PDA

View Full Version : Swiss vote to ban mosque minarets



jak488
December 1st, 2009, 04:53 AM
Freedom of religion ftw?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091129/ap_on_re_eu/eu_switzerland_minaret_ban

By ALEXANDER G. HIGGINS, Associated Press Writer – Sun Nov 29, 6:40 pm ET
GENEVA – Swiss voters overwhelmingly approved a constitutional ban on minarets on Sunday, barring construction of the iconic mosque towers in a surprise vote that put Switzerland at the forefront of a European backlash against a growing Muslim population.

Muslim groups in Switzerland and abroad condemned the vote as biased and anti-Islamic. Business groups said the decision hurt Switzerland's international standing and could damage relations with Muslim nations and wealthy investors who bank, travel and shop there.

"The Swiss have failed to give a clear signal for diversity, freedom of religion and human rights," said Omar Al-Rawi, integration representative of the Islamic Denomination in Austria, which said its reaction was "grief and deep disappointment."

About 300 people turned out for a spontaneous demonstration on the square outside parliament, holding up signs saying, "That is not my Switzerland," placing candles in front of a model of a minaret and making another minaret shape out of the candles themselves.

"We're sorry," said another sign. A young woman pinned to her jacket a piece of paper saying, "Swiss passport for sale."

The referendum by the nationalist Swiss People's Party labeled minarets as symbols of rising Muslim political power that could one day transform Switzerland into an Islamic nation. The initiative was approved 57.5 to 42.5 percent by some 2.67 million voters. Only four of the 26 cantons or states opposed the initiative, granting the double approval that makes it part of the Swiss constitution.

Muslims comprise about 6 percent of Switzerland's 7.5 million people. Many are refugees from the Yugoslav wars of the 1990s and about one in 10 actively practices their religion, the government says.

The country's four standing minarets, which won't be affected by the ban, do not traditionally broadcast the call to prayer outside their own buildings.

The sponsors of the initiative provoked complaints of bias from local officials and human-rights group with campaign posters that showed minarets rising like missiles from the Swiss flag next to a fully veiled woman. Backers said the growing Muslim population was straining the country "because Muslims don't just practice religion."

"The minaret is a sign of political power and demand, comparable with whole-body covering by the burqa, tolerance of forced marriage and genital mutilation of girls," the sponsors said. They said Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan compared mosques to Islam's military barracks and called "the minarets our bayonets." Erdogan made the comment in citing an Islamic poem many years before he became prime minister.

Anxieties about growing Muslim minorities have rippled across Europe in recent years, leading to legal changes in some countries. There have been French moves to ban the full-length body covering known as the burqa. Some German states have introduced bans on head scarves for Muslim women teaching in public schools. Mosques and minaret construction projects in Sweden, France, Italy, Austria, Greece, Germany and Slovenia have been met by protests.

But the Swiss ban in minarets, sponsored by the country's largest political party, was one of the most extreme reactions.

"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."

He said he was concerned the decision could have reverberations in other European countries.

Amnesty International said the vote violated freedom of religion and would probably be overturned by the Swiss supreme court or the European Court of Human Rights.

The seven-member Cabinet that heads the Swiss government had spoken out strongly against the initiative but the government said it accepted the vote and would impose an immediate ban on minaret construction.

It said that "Muslims in Switzerland are able to practice their religion alone or in community with others, and live according to their beliefs just as before." It took the unusual step of issuing its press release in Arabic as well as German, French, Italian and English.

Sunday's results stood in stark contrast to opinion polls, last taken 10 days ago, that showed 37 percent supporting the proposal. Experts said before the vote that they feared Swiss had pretended during the polling that they opposed the ban because they didn't want to appear intolerant.

"The sponsors of the ban have achieved something everyone wanted to prevent, and that is to influence and change the relations to Muslims and their social integration in a negative way," said Taner Hatipoglu, president of the Federation of Islamic Organizations in Zurich. "Muslims indeed will not feel safe anymore."

The People's Party has campaigned mainly unsuccessfully in previous years against immigrants with campaign posters showing white sheep kicking a black sheep off the Swiss flag and another with brown hands grabbing eagerly for Swiss passports.

Geneva's main mosque was vandalized Thursday when someone threw a pot of pink paint at the entrance. Earlier this month, a vehicle with a loudspeaker drove through the area imitating a muezzin's call to prayer, and vandals damaged a mosaic when they threw cobblestones at the building.

antinimby
December 2nd, 2009, 12:51 PM
Muslim groups in Switzerland and abroad condemned the vote as biased and anti-Islamic.I want to know if one can build non-Muslim places of worship in Muslim countries.

It would be hypocritical of these muslims "abroad" if they want to be treated fairly in other countries when they aren't treating other religions fairly in their own countries.

dtolman
December 2nd, 2009, 02:45 PM
I want to know if one can build non-Muslim places of worship in Muslim countries.

It would be hypocritical of these muslims "abroad" if they want to be treated fairly in other countries when they aren't treating other religions fairly in their own countries.

Many places are not. There are no Churches in Saudi Arabia (let alone steeples and crosses), and public worship of anything but Islam is illegal.

212
December 4th, 2009, 03:01 AM
I want to know if one can build non-Muslim places of worship in Muslim countries.According to Juan Cole (http://www.juancole.com/2009/11/swiss-islamophobia-betrays.html):

"Among the nearly 60 Muslim-majority states in the world, only one, Saudi Arabia, forbids the building of churches."

He goes on to mention that Saudi Arabia's neighbor Qatar bans church steeples and bells but not churches -- similar to Switzerland's new law.

lofter1
December 4th, 2009, 11:48 AM
The Daily Show (http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-december-3-2009/oliver-s-travels---switzerland) covers the world ...

Oliver's Travels - Switzerland

John Oliver asks Ambassador Peter Maurer about Switzerland's unshakable neutrality shortly before its vote to ban minarets.

Fabrizio
December 4th, 2009, 12:40 PM
People are uneasy about a religion that does not respect basic human rights. And they don't want a built symbol of that presiding over the landscape.

The ban sounds reasonable to me.

lofter1
December 4th, 2009, 09:18 PM
Crosses and steeples and stuff like that offend me -- they are symbols of a group (http://www.nowpublic.com/world/us-fundamentalist-group-heart-ugandas-anti-gay-law) that sanctions outrageous punishments (http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/ugandas-anti-gay-bill-causes-commonwealth-uproar/article1376503/) -- and would even allow for murder (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/nov/29/uganda-death-sentence-gay-sex).

Take those symbols down. Stop the madness (http://gayswithoutborders.wordpress.com/2009/10/15/ugandan-member-of-parliament-proposes-that-gays-should-be-executed/).

Codex
December 10th, 2009, 04:31 AM
The Muslim bogey man strikes again. :rolleyes:

Britain's Muslim population it represents tiny proportion of the total population around 3% and has a history stretching back hundreds of years. Britain's muslim population is far smaller than most European countries and the vast majority of muslim women in Britain do not wear burkas or yashmaks. In fact a recent study by Lancaster University found Muslim teens in Britain to be the most intergrated, assimilated and the least radical in Europe.

http://www.theasiannews.co.uk/news/s/1133039_british_muslim_teens_more_assimilated (http://www.theasiannews.co.uk/news/s/1133039_british_muslim_teens_more_assimilated)_

http://www.asianimage.co.uk/uk/4557015.Muslim_youths__most_assimilated_in_Europe_/ (http://www.asianimage.co.uk/uk/4557015.Muslim_youths__most_assimilated_in_Europe_/)

Furthermore Black and Chinese Communities have assimalated so well in to British Society that they are in danger of disappearing altogether.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/jan/18/race-integration-study (http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/jan/18/race-integration-study)

A couple of British Muslim Women

Konnie Huq

http://img.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2008/05_03/huqREX1305_468x606.jpg


Yasmina Siadatan (BBC Apprentice Winner 2009)



http://www.independent.co.uk/multimedia/archive/00183/apprentice-yasmina-_183526t.jpg



Hammasa Kohistani



http://i23.tinypic.com/1rq6br.jpg



Samira Ahmed



http://m.gmgrd.co.uk/res/132.$plit/C_71_article_1021516_image_list_image_list_item_0_ image.jpg



Zeinab Badawi



http://img.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2008/03_03/trustee2203_468x684.jpg

Saira Khan



http://img.thesun.co.uk/multimedia/archive/00254/F_200705_May17tvSai_254968a.jpg



Laila Rouass



http://www.enkomikresimler.net/data/media/100/Laila-Rouass.jpg



Mishal Husain



http://members.ziggo.nl/kraan90/image/husain,%20mishal28.jpg



Zahra Ahmadi



http://www.bbc.co.uk/eastenders/images/characters_cast/characters/shabnam_m/shabnam_masood_large_2.jpg



Natasha Khan



http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1336/1329251194_a574060719.jpg



Baroness Sayeeda Warsi



http://www.insidedesi.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/03/syedawarsi.jpg



Riazat Butt



http://www.churchtimes.co.uk/uploads/images/Riazat%20Butt%231%23.jpg

Sarah Maple

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3125/2879548489_229d623815_o.jpg

These are just a few examples, the vast majority of Muslims are not fundamentalist or radical, to suggest they are is like suggesting that Fred Phelps and the Westboro Baptists represent all christian belief.




:)

Fabrizio
December 10th, 2009, 05:34 AM
^ I don't think this is the issue. Nor the issue in Switzerland.

---

"Furthermore Black and Chinese Communities have assimalated so well in to British Society that they are in danger of disappearing altogether."

But at least according to the British Council's Migration Index new migrants fair better in quite a few other European countries:

Migrant Policy Index:

http://www.integrationindex.eu/

Overall rankings:

http://www.integrationindex.eu/topics/2638.html

Codex
December 10th, 2009, 06:20 AM
What is the issue then, is it because the Swiss just don't like Muslim Architecture and particuarly Minarets.

