Should people be able to vote on the rights of minorities like this? I know I'd be mad -- and probably file a lawsuit -- if anyone tried something like it in my country.
Swiss Miss
ADVERTISEMENT
Should people be able to vote on the rights of minorities like this? I know I'd be mad -- and probably file a lawsuit -- if anyone tried something like it in my country.
15 Comments for “Swiss Miss”
posted by Bobby on
Why not? Some arab countries have laws that prevent jews and gentiles from having a taller house than a muslim. The Swiss have the right to preserve their culture and cities all around the world often have building codes and standards.
In Coral Gables, Florida your house can only be painted certain colors for example. Having been to Switzerland I know their architecture is unique and beautiful, muslim minarets are not part of the Swiss architectural tradition, it’s like having a Wal-Mart on Beverly Hills, it just doesn’t make sense. If muslims want houses of worship they must make them blend in or they should build them outside of town.
posted by Lori Heine on
I fail to see why immigrants should be allowed to come into any country and bully the local folks around. People need to know, when they move to another country, what the laws and customs are there. If they don’t like them, they’re perfectly free not to move there.
The time will come when Muslims are trying to tell Americans that gays must be executed because we offend their religious sensibilities. Bullcrap to that. We should by all means be keeping an eye on developments like these when they happen in Europe — before they start happening here.
posted by Debrah on
As usual, Bobby brings it home.
It’s extraordinary just how many people will be muzzled and harnessed into silence in the face of such grotesque impositions.
I have to believe that people who have done any global travel at all cannot help but comprehend what’s at stake and the unfairness of it all.
Muslims can be very irrational when left to some of the 7th century remnants of their culture and religion that are allowed to surface much too often.
People around the globe are entitled to preserve their own cultures and traditions without being terrorized into some outdated PC version of “Bin Laden Does Home Depot”.
On another matter, I was amused to read that a few of you do not have a “gaydar”.
So many gay men seem to have their antennae extended wherever they go.
On the “man” blogs, there are wishes and hopes that every hot actor of the month—(might be…….just probably is……oh G/d please let him be!)—-be gay.
What they cannot understand is that most European men as well as many artistically talented American men exude some of the “metro” and sensitive tendencies and sensibilities many associate with being gay.
But they’re not.
Not every man who pays attention to the details of his body and the way he dresses is gay. That’s why women go wild for them.
Get a clue!
And I simply adore the portmanteau gaydar.
Smashing!
posted by Debrah on
By the way, I don’t know why the last part of my previous post came out italicized.
I didn’t italicize it.
A fluke of cyber proportions.
posted by BobN on
Anyone who keeps up with architectural trends in Switzerland, secular and religious, wouldn’t dare assert that this ban has anything to do with a desire to maintain “traditional architecture”.
posted by Bobby on
I wrote a long response but as soon as I click submit content I lost everything. The people who run this site really need to fix it, this is very annoying.
Moving on, the Swiss are not multiculturalists, they are not interested in integrating themselves with the rest of the world. Immigration is severely limited and some people spent years in the country without being able to get the citizenship. Culturally, they are totally different from the rest of europe. For example, every Swiss citizen is required to keep an assault riffle at home, they refuse to join the European Union, their neutrality keeps them from getting involved in anything, their banking laws are extremely friendly, and they do not like a group of foreign invaders to impose their architectural leanings on them.
When you look at this picture of a Swiss minaret you’ll see that it just doesn’t fit with the neighborhood.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Moschee_Wangen_bei_Olten.jpg
Moreover, architecture is not a civil right. In New Mexico for example, they have “Earthships” communities located in the middle of nowhere, far from the city. Why? Because they got tired of fighting with construction city codes and being far away lets them do what they want.
Here, check them out
http://www.earthship.net/buildings/buy-an-earthship.html
Now, would it make sense to have a Victorian house next to this? No. It would be aesthetically incorrect, and thus the Swiss are trying to preserve their aesthetics from foreign corruption. Why is that so hard to understand?
posted by tavdy79 on
This is not the first time a law has been passed by referendum in Switzerland which is in breach of European human rights law, nor will it be the last. The Swiss system places a huge amount of power directly in the hands of its people, which in general is a good thing, however as in the USA there is no law banning the use of referendums on issues involving civil or human rights – the Swiss system’s most significant weakness.
posted by Mike on
David,so let me clarify the comparison you are making here. On the one hand, we are fighting for the right to live in peace and marry someone we love, regardless of gender. On the other hand are members of a fanatical religion fighting to enslave women, kill homosexuals and spread sharia law to the entire globe. The Swiss shouldn’t have to stand back and let their country be taken from them. They see what is happening in the Netherlands and they want no part of it. To paraphrase, the bill of rights is not a suicide pact.
posted by Jorge on
I think the conservative bias of most of the above posters is is overwhelming their better judgment. This kind of law would be 100% unconstitutional under American law, and for very good reason. It is a shocking example of the backwardness of what many associate as the more enlightened liberal Europe, and also an overall failure of European nations to be multicultural without falling apart.
It’s also true that we’ve done the exact same or similar things in our history to blacks, women, Jews, Irish, Chinese, Japanese, Hispanics, and Christians.
posted by Mike on
Point in case, Turkeyâs Prime Minister Erdogan stated, âMosques are our barracks, domes our helmets, minarets our bayonets, believers our soldiers. This holy army guards my religion.â This is not an issue of minority rights or freedom of religion.
posted by Casualty of Hope and Change on
Interestingly David, should you find yourself under sharia law, you would be lynched or have a wall toppled upon you.
Keep flapping that pie hole.
posted by Bobby on
“I think the conservative bias of most of the above posters is is overwhelming their better judgment.”
—Yet liberals have no trouble opposing gun ranges in their neighborhoods, right? In suburban Chicago I saw protestors outside a gun store. So what’s your beef?
You only need to look at Amsterdam to see what happens when radical Islam isn’t deal with. In that lovely country where gay bashing didn’t exist now it does, gay couples can no longer hold hands because muslim immigrants are likely to beat the crap out of them.
I realize that religious people may not like Amsterdam, in fact, before the puritans came to America they went to Amsterdam and found the city too liberal for their taste. So they did the right thing and left.
“This kind of law would be 100% unconstitutional under American law, and for very good reason.”
—No it wouldn’t. American cities are filled with code enforcers that will fine you when too much garbage overflows a container, when you don’t cut your grass, and when you paint a house a certain color. Do you think in South Beach a developer can do anything? They have to submit designs to a city board for their approval. Want to flip a house? Want to build a new addition? Make sure you have approval from the city government or they will derail your plans.
Even churches aren’t completely free, in Hollywood, Fl we had issues with a private residence that became a house of worship. The neighbors complained about all the cars they had to put up with.
“It is a shocking example of the backwardness of what many associate as the more enlightened liberal Europe, and also an overall failure of European nations to be multicultural without falling apart.”
—You really don’t understand europe, these aren’t nations of immigrants but nations of traditions lasting hundreds or thousands of years. This isn’t like Las Vegas where you can build a pyramid next to an Eiffel Tower in front of the Statue of Liberty. Las Vegas tries to be everything to all people, Geneva and Zurich do not.
Multiculturalism is a selfish philosophy where minority groups get treated well at the expense of the majority. In France I heard schools don’t serve pork anymore to avoid offending muslims, should they stop serving beef to avoid offending Hindus?
Why not take into account the sensitivities of the Swiss majority? You know, part of living in society means you don’t always get to what you want. Switzerland is not Saudi Arabia, if the muslims don’t like it they can get out.
posted by Jimmy on
Muslims get a far fairer shake in Switzerland with regard to their freedom to worship than do non-Muslims in Islamic societies like Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Indonesia, etc.
posted by Jorge on
Yet liberals have no trouble opposing gun ranges in their neighborhoods, right? In suburban Chicago I saw protestors outside a gun store. So what’s your beef?
Being someone who desires to perform a certain action or live a certain lifestyle is not in the same category as being someone who is of a certain religious faith or practice. Freedom of religion being one of the most important rights of a free people. It’s very simple, and if you need me to say the First Amendment is more important than the Second Amendment I’ll say that, too.
You only need to look at Amsterdam to see what happens when radical Islam isn’t deal with. In that lovely country where gay bashing didn’t exist now it does, gay couples can no longer hold hands because muslim immigrants are likely to beat the crap out of them.
That is a nonsense argument. It’s like justifying fascism to fight crime because they didn’t budget enough money to build a good police force.
You really don’t understand europe, these aren’t nations of immigrants but nations of traditions lasting hundreds or thousands of years.
That’s… what… I… said! Do not patronize me, do not tell me what I do and don’t understand, and do not pretend that you alone hold the perfect knowledge and perspective on a subject, because that gets annoying real quick.
posted by Bobby on
“Being someone who desires to perform a certain action or live a certain lifestyle is not in the same category as being someone who is of a certain religious faith or practice.”
—You do realize that’s the argument muslims use against homosexuals, they see us as a lifestyle. Besides, the second amendment is in our constitution so the right of private gun ownership is protected. Are you telling me muslims have more rights than gun owners and gays?
“Freedom of religion being one of the most important rights of a free people. It’s very simple, and if you need me to say the First Amendment is more important than the Second Amendment I’ll say that, too.”
—That’s your opinion, and I think it’s constitutionally wrong. The first amendmetn isn’t more important than the six amendment, it’s not like they were written in the order of importance. Moreover, freedom of religion has limits, there are noise ordinances, traffic rules, as well as construction codes.
“That is a nonsense argument. It’s like justifying fascism to fight crime because they didn’t budget enough money to build a good police force.”
—So you deny there’s a direct correlation between muslim immigration and gay bashing? You deny that there’s a huge segment of muslims that are radical Islamists who hate Christians, Jews and gays? You deny that in Frace religious jews can’t wear skullcaps anymore because of muslim immigrants? The problem is right in front of you, yet you deny it.
“That’s… what… I… said! Do not patronize me, do not tell me what I do and don’t understand, and do not pretend that you alone hold the perfect knowledge and perspective on a subject, because that gets annoying real quick.”
—Well, you’re the one calling europe backwards just because one european country refuses to bend over to the muslims.
Besides, you’re using the American constitution to make judgements on Europe. Switzerland doesn’t have a first amendment, they don’t have to follow our standards. In fact, cities like Zurich and Geneva depend hugely on tourism, so if the mosques won’t blend with the scenery then there’s a problem.
Tell me, if a started a religion called The Church of Dick does that give me the right to build a huge phalus in the center of town? Or is the freedom of religion you cherish only for accepted religions?
If my neighbors don’t want to see a giant phalus made of marble, then it’s perfectly understandable if they don’t want to see minarets. Architecture is not free speech! If the muslims want their damn minarets let them build them away from their neighbors because neither Geneva nor Zurich nor any Swiss city needs to see their unique character undermined by those elements.