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.

Kanluwen wrote: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.

No. It isn't. You can only think that's the case when you know nothing of the party that brought the initiative forward, but I've already pointed out in this thread that the group that brought this forward is an explicitly racist group, responsible for this poster;



And here's the poster the same group used to advertise the campaign;



This is an explicitly racist group that is openly hostile to foreigners.

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

They've also been actively refusing the construction or opening of new mosques as well, but there's no outright ban on them yet (just a soft one, they are still going up, but are largely prevented from doing so in most attempts). Given the likely strong reaction to this though, I can see a harder ban occurring in the future.

Frazzled wrote:Not seeing a lot of dissapproval of the Mideast myself.

The Swiss ban just happened, so that's what a thread was posted about. On the other hand, Saudi Arabia has been oppressive craphole for a long time.

I could post a thread pointing out that Saudi Arabia is an oppressive craphole, but its very unlikely anyone would try contort an argument justifying their limits on basic human freedoms, and so there wouldn't be a debate on the issue.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

IamAz wrote:We Have a right to criticise islamic nations , they are quite a barbaric people

Whoah.

ShumaGorath wrote:

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

They've also been actively refusing the construction or opening of new mosques as well, but there's no outright ban on them yet (just a soft one, they are still going up, but are largely prevented from doing so in most attempts). Given the likely strong reaction to this though, I can see a harder ban occurring in the future.

Okay, well that I'll agree is a distinctly bad attitude. Freedom of religion is fine...but you don't need a gigantic tower blaring at all hours of the night to pray, according to the Muslims I know.

Kanluwen wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:

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

They've also been actively refusing the construction or opening of new mosques as well, but there's no outright ban on them yet (just a soft one, they are still going up, but are largely prevented from doing so in most attempts). Given the likely strong reaction to this though, I can see a harder ban occurring in the future.

Okay, well that I'll agree is a distinctly bad attitude. Freedom of religion is fine...but you don't need a gigantic tower blaring at all hours of the night to pray, according to the Muslims I know.

They don't do that at night.

Well that explains why they said that, now doesn't it

ShumaGorath wrote:They don't do that at night.

The first call to prayer is a five in the morning, which can be pretty damn annoying, especially when they don't have a trained vocalist, but just use some crappy PA system. But you can have a policy restricting loud noises in the morning, without banning minarets entirely.

sebster wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:They don't do that at night.

The first call to prayer is a five in the morning, which can be pretty damn annoying, especially when they don't have a trained vocalist, but just use some crappy PA system. But you can have a policy restricting loud noises in the morning, without banning minarets entirely.

I know when they pray, and as I said, 5AM isn't night. I've lived in dorms in cities, by construction before, and most places tend to plow snow at between 3AM and 6AM, so some somewhat melodic gibberish doesn't hit me as a tremendously annoying thing to sleep through at 5.

Well that explains why they said that, now doesn't it

Well it would, except they don't do it at night in the minarets, which is what caught me off guard. Though I guess as a commentary on reality it does stand on its own.

Kanluwen wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:

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

They've also been actively refusing the construction or opening of new mosques as well, but there's no outright ban on them yet (just a soft one, they are still going up, but are largely prevented from doing so in most attempts). Given the likely strong reaction to this though, I can see a harder ban occurring in the future.

Okay, well that I'll agree is a distinctly bad attitude. Freedom of religion is fine...but you don't need a gigantic tower blaring at all hours of the night to pray, according to the Muslims I know.

I wonder if Christian church belltowers are illegal for the Swiss...something tells me they're not though. Those can be quite annoying as well, do we really need bells for weddings, time of day, special events, etc?

sebster wrote:The first call to prayer is a five in the morning, which can be pretty damn annoying, especially when they don't have a trained vocalist, but just use some crappy PA system. But you can have a policy restricting loud noises in the morning, without banning minarets entirely.

It also has the added benefit of actually banning all loud noises, which is really what you want in the first place.

Cane wrote:
I wonder if Christian church belltowers are illegal for the Swiss...something tells me they're not though. Those can be quite annoying as well, do we really need bells for weddings, time of day, special events, etc?

I don't know about that, but a church up the road where I lived in PA. was forced to quit ringing their bells because a couple that decided to build a house next to it complained of the noise.

Cane wrote:Agreed with this bit in the article:

"It's a sad day for freedom of religion," said Mohammed Shafiq, the chief executive of the Ramadhan Foundation, a British youth organization. "A constitutional amendment that's targeted towards one religious community is discriminatory and abhorrent."

So you agree with outright hypocrasy? When I see someone of the Islamic faith complaining about religious discrimination, I see nothing but blatant hypocrasy after seeing the actions of members of it's faith time and time again the world over. Before you complain about other people's actions, shouldn't you take care of your own people first when they do the same or worse?

Mohammed Shafiq discriminates against other people's religions? I was not aware of that. Of course, I don't know anything about him besides what I read in the article.

Relapse wrote:I don't know about that, but a church up the road where I lived in PA. was forced to quit ringing their bells because a couple that decided to build a house next to it complained of the noise.

That strikes me as quite funny actually... . Who woulda' thunk that a church would ring it's bells after you build a house next to it.

Orkeo wrote:

sebster wrote:The first call to prayer is a five in the morning, which can be pretty damn annoying, especially when they don't have a trained vocalist, but just use some crappy PA system. But you can have a policy restricting loud noises in the morning, without banning minarets entirely.

It also has the added benefit of actually banning all loud noises, which is really what you want in the first place.

This is about the only thing that seems to be a benefit of this whole idea. Things like this can be taken care of by municipalities though, there are way too many extenuating circumstances to 'universally' ban all loud noise to unreasonable lengths. If a company needs to start work at 5 AM to finish before dark, it kinda sucks to be in the apartment building... yeah... not much to do about it.

Orkeosaurus wrote:Mohammed Shafiq discriminates against other people's religions? I was not aware of that. Of course, I don't know anything about him besides what I read in the article.

I know the guy, total dick.

This guy right?

Wiki wrote:He has said that he believes that it is his duty as a Muslim to speak out strongly against extremism and terrorism, he was the first UK's Muslim Leader to appear on BBC News to condemn the Glasgow terrorist attack... Wiki summary

Wrexasaur wrote:

Relapse wrote:I don't know about that, but a church up the road where I lived in PA. was forced to quit ringing their bells because a couple that decided to build a house next to it complained of the noise.

That strikes me as quite funny actually... . Who woulda' thunk that a church would ring it's bells after you build a house next to it.

Bad, but not quite as ridiculous as the people where I now live in Utah that built houses 10 miles out in the country next to an established rendering plant(the place where dead farm and road kill animals get taken to for processing). These people then began complaining about the smell, forcing the plant to move at its own expense.

Zathras wrote:

Cane wrote:Agreed with this bit in the article:

"It's a sad day for freedom of religion," said Mohammed Shafiq, the chief executive of the Ramadhan Foundation, a British youth organization. "A constitutional amendment that's targeted towards one religious community is discriminatory and abhorrent."

So you agree with outright hypocrasy? When I see someone of the Islamic faith complaining about religious discrimination, I see nothing but blatant hypocrasy after seeing the actions of members of it's faith time and time again the world over. Before you complain about other people's actions, shouldn't you take care of your own people first when they do the same or worse?

Mohammed Shafiq is the overlord for all Muslims and can somehow be blamed for all of its less than decent actions? Hell isn't Islam the number one religion or at least soon to be? In that case he's got a lot of explaining to do!

BTW if you're a religious person can I blame you for all the less than decent actions that faith has done? Purdy please? If you're not religious then can I bash your nationality for its ethically questionable actions? Especially that guy who shot up the four cops recently?

Relapse wrote:Bad, but not quite as ridiculous as the people where I now live in Utah that built houses 10 miles out in the country next to an established rendering plant(the place where dead farm and road kill animals get taken to for processing). These people then began complaining about the smell, forcing the plant to move at its own expense.

That is about the best reaction I have at this point... ahem... yeah...

These kind of people always make me feel at least one rung higher on the food chain. I don't believe they serve any other purpose.

Relapse wrote:These kind of people always make me feel at least one rung higher on the food chain. I don't believe they serve any other purpose.

I sure hope you're speaking literally.

You already know a place that'll have no problem grinding them up for you!

Frazzled wrote:

mstersmith wrote:The Christians in those countries tolerate a few persecutions, as I said they generally keep to themselves but will fight like hell once they have been provoked. They do not have a very nice existance but they do have churches all over Arabia and Africa.

But they are persecuted.

So are Sunnis, Shiites and Jews, depending where they live and who their neighbours are.

I don't see how that is good and should be emulated.

It is possible the Swiss have seen what has happened in other countries which have allowed Islamic culture to assert itself so stongly on a previously Christian background.

The area I live in has a high proportion of Muslim people, if I had to hazard a guess i would say that there are probably 50% Christian/Atheist, 40% Muslim and 10% othher (Jewish/Hindi). As stated by a previous poster many Muslim immigrants seem to be reluctant to integrate into a traditional british society. Personaly i don't have any problem with people following their own beliefs and cultures. What i do have a problem with is that being enforced upon those who have no interest in them. Tolerance is fine, but allowing a minority to do as they please for fear of being called racist is not ok. It merely leads to resentment and racial tension.

In many places in the UK there is open resentment towards Muslims as it is believed that they recieve better treatment than others (priority for social housing and so on) regardless of if this is true or not, people are fed up of having the beliefs of others forced upon them, and being told that if they dis-agree they are racist.

I personaly find Sharia law abhorent and almost impossible to comprehend, but if that is the way someone wishes to live their life then fine, but do so in a country where the majority also want that, do not expect others to adopt your culture and way of thinking just to suit yourself. Moderation is the key.

Radicalism should have no place in a modern democratic state, regardless of if that happens to be Christian, Islamic, Jewish or any other form of extreamism.

People should, where ever possible, live by the laws and customs of the country they are in, if they dissagree they should go through the proper chanels (electing parlimentary representatives) to seek change. What they should not do is alienate others by playing the race card everytime something goes against them.

The difficulty with having a multi cultural society is that there will be clashes in belief and values, mostly these can be smothed out and a compromise reached, I do believe that britain has benefited from multiculturalism, however for a country to function successfuly the wishes of the majority must be followed where ever it is practical.

squilverine wrote:
People should, where ever possible, live by the laws and customs of the country they are in, if they dissagree they should go through the proper chanels (electing parlimentary representatives) to seek change. What they should not do is alienate others by playing the race card everytime something goes against them.

While the race card may be a poor political tool, it is still just a political tool, and so is most assuredly part of the proper channels you are referring to.

squilverine wrote:
however for a country to function successfuly the wishes of the majority must be followed where ever it is practical.

How do you determine what happens to be practical? There's certainly nothing practical about cultivating a large, isolated minority group. Obviously the Sharia Law impedes integration, and so should be prohibited, but something like forbidding the construction of a minaret is hardly the same.

When we talk about integration into society we aren't talking about enforced cultural preferences. Instead, we're discussing how to best allow disparate cultural groups to interact in public space; usually amounting to little more than a uniform legal code, and currency.

sebster wrote:

No. It isn't. You can only think that's the case when you know nothing of the party that brought the initiative forward, but I've already pointed out in this thread that the group that brought this forward is an explicitly racist group, responsible for this poster;



And here's the poster the same group used to advertise the campaign;



This is an explicitly racist group that is openly hostile to foreigners.

You can build motorways without embracing fascism, even though it was the Third Reich that invented them.
The above far right organisation is capitalising on a good idea shared by what looks to be the majority of Swiss, it doesnt mean all the anit-mianret lobbyists are members of this apparent far right organisation.

If for example a mainstream party was to take an anti immigration stance that far right might celebrate with a poster campaign, it doesn't mean they are on the same side. After all Switzerland is prohibiting bulding more minarets, it is not kicking out the black sheep. Besides the black sheep can mean anyone by its nature, the concept of the black sheep means the same thing across most of the western world - a 'misfit'. So the black sheep poster could be anti-Semitic or homophobic as much as anti-black. You have to watch propoganda carefully to understand it, the poster is deliberately unclear.

A couple of excerpts from the Swiss Constitution 1999, non-authoratitive English translation.

Article 2 Purpose
(1) The Swiss Federation protects the liberty and rights of the people and safeguards the independence and security of the country.
(2) It promotes common welfare, sustainable development, inner cohesion, and cultural diversity of the country. (My emphasis.)
(3) It ensures the highest possible degree of equal opportunities for all citizens.


Article 8 Equality
(1) All humans are equal before the law.
(2) Nobody may be discriminated against, namely for his or her origin, race, sex, age, language, social position, way of life, religious, philosophical, or political convictions, or because of a corporal or mental disability.

I wonder which Article they have amended.

dogma wrote:

squilverine wrote:
People should, where ever possible, live by the laws and customs of the country they are in, if they dissagree they should go through the proper chanels (electing parlimentary representatives) to seek change. What they should not do is alienate others by playing the race card everytime something goes against them.

While the race card may be a poor political tool, it is still just a political tool, and so is most assuredly part of the proper channels you are referring to.

I don't belive this should be the case, it weakens peoples perceptions of the severity of a racist occurence when discrimination genuinely takes place. Shouting racist at the slightest provocation is no different to the little boy who cried wolf.

dogma wrote:

squilverine wrote:
however for a country to function successfuly the wishes of the majority must be followed where ever it is practical.

How do you determine what happens to be practical? There's certainly nothing practical about cultivating a large, isolated minority group. Obviously the Sharia Law impedes integration, and so should be prohibited, but something like forbidding the construction of a minaret is hardly the same.

When we talk about integration into society we aren't talking about enforced cultural preferences. Instead, we're discussing how to best allow disparate cultural groups to interact in public space; usually amounting to little more than a uniform legal code, and currency.

When I spoke of practicality I mean that you need to take into account the costs financialy, in time and in manpower when considering any undertaking. I was not refering specificaly to the case in point when i made that statement. You are right in what you say, it is nothing practical in "cultivating a large, isolated minority group" however it even less practical to cultivate a larger, isolated majority group.

Kilkrazy wrote:Please don't troll the thread with obvious nonsense.

There isn't a person in the country of any religion (or none) who works on Christmas Day except in vital industries like power, police and pubs, or if they volunteer.

No-one in the very large international megacorp where I work gets muslim or jewish holidays. They get the normal bank holidays and have to take their own holidays for Eid and so on.

Not so, I never had christmas off for five years even when it came on my normal days off.
people kept breaking down, and I had to go fix or recover their cars etc.

Kilkrazy wrote:A couple of excerpts from the Swiss Constitution 1999, non-authoratitive English translation.

Article 2 Purpose
(1) The Swiss Federation protects the liberty and rights of the people and safeguards the independence and security of the country.
(2) It promotes common welfare, sustainable development, inner cohesion, and cultural diversity of the country. (My emphasis.)
(3) It ensures the highest possible degree of equal opportunities for all citizens.


Article 8 Equality
(1) All humans are equal before the law.
(2) Nobody may be discriminated against, namely for his or her origin, race, sex, age, language, social position, way of life, religious, philosophical, or political convictions, or because of a corporal or mental disability.

I wonder which Article they have amended.

I dont think they have.

Read the purpose, which is important as it implies the intent of the law and thus helps interpret it.

1. safeguards the independence and security of the country : a good reason to get tough on Islamic expansion right there.
2. It promotes common welfare : Tolereance of intolerance is not common welfare
... inner cohesion... : well that is directly contrary to Islamic interference
...and cultural diversity : the 'my way or the highway' of Islamic fundamentalism is a far greater threat to cultural diversity than any minor restrcition of the state.
3. It ensures the highest possible degree of equal opportunities for all citizens. : Another good caveat, highest possible degree of equal opportunities cannot be established while facing calls for Islamic law and use of restrictive clothing that inhibits womens rights.

On Equality

1. All humans are equal before the law. : Sure they all get to obey or face the consequences, so noone not even Christians can build minarets.
2. Nobody may be discriminated against, namely for his or her origin, race, sex, age, language, social position, way of life, religious, philosophical, or political convictions, or because of a corporal or mental disability. : They cross that line if they ban islam, the Swiss know better than that. You can be a Moslem, but there will be limits on how far you can take that in society. a true man of faith will not be prohibited from a walk of faith, someone who wants to take over Switzerland for Allah might have problems.

Its all constitutional and doesnt stop mosdlems from continuing their daily lives, the Swiss nation will end up with less discrimination not more if fundamentalism and cultural imposition is limited. Switzerland doesn't obviously have the politically correct dogma hangups other countries have whereupon any state restriction is willful discrimination and any critique of fundamentalist expansion is intolerance.

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.

Kanluwen wrote:Okay, well that I'll agree is a distinctly bad attitude. Freedom of religion is fine...but you don't need a gigantic tower blaring at all hours of the night to pray, according to the Muslims I know.

It's no secret that I'm not fond of major religions in general. I don't see much of a difference between a Muezzin and church bells.Bell towers are more dominent in Europe because many countires here are founded on christianity. This my sound a bit intollerant, but that's the way I see it.