The whole issue is one of assimilation, and the fact that Muslims are now feared in the post 9/11 world.

Fabrizio
December 10th, 2009, 06:39 AM
Yes. And the woman that you posted all in our standards of Western dress and not abiding to Sharia law have all indeed integrated. I doubt that those women are feareded by anyone.... outside of the Muslim world that is.

--

hbcat
December 10th, 2009, 09:02 AM
Overall rankings:

http://www.integrationindex.eu/topics/2638.html

Whoa, is the EU really expanding or what? When did Canada join?

Fabrizio
December 10th, 2009, 09:04 AM
Well, you know, they're all foreign and socialitsy... so they might as well be.

(oh.... BTW.... notice how the Swiss do on that ranking. Er...OK Codex.... you might have a point.)

hbcat
December 10th, 2009, 09:22 AM
Plus, they're half French for heaven's sake. They'll fit right in.

Codex
December 10th, 2009, 12:29 PM
Yes. And the woman that you posted all in our standards of Western dress and not abiding to Sharia law have all indeed integrated. I doubt that those women are feareded by anyone.... outside of the Muslim world that is.

--

It is only a small group of fundamentalists within Mislim commuitiies who are the real problem and who adhere to every facet of sharia law.

Codex
December 10th, 2009, 12:31 PM
Well, you know, they're all foreign and socialitsy... so they might as well be.

(oh.... BTW.... notice how the Swiss do on that ranking. Er...OK Codex.... you might have a point.)

:)

ablarc
December 10th, 2009, 02:35 PM
It is only a small group of fundamentalists within Mislim commuitiies who are the real problem and who adhere to every facet of sharia law.
Since faith is adherence to every letter of God's law, why would you favor those who are apostates?

Also known as infidels.

What good is religion without wholehearted adherence, i.e. unquestioning faith?

ZippyTheChimp
December 10th, 2009, 02:43 PM
^
An unrealistic view of how most people regard themselves as faithful to a religion.

Come to think of it, not just religion.

ablarc
December 10th, 2009, 02:52 PM
^ Talk to Sarah Palin.

(about what she believes, not what she does.)

Why have religion at all if folks regard its pronouncements as optional?

That's not religion at all.

Fabrizio
December 10th, 2009, 03:15 PM
This is a Muslim woman, a women's rights advocate offering her opion on the Minaret ban. I wonder if the women shown in Codex's post would agree with her? I don't know but my bet is that most would:

Swiss ban on minarets was a vote for tolerance and inclusion

The Swiss vote highlights the debate on Islam as a set of political and collectivist ideas, not a rejection of Muslims.

By Ayaan Hirsi Ali
from the December 5, 2009 edition

WASHINGTON - The recent Swiss referendum that bans construction of minarets has caused controversy across the world. There are two ways to interpret the vote. First, as a rejection of political Islam, not a rejection of Muslims. In this sense it was a vote for tolerance and inclusion, which political Islam rejects. Second, the vote was a revelation of the big gap between how the Swiss people and the Swiss elite judge political Islam.

IN THE BATTLE OF IDEAS, SYMBOLS ARE IMPORTANT.

What if the Swiss voters were asked in a referendum to ban the building of an equilateral cross with its arms bent at right angles as a symbol of the belief of a small minority? Or imagine a referendum on building towers topped with a hammer and sickle – another symbol dear to the hearts of a very small minority in Switzerland. Political ideas have symbols: A swastika, a hammer and sickle, a minaret, a crescent with a star in the middle (usually on top of a minaret) all represent a collectivist political theory of supremacy by one group over all others.

On controversial issues, the Swiss listen to debate, read newspapers, and otherwise investigate when they make up their minds for a vote. What Europeans are finding out about Islam as they investigate is that it is more than just a religion. Islam offers not only a spiritual framework for dealing with such human questions as birth, death, and what ought to come after this world; it prescribes a way of life. Islam is an idea about how society should be organized: the individual's relationship to the state; the relationship between men and women; rules for the interaction between believers and unbelievers; how to enforce such rules; and why a government under Islam is better than a government founded on other ideas. These political ideas of Islam have their symbols: the minaret, the crescent; the head scarf, and the sword.

The minaret is a symbol of Islamist supremacy, a token of domination that came to symbolize Islamic conquest. It was introduced decades after the founding of Islam. In Europe, as in other places in the world where Muslims settle, the places of worship are simple at first. All that a Muslim needs to fulfill the obligation of prayer is a compass to indicate the direction of Mecca, water for ablution, a clean prayer mat, and a way of telling the time so as to pray five times a day in the allocated period. The construction of large mosques with extremely tall towers that cost millions of dollars to erect are considered only after the demography of Muslims becomes significant.

THE MOSQUE EVOLVES FROM A PRAYER HOUSE TO A POLITICAL CENTER.

Imams can then preach a message of self-segregation and a bold rejection of the ways of the non-Muslims. Men and women are separated; gays, apostates and Jews are openly condemned; and believers organize around political goals that call for the introduction of forms of sharia (Islamic) law, starting with family law. This is the trend we have seen in Europe, and also in other countries where Muslims have settled. None of those Western academics, diplomats, and politicians who condemn the Swiss vote to ban the minaret address, let alone dispute, these facts.

In their response to the presence of Islam in their midst, Europeans have developed what one can discern as roughly two competing views. The first view emphasizes accuracy. Is it accurate to equate political symbols like those used by Communists and Nazis with a religious symbol like the minaret and its accessories of crescent and star; the uniforms of the Third Reich with the burqa and beards of current Islamists? If it is accurate, then Islam, as a political movement, should be rejected on the basis of its own bigotry. In this view, Muslims should not be rejected as residents or citizens. The objection is to practices that are justified in the name of Islam, like honor killings, jihad, the we-versus-they perspective, the self-segregation. In short, Islamist supremacy.

The second view refuses to equate political symbols of various forms of white fascism with the symbols of a religion. In this school of thought, Islamic Scripture is compared to Christian and Jewish Scripture. Those who reason from this perspective preach pragmatism. According to them, the key to the assimilation of Muslims is dialogue. They are prepared to appease some of the demands that Muslim minorities make in the hope that one day their attachment to radical Scripture will wear off like that of Christian and Jewish peoples.

These two contrasting perspectives correspond to two quite distinct groups in Europe. The first are mainly the working class. The second are the classes that George Orwell described as "indeterminate." Cosmopolitan in outlook, they include diplomats, businesspeople, mainstream politicians, and journalists. They are well versed in globalization and tend to focus on the international image of their respective countries. With every conflict between Islam and the West, they emphasize the possible backlash from Muslim countries and how that will affect the image of their country.

By contrast, those who reject the ideas and practices of political Islam are in touch with Muslims on a local level. They have been asked to accept Muslim immigrants as neighbors, classmates, colleagues – they are what Americans would refer to as Main Street. Here is the great paradox of today's Europe: that the working class, who voted for generations for the left, now find themselves voting for right-wing parties because they feel that the social democratic parties are out of touch.

The pragmatists, most of whom are power holders, are partially right when they insist that the integration of Muslims will take a very long time. Their calls for dialogue are sensible. But as long as they do not engage Muslims to make a choice between the values of the countries that they have come to and those of the countries they left, they will find themselves faced with more surprises. And this is what the Swiss vote shows us. This is a confrontation between local, working-class voters (and some middle-class feminists) and Muslim immigrant newcomers who feel that they are entitled, not only to practice their religion, but also to replace the local political order with that of their own.

Look carefully at the reactions of the Swiss, EU and UN elites. The Swiss government is embarrassed by the outcome of the vote. The Swedes, who are currently chairing EU meetings, have condemned the Swiss vote as intolerant and xenophobic. It is remarkable that the Swedish foreign minister, Carl Bildt, said in public that the Swiss vote is a poor act of diplomacy. What he overlooks is that this is a discussion of Islam as a domestic issue. It has nothing to do with foreign policy.

The Swiss vote highlights the debate on Islam as a domestic issue in Europe. That is, Islam as a set of political and collectivist ideas. Native Europeans have been asked over and over again by their leaders to be tolerant and accepting of Muslims. They have done that. And that can be measured a) by the amount of taxpayer money that is invested in healthcare, housing, education, and welfare for Muslims and b) the hundreds of thousands of Muslims who are knocking on the doors of Europe to be admitted. If those people who cry that Europe is intolerant are right, if there was, indeed, xenophobia and a rejection of Muslims, then we would have observed the reverse. There would have been an exodus of Muslims out of Europe.

There is indeed a wider international confrontation between Islam and the West. The Iraq and Afghan wars are part of that, not to mention the ongoing struggle between Israelis and Palestinians and the nuclear ambitions of Iran. That confrontation should never be confused with the local problem of absorbing those Muslims who have been permitted to become permanent residents and citizens into European societies.

Ayaan Hirsi Ali, author of "Infidel," is the Somali-born women's rights advocate and former Dutch parliamentarian. Her forthcoming book is entitled "Nomad."

http://www.csmonitor.com/2009/1205/p09s01-coop.html

Codex
December 10th, 2009, 04:22 PM
Since faith is adherence to every letter of God's law, why would you favor those who are apostates?

Also known as infidels.

What good is religion without wholehearted adherence, i.e. unquestioning faith?

I don't like Fundamentalists whatever religion they pretend to represent.

Fundamentslists are dangerous people who use very old texts like the Bible and Koran, which are open to widely varying interpretation in order to justify their actions.

The world would be a better place without such dangerous small minded intolerant religous fanatics.

Just because somebody does not share your religion or views does not mean they should be labelled as infidels or any other such derogatory term. We live in the 21st Century an age of scientific enlightenment and not the middle ages, although religous fundamentalists would like to take us back to the middle ages.

Fabrizio
December 10th, 2009, 05:13 PM
The world would be a better place without such dangerous small minded intolerant religous fanatics.


^ And so said Etienne as he left the voting booth.

ZippyTheChimp
December 10th, 2009, 07:05 PM
^ Talk to Sarah Palin.Palin is not most people.


Why have religion at all if folks regard its pronouncements as optional?I'm not talking about some abstract philosophical validation of religion, but how the majority who identify with a religion act in the real world.

Bob
December 10th, 2009, 09:54 PM
Ban on minarets? Did they also ban Goobers? <rim shot>

Codex
December 11th, 2009, 04:54 AM
^ And so said Etienne as he left the voting booth.

And so said Richard Dawkins and many other people including myself.

As for Muslims very few are fundamentalist, just as very few Christians are fundementalist, and very few Jews.

It should be noted that Ultra Orthodox Fundamentalist Jews are widely disliked in Israel by the larger Jewish population.

Fabrizio
December 11th, 2009, 06:01 AM
Codex: it would be interesting to know which of us has more Muslim friends.... there is really not much you have to explain to me. The fear in Europe.... as well as the UK... is over fundamentalist Muslims. And you know that. Not over secularised Muslims. And not over fundamentalist Christians and Jews... and there are good reasons for that: take a look at human rights issues in Islamic Republics. Please don't tell me, "yes, but what about fundamentalist Christians who...." As I said, take a look at human rights issues in Islamic Republics. And also read the article I posted above. Any comments on it?


--

Codex
December 11th, 2009, 07:09 AM
It doesn't matter as to who has the most Muslim friends, and lots of non muslim nations have appauling human rights records including countries in South America, Africa and countries such as China. It is only a few Muslim fundamentalist in the west who support fundamentalist Islamic religous laws and the human rights violations such laws bring.

Europe is secular and needs to remain so, and the vast majority of westernised Muslims except this, it is only a minority of fundamentalists and radicals who are the problem, and singling Muslims out (from other religions) in respect of national laws plays directly in to these peoples hands.

Once a minority feel opressed they are much more susceptible to radicalisation.

Fabrizio
December 11th, 2009, 08:11 AM
What is your feeling about Sharia law in the UK?:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article4749183.ece

What if: If the UK had a referendum system like the Swiss of direct democracy... with referendums that could overturn Parliment decisions... I wonder how the Brits would vote on such a decision as the Swiss did. Any opinions?

And just wondering: your view on the article posted above? (the one by the women's rights activist)

Codex
December 11th, 2009, 08:23 AM
What is your feeling about Sharia law in the UK?:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article4749183.ece

What if: If the UK had a referendum system like the Swiss of direct democracy... with referendums that could overturn Parliment decisions... I wonder how the Brits would vote on such a decision as the Swiss did. Any opinions?

And just wondering: your view on the article posted above? (the one by the women's rights activist)

Religous Laws has no place in Western Democracies, as I have already stated the UK Muslim population is very small, and the vast majority are westernised.

As for a vote, the British people do not agree with mass immigration nor do they wish for their culture to be swamped, however we are tolerant of the religion and beliefs of others providing that is that they respect our freedoms, religion and culture.

We are now entering an age of scientific advancement beyond anything seen in the past, by the end of the century we could be colonising other planets and could have made scientific breakthroughs far beyond our current expectations. We should not let petty religous beliefs which are more akin to the middle ages hold humanity back.

Fabrizio
December 11th, 2009, 08:28 AM
So from your first sentence I see that you feel the Sharia courts in Britain is wrong. Am I correct?

From the article: "Rulings issued by a network of five sharia courts are enforceable with the full power of the judicial system, through the county courts or High Court."

----------------------------------------------------

I understand this means speculating but... let me ask you again: "What if: If the UK had a referendum system like the Swiss of direct democracy... with referendums that could overturn Parliment decisions... I wonder how the Brits would vote on such a decision as the Swiss did. Any opinions?" (on what the outcome would be?)


--

Codex
December 11th, 2009, 08:56 AM
So from your first sentence I see that you feel the Sharia courts in Britain is wrong. Am I correct?

From the article: "Rulings issued by a network of five sharia courts are enforceable with the full power of the judicial system, through the county courts or High Court."



Muslims can settle their own civil disputes using Sharia Law if they wish in the same way the Jewish Courts (Beth Din) rule on such issues. However such Laws should only be in respect of those who hold such beliefs and should only apply to minor civil disputes.

http://www.theus.org.uk/the_united_synagogue/the_london_beth_din/about_us/

http://www.bethdin.org/

http://www.europeanmasortibetdin.org/

Fabrizio
December 11th, 2009, 09:16 AM
About Sharia law... from the article: "Rulings issued by a network of five sharia courts are enforceable with the full power of the judicial system, through the county courts or High Court."

I don't see anything about only applying "to minor civil disputes".

Personally I would be against the UK's inclusion of Sharia Law, as well as special laws for Jews as well.

But your original statement was: "Religous Laws has no place in Western Democracies,"

And I agree. Not the Sharia laws ...or the Jewish laws.

But would voting against such laws be discimatory? Would it be marginalizing Muslims? Jews?

Following your reasoning: I think it would be.

----------------------------------------------------

I understand this means speculating but... let me ask you again: "What if: If the UK had a referendum system like the Swiss of direct democracy... with referendums that could overturn Parliment decisions... I wonder how the Brits would vote on such a decision as the Swiss did. Any opinions?" (on what the outcome would be?)

ablarc
December 11th, 2009, 09:25 AM
^ Every thread eventually turns into a branch of the UK forum. :p

Fabrizio
December 11th, 2009, 09:32 AM
Getting back to Switzerland: do they still make Yodels? Loved them as a kid.

Codex
December 11th, 2009, 09:46 AM
Sharia Laws and the Beth Din (Jewish) are used within their respective communities the world over in respect of minor civil cases, they have no bearing on the national civil or indeed criminal laws of westernised democracies and nor should they.











:)

hbcat
December 11th, 2009, 09:46 AM
This is a Muslim woman, a women's rights advocate offering her opion on the Minaret ban. I wonder if the women shown in Codex's post would agree with her? I don't know but my bet is that most would:

Swiss ban on minarets was a vote for tolerance and inclusion

The Swiss vote highlights the debate on Islam as a set of political and collectivist ideas, not a rejection of Muslims.

By Ayaan Hirsi Ali
from the December 5, 2009 edition

http://www.csmonitor.com/2009/1205/p09s01-coop.html

Ayaan Hirsi Ali is the Somali woman who co-authored the script for Submission (2004), a film by Theo Van Gogh. (Van Gogh, most will recall, was brutally murdered by an Islamic extremist in Amsterdam who was enraged by the film.) She is an ardent anti-Muslim, anti-religious activist, and an outspoken atheist.

This does not invalidate her right to express these views in the Christian Science Monitor, of course, but just to be clear she is an opponent of all things Muslim, so her characterization of the ban on minarets as "a vote for tolerance" must be seen in this light. I don't think she is at all representative of the "average" European Muslim, secular or religious (whoever might fit that profile).

I don't see what the big deal is with the minarets. If people advocate, plan, and carry out violent attacks it becomes a police matter. I don't think religious Islam in Europe is extremist, in my experience. (I lived in the UK most of 1998-2001, 2003-2006.)

I'd also leave the secular Muslims out of this discussion since I assume they are not building minarets for a religion they don't actively follow.

hbcat
December 11th, 2009, 09:49 AM
^ Every thread eventually turns into a branch of the UK forum. :p

I've noticed this too, but it doesn't bother me. Seems a lot of Brits here love NY and many NY-area residents feel an affinity to the UK, especially London. C'est la vie, as we say in New Jersey.

Fabrizio
December 11th, 2009, 09:52 AM
...and many NY-area residents feel an affinity to the UK, especially London.


(But we all know NYC is better)

Codex
December 11th, 2009, 10:00 AM
^ Every thread eventually turns into a branch of the UK forum. :p

I was asked my views with regard to Britain, however prior to this I gave my opinion with regard to a more general international perspective.

It should be noted that 9/10th of this forum is just about NYC, and that of the rest only a handful of threads are in respect of the UK within the world skyscraper and architecture, news and politics and any thing goes sections of this forum, as well as a few UK pics on the photography section, other than that 90% of this forum is NYC.

Fabrizio
December 11th, 2009, 10:00 AM
...but just to be clear she is an opponent of all things Muslim


Judging from what she writes she sounds against fundamentalist Islam. But let's talk about what she has written. Sounds reasonable to me. Passages you don't agree with?

Fabrizio
December 11th, 2009, 10:05 AM
It should be noted that 9/10th of this forum is just about NYC,



For a while there, 3/10ths was about NYC and 1/10th about the UK.

And the rest was about Italy.


--

hbcat
December 11th, 2009, 10:12 AM
Judging from what she writes she sounds against fundamentalist Islam. But let's talk about what she has written. Sounds reasonable to me. Passages you don't agree with?

OK, let's return to the title: a ban = tolerance. That is meant to be provocative, as is her right, but I don't think she is advocating tolerance toward religious Muslims.

(I am off to bed -- late here -- so I will follow up in the morning.)

Fabrizio
December 11th, 2009, 10:19 AM
By religious Muslims...if you mean those who abide by Sharia law, teach such laws and those who dictate it to their followers... then of course she's not tolerant.

I don't think feminists would be.

ZippyTheChimp
December 11th, 2009, 10:44 AM
What if the Swiss voters were asked in a referendum to ban the building of an equilateral cross with its arms bent at right angles as a symbol of the belief of a small minority? Or imagine a referendum on building towers topped with a hammer and sickle – another symbol dear to the hearts of a very small minority in Switzerland. Political ideas have symbols: A swastika, a hammer and sickle, a minaret, a crescent with a star in the middle (usually on top of a minaret) all represent a collectivist political theory of supremacy by one group over all others.A big stretch by the author on how symbols are viewed. It's not necessarily by the historical roots or history. Should the Christian cross makes us think of the Inquisition?

