Switzerland About To Vote On Minaret Ban

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kralizec

Besides it doesn't make much sense to enshrine mere building regulations in a nation's constitution. (and I think it's weird that their constitution can be changed by a simple majority, especially with such a low turnout)

---

Sadly, we have a similar device in California*, with the result that The California Constitution is a mess to read, results in many costly lawsuits, and is a headache for our constitutional courts. I hold the opinion that it should be much more difficult to amend a basic governmental organizing document, like a constitution. At least two-thirds vote should be required, on top of a minimum 51% turnout.

*California population is @37 million, vs Switzerland @8 million

Quote:

---

Besides it doesn't make much sense to enshrine mere building regulations in a nation's constitution. (and I think it's weird that their constitution can be changed by a simple majority, especially with such a low turnout)

---

that makes a ton of sense as well. i like kukrikhan's system :P


and i remember reading on the first page, or in a link, or something that the Minarets existing there did not make the call to prayer. maybe from street level, but not from the minarets.


i think the thread title should be changed to:

"Swiss Ban Minarets"


as it has now occured and is not being voted upon.

As Cute Wolf tried to point out, everybody must have missed it, well few posts back.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ser Clegane

Quite frankly - if we had such a referendum here in Germany, I would not be surprised to see an outcome very similar to that in Switzerland.
While "Bild" might be correct with this assessment, my problem with this "newspaper" is that they would certainly also try to incfluence the public opinion to get the same result as in Switzerland.

---

Of course. They're the equivalent of The Sun, in that they're just a comic; it literally translates as "PICTURES".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat

No they can't.

Democracy, contrary to common belief, does not mean majority rule. It means minority rights.


We'll see if this referendum holds up in court.

Me, I am still very torn.

---

Demos-Kratos "Rule by the People". It has nothing to do with minority rights at all, that is, along with "speration of powers" a product of French Enlightenment thinking. It isn't necessarily right.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KukriKhan

Sadly, we have a similar device in California*, with the result that The California Constitution is a mess to read, results in many costly lawsuits, and is a headache for our constitutional courts. I hold the opinion that it should be much more difficult to amend a basic governmental organizing document, like a constitution. At least two-thirds vote should be required, on top of a minimum 51% turnout.

*California population is @37 million, vs Switzerland @8 million

---

I believe California has been 'direct democrafied' into bankruptcy, hasn't it?

:wall:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

You don't see his point

---

Indeed - I don't.

To prevent "noise pollution" you do not need to ban minarets. You directly regulate "noise pollution".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

Demos-Kratos "Rule by the People". It has nothing to do with minority rights at all, that is, along with "speration of powers" a product of French Enlightenment thinking.

---

Is there any other system of political thought worth the name?

There is only one form of thinking, and that's Cartesian rationality and reason. The enitre rest of Western thought is superstiton.


If 51% of the population by majority vote elects to genocide the other 49%, is this considered a democratic state? No, of course not. This shows that 'democracy' does not mean majority rule, but that it is shorthand for that entire legacy of enlightened thought about human rights, rule of law, equality and liberty.


Hence, the highest sovereign in a democracy is not the majority, or even the people, but Reason.



*rushes off to tear down a minaret and convert The Madeleine into a Temple of Reason*

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

Demos-Kratos "Rule by the People". It has nothing to do with minority rights at all, that is, along with "speration of powers" a product of French Enlightenment thinking. It isn't necessarily right.

---

An effective democracy must protect minority rights. Your argument is like saying Televisions can't transmit sound, because they're made up of "Tele" and "Visio", and have nothing to do with sounds.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat

I believe California has been 'direct democrafied' into bankruptcy, hasn't it?

:wall:

---

The Economist described California's direct democracy quite aptly as "The Crack Cocaine of Democracy"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Subotan

The Economist described California's direct democracy quite aptly as "The Crack Cocaine of Democracy"

---

:laugh4:

On topic, don't really have much to add. The picture of the minaret in the original article is pretty interesting. Apart from the electric blue roof, it looks like they Swissified it fairly well. I wonder if they have problems with snow accumulation on the catwalk. :inquisitive:
https://img34.imageshack.us/img34/85...narets1230.jpg

The thing about this ban is that it's specified against one particular type of building.

And that's idiotic on every level.

Have your building codes, make them however you wish, I don't care. But make the building code itself so good that it covers all the things you don't want, without the need to point out particular buildings to be banned.

McDonald's was mentioned earlier. There's no law specifically banning extremely big M's, but they can't be built anyway because they're banned by the building code, even though there's no law specifically targeting big M's. Having a specific law against every single construction you don't want is idiotic - just make a proper building code that covers all the unwanted buildings.

Another drawback of doing it like the swiss have done is that there is bound to be loopholes, some clever guy is going to find a way around it. "There's no Minaret on that mosque, my good sir! That's a very beautiful Winaret we built!"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kralizec

Speaking of wich, when is something a minaret? I think Swiss muslims ought to start putting towers on their mosques wich resemble church bell towers. And as soon as the authorities step in, have a lawyer argue that the tower is actually a church tower stuck on a mosque.

