There was absolutely no reaction to these either.

As if we needed any proof that absolutely no one -including the supposedly sensitive like Tsipras and Synaspismos, not to mention the supposedly human rights and/or anti-racist NGOs- cares.

Silence means complicity.

Your comment on Greeks and their worship of material wealth (private property) reminds me of another comment recently on another blog. The writer thought how comical it was to see some Greek women in lavish fur coats with low quality products from the supermarket in their baskets. In other words, they go out with a wonderful fur, but come home to generic brand products.

We call that “Big Hat–No Cattle” syndrome.

It is when people like legein show their true colours, claiming that private property rights count more than legal or social obligation, that we need to worry. Such sophists use every trick in the book to convince people that they are right, with scant regard for any conception of truth or reality.

[legein, please refrain from the personal insults once and for all]

As I can’t do anything about comments for now, I am asking EVERYONE to please respect my place.

I am working on the problem but my blog guru is very busy so it might be a few days before anything can be done. Please be patient and please don’t get your socks in a twist if unsavoury comments appear here. There is absolutely nothing I can do about it at the moment.

Thank you for your understanding.

BTW To Mariana and everyone else who couldn’t find my email! Big sorry. In my upgrading and tweaking a month or so ago, I forgot to put back my contact page. As you will see, I have added the page back again but then my blog broke so the page is empty. It will be fixed as soon as possible. In the meantime, my email is mailto:thedeviousdiva@gmail.com

I do not confuse ideology with law but you are confusing alleged defense of property rights with racism.

Any human rights activist inter alia respects the European Human Rights Convention which includes in Article 1 Protocol 1 a property right.

Had you bothered to read about Votanikos and make an effort to argue on the basis of facts and not slogans you would have seen that it is in effect out of respect of property rights that the Roma are being evicted from the Biamax property.

The human rights violation is however that they are not offered alternative adequate housing which is a state obligation confirmed by state documents but are let go and relocate by squatting elsewhere.

In fact Biamax being more sensitive than you had not used their right to evict them for six months and even pleaded with the state - including the hopeless Ombudsman - to relocate them humanely and decently. But as the state did not even acknowledge their appeals they -in agreement with us- filed for eviction. Then they waited for one more month before they implement the eviction order.

But all that is small print for you obviously.

It apparently is not for Eleftherotypia which today covered the same story as DD here adding another telling picture (http://www.enet.gr/online/online_print?id=73684720) and attacking the state.

On the issue of private property, don’t worry I have had my fair share of Proudhon, Bakunin and Marx. But also Bastiat, Sorel, Valois and Pareto. However, I would argue, like de Soto, that the only way the under and working classes can escape their position in society is through the ownership of private property because it can be used as collateral to create capital. Some of these ideas are post-1968 so I am uncertain you would have had enough time away from the cafes of Exarcheia to update your knowledge. Furthermore, your ignorance is blindingly obvious by your comment that “the emphasis on private property and de-emphasis on social rights are the hallmarks of right wing political parties”. Most of the rights we enjoy that have come down to us from the Enlightenment were a result of propertied bourgeoise seeking a better deal from the aristocrats and improved general social justice. Property forced social change until it was itself threatened by communist forces which resulted in less demands for social change or various forms of anarcho-syndicalism or Fascism.

However, the question was whether the Roma had land title? They do not seem to have it so under the law they should leave the land they are squatting on. It is irrelevant who owns the land.

Whether property is good or bad is another issue. Panayote and you should not confuse ideology with law.

I find your comments refreshing and obviously you are a scholar. Although, I was not sure I liked one comment you recently posted.

You said, “You are not a great fan of private property rights”.

Can you explain further. Although I’m not fond of people taking advantage of the Roma, I do enjoy the property I purchased myself thru my hard work I do on my job.

Again, I agree with most of the comments you write, but that one caught me for a loop.

Happy Holidays from George.

If you really do not know, then you have no business talking about politics. An emphasis on private property, and a de-emphasis on social rights, are the hallmark of right wing polticial parties. Tell me that you didn;t know that, so we can all laugh. My own personal property has little to do with political ideology, but I actually do not own any fixed property or a car. I am not a great fan of private property rights, partlly because we have seen where that takes us.

Your last comment to Panayote I cannot understand at all. It makes no sense in legal or political terms, to me. Perhaps Panayote can decipher it.

Diva, I asked a question on land title not on relocation. If the State has made a committment to relocate the Roma then they should honour their committment.

Panayote, I am for respect of the law. Not oppresion of any sort. Contrary to your comments there is a positive correlation between the two i.e. not respecting the law is oppression.

Again legein is against the state of law and for the right of the oppressing powerful. I believe he can find other blogs to exchange such views with like-minded persons who anyway do not like to argue but to repeat their intolerant views.

there are several state documents committing the authorities to the right of adequate relocation of these Roma

This is from the comment directly above yours. As I have said time and time again (and I am pretty sure I’ve had this discussion with you before) the Roma can be evicted from the site BUT the evictions must be done LEGALLY. The evictions of the Roma in Votanikos and elsewhere in Greece, was illegal. No eviction orders were issued and no relocation was offered. That is ILLEGAL. As in AGAINST THE LAW. The “poor sod” who owns the land has rights and those rights are being protected absolutely. The Roma who were living there have rights too but they are being ignored.

What about the rights of the poor sod who owns the land?