Sunday, 29 November 2009

Swiss voters ban the building of Minarets


Swiss voters have supported a referendum proposal to ban the building of Islamic minarets.

More than 57% of voters and 22 out of 26 cantons - or provinces - voted in favour of the ban.

The proposal had been put forward by the Swiss People's Party, (SVP), the largest party in parliament, which says minarets are a sign of Islamisation.

The government opposed the ban, saying it would harm Switzerland's image, particularly in the Muslim world, however, voters worried about rising immigration - and with it the rise of Islam - have ignored the government's advice.

"The Federal Council (government) respects this decision. Consequently the construction of new minarets in Switzerland is no longer permitted," said the government in a statement, quoted by the AFP news agency.

News report here

_____________________

This is probably why our government keeps finding reasons why we shouldn't be allowed referendums, we might get to say what we really think.

21 comments:

ceorl said...

Well done the Swiss. I wonder if not being in the EU has had an influence on this decision both from government and people. Or maybe they are just democratic unlike our government dictatorship. I wonder what the reaction will be in the Islamic world?

Viking said...

the message to be learnt is this :

the EU would not have allowed this. Get out of the EU - get out now. Join the EEA instead.

JPT said...

I read one of the Swiss blogs that said 'we don't want to end up like Britain'!!

Sarah Maid of Albion said...

Sadly, I am not surprised. My great fear is that Britain's future role is to be a terrifying example of what not to do.

scunnert said...

The peoples of the UK are too cowed and broken to ever assert themselves like the Swiss. Alas ...

Anonymous said...

The usual suspects are now gearing up their sense of outrage at the democratic will of the Swiss people.

The usual list of epithets (xenophobia, human rights, religious freedom) are appearing.

The fact that Swiss feminists and women were strongly in favour of the ban (already spotted in the polling) should make it clear that the issue is one of security. 15 years of Balkan and Turkish crime in an otherwise remarkably crime free society, particularly impacted on women and girls.

The arrival of Islam and 'being terrorised on the streets' was so obvious that only an ideological idiot in denial could have missed it.

Switzerland has direct democracy.

The result is the sovereign will of the Swiss Confederation.

The Swiss are stubborn and conservative and attacks will only harden their resolve

Dr.D said...

I suspect that getting jerked around by Kaddahfi recently did not motivate the Swiss to want more cooperation with the muzlims. He gave the Swiss a very good reason to tell muzlims to leave the country NOW which really would be the next logical step. Just think how much cleaner the air would be!

Sarah, why is there a significant difference between the English and the Swiss (other than language and geography)? Is freedom more native to one than to the other? Have their been more Swiss philosophers who have contributed to the foundations of free society? (No) Have the Swiss been more able to defend themselves in the past? (Not really) But there is definitely something that is different, something that makes the Swiss much more independent in their way of thinking.

@ Viking: What is EEA?

Anonymous said...

Dr D... there is one main difference. Switzerland practises the truest form of democracy. Direct Democracy. The power is in the hands of the people.

EEA is the European Economic Area as far as I know. I don't think the U.K. should part of that either as it is the E.U.'s little brother.

GB should be an independent country free of the shackles of socilaism.

zazie said...

Bravo, les Suisses! And, moreover, thank you ; some other peoples may understand you, and they may speak their minds too, even though they are not allowed to ; governments should be careful : those who are no longer given the right to vote might take to the streets!
when I wrote peopleS, I meant the plural : we are different, our ways of thinking may be different, but now is the time for all of us to consider what we have in common, and think of ourselves as "caucasians", with a common religious and cultural heritage.
I like the idea that Helvets, Gaulois, Welsh and Scots, Irish, and even English, we all descend from the Celts, don't we?

Anonymous said...

Political correctness gone mad.
http://www.worldwidewords.org/qa/qa-tar1.htm

While doing a little bit of research and checking my spelling on a few items for one of my blog posts I happened upon the link above.

How old the story is I don't know but it's a certain sign of political correctness gone wrong. I'm sorry but how is that saying racist? As far as I am aware it's a saying that's been around for more than just a few years.

Bit by bit people's culture and traditions are being eroded to such an extent you will not be allowed to say anything other than yes or no (and even that's deatable) Even when you do say no (See the Irish vote on the EU) they force you to say yes.

Is this really the world we live in?

teacher.paris said...

Funny. I live in an absolute monarchy and have more freedom than you lucky people in the non-Swiss democracies.

Anonymous said...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/beds/bucks/herts/8387110.stm

Love it!

Sarah Maid of Albion said...

Amnesty International have said that the vote "would probably be overturned by the Swiss supreme court or the European Court of Human Rights." http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/8385893.stm

What total arrogance, and what a low opinion they have for democracy. What next "regime change" by Human Rights tribunal?

Anonymous said...

Now they need to ban the building of church steeples, too. We need to get rid of ALL religious trappings, not just those that represent some creed that a few narrow minds are uncomfortable with.

I've lived very happily in Muslim countries, and I thought minarets were an interesting sight on the cityscape. They're certainly no more offensive than steeples put up by churches that don't pay taxes on their property like the rest of us have to. Not to mention those damn church bells ringing....

Anonymous said...

fight the EU Islamo fascists

Dr.D said...

Anonymous 1 Dec at 23:23

Perhaps it would be well for you to return to living among the muzlims since your thinking is clearly much more aligned with them than with the Christian West. Then you could have what you want, and we could have what we want. That would be a win-win.

Anonymous said...

Dr. D.: "Perhaps it would be well for you to return to living among the muzlims [sic] since your thinking is clearly much more aligned with them than with the Christian West."

What lazy and shallow thinking! Hypocrisy is hypocrisy -- and that certainly describes those who pitch a fit when they see (or even think of) a minaret, but who have no problem with the obscene amount of power that rich, corrupt churches wield over the gullible and ignorant public. You may choose to swallow what they feed you, but that does not mean that it's any better.

That said, though, it's also true that it's ALSO hypocritical for Muslims to claim discrimination in Switzerland.

As I was just saying to my friend in Seattle, if you go to Jerusalem or Haifa, you'll find mosques, churches, and temples, as well as synagogues.

But if you go to Riyadh, you'll find that, not only are religious buildings other than mosques absent, they are also illegal. That is ALSO wrong!

Sarah Maid of Albion said...

Anonymous 18:28

I would be grateful if you would not make personal attacks on other commentators. You are free to express your view, but please be civil.

I think that there are many more corrupt and evil institutions, which have far more power over people than churches, certainly in modern day Europe.

I would have no issues with the Saudis banning churches, if we had the right to ban mosques, however, the current situation is inequitable.

Anonymous said...

Sarah: "I think that there are many more corrupt and evil institutions, which have far more power over people than churches, certainly in modern day Europe."

There aren't many powers greater than being able to convince people that, if they don't believe or do whatever the church wants, they will burn in agony in the fires of hell for all eternity. Yikes! (And apparently this is because Gawd LOVES us? Right....)

And when they start indoctrinating their followers with such rubbish from very early childhood, it's no wonder so many of the devout end up as psychological cripples.

Dr.D said...

Anonymous 00:34 you said, "And apparently this is because Gawd LOVES us? Right...."

No, it is because God is HOLY, and does not allow the unholy to come into his presence. He has gone to great lengths to make us holy, sending us His Son, Jesus Christ, to offer us forgiveness of our sins that we might have the opportunity to become holy. This He did because He loves us. But God compels no one. We have the freedom to reject his efforts, to reject Christ, and to reject eternal salvation. There are many who will make the decision to reject, but that is not God's will but the free will of man. Man makes the choice to go to hell by rejecting Christ.

The Sunday School lesson is ended.

Anonymous said...

Oh it's because Gawd is "holy", is it? I suppose that's why he listens to the prayers of overpaid sports teams, but lets innocent little children suffer and die in horrible agony, while doing nothing whatever to help them.

But no doubt those children had "rejected Christ" or something.... (And we all know how wicked some of those three-year-olds can be!)

If you look around, it becomes clear that, if Gawd exists at all, then he's either savagely cruel, or he's completely indifferent, or he's utterly incompetent. Such a "deity" is not worthy of respect, much less worship and adoration.

And all that bunkum about "eternal salvation" is in the same class as believing that if you blow yourself up you'll meet seventy virgins in paradise.