---

i think you'd find that a referendum winning majority were quite happy with that solution.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Subotan

Of course. They're the equivalent of The Sun, in that they're just a comic; it literally translates as "PICTURES".

---

and yet............................................ both der spiegel and ser clegane admit that germaNY probably would have voted the same way.

you can rubbish the source, but that does nothing to rubbish the result.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat

If 51% of the population by majority vote elects to genocide the other 49%, is this considered a democratic state? No, of course not. This shows that 'democracy' does not mean majority rule, but that it is shorthand for that entire legacy of enlightened thought about human rights, rule of law, equality and liberty.

---

we trust our electorate not to make such foolishb decisions, it is called being adult. are you not asble to do the same?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat

Is there any other system of political thought worth the name?

There is only one form of thinking, and that's Cartesian rationality and reason. The enitre rest of Western thought is superstiton.

---

Plato said it first, and better. If he didn't, Xenophon or Aristotle did. Personally, I don't believe in the seperation of powers, because it never works in practice, either power ultimately remains in the hands of one man, inexcusably strengthened by a "Constitution" (America), or factionalism that causes the state to stall (South Africa).

Quote:

---

If 51% of the population by majority vote elects to genocide the other 49%, is this considered a democratic state? No, of course not.

---

Sounds just like ancient Athens. :yes: DEMOCRACY!

Quote:

---

This shows that 'democracy' does not mean majority rule, but that it is shorthand for that entire legacy of enlightened thought about human rights, rule of law, equality and liberty.

---

I believe the word you are actually looking for is "Republic", not Democracy. This is why you have a Campus Martius in Paris, isn't it?

Quote:

---

Hence, the highest sovereign in a democracy is not the majority, or even the people, but Reason.

---

I'm not a huge fan of Reason, it can be used to justify anything. Nazi Germany was perfectly reasonable, once you accepted that those outside the State were worthless. The same principle was used by France in her colonies, was it not.

Don't even get me started on "electing" a monarch for a limited term, so that they rob the country blind.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kralizec

Besides it doesn't make much sense to enshrine mere building regulations in a nation's constitution. (and I think it's weird that their constitution can be changed by a simple majority, especially with such a low turnout)

---

I agree that including building regulations in the constitution is overkill, and I also that a simple majority to change the constitution would be stupid, however the Swiss require a double majority, which is quite sensible.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

Demos-Kratos "Rule by the People". It has nothing to do with minority rights at all, that is, along with "speration of powers" a product of French Enlightenment thinking. It isn't necessarily right.

---

You are quite correct "rule by the people" is the heart of democracy, but tyranny of the majority and suppression of the minority are not. The minority are people too, no? That is where the double majority comes in, if a majority of the population had voted yes, but a majority of the cantons(with a minority of the population) had voted no, then the referendum would not have been passed.

In Australia, there have been referendums that would have been passed had a simple majority been required, but a majority of states decided that the change would be a violation of their rights so they stopped it. Minority rights and rule by the people go hand in hand.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by miotas

The minority are people too, no?

---

Not if the democratic majority decides they are not, in which case you can colonize them or restrict their liberties.

there's that fear again.

speaking only as a Brit; i don't fear the tyranny of the majority in my country, and thus have no objections to representative mechanisms subject to a high degree of democratic capability.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kralizec

Speaking of wich, when is something a minaret? I think Swiss muslims ought to start putting towers on their mosques wich resemble church bell towers. And as soon as the authorities step in, have a lawyer argue that the tower is actually a church tower stuck on a mosque.

---

There is wisdom in that.

Instead of the usual yelling and screaming about "this is our land; in Swiss do like the Swiss. Our tradition! We! We! We!" vs. "Our fundamental rights and freedoms! We should be allowed to build [insert religious building], no matter how misplaced it is in your landscape! Our freedom! Ours! We! We!", why can't it be treated as adults?

How about the muslim community saying: "Well ok, we understand you don't like minarets" vs. the Swiss saying "You can have freedom of religion, but we simply don't like minarets; can't you build something that fits better into the landscape?"

To which the muslim community could propose to build a tower on their mosque which resembles the typical Swiss church towers, but has a half moon instead of a cross on top of it?

That way the muslim community shows that they are not fundamentalists, but are adult people prepared to compromise and adapt to local customs and the Swiss would have the opportunity to prove that they are not racists but simply don't like the look of minarets.

A nice compromise and everybody lives happy together.

Wouldn't that be better than the confrontation, yelling and hammering on one's rights? Clearly, there's a conflict of interests. Adult people don't keep yelling and demanding and being unreasonable when such a conflict happens; adult people take a deep breath, swallow some pride, negotiate and compromise.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kralizec

I agree, I doubt that the majority of Swiss are xenophobes. But if I thought that minarets were butt ugly and wanted them gone, I still wouldn't have voted for a law that would accomplish that by specifically targetting one group of people, and wich is a treated as a trophy by racist politicians ~:shrug:

---

Let them claim it as "a trophy". It makes them look even more ridiculous then they already are.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Andres

Wouldn't that be better than the confrontation, yelling and hammering on one's rights? Clearly, there's a conflict of interests. Adult people don't keep yelling and demanding and being unreasonable when such a conflict happens; adult people take a deep breath, swallow some pride, negotiate and compromise.

