I was reading up on world events on the bbc when i saw this article that took me completely aback. the swiss are voting on a ban on minarets. ive known the swiss to be a wonderful and reasonable people. to see this is quite shocking. the svp are supporting the ban on minarets for they say it is a political statement that is contrary to swiss law. this is of course a load of pappekak. the svp states the minarets represent the establishment of sharia law. if this be the case then wouldnt the establishment of cathedrals represent the manifestation of papal law in switzerland? what about synagogues representing rabbinical law? this doesnt concern the right wing svp.
what gets me is that i have looked up to the swiss since i was a boy. here is a country that has had hundreds of years of peace and a symbol of a better world – granted in my opinion – and they go ahead and do something that i would only expect from the deep south here in the us.
granted if this was a very low minority saber rattling in the name of protecting established traditions because they are afraid of any sort of change, i could see this happening. Unfortunately this is becoming a popular vote and is gaining momentum. i know the swiss government is fully against this referendum, but the people seem to be for it.
even if the referendum does not pass, it is a dark day for switzerland.
~adieu
oh and just as a passing thought…in switzerland, there are more than 12 cathedrals, 44 synagogues and only 4 minarets.
++ ADDENDUM 2009-12-03 ++
i would like to thank rabbi gilles bernheim for his statement about the swiss vote.
i voted against the ban, then i realised why i got it wrong. Minarets are outside police jurisdiction. The London bombers groomed their suicide attackers within their holy ground. It is a matter of security. Switzerland has been, probably with Sweden, one of the most advanced countries in terms of acceptance of non-EU immigrants. The problems come with the second generation of the original immigrants. They are so very integrated (thanks to their parents efforts) yet slightly nannied by a range of benefit schemes coming from the government (ouch, yes, wrong). They are disaffected and allow themselves the luxury to start feeling they don’t belong. They are the favourite reclutes of extremist groups.
Please refrain from blurting out judgement without doing your homework first.
And, by the way, you make it sound like there is no freedom of religion. The point is for the time being ( and for the reasons stated above – it is against the law to police ANY place of worship) mosques will continue to be held in rented buildings. Stop the idealistic crap and wake up!
actually i did some homework before writing anything. considering the only information i could find on the referendum (both pro and con) mentions nothing of security. well other than bigoted security. ‘keeping switzerland, swiss’ sort of thing. this is why i wrote it. if it were indeed for security then they should remove that part of the napoleonic code from the constitution and allow security forces into places of worship regardless of the religion. singling out one group is where an imbalance in the law occurs. it adds fuel to the flames of hatred and gives the ‘extremist terrorists’ reason and cause to take their fight further. the referendum does nothing but make things worse.
spotlighting and separating one group from the rest and applying a different set of rules with which they must live by will severely diminish the country as a whole. it now sets a precedent for future laws and actions. how long before other rights and liberties are taken away? and i dont just mean for muslims.
if there was a vote taken for the ban on bell towers of churches due to the fact that the police couldnt go in and investigate or arrest priests molesting children (because of course, according to the media at large, is all that they really do any way) there would be a much different reaction. yet, according to what you say, that would be necessary. i beg to differ on this.
a better solution for the security reasoning is to remove the archaic law of sanctuary and focus on individuals rather than great swaths of groups.
but then none of that is what this was about. according to the authors of the referendum, the real reasoning behind the ban on the minarets was that they ‘represented the establishment of sharia law in switzerland and to position itself above the swiss laws which is against the constitution.’ with this blog i merely stated that with that reasoning, the swiss should ban cathedrals and synagogues as well since they too represented the establishment of theological law ‘above the swiss constitution’. it would only be fair.
but then to the people, the referendum really wasnt about that and the voting results reflects this. the referendum was really about ‘keeping switzerland, swiss’.
above everything, i was disappointed with the referendum and the result. that is why i even mentioned it. i dont consider myself an idealist, but i do know when things are wrong. this is wrong.
i think US average people are so ignorant – beyond any definition. Idealism is one thing; politics another; opinion another.
The more ignorant – on average – the people, the least likely it is for a country to get true democracy through referendums.
Sorry, your country’s people may be more liberal and/or open-minded than the Swiss – yet noone in your government is trusting your people enough to have a say.
i am sure it is because so much business & money & favours & power are tied into politics – i am sure the US people would be sensible enough to take up the responsibility of referendums. After all, geo-politically speaking you adopted our system. (est. 1842 – first confederation in Europe).
You can do it. You just require less needy & greedy presidents.
Regarding your comment. If you really knew about Swiss politics and direct democracies you would realise that precisely because of the point of direct democracy the government has no constitutional right to wipe paragraphs out of our constitution without a popular vote. Popular vote is performed by defines degrees and follows a rule of subject matters – starting from the most current issue through to the most idealistic matter i.e. removing/editing parts of the constitution itself.
well i have never put the people of the united states above those of the swiss. nor did i even try to imply it in the blog. i know how stupid people can be from new york to tokyo. its not just an american thing or european thing. its an universal thread that is present in any place on the globe.
the united states has never been nor shall it ever be a democracy. it is a federated republic that is far from perfect. when there are things going wrong in the us, i point them out. i had plenty of material during the bush years, which was an unfortunate reality.
the point i was trying to make is that no matter what the reason, singling out one group is not right. persecution and bigotry wrapped up into a law or policy is still not right. making separate laws for one group over the others is a slippery path.
that is all i was trying to state. i didnt draw comparisons or say that one form of government is above or better than another or that one people are better than another.
Direct democracy is the best gift one could ever be given.
It tells a lot about how much your country values you as a citizen.
Voltaire said that the dictum of the people will always come out in the end, be relevant and rule.
It is so very true.
i am sorry you did not mention other subject matters of last Sunday’s vote, such as the selling of weapons to foreign buyers.
When was the last time you heard of a country being open on the subject and holding a popular vote on that issue?
unfortunately all dictators have been democratically elected. either by vote or an allowance from the people. its not the government i fear, its the people.
you should tell me more of cabbages and kings! sorry misquoting carroll. seriously though, i would love to hear more about the goings on in switzerland.
Dictactors democratically elected?! Maybe. Actually YES of course! You just need to pay up rather than request to contribute. Yet i guess dictatorships would not exactly be up to pick up any tab exceeding $2000 approx. per minister. Not even as little as that!! i challenge you to find any other country where ministers are so disinterested as to forego most of their monthly expenses.
And the, when i least expect it. My seemingly safe little-bourgeois world is crashing. Borders UK went into admin earlier this week.
i am raking in the obvious bargains that come with the liquidation one of the most beautifully functional shops in the UK (the Brits have, generally, no clue).
It is (with the Starbucks it has inside it) the closest shop to my home.