the “States may, if they wish, permit abortion on demand, but the Constitution does not require them to do so.” Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pa. v. Casey, 505 U. S. 833, 979 (1992) (opin ion concurring in judgment in part and dissenting in part). Today’s decision therefore does not prevent the numerous States that readily allow abortion from continuing to readily allow abortion. That includes, if they choose, the amici States supporting the plaintiff in this Court: New York, California, Illinois, Maine, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Vermont, Connecticut, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Michigan, Wisconsin, Minnesota, New Mexico, Colorado, Nevada, Oregon, Washington, and Hawaii. By contrast, other States may maintain laws that more strictly limit abortion. After today’s decision, all of the States may evaluate the competing interests and decide how to address this consequential issue.2 In arguing for a constitutional right to abortion that would override the people’s choices in the democratic process, the plaintiff Jackson Women’s Health Organization and its amici emphasize that the Constitution does not freeze the American people’s rights as of 1791 or 1868. I fully agree. To begin, I agree that constitutional rights apply to situations that were unforeseen in 1791 or 1868— such as applying the First Amendment to the Internet or the Fourth Amendment to cars. Moreover, the Constitution authorizes the creation of new rights—state and federal, statutory and constitutional. But when it comes to creating new rights, the Constitution directs the people to the various processes of democratic self-government contemplated by the Constitution—state legislation, state constitutional amendments, federal legislation, and federal constitutional The Constitution does not grant the nine unelected Members of this Court the unilateral authority to rewrite the Constitution to create new rights and liberties based on our own moral or policy views.

III After today’s decision, the nine Members of this Court will no longer decide the basic legality of pre-viability abortion for all 330 million Americans. That issue will be resolved by the people and their representatives in the democratic process in the States or Congress. But the parties’ arguments have raised other related questions, and I address some of them here. First is the question of how this decision will affect other precedents involving issues such as contraception and marriage—in particular. I emphasize what the Court today states: Overruling Roe does not mean the overruling of those precedents, and does not threaten or cast doubt on those precedents. Second, as I see it, some of the other abortion-related legal questions raised by today’s decision are not especially difficult as a constitutional matter. For example, may a State bar a resident of that State from traveling to another State to obtain an abortion? In my view, the answer is no based on the constitutional right to interstate travel. May a State retroactively impose liability or punishment for an abortion that occurred before today’s decision takes effect? In my view, the answer is no based on the Due Process Clause or the Ex Post Facto Clause. But this Court will no longer decide the fundamental question of whether abortion must be allowed throughout the United States through 6 weeks, or 12 weeks, or 15 weeks, or 24 weeks, or some other line. The Court will no longer decide how to evaluate the interests of the pregnant woman and the interests in protecting fetal life throughout pregnancy. Instead, those difficult moral and policy questions will be decided, as the Constitution dictates, by the people and their elected representatives through the constitutional processes of democratic self-government. The Roe Court took sides on a consequential moral and policy issue that this Court had no constitutional authority to decide. By taking sides, the Roe Court distorted the Nation’s understanding of this Court’s proper role in the American constitutional system and thereby damaged the Court as an institution. As Justice Scalia explained, Roe “destroyed the compromises of the past, rendered compromise impossible for the future, and required the entire issue to be resolved uniformly, at the national level.” Casey, 505 U. S., at 995 (opinion concurring in judgment in part and dissenting in part). The Court’s decision today properly returns the Court to a position of judicial neutrality on the issue of abortion, and properly restores the people’s authority to resolve the issue of abortion through the processes of democratic self government established by the Constitution. To be sure, many Americans will disagree with the Court’s decision today. That would be true no matter how the Court decided this case. Both sides on the abortion issue believe sincerely and passionately in the rightness of their cause. Especially in those difficult and fraught circumstances, the Court must scrupulously adhere to the Constitution’s neutral position on the issue of abortion.


K˙gunartŠki fe­raveldisins?????

Margir hafa velt fyrir sÚr vanda Ýslenska skˇlakerfisins og slakur ßrangur Ýslenskra nemenda Ý fj÷l■jˇ­legum samanbur­i.áN˙ hefur skˇlameistari Menntaskˇlans ß Akureyri(MA) komi­ auga ß vandamßli­, en Ý lokarŠ­u sinni sem skˇlameistari MA sag­i hann ■a­ vera lokaprˇf skˇlans, sem hafi ekkert me­ nßm e­a menntun a­ gera heldur sÚ ■a­ "k˙gunartŠki fe­raveldis embŠttismanna."á

Er lokaprˇfi­ ekki mŠling ß ■ekkingu og menntun sem nemendur hafa ÷­last Ý MA? Hefur ■a­ nokkurn annan tilgang? Er ■a­ ekki bara mŠlitŠki? Hva­ hefur fe­raveldi embŠttismanna me­ ■a­ a­ gera?

Frß 2003 e­a Ý tŠp 20 ßr hefur skˇlameistarinn střrt ■essu meinta k˙gunartŠki fe­raveldisins. Vi­ starfslok vir­ist hann hafa fengi­ pˇp˙lÝska woke vitrun um a­ mŠlitŠki­ sÚ vandamßli­, en ekki kennslan.

Me­ sama hŠtti mŠtti halda ■vÝ fram a­ hitamŠlar sÚu k˙gunartŠki fe­raveldis lŠknastÚttarinnar og mist÷k lŠkna sÚ ekki ■eim a­ kenna heldur hitamŠlinum.


mbl.is Gamaldags k˙gunartŠki fe­raveldis embŠttismanna
Tilkynna um ˇvi­eigandi tengingu vi­ frÚtt

Hinir ßbyrg­arlausu

Ůingmenn Flokks fˇlksins, PÝrata, Samfylkingar og Vi­reisnar telja, a­ ■eir sem komu hinga­ ˇl÷glega ß tÝmum KˇvÝd og ■ˇttust ranglega eiga rÚtt ß al■jˇ­legri vernd, sbr. ni­urst÷­u kŠrunefndar ˙tlendingamßla, skuli samt fß verndina, sem ■eir eiga ekki rÚtt ß. Ůingmennirnir hafa flutt frumvarp til breytinga ß l÷gum um ˙tlendinga til a­ ■essir ˇl÷glegu hŠlisleitendur fßi a­ halda ßfram a­ vera ß framfŠri skattgrei­enda.

Fˇlki­, sem um rŠ­ir hefur veri­ ß framfŠrslu Ýslenskra skattgrei­enda frß ■vÝ ■a­ kom og er ■a­ enn ■rßtt fyrir a­ ■vÝ hafi veri­ vÝsa­ ˙r landi. Ůa­ er eitt af ■vÝ sem er ˇafsakanlegt Ý ■essu kerfi, a­ skattgrei­endur skuli lßtnir halda ßfram a­ borga fyrir fˇlk, sem ß engan rÚtt ß al■jˇ­legri vernd e­a vera Ý landinu yfirh÷fu­. E­lilegt vŠri a­ grei­slur til ■eirra fÚllu ni­ur sama dag og ni­ursta­a kŠrunefndar ˙tlendingamßla liggur fyrir. Kostna­ur skattgrei­enda vi­ hvern ˇl÷glegan hŠlisleitenda er um 500.000 krˇnur ß mßnu­i.

Ůingmenn Flokks fˇlksins sjß ekkert athugavert vi­ ■essa sˇun ß almannafÚ, sem hef­i t.d. mßtt nřta til a­ draga ˙r fßtŠkt Ý landinu e­a annarra ■jˇ­■rifa verkefna. Opnun landamŠranna er eftirsˇknarver­ari kostur a­ ■eirra mati.

Ůegar ˇl÷glegu hŠlisleitendunum er gert a­ fara ˙r landi, krefjast ■ingmenn ofangreindra fj÷gurra ■ingflokka ■ess, a­ ■rßtt fyrir a­ vi­komandi eigi engan rÚtt, ■ß skuli ■eir samt fß hana og vera ßfram Ý landinu ß kostna­ skattgrei­enda.á

═ greinarger­ me­ frumvarpinu segir:á

"Hva­ sem ■vÝ lÝ­ur telja flutningsmenn a­ umsŠkjendur, sem ekki hafa or­i­ vi­ bei­ni l÷greglu um a­ mŠta Ý PCR prˇf ver­i ekki taldir bera ßbyrg­ ß t÷fum ß mßli sÝnu."

Hver ber ■ß ßbyrg­ina? Gu­ almßttugur e­a austanvindurinn?

Hvernig geta ■ingmenn fj÷gurra stjˇrnarandst÷­u■ingflokka me­ mannvitsbrekkuna Ůorger­i KatrÝnu Gunnarsdˇttur, l÷gfrŠ­ing, formann Vi­reisnar Ý forsvari sett frß sÚr anna­ eins bull?

Vegna KˇvÝd rß­stafana var ekki hŠgt a­ koma ˇl÷glegum hŠlisleitendum frß landinu nema ■eir fŠru Ý PCR prˇf. Ůa­ neitu­u ■eir a­ gera til a­ ekki vŠri hŠgt a­ flytja ■ß burt. Ůingmenn hins nřja fjˇrflokks segja, a­ samt beri ˇl÷glegi hŠlisleitandinn enga ßbyrg­.áá

Ůingmenn me­ sama hugsunarhßtt og ■eir sem flytja frumvarp ■etta komu Ý veg fyrir a­ stjˇrnv÷ld gŠtu gripi­ til a­ger­a m.a. ■eirra a­ ■vinga ˇl÷glega hŠlisleitendur Ý prˇf eins og PCR prˇf e­a sŠta rannsˇkn var­andi aldur. Samt skulu skattgrei­endur einirá a­ bera alla ßbyrg­ og taka beri rÚttarv÷rslukerfi landsins ˙r sambandi vegna ■essa fˇlks, sem ßtti aldrei neinn rÚtt en hefur kosta­ skattgrei­endur milljar­a krˇna, a­ mati ■ingmanna hins nřja fjˇrflokks.

Flokkarnir fjˇrir reyna enn sem fyrr a­ fiska Ý gruggugu vatni, en me­ ■vÝ gera ■eir sig ˇmerkilega og vega a­ grunnsto­um ■ess rÚttarv÷rslukerfis sem vi­ b˙um vi­ en ekki bara ■a­.á

Sama krˇnan ver­ur ekki notu­ tvisvar og ■eir ˇl÷glegu hŠlisleitendur sem ■rßast vi­ a­ fara ˙r landi, taka upp plßss ■eirra sem raunverulega eru Ý ney­. Til a­ kerfi­ virki fyrir ■ß sem eru Ý ney­ ver­ur a­ fara a­ l÷gunum og ■ingmenn ■ingflokkana fj÷gurra eru ekki a­ gera neitt anna­ en samsama sig me­ smyglhringjum sem koma ˇl÷glegum hŠlisleitendum til landa Evrˇpu og ■jßlfa ■ß Ý a­ breg­ast vi­ spurningum stjˇrnvalda. Kristna fˇlki­ Ý Mi­austurl÷ndum sem břr vi­ hva­ verstu kj÷rin og mestu ofsˇknirnar eru ekki Ý ■eim hˇpi sem smyglararnir fŠra ß milli landa, heldur a­allega hlaupastrßkar um 90% ungir karlmenn og ■a­ er fyrir ■ennan hˇp sem ■ingflokkar Vi­reisnar, Flokks fˇlksins, Samfylkingar og PÝrata vilja opna landamŠrin og lßta skattgrei­endur halda ßfram a­ grei­a ■eim me­lag upp ß hßlfa milljˇn ß mßnu­i me­ hverjum einstaklingi og tryggja ■a­ a­ ■˙sundir komi Ý kj÷lfar ■eirra.

Ef til vill ß ■a­ best vi­ ■essa gŠfulausu ■ingmenn a­ segja eins og Jˇn Hreggvi­sson sag­i for­um:

"Vont er ■eirra rßnglŠti en verra er ■eirra rÚttlŠti."

á


Ver­bˇlga og vi­br÷g­ Al■ingis

Ver­bˇlga Ý helstu vi­skiptal÷ndum ═slands nßlgast tveggja stafa t÷lu. Ver­bˇlga ß ═slandi magnast og ■a­ skiptir ■vÝ mi­ur litlu mßli hva­ Se­labankinn spriklar ■egar rÝkisstjˇrnin er upptekin vi­ a­ prenta peninga, sem innistŠ­a er ekki fyrir.

RÝkisstjˇrnin mŠtti hinsvegar hafa Ý huga, a­ ■egar ■˙ borgar fˇlki fyrir a­ gera ekki neitt og prentar peninga Ý ■vÝ skyni ■ß fŠr­u ver­bˇlgu ■a­ er ˇhjßkvŠmilegt bara spurning hvenŠr.á

Ver­bˇlga dregur ˙r kaupmŠtti launa og lei­ir til gengisfellingar Ýslensku krˇnunnar. Ver­trygg­ lßn hŠkka og vextir ˇver­trygg­ra lßna hŠkka lÝka og hjß ■vÝ ver­ur ekki komist Ý slÝku ßstandi.

Ůetta er eitt alvarlegasta vandamßli­ sem blasir vi­ ■jˇ­inni. Ůessvegna hef­i veri­ brřn nau­syn a­ ■ingmenn ■jˇ­arinnar rŠddu ■ennan mikla a­ste­jandi vanda lausnami­a­ Ý sta­ upphrˇpana.á

ŮvÝ mi­ur er stjˇrnarandsta­an upptekin vi­ a­ reyna a­ auka fßtŠkt Ý landinu og valda auknum erfi­leikum Ý velfer­arkerfinu me­ ■vÝ a­ opna landamŠrin upp ß gßtt. Kemur ß ˇvart a­ Vi­reisn en einkum Flokkur fˇlksins skuli taka ■ßtt Ý ■essum leik, sem er Štla­ur til a­ ÷ll vinna Ý sambandi vi­ vanda­a mßlsme­fer­ var­andi hŠlisleitendur ver­i ger­ a­ engu.


Aftur til fortÝ­ar

┴nŠgjulegt a­ sjß a­ einn ■ingma­ur SjßlfstŠ­isflokksins, Birgir ١rarinsson skuli skrifa grein til stu­ningsá dˇmsmßlarß­herra Ý mßlefnum ˇl÷glegra hŠlisleitenda. Margir spur­u hvar eru hinir 16?

Sjßlfsskipa­ar mannvitsbrekkur ß vinstri vŠngnum lßta sitt hinsvegar ekki eftir liggja og hafa fari­ fram af miklum ofstopa. RÝkis˙tvarpi­ hefur auk heldur fari­ hamf÷rum til a­ koma Ý veg fyrir a­ fari­ ver­i a­ l÷gum. Ekki er n˙ hlutlŠgni og hlutleysi fyrir a­ fara ß ■eimá bŠnum n˙ sem fyrr.

Dapurlegt hversu langt ■essi galna umrŠ­a hefur leitt sumt ßgŠtis fˇlk ß vinstra vŠngnum. Ůr÷stur Ëlafsson hagfrŠ­ingur sem hefur margt vitlegt gert og sagt sÝ­ustu ßratugi,vir­ist kominn aftur til ÷fga sinna fyrir hßlfri ÷ld sÝ­an Ý ■essu mßli.

═ fÚsbˇkarfŠrslu sem Ůr÷stur skrifar ■. 24. maÝ s.l. segir hann:

"Ůa­ er ˇ■Šgilegt a­ vera ═slendingur og bera Šabyrg­ ß brottvÝsun ■rj˙ hundru­ flˇttamanna ß einu bretti. Mann˙­in er slÝk a­ engu er eirt,og ■essi hvÝt■vegni rasismi er framkvŠmdur Ý nafni regluger­ar eins og Wansee regluger­ var rÚttlŠting ß flutningi gy­inga Ý vinnu-e­a ˙trřmingarb˙­ir."

Ůr÷stur sakar Ý ■essari fŠrslu Ýslensk stjˇrnv÷ld um rasisma og lÝkir brottvÝsun ˇl÷glegra hŠlisleitenda vi­ ˙trřmingarherfer­ nasista ß Gy­ingum og vÝsar Ý leynifund sem Š­stu menn SS hreyfingarinnar gengust fyrir ß hˇteli vi­ Wansee Ý Ůřskalandi. Brottflutningi ˇl÷glegra hŠlisleitenda hÚr er lÝkt vi­ handt÷ku og nau­ungarflutninga Gy­inga Ý ˙trřmingarb˙­ir ß sÝ­ustu ÷ld. Ůar var markmi­i­ a­ drepa sem flesta helst a­ ˙trřma Gy­ingum Ý Evrˇpu.

Svona tala ekki skynsamir menn nema ÷fgarnar beri vitrŠna hugsun ■eirra algj÷rlega ofurli­i Ý einhverri sjßlfsupphafningu meintrar gˇ­mennsku. MÚr ■ykir mi­ur a­ Ůr÷stur skuli aftur kominn Ý ■ann gÝrinn og vona a­ hann hr÷kkviá ˙r honum fljˇtlega.

