Anti-Minaret Online Referendum

[Martim Silva]

If a million Muslim rise up against this, will the Swiss shoot twice and go home?

There are only 400,000 Muslims in Switzerland, and vast majority come from Bosnia (i.e. not darkies).

As for, I am split on the issue. While I defend freedom of religion (heck, when I was in highschool the Saudis and Saddam built a Mosque right next to us, and they were very friendly*, on the other hand I secretly - and kinda hipocritically, I'll admit  - would like to see a ban on the construction of any and all religions buildings, be they Mosques, Churches, Synagogues and the rest. Maybe then people would start depending on themselves and not on the Big Spook in the Sky Who Plays Hide and Seek with Aeroplanes.

(and yes, I know the referendum was just about Minarets, not Mosques)

*: The girls hated them. The Muslims would not let them enter the Mosque.

[derspiess]

:nelson @ all you limp-wristed Diversity types.

[Jaron]

:nelson @ all you limp-wristed Diversity types.

Is there something wrong with diversity?

[derspiess]

:nelson @ all you limp-wristed Diversity types.

Is there something wrong with diversity?

In & of itself, not too much.  But when it becomes the highest priority & flies in the face of common sense, yeah, there's plenty wrong with the Cult of Diversity.

[Faeelin]

:nelson @ all you limp-wristed Diversity types.

I had no idea letting Bosnians build minarets flew in face of common sense.

[Jaron]

Europeans tore the world apart and rebuilt it with Europe at the center of all civilization and then grow restless and angry when the very people they once conquered look upon the white continent as their home too. Such nerve.

[Malthus]

It's funny how the main talking point against the ban was "don't vote for the ban, or the muslims might respond with violence, look what happened to Denmark!" Fuck, I'd vote for the ban too just to spite this kind of thinking. Seriously, when being worried about violent retribution is the main reason you oppose certain policies, something is rotten.

I would have thought a better talking point would have been 'singling out members of a particular religion for minor repression of their expression based on nothing but dislike of the majority of the population for practitioners of said religion and their "alien" ways goes against Western values of freedom and equality'.

To my mind, removing issues like this from the ambit of direct democracy via constitutional means is the best idea: avoids the 'three wolves and two sheep voting on what's for dinner' aspect that always arises when the majority get to vote on the rights of a minority.

[garbon]

I would have thought a better talking point would have been 'singling out members of a particular religion for minor repression of their expression based on nothing but dislike of the majority of the population for practitioners of said religion and their "alien" ways goes against Western values of freedom and equality'.

Over analyze it, will you?

[Barrister]

I would have thought a better talking point would have been 'singling out members of a particular religion for minor repression of their expression based on nothing but dislike of the majority of the population for practitioners of said religion and their "alien" ways goes against Western values of freedom and equality'.

To my mind, removing issues like this from the ambit of direct democracy via constitutional means is the best idea: avoids the 'three wolves and two sheep voting on what's for dinner' aspect that always arises when the majority get to vote on the rights of a minority.

I dunno - this move by Swiss voters is narrow-minded and bigoted.  But voters have the right to make the wrong choice from time to time.  You can't protect the voters from themselves without worse consequences in the long run.

[Martinus]

I would have thought a better talking point would have been 'singling out members of a particular religion for minor repression of their expression based on nothing but dislike of the majority of the population for practitioners of said religion and their "alien" ways goes against Western values of freedom and equality'.

To my mind, removing issues like this from the ambit of direct democracy via constitutional means is the best idea: avoids the 'three wolves and two sheep voting on what's for dinner' aspect that always arises when the majority get to vote on the rights of a minority.

I dunno - this move by Swiss voters is narrow-minded and bigoted.  But voters have the right to make the wrong choice from time to time.  You can't protect the voters from themselves without worse consequences in the long run.

Uhm, ever heard of a constitution/bill of rights concept? 

Or are you saying that a country like the US - with the basic rights of the people enshrined in the constitution that is not subject to whims of the mob (at least not to the same degree a direct democracy referendum is) is the sure way to lead to "worse consequences in the long run"? 

[Barrister]

I would have thought a better talking point would have been 'singling out members of a particular religion for minor repression of their expression based on nothing but dislike of the majority of the population for practitioners of said religion and their "alien" ways goes against Western values of freedom and equality'.

