Swiss wolves vote on what is for supper
November 30, 2009
In Switzerland, any law can be proposed and decided by plebiscite and the Swiss are very proud of their system of direct Democracy. This weekend they voted to prohibit the constriction of new minarets in the country. Supporters of the law claimed that minarets are symbols of Islamic domination and not appropriate in that country. The law was passed in a landslide vote.
Of course not everyone is happy with the outcome of the vote.
Meanwhile Swiss cabinet ministers who had advised, and confidently expected, voters to reject a ban, have woken up to newspaper headlines calling the referendum a slap in the face for the government, and a “catastrophe” for Switzerland.
They are now facing the delicate task of explaining the voters’ decision to Muslim countries with whom Switzerland has traditionally good trade relations. Within government circles, there is the expectation that these relations will be damaged and that the Swiss economy may suffer as a result.
So concerned is the government by the decision that Swiss Justice Minister Eveline Widmer Schlumpf, watching the results come in on Sunday afternoon, apparently told her advisers there ought to be some restrictions on what the general public can actually vote on.
As much as I sympathize with the desire of the Swiss to limit the growth of Islam among them, I have to agree with the good Justice Minister. There are some things that the general public should not be allowed to vote on. In fact, that is the basis of a constitutional republic. No simple majority of votes should, for example, repeal the Second Amendment to the Constitution. Constitutional protections should be sacrosanct and extremely difficult to change.
The Jim Crow South was a direct democracy in which a majority group legally voted away the rights of a minority. Too often, direct democracy is, as Ben Franklin said, “two wolves and a lamb voting on what is for supper.” It seems to me that the vote in Switzerland falls into this category.
In my opinion, the complete banning of minarets is among the issues that should not be allowed to be put to a vote. There are many issues to consider: property rights, religious freedom and the rights of minorities are some. I am all for zoning laws. There is no reason for people to suffer change to the cultural feel of a centuries old village, for example. Nor should they be made to feel intimidated by a foreign religion. Still, there must be places in all of Switzerland where a minaret would create none of these issues.
My point is that, had I been a voter in Switzerland this weekend, every fiber of my being would want to vote to ban minarets. Still, I am sure I would resist. If you sow tyranny, you reap tyranny.
R.D. Walker :
Date: November 30, 2009
Predictably…
Of course none of the liberals aghast at the vote would have the slightest problem with the banning of billboards or large, lit McDonald’s golden arches. They would immediately agree that such signs encroach on the established and cherished historical culture of Switzerland.
Jim :
Date: November 30, 2009
I largely agree with what you’ve written RD. However, Islam is different from any other religion in that it has a distinct political and legal structure inherent within Islam. There’s no separating it from its political and legal aspects without creating a inauthentic version of Islam which is a critical issue for Muslims and Islam. There’s no way for an Islam-lite version of Islam to be created. Furthermore, Islam has already had its version of the ‘reformation’ which resulted in Saudi Wahabbism and Pakistani Deobandism. That bit of information about the Islamic version of ‘Solo Scriptura’ may upset the PC-Multiculturalists who want to believe that all Islam needs is a
reformation for it to be compatible with the 21st century but its true.
The other part of this is because the European left has not effectively addressed Immigration, Islamification, and a nameless faceless EU bureaucracy, Europeans have little choice but to vote for and support not just conservative parties but far right parties. The British Nationalist Party(BNP) in the UK won two EU seats this year and will probably win more in the 2010 general election. Vlaams Belang and Geert Wilder’s Party(PVV) are expected to win in Belgium and Holland. the Swiss People’s Party won because they promised to get tough on immigration, principly Muslim immigration. Ditto for Germany, Austria, Denmark, and Italy. Even France, under Sarkozy is trying to ban the burka and other Islamic symbols.
Europe is not just going centre-right, they’re going far-right. I hope the final result isn’t a Lebanon style civil war but I can’t see any other direction.
R.D. Walker :
Date: November 30, 2009
Jim, I don’t think that minaretes are really the problem but I agree with you.
I beleive every country has the right to bar immigration for any reason at all. I would have no problem any nation saying, “no more Muslim immigrants.”
Once they are in the country and given citizenship, however, they should be given the same rights as other citizens.
Jim :
Date: November 30, 2009
If this campaign poster is any indication of Swiss sentiment, perhaps the Swiss may deport quite a few Muslims…
http://www.sfgate.com/blogs/images/sfgate/worldviews/2007/10/11/bild-nav-links-d.jpg
R.D. Walker :
Date: November 30, 2009
If they have not become naturalized citizens and they are not living up to the terms of their immigration – including adopting Swiss ways – they should be deported.
I am no freind of any religion that is incompatable with citizenship. One strength of Christianity is Christ’s command to “Render therefore to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s.” Radical Islam is incompatable with citizenship in anything other than a Muslim theocracy. Any immigrant who is engaging in behavior that is incompatable with citizenship should be sent packing.
The point of my post was that, if we are going to defend the liberty of minortities from the tyranny of majorities, we need to be willing to do it when the minorities aren’t necessarily living our values. Otherwise, government is nothing but a hammer majorities use to pound mintorities.
Jim :
Date: November 30, 2009
I should have commented on the obvious point of your post which is about the sacrosanct nature of rights within the confines of our constitution. I don’t look upon what Europe is starting to react to with particular joy either.
Yet, imagine if the US starts experiencing what Israel does on a weekly or even, daily basis with regards to Islamic terrorism? How will the US government react? The last time the US was faced with a similar threat from its own population, FDR, a Democratic president interned them in internment camps.
I happen to believe that it would be a mistake if comes to interning 2-3 million muslims. However, until we, as a population have a serious, honest conversation about the fundamentally flawed nature of Islam, the greater tensions will mount until another 9/11 type of event sets it off.
R.D. Walker :
Date: November 30, 2009
Point well taken, Jim.
What the hell do you do? You can’t very well crush the rights of a minority. Still, at some point the enemy will be in the perimeter and we will be outnumbered. That will be the end of the world we know.
No sane country opens its borders to immigrants who hate them and want to destroy them. Therefore, there are few sane Western nations.
Jim :
Date: November 30, 2009
I agree with all of your points. Take my opinion for what it’s worth. After reading Mark Steyn, Steve Emerson, Robert Spencer, Bat Y’eor, Oriana Fallaci, Bernard Lewis, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, and the Quran itself, I’ve come to the conclusion that the US and the West have two options about how to deal with Islam; doing nothing is not a serious option, neither is allowing to exist within this nation an ideology that I find scarcely different from fascism.
So we in the United States are faced with two options in dealing with Muslims living in the West, expulsion or conversion.
There’s no doubt, expulsion of Muslims from the US, Canada, and Europe would be messy, violent, and lead the marginalization of constitutional rights. Europe appears to be going in this direction, but then again sans the US presence post-1945, Europe tends to swing either far left or far right.
Conversion in my opinion is the best option, albeit the solution requiring the most patience and focus. The Pope last year provoke Muslims by blessing a Muslim convert to Roman Catholicism, Magdi Alam. A Orthodox priest, Father Boutros provokes similar outrage through his satelite broadcasts into Muslims nations. Christians need to get off their duffs and actively proselytize Muslims living in the West. We don’t need to convert them all, but enough to mitigate Muslim influence.
Our immigration policies need to change. We need to apply a ‘Cold War’ style approach to Muslim nations where we allow non-Muslims, apostates from Islam, and even gay to ‘defect’ from Muslim nations while banning Muslims from emigrating to the West.
There are other strategies including the cessation of teaching moral relativism and multiculturalism at all levels of our schools. There are other things we can do but these are just a few things to start with.