Still haven't got the hang of this "freedom of religion" thing...

[Cain]

Swiss public votes to ban the construction of minarets, as far as I can see, to wind up Muslims:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/nov/29/switzerland-bans-mosque-minarets

Switzerland became the first country in Europe todayto vote to curb the religious practices of Muslims when a referendum banning the construction of minarets on mosques was backed by a solid majority.

The surprise result, banning minarets in a country that has only four mosques with minarets and no major problems with Islamist militancy, stunned the Swiss establishment, which was bracing itself for a backlash in the Middle East.

The result looks likely to cause strife where there was relative peace, sully the country's image abroad, damage investment and trade with the Muslim world, and set back efforts to integrate a population of some 400,000 Muslims, most of whom are European Muslims – and non-mosque-goers – from the Balkans.

The campaign to ban minarets was described by the country's justice minister as a "proxy war" for drumming up conflict between ethnic Swiss and Muslim immigrants. But the ban was supported by a majority of 57.5%, 20 percentage points more than predicted in opinion polls in the run-up to the vote.

"The federal council [the body that constitutes the federal government] respects this decision," said a government statement tonight . "The construction of new minarets in Switzerland is no longer permitted."

While surprising, the verdict raised the question of whether such curbs on Muslims would be replicated across Europe were voters given their say. If Switzerland is the only country in Europe to embark on such a ban, that may be because its system of plebiscitary democracy compels single-issue referendums if petitions amass enough signatures.

Across Europe, far-right parties have been scoring gains in recent years on anti-Muslim and anti-immigrant platforms.

The result represented a triumph for the far-right populist Swiss People's party, which organised the petition paving the way for the referendum. In opposition, the SPP became the strongest party in Switzerland two years ago largely by running a robust campaign, denounced as racist by the UN, against immigrants.

The result also represented an act of mass defiance of the national establishment. The government, mainstream political parties, the churches, the main newspapers, the national president, the powerful business lobby, and the Vatican all opposed the ban, but it was backed by 22 of the country's 26 cantons on a national turnout of more than 53% .

As a result, the article of the national constitution regulating relations between the state and religion will be amended to include the bald statement: "The construction of minarets is forbidden."

"The result is unworthy of Switzerland's tradition and history," said Farhad Afshar, a leading Swiss Muslim and Berne University sociologist. "Muslims are well-integrated here compared with France or Germany. This result has nothing to do with the Muslims living in Switzerland."

The SPP said the minaret ban would "be implemented to the letter" and denounced senior church figures for the "alarming role" they played in the campaign.

Opponents of the move in the government, churches and human rights organisations had argued a ban on minarets would infringe fundamental liberties and freedom of religion. Green Party leaders warned tonightthat the ban could be unconstitutional and threatened to try to overturn the verdict at the European court of human rights in Strasbourg.

Ulrich Schlüer, an SPP MP who led the ban campaign, pointed out that the Strasbourg court had recently ruled against crucifixes in classrooms in Italy.

"It now appears that Christian towns are not supposed to use Christian symbols," he said. "But we're supposed to have Muslim symbols." The SPP said that going to the European court would breach the popular sovereignty that underpins the Swiss democratic model and tradition.

It dismissed the arguments about freedom or religion, asserting that minarets were not a religious but a political symbol, and the thin end of a wedge that would bring sharia law to the country, with forced marriages, "honour" killings, female genital mutilation and oppression of women.

A handful of recent applications for building permits for minarets in Switzerland, the no campaigners said, was proof to many Swiss "of the next step in the strategy of Islamification of our country. The fear is great that the minarets will be followed by the calls to prayer of the muezzin ... sharia is gaining in importance in Switzerland and in Europe. That means honour killings, forced marriages, circumcision, wearing the burka, ignoring school rules, and even stoning."

The prohibition also found substantial support on the left and among secularists worried about the status of women in Islamic cultures. Prominent feminists attacked minarets as male power symbols, deplored the oppression of Muslim women, and urged a vote for the ban.

The justice minister, Eveline Widmer-Schlumpf, a strong opponent of the ban, said the result reflected fears about Islamic fundamentalist tendencies. "The Federal Council [government] takes the view that a ban on the construction of new minarets is not a feasible means of countering extremist tendencies."

She had previously criticised the prohibition campaign as a violation of human rights and as a "proxy war" for those seeking to stir up religious friction.

Corine Mauch, the mayor of Zurich, who also opposed the ban, said the vote was "a fateful signal to the Muslim community".

Swiss business is worried that the anti-Muslim vote could have a serious impact on trade with the Arab world. More immediately, there is concern for two Swiss businessmen abducted in Libya last year after Colonel Muammar Gaddafi's son and daughter-in-law were arrested in a Geneva hotel on suspicion of mistreating their staff. The two Swiss, regarded as hostages, were handed over to the Swiss embassy in Tripoli earlier this month but have still been denied exit visas and could yet face trial.

