Not actually Swiss
Swiss voters have supported a referendum proposal to ban the building of minarets, official results show.More than 57% of voters and 22 out of 26 cantons – or provinces – voted in favour of the ban. bbc
The Swiss have struck a blow for the preservation of their culture. A culture which does not include minarets.
Of course the real problem is not the minarets; rather it is an immigration policy which has allowed 400,000 Muslims into Switzerland over the last few years. All over Europe there is a growing recognition that Muslim immigration creates significant problems from modern, liberal, societies.
In recent years many countries in Europe have been debating their relationship with Islam, and how best to integrate their Muslim populations.France focused on the headscarf, while in Germany there was controversy over plans to build one of Europe’s largest mosques in Cologne. bbc
Update: Kathy trenchantly observes:
Minarets are not the “moral equivalent” of church steeples.They are the moral equivalent of burning crosses. fff
November 29th, 2009 at 12:29 pm
Back in the early ‘80s Montreal was the immigrant destination for Haitians. With the influx of blacks with an odd accent, many people didn’t like it and complained vociferously, which was interpreted as racism.
I’m surprised that anyone would be surprised at these reactions.
Derek
November 29th, 2009 at 12:54 pm
Smarten up. Muslims are a whopping 4% of the Swiss population. Most are non-observant. There are four—yes, you read right—minarets in the entire country. This calls for constitutional change to proscribe freedom of religion?
Scratch a libertarian and you find a racist. Not your finest hour, Jay.
November 29th, 2009 at 1:49 pm
BS, Dawg. The Swiss are uninterested in having symbols of an alien culture on their skyline. Nothing racist about it.
November 29th, 2009 at 1:56 pm
Er, Jay—here’s a poster from the party that sponsored the minaret ban:
http://infidelsunite.typepad.com/.a/6a0111685b4b71970c011570a4a641970c-800wi
Nah, nothing racist there.
November 29th, 2009 at 1:58 pm
Damn, there goes the whole marketing plan for “Swiss Minaret” brandy-filled chocolates. They were going to be such a big seller this Festivus.
November 29th, 2009 at 2:15 pm
Dawg, it is going to come as a surprise, but the party you link to is not what I was writing about. I was writing about a democratically conducted referendum in which 57% of the Swiss said no to an alien cultural symbol.
November 29th, 2009 at 2:57 pm
Actually, THIS is the poster. And I want one:
http://www.fivefeetoffury.com/:entry:fivefeet-2009-11-29-0008/
Scratch a male lefty, find a woman hater I guess:
http://blog.vdare.com/archives/2009/11/29/swiss-women-voted-against-burqas-as-well-as-minarets/
Isn’t telling people in other countries how to live… imperialist…?
Obama’s approval numbers and overall wankership; global warming is a hoax, and now this. I love it.
Meanwhile Dawg can’t even find the right poster. What a fag.
November 29th, 2009 at 3:21 pm
You know, Dawg, I remember that ad and, as I recall, the objective in that particular referendum was to kick immigrants who violated Swiss law.
Meanwhile, what’s with the Muslims are a “race” meme. Islam, in its own way, is a religion not a race. So it is a bit tough to be racist about.
The problem you lefties have is that if you disagree you reach for the handiest bit of smear an fling it. Not a winning strategy.
November 29th, 2009 at 5:21 pm
Yodel-allah-akhbar
November 29th, 2009 at 5:21 pm
Dawg’s been lying to us about his real identity. Turns out he’s an American lawyer:
“By the way, please tell your subscribers that I still don’t know who attacked the World Trade Center and, yes, I still don’t care. From the perspective of those who died, it makes very little difference who killed them. From the perspective of everyone else, its frankly none of their business, unless they sit on the jury of course. Print that loud, wide, and clear. (...) You’re assuming it was murder, which may not be the case. It may not have been murder, but again, that’s for the jury to decide.”
He also goes by the screen name “jersey”:
http://ace.mu.nu/archives/295174.php
Also he’s a great big fag.