Sta­reyndirnar eru ■essar Ý mßlinu.

Ůeir sem hinga­ komu og er gert a­ yfirgefa landi­ komu af frjßlsum og f˙sum vilja. Ůeir bygg­u umsˇkn sÝna um al■jˇ­lega vernd ß r÷ngum upplřsingum og lygum og fjalla­ var um mßl ■eirra skv.l÷gum rÚttarrÝkisins ═slands. Ůeir v÷ldu sÚr l÷gmann, sem skattgrei­endur greiddu fyrir ekki ■eir. Ůeir hafaá dvali­á hÚr ß kostna­ skattgrei­enda en hafa neita­ a­ fara ■rßtt fyrir a­ ■eir hafi ekki neinn rÚtt til a­ vera Ý landinu. Samt sem ß­ur hefur rÝki­ greitt fyrir uppihald ■eirra, lŠknisa­sto­ o.fl. o.fl. ┴stŠ­a ■ess a­ rÝkisvaldi­ ■arf a­ hlutast til um brottflutningin er a­ ■etta fˇlk,sem er af mismunandi kyn■ßttum og h˙­lit ■annig a­ vart er rasisma fyrir a­ fara, neitar a­ fara ■ˇ ■a­ hafi engan rÚtt til a­ vera hÚr. Ůessvegna ver­ur rÝki­ a­ standa straum af og annast um brottflutning ■ess til ■eirra sta­a ■ar sem ■eir h÷f­u ß­ur sˇtt um og fengi­ al■jˇ­lega vernd e­a til sÝns heima ef ■a­ er tali­ ÷ruggt. Margt af ■essu er umfram skyldu ═slands skv. al■jˇ­legum samningum.á

Allar ■essar a­ger­ir eru fyrir opnum tj÷ldum ß grundvelli laga settum me­ lř­rŠ­islegum hŠtti og regluger­ir allt Ý samrŠmi vi­á ■a­ sem veitir umsŠkjendum um vernd meiri rÚtt en tÝ­kast vÝ­ast hvar Ý l÷ndum annarssta­ar Ý heiminum. HvÝlÝkt offors ■ß og ofstŠki er ■a­ a­ lÝkja ■essum rÚttmŠtu og sjßlfs÷g­u a­ger­um vi­ a­ger­ir nasista Ý helf÷rinni gegn Gy­ingum og saka stjˇrnv÷ld og embŠttismenn um rasisma.á

Vandamßl okkar er ekki brottflutningur fˇlks sem ß engan rÚtt ß a­ vera hÚr heldur ■a­, a­ l÷ggj÷f okkar Ý mßlefnum ˙tlendinga er svo galin a­ hinga­ koma jafnmargir mi­a­ vi­ fˇlksfj÷lda og til allra hinna Nor­urlandanna. Ůannig getur ■a­ ekki gengi­ og vi­ ver­um a­ vera me­ l÷ggj÷f og verklag sem er svipu­ og t.d. Ý Danm÷rku.á Allt anna­ er glaprŠ­iá gegn velfer­ ■jˇ­arinnar.á

Vona a­ fleiri ■ingmenn SjßlfstŠ­isflokksins ßtti sig ß hversu mikilvŠg ■essi umrŠ­aá er og hve alvarlega ver­ur vegi­ a­ velfer­arkerfi ■jˇ­arinnar haldi ■essi vitleysa ßfram ˇbreytt.

á


Höfundur

Jón Magnússon
Jón Magnússon

Síðuritari er Hæstaréttarlögmaður og fyrrverandi alþingismaður.

 

Eldri fŠrslur

Okt. 2022
S M Ů M F F L
            1
2 3 4 5 6 7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15
16 17 18 19 20 21 22
23 24 25 26 27 28 29
30 31          

Heimsˇknir

Flettingar

  • ═ dag (5.10.): 559
  • Sl. sˇlarhring: 881
  • Sl. viku: 2558
  • Frß upphafi: 1957782

Anna­

  • Innlit Ý dag: 491
  • Innlit sl. viku: 2246
  • Gestir Ý dag: 465
  • IP-t÷lur Ý dag: 443

UppfŠrt ß 3 mÝn. fresti.
Skřringar

Innskrßning

Ath. Vinsamlegast kveiki­ ß Javascript til a­ hefja innskrßningu.

Haf­u samband