---

Which Ape species are we talking about? People only compromise when every other option has been given consideration. Clearly compromise isn't the Outragasaur's strength.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Furunculus

there's that fear again.

speaking only as a Brit; i don't fear the tyranny of the majority in my country, and thus have no objections to representative mechanisms subject to a high degree of democratic capability.

---

It's more than a fear, it is how it works. This was the reality back in the (later) colonization days where it was democratic countries, not dictatorships, that colonized and exploited. It is never crystal clear who is included in the 'us', and who is worthy of being called a 'minority' as in someone to grant rights to. You might not fear the democratic process, but that doesn't mean these things do not happen.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wakizashi

Which Ape species are we talking about? People only compromise when every other option has been given consideration. Clearly compromise isn't the Outragasaur's strength.

---

Maybe it's time for the Homo Adultus Compromisus to stand up and grab the power from the incapable Outragasauri.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Andres

Maybe it's time for the Homo Adultus Compromisus to stand up and grab the power from the incapable Outragasauri.

---

You mean, ban binding direct referenda?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat

You mean, ban binding direct referenda?

---

If complex situations are being reduced to oversimplified "yes" or "no" questions and some emotional mambo-jambo arguments which are blind for reason, then yes, ban referenda.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Viking

It's more than a fear, it is how it works. This was the reality back in the (later) colonization days where it was democratic countries, not dictatorships, that colonized and exploited. It is never crystal clear who is included in the 'us', and who is worthy of being called a 'minority' as in someone to grant rights to. You might not fear the democratic process, but that doesn't mean these things do not happen.

---

i'm not saying no-one should not fear un-bridled democracy, far from it, i speak only as a brit and about britain when i say i do not fear the people.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

...Personally, I don't believe in the seperation of powers, because it never works in practice, either power ultimately remains in the hands of one man, inexcusably strengthened by a "Constitution" (America), or factionalism that causes the state to stall (South Africa).

---

I disagree with your assessment of the United States. Though arrogation and acretion have, over the last 150 years, greatly enhanced the power of the office of the Presidency, it is incorrect to assert that we have any form of one-person rule in this country. Moreover, the increases in the de facto power of the Presidency has mostly been derived extra-constitutionally (many Presidents have, in the absence of a specific constitutional prohibition, simply moved forward with some project etc.), but the Constitution still does function to limit that power.


Prussian:

Setting aside the elitism of your 105 IQ benchmark for the suffrage, there are a couple of relevant practical problems as well.

1. Just how valid are the measures you would use to establish this quotient?

2. Why do you assume a strong correlation between intelligence and informed decision making? Is an informed 95-IQ'er not a better, more responsible voter than the 145 IQ'er who ignores all of that "politics crap" and focuses on their Guitar Hero skills?

Please note that, for example, here in the USA we have millions of people who meet or exceed the intellectual benchmark you set. But how many of them choose ignorance? We have regular "person in the street" features and frequently repeated polls that indicate that many (often most) of our college graduates cannot identify the current Vice President. Provided with a list of quotations, they will often ascribe the phrase "from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs" to the Declaration of Indepence. Ignorance abounds.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh

Is an informed 95-IQ'er not a better, more responsible voter than the 145 IQ'er who ignores all of that "politics crap" and focuses on their Guitar Hero skills?

---

are you discriminating against my 140-something IQ and Rock Band skills?


oddly enough, you literally just described me in the last part :P, except i'm more into CoD now than rock band.


but no. because in something like this, where it is an issue of "for Muslim rights" or "against Muslim rights" a 95-IQ'er would be worse, as there is not much to be informed about. rather than take into account the reactions that people could take depending on the decision, a less-intelligent person would simply vote what they want, not what is best.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Prussian Iron

a less-intelligent person would simply vote what they want, not what is best.

---

Again a huge assumption you are making here.

Intelligence is not necessarily the best indicator for altrusim. There are enough "intelligent" people who only care about their own advantage as there are enough "less-intelligent" people who are tolerant and care very much about other people.

Sorry, but the attitude that you know what is best for the "unwashed masses" strikes me as extremely arrogant, and as such makes a rather strong point for a referendum.

Perhaps the "intelligent" people should have leveraged their "intelligence" to make better arguments instead of feeling too sure that the vote in Switzerland would come to a different result (apparently the administration was pretty sure that the the voters would against a ban)

I'm not saying that less-intellegent people don't try to do what's best. but when they try, they often fail, and it is easier for a more intelligent person to think out what is truly best, than what is best at the moment.


Meh, I've always been Pro-Roman-Government-Style: Not Elitist; I hate people who are too rich, but I like the idea of intelligent people running the government, with some lower-class representatives to advise on what they are thinking.

I've been brought up in NC, where you will not find many good minds to help lower your ego. I usually see people of lesser intelligence below me, but what can I say?

Well, we can't have those Gammas, Deltas, or Epsilons voting, now can we? And I'm not so sure about those Betas either, they're a little shifty. :yes: