Admiral Beez
Superstar
I would have no problem with Muslim countries passing such laws limiting church spires and the like. It's their country, they can do what they want, same goes for the Swiss.
|
|
|
- Thread starter newuser2k9
- Start date
newuser2k9
Active Member
The backlash is far, far, far disproportionate. Racism occurred before those cartoons. Do you think collective punishment is fair and democratic in any way?
Human rights abuses in one nation do not justify human rights abuses in another. Who are 'they', and why do they have any more right to Switzerland than the Swiss? I'm all for supporting local cultures, but when you conflate culture with race you get into some seriously murky waters. There is no legal case for 'entitlement' cultural restrictions. It's undemocratic, plain and simple.
Prometheus The Supremo
►Member №41+⅜◄
one wonders, can this all just be about competition between swiss chalet & KFC?
gristle
Senior Member
Many Turks who settled in Germany assimilated quite well, but many Germans had a hard time accepting these people - hence one of the reasons why the term "guest worker" has hung around for so long.
Switzerland is a nice place, but not a hot-bed of democratic ideals.
http://www.swissworld.org/en/people/women/the_right_to_vote/
Last edited:
kEiThZ
Superstar
In fact they do. There are no religious houses of any other faith allowed in Saudi. Christians say mass at home, not in a church. And heaven help you if you are a Jew and want to find a synagogue anywhere in the Muslim world. And in places where there are more liberal religious freedoms (like the UAE for example) there are restrictions on the construction and adornment of religious houses.
While punishing the Muslims of Europe (particularly the most moderate ones in Switzerland) is unfair and unacceptable, I find it equally appalling that the double standards tolerated in the Muslim world are barely questioned. Really, the only time they are discussed is when the abuse of Muslims in the West comes up as an issue.
kEiThZ
Superstar
I never said the backlash of Swiss voters was honourable. And collective punishment is not fair but from the looks of the vote it certainly is democratic. Apparently, Muslim leaders have their work cut out for them in reaching out to their neighbours. They also do need to crack down on extremists in their midst. Keep in mind that Europe has seen incidents like the Theo Van Gogh murder, a price on Salman Rushdie's and Hirsi Ali's head, numerous incidents of terrorism, etc. I am sure these incidents haven't helped the image of Muslims. Just like news of child abuse by Catholic priests does nothing for the image of the Catholic Church.
I would also suggest that the treatment of minorities in the Muslim world is also something that needs to be remedied since right or wrong it reflects on Muslims all over. The violence against minorities there on a routine basis is even less fair than a ban on minarets. The mere accusation of a desecration of the Koran results in attacks on the few religious buildings that other communities have and the killing of their adherents. Attacks following the Danish cartoons and more recently the attacks in Godhra, Pakistan are also examples of collective punishment.
kEiThZ
Superstar
If the law is unconstitutional what's the big deal anyway? It'll get struck down in short order.
urbanfan89
Active Member
But the fact that the *people* voted for it (yes, I understand there is a rural vs. urban divide with predictable voting patterns) means that there is something wrong.
If the *people* of Canada say, voted for an extremist government which then required any Muslim to wear a green crescent in public, and the Supreme Court of Canada strikes it down, it doesn't make the situation any less disturbing.
If the *people* of Canada say, voted for an extremist government which then required any Muslim to wear a green crescent in public, and the Supreme Court of Canada strikes it down, it doesn't make the situation any less disturbing.
cacruden
Senior Member
Canadians seem to have a problem understanding what a constitution is.... The supreme court is suppose to abide by the constitution, this was a constitutional amendment - and therefore by that definition how the bleep can the court rule it unconstitutional?
We make it very difficult to change the constitution so that we do not allow a reactionary law to be enacted into the constitution.
It is also why I get upset with the Supreme Court (in the US and Canada) when they stretch the meaning of the constitution out of context to back up them ruling something unconstitutional because we made changing the constitution hard for a reason - and that act removes the non-constitutionalised discretionary laws from the rightful discretion of our parliament.
For example, in the US the supreme court has not interpreted the following strictly as stated (underlined sections are sections that the court seems to have ignored):
2nd Amendment
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
4th Amendment
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
5th Amendment
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
9th Amendment
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
What use is a constitution or a constitutional amendment if they are ignored by those that are suppose to protect it, without which we are all subject to the whims of those that are currently in power.
We make it very difficult to change the constitution so that we do not allow a reactionary law to be enacted into the constitution.
It is also why I get upset with the Supreme Court (in the US and Canada) when they stretch the meaning of the constitution out of context to back up them ruling something unconstitutional because we made changing the constitution hard for a reason - and that act removes the non-constitutionalised discretionary laws from the rightful discretion of our parliament.
For example, in the US the supreme court has not interpreted the following strictly as stated (underlined sections are sections that the court seems to have ignored):
2nd Amendment
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
4th Amendment
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
5th Amendment
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
9th Amendment
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
What use is a constitution or a constitutional amendment if they are ignored by those that are suppose to protect it, without which we are all subject to the whims of those that are currently in power.
EnviroTO
Senior Member
The Europeans have figured out that extremism and evil isn't in the mind of individuals but rather it exists in architecture and head scarves. To clean up crime in Canada we should ban baggy pants.
cacruden
Senior Member
It is ironic, that in trying to "prevent the spread" of islam to Switzerland, they have become exactly the same as many of those islamic countries - in respect to trying to control the spread of competing religions. If you are a catholic in Saudi Arabia - you have to leave the country to find a Church to get married in. I guess the muslims in Switzerland will have to do the same 
Roy G Biv
Senior Member
The constitution will be amended to state that minarets are illegal. Will this conflict with other parts of the constitution? We'll see.
This exact same law would pass in Italy, Germany, and France.
casaguy
Senior Member
Swiss minaret ban emboldens Europe's extremists
DOUG SAUNDERS
December 1, 2009
LONDON -- dsaunders@globeandmail.com
If not for its dark, historic resonance, the Swiss decision to ban the construction of minarets would have seemed absurd and pointless.
In a country whose steeple-pocked landscape features exactly four of the mosque-side towers, there seemed no good reason for the far-right Swiss People's Party, which happens to be the largest party in Switzerland, to be putting the question of a mosque-building ban to the people.
But when Europe realized yesterday that nearly six out of 10 Swiss voters had cast ballots Sunday night in support of the ban in an unexpected outpouring of angry sentiment aimed at Muslims, the reaction was a continentwide shock of awareness that the darkest politics of the 20th century have not disappeared, even if Switzerland does not exactly reflect wider European views.
The shock was compounded by the sight of far-right leaders emerging from the woodwork in places like the Netherlands to push for similar bans, and by the floundering reaction of Swiss authorities.
When Swiss officials opened their mouths yesterday to explain the vote, which pollsters and many urban voters had dismissed as unwinnable, they ended up sounding eerily reminiscent of the right-wing politicians of the previous century.
"We do not forbid Islam," said People's Party Leader Ulrich Schluer, an MP from Zurich. "We forbid the political symbol of Islamization and this is the minaret ... a symbol of political victory."
That rhetoric sent shivers through many Europeans. It was almost exactly 70 years before, in November of 1939, that Germans went on a rampage of destruction against synagogues, driven by almost identical rhetoric directed at Jews.
While Kristallnacht was a violent and deadly event that foretold the Holocaust to come, and Switzerland's referendum was merely an attempt at a constitutional amendment (likely to be blocked by European human-rights laws), the historical parallel was visible to many in the campaign of caricature and grotesque rhetoric aimed at the target population, including images of sacrificed animals, black-hooded women and armed terrorists.
Justice Minister Eveline Widmer-Schlumpf, a former member of the People's Party and an opponent of the ban, said at a meeting of European Union justice ministers yesterday that the vote was not "a referendum against Islam ... but a vote directed against fundamentalist developments."
That a highly educated and wealthy Swiss public has come to believe that minarets are symbols of fundamentalism, or that the Muslims in their midst harbour extreme beliefs and practices, is a sign of the deep insecurity that seems to be bubbling at Europe's core.
Switzerland's Muslim population is among the most moderate, and least foreign, in Europe.
Of the country's 400,000 Muslims, representing less than 5 per cent of the population, the largest group are of European background, with ancestors from the historically Muslim Balkan countries of southeast Europe - in other words, they are as culturally and historically European as any Christian Swiss citizen.
The politics of Swiss Muslims are notably liberal and democratic, more so in many respects than the rest of the Swiss population. Burkas and other conservative head coverings are almost unknown, and there are no mosques calling for sharia law or any other form of political Islam.
And if Swiss voters came to believe that minarets are symbols of creeping fundamentalism, they were almost comically misled.
Europe's extremist mosques - including the one in Hamburg where the Sept. 11 attacks were planned, those in Madrid where the 2004 train bombings were organized and the ones in Leeds where the July 7, 2005, attacks on London took shape - are all unadorned brick buildings, reflecting the disdain held by extremists for fripperies such as minarets.
The vote took many people both inside and outside Switzerland by surprise because it comes at a moment when tensions between Muslim Europeans and the wider population are abating.
Half a decade after those tensions became intense and violent in the wake of terrorist attacks in Madrid and London, a continentwide poll by Gallup found that Muslim attitudes toward extremism have fallen to levels indistinguishable from those of Europeans in general.
It found that 82 per cent of French Muslims and 91 per cent of German Muslims believe that violent attacks on civilians are never acceptable under any circumstances, figures similar to those in the wider population, and that the devoutly religious are no more likely to support violence now than the non-observant.
Today, the challenge to tolerance appears to be coming more from the far right in Europe, and by economically battered populations in such countries as Hungary, Austria and the Netherlands who appear more willing to support the views of these parties.
Even as European human-rights courts began attempts to block the Swiss amendment yesterday, extremist politicians across Europe were examining their countries' laws to see if a similar referendum could be accomplished.
"I really would hope that other countries would follow," said Geert Wilders, head of the far-right Dutch Freedom Party, which won the second-largest number of Dutch seats in the European Parliament in this year's elections. "I will take, myself, an initiative in the Dutch parliament to also come with a resolution to try to get such a referendum against more minarets in the Netherlands as well."
DOUG SAUNDERS
December 1, 2009
LONDON -- dsaunders@globeandmail.com
If not for its dark, historic resonance, the Swiss decision to ban the construction of minarets would have seemed absurd and pointless.
In a country whose steeple-pocked landscape features exactly four of the mosque-side towers, there seemed no good reason for the far-right Swiss People's Party, which happens to be the largest party in Switzerland, to be putting the question of a mosque-building ban to the people.
But when Europe realized yesterday that nearly six out of 10 Swiss voters had cast ballots Sunday night in support of the ban in an unexpected outpouring of angry sentiment aimed at Muslims, the reaction was a continentwide shock of awareness that the darkest politics of the 20th century have not disappeared, even if Switzerland does not exactly reflect wider European views.
The shock was compounded by the sight of far-right leaders emerging from the woodwork in places like the Netherlands to push for similar bans, and by the floundering reaction of Swiss authorities.
When Swiss officials opened their mouths yesterday to explain the vote, which pollsters and many urban voters had dismissed as unwinnable, they ended up sounding eerily reminiscent of the right-wing politicians of the previous century.
"We do not forbid Islam," said People's Party Leader Ulrich Schluer, an MP from Zurich. "We forbid the political symbol of Islamization and this is the minaret ... a symbol of political victory."
That rhetoric sent shivers through many Europeans. It was almost exactly 70 years before, in November of 1939, that Germans went on a rampage of destruction against synagogues, driven by almost identical rhetoric directed at Jews.
While Kristallnacht was a violent and deadly event that foretold the Holocaust to come, and Switzerland's referendum was merely an attempt at a constitutional amendment (likely to be blocked by European human-rights laws), the historical parallel was visible to many in the campaign of caricature and grotesque rhetoric aimed at the target population, including images of sacrificed animals, black-hooded women and armed terrorists.
Justice Minister Eveline Widmer-Schlumpf, a former member of the People's Party and an opponent of the ban, said at a meeting of European Union justice ministers yesterday that the vote was not "a referendum against Islam ... but a vote directed against fundamentalist developments."
That a highly educated and wealthy Swiss public has come to believe that minarets are symbols of fundamentalism, or that the Muslims in their midst harbour extreme beliefs and practices, is a sign of the deep insecurity that seems to be bubbling at Europe's core.
Switzerland's Muslim population is among the most moderate, and least foreign, in Europe.
Of the country's 400,000 Muslims, representing less than 5 per cent of the population, the largest group are of European background, with ancestors from the historically Muslim Balkan countries of southeast Europe - in other words, they are as culturally and historically European as any Christian Swiss citizen.
The politics of Swiss Muslims are notably liberal and democratic, more so in many respects than the rest of the Swiss population. Burkas and other conservative head coverings are almost unknown, and there are no mosques calling for sharia law or any other form of political Islam.
And if Swiss voters came to believe that minarets are symbols of creeping fundamentalism, they were almost comically misled.
Europe's extremist mosques - including the one in Hamburg where the Sept. 11 attacks were planned, those in Madrid where the 2004 train bombings were organized and the ones in Leeds where the July 7, 2005, attacks on London took shape - are all unadorned brick buildings, reflecting the disdain held by extremists for fripperies such as minarets.
The vote took many people both inside and outside Switzerland by surprise because it comes at a moment when tensions between Muslim Europeans and the wider population are abating.
Half a decade after those tensions became intense and violent in the wake of terrorist attacks in Madrid and London, a continentwide poll by Gallup found that Muslim attitudes toward extremism have fallen to levels indistinguishable from those of Europeans in general.
It found that 82 per cent of French Muslims and 91 per cent of German Muslims believe that violent attacks on civilians are never acceptable under any circumstances, figures similar to those in the wider population, and that the devoutly religious are no more likely to support violence now than the non-observant.
Today, the challenge to tolerance appears to be coming more from the far right in Europe, and by economically battered populations in such countries as Hungary, Austria and the Netherlands who appear more willing to support the views of these parties.
Even as European human-rights courts began attempts to block the Swiss amendment yesterday, extremist politicians across Europe were examining their countries' laws to see if a similar referendum could be accomplished.
"I really would hope that other countries would follow," said Geert Wilders, head of the far-right Dutch Freedom Party, which won the second-largest number of Dutch seats in the European Parliament in this year's elections. "I will take, myself, an initiative in the Dutch parliament to also come with a resolution to try to get such a referendum against more minarets in the Netherlands as well."
cacruden
Senior Member
The only thing that is in the courts discretion (or should be) is was the amending formula set out in the Swiss constitution followed. If it was then there is no conflict since this amends the constitution - meaning that where there is a conflict - there is none anymore.
As for Italy, Germany, and France - that is total speculation since I doubt they have the same constitution, nor amendment processes.
urbandreamer
recession proof
This proposal would easily pass in the USA, hey it may even fly in most of Canada!