Europe unites to deplore Swiss ban on minarets - Times Online .
The Swiss and European establishment united today in deploring yesterday's decision by Swiss voters to outlaw the construction of minarets but conservative leaders warned that the referendum showed genuine fear over Islam on the continent.
Swiss officials, media and business leaders voiced shame over a vote that they say will stigmatise the country's 400,000 Muslims and stain Switzerland's name in the Muslim world. In contrast, hard right leaders in France, Austria, Italy and the Netherlands hailed what they depicted as a triumph for the people against the elite.
The hard right and a secrecy jurisdiction acting in concert: no surprise there.
Secrecy jurisdictions are captured states that are used to promote the hard right.
There will be howls of protest - but let's be clear. Apart from this very obvious abuse of the human rights of Moslems who should be allowed to worship as they please, secrecy jurisdictions do something much more sinister: they deliberately ensure that what little wealth the poorest of the world might be entitled to in the world's developing countries is systematically transferred to the world's wealthiest countries for the benefit of the wealthiest in those wealthiest countries.
This is an abuse as bad as slavery.
And the right say that this is about liberty. No it isn't: it is only about abuse. There is no other explanation.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
I was, as many others, outraged at the result of the swiss referendum yesterday. The banning of minarets is an act of aggression towards moslems, will do nothing to further dialogue between religions, and will probably not help the “integration” of moslems into the general swiss community.
I also agree that Switzerland needs to reform its laws and end its abuse towards especially developing countries that it facilitates by being a tax haven.
However, I find it reductionist to simply explain this horrible political decision by saying “they’re a tax haven”. Having lived in Switzerland myself, I believe that this is much more the result of a culture that is one of the most conservative in Europe, for good (environmental protection) and bad (in the most conservative cantons women got the right to vote in 1992).
We need to fight tax havens with a high degree of knowledge and with an eye for how they cause suffering for societies far beyond their own borders. But this doesn’t mean that we should become blind to the many other causes of the ills of society, and reduce everything to a matter of tax haven or not tax haven.
Peter
I am making a simple point, but one I think true: that conservative culture and being a tax haven are related issues
Of course it is not just tax haven / not tax haven
But this was valid comment about the culture of am place that is a tax haven – with the issues being related
Richard
Richard,
You are right but not for the reasons you believe. Being a conservative means valuing institutions and traditions. It means a belief that society should develop slowly, in a considered way: the opposite of being a revolutionary.
Now, what are the characteristics any person would look for when investing their money in a country: stability, the rule of law, established institutions?
In other words, if a non-conservative culture were to seek to become a finance centre, it would be doomed to failure. Nobody wants to invest in a revolution. The market has dictated that finance prefers conservative.
Mad
You really are very silly
Respecting human rights is not a revolution: it is an end to abuse
You argue for the abuse to continue
Which says it all, doesn’t it
Richard
“and will probably not help the “integration” of moslems into the general swiss community.”
That’s rather the point. The Swiss don’t want Muslims to integrate into the general Swiss community, any more than they want Frenchmen, Germans or Brits to “integrate into the general Swiss community”.
There’s a reason that it’s almost impossible for a foreigner to acquire Swiss citizenship, and that reason is the Swiss people. They’re perfectly pleasant and welcoming to visitors, but you won’t forget that you’re only a visitor.
The Swiss have a form of direct democracy unique in the world , this can be used in a positive or negative manner but democracy is democracy.
The issue here is not about minarets it is really an expression of the swiss distaste for the muslim community living with them, this vote has provided a sizable majority to express this distaste and its an ugly truth to be facing.
The UK also has a very high level of resentment towards the muslim and other immigrant communities but as there is no direct democracy this is not so obviously evident, the question this raises for me is by suppressing the debate do we effect the problem or do we merely hide it away.
I think the secrecy of the swiss banking system has nothing to do with the way the swiss have voted, but the fact they hold votes on issues like this shows they are an open society and are prepared to face reality even if that reality is something that we would rather not face as it conflicts how we would like society to behave. If anything I think the thing that you could say the swiss secrecy and this vote show is they are both pragmatic approaches, the swiss secrecy is a pragmatic decision made to attract wealth, the vote is a proxy for a much more sinister issue but one that is being faced rather than swept under the carpet.
If the UK were a true democracy we too would hold votes on sensitive issues, not just immigration but also issues like wether or not to start or fight in wars would be a good start.
Before condemning the swiss on this particular issue, it is worth reflecting what sort of results we might get in this country if we had referenda on hanging, immigration, muslim schools, any other thorny issues anyone can think of. In other words, I think that catsick makes a good point.
James
One of those dilemmas: I am a democrat, but just how much democracy do I want?
There is a golden mean
The Swiss have gone beyond it
Richard
Richard , I would say at the point you try to stifle an honest democracy by saying someone has gone beyond the level of democracy you want you risk being close to the point of ” all animals are equal but some animals are more equal than others”
@catsick
Rubbish!
All systems of government are compromises
I am suggesting that on this occasion the line has been drawn in the wrong place in the sand
If a line has to be drawn – and it must be – then a decision has to be made
You’re just offering semantic nonsense of the sake of making a point
I am seeking to engage with reality
I know which activity is more worthwhile and beneficial
Richard
This really is a fuss over nothing.
The Germans made Jews wear crosses so they could be identified and victimised.
In countless modern countries you would be victimised or even sentenced to death for practising or preaching Christianity (there aren’t many Quaker meeting houses in Riyadh, Richard). Those are things to be concerned about. At present I understand there is a Lebanese astrologer condemned to death in Saudi for witchcraft. That worries me, though few others.
This referendum doesn’t say that people can’t worship according to the tenets of Islam. It doesn’t say people can’t worship at Mosques. It doesn’t say Muslims need to identify themselves so they are visible (though many voluntarily choose to do so). It says that planning permission should not be granted for buildings in a style that has no historic resonance or history in Switzerland.
People should have freedom of expression, freedom of worship and freedom from persecution on grounds of race or religon. I’m not sure that anybody has ever suggested that it is a human right to be able to build places of worship in whatever location and architectural form you want.
@mad foetus
Utter drivel from a tax haven lawyer who has no concern for the power of symbolism in religion, or society come to that
You should be ashamed of yourself for posting such obvious excuse for anti-Islamic feeling which is not excused by your other concerns
Richard,
I enjoy your blog (even if I may disagree) when you bring facts and analyses to your comments.
But please, avoid displaying so blatantly your (so obvious) anti-Swiss bias with such dumb sentences like those above : “The hard right and a secrecy jurisdiction acting in concert: no surprise there. Secrecy jurisdictions are captured states that are used to promote the hard right”.
If I was your sociology teacher, your grade would be close to nil for such a cheap syllogism.
The Swiss people has voted in a disappointing way, granted. What should they do, change the people ? As you consider yourself as part of the elite (those who have the knowledge), are you suggesting the Swiss dispense with referenda and public initiatives and consult you on what is good and bad ?
The Swiss will have to bear the consequences of their (democratic) vote, but this is a matter for them to settle (and maybe for others to try to understand), they just don’t need your patronizing.
Bernard
@Bernard
Really depends on whether my sociology teacher was right wing, wouldn’t it?
I stand by the suggestion: it is accurate