I think my favourite quote from that is "minarets were not a religious but a political symbol, and the thin end of a wedge that would bring sharia law to the country, with forced marriages, "honour" killings, female genital mutilation and oppression of women."

Denying Islam as a religion seems to be a fairly common tactic at the moment.  Because, after all, if it's a political stance, then it is as open to criticism as Stalinism and Nazism (which I don't understand, religion is surely criticizable on its own grounds), and pesky little things like human rights laws and comparisons with Christianity suddenly vanish.

Not to mention those four mosques are going to secretly, somehow, overthrow the Swiss government from within.  That's always good for a laugh.  Or would be, if the language used wasn't so resonate with the "Judeo-Bolshevik conspiracy" of years past.

And because people always ask why I conflate anti-Semitism with Islamophobia, Chris Floyd explains:

The entire lexicon of Islamophobia is already filled to bursting with Nazi tropes – "the enemy within," the dark, monolithic mass of "prodigious breeders" threatening to overwhelm Western Civilization, the "maniacal extremists" who will not rest until they destroy the sacred Homeland, the sinister, secret worldwide conspiracy which bribes and suborns Western leaders into doing its bidding, etc. etc. This sinister discourse is accepted, and used, among the highest circles of power – senators, representatives, "serious" commentators, academics, think-tank apparatchiks.

[...]

In this too, our modern Islamophobes mimic their German forbears. It was the Nazis who held – and exercised – violent, overwhelming sway over the Jews within their reach, even as they bleated constantly about the "Jewish threat" to "destroy the German people."  Perhaps many of them, at some level, believed this fantastical projection of their own murderous desires and unquenchable anxieties; certainly, we know that top Nazis like Hitler and Himmler "justified" their extermination programs as "pre-emptive defense" against an existential threat from the "Judeo-Bolshevik" conspiracy. (For in this disordered mindset, every Jew was considered a Bolshevik -- and even rich, capitalist Jews were seen as part of the same overarching conspiracy -- just as our Islamophobes consider every Muslim a terrorist or an extremist.) In a similar manner, all of our Terror Warriors – not just the strident Islamophobes, but the entire bipartisan political establishment, including the "progressive" president – paint the "Long War" as a strictly defensive measure against dark forces who irrationally "hate us for our freedoms" and seek to "destroy our way of life."

Comparisons are not equivalencies, and history does not repeat itself -- but it often rings with disturbing assonances.

This is a huge boost for the European far right, make no mistake.  Expect Wilders in Holland and others in Denmark to try follow suit, while the right wing press (the Telegraph and Mail in particular) frame it to make people like me look like crazy extremists, for maybe thinking not every Muslim wants to behead the infidel.

[bugmenоt]

They used the following posters to spread fear and anger: http://www.patriot.ch/morgarten/islam/minarett-verbot/plakat_ja_zum_minarett-verbot_580x782.jpg

I didn't expect the right wing brain washing tactics to be so efficient. Now for many swiss people, the word "Islam" means something like "terror". Most political parties showed themselves "surprised" of the results, now everyone says he voted against the prohibition.

Me = not proud of my people.

There are 4 minarets in Switzerland. There have never been any islamic terror in Switzerland. I've followed the recent political discussions before the results. The main argumentation really was:
Minarets =

forced marriages, "honour" killings, female genital mutilation and oppression of women"

But it was enough to convince a majority of voters. The minarets also have been directly linked to the increasing number of criminal youngsters from other countries. Of course it was not mentionned that there are simply more cases documented. Things which have been considered bagatelles in former times are now (politically/religiously/gang) motivated crimes.

If the ban of minarets included church towers, i would have voted yes too.

[BabylonHoruv]

I am curious exactly how they define minaret.  It is possible it could be taken to include church towers.

[Cain]

Yeah, I hear ya Saint Bourgeoise.  Ten years ago they'd be considered just gangs of delinquent teenagers, now they're the Mahometan Horde Preparing The Way For Shariah Law or some such shit.  Most of them probably can't even spell shariah in Arabic, at least if they're anything like UK gangs.

Babylon, I suspect they define minaret as "any tower an Islamic person likes".  Loopholes are good, but I don't see many here.

And, before I go, I'd like to thank the Swiss public for helping us lose the War on Terror:

http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/johann-hari/renouncing-islamism-to-the-brink-and-back-again-1821215.html

To my surprise, the ex-jihadis said their rage about Western foreign policy -- which was real, and burning -- emerged only after their identity crises, and as a result of it.  They identified with the story of oppressed Muslims abroad because it seemed to mirror the oppressive disorientation they felt in their own minds. . . . But once they had made that leap to identify with the Umma – the global Muslim community -- they got angrier the more abusive our foreign policy came. Every one of them said the Bush administration's response to 9/11 -- from Guantanamo to Iraq -- made jihadism seem more like an accurate description of the world. Hadiya Masieh, a tiny female former HT organiser, tells me: "You'd see Bush on the television building torture camps and bombing Muslims and you think -- anything is justified to stop this. What are we meant to do, just stand still and let him cut our throats?" But the converse was -- they stressed -- also true.  When they saw ordinary Westerners trying to uphold human rights, their jihadism began to stutter. Almost all of them said that they doubted their Islamism when they saw a million non-Muslims march in London to oppose the Iraq War:  "How could we demonise people who obviously opposed aggression against Muslims?" asks Hadiya.

I highly suspect the same process takes place with domestic policy.  Appearing to hold Muslims to different standards and treating them as inferior only helps jihadists recruit for a war against the hypocritical West.

[Captain Utopia]

And because people always ask why I conflate anti-Semitism with Islamophobia, Chris Floyd explains:

The entire lexicon of Islamophobia is already filled to bursting with Nazi tropes – "the enemy within," the dark, monolithic mass of "prodigious breeders" threatening to overwhelm Western Civilization, the "maniacal extremists" who will not rest until they destroy the sacred Homeland, the sinister, secret worldwide conspiracy which bribes and suborns Western leaders into doing its bidding, etc. etc. This sinister discourse is accepted, and used, among the highest circles of power – senators, representatives, "serious" commentators, academics, think-tank apparatchiks.

[...]

In this too, our modern Islamophobes mimic their German forbears. It was the Nazis who held – and exercised – violent, overwhelming sway over the Jews within their reach, even as they bleated constantly about the "Jewish threat" to "destroy the German people."  Perhaps many of them, at some level, believed this fantastical projection of their own murderous desires and unquenchable anxieties; certainly, we know that top Nazis like Hitler and Himmler "justified" their extermination programs as "pre-emptive defense" against an existential threat from the "Judeo-Bolshevik" conspiracy. (For in this disordered mindset, every Jew was considered a Bolshevik -- and even rich, capitalist Jews were seen as part of the same overarching conspiracy -- just as our Islamophobes consider every Muslim a terrorist or an extremist.) In a similar manner, all of our Terror Warriors – not just the strident Islamophobes, but the entire bipartisan political establishment, including the "progressive" president – paint the "Long War" as a strictly defensive measure against dark forces who irrationally "hate us for our freedoms" and seek to "destroy our way of life."

Comparisons are not equivalencies, and history does not repeat itself -- but it often rings with disturbing assonances.

This is a huge boost for the European far right, make no mistake.  Expect Wilders in Holland and others in Denmark to try follow suit, while the right wing press (the Telegraph and Mail in particular) frame it to make people like me look like crazy extremists, for maybe thinking not every Muslim wants to behead the infidel.

So... Muslims are the new Jews?

They are the perfect scapegoat, in a worldwide political system honed to leverage benefit from the exploitation of scapegoats.

[Cain]

Basically, yes.

Which doubly sucks because we still have a lot of people around who don't like the original Jews much.  But making "edgy" and hilariously paranoid proclaiments about Islam and Muslims is its own cottage industry, inhabited by the likes of Mark Steyn, Robert Spencer, Dean Godson, Melanie Phillips and Edward S May. And not only does it pay big, it also tends to get one connections with some influential players in Washington and London.

[Iason Ouabache]

I think my favourite quote from that is "minarets were not a religious but a political symbol, and the thin end of a wedge that would bring sharia law to the country, with forced marriages, "honour" killings, female genital mutilation and oppression of women."

And how do they expect less than 5% of the population to do all of that unabated? Wouldn't it be easier to shore up their religious liberty and womens rights laws? Oh right... they aren't actually worried about that stuff. They just want to oppress a minority group for political gain. Silly of me to forget that.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

I think my favourite quote from that is "minarets were not a religious but a political symbol, and the thin end of a wedge that would bring sharia law to the country, with forced marriages, "honour" killings, female genital mutilation and oppression of women."

And how do they expect less than 5% of the population to do all of that unabated? Wouldn't it be easier to shore up their religious liberty and womens rights laws? Oh right... they aren't actually worried about that stuff. They just want to oppress a minority group for political gain. Silly of me to forget that.

Sounds like someone has the wrong values.

Remember what happened to Curly, you terrorist-kissing radical.

[Requia ☣]

They banned a kind of architecture?

That's what a minaret is right, a kind of church tower?  There's not some second meaning I don't know of?  Cause it would help stop the screaming if it was something else.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

They banned a kind of architecture?

They had to.  To prevent honor killings.   

[Reginald Ret]

There is no deeper meaning to what They do to eachother.
This is Reality and the screaming will never stop.

[Cait M. R.]

There is no deeper meaning to what They do to eachother.
This is Reality and the screaming will never stop.

[Kurt Christ]

If I were both Swiss and in possession of the funds necessary to start a building project, I would be quite tempted to begin construction of a completely secular office building with structure oddly reminiscent of a minaret...

[Reginald Ret]

If I were Swiss, independently wealthy and in possession of the funds necessary to start a building project on top of that, I would be quite tempted to begin construction of a completely secular office building with structure oddly reminiscent of a minaret...

[Bruno]

Pointy mini-barns, FTW.