Anti-Minaret Online Referendum

[garbon]

evidently not, but where the future will lead I know not.

What's it like living in a world of delusions and hate?

[Malthus]

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.

I don't believe that direct democracy via yes/no questions on targeted referendums makes any sense under the best of circumstances. Even less, where the question at issue is the rights particular to a minority.

Constitutional limitations on direct democracy simply make sense. While it is true that such limitations may be either implicit or explicit (and an implicit code may be more effective in some legal cultures), they must be there. There has to be some standard of decency and fairness against which proposed measures can be weighed.

A self-imposed constitutional limitation on legislation is not undemocratic; far from it. It is the framework which allows democracy to work. There should of course be some mechanism to change the constitution but this mechanism should be subject to many checks and balances - a direct majority vote should not be the way.

[Grallon]

evidently not, but where the future will lead I know not.

What's it like living in a world of delusions and hate?

See Crazy Ivan - Garbon's attitude is what you were talking about.  Layering guilt out of political correctness when legitimate fears are expressed, here through the ballot. 

And I don't want to read the fallacious parallel between gays as a minority and muslims as a minority.  No gay organizations or individuals call for holy war, murder, terror attacks in support of their 'religion' - muslims do.




G.

[Sheilbh]

See Crazy Ivan - Garbon's attitude is what you were talking about.  Layering guilt out of political correctness when legitimate fears are expressed, here through the ballot. 

There is no such thing as a legitimate fear of architecture.  Look, I hate neo-Georgian pastiche a la Prince Charles's estate.  I think it the Daily Mail in 3D but I don't think it should be banned.

If an organisation calls for murder ban them and prosecute them.  But don't blame the building.

[alfred russel]

I don't believe that direct democracy via yes/no questions on targeted referendums makes any sense under the best of circumstances. Even less, where the question at issue is the rights particular to a minority.

Constitutional limitations on direct democracy simply make sense. While it is true that such limitations may be either implicit or explicit (and an implicit code may be more effective in some legal cultures), they must be there. There has to be some standard of decency and fairness against which proposed measures can be weighed.

A self-imposed constitutional limitation on legislation is not undemocratic; far from it. It is the framework which allows democracy to work. There should of course be some mechanism to change the constitution but this mechanism should be subject to many checks and balances - a direct majority vote should not be the way.

I agree--it goes back to your analogy of 3 wolves and 2 sheep voting on dinner plans. Most people belong to some minority group, and are thus better off being protected by a consitutional limit built into the law. Even if that means as an American that I have to deal with the scourge of minarets.

[Valmy]

That is a bizarre vote...anyway I am sure the Muslims will just have mosques without minarets now.  An annoyance and harrasment that really changes nothing.

[Richard Hakluyt]

Switzerland is like that though, no hanging out your washing on a sunday, death sentence for chewing gum, 28 different boxes for your garbage 

Their democracy is very direct and people can change things. In a way it's amazing that the place is at all civilised under those rules.

[Grallon]

If an organisation calls for murder ban them and prosecute them.  But don't blame the building.

The building is the expression of an idea or a complex of ideas.  This idea was rejected by a majority of voters in Switzerland.  Yes this ban represents discrimination against one particular group; but it is warranted by this group's actions around the world. 

Besides I see these results as a reaction of the people against its elites and their handling of the consequences of immigration - as much, if not more, than it is against muslims.



G.

[Crazy_Ivan80]

See Crazy Ivan - Garbon's attitude is what you were talking about.  Layering guilt out of political correctness when legitimate fears are expressed, here through the ballot. 

There is no such thing as a legitimate fear of architecture.  Look, I hate neo-Georgian pastiche a la Prince Charles's estate.  I think it the Daily Mail in 3D but I don't think it should be banned.

If an organisation calls for murder ban them and prosecute them.  But don't blame the building.

and as far as I can glean from the news the swiss didn't vote to forbid minarets just because they're minarets but for the ideological baggage they (are percieved to) carry. Claiming otherwise is to ignore the afterlaying issue: namely that europeans aren't all that certain anymore that mass-immigration from muslims lands was that good an idea, as well as the fact that a significant portion of the european populace isn't sure that our progressive liberal democracies are able to stand against reactionary muslim immigrants.
Call it the result of decades of being told that our values are not better than those of the migrants countries of origin; that and the whole post-war post-colonial introspective that has really worked wonders on our sense of cultural self-worth.
Add to that the people, NGO's and politicians that can't help but ridicule, insult or just ignore the people -their potential voters!- because what these people say doesn't stroke with their utopia of multi-culti bliss and then we're supposed to be surprised that people will vote this way?
I think not. Given what has happened since the Rushdie case I'm rather amazed that the anti-camp could only garnered 57%.
Hysterical muslims denouncing (bad?) writers, burning embassies over cartoons, sawing off journalists' heads and calling minarets bayonets for the faith is no way to convince europeans that islam is a peaceful religion; people will just scoff when you claim it is and remember what they've seen or read.

@garbon:
We've had people with your attitude - head in arse- here for over 20 years now and they've done exactly nothing to adress the issue other than letting it fester. If the mainly left-wing politicians had tried to come up with real solutions to the issue rather than denouncing those that spoke up back then things wouldn't have come to this point, and everyone -including our muslims- would have been better off.

Even worse, those same lefties that did so much to break the Church's immense influence on society, thus making today's progressive society possible, are now seen as making common cause with islam in order to get the immigrant vote. It doesn't set well with many people that left-wing parties/groups are so eager and quick to attack christianity for being reactionary while not doing the same with islam.

And when someone from those same left-wing parties does admit there's a problem with immigrants and their integration (and for belgium that usually means muslim immigrants) then all hell breaks loose and the PC-brigade lashes out like there's no tomorrow. But at least the debate is finally beginning, albeit 20 years too late, thanks to to people like you.

[Mr.Penguin]

and as far as I can glean from the news the swiss didn't vote to forbid minarets just because they're minarets but for the ideological baggage they (are percieved to) carry. Claiming otherwise is to ignore the afterlaying issue: namely that europeans aren't all that certain anymore that mass-immigration from muslims lands was that good an idea, as well as the fact that a significant portion of the european populace isn't sure that our progressive liberal democracies are able to stand against reactionary muslim immigrants.
Call it the result of decades of being told that our values are not better than those of the migrants countries of origin; that and the whole post-war post-colonial introspective that has really worked wonders on our sense of cultural self-worth.
Add to that the people, NGO's and politicians that can't help but ridicule, insult or just ignore the people -their potential voters!- because what these people say doesn't stroke with their utopia of multi-culti bliss and then we're supposed to be surprised that people will vote this way?
I think not. Given what has happened since the Rushdie case I'm rather amazed that the anti-camp could only garnered 57%.
Hysterical muslims denouncing (bad?) writers, burning embassies over cartoons, sawing off journalists' heads and calling minarets bayonets for the faith is no way to convince europeans that islam is a peaceful religion; people will just scoff when you claim it is and remember what they've seen or read.

@garbon:
We've had people with your attitude - head in arse- here for over 20 years now and they've done exactly nothing to adress the issue other than letting it fester. If the mainly left-wing politicians had tried to come up with real solutions to the issue rather than denouncing those that spoke up back then things wouldn't have come to this point, and everyone -including our muslims- would have been better off.

Even worse, those same lefties that did so much to break the Church's immense influence on society, thus making today's progressive society possible, are now seen as making common cause with islam in order to get the immigrant vote. It doesn't set well with many people that left-wing parties/groups are so eager and quick to attack christianity for being reactionary while not doing the same with islam.

And when someone from those same left-wing parties does admit there's a problem with immigrants and their integration (and for belgium that usually means muslim immigrants) then all hell breaks loose and the PC-brigade lashes out like there's no tomorrow. But at least the debate is finally beginning, albeit 20 years too late, thanks to to people like you.

Amen, right on brother...

[Brazen]

They should remain part of the achitecture, but to retain a non-theist community element we should build helter-skelters around them.

[Malthus]

See Crazy Ivan - Garbon's attitude is what you were talking about.  Layering guilt out of political correctness when legitimate fears are expressed, here through the ballot. 

There is no such thing as a legitimate fear of architecture.  Look, I hate neo-Georgian pastiche a la Prince Charles's estate.  I think it the Daily Mail in 3D but I don't think it should be banned.

If an organisation calls for murder ban them and prosecute them.  But don't blame the building.

and as far as I can glean from the news the swiss didn't vote to forbid minarets just because they're minarets but for the ideological baggage they (are percieved to) carry. Claiming otherwise is to ignore the afterlaying issue: namely that europeans aren't all that certain anymore that mass-immigration from muslims lands was that good an idea, as well as the fact that a significant portion of the european populace isn't sure that our progressive liberal democracies are able to stand against reactionary muslim immigrants.
Call it the result of decades of being told that our values are not better than those of the migrants countries of origin; that and the whole post-war post-colonial introspective that has really worked wonders on our sense of cultural self-worth.
Add to that the people, NGO's and politicians that can't help but ridicule, insult or just ignore the people -their potential voters!- because what these people say doesn't stroke with their utopia of multi-culti bliss and then we're supposed to be surprised that people will vote this way?
I think not. Given what has happened since the Rushdie case I'm rather amazed that the anti-camp could only garnered 57%.
Hysterical muslims denouncing (bad?) writers, burning embassies over cartoons, sawing off journalists' heads and calling minarets bayonets for the faith is no way to convince europeans that islam is a peaceful religion; people will just scoff when you claim it is and remember what they've seen or read.

@garbon:
We've had people with your attitude - head in arse- here for over 20 years now and they've done exactly nothing to adress the issue other than letting it fester. If the mainly left-wing politicians had tried to come up with real solutions to the issue rather than denouncing those that spoke up back then things wouldn't have come to this point, and everyone -including our muslims- would have been better off.

Even worse, those same lefties that did so much to break the Church's immense influence on society, thus making today's progressive society possible, are now seen as making common cause with islam in order to get the immigrant vote. It doesn't set well with many people that left-wing parties/groups are so eager and quick to attack christianity for being reactionary while not doing the same with islam.

And when someone from those same left-wing parties does admit there's a problem with immigrants and their integration (and for belgium that usually means muslim immigrants) then all hell breaks loose and the PC-brigade lashes out like there's no tomorrow. But at least the debate is finally beginning, albeit 20 years too late, thanks to to people like you.

The solution is to have pride in one's liberal values and courage of one's convictions. I'm no relativist - to my mind, at this stage in history Western values of liberal, secular democracy are simply superior to those of (say) Saudi Arabia. People from that part of the world come to the West, there should be no tollerance for the baggage they take with them, insofar as it contradicts those values - "honour killing", persecution of gays and women and the like should be dealt with by the courts and people left in no doubt that this is not tolerated here.

One of the ways in which we are clearly better than Saudi Arabia is in the aspect of tolerance for the not-harmful views of others. In Saudi Arabia, Christian churches are banned. We are better than them because, and to the extent, we don't do that sort of thing. 

[derspiess]

This is gonna get good.

<steals microwave popcorn from coworker on vacation>

[garbon]

There is no such thing as a legitimate fear of architecture.  Look, I hate neo-Georgian pastiche a la Prince Charles's estate.  I think it the Daily Mail in 3D but I don't think it should be banned.

[garbon]

@garbon:
We've had people with your attitude - head in arse- here for over 20 years now and they've done exactly nothing to adress the issue other than letting it fester. If the mainly left-wing politicians had tried to come up with real solutions to the issue rather than denouncing those that spoke up back then things wouldn't have come to this point, and everyone -including our muslims- would have been better off.

A real solution is banning a piece of architecture? If I look at BB's Canadian example, that's the equivalent of a chimney. Forgive me if I don't think banning such will stop the negative effects of radical islam.

I don't know what can be done, but I'm pretty sure that the solution to problems with immigration does not lie in alienating those immigrants by passing legislation to selectively discriminate* nor is it to coddle them for actions that are harmful to society for fear of upsetting them.

*Side note, but how exactly do you get immigrants to conform to a countries values if from day one they are should that said values are selectively applied?