GenerationW
Senior Member
Wow, all the way back to the 70's! Then I guess we should discount those who say the instability of Afghanistan goes at least back to Alexander the Great and his fellow Greeks 2,300 years ago.
|
|
|
Switzerland Minarets Laws
- Thread starter newuser2k9
- Start date
Second_in_pie
Senior Member
That's just the extension of the exact same logic you put. A gay person is fleeing persecution in their country, does that make them a hypocrite when they advocate for gay rights in the place they moved to?! It's the same as a person fleeing humans rights violations in their country. Yet you label them as hypocrites, because their country commits these acts, with the people are fleeing from. Do you think that emigrating is a way of showing your support for your country's actions? Do refugees love their corrupt national leaders, but just come to Canada for the healthcare?
Ok, so let's use a more moderate and relatable example of your logic. Say a gay person in the midwestern US moves to San Francisco, so they can feel a bit less alienated. Yet, in San Francisco, there are some people that dislike gays. So the gay person from the midwest advocates against them. Is he a hypocrite because the Midwestern US isn't as tolerant towards gay people?
A Tutsi in Rawanda is fleeing genocide in their country, and decides to move to Toronto. In Toronto, they see that the police commit racial profiling. They believe that racial profiling is very wrong, and that it should be stopped, so they protest against it. Is this person a hypocrite because their home country of Rawanda is in the middle the mass murder of thousands of people?
Yes, I'm sure that all Muslim immigrants think that. Perhaps you've just had a very sheltered upbringing, and can't comprehend the idea that what the country does isn't a representative of what the people want at all? Because that's called a dictatorship, and it's actually what happens in many countries of the world. The people don't have a say in what their dictators do, and they can't do anything about it. Why not? Because their dictators employ people in tanks and helicopters with machine guns. Your town has about 50 able-bodied men with some pitchforks and a rusty old AK47. Or in more legal-seeming systems, the government can make you disappear if you disagree with what they say or do.
kEiThZ
Superstar
Oh please. It's no coincidence that Islamic Studies is the most popular university subject to major in, in Saudi and it's up there in several other Gulf States as well. I've lived in that part of the world. And I can tell you that their locals aren't clamouring for democracy. They fully enjoy the double standards of their sexism, religious superiority, etc. They enjoy being the privileged classes over the outside labourers who come in and do all the work.
cacruden
Senior Member
Well you dumbed it down alright, now totally understand what you are saying and it is, as you said, really dumb
It is not a language problem, your logic is flawed. Individual A and Country of A are not equal or equivalent - leaving a big logic hole that other people are falling into - so not it is not an english problem -- it is a logic problem.
If Individual A did what you indicate he should, you pretty well guaranteed that he would never have gotten to Switzerland - he would be in jail, dead or otherwise indisposed.
Your logic would always leave that person an outsider to Switzerland (never Swiss).
newuser2k9
Active Member
It's not just direct occupation, it's the installation and support of such dictators and oppressors such as Osama, the Shah, and Saddam. It's the economic oppression under the guise of multinational corporations. Don't you think it's odd that the few Gulf States are the only countries in the world with a 'high' GDP but such a high income equality? Those at the top were the smart ones who worked with us. Maybe the Middle East would have been modernized, possibly to the extent of Asia to the east, but by meddling with their politics, economy, and lives, we only strengthened their defensive far right. It is that nationalism and 'fundamentalism' that drives the crazies who decide to blow themselves up on trains.
A good way to stop the trend would start by not supporting Karzai. Nothing good can come out of him.
Roy G Biv
Senior Member
I don't think anyone is comparing Canada's approach to multiculturalism with Switerzland's; however, we are comparing our common core value of liberty. Switzerland is liberal in terms of social freedoms... It is a progressive, 1st world country, like Canada. This highly-selective ban flies in the face of those shared values.
urbanfan89
Active Member
I agree.
The people of North Korea deserve to live in a real life version of 1984, because otherwise they wouldn't have Big Brother in power. Any North Korean who flees the country is a coward who supports Kim Jong Il.
The people of Zimbabwe deserve to have Robert Mugabe in power, because otherwise he wouldn't be in power. Any Zimbabwean who flees the country is a coward who supports ZANU-PF.
The people of Germany deserve to be tormented by brownshirts, because otherwise he wouldn't be in power. Any German who flees the country is a coward who supports the Nazis.
etc...
shumoon
New Member
What I am painfully trying to convey to you, is the following:
Example: An individual from Saudi Arabia, where the government prohibits the public practice of religions other than Islam, obtains a residency permit in Switzerland. This individual is now guaranteed all of the rights and freedoms as any other resident, as one would expect. [Please read that last sentence several times or have someone read it to you, if necessary.] What is hypocritcal, is that this same individual who now has all of these rights and freedom to practice their religion within Switzerland, denies these very same rights and freedoms to individuals within their country of origin (Saudi Arabia)...
As the original post of this entire thread was in regards to the banning of Muslim minarets within Switzerland, I made the reference to Human Rights issues in predominently Islamic nations in response to someone's post. If the respective populations within these Islamic nations refuse to initiate change within their own countries, then why should it come as a surprise that someone would label them as being 'hypocrites' when they start raising issues in regards to their Freedom of Religion within a new country (Switzerland). Despite the fact that they are now fully entitled to these new-found rights, it is still hypocritical.
Ace:
Please read the first sentence in your example several times or have someone read it to you, if necessary. You are conflating the actions of a government with the desires of individuals who are from the same country that government controls. It's the government that is prohibiting the right, not individuals. Governments and individuals aren't the same. Maybe English is a foreign language for you, but government is not a synonym for individuals.
As to your other point about human rights, there is a difference between being unwilling to improve human rights and being unable to do so. The individuals in some of these "Islamic" countries are not able initiate change within their own countries because the governments are very repressive. It doesn't mean they don't want human rights in their home countries, just that they are unable to change the situation there without considerable harm to themselves or their families. Wanting human rights respected in Switzerland while they cannot enjoy these rights in their home country does not make them 'hypocrites'.
TrickyRicky
Senior Member
I'm actually a Swiss citizen (of mixed ethnicity) so technically I could vote on these issues. It's all rather silly isn't it this ban.
One thing people need to recognize however is that all democratic nations have different spins on government and this can cause unfortunate outcomes. Switzerland is actually a far more democratic nation than Canada in the sense of putting power in the hands of the electorate. Problem with this of course is, as we all know, democracy just doesn't work. I suspect such a ban would pass in most "advanced" liberal-democratic nations if the elite actually had the balls to empower the population. In Switzerland I guess the game is to contain radical populist votes from getting into the hands of Joe six-pack. Are we more advanced because we just don't grant Joe six-pack the freedom to vote in the first place?
On cultural and ethnic integration I think most of europe (including Britain which has one of the highest anti-immigrant sentiments) has a hard go with it. The Swiss see themselves as open and progressive. They have always needed foreign workers and treat them very well; however, there has always been this separation between guest worker and local population. It has always been, thank you very much, we greatly appreciate you and will grant you everything you want, education, healthcare, the highest-standard of living in the world (higher than Canada for sure)...but in the end you are not one of us. Over time and especially after a new generation comes into the picture, this "understanding" just eventually becomes BS but that is what they are struggling with.
One thing people need to recognize however is that all democratic nations have different spins on government and this can cause unfortunate outcomes. Switzerland is actually a far more democratic nation than Canada in the sense of putting power in the hands of the electorate. Problem with this of course is, as we all know, democracy just doesn't work. I suspect such a ban would pass in most "advanced" liberal-democratic nations if the elite actually had the balls to empower the population. In Switzerland I guess the game is to contain radical populist votes from getting into the hands of Joe six-pack. Are we more advanced because we just don't grant Joe six-pack the freedom to vote in the first place?
On cultural and ethnic integration I think most of europe (including Britain which has one of the highest anti-immigrant sentiments) has a hard go with it. The Swiss see themselves as open and progressive. They have always needed foreign workers and treat them very well; however, there has always been this separation between guest worker and local population. It has always been, thank you very much, we greatly appreciate you and will grant you everything you want, education, healthcare, the highest-standard of living in the world (higher than Canada for sure)...but in the end you are not one of us. Over time and especially after a new generation comes into the picture, this "understanding" just eventually becomes BS but that is what they are struggling with.
Tewder
Senior Member
You're sort of assuming the motivation is xenophobia, no? I find this hard to believe in a nation with 4 official languages at the crossroads of Europe. The motivation may in fact be more about wanting to preserve cultural heritage in the face of change. This is important to Europeans because of the enormous legacy of their history. Again, is this really any different from Quebec's discriminatory language laws? In Cape Cod you have to get your paint colours approved for all new and heritage buildings so that they fit in with the traditional built form and there are all kinds of rules about building heights and materials etc. Fair? Hell, don't move there if you don't like it.
At the end of the day these things reflect the collective values of those who live there. For future immigrants the choice and freedom is their's to not move to Switzerland if this is intolerable, and for immigrants already there the choice and freedom is to leave or to stay and voice one's opinion and try and change the system from within in an orderly and respectful way through the democratic process. Why is this unfair? It is ridiculous to think that we all have carte blanche rights and freedoms to do whatever we want and however we want. We don't. We have laws, bilaws, codes and standards and all kinds of 'conditions' we must conform to as members of society. Banning minarets on buildings or banning religious symbols in a state-funded secular school system is not an attack on religious freedom it is a condition of that freedom as democratically decided by the social group in question.
Um, it tells us you're in Europe which traditionally has a caucasian population, which means that the caucasian population is obviously more established. I'm sure most people in business suits in China are asian. Why do you assume racism?
Furthermore, Europe has enormous pressure to take in immigrants because of the massive waves of migrants that are flooding into Europe out of the 'shit-holes' as you call them, from the East. If Switzerland and France and Britain are taking displaced people in it is not because of the kind of policies we have in Canada.
You're confusing Canadian Multicultural values with Swiss values. Switzerland is not a new nation made up of immigrants. It is an old nation with its own established traditions. This doesn't make the nation racist. It accepts immigrants according to its terms and grants the rights it considers to be basic. They may not be totally in line with what we perceive them to be but that doesn't make them 'wrong'.
If you are really concerned about human rights you should worry less about this issue and focus your efforts on Africa and the Middle East and many other places in the world who have no notion whatsoever of rights. Improving the lot of the people in these areas may take away many of the pressures for many to migrate in the first place.
[/QUOTE]
urbanfan89
Active Member
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. 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?
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.
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.
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.
Admiral Beez
Superstar
One thing I really do not like about "modern" Islam is how it has brought back the idea of paternalism, where women are put down in "their place" in the name of being tolerant or multicultural.
As a father of two girls, I strive for a Canada where women can do whatever they want, without "man" made retrictions. It thus bothers me that Muslim men require their wives and daughters to "cover up" while their son and themselves do not. And let's not kid ourselves into the idea that the women make this choice, sure many can toss away the headscarves and burkas, but at the risk of being shunned by their families and their communities, both of which are of great importance to new immigrants.
As a church-going Christian myself, I can't imagine telling my daughters that the religion I've exposed them to requires them to dress differently than men, and that they are somehow less free to choose how to live their lives simply because of their gender. This is why I could never support the Roman Catholic church, since I find it ridiculous that they see only a limited, supportive role for my daughters and women while only the men can be the leaders (and the molesters, but as they said on Hammy Hamster, that's another story).
As a father of two girls, I strive for a Canada where women can do whatever they want, without "man" made retrictions. It thus bothers me that Muslim men require their wives and daughters to "cover up" while their son and themselves do not. And let's not kid ourselves into the idea that the women make this choice, sure many can toss away the headscarves and burkas, but at the risk of being shunned by their families and their communities, both of which are of great importance to new immigrants.
As a church-going Christian myself, I can't imagine telling my daughters that the religion I've exposed them to requires them to dress differently than men, and that they are somehow less free to choose how to live their lives simply because of their gender. This is why I could never support the Roman Catholic church, since I find it ridiculous that they see only a limited, supportive role for my daughters and women while only the men can be the leaders (and the molesters, but as they said on Hammy Hamster, that's another story).
Last edited:
kEiThZ
Superstar
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.
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.
Prometheus The Supremo
►Member №41+⅜◄
Member Bio
- Joined
- Apr 23, 2007
- Messages
- 4,107
- Reaction score
- 5
- Location
- a strange reality, bizarro toronto
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, you might as well attribute the ability to shop on sundays to christianity or even strip joints. that being said, christians can come together to allow something like sunday shopping but that doesn't make sunday shopping attributable to christianity.
i think people are so used to these places being this way. they have given up hope on places like saudi arabia. people have come to accept places like saudi arabia putting people to death for things that would be of high insignificance in our culture.
you expect the garbage dump to stink but when something smells funny a few blocks away in the neighbourhood and it didn't before, you usually get concerned.
Admiral Beez
Superstar
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?
Last edited: