Switzerland Minarets Laws

[newuser2k9]

It seems that Switzerland is being criticized because it's a liberal democracy, maybe they can be done with the debates if they simply declare themsleves to be a 'Christian' demrocacy....no different from example than Pakistan's Islamic democracy for example.

Who knows, if the Swiss are really concerned about the impact of Islamic migrants on their country, maybe that's the way it'll go. What then?

If the argument here is that it's okay to trash the Swiss because they are supposed to be a liberal democracy, but not say Saudi or Iran because they are simply not supposed to be democracies, then what happens when European nations stop defining themsleves as liberal democracies and start definining themselves as Christian democracies. If the concerns of Europeans like the Swiss aren't addressed, this is where this thing is heading over time.

The important issue is the fact of Switzerland's neutrality. The Swiss have been neutral for hundreds of years on everything, even when Nazis traipsed through their banks and the like. By passing this law the Swiss are essentially abandoning neutrality.

How is it moral to not stand up to a worldwide genocide but instead moderate Muslims?

Yes, in the past we had restrictions on what women and everyone for that matter could do. Not long ago homosexuals could be jailed. Women were kept in the home or given only limited career paths, and faced strict controls over their reproductive choice. Many of these restrictions were not religion based, others were, but they all were kept in place by a paternalistic morality. But we've worked hard as a society to change. The past is the past, I'm talking about today. Why, why do we want to bring an entire new culture of paternalistic values to Canada? I can fully understand why the Swiss acted as they did.

Let's not forget that is Islamic countries today, not yesterday, but today, homosexuals are executed, anyone who converts away from Islam is executed, women are beaten for showing their arms or legs, girls are prohibited from going to school and are forced into young marriages to old men. Why do we want anything to do this in Canada?

Someone hasn't been to Turkey.

I'm pretty sure that the extent of Sharia Law you're concerned about only exists in Afghanistan. There is misogyny in the Middle East, but hardly to that extent.

 

[Prometheus The Supremo]

Yes, in the past we had restrictions on what women and everyone for that matter could do. Not long ago homosexuals could be jailed. Women were kept in the home or given only limited career paths, and faced strict controls over their reproductive choice. Many of these restrictions were not religion based, others were, but they all were kept in place by a paternalistic morality. But we've worked hard as a society to change. The past is the past, I'm talking about today. Why, why do we want to bring an entire new culture of paternalistic values to Canada? I can fully understand why the Swiss acted as they did.

Let's not forget that is Islamic countries today, not yesterday, but today, homosexuals are executed, anyone who converts away from Islam is executed, women are beaten for showing their arms or legs, girls are prohibited from going to school and are forced into young marriages to old men. Why do we want anything to do this in Canada?

no, they were religious based laws and rules, either motivated by and/or defended by. and we still have some practices, rules & laws left over. and because some are still keen on keeping those but don't want to look like hypocrites or unfair, we get things like john tory who want to fund all religious schools or rotating prayers of different faiths in the legislature. i've even heard that some church hierarchy in england support things like sharia law all in the name of equality. i guess their motivation is that if we accept the B.S of others, they'll accept our B.S too.

and relating to the second half of your post, no i don't want to see anything like that in canada. this is the importance of government making rational based decisions and not faith based ones.

 

[kEiThZ]

The important issue is the fact of Switzerland's neutrality. The Swiss have been neutral for hundreds of years on everything, even when Nazis traipsed through their banks and the like. By passing this law the Swiss are essentially abandoning neutrality.

How is it moral to not stand up to a worldwide genocide but instead moderate Muslims?

This is not about neutrality for the Swiss. Whether right or wrong, the Nazis left the Swiss to their business as long as they were neutral. In this case, the Swiss (from their perspective) are being compelled to accept a culture and take on values they might not accept. Not doing anything in this case is not being neutral. It means taking on more Muslim immigrants and accepting

Moreover, Swiss neutrality has long been based on the premise that their neutrality keep threats away from the border. And part of that tradition has been the heavy emphasis on defending that neutrality. Switzerland is one of the most heavily armed countries in the world for that reason. That defensive attitude probably translates culturally as well. So you can guess what happens when the threat is viewed as having established itself in Switzerland.

Someone hasn't been to Turkey.

I'm pretty sure that the extent of Sharia Law you're concerned about only exists in Afghanistan. There is misogyny in the Middle East, but hardly to that extent.

Let's see what happens when the military stops defending their Kemalist secular vision. And if you think Turkey is that progressive, you haven't been through Anatolia. Try being gay in that part of Turkey.

 

[kEiThZ]

Prometheus,

The point is that most of the West has transitioned through to the post-Christian era (yes, there are exceptions). And by and large, even most practicing Christians accept the division of church and state. And much of this has happened in the very heartland of Christianity.

This is not the case everywhere though. Islamists have long argued that Muslims should live according to Islamic law. And they don't care if those Muslims live in the Middle East or in Canada. Our close brush with Sharia for family law, shows that there's more than a little support in the Islamic community for accepting such laws even when Muslims live outside the Middle East.

To me the idea that criticizing Switzerland is okay because its a 'secular' state, but its not really practical to criticize Saudi Arabia because no change is to be expected is hypocritical and frankly moral cowardice. Isn't it missing the forest for the trees to worry about religious freedoms and focus on a ban on minarets in Switzerland while ignoring the severe repression of freedoms in the rest of the world?

 

[Prometheus The Supremo]

Prometheus,

The point is that most of the West has transitioned through to the post-Christian era (yes, there are exceptions). And by and large, even most practicing Christians accept the division of church and state. And much of this has happened in the very heartland of Christianity.

This is not the case everywhere though. Islamists have long argued that Muslims should live according to Islamic law. And they don't care if those Muslims live in the Middle East or in Canada. Our close brush with Sharia for family law, shows that there's more than a little support in the Islamic community for accepting such laws even when Muslims live outside the Middle East.

To me the idea that criticizing Switzerland is okay because its a 'secular' state, but its not really practical to criticize Saudi Arabia because no change is to be expected is hypocritical and frankly moral cowardice. Isn't it missing the forest for the trees to worry about religious freedoms and focus on a ban on minarets in Switzerland while ignoring the severe repression of freedoms in the rest of the world?

don't forget that the minaret law is the fashionable news piece of today. there's lots of talk about it and criticism because it's the topic of the moment. so it might not be about a double standard. the media could if they wanted to focus on saudi arabia and do an in depth analysis and critique of that nation and its islamic influences but there's a few issues that probably make them reluctant to do so. there's alot of stupid people out there and such a piece could fuel racism. people will develop a hatred for others just because where they're from of perceived to be from and/or for the colour of their skin. remember post 9/11 the hate crimes against people of the same shade of skin or country of origin as those involved? also, with nations that are islamic, i think relations are literally held together by a thread because of the religious difference. having the CBC or any other network paint saudi arabia as the $hit hole it is, regarding personal freedoms, would be bad for relations/diplomacy and it could even be bad for business interests, especially if there is a dependence on them for things like oil. it's also bad for cooperation. with switzerland, we don't really have those issues to deal with. criticism between close relations isn't that destructive, usually. also, there is a great fear to criticize one thing VS. another. nobody wants to end up like theo.

sometimes when someone smells, bringing it up can do more harm than good. our politicians know that and i doubt their public displays of reverence toward some cultures and beliefs represents how they truly feel on the inside. if you have the utmost disrespect for people who have sex with children, how the heck can have reverence for someone who has done the same thing or even reverence for the religion they founded?

 

[newuser2k9]

This is not about neutrality for the Swiss. Whether right or wrong, the Nazis left the Swiss to their business as long as they were neutral. In this case, the Swiss (from their perspective) are being compelled to accept a culture and take on values they might not accept. Not doing anything in this case is not being neutral. It means taking on more Muslim immigrants and accepting

Moreover, Swiss neutrality has long been based on the premise that their neutrality keep threats away from the border. And part of that tradition has been the heavy emphasis on defending that neutrality. Switzerland is one of the most heavily armed countries in the world for that reason. That defensive attitude probably translates culturally as well. So you can guess what happens when the threat is viewed as having established itself in Switzerland.

Immigration is part of foreign policy. Integration and rights of immigrants is also of interest to those nations.

Your justifications seem to implicate the Middle East's policies in the reasoning for the referendum. If that is the case, they are voiding their neutrality.

Also, the Nazis could have invaded Switzerland if it was aligned with the French and English. The Alps are an advantage, but the Blitz strategy was so new I could foresee Switzerland falling very quickly.

Let's see what happens when the military stops defending their Kemalist secular vision. And if you think Turkey is that progressive, you haven't been through Anatolia. Try being gay in that part of Turkey.

That's like saying Israel is not progressive in Jerusalem. It might be true, but it is not reflective of the national policy and belief system of the majority.

 

[urbanboom]

Prometheus,

The point is that most of the West has transitioned through to the post-Christian era (yes, there are exceptions). And by and large, even most practicing Christians accept the division of church and state. And much of this has happened in the very heartland of Christianity.

This is not the case everywhere though. Islamists have long argued that Muslims should live according to Islamic law. And they don't care if those Muslims live in the Middle East or in Canada. Our close brush with Sharia for family law, shows that there's more than a little support in the Islamic community for accepting such laws even when Muslims live outside the Middle East.

One of the greatest differences between Islam and Christianity is that Muhammad never said this:

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+22:15-22&version=KJV

 

[Tewder]

It would be one thing if this was a local zoning matter so that minarets do not look out of place and disrupt the view. It's another that the supporters of the vote were digging into the lowers parts of people. The vote wasn't about guaranteeing the rights of Muslim women from abusive men and it wasn't about curbing religious extremism. It's about suppressing the freedom of worship of a group which is lawfully there.

This is hyperbole. In no way can a ban on an architectural feature, one that is essentially a stylized tower and nothing else, be construed as a ban on worshipping Islam. 'Islam' is being asked to adopt to a Swiss context here and why shouldn't it be? The Swiss presumably do not 'need' Muslim immigrants. They have opened their doors to immigrants but do not feel they want or need to change their culture or traditions to do so. This is the choice of the Swiss. They could just as easily shut the door to immigration but why does it have to be one extreme or the other? This is simply not an issue of basic human rights no matter how zealously some here would like to paint it as such. No infringement of the right to worship is being imposed. Muslims can come to Switzerland and be Muslim, without minarets. Their choice. Muslims can come to France and be Muslim, without veils in school. Their choice. It is silly to portray this as persecution when it is simply about a country finding a way to preserve its culture and values while allowing room for newcomers at the same time. It is the newcomers who are being required to make accommodations and not the other way around which when you think of it does make sense.

And what about Muslims who were born and lived in Switzerland all their life? Are they second-class citizens who now have to like it or leave it?

Only if in this instance they feel minarets are more important than the Swiss cultural landscape, then yes, in which case perhaps those citizens in question should then opt to migrate to a place that values minarets above all other things? Look, we all make these kinds of choices and compromises all the time in a modern pluralist society. A gay person might represent the devil incarnate to a religious person but the religious person has to accommodate tolerance by not discriminating against others. The right to their belief is not being infringed upon but the right to act on it is. Honestly if one cannot make reasonable concessions to one's practices when considering a new homeland then why would you want to consider the new homeland in question in the first place?

Finally, freedom does not mean freedom to take away someone else's lawful rights. There are no pure democracies in the world, and constitutions exist largely to ensure that the majority cannot democratically choose to take away the basic rights of a minority. These rights are non-negotiable in a civilised society.

Architectural details do not constitute basic rights, and certainly not as defined by the Swiss in particular. There is no infringement here. There is no issue.

Switzerland is not a "new" country like Canada, the US or Australia are. But banning a religious structure of one religion but not another is not according to the liberal values of a western country. As I stated above, there are certain rights which are non-negotiatiable, democracy or no democracy.

Again, this policy is pro-Swiss culture and not anti-Muslim. I don't imagine the Swiss are only 'picking on' traditional Muslim architecture. They probably wouldn't be allowing the architectural styles of buddhist or shinto temples either for that matter. In a small and old country like Switzerland the whole place is sort of a protected heritage zone, so to speak, and these interests trump architectural freedom in this context. It's not as persecutory as you think.

First, this is deflecting the issue at hand. Second, the vast majority of migrants move because the job prospects in their country is too low, or wages are too low, or they need money to support a family. Relatively few people move because their rights are violated in their home country. And third, improved conditions in a given country will expose the rest of the world to *more* of that country's values, not less. Chinese culture and values is now *more* widespread throughout the world since China emerged as a great power, not less.

I'm not deflecting from the issue, I'm trying to show a little perspective. The Swiss decision is a tempest in a teapot pure and simple, compared with the true travesties of justice that occur around the world. Not every democracy is going to embrace the sort of free-for-all Multiculturalism that Canada does and nor many advocate they do, but this doesn't mean those places are intolerant or xenophobic. It simply means they value their culture and traditions to a degree that they are asking newcomers of 'outside' cultural traditions to adapt. Seems reasonable if you ask me.

 

[Roy G Biv]

Not every democracy is going to embrace the sort of free-for-all Multiculturalism that Canada does and nor many advocate they do, but this doesn't mean those places are intolerant or xenophobic. It simply means they value their culture and traditions to a degree that they are asking newcomers of 'outside' cultural traditions to adapt. Seems reasonable if you ask me.

= a drawn out euphemism for xenophobia

 

[urbanfan89]

This is hyperbole. In no way can a ban on an architectural feature, one that is essentially a stylized tower and nothing else, be construed as a ban on worshipping Islam.

It is the newcomers who are being required to make accommodations and not the other way around which when you think of it does make sense.

The supporters of the vote did not campaign on the grounds that minarets spoil the view of the picturesque Swiss Alps. They didn't even present it as a local zoning issue. Instead their poster was this:

http://images.google.ca/images?rlz=...inaret poster&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&hl=en&tab=wi

You can see the red and white Swiss Flag with the black minarets sticking out of it like missiles, with a scary-looking woman wearing a burka and the large, black word STOP. It doesn't take a marketing expert to figure out they were digging into the lowest part of people.

Also, what accommodation is being made? No one is losing any rights by having a minaret in the skyline (and no, a minaret is not a symbol of religious domination despite what they tell you), and if it looks ugly it should be resolved through the local planning process.

A gay person might represent the devil incarnate to a religious person but the religious person has to accommodate tolerance by not discriminating against others. The right to their belief is not being infringed upon but the right to act on it is.

A gay person has the right to be gay in a liberal society, and a religious fundamentalist should just accept it. But is it acceptable if a small town in rural Alabama voted to ban gay bars or hanging the rainbow flag? After all, the right of the gays to their lifestyle is not being infringed, but the right to act on it is (but here you implicitly admit that a right is being infringed, which by definition is not just). Local communities do have to protect their heritage, but this specific vote is not a question about protecting the Swiss architecture. See above, and see below.

Again, this policy is pro-Swiss culture and not anti-Muslim. I don't imagine the Swiss are only 'picking on' traditional Muslim architecture. They probably wouldn't be allowing the architectural styles of buddhist or shinto temples either for that matter. In a small and old country like Switzerland the whole place is sort of a protected heritage zone, so to speak, and these interests trump architectural freedom in this context. It's not as persecutory as you think.

There is no campaign to ban Chinese-looking pagodas or Russian-style onion domes, even though those are not Swiss at all. Centuries-old buildings are not being demolished to build mosques (and if they are, the problem lays with the local planning process). Finally, there are plenty of Soviet-looking apartments and glass-and-steel Modernist buildings in Switzerland, which are a far greater threat to the traditional architecture than any minaret ever will be. Therefore it is not a question about preserving traditional architecture.

I'm not deflecting from the issue, I'm trying to show a little perspective. The Swiss decision is a tempest in a teapot pure and simple, compared with the true travesties of justice that occur around the world.

But it is still a violation of basic rights. When the Quebec nationalists set up Bill 101 and the Language Police, did anyone reply that criticism is unjustified because people are starving in Ethiopia?

Not every democracy is going to embrace the sort of free-for-all Multiculturalism that Canada does and nor many advocate they do, but this doesn't mean those places are intolerant or xenophobic. It simply means they value their culture and traditions to a degree that they are asking newcomers of 'outside' cultural traditions to adapt. Seems reasonable if you ask me.

The immigrant society is expected not to be incompatible with the host one. But merely having a minaret is not incompatible with basic western values. It's not a symbol of Islamic supremacy. It doesn't promote subjugation of women. It doesn't promote violence towards infidels. Therefore I don't see whose rights are being violated by having a minaret. Finally, the immigrant society *will* influence the host in one way or another. Interaction between alien cultures has been ongoing for millennia and it won't stop any time soon.

 

[Tewder]

= a drawn out euphemism for xenophobia

According to your blanket definition it is xenophobic to refuse Sharia law then, or any other cultural practice an immigrant might want to bring to an adopted country that is considered 'undesirable' by the host population. I agree with you that these things are sometimes fine lines but at the end of the day no one has a right to immigration. It is a privilege that is offered but that may come with conditions. For me a society that is truly xenophobic simply wouldn't be entertaining immigration policy at all, with or without conditions.

 

[Tewder]

The supporters of the vote did not campaign on the grounds that minarets spoil the view of the picturesque Swiss Alps.

Actually, in a way they did. You may not agree with it but to the Swiss who voted 'yes' the minarets do in fact spoil the 'traditional' view.

They didn't even present it as a local zoning issue. Instead their poster was this:

http://images.google.ca/images?rlz=...inaret poster&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&hl=en&tab=wi

I agree with you that the posters are in bad taste but this is also sort of deflecting from the issue. I mean, hyperbole and propaganda are not exactly unheard of in campaigns to sway public opinion. In Canada how often have we seen bloggers and the liberal media portray Harper this way:

Also, what accommodation is being made? No one is losing any rights by having a minaret in the skyline (and no, a minaret is not a symbol of religious domination despite what they tell you), and if it looks ugly it should be resolved through the local planning process.

Again, I don't see this issue as anti-Islam. It is anti-minarets which is a significantly different thing. Banning Muslims from Switzerland and/or the worship of Islam would indeed by xenophobic, but asking for concessions from Muslim immigrants to Switzerland is not the same thing. We do this too in Canada by not allowing Sharia law. It is not the right of Muslim immigrants to Canada to practice this system of law. It is not the right of Muslim immigrants to Switzerland to build minarets. Fair enough. Again, why would an immigrant leave their homeland if they weren't willing to make any accommodations to their new homeland???

A gay person has the right to be gay in a liberal society, and a religious fundamentalist should just accept it. But is it acceptable if a small town in rural Alabama voted to ban gay bars or hanging the rainbow flag?

You're throwing everything in together. Banning minarets is not the same as banning mosques. Banning rainbow flags is not the same as banning gay bars. Yes, I suppose I could see some contexts where a rainbow flag might not be permitted but this would be different than banning gay bars or establishments or persecuting gays.

There is no campaign to ban Chinese-looking pagodas or Russian-style onion domes, even though those are not Swiss at all.

There may not be a sizeable population of Chinese immigrants building temples everywhere.

The immigrant society is expected not to be incompatible with the host one. But merely having a minaret is not incompatible with basic western values. It's not a symbol of Islamic supremacy. It doesn't promote subjugation of women. It doesn't promote violence towards infidels. Therefore I don't see whose rights are being violated by having a minaret. Finally, the immigrant society *will* influence the host in one way or another. Interaction between alien cultures has been ongoing for millennia and it won't stop any time soon.

Again, your perspective is very 'Canadian'. Many countries are happy and confident in their heritage and values etc and do not want immigrants 'changing' these things. This does not make them xenophobic. They do accept immigration but with conditions. People are welcomed providing they settle into the larger cultural norms. In Switzerland they accept Muslims and allow the worship of Islam but there are conditions on how this impacts the cultural built form.

 

[Admiral Beez]

easy there. maybe the moderate version of christianity you practice is more nice toward women but the bible based form, isn't.

we in the west seem to have forgot all the religious based restrictions we used to have in the past. also, we seem to believe that simply because many christians live in canada, our freedoms stem from us being a christian majority. if our women have rights, etc. and you attribute this to Christianity, .

No, you misunderstand me, I think. I do not attribute our rights and freedoms for women to Christianity. Instead, I'd say it is the complete separation of church and state that help achieve this. Most religions have a level of paternalism in their doctrine, and thus such separation is crucial. Look at the province of Quebec, it was only after they broke the moral ties the RC Church had over them that they found freedom in life choices, behaviour, women's rights, etc.

It is the new paternalism from the the current wave of Muslims emigrating to Canada that worries me. I just do not like the way they treat their women, and this father/brother knows best attitude is shameful.

BTW, 20 years ago yesterday, Gamil Gharbi (Marc Lépine), the son of a Muslim immigrant walked into the Montreal École Polytechnique massacring 14 women. According to the Canadian Press Lépine's father "Gharbi was an authoritarian, possessive and jealous man, with contempt for women and believed that they were only intended to serve men".

 

[kEiThZ]

Immigration is part of foreign policy. Integration and rights of immigrants is also of interest to those nations.

Your justifications seem to implicate the Middle East's policies in the reasoning for the referendum. If that is the case, they are voiding their neutrality.

Also, the Nazis could have invaded Switzerland if it was aligned with the French and English. The Alps are an advantage, but the Blitz strategy was so new I could foresee Switzerland falling very quickly.

Immigration although falling under the realm of foreign affairs ministries is never practically a part of foreign policy except on the rare occassion where entry and exit privileges are awarded to effect a particular foreign relations outcome. Switzerland has not altered immigration rights for muslims. So I fail to see how the Swiss are using immigration as a foreign policy tool in this cast. The assertion that the rights of immigrants in Switzerland deeply concerns the origin nations would probably smack of foreign interference to the fiercely independent Swiss (that's the flip side of their famous neutrality, that everyone forgets).

Next, I never said that the reason for the vote was because of the action of some Middle Eastern country. I suggested that the ocus on Switzerland was disproportional given the grievous human rights abuses that occur elsewhere, particuarly in the Muslim world.

As for the comment about he Nazis, the Blitzkrieg was mechanized warfare, which even with all the technology we have today would be near impossible in mountainous terrain. If it was that easy, we would not have the casualties we do in Afghanistan. And the Alps are far worse terrain than the Hindu Kush. The Nazis chose not to invade just as much as the Swiss colluded with them. Even today, the Swiss air force practices operating from the side of Mountains and using highways and they have plans (or on occasions have it implemented) to wire key strategic infrastructure with explosives. Part of that famed Swiss neutrality is the fact that it is heavily defended with severe repercussions to outsiders that seek to impose their views on Switzerland. The Nazis wisely realized this.

I think you misunderstand the famed Swiss neutrality. Swiss neutrality does not mean they stay neutral on things that impact them. It means they stay neutral on fights between major powers to avoid becoming a victim of those fights. In this case, there is no massive conflict between Islam and the West, it's not the Crusades. And the issue of immigrant integration does impact the Swiss people, hence the issue of neutrality does not apply.

That's like saying Israel is not progressive in Jerusalem. It might be true, but it is not reflective of the national policy and belief system of the majority.

Like I said, it's a tenuous line held by a military that refuses to let the Kemalist vision be threatened. Yet, the population of Turkey continues to elect Islamist parties who simply haven't gotten around to put their agenda in place because they know what happens to any party that decides to upset the military's vision of a Kemalist secular Turkey. Would you think Canada was progressive if we had to rely on the military to guarantee our consitutional rights while the population was electing christian nationalist parties to power (with open promises that they would enforce Christian laws and practices)? Turkey is not very progressive outside of a handful of major cities and a few tourist hotspots like the Aegean coast. The vast majority of Anatolia, although a lovely rustic touristy destination is hardly gay and woman friendly territory.

And the comparison to Jerusalem and Israel is ridiculous. Jerusalem does not make up two-thirds of Israel nor the bulk of Israel's population.

 

[Roy G Biv]

According to your blanket definition it is xenophobic to refuse Sharia law then, or any other cultural practice an immigrant might want to bring to an adopted country that is considered 'undesirable' by the host population. I agree with you that these things are sometimes fine lines but at the end of the day no one has a right to immigration. It is a privilege that is offered but that may come with conditions. For me a society that is truly xenophobic simply wouldn't be entertaining immigration policy at all, with or without conditions.

It's the definition of "undesirable" that's key. A rational and reasonable argument for Sharia Law's undesirability can be made, but the same cannot be made for the minarets.

Xenophobia comes in degrees, so you cannot simply paint it as black and white.

There are 4 options for the Swiss (and Europeans in general). My problem is that the common citizen probably doesn't even consider them:

1) End immigration and watch your economy die.
2) Accept immigrants on strict conditions, and watch the development of an unappreciated, disconnected sub-class.
3) Accept all immigrants and lose a lot of your cultural identity.
4) ? The unknown option that energy should be expended on working towards.