Vote represents blow to Switzerland's political establishment.Well, how very dare they! Who do these people think they are?
Switzerland became the first country in Europe today to vote to curb the religious practices of Muslims when a referendum banning the construction of minarets on mosques was backed by a solid majority.And the Guardian is obviously worried it won’t be the last, with the most heartrending ‘won’t someone think of the
The result looks likely to cause strife where there was relative peace, sully the country's image abroad, damage investment and trade with the Muslim world, and set back efforts to integrate a population of some 400,000 Muslims, most of whom are European Muslims – and non-mosque-goers – from the Balkans.Oh, noes!
The campaign to ban minarets was described by the country's justice minister as a "proxy war" for drumming up conflict between ethnic Swiss and Muslim immigrants. But the ban was supported by a majority of 57.5%, 20 percentage points more than predicted in opinion polls in the run-up to the vote.Heh…!
But the Guardian is worried that this nasty ‘democracy’ thing could catch on:
While surprising, the verdict raised the question of whether such curbs on Muslims would be replicated across Europe were voters given their say.Whew! We’re safe, comrades! Only Switzerland still has that quaint democracy thingie…
If Switzerland is the only country in Europe to embark on such a ban, that may be because its system of plebiscitary democracy compels single-issue referendums if petitions amass enough signatures.
The result also represented an act of mass defiance of the national establishment. The government, mainstream political parties, the churches, the main newspapers, the national president, the powerful business lobby, and the Vatican all opposed the ban, but it was backed by 22 of the country's 26 cantons on a national turnout of more than 53%.And there you have the way the average Guardian writer views the public in a nutshell: defiant of their betters, and determined to be contrary...
And don’t start looking for your usual allies to decry this ghastly state of affairs. They are too busy cheering it on:
The prohibition also found substantial support on the left and among secularists worried about the status of women in Islamic cultures. Prominent feminists attacked minarets as male power symbols, deplored the oppression of Muslim women, and urged a vote for the ban.There’s a strong wind a-blowing from the Alps…
13 comments:
If Switzerland is the only country in Europe to embark on such a ban,
Do not know where to start realy.
All over Europe there have been LOCAL protests against these bendover palaces. Only recently (last two or three weeks)we have lost another town to the "bringers of peace".
Hitler was not wrong, he chose the wrong people to pick on.
53% is an amazing turnout and just goes to show much outraged the Swiss population are about the creeping Islamification.
Do you really believe the political elite would ever, ever allow the people a say in how their country is run?
They talk about democracy but behave as elected dictators!
I am firmly coming to the conclusion we need another Civil War!
You make some excellent points, but I'm made a bit uneasy by your implicit argument that because the Swiss voted so strongly in favour of the ban, this somehow makes it 'right' or even means that those who disagree with it or think it just plain outrageously wrong should somehow just shut up as they are otherwise trampling on the will of the people. Hm.
Being popular and being right are not the same. Many, many people believe that the British people made the wrong choice in 1975 in voting to stay in the EEC. Should they just shut up, because the people have spoken (far more strongly than the Swiss did) in favour of continued membership? Is the debate on devolution now dead, because to raise it as an issue is to show contempt for the views of the people?
Whether something is right or wrong goes beyond whether something can win a popular vote. Whatever you think of the outcome in Switzerland, there is surely nothing wrong in declaring it an outrage.
Isn't there somewhere in the Lisbon constitution something about enforcing a referendum if sufficient support is drummed up ? Probably hidden away next to the bit that says we can secede.
"there is surely nothing wrong in declaring it an outrage."
Anecdotal, but I am informed by Swiss friends that this vote was not only a direct rebuttal of Muslim triumphalism but was also a proxy vote on the substantial non-European immigration into Switzerland allowed/encouraged by the Swiss political class. The largest party in the Swiss legislature (ie the Swiss People's Party, (SVP) - demonised by the BBC as being that fount of evil "right wing") is there because the Swiss finally refused to be politically correct and welcome the Muslims as contributors to (let alone improvers of) Swiss democracy and the Swiss way of life.
God knows, to make Switzerland work over the centuries the Swiss have compromised among themselves and come to, what was for them, a satisfactory settlement, referenda and all. An alien irruption - 4-5% of the population and growing, owing allegiance to a triumphalist and intolerant superstition - is bound to upset that settlement. Far from being "ourageous" this vote was predictable and, in the circumstances, pacific. If Muslim immigration to Switzerland is allowed to continue unabated then the next referendum will be rather nastier: after all throwing a lot of people out of your country is messy and (in many cases) unjust. But, you know, it's still "their" (the Swiss's) country in a way that Britain is no longer mine.
The reaction of the Graun, and many other representatives of the political elite, to the Swiss referendum result shows how skin deep their 'democratic' credentials really are.
The Graun also offered lukewarm support to Blair's invasion that bought 'democracy' to Iraq, and it continues in offering similarly tepid support for the current Afghan adventure.
For many on the left. 'democracy' means the abolition of the death penalty, group rights (for women & ethnic minorities) as opposed to individual rights, and the blurring of the distinction between citizen & foreigner. And they don't care a gnat's fart whether 'the people' of any given country consent, democratically, to the approval of such policies.
'The man in Whitehall knows best', and a 'democracy' that doesn't make the right sub-Bloomsburyesque noises on 'sensitive' issues isn't really a 'democracy' in their eyes.
"You make some excellent points, but I'm made a bit uneasy by your implicit argument that because the Swiss voted so strongly in favour of the ban, this somehow makes it 'right'..."
If the judge had, say, banned the practise of private worship, or the wearing of burkhas, I'd be agreeing with you.
But the Swiss have decided, in the most democratic way possible, to say 'This far, and no further'.
As someone denied a say in this by the political elite in my own country, I can't help but admire them.
"Far from being "ourageous" this vote was predictable and, in the circumstances, pacific. If Muslim immigration to Switzerland is allowed to continue unabated then the next referendum will be rather nastier.."
It's like a pressure cooker at the moment. Seal down that lid, and something's gonna blow...
"The reaction of the Graun, and many other representatives of the political elite, to the Swiss referendum result shows how skin deep their 'democratic' credentials really are."
It's great until their ox is gored...
Afraid I disagree strongly with you here, AP.
There is a lively debate going on over at Samizdata about this. Seems to be mostly against.
http://www.samizdata.net/blog/archives/2009/11/minarets_r_not.html
//As someone denied a say in this by the political elite in my own country, I can't help but admire them.//
And, why do you think you have a right to say what someone else does with their private property? Because it "offends" you? Tough, it is their property, to do with as they wish.
I have little interest in the will of the majority. I care about individual liberty, life and property, and you do not advance its cause by denying innocent people's property rights.
I am a libertarian, of the very extreme kind, and therefore I condemn this outcome.
Oh, spare us Dorothy! These people are not innocent in any way shape or form. They support a totalitarian ideology, founded by a murderous pervert, that calls for the overthrow of our civilisation. In a healthy culture that sort of thing is supposed to bring problems.
Ditto, in so far as minarets are meant to be a quite literally unmissable signs of contempt and hatred for the surrounding (Infidel) population, they are meant to impinge on the rights of Infidel property owners to enjoy their property, just as surely as if they broadcast obscenities through a loudspeaker 24-7.
Even free speech maximalists recognise the concept of 'fighting words', as in words that serve no purpose other than to provoke or insult. Building minarets isn't meant to advance a particular argument or propagate any message, it's meant demonstrate pure, unbridled, murderous hatred and contempt for the host culture. Take that away from it and there's literally nothing there. Again, there is no free speech right to scream obscenities at someone.
//Oh, spare us Dorothy! These people are not innocent in any way shape or form. They support a totalitarian ideology, founded by a murderous pervert, that calls for the overthrow of our civilisation. In a healthy culture that sort of thing is supposed to bring problems.//
I agree a lot of Muslims believe this form of Islam. However, how do you know that every Muslim thinks that Islam is a totalitarian belief system, that want to make the infidel submit. You are making your own reading of Islam, and choosing to extrapolate that to all Muslims. Suffi Islam is meant to be quite mild.
I should also note that many Christians are totalitarian in their views; case in point Theonomy. And Catholicism is expressly political in nature.
//These people are not innocent in any way shape or form.//
So for you it is a crime to support a totalitarian ideology? So now you think a political or religious belief is a good thing to make illegal. You remind me of the despicable United Against Fascism rabble.
//they are meant to impinge on the rights of Infidel property owners to enjoy their property, just as surely as if they broadcast obscenities through a loudspeaker 24-7.//
Well, the call to pray is disturbing, but that is a violation of your property - it invades your property. However, there is no such invasion of your property.
So you think all Muslims are ravenous monsters, who want to kill and rape? And if they are not, would that not mean that the Minaret is in fact merely a symbol of their culture, in which case this ban is a curtailing of the right to expression.
//Building minarets isn't meant to advance a particular argument or propagate any message, it's meant demonstrate pure, unbridled, murderous hatred and contempt for the host culture.//
Lol, isn't a demonstration of pure, unbridled, murderous hatred and contempt, a message, by definition. Rather like trying to argue that Hitler didn't have a political message. Try thinking these things through.
But seriously, is this what you see when you look at buildings? Perhaps this says more about your mentality, rather than the Muslims that want to build them? You interpret them your own way, and therefore the failing is yours. Perhaps Muslims just like the styling, perhaps they like the fact that it is a symbol of their faith AS THEY CONCEIVE IT. Not you, them.
//Take that away from it and there's literally nothing there. Again, there is no free speech right to scream obscenities at someone.//
Apart from an aesthetically pleasing building.
You would have to be a very sensitive and thin-skinned individual to say that a building "screams" obscenities.
And again I say 'spare us'. There's no bigger cliche on the net than libertarians claiming to be supa-smart because they profess to be able to find nuance even in the most depraved.
Some Muslims don't go for the whole 'murder' thing? Hooray for them! Some members of the Vegetarian Society probably sneak the odd bacon sandwich every now and again but that doesn't make you smart if you write long essays on the nature of 'true vegetarianism'.
Islamic ideology is inherently violent and totalitarian, and minarets are very much a part of that, meant as they are to intimidate Infidels and celebrate Islamic supremaciasm.
Minarets no more convey a legitimate political message than do gang insignias sprayed on a wall (which is basically what they are anyway). In both cases, the objective is to inspire fear in members of the local community.
A democratic society is entirely within its rights to prevent violent fanatics intimidating members of the public going about their business.
The result looks likely to cause strife where there was relative peace, sully the country's image abroad, damage investment and trade with the Muslim world, and set back efforts to integrate a population of some 400,000 Muslims ...
Strife caused the Swiss to hold the referendum. Why is the country's image abroad more important than domestic tranquility? Who gives a Rompuy about trade with Muslim countries when there are plenty of others? I'd say integration has failed, wouldn't you?
The Swiss democratic model is superb, but our 'leaders' disagree.
They tell us there's no point in having referenda because they're not binding.
Well make them binding, then - by law!
They tell us referenda are single-issue.
What is wrong with that? Half our trouble comes from lumping hugely important issues in with the trivial. The effect is lack of real choice.
The Swiss made the right decision. It's their country - what they do is none of the EU's business.
The EU know we'd all vote the same way, given the chance.
Post a Comment