To be fair though, a majority of the Swiss people did not vote for this ban. Only about half of eligible voters cast ballots and of them only about 60% voted in favour of the ban.
This is not an argument. Voter turn-outs are bad almost everywhere, for all kinds of reasons. The turn-out was less than this for the last Canadian federal election.
ILet's say, for argument's sake, that same-sex marriage is legal in Switzerland. Now let's say, again for argument's sake, that there is referendum to ban all wedding cakes that do not have a bride and a groom on top. Let's say it passes. Gays and lesbians are still free to marry, they just can't have a cake that doesn't have a man and a woman on top.
This is a spurious analogy. Like Roy's previous example of 'denying black people red cars' there is no logic to defend. In what context can you argue for preserving the tops of wedding cakes? In fact, you and Roy weaken the position against this ban by having to resort to such ridiculous analogies because you cannot think of one that is compelling, and why? Because the argument to preserve culture and heritage is a strong one in many contexts and you know it, and all the more so in the absence of any true infringement of rights here.
Lets be honest that your quarrel is with the distasteful poster, and so is Roy's. Fine, the poster offends you but to conflate this to a national attack on muslim minorities in a racist xenophobic Switzerland is simply unreasonable.
It's not fair to suggest that the motivation behind the tabling and passing of the bill was architectural. It had a lot more to do with the sentiment expressed in that poster. I'll go far and suggest that 75% of the people who votes "yes" could be described as "anti-Islam".
Wow, Roy can read minds now. Simply amazing! Thankfully our laws and our system are not about the paranoid fantasies of individuals but are about moderation and reason.
No doubt there were racists who supported this ban, but this doesn't necessarily make the ban wrong or bad. If there is no infringement of rights and if the ban makes sense in a different 'non-racist' context for most people then you have to judge it accordingly. The difference is where Roy sees racists everywhere I see moderate people everywhere, with racists and zealots being the rare extremes.
I am not going to deny the right of the Swiss to preserve their culture. They are their own democratic nation and their peoples can make their own choices. My problem is with targeting a certain religion.
I agree with you adeel, and this is a reasonable position to take. I've said as much myself, that in a heritage preservation context a similar position would have to apply to the architectural features of other non-traditional religious groups in Switzerland.
As you also say below we have to be clear of the distinction between religious practices and cultural ones. Minarets and Burkhas etc are cultural features that may or may not be appropriate outside the homelands of the muslim cultures in question. Some concessions are reasonable.
The practices spoken of speak more to cultural practices in place in the region that started before Islam and have become a part of a people's identity rather than a religious one. I contend that in certain areas more work has to be done, but these things take time.
If this was about preserving their culture, why not extend the ban to similar features of churches, synagogues and other places of worship? Why are muslims the only target? I dont see that you can discriminate against a certain group and not call that xenophobia?
My understanding is that the architectural features of other non-traditional religions are not at issue, perhaps because they are simply not being built in any number there or perhaps because they simply fit into the heritage landscape better. Minarets are typically tall towers, no? They stand out. There is nothing to suggest that other symbols or features of Islam or Muslim architecture are at issue. Steeples are accepted because aside from religious associations they represent the cultural heritage (in the same way minarets do) that they want to preserve.
This feels like an attack on Islam because of the obnoxious propaganda that was used. Distasteful indeed, but sort of par of the course with these sorts of things. Extremists on both sides of the debate will inflame this issue but as moderate people we have to understand that no rights are being infringed upon and there is in fact a strong case to make for heritage preservation (unlike red cars or wedding cake toppers) when cool heads prevail. Lets save the vitriol and outrage for real and true cases of persecution.