View Full Version : EU, United Nations and Turkey Gang Up on Switzerland Following Minaret Ban
The Lawspeaker
12-03-2009, 03:41 PM
EU, United Nations and Turkey Gang Up on Switzerland Following Minaret Ban (http://bnp.org.uk/2009/12/eu-united-nations-and-turkey-gang-up-on-switzerland-following-minaret-ban/)
http://bnp.org.uk/files/2009/12/minaret-ban.jpg
The European Union, the United Nations and Turkey have ganged up on Switzerland following that country’s brave decision to ban the further construction of minarets.
Leading the charge against the democratic will of the Swiss people is that country’s so-called justice minister and dreadful liberal, Eveline Widmer-Schlumpf. She has already announced that the minaret ban could be struck down by the European Court of Human rights because it “contradicts the European Convention on Human Rights.”
Although Switzerland is not formally part of the EU, it presides over the European Court of Human Rights, which rules on breaches of the convention.
Meanwhile, the UN Human Rights Commissioner, a lady rejoicing in the name Navi Pillay, has said that the ban is “discriminatory and puts it on a collision course with international law.”
Ms Pillay condemned the vote as “anti-foreigner scare-mongering” and called the result “deeply divisive.”
She said the ban could “violate fundamental liberties” and questioned whether “human rights” ought to be subject to popular votes.
The condemnation was echoed by Turkey, which hopes to become the first Muslim member of the European Union.
In a statement, the Turkish Foreign Ministry said that the Swiss vote “violated basic human rights and freedoms.” The Turks called on Switzerland to “correct” the decision.
The Italian government has in the interim indicated that it might also hold a referendum on the issue of banning minarets.
Cabinet minister Roberto Calderoli said Italy “should confirm its Roman Catholic roots and hold a vote as soon as possible.”Mr Calderoli said the Swiss decision was a triumphant “yes to bell towers and no to minarets that served as an important example for other European countries losing touch with their Christian identities.
“Respect for other religions is important, but we’ve got to put the brakes on Muslim propaganda or else we’ll end up with an Islamic political party like they have in Spain,” he said.
Italy has one of the tallest minarets in Europe standing just three feet shorter than St Peter’s Basilica, at the Mosque and Islamic Cultural Centre in Rome. Italy has around 1.2 million Muslims, making Islam the second religion after Catholicism.
If the Swiss didn't want that they should have referended this too back in 1999.:D
In the course of the 1999 constitutional revision, the Federal Assembly decided to codify that case law in the form of a comprehensive bill of rights, which is substantially congruent with the rights guaranteed in the ECHR, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swiss_constitution
Sol Invictus
12-03-2009, 03:58 PM
Just when a democratic country makes headway, the socialists step in and reassert their control. :mad:
Just when a democratic country makes headway, the socialists step in and reassert their control. :mad:
It would actually cease to be a democracy as one the fundamental principles in every democracy is the inalienability of the individuals rights(granted in any constitution) which cannot be curbed in any circumstance to serve the will of the majority.
Sol Invictus
12-03-2009, 04:25 PM
I want to know why people aren't up in arms against these terrorist organizations. (EU, UN) :mad:
Liffrea
12-03-2009, 04:57 PM
She said the ban could “violate fundamental liberties” and questioned whether “human rights” ought to be subject to popular votes.
Silly woman, I wonder if people like her understand what hypocritical idiots they sound? Or is it more to the point they don’t actually care?
People need to understand exactly what people like Ms Pillay mean when they speak of “liberty” and “rights”…..
Silly woman, I wonder if people like her understand what hypocritical idiots they sound? Or is it more to the point they don’t actually care?
People need to understand exactly what people like Ms Pillay mean when they speak of “liberty” and “rights”…..
She's not silly you're just ignorant on the matter. Please read my post above.
Sol Invictus
12-03-2009, 05:06 PM
Democracy is mob rule. If the mob don't want it, the stones are counted up and the issue is thrown off a cliff. The EU and the UN bypass this completely under the guise of 'human rights' and 'liberty'. It's nothing short of global governance and NWO.
Democracy is mob rule. If the mob don't want it, the stones are counted up and the issue is thrown off a cliff. The EU and the UN bypass this completely under the guise of 'human rights' and 'liberty'. It's nothing short of global governance and NWO.
I'm sorry but when you sign a contract it is expected that you follow it. And in any case this contract is quite fair as you can break it whenever you wish so.
But there's another thing stepping in the way which is their own constitution, which actually can be revised through a referendum, but i just don't see the Siss willing to give upon religious freedom.
Sol Invictus
12-03-2009, 05:16 PM
I'm sorry but when you sign a contract it is expected that you follow it. And in any case this contract is quite fair as you can break it whenever you wish so.
But there's another thing stepping in the way which is their own constitution, which actually can be revised through a referendum, but i just don't see the Siss willing to give upon religious freedom.
Pure bullshit. With the grid of control the EU is suffering under, let's see how far a referendum would get you.
Pure bullshit. With the grid of control the EU is suffering under, let's see how far a referendum would get you.
Switzerland doesn't belong to the EU.
Sol Invictus
12-03-2009, 05:24 PM
Switzerland doesn't belong to the EU.
It's not a full member, but it still pays it's dues to it and its borders are effectively open to all EU nations, which makes it effectively an EU country though it doesn't sit on any boards. Most laws that are enforced in the EU can also, through their agreements, be enforced in Switzerland.
It's not a full member, but it still pays it's dues to it and its borders are effectively open to all EU nations
Bollocks, and i can tell you by personal experience since i was there last year during the Euro2008. They have checkpoints unlike any EU country.
Most laws that are enforced in the EU can also, through their agreements, be enforced in Switzerland.
Because the Swiss wished so, it was not against their will lol.
The Lawspeaker
12-03-2009, 05:35 PM
Bollocks, and i can tell you by personal experience since i was there last year during the Euro2008. They have checkpoints unlike any EU country.
Switzerland is a member of Schengen.
Because the Swiss wished so, it was not against their will lol.
Coerced into voting in favor makes it just as much force as forcing it at gun-point.
Sol Invictus
12-03-2009, 05:42 PM
Switzerland is a member of Schengen.
Coerced into voting in favor makes it just as much force as forcing it at gun-point.
Exactly. "Will of the people" my ass.
The European folk did NOT vote for this kind of tyranny.
The Lawspeaker
12-03-2009, 05:50 PM
They voted for closer cooperation between European countries and instead of that they got tyranny.
Coerced into signing over their rights as we were not allowed to read the small print. A lot of countries, like my own, didn't even get to vote when it came to the EEC/EU and it's results.
Parliament decided in our stead.
Liffrea
12-03-2009, 06:09 PM
Originally Posted by Kadu
She's not silly you're just ignorant on the matter.
Lol.
Yes I’m “ignorant” because I believe government should represent the wishes of the people……what a radical idea that is.....
The Swiss, as far as I am aware, like the British, French, Germans, Swedes, Dutch…..have never had their wishes over immigration respected. Yet they are supposed to “comply” when bigoted people like Ms Pillay insist they respect “liberty” and “human rights” when she speaks for regimes that have trampled “liberty” and “rights” into the dirt because it doesn’t suit their agenda.
Please read my post above.
Your statement is no more than using the letter of the law to defeat the spirit of the law, the Swiss haven’t banned Islam, they have banned a piece of architecture and taken a stand against a process of Islamisation imposed on their country without majority consent, unless you can show me where this consent was given?
The very same people spouting off about liberty and democracy are the same people who have ignored what goes against their wishes.
Sol Invictus
12-03-2009, 06:12 PM
Lol.
Yes I’m “ignorant” because I believe government should represent the wishes of the people……what a radical idea that is.....
Kadu (judging from his sentiments revealed in his signature pic)
is pro-imperialist.
Is it any wonder?
Liffrea
12-03-2009, 06:36 PM
Originally Posted by Agent Smith
Kadu (judging from his sentiments revealed in his signature pic)
is pro-imperialist.
Is it any wonder?
I can’t speak about Kadu, I don’t know him, but there are many who twist ideas to suit their own interests. There probably isn’t a week that goes by that some politician in Westminster doesn’t refer admiringly to “democracy” “rights” and “liberty” they stare into the camera without a hint of shame.
Yet where is their commitment to “democracy” when they ignore the majority wish to stop mass immigration?
Where is their commitment to “democracy” when they ignore the fact that the vast majority of people did not want government to sign the Lisbon Treaty?
Where is their commitment to “liberty” when they try to criminalise people for speaking out against Immigration or Islamic fundamentalism?
It’s conveniently ignored, dressed up as evasion in the name of “hate crimes” or the like, typical Orwellian double talk.
The Swiss have banned a piece of architecture (not the religion) and made a statement against a trend in their country they did not ask for and do not want to see. They could have gone further…..and that leads us to the question of whether people should respect the rights of those imposed upon them without consent?
When John Stuart Mill wrote On Liberty I doubt he had in mind 21st century multiracial, racially divided, socially fractured Britain, he was a smart man he probably would have understood that those very conditions will guarantee that democratic institutions and liberty seize to exist. As I have come to believe, and have yet to see evidence to the contrary, as a society becomes increasingly multiracial and/or multicultural it becomes increasingly less free, our government knows full well they operate against the wishes of the majority, their answer isn’t to respect those wishes it is to clamp down and impose the boot on the neck.
At least in Britain we’ve never had a “democracy” worth the name to lose but Switzerland seemed to be more enlightened, the Swiss should take the threat of people like Ms Pillay seriously because it is people like her that have added the links one at a time and the chain isn't far from completion. We will be slaves in the name of "democracy" and "liberty".
Switzerland is a member of Schengen.
True but only since 12 December 2008.
Coerced into voting in favor makes it just as much force as forcing it at gun-point.
Why coerced?
Your statement is no more than using the letter of the law to defeat the spirit of the law, the Swiss haven’t banned Islam, they have banned a piece of architecture and taken a stand against a process of Islamisation imposed on their country without majority consent, unless you can show me where this consent was given?
A piece of Architecture can be regulated through Urbanistic legislation it doesn't need a campaign of hatred.
Exactly. "Will of the people" my ass.
The European folk did NOT vote for this kind of tyranny.
It's not tyranny it's the safeguard of the individuals rights. Is the bill of rights alien to you?
Tyranny would be if they passed this ban, it would represent a step closer to the authoritarian theocratic states of the middle East.
Kadu (judging from his sentiments revealed in his signature pic)
is pro-imperialist.
Is it any wonder?
It's in their constitution it's not even a international demand.
Osweo
12-03-2009, 07:02 PM
A piece of Architecture can be regulated through Urbanistic legislation it doesn't need a campaign of hatred.
Our tyrants are forever labelling our simple DISLIKE of certain damaging developments as 'hatred'... :rolleyes2:
We don't want mosques everywhere, the Swiss don't want their townscapes marred. It's as simple as that.
But! :eek: "WHY don't you want this?!?" the traitors love to squeal. "Perhaps you're a ... RACIST!!!!" :eek::eek::eek:
We shouldn't even have to tell our political SERVANTS why we don't want something, and certainly don't appreciate our desires to be so interpreted, time after time.
Good to see you're fully rehearsed in the anti-European EU do-gooding Newspeak, Kadu. You'll go far in life, no doubt.
Tyranny would be if they passed this ban, it would represent a step closer to the authoritarian theocratic states of the middle East.
Yeah Kadu, why don't you go on some Muslim board and lecture THEM about your 'values'? :rolleyes2: No... Far more important to turn OUR lands into a mess in the name of abstract 'liberty'?
Sol Invictus
12-03-2009, 07:07 PM
<deleted>
Our tyrants are forever labelling our simple DISLIKE of certain damaging developments as 'hatred'... :rolleyes2:
Sure! comparing minarets with missiles is only about dislike, right!
We don't want mosques everywhere, the Swiss don't want their townscapes marred. It's as simple as that.
Even if the ban went ahead mosques wouldn't be banned.
But! :eek: "WHY don't you want this?!?" the traitors love to squeal. "Perhaps you're a ... RACIST!!!!" :eek::eek::eek:
It's not about liking mosques or churches it's about defending religious freedom and specifically freedom of cult, and not in any place but in a very specific place, in a temple.
We shouldn't even have to tell our political SERVANTS why we don't want something, and certainly don't appreciate our desires to be so interpreted, time after time.
Once again you are failing to understand the concept of democracy. Democracy isn't the "dictatorship of the majority" it involves respecting the constitution.
There are unalienable rights which democracy can't take from its citizens, even if a majority wants it to.
Yeah Kadu, why don't you go on some Muslim board and lecture THEM about your 'values'? :rolleyes2: No... Far more important to turn OUR lands into a mess in the name of abstract 'liberty'?
I'm posting in a European dedicated forum, and all European countries are secular, possess a constitution and/or signed the ECHR. If you like so much to cut back on religious freedom i advice you to move to any theocratic state in the middle East.
Sol Invictus
12-03-2009, 08:29 PM
Once again you are failing to understand the concept of democracy. Democracy isn't the "dictatorship of the majority" it involves respecting the constitution.
There are unalienable rights which democracy can't take from its citizens, even if a majority wants it to.
In a democracy, what the majority wants, the majority gets. If the majority wants to alter or abolish government, or change the constitution, they get it.
End of story.
I'm posting in a European dedicated forum, and all European countries are secular, possess a constitution and/or signed the ECHR. If you like so much to cut back on religious freedom i advice you to move to any theocratic state in the middle East.
http://www.revleft.com
That may be more suitable for you.
Osweo
12-03-2009, 08:37 PM
So the essence of 'democracy' in other words, is the perpetuation and elaboration of structures to ensure that the demos do NOT get what they want?!? And we're supposed to uphold this, even DIE for it, for WHAT, exactly? :confused:
Fuck lawyers, fuck politicians, fuck intellectuals. I want me some actual FOLK-democracy and FOLK-justice.
I'm glad I'm not so educated and subtle as you, Kadu, to be able to stomach what you're selling us. :disapproving
Sol Invictus
12-03-2009, 08:39 PM
I'm glad I'm not so educated and subtle as you, Kadu, to be able to stomach what you're selling us. :disapproving
Yeah I hear it enough from the television, I don't need to see it here.. :rolleyes:
In a democracy, what the majority wants, the majority gets. If the majority wants to alter or abolish government, or change the constitution, they get it.
End of story.
You are confusing tyranny of the majority with democracy. As i said previously you cannot violate the individuals rights, it's a safeguard to all citizens. It assures the sacred principles of freedom and equality in any democracy.
Sol Invictus
12-03-2009, 08:48 PM
You are confusing tyranny of the majority with democracy. As i said previously you cannot violate the individuals rights, it's a safeguard to all citizens. It assures the sacred principles of freedom and equality in any democracy.
Democracy is the will of the majority OVER minority.
Call it tyranny or whatever, this is our birthright denied, replaced with ACTUAL
Tyranny.
Psychonaut
12-03-2009, 08:54 PM
I'm sorry but when you sign a contract it is expected that you follow it.
Do you actually believe that a contract a nation enters into trumps its sovereignty?
Do you actually believe that a contract a nation enters into trumps its sovereignty?
It's not an international demand it is also in their constitution.
Psychonaut
12-03-2009, 09:00 PM
It's not an international demand it is also in their constitution.
So, what has been discovered is an inconsistency in their Constitution that allows contradictions to manifest. A side will have to be chosen; I only hope it's the side of self-determination, not serfdom.
Allenson
12-03-2009, 09:00 PM
Fuck lawyers, fuck politicians, fuck intellectuals. I want me some actual FOLK-democracy and FOLK-justice.
Absolutely. Custumary law, all the way for me.
Good for the Swiss, I say. :thumbs up
Osweo
12-03-2009, 09:05 PM
Absolutely. Custumary law, all the way for me.
When Vermont gets gay-marriage laws, could you help me with citizenship, Al? I'm getting sick of this EU shite.
;):fdgd::p
So, what has been discovered is an inconsistency in their Constitution that allows contradictions to manifest. A side will have to be chosen; I only hope it's the side of self-determination, not serfdom.
As i said before in the first page, the individuals rights granted in any constitution are inalienable they cannot be curbed in any circumstance to serve the will of the majority.
On AC someone described this very well
An example of the "dictatorship of the majority" is the gang-rape scenario. Imagine a room with a woman and four men. Imagine they have a democratic system. Now they vote on whether the woman should have sex with these four men. All the men vote yes but the woman votes no. If we follow just the line of thought that "majority=right" then the men are justified in raping the woman, which our morals says is not the case. Why? The unalienable right to have sex only with the partner(s) you want to.
When Vermont gets gay-marriage laws, could you help me with citizenship, Al? I'm getting sick of this EU shite.
;):fdgd::p
They already have, you can pack your things.:p
Thulsa Doom
12-03-2009, 09:58 PM
I see those globalists going in for some damage control. They probably making a big mistake doing so. Nothing is going to happened in Switzerland (it never does) and when people notice that, they going to ask themselves what the globalists was yapping about. And then the people will ask themselves why they can´t have it too.
Building minarets has of course nothing to do with human rights, it´s a building and as such it is always up for scrutiny by the community. On the other hand its true that the ban is directed against the muslemans and they should take it as a hint to keep a lower profile.
A good part of the Apricity assemblage, even the commie ones, seems to believe that religion is something personal. That you can do or believe whatever you want. That is a very dangerous approach, since most religions, and Islam in particulate, is very intertwined with the society and the morale. A wider range in religion (multiculturalism) in a certain state inevitably leads to tougher laws and higher inequality.
SwordoftheVistula
12-04-2009, 01:22 AM
I don't see what is 'unconstitutional' about this law, the Swiss Constitution specifically gives them power to make 'spacial planning' laws at the national level:
http://www.admin.ch/ch/e/rs/101/a75.html
Art. 75 Spatial planning
1 The Confederation shall lay down principles on spatial planning. These principles shall be binding on the Cantons and serve to ensure the appropriate and economic use of the land and its properly ordered settlement.
2 The Confederation shall encourage and coordinate the efforts of the Cantons and shall cooperate with them.
3 Confederation and Cantons shall in the fulfilment of their duties take account of the requirements of spatial planning
Rusalka
12-04-2009, 03:55 AM
The condemnation was echoed by Turkey
Expect more from this. Turkey's been promoting itself as a moderate and secular country to be well-liked by the Europeans so as to enter the EU smoothly, but you can't wear a facade forever.
SwordoftheVistula
12-04-2009, 04:21 AM
Expect more from this. Turkey's been promoting itself as a moderate and secular country to be well-liked by the Europeans so as to enter the EU smoothly, but you can't wear a facade forever.
Turkey is split between hardcore muslim fanatics and secularists. Apparently they live segregated like in the old US south; seperate neighborhoods, schools, shopping malls, everything. The military backs the secular side and has replaced governments a number of times in the past, but they are not as powerful as they used to be, and as the country has become more democratic the power of the hardcore crazy muslim fanatics has grown.
LoneWolf
12-04-2009, 04:54 AM
"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what's for dinner. Liberty is a well armed lamb contesting the vote."
-Ben Franklin
I don't see what is 'unconstitutional' about this law, the Swiss Constitution specifically gives them power to make 'spacial planning' laws at the national level:
http://www.admin.ch/ch/e/rs/101/a75.html
Art. 75 Spatial planning
1 The Confederation shall lay down principles on spatial planning. These principles shall be binding on the Cantons and serve to ensure the appropriate and economic use of the land and its properly ordered settlement.
2 The Confederation shall encourage and coordinate the efforts of the Cantons and shall cooperate with them.
3 Confederation and Cantons shall in the fulfilment of their duties take account of the requirements of spatial planning
The problem is that under that law they would have to ban bell towers also.
Monolith
12-04-2009, 08:57 AM
On AC someone described this very well
:yawn: What a straw-man. Switzerland isn' their home country. Why would they be entitled to their minarets if the Swiss don't want such towers in their country? Why would I be entitled to my bell tower in Iran, if the Iranians themselves don't want it in their country? Switzerland isn't everyone's country, it is the country of the Swiss, and it is up to them whether they will tolerate something in their own country or not. Period.
Treffie
12-04-2009, 09:11 AM
:yawn: What a straw-man. Switzerland isn' their home country. Why would they be entitled to their minarets if the Swiss don't want such towers in their country?
Did the people vote against the minarets or were they voting against religious freedom? If it's an aesthetic reason I don't have a problem with it, but if it's against religious freedom, then this sets a precedent.
Why would I be entitled to my bell tower in Iran, if the Iranians themselves don't want it in their country? Switzerland isn't everyone's country, it is the country of the Swiss, and it is up to them whether they will tolerate something in their own country or not. Period.
Switzerland is a democracy, Iran is a theocracy, the answer's simple. Indonesia is a Muslim republic but it allows the building of churches and freedom of religious practice.
:yawn: What a straw-man. Switzerland isn' their home country. Why would they be entitled to their minarets if the Swiss don't want such towers in their country? Why would I be entitled to my bell tower in Iran, if the Iranians themselves don't want it in their country? Switzerland isn't everyone's country, it is the country of the Swiss, and it is up to them whether they will tolerate something in their own country or not. Period.
What about Swiss Muslins? If these are Swiss citizens their rights must be respected otherwise they shouldn't have been granted citizenship in the first place.
The Lawspeaker
12-04-2009, 10:58 AM
What about Swiss Muslins? If these are Swiss citizens their rights must be respected otherwise they shouldn't have been granted citizenship in the first place.
Swiss Muslims. Oxymoron.
Swiss Muslims. Oxymoron.
Yes, those who are Swiss citizens and also Muslins.
The Lawspeaker
12-04-2009, 11:05 AM
Yes, those who are Swiss citizens and also Muslins.
Wrong. You also have Dutch Muslims who became Dutch citizens under false pretenses. Doesn't make them Dutch either.
The "Swiss" Muslims are just as Swiss as Nasi Goreng is Swedish.
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3049/2669082384_98df091170_o.jpg
She is Swiss. By right of birth.
http://www.thememriblog.org/image/12095.JPG
He is not. He is an usurper.
Monolith
12-04-2009, 11:08 AM
Did the people vote against the minarets or were they voting against religious freedom? If it's an aesthetic reason I don't have a problem with it, but if it's against religious freedom, then this sets a precedent.
Frankly, I don't know and I don't really care whether the Swiss voted against a piece of architecture they don't like, against Islam as a religion, or perhaps against both. It's their house and they make the rules.
Switzerland is a democracy, Iran is a theocracy, the answer's simple.
Exactly.
Indonesia is a Muslim republic but it allows the building of churches and freedom of religious practice.
Good for Indonesia, then.
What about Swiss Muslins? If these are Swiss citizens their rights must be respected otherwise they shouldn't have been granted citizenship in the first place.
I didn't know Muslims now constitute a separate ethnicity, and I wasn't talking about the current political system anyway, where almost every day people whine about their rights being violated for one reason or another. For all I care, this religion of human rights can be tossed into the trash bin.
Treffie
12-04-2009, 11:13 AM
Wrong. You also have Dutch Muslims who became Dutch citizens under false pretenses.
Who should we be blaming, the Muslims or the Dutch Govt for allowing them to come into the country in the first place?
Doesn't make them Dutch either
They're still Dutch citizens and are allowed the same rights as the native Dutch
The "Swiss" Muslims are just as Swiss as Nasi Goreng is Swedish.
Thanks for the supper idea :p
Wrong. You also have Dutch Muslims who became Dutch citizens under false pretenses. Doesn't make them Dutch either.
The "Swiss" Muslims are just as Swiss as Nasi Goreng is Swedish.
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3049/2669082384_98df091170_o.jpg
She is Swiss. By right of birth.
http://www.thememriblog.org/image/12095.JPG
He is not. He is an usurper.
They are equal by the law. If you don't want it don't grant them citizenship. Easy as this.
I didn't know Muslims now constitute a separate ethnicity, and I wasn't talking about the current political system anyway, where almost every day people whine about their rights being violated for one reason or another. For all I care, this religion of human rights can be tossed into the trash bin.
I never said they were an ethnicity, i said Swiss Muslins, as i could have said Swiss Catholics or Swiss Agnostics.
The Lawspeaker
12-04-2009, 11:18 AM
Who should we be blaming, the Muslims or the Dutch Govt for allowing them to come into the country in the first place?
Both. The government should be investigated for treason and the Muslims stripped of any rights and deported.
They're still Dutch citizens and are allowed the same rights as the native Dutch
They shouldn't be. Only native Dutch and those married to native Dutch should get the rights of citizens.
Thanks for the supper idea :p
Selamat menjamu selera! (and no that's not Swedish but it means something like "Bon appetit".
The Lawspeaker
12-04-2009, 11:19 AM
They are equal by the law. If you don't want it don't grant them citizenship. Easy as this.
They shouldn't be equal by law. Even a European who has been living on some other countries' soil for years shouldn't start making any demands.
Treffie
12-04-2009, 11:22 AM
Frankly, I don't know and I don't really care whether the Swiss voted against a piece of architecture they don't like, against Islam as a religion, or perhaps against both. It's their house and they make the rules.
Naturally. I don't have any bias towards or against their decision and I don't want the Swiss to be influenced by a larger body to change it. My concern is the bigger picture of people's rights in Europe. Will this become an excuse for other parts of Europe to start taking away the freedoms of other groups, such as Jews etc?
They shouldn't be equal by law. Even a European who has been living on some other countries soil for years shouldn't start making any demands.
That's another matter which is open to discussion, but the fact that they are currently equal by law is not, it's a fact that they are.
Treffie
12-04-2009, 11:25 AM
Both. The government should be investigated for treason and the Muslims stripped of any rights and deported.
All of them? Why? How about the 2nd and 3rd generations, where will we send them and most importantly, who will take them?
Both. The government should be investigated for treason and the Muslims stripped of any rights and deported.
Well you can't impose a retroactive measure, but you can close your borders to immigrants.
The Lawspeaker
12-04-2009, 11:31 AM
Well you can't impose a retroactive measure, but you can close your borders to immigrants.
Nope. It should be a retroactive measure too because otherwise our problems won't be solved.
All of them? Why? How about the 2nd and 3rd generations, where will we send them and most importantly, who will take them?
I don't care. Their ancestral homelands and if they don't accept them we will just have to kick out of the plane on the tarmac.
And a lot of those people hold dual passports by the way. As for instance one cannot loose the Moroccan nationality.
If only one parent is Moroccan so is his/her offspring.
Nope. It should be a retroactive measure too because otherwise our problems won't be solved.
I'm not talking to a five years old kid i'm talking to a grown up Man, as Arawn mentioned you have immigrants living there for years and also second and third generations, you simply can't impose a retroactive measure, especially to people who are citizens by jus solis and jus sanguinis.
The Lawspeaker
12-04-2009, 11:37 AM
I'm not talking to a five years old kid i'm talking to a grown up Man, as Arawn mentioned you have immigrants living there for years and also second and third generations, you simply can't impose a retroactive measure, especially to people who are citizens by jus sanguinis.
If we keep them here the problem will not be solved. They are not Dutch or European and let us not pretend that they are.
They aren't. And they aren't citizens by blood as they don't have Dutch blood.
If we keep them here the problem will not be solved. They are not Dutch or European and let us not pretend that they are.
They aren't. And they aren't citizens by blood as they don't have Dutch blood.
I added jus solis, i'm sorry, but even just taking in account jus sanguinis what about a half Dutch half Moroccan?
The Lawspeaker
12-04-2009, 11:39 AM
I added jus solis, i'm sorry, but even just taking in account jus sanguinis what about a half Dutch half Moroccan?
It would depend on several factors: what is the religion of the parents ? Are they married by law ? Is his father or mother native Dutch ?
He should be considered a Moroccan as he holds two passports. And one cannot serve two lords.
If he feels Dutch then perhaps something can be done for him/her by sending him to Morocco in the service of a Dutch organization or company in order to serve Dutch interests. But he won't be Dutch.
Then he should be considered a Moroccan as he holds two passports. And one cannot serve two lords.
But if this person was born, raised, works, pays taxes and lives in Holland why the heck should this person should live in Morocco?
The Lawspeaker
12-04-2009, 11:43 AM
But if this person was born, raised, works, pays taxes and lives in Holland why the heck should this person should live in Morocco?
He holds two passports. One of which belongs to a de-facto hostile nation.
A part of his ancestry lies there as well. The answer is pretty simple.
Treffie
12-04-2009, 11:46 AM
I don't care. Their ancestral homelands
So what about the ones who are Muslim and have partial European ancestry? How would `ancestral homeland` be defined in this case?
and if they don't accept them we will just have to kick out of the plane on the tarmac.
Wow, that'll have to be one big plane.
He holds two passports. One of which belongs to a de-facto hostile nation.
De-facto hostile?LOL
I was wrong, you are indeed a five years old.
A part of his ancestry lies there as well. The answer is pretty simple.
And the other half in Holland where he was born and raised.
The Lawspeaker
12-04-2009, 11:48 AM
So what about the ones who are Muslim and have partial European ancestry? How would `ancestral homeland` be defined in this case?
Their ancestry is only partial but the non-European ancestry and the Islamic religion would do them a disservice and they will be deported.
Wow, that'll have to be one big plane.
Yes. And it wouldn't be one flight but a lot of them. And they should be packed on ships, buses, army trucks and trains too (and ferried across from Spain).
De-facto hostile?LOL
I was wrong, you are indeed a five years old.
You are an idiot. Morroco is actively spying here. Last year a "Rotterdam police officer" of Morrocan descent was arrested for espionage and Dutch intelligence noted that Morrocan and Turkish espionage is pretty frequent here. Espionage is a hostile act and in the good old days it led to a declaration of war.
Also mosques are funded by the government of Morocco and the Moroccan authorities still determine the way of life of the Moroccans here in the Netherlands. Even the name of their children.
And the other half in Holland where he was born and raised.
It's the Moroccan part that counts.
Treffie
12-04-2009, 11:50 AM
Yes. And it wouldn't be one flight but a lot of them. And they should be packed on ships, buses, army trucks and trains too .
And I thought you hated the Nazis?
The Lawspeaker
12-04-2009, 11:53 AM
And I thought you hated the Nazis?
Yes. Because they attacked other countries who had nothing to do with what was going on in Germany and murdered people. We should not be murdering them but deporting them.
It's the Moroccan part that counts.
Oh really?! And why?
You are an idiot. Morroco is actively spying here. Last year a "Rotterdam police officer" of Morrocan descent was arrested for espionage and Dutch intelligence noted that Morrocan and Turkish espionage is pretty frequent here. Espionage is a hostile act and in the good old days it led to a declaration of war.
You're paranoid, grow up. But i'll bring info later about that
The Lawspeaker
12-04-2009, 11:56 AM
For Kadu:
Moroccan espionage affair escalates (http://static.rnw.nl/migratie/www.radionetherlands.nl/currentaffairs/region/netherlands/080918-Moroccan-espionage-redirected)
http://static.rnw.nl/migratie/www.radionetherlands.nl/images/assets/15319725
Mr Lemhaouli (left) with Princess Máxima (NOS tv screenshot)
Rabat recalled two of its diplomats after the Dutch Foreign Ministry protested against reported attempts by the Moroccan secret service to recruit spies in the Netherlands. The ministry described the alleged espionage as "a dirty business". The diplomats were recalled several months ago, but the incident was not made known until this week when reports of the incident surfaced in the media.
Earlier this week, the Dutch current affairs programme NOVA reported that former police sergeant Ré Lemhaouli passed on confidential police information to the Moroccan secret service. A number of Dutch citizens of Moroccan origin later told the media that the Moroccan secret service had attempted to recruit them. The Dutch parliament will hold an emergency debate on the issue next week.
The sergeant was dismissed from the police force this summer for serious dereliction of duty following an internal investigation. After the news of the alleged spying appeared in the media, the Justice Ministry announced that it would not prosecute the police officer because there was insufficient evidence.
Political pressure
Two days later the Justice Ministry said it had changed its mind because of the publicity in the media and political pressure from The Hague. The Dutch National Department of Criminal Investigation will investigate reports that Mr Lemhaouli passed on confidential police information. And today the cabinet said Mr Lemhaouli could lose his Dutch citizenship.
Mr Lemhaouli, who continued to work at a project for disadvantaged youths at Rotterdam Airport following his dismissal from the police force, has now been sent on leave. His colleagues praised his work with school drop-outs and described him as a committed and inspiring leader.
He set up a project which has helped scores of disadvantaged youths obtain a diploma. His initiative was adopted by Princess Maxima and was named Project Maxima. In February the princess attended a ceremony at which 57 youths received a diploma. Mr Lemhaouli was photographed sitting between Princess Maxima and Christian Union Youth and Family Minister André Rouvoet.
Extremely discriminatory
The "espionage affair" has further heightened tensions in the Netherlands, where populist leaders and media are using language which is often extremely discriminatory. In parliament on Wednesday, Freedom Party leader Geert Wilders made a flaming attack against Moroccans and Mr Lemhaouli.
He said "Moroccans are colonising the Netherlands" and did not come to integrate "but to dominate and rule." De Telegraaf's report on Wilders' speech received nearly 1,500 reactions, the overwhelming majority of them in agreement with the populist leader. Mr Wilders also demanded that the former police sergeant be deported from the country.
On Thursday Prime Minister Jan Peter Balkenende berated the populist leader for blaming Moroccans for the Netherlands' problems, saying:"You shouldn't drive one group into a corner. Our strength does not come from propagating division."
That's why. And the majority of all crimes is being committed by those people (along with other non-Dutch groups).
Treffie
12-04-2009, 11:59 AM
Yes. Because they attacked other countries who had nothing to do with what was going on in Germany and murdered people. We should not be murdering them but deporting them.
What you're suggesting below is what defines what the Nazis did to the Jews (the generally held view, I'm not a fan of revisionism). Don't you think that you're guilty of double standards here?
And it wouldn't be one flight but a lot of them. And they should be packed on ships, buses, army trucks and trains too
The Lawspeaker
12-04-2009, 12:03 PM
Amsterdam mayor wants to drop Moroccan name list (http://www.expatica.com/nl/news/local_news/Amsterdam-mayor-wants-to-drop-Moroccan-name-list_51513.html)
Following a move by Rotterdam, the mayor of Amsterdam is calling for the removal of official Moroccan Arab name list from the city hall.
AMSTERDAM – Amsterdam Mayor Job Cohen has proposed to scrap a Moroccan government approved list of first names which is showed to Dutch-Moroccan registering their new-born children with the city.
Morocco has a list of approved names for its nationals and parents registering their children have to choose from the list or risk running into problems when they apply for Moroccan nationality.
Other problems that the Dutch-Moroccan may run into may include travel land inheritance problems in Morocco.
Currently, people from the Dutch-Moroccan community registering children with Amsterdam Council have been shown the list.
Following complains from parents of Moroccan nationality that Dutch council officials are making them register their children with Moroccan government approved names, Rotterdam has decided to scrap the practice of showing parents the list.
In March, Rotterdam mayor Ahmed Aboutaleb said he will set fire to any list of official Moroccan names he comes across in the city’s town hall.
The Amsterdam mayor is proposing that Dutch-Moroccans registering their children’s births should be redirected to the Moroccan consulate's website where the list is displayed. Parents can decide if they wish to consult it.
Cohen's proposal has yet to be approved by Amsterdam City Council.
MPs from the two senior members of the governing coalition, the Christian Democrats (CDA) and Labour (PvdA), have also recently called for Dutch-Moroccans to choose whatever names they please.
Was there anything else?
And no. I am against murdering them- and if the Nazi's would just have been deporting their Jews the holocaust would never have happened.
But they attacked most of Europe and dragged the Jews to the Auschwitz gas chambers.
For Kadu:[INDENT]Moroccan espionage affair escalates (http://static.rnw.nl/migratie/www.radionetherlands.nl/currentaffairs/region/netherlands/080918-Moroccan-espionage-redirected)
I was just informed that yes, the Moroccan government has many and strong intelligence cells all over Europe, especially in Spain. But its function is to keep subversive individuals who conspire against the Moroccan government under control and not to spy on the Dutch government.
The Lawspeaker
12-04-2009, 12:19 PM
I was just informed that yes, the Moroccan government has many and strong intelligence cells all over Europe, especially in Spain. But its function is to keep subversive individuals who conspire against the Moroccan government under control and not to spy on the Dutch government.
Yes right.
Liffrea
12-04-2009, 01:04 PM
Originally Posted by Arawn
Switzerland is a democracy
People confuse democracy with voting, representatives, government policy etc.
None of that equals democracy.
Democracy is simply the will of the people made sovereign; if it isn’t that then it’s just another way for a political elite to impose themselves on the people.
Government isn’t arbitrator in a democracy it is solely executioner, it has no say, no rights, no choice, it is simply the tool by which the people enact their will.
Switzerland comes closest than most states I know to a democracy but we are all starting to see just how fragile the will of the people made sovereign is in Switzerland. Government forgets it’s place, let’s hope the Swiss have the courage to remind them.
Democracy is simply the will of the people made sovereign; if it isn’t that then it’s just another way for a political elite to impose themselves on the people.
And the safeguard of the individual rights granted in the constitution.
Treffie
12-04-2009, 01:42 PM
People confuse democracy with voting, representatives, government policy etc.
None of that equals democracy.
Democracy is simply the will of the people made sovereign; if it isn’t that then it’s just another way for a political elite to impose themselves on the people.
Government isn’t arbitrator in a democracy it is solely executioner, it has no say, no rights, no choice, it is simply the tool by which the people enact their will.
Switzerland comes closest than most states I know to a democracy but we are all starting to see just how fragile the will of the people made sovereign is in Switzerland. Government forgets it’s place, let’s hope the Swiss have the courage to remind them.
Posted by Kadu
And the safeguard of the individual rights granted in the constitution
Wiki is handy for these kind of things :p
Even though there is no specific, universally accepted definition of 'democracy', there are two principles that any definition of democracy includes, equality and freedom. These principles are reflected by all citizens being equal before the law, and having equal access to power. A third common principle, though less measurable, is that all citizens are promised certain legitimized freedoms and liberties, which are generally protected by a constitution
Liffrea
12-04-2009, 01:54 PM
Originally Posted by Kadu
And the safeguard of the individual rights granted in the constitution.
Constitution? Democracy is simply the sovereign will of the people, how you care to implement that or justify it legally is irrelevant to the point.
The rights of the individual are enshrined in the words “sovereign” and “will” the will of the individual to actively participate within the governance of the society he lives within not to delegate or abdicate responsibility to any other man or institution, a “representative democracy” as such is a contradiction in terms.
It’s the very fact that the sovereign will of the people is ignored by institutions and “representatives” that forms the basis of my point. If that will had been adhered to then I very much doubt we would be discussing minarets in Switzerland because there wouldn’t be a Muslim population of any significance to speak of…….
Yet the case is now different, which leads me back to the point I made several pages up, the Swiss have now given a reasonable example of the sovereign will of the people in action, that has alienated a Muslim population that the Swiss were never consulted on the residence there of in their country to begin with.
You see the problem I’m sure, so no doubt I think you will see why European political elites (whose record of “democratic” rule is poor to start with) have a vested interest in ensuring the sovereign will of the people is never given expression, they will lose their jobs for a start and their societies will either fragment (legally rather than de facto as they now are) or there will be err “social unrest” I believe is the politically correct euphemism for riot, anarchy, racial conflict etc.
No easy answer presents itself but, personally I believe that if we want democracy then we are getting to the point where the legal fragmentation of states will have to be considered, the alternative is the enforced policy of multiracialism (part of a much larger social engineering project) which will only lead to the further removal of popular involvement in governance and the solidification of a political aristocracy.
The other option, which I’m sure nobody wants, is bloodshed.
Treffie
12-04-2009, 01:58 PM
Constitution? Democracy is simply the sovereign will of the people, how you care to implement that or justify it legally is irrelevant to the point.
The rights of the individual are enshrined in the words “sovereign” and “will” the will of the individual to actively participate within the governance of the society he lives within not to delegate or abdicate responsibility to any other man or institution, a “representative democracy” as such is a contradiction in terms.
It’s the very fact that the sovereign will of the people is ignored by institutions and “representatives” that forms the basis of my point. If that will had been adhered to then I very much doubt we would be discussing minarets in Switzerland because there wouldn’t be a Muslim population of any significance to speak of…….
Yet the case is now different, which leads me back to the point I made several pages up, the Swiss have now given a reasonable example of the sovereign will of the people in action, that has alienated a Muslim population that the Swiss were never consulted on the residence there of in their country to begin with.
You see the problem I’m sure, so no doubt I think you will see why European political elites (whose record of “democratic” rule is poor to start with) have a vested interest in ensuring the sovereign will of the people is never given expression, they will lose their jobs for a start and their societies will either fragment (legally rather than de facto as they now are) or there will be err “social unrest” I believe is the politically correct euphemism for riot, anarchy, racial conflict etc.
No easy answer presents itself but, personally I believe that if we want democracy then we are getting to the point where the legal fragmentation of states will have to be considered, the alternative is the enforced policy of multiracialism (part of a much larger social engineering project) which will only lead to the further removal of popular involvement in governance and the solidification of a political aristocracy.
The other option, which I’m sure nobody wants, is bloodshed.
So how about equality and freedom?
Liffrea
12-04-2009, 01:59 PM
A third common principle, though less measurable, is that all citizens are promised certain legitimized freedoms and liberties, which are generally protected by a constitution
The only freedom of relevance in a democracy is the freedom of participation in governance, the freedom to be homosexual, Muslim, wear a baseball cap, look like Saddam Hussain etc are not definitions of democracy….
Originally Posted by Arawn
So how about equality and freedom?
As above the only equality and freedom relevant to democracy is participation in governance, many Islamic states allow certain levels of religious freedom, none of them are keen on popular participation in governance.
As I wrote above people confuse words like liberty, equality, democracy, representation, voting……
Liffrea
12-04-2009, 02:12 PM
You see it works like this we could have an “enlightened” dictator or a political aristocracy that allows a man to be a homosexual or Muslim or dress in his wife’s underwear but it wouldn’t be a democracy if that man hadn’t the ability to participate in the governance of his society.
Hrolf Kraki
12-04-2009, 04:12 PM
When the majority always get the say, then often the minority is left to suffer from the decisions of the majority so I believe that's a bit unfair. However, what these people aren't realizing is that in this case it's not the minority's country. The Swiss should be allowed to keep their country as they like it. If the Swiss don't want foreign minarets, then that's that. A foreign minority certainly shouldn't have any say in what the majority does. It's as if a group of pagans and I immigrated to Saudi Arabia and demanded that we be allowed to erect a temple to honor Odin and to drink ale out of giant horns every Wednesday, etc. The government would laugh in our faces, and that's their right because it's their country. It was their forefathers who worked to build the nation, not mine. Muslims think that there are two worlds: the Islamic world where they come from, which has its own customs and then there's our world, the free world in which they can apparently choose to move to at their whim. Because in the free world, our cultural values are of no importance. :rolleyes:
It was our forefathers that made Europe such a great place, and now look who's enjoying it. What would our ancestors say? "We bled for these lands so that our children could enjoy the things we hold dearest, and now they give up those things that we so cherished to appease the same people we had to fight against for centuries!"
Monolith
12-04-2009, 05:14 PM
So what about the ones who are Muslim and have partial European ancestry? How would `ancestral homeland` be defined in this case?
Good question. Care to provide an answer?
Treffie
12-04-2009, 05:15 PM
Good question. Care to provide an answer?
Sure, it can't be defined ;)
But I'm not the one advocating for them all to be sent back :)
Electronic God-Man
12-04-2009, 05:21 PM
There are some Muslims in Switzerland with citizenship, however the majority are not citizens.
Certainly they can at least ask the non-citizen Muslims to leave, if the Swiss so choose.
Loddfafner
12-04-2009, 08:09 PM
Frankly, I don't know and I don't really care whether the Swiss voted against a piece of architecture they don't like, against Islam as a religion, or perhaps against both. It's their house and they make the rules.
I like this spin: that it was a vote against a kind of architecture. Since people have to live around the buildings that architects design, maybe voters should have greater say. Maybe there should be a referendum against concrete block apartment complexes.
Monolith
12-04-2009, 09:31 PM
I like this spin: that it was a vote against a kind of architecture. Since people have to live around the buildings that architects design, maybe voters should have greater say. Maybe there should be a referendum against concrete block apartment complexes.
Well, I was being sarcastic, but sure, why not? :D Damn modern architecture! :shakefist
SwordoftheVistula
12-05-2009, 01:11 AM
The problem is that under that law they would have to ban bell towers also.
That doesn't make sense at all. I don't see how you derive "must enact this specific regulation" from "has the power to enact laws in this field"
Switzerland is a democracy, Iran is a theocracy, the answer's simple.
Iran is as much of a democracy as the UK. Neither is a direct democracy with national referendums like Switzerland, but they both elect their leaders in democractic elections ('representative democracy').
That doesn't make sense at all. I don't see how you derive "must enact this specific regulation" from "has the power to enact laws in this field"
So on what ground would you ban minarets then?
Iran is as much of a democracy as the UK. Neither is a direct democracy with national referendums like Switzerland, but they both elect their leaders in democractic elections ('representative democracy').
Replace Iran by Saudi Arabia then.
Hrolf Kraki
12-05-2009, 02:25 AM
Frankly, I don't know and I don't really care whether the Swiss voted against a piece of architecture they don't like, against Islam as a religion, or perhaps against both. It's their house and they make the rules.
I don't understand why that's so hard a concept to grasp. You immigrated INTO a country? You RESPECT the laws and culture of the people living there. It's their country and they're not about to change 1000+ years of culture to suit your every whim.
They feel that something is an intrusion on their culture? You RESPECT their feelings.
No one wants to respect the feelings of anyone except Muslims. I see female news resporters doing broadcasts in Iran and guess what? They're wearing head coverings. I'd like to see them refuse and explain that it's against their culture to wear one! The Iranians would freak out because it's not about respecting the culture of the land, it's about respecting Muslims. :speechless-smiley-0
Rusalka
12-05-2009, 04:37 AM
Okay, a tad off-topic but still...
Iran is as much of a democracy as the UK. Neither is a direct democracy with national referendums like Switzerland, but they both elect their leaders in democractic elections ('representative democracy').
If you slice it very thin, what they have in Iran are not elections but a selection, since the candidates have to be approved first by the Council of Guardians. In the end, whoever gets chosen is but Khamenei's figurehead.
Yes, I know that what we have in the West is a currupt system where only those with the best contacts gets some of the power. No need to clarify that our system is no better.
On the veil in Iran: the veil precedes Islam and was the custom in Persia that upper-class women and female members of the nobility would cover their heads. So it is someow a cultural thing, even if nowadays those ghastly women clad in black will prod you endlessly about being a good Muslim and cover yourself up.
More on topic, I wonder if right-wing parties in Switzerland feel this is a victory. If people want nothing to do with Islam is in part because of its perceived backwardness, not because they're suddenly feeling like reconnecting with their Christian and conservative heritage. Much to the conservatives' sorrow, that people are saying no to Islam might be a sign of how liberal they are. That's not good for conservatives.
Treffie
12-05-2009, 06:10 AM
Iran is as much of a democracy as the UK. Neither is a direct democracy with national referendums like Switzerland, but they both elect their leaders in democractic elections ('representative democracy').
The difference being is that the UK and Switzerland are both secular and liberal democracies. Iran is a theocratic state where God is seen as the surpreme ruler.
SwordoftheVistula
12-05-2009, 08:34 PM
So on what ground would you ban minarets then?
The Swiss Constitution grants their federal government the power to regulate land use and spacial planning, so they passed a law which regulates land use and building styles.
The difference being is that the UK and Switzerland are both secular and liberal democracies. Iran is a theocratic state where God is seen as the surpreme ruler.
That's a cultural difference, not one in legal structure. Structurally, the UK is the one of the two which is a theocracy since the Head of State is also the head of the official State Church (King or Queen of England holds both positions), whereas in Iran they are different people.
If you slice it very thin, what they have in Iran are not elections but a selection, since the candidates have to be approved first by the Council of Guardians. In the end, whoever gets chosen is but Khamenei's figurehead.
The Council of Guardians is similar to the Supreme Courts of the US/west. In the US they usually don't bar candidates, but in continental Europe they do, for example Germany has banned a number of parties over the years, and in 2004 Belgium banned it's largest party (Vlaams Blok), all basically on the same grounds that the Iranian Council of Guardians uses "we think your ideology is dangerous to the country"
The Swiss Constitution grants their federal government the power to regulate land use and spacial planning, so they passed a law which regulates land use and building styles.
What about if the minaret is built just like Christian bell towers(it is like that in some places), A minaret morphologically equal to a bell tower.
The Council of Guardians is similar to the Supreme Courts of the US/west. In the US they usually don't bar candidates, but in continental Europe they do, for example Germany has banned a number of parties over the years, and in 2004 Belgium banned it's largest party (Vlaams Blok), all basically on the same grounds that the Iranian Council of Guardians uses "we think your ideology is dangerous to the country"
If those parties present pro-racist and/or pro-totalitarian political views they are most certain to be banned, at least upon the Portuguese constitution.
Monolith
12-05-2009, 09:15 PM
What about if the minaret is built just like Christian bell towers(it is like that in some places), A minaret morphologically equal to a bell tower.
I think you should ask the Swiss.
I think you should ask the Swiss.
My point was that the minaret ban wouldn't make sense following that logic, however it would still open a constitutional precedent since no one cannot be forced to follow a certain style.
SwordoftheVistula
12-07-2009, 02:35 AM
My point was that the minaret ban wouldn't make sense following that logic, however it would still open a constitutional precedent since no one cannot be forced to follow a certain style.
What about if the minaret is built just like Christian bell towers(it is like that in some places), A minaret morphologically equal to a bell tower.
The law just says 'minarets are banned'. According to the English definitions, 'minarets' are 'towers' which are 'attached to mosques'. We can probably expect disguised 'structures' to be built which the local mosque claims is not a 'minaret', the code enforcement people say it is, and they go to court over it.
Also, now that I read the Wikipedia page on it, it was passed as an Amendment to the Federal Constitution and thus is not subject to judicial review, so the earlier discussion as to whether it is 'Constitutional' or not is irrelevent to this particular law:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minaret_controversy_in_Switzerland#Federal_constit utional_amendment_banning_the_construction_of_mina rets
In Switzerland, federal popular initiatives are not subject to judicial review, as they amend the federal constitution (whereas cantonal initiatives can be challenged in court for violating federal law).
The law just says 'minarets are banned'. According to the English definitions, 'minarets' are 'towers' which are 'attached to mosques'. We can probably expect disguised 'structures' to be built which the local mosque claims is not a 'minaret', the code enforcement people say it is, and they go to court over it.
But if such law existed it couldn't demand the ban of its symbolical meaning but just the morphological one and this one of course within a Universal context, which would have to be transversal to all congregations. Therefore if all architectural and urbanistic requirements are met such structure is perfectly allowed to pass.
Also, now that I read the Wikipedia page on it, it was passed as an Amendment to the Federal Constitution and thus is not subject to judicial review, so the earlier discussion as to whether it is 'Constitutional' or not is irrelevent to this particular law:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minaret_controversy_in_Switzerland#Federal_constit utional_amendment_banning_the_construction_of_mina rets
In Switzerland, federal popular initiatives are not subject to judicial review, as they amend the federal constitution (whereas cantonal initiatives can be challenged in court for violating federal law).
It also says in the article number five of the Federal Constitution
of the Swiss Confederation
Art. 5 Rule of law
1 All activities of the state shall be based on and limited by law.
2 State activities must be conducted in the public interest and be proportionate to the
ends sought.
3 State institutions and private persons shall act in good faith.
4 The Confederation and the Cantons shall respect international law.
Source: http://www.admin.ch/ch/e/rs/1/101.en.pdf
SwordoftheVistula
12-11-2009, 07:15 AM
But if such law existed it couldn't demand the ban of its symbolical meaning but just the morphological one and this one of course within a Universal context, which would have to be transversal to all congregations. Therefore if all architectural and urbanistic requirements are met such structure is perfectly allowed to pass.
That's not what it says though. The law says "minarets are banned", and minarets are defined in common usage as 'towers' which are 'attached' to 'mosques'. So it is therefore completely possible for a tower to be classified as a 'minaret' and thus impermissable, whereas a tower which looks the exact same could be attached to a McDonalds and therefore permissable. Same logic applies to say a dress code that forbids "noserings" but permits "earrings". The ring could be the exact same, but it is the placement of it which determines whether it is a 'nosering' or an 'earring'.
It also says in the article number five of the Federal Constitution
of the Swiss Confederation
4 The Confederation and the Cantons shall respect international law.
Aside from that being completely vague and overbroad, it is preempted by this new amendment to the constitution. Unless there is something particuarly weird about the Swiss Constitution, the way all legal systems work is that new laws preempt any prior laws of the same level. Otherwise, there wouldn't be any logic to permitting amendments to the constitution, if they were not allowed to change anything which was written prior.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.3 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.