Swiss Referendum on Minarets

[Peter Irving]

I wonder when Saudi Arabia will have a referendum allowing churches to be built...

Great so because the Saudis are intolerant that means the swiss can also be intolerant? You know that "he started it" doesn't work do you?

[Lord O' Bones]

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

You're still confusing Swedes and Swiss? What the hell is wrong with you man?

Sweden.

Switzerland.

FFS.

[Bellis]

Would everyone just please stop talking about banning churches. Minaret=/=mosque. It´s more like banning bells in churches than banning the actual churches.

Minaret also =/= church bells or adhan or muezzin (the guy who calls the adhan). It's just a tall tower. Yes, traditionally the muezzin calls out from the tower, but the tower can also be purely a decorative flourish. Banning minarets would be more like banning church spires or large crosses or Orthodox crosses on churches.

I would actually be sympathetic to banning adhan as a public nuisance/noise issue, on the condition that church bells were also banned (to ring, you can build a bell tower or a minaret if you wish). as thersites notes in the excellent post a couple above me, this isn't the case. Only Islamic religious noises (and towers) are targetted.

I would almost be okay with restricting the development of minarets if it was couched purely in terms of maintaining the architectural character of particular areas (i.e. mosques are allowed but must blend into the surrounding material/colour scheme). Again, from the rhetoric and advertising of the pro-ban side, there is no attempt to even try to sell the ban in these terms. It's straight up xenophobia.

[Herr Fick]

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.

As I said, standards have slipped during the last decade or so...

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.

I disagree. There are countless architectural regulations, many of which extend to public and sacral buildings. Amongst those are maximum heights, prohibited colours (on facades, roofs, towers, chimneys), rules regarding decency, limitations to the places where something may or may not be built and so on. If, for example, a religious group required their sacral buildings to be completely revetted with glass, it would be perfectly understandable to prohibit their construction within historical city centres, were all new buildings are required to conform to preexisting styles.

One problem with Islamic sacral architecture and art is, that the ban of figurative depictions in Islam together with the strong emphasis on (intricate and often colourful) ornament can disrupt the historical appearance of European cities. This is especially the case with small and - please forgive my phrasing - cheap buildings, which may look too colourful or anachronistic or historicising or kitschy*. I know that the Swiss ban is of another, much less confined nature, but your point went far beyond criticising the referendum...

*: I am pointing out existing problems of public administration rather than my own opinions.

[Aemon Stark]

Those are matters of local bylaws, not national referenda. Maintaining the historical character of city centres is all well and good, but a blanket ban arises from xenophobic intent. It is, in any case, far too overreaching. Zurich is the only city in Switzerland that I've been to, and while minarets would probably be out of place in the city centre, there's no shortage of areas with utterly generic architecture where any "upset" of the local architectural "character" would be based on xenophobia and little else.

One problem with Islamic sacral architecture and art is, that the ban of figurative depictions in Islam together with the strong emphasis on (intricate and often colourful) ornament can disrupt the historical appearance of European cities. I know that the Swiss ban is of another, much less confined nature, but your point went far beyond criticising the referendum...

My emphasis. European cities certainly have more historic architecture than the average Canadian city, but I'd challenge you to name a city which is completely lacking in more generic post-war architecture.

ETA: We agree!

[Herr Fick]

Those are matters of local bylaws, not national referenda. Maintaining the historical character of city centres is all well and good, but a blanket ban arises from xenophobic intent. It is, in any case, far too overreaching.

Yes, I agree.

(And I added something in the post above that your quote didn't contain by then: The problems arise primarily with small buildings in uniform communities [like here in the village Wangen bei Olten], not just in historical city centres. But again, those are mostly not my problems and as Other-in-law points out below, there are many and architecturally appealing ways to avoid them.)

[Guest Other-in-law]

One problem with Islamic sacral architecture and art is, that the ban of figurative depictions in Islam together with the strong emphasis on (intricate and often colourful) ornament can disrupt the historical appearance of European cities.

It need not be a problem at all. Moslems around the world have managed to build mosques in the style of local architecture in many places. This one in Xi, China, for example, would hardly seem jarring or out of place. The great mosques of Istanbul are essentially mimicking Byzantine styles, and there plenty of mosques with very plain austere exteriors.

[Andriy Czarchenko]

Minaret also =/= church bells or adhan or muezzin (the guy who calls the adhan). It's just a tall tower. Yes, traditionally the muezzin calls out from the tower, but the tower can also be purely a decorative flourish. Banning minarets would be more like banning church spires or large crosses or Orthodox crosses on churches.

And I never said it was. The point was that the referendum does not ban mosques so talking about banning churches as a comparison is bloody stupid.

The more like bells part just meant it´s something not essential to the actual service...shall I say decorative flourish. :thumbsup:

[Shryke]

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.

Yeah, that's about what I figured.

When the constitution says you can't be a bigot, it's time to change the constitution!

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.

Um, there's degrees between Direct Democracy and "Benevoltent" Overlords. LOTS of them.

We all pretty much LIVE in these degrees between the two.

Drop the strawman bullshit.

[Shryke]

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...

Except for the part where it IS violating the basic rights of a minority.

Your talking about xenophobia so stupid, they are banning a STYLE OF ARCHITECTURE.

This is just fucking ridiculous. There's no rational explanation for it beyond "We don't like them Muslim folks.".

The "will of the people" is just a euphemism for "mob rule" when it's not constrained by rules and rights. THIS IS WHY WE HAVE CONSTITUTIONS IN THE FIRST PLACE.

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.

No, it really hasn't. Look what it just fucking did.

When your system allows you to ban a style of architecture in order to uphold your xenophobic dislike of minorities, your system is not working properly.

QED

[Lightning Lord]

Is that so?

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.

Yes. It is so.

And yes, the right to build minarets should be protected, unless there is a non-discriminatory reason to ban it. The reason behind this ban was "Minarets=Muslims=Scary!" That's not a basis for amending a constitution. This was targeted at Muslims, even if it didn't outlaw mosques.

Out of curiosity, where are you going to draw the line for what to protect and what not? If this particular point is so unimportant, why does it need to be part of the Swiss constitution?

This is hyperbolic, but still applicable. When the government allows the first step, the second one becomes much easier.

It need not be a problem at all. Moslems around the world have managed to build mosques in the style of local architecture in many places. This one in Xi, China, for example, would hardly seem jarring or out of place. The great mosques of Istanbul are essentially mimicking Byzantine styles, and there plenty of mosques with very plain austere exteriors.

Absolutely true. And again, this would have been much less of a problem (or at least, much less blatantly anti-Muslim) if the campaign behind it hadn't been laden with scare tactic imagery.

ETA: Forgot a very important "didn't"

[The Stranger]

the minutiae of discussing the aesthetic dissonance created by mosques overlooks the fact that this referendum was not an indictment of architectural aesthetics, but of a culture. a fictitious mono-culture, to boot.

and on a more general note: it was previously stated in a post too stupid to bother swatting down that Muslims have attempted to enact shari'a law in every western country they inhabit. I would counter with the observation that Muslims have (rhetorically, since no western country has anything bloody close to the full extent of shari'a) railed for a religious legal system only after they feel fucked over by the secular legal system. bigotry breed insularity.

[Shryke]

the minutiae of discussing the aesthetic dissonance created by mosques overlooks the fact that this referendum was not an indictment of architectural aesthetics, but of a culture. a fictitious mono-culture, to boot.

Aye.

The sheer inanity of banning minarets of all things is what really highlights the bigotry here. It's so useless and pointless that there can be no explanation for it beyond "Muslims are scary".

[Peter Irving]

BTW I was wondering but could one try to make it so that minarets "conform" to their surrounding architecture?

[The Stranger]

BTW I was wondering but could one try to make it so that minarets "conform" to their surrounding architecture?

i think the mosques should take down their minarets and attach this to each roof.

ETA: or a series of crudely made giant cock statues.

[Peter Irving]

Whjat I mean is maybe make the minarets look like bell towers?

[Kat]

As someone who comes from one of the more fucked-up examples of direct democracy, I'm sorry that the Swiss feel the need to follow our example and use direct democracy to give the finger to a minority group.

That being said...

Aye.

The sheer inanity of banning minarets of all things is what really highlights the bigotry here. It's so useless and pointless that there can be no explanation for it beyond "Muslims are scary".

There is a group suing in US federal court on the grounds that CA Prop 8 was passed with "discriminatory intent" against a minority group. That's a harder case to prove than this Swiss one, since the proponents of the anti-minaret measure are so blatantly anti-Muslim. Are religious groups protected in Switzerland, and could someone sue on similar grounds?

[Guest Other-in-law]

Whjat I mean is maybe make the minarets look like bell towers?

Of course. If a minaret can be built to look like a pagoda, it can look like a belfry.

That's not the point. You could stick a baroque dome on top of a minaret, and it would still be illegal in Switzerland. Because they're not outlawing architectural styles, they're banning a specific type of building.

[Lord Mord]

Iceman,

Depends what you consider a failure, but we're talking about a country where universal suffrage have been around for less than 20 years.

Surely, that's all the more reason why a judgment of "total fail" is a bit premature, yes?

[Lord Mord]

thrersites,

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.

A distinction without a difference. An implausible restriction against an activity that harms no one, without the least slight nod towards any scintilla of rationale, or you know, basic human cognitive skills, which severely and without explanation curbs a significant part of a basic right, may as well be an attack on that right itself. What is the point of drawing any kind of distinction here?