Swiss Ban on Minarets

[poak]

Swiss ban on minarets draws widespread condemnation | World news | guardian.co.uk

A minaret on the roof of a Turkish cultural centre in Wangen bei Olten, north-western Switzerland. Photograph: Fabrice Coffrini/AFP/Getty Images

Muslim leaders from around the world, senior church figures, European politicians and human rights experts have deplored Switzerland's decision to ban the building of minarets.

The polarising verdict in a Swiss referendum held yesterday raised fundamental questions about discrimination and freedom of religion, with the Swiss government itself doubtful over whether the popular vote could be translated into national law, as required by the country's system of direct democracy.

"Scandalous," said the French foreign minister, Bernard Kouchner, while Babacar Ba, a senior official of the Organisation of the Islamic Conference, warned of an "upsurge in Islamophobia" in Europe.

But far right leaders in Europe applauded the Swiss vote and called for parallel prohibitions in other countries.

"The flag of a courageous Switzerland which wants to remain Christian is flying over a near-Islamised Europe," said Mario Borghezio, an MEP from Italy's anti-immigrant Northern League.

In the Netherlands, the anti-Muslim Freedom party of Geert Wilders, which is steadily growing in popularity, called for a similar vote for the Dutch. "It's the first time that people in Europe have stood up to a form of Islamisation," it declared.

Despite Swiss fears of a violent backlash in the Islamic world and business fears of an adverse impact on Arab spending in Geneva and Zurich, as well as exports to the Middle East, Muslim leaders reacted mostly with sorrow. "The main thing is to keep calm and to realise how much work still needs to be done to defend basic freedoms," said Ba, the OIC ambassador in Geneva."We must do this by taking a constructive part in the debate on all issues which cause fear and concern, and to try to bring people together in order to confront extremism."

The surprisingly high vote of 57% for the minaret ban put the Swiss government and establishment on the defensive, engaged in damage limitation. In Brussels, the Swiss justice minister, Eveline Widmer-Schlumpf, who opposed a ban, argued that the vote was neither against the Muslim community nor against Islam. She sought to explain the decision to EU interior ministers, some of whom were highly critical.

The Vatican denounced the ban as an infringement of religious freedom.

Roman Catholic bishops in Swizerland issued a statement regretting the ban, accusing the rightwing Swiss People's party, which spearheaded the prohibition campaign, of caricaturing and exaggerating the alleged threat posed by Muslims, and also warned that the ban "will not help Christians oppressed and persecuted in Islamic countries".

Under the rules of Switzerland's direct democracy, which leans heavily on single issue referenda, yesterday's vote compels the government to amend the constitution. The article defining church-state relations will acquire a new sentence stating: "the building of minarets in Switzerland is forbidden".

But the government and parliament knows that this will breach the European convention on human rights and the UN charter proscribing discrimination on religious grounds and entrenching freedom of religion.

The clause would be discriminatory because it singles out one religion, Islam, for restrictive treatment.The backers of the campaign respond that this is irrelevant since minarets have nothing to do with religion, but are a "political symbol". Mosque-building is not being banned and Muslims in Switzerland are free to observe their religion, they argue.

While there are only four minarets in a country that is home to 400,000 Muslims, a dispute over the erection of another minaret in the town of Langenthal is stuck in the courts amid appeals and counter-appeals about building licences.

The case could now end up at the European court of human rights in Strasbourg, taking years to be settled.

Can you imagine how much outrage there would be in the US if they were even to introduce such legislation?

[Guest mustangdave]

could the Swiss be at the vanguard of a new TREND?

[BryanP]

Can you imagine how much outrage there would be in the US if they were even to introduce such legislation?

And justifiably so. You ban behavior, not objects.

[Defender]

I just can't understand what is wrong with a country trying to maintain its ethnic makeup.

[poak]

And justifiably so. You ban behavior, not objects.

Meh... If an HOA can tell someone what kind of fence they can put up, I see no problem with a Gov't restricting the types of architecture it allows... especially if said architecture greatly changes the physical appearance of their city.

[BryanP]

Meh... If an HOA can tell someone what kind of fence they can put up, I see no problem with a Gov't restricting the types of architecture it allows... especially if said architecture greatly changes the physical appearance of their city.

Except that we all know that's not the purpose. The purpose is to try to restrict those scaaaary moooslims. Can't have them durned dark-skinned furriners despoiling our perfect land, now can we?

[Guest H0TSH0T]

the Swiss people probable don't want the noise that comes from atop them, they like the yodel not the singing of prayer in a foreign language . I like to think of it in the same light as the bass thugs that drive the boom boom jacked up cars around late at night shaking me in my own home. I think all people should not have to listen to that crap.

[Guest faust921]

Except that we all know that's not the purpose. The purpose is to try to restrict those scaaaary moooslims. Can't have them durned dark-skinned furriners despoiling our perfect land, now can we?

Is it really about "dark-skinned furriners"? I've been there as a foreigner and I found the country and the people to be very nice. Of course I didn't try to blow myself up on a crowded train but I digress.......

Theo Van Gogh (yes, related) was a beloved, contemporary cultural asset of the Dutch people. Kinda like a Michael Moore but with talent and without the self importance. He was murdered in 2002 by Muslims just like the 3000+ people that were murdered by 20 muslims on 9/11; muslims who lived and trained for jihad in the USA. In a small country, your cultural icons take a more important role because you have fewer of them. The Dutch people witnessed the damage that violent foreigners can to to a culture.

A nation has the right to protect it's institutions, adopt an official language, and a duty to provide for the common defense of it's people. It should also have the balls to say that they don't want some absurd jibber-jabber blasting over a loudspeaker 5 times a day.

It should also have the balls to purge from their midst some idiot who thinks it's okay to beat his daughter because he thinks that a woman who dates men prior to marriage is a whore and should be killed to restore the families honor. (USA)

Good for the Swiss! They looked at another small European country like the Netherlands and said "Not here, Ali Akbar Shim Sham Shama Lama Ding Dong! Take your violent, hateful, intolerant, and regressive cult back to where you came from and build your mosque there"

You don't just let anybody walk into your house, do anything they want and tell you that if you don't like it, you must be the problem. Neither apparently do the Swiss.

[Guest SUNTZU]

Is it really about "dark-skinned furriners"? I've been there as a foreigner and I found the country and the people to be very nice. Of course I didn't try to blow myself up on a crowded train but I digress.......

Theo Van Gogh (yes, related) was a beloved, contemporary cultural asset of the Dutch people. Kinda like a Michael Moore but with talent and without the self importance. He was murdered in 2002 by Muslims just like the 3000+ people that were murdered by 20 muslims on 9/11; muslims who lived and trained for jihad in the USA. In a small country, your cultural icons take a more important role because you have fewer of them. The Dutch people witnessed the damage that violent foreigners can to to a culture.

A nation has the right to protect it's institutions, adopt an official language, and a duty to provide for the common defense of it's people. It should also have the balls to say that they don't want some absurd jibber-jabber blasting over a loudspeaker 5 times a day.

It should also have the balls to purge from their midst some idiot who thinks it's okay to beat his daughter because he thinks that a woman who dates men prior to marriage is a whore and should be killed to restore the families honor. (USA)

Good for the Swiss! They looked at another small European country like the Netherlands and said "Not here, Ali Akbar Shim Sham Shama Lama Ding Dong! Take your violent, hateful, intolerant, and regressive cult back to where you came from and build your mosque there"

You don't just let anybody walk into your house, do anything they want and tell you that if you don't like it, you must be the problem. Neither apparently do the Swiss.

+1

[Guest jackdm3]

We found SUNTZU Mach II

[hipower]

I just can't understand what is wrong with a country trying to maintain its ethnic makeup.

You, sir. Are obviously not in line with the correct-thinking, liberal-gotta-please the world and be universally liked, borders are old-fashioned, no one is illegal, COEXIST--spelled out with all those cute symbols in a decal on your car... the kind of person you should be.

[strickj]

You, sir. Are obviously not in line with the correct-thinking, liberal-gotta-please the world and be universally liked, borders are old-fashioned, no one is illegal, COEXIST--spelled out with all those cute symbols in a decal on your car... the kind of person you should be.

You must be Native American Indian living on a Reserve then?

Other wise you're no different then anyone else that wants to migrate here,and bring their customs with them.Its just a little time difference between when you got here,and when they got here

[hipower]

You must be Native American Indian living on a Reserve then?

Other wise you're no different then anyone else that wants to migrate here,and bring their customs with them.Its just a little time difference between when you got here,and when they got here

As it happens, I am part Native American, Cherokee, to be exact. I just happen to believe in legal immigration and some semblence of a unified and united country whose laws and customs are respected rather than trampled upon by illegal border jumpers who come here obstensibly for a better life and proceed to make clusters of shanty-towns that look like the third world poverty ridden corruptness they left, break laws, kill, rape, maim, destroy property, don't pay taxes, run up my taxes, and then cry about how poorly they are treated before running down this land.

And I am not anti immigration and do not hate those who work legally and live in civility.

I believe my beliefs are just as valid as others are but don't try to force them upon others or send snide little cutsy catch-phrases that imply bigotry.

[strickj]

As it happens, I am part Native American, Cherokee, to be exact. I just happen to believe in legal immigration and some semblence of a unified and united country whose laws and customs are respected rather than trampled upon by illegal border jumpers who come here obstensibly for a better life and proceed to make clusters of shanty-towns that look like the third world poverty ridden corruptness they left, break laws, kill, rape, maim, destroy property, don't pay taxes, run up my taxes, and then cry about how poorly they are treated before running down this land.

And I am not anti immigration and do not hate those who work legally and live in civility.

I believe my beliefs are just as valid as others are but don't try to force them upon others or send snide little cutsy catch-phrases that imply bigotry.

Didn't call you a bigot.

But for the record,you did agree that there is nothing wrong with a country trying to maintain its ethnicity.

The reason I said what I did is because the only people who have the right in this country to want to maintain the lands ethnicity are Natives.

Everyone else here is just a migrant or a descendant of a migrant

[Guest Drewsett]

I have to say that I don't agree with the ban. Not all muslims are terrorists and not all white southerners are in the KKK.

If there is a problem with the call to prayer, then legislate that its a noise disturbance and ban that. Banning a minaret is discrimination based upon religion and NO form of discrimination is right.

Oh and @hipower

I am also part Cherokee (alot of people who can trace their roots back to the southeastern US are), but I have to say I agree with Strickj on this one. Not that I believe that illegal immigration is acceptable...but he does make a point. America is a melting pot of many different cultures. People discriminated against the Irish when they started immigrating here in droves...in fact they used alot of the same degrading language back then about the Irish that you just did about the illegals today.

And as far as the Coexist stickers...I think that we should all aspire to coexist peacefully with one another, not make fun of a noble effort to bring people together. That said, if it is proven that we can't peacefully coexist with a person, group, or country, then we do what is necessary to make sure that we are the ones existing when all is said and done.