Page 10 of 10 FirstFirst ... 678910
Results 91 to 99 of 99

Thread: EU, United Nations and Turkey Gang Up on Switzerland Following Minaret Ban

  1. #91
    Member Rusalka's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Last Online
    10-04-2017 @ 05:58 AM
    Meta-Ethnicity
    Something
    Ethnicity
    Something
    Taxonomy
    North-Pontid
    Gender
    Posts
    116
    Thumbs Up
    Received: 0
    Given: 0

    0 Not allowed!

    Default

    Okay, a tad off-topic but still...

    Quote Originally Posted by SwordoftheVistula View Post
    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.
    Last edited by Rusalka; 12-05-2009 at 07:07 AM.

  2. #92
    Banned
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Last Online
    @
    Location
    Somewhere in the North Atlantic
    Meta-Ethnicity
    Celtic
    Ethnicity
    Welsh
    Region
    Pembrokeshire
    Politics
    Huh?
    Gender
    Posts
    7,787
    Blog Entries
    1
    Thumbs Up
    Received: 100
    Given: 0

    0 Not allowed!

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SwordoftheVistula View Post
    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.

  3. #93
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Last Online
    06-18-2012 @ 11:36 AM
    Location
    Wealthiest County in America
    Meta-Ethnicity
    Germanic
    Ethnicity
    German
    Ancestry
    "...ice people, Europeans, colonizers, oppressors, the cold, rigid element in world history."
    Country
    United States
    Region
    Virginia
    Taxonomy
    Nordic
    Politics
    Libertarian
    Religion
    Atheist
    Age
    30
    Gender
    Posts
    5,078
    Thumbs Up
    Received: 40
    Given: 0

    0 Not allowed!

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kadu View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by Arawn View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by Rusalka View Post
    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"

  4. #94
    Senior Member Kadu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Last Online
    11-19-2014 @ 09:30 PM
    Meta-Ethnicity
    Romance
    Ethnicity
    Portuguese
    Ancestry
    Gallaecia
    Country
    Portugal
    Gender
    Posts
    872
    Thumbs Up
    Received: 45
    Given: 4

    0 Not allowed!

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SwordoftheVistula View Post
    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.

  5. #95
    gone Monolith's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Last Online
    12-03-2011 @ 11:29 PM
    Meta-Ethnicity
    human
    Ethnicity
    .
    Religion
    .
    Gender
    Posts
    1,457
    Thumbs Up
    Received: 11
    Given: 0

    0 Not allowed!

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kadu View Post
    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.

  6. #96
    Senior Member Kadu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Last Online
    11-19-2014 @ 09:30 PM
    Meta-Ethnicity
    Romance
    Ethnicity
    Portuguese
    Ancestry
    Gallaecia
    Country
    Portugal
    Gender
    Posts
    872
    Thumbs Up
    Received: 45
    Given: 4

    0 Not allowed!

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Monolith View Post
    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.
    Last edited by Kadu; 12-06-2009 at 01:01 AM. Reason: added cannot instead of is

  7. #97
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Last Online
    06-18-2012 @ 11:36 AM
    Location
    Wealthiest County in America
    Meta-Ethnicity
    Germanic
    Ethnicity
    German
    Ancestry
    "...ice people, Europeans, colonizers, oppressors, the cold, rigid element in world history."
    Country
    United States
    Region
    Virginia
    Taxonomy
    Nordic
    Politics
    Libertarian
    Religion
    Atheist
    Age
    30
    Gender
    Posts
    5,078
    Thumbs Up
    Received: 40
    Given: 0

    0 Not allowed!

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kadu View Post
    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.
    Quote Originally Posted by Kadu View Post
    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...on_of_minarets

    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).

  8. #98
    Senior Member Kadu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Last Online
    11-19-2014 @ 09:30 PM
    Meta-Ethnicity
    Romance
    Ethnicity
    Portuguese
    Ancestry
    Gallaecia
    Country
    Portugal
    Gender
    Posts
    872
    Thumbs Up
    Received: 45
    Given: 4

    0 Not allowed!

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SwordoftheVistula View Post
    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...on_of_minarets

    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

  9. #99
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Last Online
    06-18-2012 @ 11:36 AM
    Location
    Wealthiest County in America
    Meta-Ethnicity
    Germanic
    Ethnicity
    German
    Ancestry
    "...ice people, Europeans, colonizers, oppressors, the cold, rigid element in world history."
    Country
    United States
    Region
    Virginia
    Taxonomy
    Nordic
    Politics
    Libertarian
    Religion
    Atheist
    Age
    30
    Gender
    Posts
    5,078
    Thumbs Up
    Received: 40
    Given: 0

    0 Not allowed!

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kadu View Post
    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'.


    Quote Originally Posted by Kadu View Post
    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.
    Last edited by SwordoftheVistula; 12-11-2009 at 07:38 AM.

Page 10 of 10 FirstFirst ... 678910

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •