Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Frazzled wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

dogma wrote:

Honestly, I prefer arguing this thing from practicality. While this move will certainly help to preserve the Swiss cultural heritage it can only do so by effectively drawing a line in the sand that can all to quickly turn into a trench dotted with machine gun emplacements (in a figurative sense). Now, I suppose there might be people in Switzerland that are willing to fight for their cultural purity, and they have the right to do so. However, we also have the right to accost them for their romantic stupidity, just as we do so when discussing the same in sort of behavior in Islamic nations.

Yea but do we? Do we really criticize Islamic nations? Look at the flack other posters are getting on this thread for doing that? I can't say where we have missionaries at for of reprisal against them-real gonna kill you level reprisal, but we can discuss this minnaret nonsense, tut tut tut and look down on the Swiss. There is so much hypocrisy here it almost equals my own.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

JD21290 wrote:Can we just ban all religions now? it would save so much gak and arguments it has to be worth it

If you banned religion you'd have to get rid of that avatar. Frankly Dakka will not permit such crimes against Humanity to occur.

I think common consensus is that most mid eastern countries are gak holes that no one here wants to live in, and we expected better from the swiss. You're confusing disapproval of the swiss for approval of those they seem to be emulating.

Not seeing a lot of dissapproval of the Mideast myself.

You should probably read the posts then.

I did smart s.
When was the last time there was a thread about churches now being allowed steeples in these countries? At this point, serious stuff has to occur before its even noticed.

Frazzled wrote:
Yea but do we? Do we really criticize Islamic nations?

All the time. Look at how we discuss Iran and its issues with human rights, or the Saudis and their treatment of women. Just because some people refrain from criticism does not change the fact that some people don't, and therefore serve to make the statement 'we criticize muslims' (where we is the West) a true one.

Frazzled wrote:
Look at the flack other posters are getting on this thread for doing that?

And? I didn't realize having an opinion go unchallenged was required for the opinion to be held, or considered forceful.

Frazzled wrote:
I can't say where we have missionaries at for of reprisal against them-real gonna kill you level reprisal, but we can discuss this minnaret nonsense, tut tut tut and look down on the Swiss. There is so much hypocrisy here it almost equals my own.

You're missing the point. I'm not suppressing your opinion by disagreeing with it, or pointing our flaws in its reasoning. I'm engaging you in discussion. If all we did was make statements about our beliefs without engaging other people there wouldn't be much of a point to this whole communication business.

dogma wrote:

Frazzled wrote:
Yea but do we? Do we really criticize Islamic nations?

All the time. Look at how we discuss Iran and its issues with human rights, or the Saudis and their treatment of women. Just because some people refrain from criticism does not change the fact that some people don't, and therefore serve to make the statement 'we criticize muslims' (where we is the West) a true one.

When was the last thread on that and why? There's a big difference about minnarets and a country where women are burned to death because they can't leave a school on fire becuase they weren't in full dress.

Anung Un Rama wrote:my last post post, before I threw the thought away. I want to be tolerant and all, but you hear so much "bad" stuff about muslims living in western countries these days, with forced marriages, honor murders and the like, it's hard not to be afraid.

That is exactly what they say. They all want to be very tolerant people, but the problem is they see many muslim immigrants acting in a completely intolerant fashion. They really don't like it at all, and are finding it easier to discriminate against incoming muslims.

We Have a right to criticise islamic nations , they are quite a barbaric people , Im sure it was posted on here a moment ago with there stoning of women for no reason whatsoever , arranged marriges and therefore murdering there own children if these marriges dont go ahead , and it happens over here , There racist and facist themselves looking down on homosexuals , women and often look down on the british population .

IamAz wrote:We Have a right to criticise islamic nations , they are quite a barbaric people , Im sure it was posted on here a moment ago with there stoning of women for no reason whatsoever , arranged marriges and therefore murdering there own children if these marriges dont go ahead , and it happens over here , There racist and facist themselves looking down on homosexuals , women and often look down on the british population .

Ah yes indeed, well said. And Christians are quite the mongols themselves barring the use of contraceptives and invading countries in the name of Jesus, drinking his blood and body. And the roving terrifying bands of Jews as well, with their money hoarding ways and the cutting of defenseless babies penii parts.

As much as I have radically opposing views of the restrictive Islamic sects, sweeping generalizations are the basis of ignorance, and ignorance is the basis of racism. Playing the race card? If you want to sound ignorant than sure, call it out. But most of the posters in here, while debating the merits of legal precedence, have not (as blatantly), shoved a whole people under one umbrella and have proceeded to produce defame them under one label.

And before you can ever imagine to retort, I declare "penii" completely medically correct, and more facetious to pronounce.

Frazzled wrote:

dogma wrote:

Frazzled wrote:
Yea but do we? Do we really criticize Islamic nations?

All the time. Look at how we discuss Iran and its issues with human rights, or the Saudis and their treatment of women. Just because some people refrain from criticism does not change the fact that some people don't, and therefore serve to make the statement 'we criticize muslims' (where we is the West) a true one.

When was the last thread on that and why? There's a big difference about minnarets and a country where women are burned to death because they can't leave a school on fire becuase they weren't in full dress.

You want threads on commonly accepted topics to assuage your persecution complex? I can do it.

Altered_Soul wrote:

IamAz wrote:We Have a right to criticise islamic nations , they are quite a barbaric people , Im sure it was posted on here a moment ago with there stoning of women for no reason whatsoever , arranged marriges and therefore murdering there own children if these marriges dont go ahead , and it happens over here , There racist and facist themselves looking down on homosexuals , women and often look down on the british population .

Ah yes indeed, well said. And Christians are quite the mongols themselves barring the use of contraceptives and invading countries in the name of Jesus, drinking his blood and body. And the roving terrifying bands of Jews as well, with their money hoarding ways and the cutting of defenseless babies penii parts.

As much as I have radically opposing views of the restrictive Islamic sects, sweeping generalizations are the basis of ignorance, and ignorance is the basis of racism. Playing the race card? If you want to sound ignorant than sure, call it out. But most of the posters in here, while debating the merits of legal precedence, have not (as blatantly), shoved a whole people under one umbrella and have proceeded to produce defame them under one label.

And before you can ever imagine to retort, I declare "penii" completely medically correct, and more facetious to pronounce.

And yet we in britain havn't performed those sort of hate crimes in many many years . But i can imagine some poor islamic woman is having her head caved in with a rock as we speak

IamAz wrote:

Altered_Soul wrote:

IamAz wrote:We Have a right to criticise islamic nations , they are quite a barbaric people , Im sure it was posted on here a moment ago with there stoning of women for no reason whatsoever , arranged marriges and therefore murdering there own children if these marriges dont go ahead , and it happens over here , There racist and facist themselves looking down on homosexuals , women and often look down on the british population .

Ah yes indeed, well said. And Christians are quite the mongols themselves barring the use of contraceptives and invading countries in the name of Jesus, drinking his blood and body. And the roving terrifying bands of Jews as well, with their money hoarding ways and the cutting of defenseless babies penii parts.

As much as I have radically opposing views of the restrictive Islamic sects, sweeping generalizations are the basis of ignorance, and ignorance is the basis of racism. Playing the race card? If you want to sound ignorant than sure, call it out. But most of the posters in here, while debating the merits of legal precedence, have not (as blatantly), shoved a whole people under one umbrella and have proceeded to produce defame them under one label.

And before you can ever imagine to retort, I declare "penii" completely medically correct, and more facetious to pronounce.

And yet we in britain havn't performed those sort of hate crimes in many many years . But i can imagine some poor islamic woman is having her head caved in with a rock as we speak

Yep, the IRA don't exist. Nope. Not at all.

Frazzled wrote:
When was the last thread on that and why?

Any and all of threads that feature international politics.

As an aside, when was the last time we had a thread criticizing the West's treatment of Muslims? They aren't exactly inundating the board.

Frazzled wrote:
There's a big difference about minnarets and a country where women are burned to death because they can't leave a school on fire becuase they weren't in full dress.

Categorically, there isn't really. Its a difference of degree, and that's why this thread has carried on past a couple pages.

Some feel this makes us too much like the Middle East. Primarily because someone decided to use the Middle East as an extreme example for justification through relative leniency. Personally, I don't feel "we're still better than them" is really the strongest argument, especially as its nothing more than a weak attempt to achieve moral superiority, but I suppose its something.

Dagnabbit, Shuma! They're us Christians' last and only line of defense!

Way to spoil it

Altered_Soul wrote:Ah yes indeed, well said. And Christians are quite the mongols themselves barring the use of contraceptives and invading countries in the name of Jesus, drinking his blood and body. And the roving terrifying bands of Jews as well, with their money hoarding ways and the cutting of defenseless babies penii parts.

Really? Really? Are you seriously comparing the RCC's ban on condoms and the pill, and the RCC's interpretation of Holy Communion to women being tortured for going outside and being dressed improperly? This stuff isn't isolated, it happens all over the Middle East. And just to further illustrate my point, female circumcision is very much a widely accepted practice and definitely not isolated. Please think before you post...

Altered_Soul wrote:As much as I have radically opposing views of the restrictive Islamic sects, sweeping generalizations are the basis of ignorance, and ignorance is the basis of racism. Playing the race card? If you want to sound ignorant than sure, call it out. But most of the posters in here, while debating the merits of legal precedence, have not (as blatantly), shoved a whole people under one umbrella and have proceeded to produce defame them under one label.

Which you so happily did to Christians, lumping them all in with the Roman Catholic Church. Islamic sects have their differences, don't get me wrong, but you are comparing Christian dogma to Middle Eastern/Northern African cultural norms that are couple with religious elements.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

ShumaGorath wrote:Yep, the IRA don't exist. Nope. Not at all.

Well on a technicality he might be right. The IRA is definitively Irish, duh, and thus cannot be British, as that would require them coming from the island of Great Britain. A slight detail I know, but its what I do....

Kilkrazy wrote:If we look down on the Saudis, Turks and so on for what we see as oppressive, hypocritical behaviour towards minorities, why would we think it is a good idea to copy them?

Do people really think Islam has a secret agenda to settle lots of people in western countries, build minarets and use them to launch an Islamic revolution?

It's not exactly secret when their Mullah's are screaming out in the open that that is the plan.

JEB_Stuart wrote:

Altered_Soul wrote:Ah yes indeed, well said. And Christians are quite the mongols themselves barring the use of contraceptives and invading countries in the name of Jesus, drinking his blood and body. And the roving terrifying bands of Jews as well, with their money hoarding ways and the cutting of defenseless babies penii parts.

Really? Really? Are you seriously comparing the RCC's ban on condoms and the pill, and the RCC's interpretation of Holy Communion to women being tortured for going outside and being dressed improperly? This stuff isn't isolated, it happens all over the Middle East. And just to further illustrate my point, female circumcision is very much a widely accepted practice and definitely not isolated. Please think before you post...

Altered_Soul wrote:As much as I have radically opposing views of the restrictive Islamic sects, sweeping generalizations are the basis of ignorance, and ignorance is the basis of racism. Playing the race card? If you want to sound ignorant than sure, call it out. But most of the posters in here, while debating the merits of legal precedence, have not (as blatantly), shoved a whole people under one umbrella and have proceeded to produce defame them under one label.

Which you so happily did to Christians, lumping them all in with the Roman Catholic Church. Islamic sects have their differences, don't get me wrong, but you are comparing Christian dogma to Middle Eastern/Northern African cultural norms that are couple with religious elements.

I am sorry you missed my mockery of IamAz's post and subsequent apologist remark. *Damnit where is that damned internet tone corrector button, its gotta be around he somewhere... oh hey a Youtube embedding button*

EDIT: Removed a comma that wasn't supposed to be there. Also, this thread is going to hell in a handbasket quick.

The Irish Republican Army do exist , but um , in IRELAND . They are the other set of terrorists

IamAz wrote:The Irish Republican Army do exist , but um , in IRELAND . They are the other set of terrorists

Don't they exist because you conquered and enslaved their country? Also catholic Protestant warfare. Also, no, they aren't british, they are in the hegemonic state of the U.K. which encompasses both countries, and is the governmental and ethnic body of the state. Thats like saying hawaii isn't in the U.S. because it's not attached.

At the time of the Troubles I am pretty sure Britain was definitely the good guy...

The IRA where formed because they wanted britain to give back the protestant part of ireland , which would have been a very bad idea . They are also not a state of britain , They are a serperate country .

Actually, you are ALL wrong.

The Irish Republican Army hasn't existed for many years.
The Provisional Irish Republican Army is the 'IRA' that most people mean when they say 'IRA'. But 'Provisional IRA' is the correct term for the organisation that was active during 'The Troubles'. They are no longer active and are in the continuing process of disarmament.
There ARE other Irish Nationalist groups that use that acronym (The Real IRA and the Continuation IRA) but they are in no way affiliated with the original organisation, and the provisionals' link was tenuous at best. If anyone wants to talk further on this subject PM me.

As for the minarets - they are fairly intrusive IMHO. The Muezzins call to prayer is amplified in most places and occurs five times a day. I wouldn't want to live near one. Although it has been part of Islamic culture since it's inception, it's not essential so if the wider community votes against the building of more, then sorry muslims - you're just gonna have to suck it up or move to a more conservative Islamic state.

Albatross wrote:As for the minarets - they are fairly intrusive IMHO. The Muezzins call to prayer is amplified in most places and occurs five times a day. I wouldn't want to live near one. Although it has been part of Islamic culture since it's inception, it's not essential so if the wider community votes against the building of more, then sorry muslims - you're just gonna have to suck it up or move to a more conservative Islamic state.

See this is where I get concerned, is that it is a federal (or the Swiss equivalent if I am reading correctly) law, not a community zoning issue. I mean I wouldn't want one of the massive Mormon Temples in my neighborhood for various reasons, and I would probably feel the same about any large, obtrusive object, especially if it blares prayers/bells/etc. But its a local issue, not something to be banned. The community can reject things like that, petitions, etc.

The reason people like Az up there are worried, is because of a certain degree of 'Islamification' of England. Note I say England, because the Scots would crack heads before they let it happen, no-one wants to live in Wales paticularly, and the Irish are too strongly Christian.

Allow me to define what I mean by Islamification. Britain has always been the destination point for many different kinds of immigrants from all over the world. You had the Jewish groups hitting the West End of London in the early 90's, the Indians, the Jamaicans, and so on. However most of these groups have to a certain extent, if not been assimilated, have adapted themselves to British culture. Whilst they might have had their own food shops, and their own individual languages and neighbourhoods at first, these past waves of immigrants have become firmly ingrained in English society.


By the third generation, English is their main, if not only language, they eat the same food as the English, and aren't having 9 children per family, as is the norm in third world countries. They move up the social ladder, and begin to buy houses, enter the more successful career fields, and raise children with Western values of democracy. They are in short, English. This may not always be the case, as the Black gangs of London are shown, but even they are, to a certain extent, Westernised.

The Islamic immigration on the other hand seems to be different. Some areas of England are so heavily inundated with muslims that many there do not even speak English. They do not have to, as they can buy their food from muslim shops, hold conversations with arabic muslim neighbours, and attend schools and mosques that only communicate in their native language. As the number of muslims is so great, English cultural values are not imparted to their children. They grow up in an Islamic environment where the Father still controls who his daughter marries, and woman are socially forced to wear a Burqua. Impromptu sharia law courts are convened, which whilst they have no legal authority, wield considerable cultural authority. Muslim women continue to have large families of children.

Theoretically speaking, if the birth rate of white English natives continues to decrease, whilst the Muslim population explodes rapidly, in thirty years time a signficant part of the population will be Muslim. Eventually, the native population will be supplanted by them.

The fact that extremists openly preach for this has made people hyper sensitive to the fact that unlike previous immigrants, the muslims as a whole tend to have little desire to assimilate, and promote Western values and culture. However, any widespread discussion of this is prevented by the Political Correctness Brigade, and any advocaters of any kind of control being exerted over Islamic Immigration or culture is denounced as racist. As a result, people grow more and more resentful against the mulsim population, leading to backlashes, as we are now seeing in Switzerland and France.

With regards to jobs, houses and welfare, and all the rest of it-these are merely offshoots of the core problem, and general white middle/working class bitching about immigrants that has always occurred. It happens in any situation with large amounts of immigration. In the words of South Park, 'Dey took owr Jerwbs!'

I'm going to be the European Muslim's advocate, because there is a lot of prejudice, generalisations, simplifications and ignorance about what is really happening.

1. Many European Muslims are, in fact, citizens, some are members of parliament, the Mayor of Rotterdam (Netherlands) is a Muslim and I recall he had a good relationship with the late Theo van Gogh (murdered by muslim radical).

2. Many European Muslim politicians, except for Abu Jajah (Belgium) are really sensible people who have an European mindset/ideology

3. Most European Muslims are not refugees but immigrant workers. These immigrant workers mostly do jobs aboriginal Europeans have no interest in, or otherwise they work together.

4. The majority of European Muslims are no missionaries and are becoming more and more European. It is really the other way around (they are not forcing their lifestyle on us). I know that there is an issue in the UK though, where Muslims have the desire to be allowed to practice minor Sharia laws and regulations... I agree that would not be a right course of action for integration. but the way Islam is practiced in Europe in General is quite liberal. Many Euro-Muslims would face jail-time or corporal punishment in say, Iran or Saudi Arabia (so they're happy to be here).

5. News Media are unable to tell the complete truth, its extremes that are reported in the news. Yes, honor murders, robberies, flag burnings are what we see of muslims in the news and papers. These are a vocal minority just like neo-nazis and right-wing extremists. The media is an industry of Fear (news) and Foolishness (entertainment) in most countries. This does not produce a balanced image of the perceived truth.

6. Generosity has backfired? No, not quite. There are problems with some young "muslim" immigrant boys which originates in a cultural disconnect in parenting styles, one style is suitable for a village in the Rif Mountains (Morrocco), the other for urban European areas. Those don't mix well and are the cause of violence and intolerance. Too little has been done to bring the various ways of parenting closer together in the past. In addition, earlier, learning the local language was not mandatory (in the Netherlands), that was and is problematic in education of the immigrant kids and day to day life. Measures are being taken, but it's still far from perfect.

7. Resentment goes both ways, and I fear the Europeans were resentfull first, which alienated/antagonised younger immigrants born in Europe. I have an Dutch-Indies background, and one of my cousins suffers from his indo-european appearance. Some of his teachers think he's Morrocan and thus reprimand him harder for small transgressions in class than they would have if he had a more western appearance. That he hangs out with Antillians/Surinams does not help him either... it makes him angry and moody, enforcing the image that he could be a dangerous morrocan muslim. Imagine a Morrocan, born here, not quite accepted in the country of his father except as a tourist and in the Netherlands viewed as a likely criminal or terrorist, and treated like so... What would you become, if you had that experience?

The nasty problems are caused by perceived threats, insults and slights. I can't deny there are problems with muslims in europe, but it's not the cataclysmic culture clash some people think it is. It's incidents and misconceptions and if it comes to being angry and antisocial both Europeans and whatever muslim culture are equal. Fortunately, most people are normal.

@ Ketara: That sounds a lot worse than is the case in The Netherlands, but I guess Pim Fortuyn (unexpectedly murdered by a environmentalist) paved the way for a bit more active monitoring of immigration and integration (especialy of muslims who are already here). As it stand now, the "westernization" of Muslims is going quite well, even while respecting the bare basics of their religion and culture that are compatible with western standards and practices... Maybe my statements should exclude the UK IF you are not making great simplifications...

Simply put:

Good for you, Switzerland. Show them that they need to start integrating, rather than the minorities expecting to move in and gain every right they demand.

Kanluwen wrote:Simply put:

Good for you, Switzerland. Show them that they need to start integrating, rather than the minorities expecting to move in and gain every right they demand.

Are we talking about the same buildings here? Of which Switzerland only had four of? Because that seems pretty ridiculously and pointlessly xenophobic. If you're trying to slow minority integration and promote extremist reactionism in the minorities, the best possible course of action is idiotic and childish curbs on religious freedom brought about by racist reactionary fear. It's going to have the opposite effect to what they seemingly want, which the Swiss government has stated repeatedly. It's really, really, really stupid. Fo reals. It's like trying to burn off a cut. I can't even express the logical somersault that would be required to actually think this could somehow do anything but cause events to worsen. Argue about islamification all you want, but this is not a sensible or functional reaction.

IamAz wrote:Well maybe you are all right but this is just they way i see it . Im telling you all one thing , There is no way i could build a church in most middle east countrys .

Like most of the paranoid 'our culture is under siege' stuff you've posted, that is not true. There are Christian churches in every middle east country excepting Saudi Arabia, and they're in negotiation with the Vatican to open one.

Not that that would matter anyway, because the muslim population of Switzerland is not accountable for the policies of Saudi Arabia. You're a Brit and part of the West, but you aren't responsible for the policies of the Swiss government... it would ludicrous to try and use the Swiss ban on minarets to justify a restriction of your rights. So why are you trying to use the policies of the Saudi government to justify a restriction on the rights of Yugoslav muslims living in Switzerland?

ShumaGorath wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:Simply put:

Good for you, Switzerland. Show them that they need to start integrating, rather than the minorities expecting to move in and gain every right they demand.

Are we talking about the same buildings here? Of which Switzerland only had four of? Because that seems pretty ridiculously and pointlessly xenophobic. If you're trying to slow minority integration and promote extremist reactionism in the minorities, the best possible course of action is idiotic and childish curbs on religious freedom brought about by racist reactionary fear. It's going to have the opposite effect to what they seemingly want, which the Swiss government has stated repeatedly. It's really, really, really stupid. Fo reals. It's like trying to burn off a cut. I can't even express the logical somersault that would be required to actually think this could somehow do anything but cause events to worsen. Argue about islamification all you want, but this is not a sensible or functional reaction.

Because minorities integrate oh so well into European/American societies as is?

There has to come a point where you say "Screw it, adapt to the majority or GTFO".

Sure it sounds xenophobic. But really. It doesn't matter how many mosques they have in the country. It's the point of fact that they didn't want these minarets, it's that simple. There's no intention of repression, as far as I can tell. It's as simple as they don't want a differing architectural style cluttering up their skyline.

mstersmith wrote:Some parts of Europe are terified they may lose there way of life because there genorosity has now back fired. The Radical Muslims are gaining ground and out breeding those who are acually citizens. What do you expect them to do?

I expect them to engage in informed dialogue that deals with real issues of integration and nation building. I expect people to be entirely dismissive of delusional 'clash of the cultures' and 'poor white people under siege' rhetoric, and to attack it as the substance free poppcock it is.

I know, I'm a dreamer.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

JEB_Stuart wrote:Honestly, I have seen some pretty awful things done in Europe and America by people abusing their freedom. Americans have a harder time understanding how real a problem muslim immigration is for European countries. All of my friends from Europe are fairly tolerant people, but they are all afraid of muslim immigrants trying to change their country to conform more to Sharia law. Is it not the West's responsibility, especially in the face of our own fierce protection of things like women's right, freedom of speech, etc., to temper the ability of people who obviously have no regard for Western values?

Sure, and we aren't to waiver on core values like equality of the sexes. But has that got to do with building a minaret?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

IamAz wrote:If the middle east are so "Accepting" of christians , how come all of our priests that have gone there to help during the iraq war have been attacked , captured and in quite a few cases murdered for nothing more than trying to help people ? By the way , I find it quite hard to belive that iran have any churches ? They hate the west and christianity . They've just arrested a group of british sailors again !

You know, this thing where you talk about 'them' as a singular entity, and then hold them accountable as a group for the actions of individuals... that's pretty much exactly how racism works.

Kanluwen wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:Simply put:

Good for you, Switzerland. Show them that they need to start integrating, rather than the minorities expecting to move in and gain every right they demand.

Are we talking about the same buildings here? Of which Switzerland only had four of? Because that seems pretty ridiculously and pointlessly xenophobic. If you're trying to slow minority integration and promote extremist reactionism in the minorities, the best possible course of action is idiotic and childish curbs on religious freedom brought about by racist reactionary fear. It's going to have the opposite effect to what they seemingly want, which the Swiss government has stated repeatedly. It's really, really, really stupid. Fo reals. It's like trying to burn off a cut. I can't even express the logical somersault that would be required to actually think this could somehow do anything but cause events to worsen. Argue about islamification all you want, but this is not a sensible or functional reaction.

Because minorities integrate oh so well into European/American societies as is?

There has to come a point where you say "Screw it, adapt to the majority or GTFO".

Sure it sounds xenophobic. But really. It doesn't matter how many mosques they have in the country. It's the point of fact that they didn't want these minarets, it's that simple. There's no intention of repression, as far as I can tell. It's as simple as they don't want a differing architectural style cluttering up their skyline.

As far as you can tell from what? Every piece of writing I have read about the subject, and everything I know about modern day Switzerland points to this being a reactionary anti muslim law bred by intentionally cultured and racially based public sentiment, and placed into vote by a radical anti immigration party. This has nothing to do with a couple of towers with spirals on the support beams, and everything to do with fear of islamification by the working class minority that they just want out of their country. The law itself is going to do nothing but incite resentment and lend strength to more hardline muslim leaders, the exact opposite of what it's "supposed" to do. As for "screw it and adapt", that's never worked and will never work as a method for dealing with the integration of a foreign class. It incites resentment, and the construction of conclaves of persecution. There are thousands of examples of cultures that due intolerant and often times hostile surroundings actually became stronger and more insistent in their beliefs (the strength of the diaspora jews is an excellent example of the unifying ability of religion in the face of popular semetic intolerance).

As far as I can tell from it being a reactionary anti-minaret law, that is.