Swiss Referendum on Minarets

[Altherion]

According to one Swiss voter who was interviewed the minarets will apparently also lead directly to 'women being stoned in the streets'. That's some dangerous architecture. :rolleyes:

I think I know where the roots of this idea lie. You've to hand the Swiss People's Party one thing: they know how to make good posters. Check this one out.

[WhiteHaven]

Wtf I just checked out the board at spiegel.de (Germanys Time Magazine), almost everyone there sends a congratulation towards our southern neigbours.

This is so sad.

[Herr Fick]

Except Direct Democracy has pretty much a 100% track-record of stupidity and bigotry. This isn't an isolated incident.

There's a reason there are guidelines (in the form of Constitutions or what have you) about what kind of laws can and cannot be made and how you can treat people and so on.

A "100% track-record of stupidity and bigotry"? Please...

Honestly, I don't really see your problem with the Swiss democratic system, which seems to be one of principle. Switzerland's legislation took longer to extend the right to vote to women. A few years longer than some, considerably longer than others. So what? Eventually, it was extended - and by a national referendum at that. Before that, there were no riots, no dramatic acts of defiance (like suicides or hunger strikes). I know that you don't care about cultural particulars, but let me just present a few. There were several very influential women's groups who advocated against women's suffrage (for different reasons): Conservative women's clubs in several cities, the Gemeinnützige Frauenverein ('Charitable Women's Club'), the Landfrauen ([agricultural] 'Country's Women'), and after (!) the negative referendum of 1959 the Bund der Schweizerinnen gegen das Frauenstimmrecht ('Federation of Swiss women against women's suffrage'). Iris von Roten's feminist book "Frauen im Laufgitter" ("Women in the Playpen") was by far too progressive for most Swiss women in 1958; in fact, many women blamed her 'scandalous ideas' for the referendum's failure.

There were anti-women's suffrage groups (lead by women) in other countries, too. But in Switzerland they actually were as influential as the Women Worker's Associations, Social Democrats, Communists and Unions that advocated for women's right to vote since the late 19th century.

Wtf I just checked out the board at spiegel.de (Germanys Time Magazine), almost everyone there sends a congratulation towards our southern neigbours.

This is so sad.

And naturally, the conservative newspapers (especially FAZ.net) have disabled commenting on articles about the referendum altogether. But regarding coverage of Islam or mosques that is nothing new, of course.

[Arthmail]

I don't know what women voting earlier has to do with anything. Who the fuck cares? Its happened now. Direct Democracy has its problems, but coming down with stinging rebuttal of it because you don't like it, or because it does have some problems, has little to no merit. Its easy enough to say that our own style of democracy is not without its own problems.

"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."

Whatever the causes for this ban, blaming their system doesn't really hold water. Their system enabled it, but that doesn't mean that something like this couldn't have happened elsewhere. The question should have more to do with WHY they did it, and what it says about their society.

[Shryke]

I don't know what women voting earlier has to do with anything. Who the fuck cares? Its happened now. Direct Democracy has its problems, but coming down with stinging rebuttal of it because you don't like it, or because it does have some problems, has little to no merit. Its easy enough to say that our own style of democracy is not without its own problems.

"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."

Whatever the causes for this ban, blaming their system doesn't really hold water. Their system enabled it, but that doesn't mean that something like this couldn't have happened elsewhere. The question should have more to do with WHY they did it, and what it says about their society.

The system is an important consideration because it allows shit like this to happen.

And no, it couldn't have happened in many other places. Here in Canada (and afaik, in the US too), this would have been struck down by the courts so hard, every building in the country would have spontaneously developed it's own minaret.

Now, as I understand it, this vote basically rewrote the Constitution to ban the minarets. But that's just a reason why you don't let people rewrite the fucking constitution with a majority vote in the first place.

[Aemon Stark]

That poster is vile propaganda. No other word for it frankly and I'm appalled at the rationalization or at least condoning of such xenophobia.

[Aemon Stark]

Whatever the causes for this ban, blaming their system doesn't really hold water. Their system enabled it, but that doesn't mean that something like this couldn't have happened elsewhere. The question should have more to do with WHY they did it, and what it says about their society.

Of course it holds water. The process is at least important as any other factor to the eventual outcome. But I do agree that it says a lot about Swiss society...

[ThinkerX]

The dancing about the implications of this vote so far on this thread has been...interesting...to say the least.

Now, this, though:

And no, it couldn't have happened in many other places. Here in Canada (and afaik, in the US too), this would have been struck down by the courts so hard, every building in the country would have spontaneously developed it's own minaret.

Sorry. This sort of thing (more or less) has happened repeatedly at the local level in the US. The christian site I used to frequent had a news section which tracked this sort of thing, well, religiously (along with a lot of other religious type news). Multiple accounts at the local level of nonchristian churches being vandalized - with no serious investigations ever being made. Also multiple accounts of non christian churches having strange bureaucratic roadblocks thrown up to prevent them from being built - right up to and including midnight rewrites of the zoning codes. The episode that takes the cake in my view was the small fundi christian church which dang near went bankrupt buying a tract of land they did not need or want because an islamic group wanted to put one of their places of worship there. All this was just in the last decade.

[Padraig]

The Swiss are not a failed society because of their system of goverance. I've seen too many terrible laws get passed in other countries to attack Switzerland for this one.

At the same time, I dearly hope this law is removed asap.

[Lightning Lord]

The Swiss are not a failed society because of their system of goverance. I've seen too many terrible laws get passed in other countries to attack Switzerland for this one.

At the same time, I dearly hope this law is removed asap.

As I understand it, this isn't a law, but a change in their constitution. And now they have to draft laws to enact the change, which can take years. Hopefully in the mean time, there is a new referendum that removes this not even thinly-veiled xenophobia.

[Altherion]

And no, it couldn't have happened in many other places. Here in Canada (and afaik, in the US too), this would have been struck down by the courts so hard, every building in the country would have spontaneously developed it's own minaret.

Now, as I understand it, this vote basically rewrote the Constitution to ban the minarets. But that's just a reason why you don't let people rewrite the fucking constitution with a majority vote in the first place.

You are missing a bit of history here. This did get struck down in the courts -- repeatedly. The reason it came about is that the local Swiss authorities kept rejecting the applications to build the minarets (there's a reason there are only 4 of them in the entire country...) and eventually they went to court over this and lost. They appealed all the way to the highest level court and also lost. Then they tried to implement a ban on a cantonal level and were told this is unconstitutional. This vote was just the final step in a pretty long fight.

Now, you certainly have a point about direct democracy. I can definitely see the appeal of a system in which a few hundred of the ruling class, or, better yet, 20-30 of the most elite meeting over a dinner get to make the ultimate decisions without the interference of the rabble common people in the streets, but the Swiss believe that the citizens of their nation are the final authority on its policy. It appears to have worked out OK for them thus far, even if it does occasionally produce rather weird policies. No system is perfect.

[Padraig]

As I understand it, this isn't a law, but a change in their constitution.

Oh true. My nomenclature wasn't precise. :)

Now, you certainly have a point about direct democracy. I can definitely see the appeal of a system in which a few hundred of the ruling class, or, better yet, 20-30 of the most elite meeting over a dinner get to make the ultimate decisions without the interference of the rabble common people in the streets, but the Swiss believe that the citizens of their nation are the final authority on its policy. It appears to have worked out OK for them thus far, even if it does occasionally produce rather weird policies. No system is perfect.

Indeed.

[Herr Fick]

The system is an important consideration because it allows shit like this to happen.

[...]

Now, as I understand it, this vote basically rewrote the Constitution to ban the minarets. But that's just a reason why you don't let people rewrite the fucking constitution with a majority vote in the first place.

The "shit" you are referring to is the will of a people, amending its own, self-given, self-ratified constitution, while by no means (especially not in terms of Swiss jurisdiction concerning social rights) violating the basic rights of a minority.

I don't approve of laws arising from vague cultural anxiety and I find this particular referendum rather crude. But your notions of political philosophy seem wholly absurd to me...

Now, you certainly have a point about direct democracy. I can definitely see the appeal of a system in which a few hundred of the ruling class, or, better yet, 20-30 of the most elite meeting over a dinner get to make the ultimate decisions without the interference of the rabble common people in the streets, but the Swiss believe that the citizens of their nation are the final authority on its policy. It appears to have worked out OK for them thus far, even if it does occasionally produce rather weird policies. No system is perfect.

Well... this.

[Lightning Lord]

Now, you certainly have a point about direct democracy. I can definitely see the appeal of a system in which a few hundred of the ruling class, or, better yet, 20-30 of the most elite meeting over a dinner get to make the ultimate decisions without the interference of the rabble common people in the streets, but the Swiss believe that the citizens of their nation are the final authority on its policy. It appears to have worked out OK for them thus far, even if it does occasionally produce rather weird policies. No system is perfect.

Allowing constitutional changes via referendum seems like a terrible idea.

Popular votes are easily swayed by fear mongering and highly-organized self righteous groups. It produces discriminatory results far too often. There are plenty of examples of majority rule restricting rights of minorities. An ideal government's task is to protect all its citizens, not just the ones that most closely match each other.

So while no system is perfect, citing this as an example of a imperfection is legitimate. I don't think Shryke at any point advocated for an elite ruling class.

[Arthmail]

The system is an important consideration because it allows shit like this to happen.

And no, it couldn't have happened in many other places. Here in Canada (and afaik, in the US too), this would have been struck down by the courts so hard, every building in the country would have spontaneously developed it's own minaret.

Now, as I understand it, this vote basically rewrote the Constitution to ban the minarets. But that's just a reason why you don't let people rewrite the fucking constitution with a majority vote in the first place.

Ingrained xenophobia exists in Canada, look to Quebec if you want an example. Or Alberta, to be perfectly honest with you. Any province wanting to do this sort of thing could, thanks to the Notwithstanding Clause. The courts could possibly try and crush it, but the Provinces could fight the courts as long as they wanted.

Given of course that there is support for this sort of thing.

My point is that it doesn't matter HOW it came about, their system has worked well enough for them so far, but WHY. Who the fuck cares what their system does and does not allow? We have any number of problems in our own system, and it seems odd to vilify another countries system when our own is no better.

[Padraig]

So while no system is perfect, citing this as an example of a imperfection is legitimate.

True. Except that some of the comments in this thread have gone beyond simply pointing at this as an example of an imperfect system.

Its pretty easy to come across other countries where laws have been passed inside parliament which are dreadful. Just because this is a constitutional change doesn't make it fundamentally worse.

by no means (especially not in terms of Swiss jurisdiction concerning social rights) violating the basic rights of a minority

Well, I suppose building a minaret is not a basic right. But this ban is the kind of fundamentalist approach that seems to knaw at ones basic right to worship freely.

[Herr Fick]

Allowing constitutional changes via referendum seems like a terrible idea.

Is that so?

Popular votes are easily swayed by fear mongering and highly-organized self righteous groups. It produces discriminatory results far too often. There are plenty of examples of majority rule restricting rights of minorities. An ideal government's task is to protect all its citizens, not just the ones that most closely match each other.

Certainly, but is the right to build minarets one that should be protected by the state against the majority's interest?... Many people here are upset with a tasteless and xenophobic decision (myself included), but some fail to recognise, that there are presently no fundamental rights at stake.

And additionally, all these arguments in principle about how it is harmful to allow for a constitution to be altered by plebiscite because of the majority's tendency to encroach on minority rights seems ludicrous, as Switzerland is traditionally one of the most minority-protective, politically concordant countries in the world. I mean, the Swiss political system is basically non-competitive!*

*: Although I have to admit that this has changed during the last decade (at least from a neighbour's perspective).

Well, I suppose building a minaret is not a basic right. But this ban is the kind of fundamentalist approach that seems to knaw at ones basic right to worship freely.

I agree with you about the nature of the ban (which is fundamentalist and xenophobic). But I doubt that it constitutes a constraint to religious worship one could fight against before a Swiss court.

In my opinion it is a greater problem, that in Switzerland the adhan is practically prohibited by existing legislation against excessive noise. This has also been a problem in Germany, since here the ringing of church bells is protected by the freedom of religion (affirming by the way, that it contains religious meaning and is not merely a call to congregate). And while the muezzin's call is not banned, there have been legal battles and quite discriminatory rules to restrict it (which in my view are nothing but an ideological misuse of noise regulations - but sadly, the day when church bells are prohibited will likely never come...).

Nevertheless, it would be illegal in Germany as well as in Switzerland, to actually ban the adhan on openly political/cultural/religious grounds, since that would most likely violate the right to religious freedom.

[Aemon Stark]

Ingrained xenophobia exists in Canada, look to Quebec if you want an example. Or Alberta, to be perfectly honest with you. Any province wanting to do this sort of thing could, thanks to the Notwithstanding Clause. The courts could possibly try and crush it, but the Provinces could fight the courts as long as they wanted.

I don't recall any successful referenda anywhere in the country concerning the construction of certain types of religious architecture. The Notwithstanding Clause does not permit anything remotely like this and any law invoking it must be renewed annually.

Given of course that there is support for this sort of thing.

Some support, perhaps, but any kind of mainstream acceptance? Absolutely not.

My point is that it doesn't matter HOW it came about, their system has worked well enough for them so far, but WHY. Who the fuck cares what their system does and does not allow? We have any number of problems in our own system, and it seems odd to vilify another countries system when our own is no better.

Even if the pot calls the kettle black, it can still be right - just more self-reflective and aware of its own problems. Sorry for the strained metaphor.

[Aemon Stark]

Certainly, but is the right to built minarets one that should be protected by the state against the majority's interest?... Many people here are upset with a tasteless and xenophobic decision (myself included), but some fail to recognise, that there are no fundamental rights at stake.

And additionally, all these arguments about how bad it is to allow a constitution being altered by plebiscite because of the majority's tendency to encroach on minority rights seems ludicrous, as Switzerland is traditionally one of the most minority-protective, politically concordant countries in the world. I mean, the Swiss political system is basically non-competitive!*

*: Althoug I have to admit that this has changed during the last decade (at least from a neighbour's perspective).

Eh? I don't follow Swiss politics closely, but my impression is that the country is protective of minorities so long as they are one of the "official" Swiss groups. Anyone else, though, like, oh, Muslims?

It sure doesn't seem like it today. The notion that the majority should be able to dictate the architectural forms of minority religious structures is offensive against any reading of democracy that rises beyond the tyranny of the majority. Because *that* is what the Swiss system seems to allow for. The rule of a simple majority on these types of issues is simply a convention - it says nothing about legitimacy from any political or moral standpoint.

What "non-basic" right will this insane system take away next? I'd say that there's an argument to be made that a political system which explicitly allows for expressions of majoritarian oppression and xenophobia is one that might be inclined to produce such results. While I wouldn't say that there's absolute consensus about these types of issues in Canada, I'd say that it's reasonably ingrained that popular votes on rights issues is illegitimate.

In fact, this was famously ridiculed during the 2000 election by comedian Rick Mercer:

The Alliance's direct democracy proposals, which would have required a referendum on any proposal supported by a petition signed by 3% of Canadian voters, was also frequently targeted as a suggestion of a hidden agenda. Some asserted that "special interest" groups would use the low requirements to put contentious subjects to a national referendum. The proposal was satirized by Rick Mercer of This Hour Has 22 Minutes, where he proposed a national petition for a referendum to demand that Day change his first name to Doris.

[stupidguy]

One thing is for sure-this Swedes are in or a major curbstomping courtesy of Allah.