To my mind, removing issues like this from the ambit of direct democracy via constitutional means is the best idea: avoids the 'three wolves and two sheep voting on what's for dinner' aspect that always arises when the majority get to vote on the rights of a minority.

I dunno - this move by Swiss voters is narrow-minded and bigoted.  But voters have the right to make the wrong choice from time to time.  You can't protect the voters from themselves without worse consequences in the long run.

Uhm, ever heard of a constitution/bill of rights concept? 

Or are you saying that a country like the US - with the basic rights of the people enshrined in the constitution that is not subject to whims of the mob (at least not to the same degree a direct democracy referendum is) is the sure way to lead to "worse consequences in the long run"? 

I am well aware of a bill of rights.  And lets take the example of the US.  The US Bill of Rights didn't prevent slavery, it didn't prevent Jim Crow laws, it allowed discrimination against homosexuals until very recently (and even now has done little in the whole gay marriage debate).

I'm sure you're also familiar with the UK, which has no written constitution or bill of rights, and yet has historically been amongst the freest of societies.

I firmly believe that respect for minorities and human rights must come from within the society, and not externally imposed.

[Martinus]

I would have thought a better talking point would have been 'singling out members of a particular religion for minor repression of their expression based on nothing but dislike of the majority of the population for practitioners of said religion and their "alien" ways goes against Western values of freedom and equality'.

To my mind, removing issues like this from the ambit of direct democracy via constitutional means is the best idea: avoids the 'three wolves and two sheep voting on what's for dinner' aspect that always arises when the majority get to vote on the rights of a minority.

I dunno - this move by Swiss voters is narrow-minded and bigoted.  But voters have the right to make the wrong choice from time to time.  You can't protect the voters from themselves without worse consequences in the long run.

Uhm, ever heard of a constitution/bill of rights concept? 

Or are you saying that a country like the US - with the basic rights of the people enshrined in the constitution that is not subject to whims of the mob (at least not to the same degree a direct democracy referendum is) is the sure way to lead to "worse consequences in the long run"? 

I am well aware of a bill of rights.  And lets take the example of the US.  The US Bill of Rights didn't prevent slavery, it didn't prevent Jim Crow laws, it allowed discrimination against homosexuals until very recently (and even now has done little in the whole gay marriage debate).

I'm sure you're also familiar with the UK, which has no written constitution or bill of rights, and yet has historically been amongst the freest of societies.

I firmly believe that respect for minorities and human rights must come from within the society, and not externally imposed.

Are you saying that the US constitution is "externally imposed"? Wow, those Yanks really have a wrong idea about that entire "independence" thing, then.

Sorry, but your argument makes little sense. The US constitution does not address every issue or right it should (it was written in another time, for one) but to the extent it does address a right, it has served a good role in preventing the tyranny of majority.

Your views sometimes strike me as really odd, to be honest... 

[Barrister]

Are you saying that the US constitution is "externally imposed"? Wow, those Yanks really have a wrong idea about that entire "independence" thing, then.

Sorry, but your argument makes little sense. The US constitution does not address every issue or right it should (it was written in another time, for one) but to the extent it does address a right, it has served a good role in preventing the tyranny of majority.

Your views sometimes strike me as really odd, to be honest... 

No, I'm saying that the attempts by the courts to impose human rights are "externally imposed" on the populace.

The US constitution has a very checkered history of preventing tyranny of the majority to be honest.  The Freedom of speech protection didn't do much in the 1950s and earlier.  I've already mentioned Jim Crow laws.  The internment of Japanese during WWII.  Segregation.

My point of view perhaps can be understood by remembering a bit of Canadian history.  We didn't have a written Charter of Rights until 1982, historically very recent (and within my living memory).  We weren't a police state in 1981, and we didn't become a shining model of human rights in 1983.  In fact I think the state of our democracy was stronger pre-Charter, but I am in the minority view on this.

[Neil]

In fact I think the state of our democracy was stronger pre-Charter, but I am in the minority view on this.

True, but supporters of the Charter aren't big fans of democracy.  The only thing that is important to them is evil.

[garbon]

I'm sure you're also familiar with the UK, which has no written constitution or bill of rights, and yet has historically been amongst the freest of societies.

Key word.