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/71/45th_INFANTRY_DIVISION_swastika.jpg

The original shoulder patch of the US Army 45th Infantry Division (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/45th_Infantry_Division_%28United_States%29). It was a symbol for Native Americans in the southwest where the unit was located. Other cultures have used it. Its adoption by the Nazi movement have rendered it useless to express anything other than Nazism.

It's pretty clear what people think of when they see a swastika. Is it the same for a minaret?

Codex
December 11th, 2009, 11:05 AM
This symbol is still used by Buddhists on Temples and statues, as it was there use of this emblem goes back well before Nazi use. The again Hitler was obsessed with ancient artefacts and symbols of power, and the Raiders of the Lost Ark films weren't that far from reality, with Hitler aquiring the Spear of Destiny or Holy Lance of Longinus (believed to be the Lance used to stab Christ in the side whilst on the cross) and other such powerful artefacts. Napoleon Bonoparte also tried to gain possesion of the Lance. As for the Nazi salute that was derived from the Romans, whose Empire Hitler drew upon for inspiration.

http://bibleprobe.com/holy_lance.htm

The Lance is now part of the collection at Hofburg Museum in Vienna

http://www.hofburg-wien.at/en/home.html

As for the Ark of Covenant, that is believed to be in the vaults of the British Museum in London alongside numerous other unknown artefacts. The Vatican in Rome is also full of such ancient and religous artefacts.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/this-britain/hidden-in-a-british-museum-basement-the-lost-ark-looted-by-colonial-raiders-535318.html

Other such artefacts include the Holy Grail, believed to be either the Velencia Chalice or Genoa Chalice, and the true cross on which Christ died.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holy_Chalice

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/True_Cross

The Holy Lance of Longinus

http://www.ar-t.org/What_s_New/Spear_of_Longinus/Lance_of_Longinus.jpg

Buddhist Statue and Temple -

http://elfini.files.wordpress.com/2009/02/buddhist-religious-symbols-swastika-on-statue.jpg

http://heathenworld.com/swastika/Images/buddhist_temple.jpg


:)

Fabrizio
December 11th, 2009, 06:07 PM
With London's large Muslim community there must be a number of minarets in London by now. I'd love to see some photos of them to see how they look on the skyline. And some pics of minarets in NYC ? Anyone? Thanks in advance.

ablarc
December 11th, 2009, 07:08 PM
^ http://images.google.com/images?q=london%20mosque&oe=utf-8&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&hl=en&tab=wi

Fabrizio
December 11th, 2009, 07:23 PM
^ from what I understand this at the edge of London is new:

Op-ed from from the Guardian:

Mosques don't need minarets

I saw a big yellow crane had gone up outside the Brick Lane mosque when I walked past there the other day, and my heart sank.

Is this – finally – the start of the minaret project?

Let me remind you, the building is a handsome, understated 18th century one. It was built first of all by refugee Huguenots as their place of worship and then – 100 years or so later – taken over by refugee Jews as theirs. And now, another 100 years on, it's become a mosque used largely by Bengali Muslims.

Each time a new community has moved in, all they have done, effectively, is change the wallpaper. It is the best example of a shared multicultural space (the sharing separated, of course, by many decades) that I can think of. And I can only regret that I won't be alive 100 years hence to see who the new tenants will be.

Except that they'll have the problem of what to do with that identifiably Muslim item, a minaret, or at least a structure that is meant to symbolise one.

My borough of Tower Hamlets, which is responsible for the minaret scheme, does many excellent things and I know from my own time on its Conservation Design Advisory Group how meticulous and searching it is. But the minaret raises a number of questions.

Why does a mosque have to look as if it had been transported directly in from the Middle East? There is no specific directive in the Qur'an about minarets. The building simply has to face in the direction of Mecca. Just that. But over time we have come to stereotype the mosque. The traditional has become the conventional, and convention has become thoroughly identified with sanctity. Cupolas, domes and minarets are it.

The result is the exoticisation of a faith that tries hard to stress – especially nowadays – its desire for openness and links. Instead of proclaiming commonality, the orientalised mosque immediately announces foreignness. The larger East London mosque, a few hundred metres from Brick Lane, makes a point of facing outwards. It runs courses, and guided tours, and contains a gym that is open to all, Muslims and non-Muslims.

"The typology of the mosque is a myth," said architect Ali Mangera at a debate hosted by the mosque last week. Run as part of the "This Is Not A Gateway" festival – and supported by the Arts Council's useful Arts and Islam initiative – the session focussed on the social and spatial role of faith buildings in European cities. But it proved more an introduction than the last word, leaving open many questions about the visual "message" of a faith building. Should it present a clear sense of difference and of sanctuary from the material world, or should it tacitly make the point that the mundane is spiritual too? How does the average punter having lunch in the pleasant crypt of St Martin in the Fields come to realise the church does sterling work with the homeless and operates a night shelter?

So what is the message for the mosque? Mangera's presentation showed what could be done if the mosque is reconfigured in the light of contemporary society. His images of lovely curved buildings looking like folds of white cloth made the conventional mosque look chunky and retrograde. Some existing mosques overseas mosques do the same. The splendid Grand National Assembly mosque in Ankara (no minaret) has, instead of a wall on its prayer or qibla side, a huge glass window that gives worshippers a view over a serene body of water.

Now more than ever, our faith buildings – mosques and all the others – should avoid presenting themselves as places that seem to hold up a "keep out" sign to the world. It's of course not surprising, given the current climate, that mosques stick to the safe and familiar. A sizeable body of opinion calls strongly for the retention of tradition and heritage. But devotion is created by use. Minarets are extraneous. Indeed, the most memorable mosque I have encountered was simply an outline of rocks made by nomads on the bare earth in the midst of the Hoggar desert in Algeria.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/belief/2009/oct/26/brick-lane-minaret-mosque

Fabrizio
December 11th, 2009, 07:26 PM
For what it's worth:

75% support for the ban on minarets in London Daily News poll

News Desk

Londoners support the Swiss government’s decision to ban minarets and mosques according to a new poll in The London Daily News, further highlighting the "sensitivities" and concerns in the capital at the growing influence of Islam.

Callers to London's leading early morning radio show, the Nick Ferrari programme on LBC, also expressed their concerns with one caller citing how "out of character" a minaret would be if built in London.

London is the home to one of the largest number of mosques in the western world,apart from Turkey, with estimates putting the number at over one hundred. The "minaret" issue has become ever more controversial with the growth of Islamic extremism in the capital, and calls by a minority for Sharia law to be observed by all.

Harrow Council recently approved the building of the largest mosque in the capital, which will see Harrow Central Mosque serving Muslim worshippers from across north London when it is built on Station Road. Construction News in a report said:

"The designs include a 40m-high minaret, a gym, a crèche and a café within the 5,745 square metre developments. It is expected to open next year after Harrow Council approved changes to the original plans, which were passed in June 2000."

Increasingly London Muslims are demanding mosques to be built with traditional minarets, which reflect the liberal regime in place in the capital city. There are an estimated 1 million Muslims in London.

http://www.thelondondailynews.com/londoners-support-calls-minarets-capital-p-3609.html


----------


How we doing in NYC?

ablarc
December 11th, 2009, 08:11 PM
Londoners support the Swiss government’s decision to ban minarets and mosques according to a new poll in The London Daily News...
Swiss banned only minarets, not mosques. London Daily News doesn't know the difference?

ZippyTheChimp
December 11th, 2009, 08:20 PM
With London's large Muslim community there must be a number of minarets in London by now. I'd love to see some photos of them to see how they look on the skyline. And some pics of minarets in NYC ? Anyone? Thanks in advance.Non sequitur.

Fabrizio
December 11th, 2009, 08:20 PM
Swiss banned only minarets, not mosques. London Daily News doesn't know the difference?


Another thing that is strange... the article quotes someone saying: "how "out of character" a minaret would be if built in London."

So, I'm wondering if that East London Minaret is considered to be "in London" or not.

Note when I posted the article I prefaced with: "For what it's worth". I don't know this paper but I'm sure Codex will fill us in.

Fabrizio
December 11th, 2009, 08:43 PM
Non sequitur.

??

lofter1
December 11th, 2009, 08:49 PM
... pics of minarets in NYC ?


East 96th / Third (http://www.nyc.com/arts__attractions/new_york_mosque_islamic_cultural_center.975452/street_view.aspx#content)

hbcat
December 11th, 2009, 08:51 PM
By religious Muslims...if you mean those who abide by Sharia law, teach such laws and those who dictate it to their followers... then of course she's not tolerant.

I don't think feminists would be.

I was in Europe when Theo Van Gogh was murdered and so I associate her most strongly with that event. Like most people I was outraged, but I also think she and Van Gogh wanted to provoke anger. Does she deserve to be under constant police protection in fear for her life? Of course not. Did Van Gogh deserve to be murdered for creating a controversial film? I won't bother answering my own question. But my point is that she has a history of antagonism and controversy within the Muslim world.

Anyway, I think I'll stop here. It may be a cop out, but I know my limits and I know I'm quite ignorant when it comes to Sharia Law, Switzerland, and minarets.

Fabrizio
December 11th, 2009, 09:14 PM
"I know I'm quite ignorant when it comes to Sharia Law, Switzerland, and minarets."

And so am I and, that's why I'm asking these questions... and playing devil's advocate. We see the Swiss decision and of course we make conclusions about the Swiss. But I think these things are sometimes more complex than we think. IMHO we have to consider the Swiss governmental system and referendums. If your country or other countries had the same option, my bet is that the outcome just might be the same.

London has a 4 million Muslims and from what I gather one minaret (all of Switzerland has 400,000 Muslims and 4). I wonder if there becomes a tipping point. If they were to sprout up in numbers... and how would people accept them in the US ...post 9/11? Would NYC's Jewish population care.... I don't know.

My motive here is for a deeper understanding of this. I mean we could all just repeat over again how xenophobic the Swiss are... pat ourselves on the back ( post photos of Muslim women in London etc) and end the discussion there.. But if you know something about the Swiss contribution to human rights... well I think we should pause for a moment. And think about our own countries too.

Does that make sense?

---

"but I also think she and Van Gogh wanted to provoke anger."

Something wrong with that?

--

ZippyTheChimp
December 11th, 2009, 09:21 PM
Surprised no one has posted photos of the existing minarets in Switzerland.

http://modules.drs.ch/data/pictures/drs4/bildergalerie/2009/moscheen_schweiz/41966.091020_schweiz_minarette_01-576.jpg
Geneva

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/9e/Mahmud_Moschee1.jpg/436px-Mahmud_Moschee1.jpg
Zurich

http://modules.drs.ch/data/pictures/drs4/bildergalerie/2009/moscheen_schweiz/41969.091020_schweiz_minarette_04-576.jpg
Wangen

http://modules.drs.ch/data/pictures/drs4/bildergalerie/2009/moscheen_schweiz/41968.091020_schweiz_minarette_03-576.jpg
Winterthur


The SVP (Swiss Peoples Party) sponsored the referendum. One of their posters:
http://www.dw-world.de/image/0,,4944172_1,00.jpg

The Swiss government recommended a no-vote to the ban.

ZippyTheChimp
December 11th, 2009, 09:25 PM
Swiss shopkeeper defies minaret ban (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article6954014.ece)

Fabrizio
December 11th, 2009, 09:26 PM
East 96th / Third (http://www.nyc.com/arts__attractions/new_york_mosque_islamic_cultural_center.975452/street_view.aspx#content)


Are you sure that's not a Con-Ed thing?

lofter1
December 11th, 2009, 09:27 PM
What ... You never heard of adaptive re-use?

ZippyTheChimp
December 11th, 2009, 09:32 PM
Swiss minaret ban reversal vote in pipeline (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/12/06/AR2009120601381.html)

hbcat
December 11th, 2009, 09:51 PM
And so am I and, that's why I'm asking these questions... and playing devil's advocate. We see the Swiss decision and of course we make conclusions about the Swiss. But I think these things are sometimes more complex than we think. IMHO we have to consider the Swiss governmental system and referendums. If your country or other countries had the same option, my bet is that the outcome just might be the same.

I was born in the US, but haven't lived there permanently since 1983. I am a legal resident of Taiwan. I believe most Taiwanese would be baffled by such a referendum. I doubt that most would vote to ban minarets, but the likelihood of such a vote is so remote that it's hard to assign that fantasy much meaning.


London has a 4 million Muslims and from what I gather one minaret (all of Switzerland has 400,000 Muslims and 4). I wonder if there becomes a tipping point. Surely you mean the UK has 4 million Muslims, no? How many minarets nationwide? I have no idea.


My motive here is for a deeper understanding of this. I mean we could all just repeat over again how xenophobic the Swiss are... pat ourselves on the back ( post photos of Muslim women in London etc) and end the discussion there.. But if you know something about the Swiss contribution to human rights... well I think we should pause for a moment. And think about our own countries too. I am not condemning the Swiss en mass (although the ban of minarets seems strange). I am willing to ponder their vote while I don't understand it. But I was primarily addressing the point of view of the Christian Science Monitor article you posted.


"but I also think she and Van Gogh wanted to provoke anger."
... Something wrong with that? I do have a problem with deliberately provoking others to anger. Theo Van Gogh wanted to piss people off and he did. He did not deserve to die, and Ayaan Hirsi Ali does not deserve to live in fear for her life, but I don't have to subscribe to their tactics.

Wrong vs Worse vs Indefensible. Do I have to ally myself with one to condemn the actions of another?

Fabrizio
December 11th, 2009, 10:05 PM
^ Ooops. Sorry about those numbers: 2.4 million in the UK (and numbers should be posted with sources).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_in_the_United_Kingdom

----

hbcat
December 11th, 2009, 10:10 PM
If your country or other countries had the same option, my bet is that the outcome just might be the same.

Top 10 countries by population:

China
India
United States
Indonesia
Brazil
Pakistan
Bangladesh
Nigeria
Russia
Japan

I wouldn't want to hazard such guesses. Would you?

ablarc
December 12th, 2009, 05:26 PM
Swiss minaret ban reversal vote in pipeline (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/12/06/AR2009120601381.html)

Libya leader Gaddafi said the ban had done a great favor to al Qaeda militants, who would use it to attract recruits in a holy war against Europe, news agency SDA reported.
In other words, knuckle under or face the threat.

Bob
December 16th, 2009, 09:06 PM
We need take no lip from Col. Gaddafi. We can always pull a Reagan on him.

MidtownGuy
December 16th, 2009, 09:14 PM
Minarets are often so pretty though.;)

rhodescholar
December 16th, 2009, 10:18 PM
According to Juan Cole (http://www.juancole.com/2009/11/swiss-islamophobia-betrays.html):

"Among the nearly 60 Muslim-majority states in the world, only one, Saudi Arabia, forbids the building of churches."

He goes on to mention that Saudi Arabia's neighbor Qatar bans church steeples and bells but not churches -- similar to Switzerland's new law.

Uhhh, there are laws on the books throughout the 22 arab muslim nations that do not allow jews or other minorities to vote or own land.

As usual, the muslims are the first to scream "injustice," and are the last to look at their own countries... :rolleyes:

rhodescholar
December 16th, 2009, 10:19 PM
People are uneasy about a religion that does not respect basic human rights. And they don't want a built symbol of that presiding over the landscape.

The ban sounds reasonable to me.

Agreed :)

212
December 17th, 2009, 04:11 PM
Uhhh, there are laws on the books throughout the 22 arab muslim nations that do not allow jews or other minorities to vote or own land.

As usual, the muslims are the first to scream "injustice," and are the last to look at their own countries... :rolleyes:


Plenty of the people "screaming injustice" here are Christians and Jews who believe in religious freedom.

And I can't say I follow your logic. Just because there's a worse injustice somewhere else in the world, why does that mean we should support an injustice on this issue?

MidtownGuy
December 17th, 2009, 05:31 PM
Uhhh, there are laws on the books throughout the 22 arab muslim nations that do not allow jews or other minorities to vote or own land.And in Israel, the scum colonists will take an Arab's land and plow his family's house into the ground, leaving them on the street. This is all according to law in the Apartheid entity called Israel.

You expect Muslims to see non-Jews in Palestine being occupied and murdered every day and then give Jews the full respect in their country? Get a clue. When the Zionists stop the illegal occupation, then Jews can start pointing fingers at the laws in Arab countries.

ZippyTheChimp
December 17th, 2009, 05:45 PM
The secular democracies should adopt the repressive theocracies as models. Yes, I can see a worldwide paradise.

Anyone notice how overwhelming those 4 Swiss minarets are?

One of the complaints about Muslims (http://www.wirednewyork.com/forum/showthread.php?t=21598&highlight=burqa) is that they are so secretive. Who knows what evil plots are being hatched under those burqas and behind those mosque walls. So when a mosque wants to announce its presence in the same way a steeple does, some people want Muslims out of their faces.

This ban makes the situation (such as it is or is perceived) worse. If you are threatened by that nuclear minaret poster, then you are threatened by Muslims. Banning minarets, or any other degradation of their status, would only make them more detached, more hostile. The only logical end-game is to remove the threat completely, to ban Muslims.

Which I'm sure is just fine with the right-wing-nuts at SVP.

A similar group in Germany wants to initiate a European Union referendum (http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/0,1518,667158,00.html) similar to that in Switzerland.

The sad thing is that probably no one saw this coming. It was assumed that the referendum would fail, so no attempt was made to declare it unconstitutional before the vote. And no counter-argument was offered by other political groups. Most legal experts have said it's probably contrary to the Swiss constitution but right now, it's the law.

Fabrizio
December 17th, 2009, 05:53 PM
...so no attempt was made to declare it unconstitutional before the vote. And no counter-argument was offered by other political groups. Most legal experts have said it's probably contrary to the Swiss constitution but right now, it's the law.


^ Unconstitutional? Are we sure about this? I may be wrong, but I am under the impression that in Switzerland, their majority rules system makes it perfectly legal and this vote ammends the constitution.

MidtownGuy
December 17th, 2009, 05:59 PM
One of the complaints about Muslims (http://www.wirednewyork.com/forum/showthread.php?t=21598&highlight=burqa) is that they are so secretive. Who knows what evil plots are being hatched under those burqas and behind those mosque walls. So when a mosque wants to announce its presence in the same way a steeple does, some people want Muslims out of their faces.

This ban makes the situation (such as it is or is perceived) worse.

I agree.
But, there are anti-Muslim bigots among us.

ZippyTheChimp
December 17th, 2009, 06:04 PM
I may be wrongYes. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unconstitutional) Not the vote, the law.

Fabrizio
December 17th, 2009, 06:19 PM
I don't know what the Swiss constitutions bill of rights include... or what there is about this ban againsts those rights. Anyone know?

It's "probably contrary to the Swiss constitution" ...but I'm wondering exactly how.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swiss_Federal_Constitution

rhodescholar
December 17th, 2009, 11:22 PM
And in Israel, the scum colonists will take an Arab's land and plow his family's house into the ground, leaving them on the street. This is all according to law in the Apartheid entity called Israel.

You expect Muslims to see non-Jews in Palestine being occupied and murdered every day and then give Jews the full respect in their country? Get a clue. When the Zionists stop the illegal occupation, then Jews can start pointing fingers at the laws in Arab countries.

I can see that you are a demagogue, and biased beyond reason - completely embracing all of the propaganda dispensed by your saudi masters. Future emanations from you in my direction will not be responded to, as you simply are not worth conversing with. Good bye, be well, and good luck.

rhodescholar
December 17th, 2009, 11:24 PM
The secular democracies should adopt the repressive theocracies as models. Yes, I can see a worldwide paradise.

Anyone notice how overwhelming those 4 Swiss minarets are?

One of the complaints about Muslims (http://www.wirednewyork.com/forum/showthread.php?t=21598&highlight=burqa) is that they are so secretive. Who knows what evil plots are being hatched under those burqas and behind those mosque walls. So when a mosque wants to announce its presence in the same way a steeple does, some people want Muslims out of their faces.

This ban makes the situation (such as it is or is perceived) worse. If you are threatened by that nuclear minaret poster, then you are threatened by Muslims. Banning minarets, or any other degradation of their status, would only make them more detached, more hostile. The only logical end-game is to remove the threat completely, to ban Muslims.

Which I'm sure is just fine with the right-wing-nuts at SVP.

A similar group in Germany wants to initiate a European Union referendum (http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/0,1518,667158,00.html) similar to that in Switzerland.

The sad thing is that probably no one saw this coming. It was assumed that the referendum would fail, so no attempt was made to declare it unconstitutional before the vote. And no counter-argument was offered by other political groups. Most legal experts have said it's probably contrary to the Swiss constitution but right now, it's the law.

It is tragic how closed-minded so many people are...did you know that in Norway, muslims are trying to have the rape laws changed to allow muslim men to rape local norwegian women if they dress provocatively?

Are you aware that there are entire sections of major European cities that are completely no-go zones for the police, and non-muslims?

Ever been to europe?

ZippyTheChimp
December 17th, 2009, 11:37 PM
It is tragic how closed-minded so many people areDo you realize how ridiculous you sound?

You really should get to know yourself.


Ever been to europe?Yes. So what?

Have you ever been anywhere? And I mean ANYWHERE.

ZippyTheChimp
December 18th, 2009, 12:32 AM
If the Swiss ban on minarets is challenged, it will probably end up here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_court_of_human_rights).

The following link points to an article by a legal scholar on the constitutional ramifications of the Swiss referendum vote an a peculiarity of the Swiss Federal Constitution.

A key point from the article:
After exhausting the domestic remedies, such an applicant will be entitled to raise a constitutional complaint before the federal court with the claim that his or her freedom of religion has been violated by the refusal. The federal court (Bundesgericht) will not have any margin of discretion in deciding such a complaint, because the new provision prohibiting the construction of minarets has constitutional status. It therefore constitutes a constitutionally entrenched restriction of the constitutional rights guaranteeing the free exercise of religion (Article 15 of the Swiss Federal Constitution) and of the constitutional prohibition of discrimination on the ground of religion (Art 8(2) Swiss Federal Constitution). So far, the notion of “unconstitutional constitutional law” has not been accepted in Swiss constitutional doctrine. The prohibition of minarets has been adopted by the sovereign with the clear intention and in full cognizance of the curtailment of fundamental freedoms going with it. Therefore there seems to be no room for balancing in order to solve the conflict between the two opposing constitutional precepts.


http://www.ejiltalk.org/the-swiss-referendum-on-the-prohibition-of-minarets

Fabrizio
December 18th, 2009, 06:30 AM
^ An “unconstitutional constitutional law” ... and I thought Italy was complicated...

Interesting to see the European Court of Human Rights' record on religious clothing. It looks to me that the Swiss ban will stay... unless another vote by the Swiss people overturns the ruling.


------




One of the complaints about Muslims (http://www.wirednewyork.com/forum/showthread.php?t=21598&highlight=burqa) is that they are so secretive. Who knows what evil plots are being hatched under those burqas and behind those mosque walls. So when a mosque wants to announce its presence in the same way a steeple does, some people want Muslims out of their faces.

This ban makes the situation (such as it is or is perceived) worse. If you are threatened by that nuclear minaret poster, then you are threatened by Muslims.

Yes indeed... apparently so...

an article in today's NYTimes:

Muslims Say F.B.I. Tactics Sow Anger and Fear

Some excerpts:

"In March, a national coalition of Islamic organizations warned that it would cease cooperating with the F.B.I. unless the agency stopped infiltrating mosques... "

"Several high-profile cases in which informers have infiltrated mosques and helped promote plots, they say, have sown a corrosive fear among their people that F.B.I. informers are everywhere, listening."

"“There is a sense that law enforcement is viewing our communities not as partners but as objects of suspicion,”

"Some Muslims, Ms. Mattson said, have canceled trips abroad to avoid arousing suspicion. People are wary of whom they speak to. Community groups say it is harder to find volunteers. Many Muslim charities are hobbled."

So, why on earth is the FBI singling out Muslims of all people? I mean... for what reason? Anybody know?

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/18/us/18muslims.html?pagewanted=1

infoshare
December 18th, 2009, 07:48 AM
I can see that you are a demagogue, and biased beyond reason - completely embracing all of the propaganda .......

I have found this to be true of those who have 'skin in the game' - no pun intended - on either side of the debate; Muslum's & Jews ideologically locked on either side of the issue.

Who then can possible act as an impartial arbitrator: btw - do you have any religious/ethnic bias in this issue that may sway any objective appraisal of the conflict?

I personally do not: only which to take the side that is in the US strategic geopolitical interest.

p.s. I don't think MG has any 'skin in the game' and/or is completely biased: but regardless - your right to choose with whom you converse will be respected (and protected) as a matter of policy and forum decorum.

ZippyTheChimp
December 18th, 2009, 08:55 AM
As expected...


Friday, 18 December, 2009


Court rejects minaret ban challenges

The Federal Court has rejected two legal challenges against the ban on constructing new minarets in Switzerland, which was approved in a nationwide vote last month. b]It says the challenges are “clearly outside the jurisdiction of the court.”[/b]

In November, a ban on building new minarets was approved by 57 percent of voters. Officials say the legal action in the Federal Court was taken in early December by two individuals living in Switzerland, who said the ban was “discriminatory” and “contrary to the Swiss constitution.”

In response, the country’s highest court says it’s not empowered to handle citizens’ objections to federal votes. It would only be able to intervene if there was suspected fraud or miscounting in the referendum itself.

Given the limits on what can be done through the court, six objections have also been lodged with the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg. Officials there have not yet said whether the challenges can be heard by that court.

© WRS



Minaret appeal filed with Strasbourg court


An appeal against the decision by Swiss voters to ban the construction of minarets has been submitted to the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg.

It was lodged on Tuesday afternoon, said Pierre de Preux, a lawyer acting for Hafid Ouardiri, the former spokesman of the Geneva mosque.

Ouardiri wants the Strasbourg court to rule that the ban is incompatible with the European human rights convention.

De Preux told the AP news agency that a letter had been sent to the federal government and to all the members of the Council of Europe to inform them of this step.

The chairman of the Strasbourg court, Jean-Paul Costa, earlier this month described the case as “legally complicated”. Plaintiffs must have exhausted the legal system in their home country before going to Strasbourg, but Switzerland’s highest court cannot hear cases that result from a popular vote.

In a national vote at the end of November, 57.5 per cent of those taking part voted in favour of an initiative to ban the construction of minarets.

swissinfo.ch and agencies

Fabrizio
December 18th, 2009, 09:04 AM
I wonder how Christians are supposed to conduct themselves in Hafid Ouardiri's country of origin? It would be interesting to know.

ZippyTheChimp
December 18th, 2009, 09:09 AM
Hafid Ouardiri
I am a Swiss citizen and this is my home, so I want the same religious freedoms as Christians, Jews and Buddhists.

Fabrizio
December 18th, 2009, 09:13 AM
Note: ...in Hafid Ouardiri's "country of origin". Just interested to know.

I would think someone choosing to live in Switzerland would investigate their particular laws and ways of governing themselves... which counts on an absolute majority vote....and might indeed discriminate.

In the meantime... I'm still curious about the FBI singling out Muslims.... are some evil plots being hatched under those burqas and behind those mosque walls?

ZippyTheChimp
December 18th, 2009, 09:24 AM
^
Didn't we go through this before?

I respond to a pre-edited post. While responses and edits are sometimes made simultaneously, it is disingenuous to not state the edit.

It's impossible to have a discussion with someone like you.

Fabrizio
December 18th, 2009, 09:25 AM
LOL. Oh please.

lofter1
December 18th, 2009, 10:05 AM
Editing within 5 minutes of the initial post don't display the "Last edited by" post script. Seems that's a V-Bulletin feature over which posters have no control.

lofter1
December 18th, 2009, 10:13 AM
Hafid Ouardiri was born in Algeria (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_Algeria), which doesn't appear to be a hotbed of religious freedom (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_freedom_in_Algeria), despite stated protections within the Algerian Constitution.

lofter1
December 18th, 2009, 10:29 AM
... an article in today's NYTimes:

Muslims Say F.B.I. Tactics Sow Anger and Fear

... why on earth is the FBI singling out Muslims of all people?


While there is definitely a big focus regarding Muslims and potential terroristic connections, they're not the only group or individuals that spark interest.

The USA PATRIOT Act gives law authorities wide range.

But this, from that same NY Times article, should make everyone feel better:


Mr. Rolince, the former F.B.I. agent, said he understood the worries, but felt they were overblown. “The F.B.I. has 12,500 agents,” he said. “Believe me, there’s not enough of them to waste time looking at you unless they have a good reason.”

MidtownGuy
December 18th, 2009, 10:30 AM
How things are done in Ouardiri's country of birth is not an indication of how things should be done in a country like Switzerland anyway!:rolleyes:

There is a certain warped mentality that says, well, since they act like this in ______, it justifies us doing it like that in ___________. I didn't know that in the West we are supposed to be following standards set in repressive countries. It seems every time a social issue is identified we get treated to "But in ________". SO WHAT.


I am a Swiss citizen and this is my home, so I want the same religious freedoms as Christians, Jews and Buddhists. Exactly. He is not LIVING in _________. In a western European country, we expect better.

lofter1
December 18th, 2009, 11:01 AM
Seems he left Algeria for a reason.

Could be a lesson for the Swiss.

MidtownGuy
December 18th, 2009, 11:17 AM
^can you elaborate?

ablarc
December 18th, 2009, 11:57 AM
In a western European country, we expect better.
Why? Are they better?

MidtownGuy
December 18th, 2009, 12:03 PM
My meaning is that we hold a high standard in a country like Switzerland, the US, Britain, etc. Just because they have low standards of tolerance in some repressive country doesn't mean we want to devolve to a similar crappy level.

lofter1
December 18th, 2009, 12:08 PM
A person chooses a new home in country with few restrictive policies, possibly in hopes of more personal freedoms (although we don't know his reasons for transplanting himself from Algeria > Switzerland). Then the person finds himself face to face with restrictive governmental practices in that new land, much like what his former countrymen placed upon some others back at home ...

Intent comes into play.

If a person chooses to move to an open society with the hope of using and playing that openness as a means of incursion (for example: a ploy to supplant religious law for constitutional law), then are not natives of that country within their rights to safeguard themselves and their country against such inroads?

Should societies allow such religious law to replace legislated law if those religious laws undermine the rights of certain citizens?

Or is everything allowable under the idea of social inclusiveness, particularly when done in the name of some supposedly almighty being?

Complex questions. Seems one wrong answer would be a blanket ban on specific building types.

However, if the government / society takes the route of such a ban (if it's deemed legal), thereby minimizing the possibility of a fundamental alteration of laws, it certainly would simplify the job of other bureaucrats down the line: fewer activists / zealots -- all bent upon re-shaping to their beliefs an established society -- that need to be controlled.

Balancing all that is the question at hand.

ablarc
December 18th, 2009, 12:08 PM
My meaning is that we hold a high standard in a country like Switzerland, the US, Britain, etc. Just because they have low standards of tolerance in some repressive country doesn't mean we want to devolve to a similar crappy level.
Couldn't you just barely tolerate the idea that Islam's tenets have something to with that repressiveness?

Just how many non-repressive Islamic countries are there, anyway?

MidtownGuy
December 18th, 2009, 12:10 PM
Practically all of them are repressive, that's my point! Do you really not understand what I am saying?
We don't want to be like them. How can I say it more clearly?

lofter1
December 18th, 2009, 12:11 PM
But do they want to be un-repressive themselves?

ablarc
December 18th, 2009, 12:11 PM
MidtownGuy, you answered my second question but not the first.

ablarc
December 18th, 2009, 12:16 PM
But do they want to be un-repressive themselves?
The study of Islam is a requirement in the public and private schools for every Algerian child, irrespective of his/her religion.[1]

Muslim women cannot marry non-Muslim men (Algerian Family Code I.II.31).[2], and apostates are disinherited (Family Code III.I.138.). A marriage is legally nullified by the apostasy of the husband (presumably from Islam, although this is not specified; Family Code I.III.33.) --Wiki

How would this fly in the U.S. Supreme court?

MidtownGuy
December 18th, 2009, 12:16 PM
Is it true that the purpose of building a minaret is primarily a quest for subversion of the adopted country's laws, or is it just possible an expression of tradition and religion not intended to be threatening?
Do the vast majority of immigrants come to a new home to be destroyers, or to just create a new better life for themselves and their families?
Are problems of terrorism or subversiveness solved AT ALL by banning a certain kind of structure?
These are just questions.

MidtownGuy
December 18th, 2009, 12:18 PM
Couldn't you just barely tolerate the idea that Islam's tenets have something to with that repressiveness?Of course. Islam has repressive tenets, and so do several other religions.

MidtownGuy
December 18th, 2009, 12:21 PM
But do they want to be un-repressive themselves?

Who?
Are you lumping all minaret-builders together as one heap of subversive, repressive people?

lofter1
December 18th, 2009, 12:30 PM
Are you lumping all minaret-builders together as one heap of subversive, repressive people?


Seems you did that already:




Practically all of them are repressive, that's my point! Do you really not understand what I am saying?
We don't want to be like them. How can I say it more clearly?

lofter1
December 18th, 2009, 12:37 PM
Do the vast majority of immigrants come to a new home to be destroyers, or to just create a new better life for themselves and their families?


Does a new better life include alteration of existing law so that believers are free to violate the constitutional rights of citizens?

And is the vast majority played by those at the top?

Certainly seems to be the way it's done with certain other religious leaders (http://www.towleroad.com/2009/12/rachel-maddow-exposes-rick-warrens-uganda-hypocrisy.html).

Bottom line: Religious law should never be allowed to override civil law.

ZippyTheChimp
December 18th, 2009, 12:48 PM
^
What are you talking about?

What religious law is overriding what civil law in Switzerland?

The civil law just enacted is already overriding an existing civil law in the Swiss federal constitution

ZippyTheChimp
December 18th, 2009, 01:16 PM
although we don't know his reasons for transplanting himself from Algeria > Switzerland).So why was this even brought up?

The majority of Muslims in Switzerland are from the Balkans.


Then the person finds himself face to face with restrictive governmental practices in that new land, much like what his former countrymen placed upon some others back at home.Switzerland is restrictive?


Intent comes into play.http://www.wirednewyork.com/forum/images/icons/icon5.gif
then are not natives of that country within their rights to safeguard themselves and their country against such inroads?Minarets, and all other structures, are handled in the local Cantons as zoning laws. A national referendum to enact a federal law that targets one group is something else. What safeguards are now in place by banning minarets? This can't be a satisfactory endgame; the Muslims are still there, but more alienated. What's next?

Doesn't this have a familiar ring?

MidtownGuy
December 18th, 2009, 01:28 PM
Seems you did that already:

Quote:
Originally Posted by MidtownGuy http://www.wirednewyork.com/forum/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.wirednewyork.com/forum/showthread.php?p=309771#post309771)

Practically all of them are repressive, that's my point! Do you really not understand what I am saying?
We don't want to be like them. How can I say it more clearly?
This is a problem of pronouns. By "them" i was referrring to religions, not people. the tenets in the books. The second "them" refers to the governments in repressive countries. sorry. typing fast, very busy right now. The immigrants in search of a new life are mostly not interested in subverting their new country, I suspect. They are mostly just people with some religion, not necessarily fundamentalists. Not only fundamentalists build minarets.

Fabrizio
December 18th, 2009, 02:32 PM
"We don't want to be like them."

And the Swiss don't want to be like the US.

They have THEIR way of governing which is referendums and majority rules. It is a different culture with different standards. Within the country this law cannot even be challenged in the courts. It is binding. It is a different system than the US.

In the meantime:

The Swiss fear Muslims and don't want Minarets.

Americans fear Muslims and have the FBI infiltrating Mosques.

I have heard no flack from the Swiss over it.

ZippyTheChimp
December 18th, 2009, 03:34 PM
These protests were by misguided American tourists in Switzerland who didn't understand the culture. :rolleyes:


Swiss cities march against minaret ban

Up to 8,000 people in the French-speaking part of Switzerland took to the streets on Tuesday evening to protest against the minaret ban.

Voters accepted a ban on the construction of minarets in a referendum on Sunday by 57.5 per cent.

A march in Lausanne attracted up to 5,000 supporters, while a demonstration in Geneva was attended by more than 2,000 people, with smaller protests taking place in other towns.

In Lausanne the crowd marched from the cathedral to the mosque shouting "no to exclusion" and "no to discrimination".

In front of the mosque, representatives of the Muslim community thanked the four cantons – Basel City, Geneva, Vaud and Neuchâtel – which voted against the minaret ban. "You warmed our hearts," they said.

The protests were organised by the Movement Against Racism with support from the Catholic, Protestant, Jewish and Muslim communities.

Candlelit vigils of several hundred people were organised in the French-speaking towns of Fribourg, Biel, Neuchâtel and Sion.

swissinfo.ch and agencies


And these bishops were from the Archdiocese of Boston. :rolleyes:



Swiss bishops criticize country’s ban on construction of minarets

By John Thavis
Posted: 12/4/2009

VATICAN CITY (CNS) -- The bishops of Switzerland said the country's ban on the construction of minarets, the Muslim prayer towers, represents an obstacle to interreligious harmony.

The ban aggravates interfaith tensions and could have negative repercussions on Christian minorities in Muslim countries, the bishops said in a statement Nov. 29.

The prohibition was adopted by Swiss voters in a referendum that passed with a 58 percent majority. There are about 150 mosques in Switzerland serving some 400,000 Muslims; only four have minarets and, unlike in Islamic countries, they are not used to call Muslims to prayer.

The bishops said the referendum campaign, promoted by right-wing parties, had used exaggeration and caricature, and demonstrated that "religious peace does not operate by itself and always needs to be defended."

"The decision of the people represents an obstacle and a great challenge on the path of integration in dialogue and mutual respect," the bishops said. Banning the building of minarets "increases the problems of coexistence between religions and cultures," they said.

The bishops said the measure "will not help the Christians oppressed and persecuted in Islamic countries, but will weaken the credibility of their commitment in these countries."

Swiss authorities said after the vote that the four existing minarets would be allowed to stand, and that there was no ban on the construction of new mosques.


It's all an American plot to destabilize Switzerland. :rolleyes:

Fabrizio
December 18th, 2009, 03:44 PM
Yes, that's exactly what I was elluding to in my post: an American plot to destabilize Switzerland. (oh brother...)

ZippyTheChimp
December 18th, 2009, 03:48 PM
And of course, no one on this forum understands what sarcasm is.

Fabrizio
December 18th, 2009, 03:58 PM
This a letter published in the Financial Times from a Swiss citizen which mentions what I've been saying here: the Swiss have a different system of governing themselves. If other countries could have a similar referendum... what would the result be?:

Don’t be so harsh to Swiss over vote against minarets

Published: December 2 2009 02:00 | Last updated: December 2 2009 02:00
From Ms Elisabeth Salina Amorini.

Sir, As a Swiss citizen, I voted against the “popular initiative” (which was also opposed by the Swiss federal government and by most political parties) to ban the building of minarets in Switzerland (“Swiss seek to ease tension after minaret vote”, December 1).

Two comments should be made.

First, this initiative would probably have been rejected had it not been for President Muammer Gaddafi’s continued humiliation of the Swiss government in connection with the detention of two Swiss businessmen.

Second, most European governments have condemned the result of this vote. In Switzerland, the people can oppose most legislative propositions by way of referendum and also, as in this case, make legislative suggestions.

Before denouncing the Swiss people as a whole, maybe European governments should ask themselves what would have been the result of a similar vote in their own country if their citizens were able to express themselves in this way.

Elisabeth Salina Amorini,
Crans-Montana, Switzerland

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/474f941e-dee3-11de-adff-00144feab49a.html?catid=97&SID=google

MidtownGuy
December 18th, 2009, 04:34 PM
"We don't want to be like them."

And the Swiss don't want to be like the US.



Let me try this a THIRD time for the thick headed.
IN THE ABOVE QUOTED STATEMENT, BY "THEM" I MEAN REPRESSIVE COUNTRIES LIKE SAUDI ARABIA. NOT SWITZERLAND. DUH. IS THAT SIMPLE STATEMENT SO HARD TO COMPREHEND?
"WE", AS IN WESTERNERS, SHOULD NOT WANT TO EMULATE THE INTOLERANCE OF COUNTRIES LIKE "THEM", SAUDI ARABIA. IF YOU CAN NOT UNDERSTAND THE SIMPLE, NON CONTROVERSIAL NATURE OF THAT STATEMENT, I TRULY GIVE UP.

MidtownGuy
December 18th, 2009, 04:42 PM
FABRIZIO: now put me on "ignore". I tried to politely request yesterday that you just ignore me. Please.

MidtownGuy
December 18th, 2009, 05:06 PM
When church steeples are banned because a small percentage of Christians, the fundamentalist variety, would like to deny equal rigths to all citizens, or subvert/change the laws of the country, let's talk.

The Christianist murders of doctors and terrorism toward abortion clinics come to mind...or the wish to prevent gays from having equal rights in society...these unreasonable,intolerant, backward tenets of Christianity do not have people calling for the banning of church bells or steeples. We understand most Christians do not believe in every single violent statement in the Bible. A very tiny minority of Christians are terrorists. A very tiny minority of Muslims are terrorists. A tiny minority of Jews are terrorists. The Jewish Israeli terrorists are murdering and terrorizing Palestinian civilians year after year. And yet... we do not call for special restrictions against some feature of synagogues because some Jews feel they are granted certain land by divine right- to be retained through murder if necessary!

MidtownGuy
December 18th, 2009, 05:21 PM
Does a new better life include alteration of existing law so that believers are free to violate the constitutional rights of citizens?

No way. All religious influence on government should be abolished everywhere in my ideal world. But, who are these hypothetical transplants you are talking about? Surely you are not suggesting all, or even most, would-be visitors to a minaret-having mosque are subversives intent on changing secular law? And surely you are not suggesting that a mosque without a minaret is less politically ambitious?


Bottom line: Religious law should never be allowed to override civil law.
Of course. My position is that banning minarets is useless at best, and intolerant/bigoted at worst. Banning minarets does nothing but send a silly message. It has no effect on whether laws will be overridden or not.And people who think this law is not silly are just operating on deeply held prejudices, or an unreasonable, overly broad fear of the other. Statements like "I have lots of Muslim friends"...please...:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

Fabrizio
December 18th, 2009, 05:33 PM
Uh... Midtown I completely understand that the quoted statement refers to Saudi Arabia etc.

"We" don't want to be like them.

"We"... being whom?

Are you speaking for the Swiss... or for Americans?

You say: "WE", AS IN WESTERNERS, SHOULD NOT WANT TO EMULATE THE INTOLERANCE OF COUNTRIES LIKE "THEM".

The Swiss have VOTED... that is how their brand of democracy works. It is different than yours.

---

Again: "And yet... we do not call for special restrictions". Who is "we"?

The Swiss with their system have.

--

Fabrizio
December 18th, 2009, 05:42 PM
It should be noted also be noted that Switzerland is not part of the EU.

MidtownGuy
December 18th, 2009, 05:49 PM
you still don't get it.

Fabrizio
December 18th, 2009, 05:57 PM
^ Santa came early and someone got Crayons.

MidtownGuy
December 18th, 2009, 06:04 PM
^I figure the children here could relate better this way.:cool:

rhodescholar
December 18th, 2009, 06:04 PM
Do you realize how ridiculous you sound?

You really should get to know yourself.

Own a mirror? Or is your avatar the correct reflection?


Have you ever been anywhere? And I mean ANYWHERE.

Well lets see now, I've lived all over the middle east, in several european countries, japan...

MidtownGuy
December 18th, 2009, 06:13 PM
FABRIZIO: if you navigate to your controls, you'll find a feature called "ignore." Please apply it to me. After politely requesting you to do this several times, and seeing that you still have not, I can only conclude that you can't live without me.
How gratifying to know.
I love you too, sugar.
XOXO,
MTG:rolleyes:

Fabrizio
December 18th, 2009, 06:27 PM
Fabrizio, I hope you don't take this in anger but I have to make something understood. Since the Berlusconi thread was closed, I wish to avoid all dialogue with you. FROM THIS POST FORWARD.

I don't want to answer your questions, entertain your propositions...none of it.

I won't quote you or pay any attention to your posts.

(I guess the crayons are so he won't hurt himself)

ZippyTheChimp
December 18th, 2009, 06:34 PM
Own a mirror? Or is your avatar the correct reflection?How does it feel to be put down by a chimp, Archie?


Well lets see now, I've lived all over the middle east, in several european countries, japan...And still you know so little.

I wasn't impressed by your phony handle, and I'm sure not going to be impressed by how old you say you are, or where you say you've lived, or what you say you've done.

Your words are what you are here, and so far, I see a lock-step culture-wars conservative, who thinks everyone who disagrees with him is a liberal. You've already dismissed this entire forum, except for you, as liberal. Anyone who has spent a little time here knows that's a joke. Even some that agree with you on this issue have run away from engaging you. Can you guess why?

Been listening to people like you drone on for 30 years. The same crap. I'm not going to give you any consideration now that you've boiled down to Palin-Limbaugh.

Fabrizio
December 18th, 2009, 06:44 PM
Moving on: shouldn't the beef here be with the Swiss referendums... and the fact that they can change the country's constitution? Switzerland is not part of the EU... it signs treaties but even then... I wonder if votes can override that. I wonder if under the Swiss system minorities have true protection from the majority.

MidtownGuy
December 18th, 2009, 06:48 PM
Moving on? What a load of crap. As if you ever.

Originally Posted by MidtownGuy http://www.wirednewyork.com/forum/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.wirednewyork.com/forum/showthread.php?p=305735#post305735)
Fabrizio, I hope you don't take this in anger but I have to make something understood. Since the Berlusconi thread was closed, I wish to avoid all dialogue with you. FROM THIS POST FORWARD.

I don't want to answer your questions, entertain your propositions...none of it.

I won't quote you or pay any attention to your posts.
(I guess the crayons are so he won't hurt himself)

Yes, I have no desire to engage with you, have asked you to put me on ignore, and yet you just can't live without me. How MANY TIMES HAVE I ASKED YOU? Please, stop engaging me. I tell you I no longer want to talk to you... you keep addressing me, quoting my posts, taunting with personal comments...
Why is that? Seriously?

ZippyTheChimp
December 18th, 2009, 07:02 PM
The EU has nothing to do with this. The European Court of Human Rights part of the Council of Europe (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_of_Europe), of which Switzerland is a member.

Fabrizio
December 18th, 2009, 07:18 PM
I'm trying to pick my way through this: from what I understand the European Court cannot force states to comply with it's decisions. A state can be only expelled ...but being a member of the EU would mean real sanctions.

European Court of Human Rights

"Complaints of violations by member states are filed in Strasbourg, and assigned to a Section. Unmeritorious complaints are dismissed by a committee of three judges by a unanimous vote. Meritorious complaints are examined by a Chamber. Decisions of great importance may be appealed to the Grand Chamber. Any decision of the Court is binding on the member states and must be complied with[1], except if it consists of an advisory opinion[2]
It is the role of the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe to supervise the execution of Court judgments. This body cannot force states to comply, and the ultimate sanction for non-compliance is expulsion from the Council of Europe."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Court_of_Human_Rights

Fabrizio
December 18th, 2009, 07:29 PM
Yes, I have no desire to engage with you, have asked you to put me on ignore, and yet you just can't live without me.

How MANY TIMES HAVE I ASKED YOU? Please, stop engaging me.

I tell you I no longer want to talk to you... you keep addressing me, quoting my posts, taunting with personal comments...

Why is that? Seriously?


^ Lucille Bremer in "Behind Locked Doors"

MidtownGuy
December 18th, 2009, 08:06 PM
Piss off.:rolleyes:

ZippyTheChimp
January 5th, 2010, 07:54 PM
Jan 4, 2010 - 14:01


Veil will not be banned in Zurich schools

Zurich cantonal authorities have decided not to ban the wearing of veils in schools during the Muslim month of Ramadan.

The cantonal parliament rejected by 104 votes to 65 a motion put forward by the rightwing Swiss People’s Party which wanted to ban the veil in places of education “in order to makes Swiss values respected in schools”.

The motion had also wanted to do away with a special dispensation for Muslims in sports lessons during Ramadan.

Among those who rejected the motion on Monday, the centre-right Radicals said the current cantonal recommendations were “absolutely sufficient”.

Last year the People’s Party, the largest party in Switzerland, championed an initiative to ban the construction of minarets in Switzerland. This was accepted by voters on November 29.

©Copyright swissinfo.ch