November 29th, 2009 at 5:30 pm
Meanwhile, what’s with the Muslims are a “race” meme. Islam, in its own way, is a religion not a race. So it is a bit tough to be racist about.
Oh, don’t give me that bullshit, Jay. Take another look at the poster. Black and white, even if you’re too conveniently blind to see it. “Muslim” is a place-holder for “race,” and you damned well know it.
Racism is never a winning strategy, Jay, and you landed face first in it.
“If we give them a minaret, they’ll have us all wearing burqas,” F*ck me. And you guys buy this crap? Are you utterly insane?
November 29th, 2009 at 5:31 pm
The SVP was the main sponsored of this ban, Jay.
A far right, xenophobic and openly racist party, nice friends you got there!
November 29th, 2009 at 6:03 pm
Dawg…I realize noir is a symbol more than a reality for the pomo left but “blacksheep of the family” is a pretty standard saying.
As for Muslim being a “placeholder for race” – which race? Muslim is a placeholder for, er, religion. It is simply silly to equate Muslim with race. They signify different things.
November 29th, 2009 at 6:15 pm
I think this is great. Now get rid of those damn crosses everywhere…
November 29th, 2009 at 6:22 pm
Jay, stop it. You’re embarrassing yourself. The poster was obvious enough in its import to have the Swiss government ban it.
“Black sheep,” forsooth. Pull the other one.
November 29th, 2009 at 6:27 pm
Dawg: Instead of calling people names, why not explain why the Swiss should accept immigrants, and why they should accept the inevitable changes in their society that large immigrant populations inevitably bring?
Derek
November 29th, 2009 at 6:38 pm
The Swiss government just discovered that the Swiss people don’t like having their free speech taken away from them. They are also not so terribly keen on the political symbols of Islam.
As a general rule, Dawg, it is perfectly legitimate to object to immigration. It is also legitimate to refuse to allow an alien culture to erect its symbols if the majority culture finds them offensive or even simply unattractive or un-Swiss.
And, Dawg…it was a “blacksheep”.
November 29th, 2009 at 6:39 pm
Hmm according to this article most of Switzerlands Muslim population originates from the former Yugoslavia and Turkey. I had never realized until Dawg pointed it out that both locales were noteworthy for their significant indigenous populations of “Black Sheep”. I’m curious, is the term “Black Sheep” some sort of leftist code to indicate a given group has exploitable levels of race-card suitable melanin?
November 29th, 2009 at 6:47 pm
This is a bad one. Swiss voters were asked a direct question and they answered. I wonder if they surprised themselves. Will they look at themselves and decide what they did was wrong, or will it lead them to vote for more restrictive measures? The People’s Party will not stop. Why should they? They won. The leadership must get ahead of the issue. One choice that comes to hand is to announce that, whether it is their fault or not, the presence of Muslims is too disruptive, and then take steps to limit Islamic immigration and work to assimilate those already in the country. Anti-Islamic parties and groups across Europe will take heart from this victory and Muslims will quite rightly resent it.
November 29th, 2009 at 6:52 pm
Thomas the same article I mentioned earlier indicates that the minaret issue served as a proxy war for just such a debate – “The supporters succeeded in forcing a broader debate about integration of Muslims in Swiss society,” said political scientist Claude Longchamp of gfs.bern.”
Voter turnout was described as “High” at 55%.
November 29th, 2009 at 7:36 pm
The question at hand is does a society have the moral right to attempt to preserve its identity? If the answer is no, then whomever arrives may transform the host nation however they please to meet their own preferences. If the answer is yes, then the people of Switzerland may choose to establish laws protecting their society, their customs, their traditions. It does not matter who sponsored the legislation, what comments were heard passed a fortnight ago, or whether these individuals prefer tea or coffee.
The cries of racism are a weak attack. Whether you agree with the principle or not, has the efforts undertaken to preserve their French ancestry been a legitimate undertaking in Quebec? Or the efforts to check the influx of English words to preserve the French language in France?
If a people or place cannot choose to preserve their ancestral identity, what security do they have, and what place do they hold in the world?
I’d be keen to hear Terrence Watson on this, among others.
November 29th, 2009 at 8:38 pm
Yup. Europe is finally waking up, except Great Britain, of course, which never wanted to be considered part of Europe anyway.
It’s funny how the loons on the left howl and moan about European imperialism which died well over 50 years ago. You know, that horrible era when Europeans invaded other countries and imposed their cultures, etc., etc., etc.. However, when the tide runs the other way, it’s a whole different story.
I’m bloody glad to see the indigenous peoples of Europe pushing back the non-sense of political correctness and fighting to preserve what’s left of their own culture.
I also think that the grass roots European citizen is lightyears ahead of the elitist political classes, who in turn bear an uncanny resemblance to the Dr. Dawgs of the world. They are still stuck in the post-colonial era where it was felt the only bad actors in the world who could be legitimately condemned where those white-skinned folk, some of whom had once had empires, oh the horrors.
Never mind that many of the non-white-skinned folks had had their turn at empire building at other times in history, in fact, sometimes even simultaneously and many of them were a darn sight more brutal and oppressive, too.
November 29th, 2009 at 9:15 pm
Lame. You either believe in religious freedom or you don’t.
Confident cultures shouldn’t resort to bullying minority faiths where places of worship are concerned. Nor would they need to, because a confident Swiss culture would be in the bussiness of filling the skylines with their own cathedrals and churches. And resorting to the coersive power of the state won’t save a culture that’s so clearly insecure about it’s own decline.
November 29th, 2009 at 9:21 pm
Tatiana, a teacher who had previously voted for the left, was quoted in a newspaper as saying she would vote for the minaret ban as she could “no longer bear being mistreated and terrorised by boys who believe women are worthless”.
Hmm.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article6936267.ece
Derek
November 29th, 2009 at 9:29 pm
Ben, if the minaret was a required element of Islam I might be with you. It isn’t. It is a symbol of political Islam and has been for hundreds of years.
November 30th, 2009 at 12:06 am
“resorting to the coersive power of the state won’t save a culture that’s so clearly insecure about it’s own decline.”
Switzerland plays the First Nations card.
Leftards stumped.
November 30th, 2009 at 6:09 am
Ah, democratic decision-making! Who would have thought the enlightened Europeans would choose this way?
But I have a question for Dawg: as Jennifer Lynch constantly tells us, and as I think you agree, no rights are absolute. Given that as a starting point, what sort of procedure ought to be used to determine when a right should be limited? What makes democracy an inferior procedure?
Swiss voters did not abolish freedom of religion for Muslims. They simply limited one form of religious expression. As a libertarian (and maybe unlike Jay) I believe that vote was an injustice against a religious minority.
But then, I tend to believe that rights are more robust than you and Jennifer Lynch; and that voters are, for the most part, irrational. If democracy should not be used to determine the extent and order of our rights, then what other procedure would you say we should use?
November 30th, 2009 at 6:22 am
For certain leftists the mere suspicion of being white and western equates to the hoary old saw of imperialist hegemony or some such ideological nonsense, hence citizens are labelled racist for desiring to defend their own society in their own country against the impact of immigration. Fortunately the race card no longer holds any credibility other than among the more perverse and recalitrant wannabe demagogues.
And Ben confident cultures do stand up for themselves, just as the Swiss have done, I suspect the minaret ban is in fact a reaction by the general public to the threats imposed by their politically correct elites as much as to Muslim immigration.
November 30th, 2009 at 7:06 am
“If a people or place cannot choose to preserve their ancestral identity, what security do they have, and what place do they hold in the world?”
Nice see the sort of thinking that gave us the Chinese Exclusion Act, Japanese internment, the Komagata Maru and “None is too many” is alive and well and embodied by the boneheads on the right half of the Canadian blogosphere.
November 30th, 2009 at 7:07 am
Sometmes a minaret is just a minaret and sometimes…
Barbara Kay – Toxic Classrooms, National Post, Nov 30 2009
“During the academic year of 2002-2003 Miriam started to encounter anti-Semitic taunts from students, such as “Does someone see a Jew here, someone smell a Jew? It stinks here.” When she reported this and similar insults to the principal, the principal did not follow up. Indeed, the principal seemed more concerned about the students’ sensibilities than hers.
...The principal instructed teachers not to offend their Muslim students; they were not to look students in the eye, they were not to gesture with the forefinger to bid them approach and they were not to interfere with male students who were physically aggressive to male teachers.”
...An instinctive political correctness set in. Out of fear of being labeled racist or Islamophobic those in charge stifled their commitment to professional ethics and behaviour codes reflecting Canadian standards of pluralism and respect.”
Read the rest.
November 30th, 2009 at 8:13 am
well Dawg – it just goes to show you understand very little of the EU situation.
Direct Democracy is something that Canada should have.
If a similar vote was taken across the EU - the result would be the same – dispite the bleatings of those who want to be President or PM.
For your edification:
http://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/0,1518,664231,00.html
November 30th, 2009 at 8:49 am
I dislike laws of this nature. Obviously rights and liberties must have some limits, in a lawful, orderly, civilized society, but personally I prefer those limits to be of the “your right to swing your fist ends where my nose begins” variety. The construction of a particular kind of building doesn’t really belong in the category of violent behavior against others, so I agree, at least in part, with Terrence that this is an injustice against a religious minority.
Having said that, I also agree with Jay and the others, who are saying that it is appropriate for a country to pass laws protecting its historical, traditional identity and culture. I wouldn’t be much of a Tory if I thought otherwise. The Swiss do not want to become something other than what they historically and traditionally were. That attitude is entirely reasonable and decent and does not deserve to be vilified with nasty labels.
The problem here, is that for half a century, immigration has been used by the Left as an instrument of revolution. This also is an injustice, an injustice against people who do not want to go to bed as Swiss in Switzerland one day, and wake up and find themselves in a foreign country the next day, without having moved. Of the two injustices, this is by far the greater.
It is not “racist” or “bigoted” or any of those other nasty Left-wing smear words, for a country to say to foreigners: “Look, we are who we are, we are this kind of people, with this kind of traditions and customs, and we are do not wish to change. You can visit us, trade with us, learn from us and we from you, but if you wish to come here, and we reserve the right to say whether you can or not, you must adopt our ways and not expect us to adapt to yours, or we will send you packing.”
It is on the immigration front that these battles need to be fought.
November 30th, 2009 at 9:01 am
“Nice see the sort of thinking that gave us the Chinese Exclusion Act, Japanese internment, the Komagata Maru and ‘None is too many’ is alive and well and embodied by the boneheads on the right half of the Canadian blogosphere.”
There’s no doubt that nationalist sentiments can have their ugly side. Which is not to say that every nationalist sentiment or movement is ugly, or entirely ugly.
How about the opposite tendency, internationalism? Any ugly, Gulag-ish stuff on the record?
November 30th, 2009 at 9:56 am
revDRramadanpoodle….
certainly getting warm in here isn’t it ?
anyway…how bout some nice juicy statistics…EU countries with up tp 8 % Muslim populations on average spend 40% of their social service budgets on that Muslim population alone(even after a generation or more of residency!)...isn’t that a shocker ?...i’m appalled mesself…how bout you ?
it’s called a conspiracy you silly bedwetting canine…the Muslim populations are encouraged by their Imams to confound and disrupt the social contract with their host nation in any way possible…which they do with a rather depressing regularity..
and now the bitterest pill of all…i find you’re a homo…i must say i suspected it but i am too well bred to have mentioned my suspicions…is there any truth to the charge or is it just another example of the vast right wing conspiracy besmirching an otherwise harmless Marcusian …...or Mancunian…or Martian or Munchkin or whatever the hell you are…
November 30th, 2009 at 10:19 am
“Lame. You either believe in religious freedom or you don’t.”
Well…they don’t.
That is why you continue to hear stories of people in the Western world being intimidated in one way or another, like a Greek boy in Sydney Australia beaten for eating a salami sandwich during Ramadan, or public parks in England being turned into no-go areas for non-Muslims, or London synagogue’s being targeted by a wave of anti-Semitic graffiti. None of these demonstrate particularly tolerant attitudes on the part of the Muslim members that have come to dominate their local communities.
People that immigrate to a nation with no intention of embracing that nation’s culture, but have designs to subvert it to their own should not be accommodated. If the Swiss do not wish to have their skylines dominated by minarets and the muezzin’s call to prayer five times a day, that is their prerogative, but as Mr. Neal points out, the problem is primarily a problem of immigration, which has been amplified by multiculturism’s undermining of Western culture and uncritical embrace of non-Western cultures.
November 30th, 2009 at 10:25 am
Human rights, including religious belief, should not be subject to referendum. State control over how a place of worship should look, differentially applied among religions, is inconsistent and in my opinion wrong.
I am not religious myself and am quite unable to comprehend what others see in religion, but I would not restrict anyone’s right to practise a delusion which affects me not one whit.
A sad day for Switzerland. A sad post for you, Jay.
November 30th, 2009 at 10:29 am
Anyone who is unwilling to recognize that some forms of culture are superior to others, i.e. more conducive to living in a modern liberal society, is not a liberal however much he protests about “racism”. He becomes a defacto support of illiberal ideas, given the current cultural make-up of the world.
But this statement would not have been controversial to those Canadian liberals who fought against, say, anti-Asian racism or antisemitism in the 1930s (and so why that period of history should now be invoked to argue for cultural relativism is beyond me). The 1930s liberal had reason to believe, for example, that the people they defended from racism wanted to and would become Canadians, culturally well-integrated, that they would, for example, if push came to shove, be more loyal to Canada than to the Emperor of Japan and to Japan’s military cult. While there was widespread fear on that point in 1942, by 1945-6 there was a full-blown debate on the future of Japanese-Canadians and many argued against calls for sending them to Japan after the war. Enfranchisement soon followed. People learned, by looking to the reality of Japanese-Canadians and their conduct during the war. The “racist” side of the debate eventually collapsed in large part because all along they too had been arguing on the premise that what mattered was preserving superior, i.e. more liberal, cultural values and that argument collapsed in face of the examination of the people under attack. The relation between culture and race was unclear to many to be sure; but while eugenics had had some place in the debate, it was not, in my reading, something that became mainstream common sense. Serious racial theories remained the intellectual’s fancy, and of course became quite marginal after the Nazis revealed their full dehumanizing potential. Still, it was not so much the revelation of the evil of Nazi race theory as the recognition of what Japanese-Canadians were, culturally, that turned the tide in a nation that had just seen much evidence of the potential evil in a supremacist Japanese culture.
What is so pathetic about today’s “liberals” is not that they take one side or another, but that they do so little to investigate and show us the reality of the Muslims in Europe they would defend from charges of a supremacist political Islam that does not belong in a modern liberal society. They always act as if they were fighting for an absolute, indivisible truth, against a move for the complete dehumanization of the other, or against the complete refusal of all immigrants, whatever their beliefs, simply because of some ancestral marker. But as i say, in doing so the “liberal” refuses to engage seriously with reality of culture and beliefs as they exist today. Admittedly, at times they find it rhetorically convenient to insist on the “complexity” or “diversity” of the scene; but they do so little to show it in their hurry to paint the opposition as Nazis. Are the Swiss today Nazis, really? or are they capable of overcoming the suggestion that a drop or two of “Muslim” blood makes one the enemy, i.e. a Jihadi. Maybe what the Swiss really oppose are just what the surface rhetoric says: the symbols of Jihad and Sharia and whoever takes them to heart. How would one know if all one offers us is a provocative poster that could mean many things? How would we go about seriously inquiring into what people today really believe? How can we re-develop an interest in deepening our understanding and re-presenting of a shared reality? How can we be truly liberal again?
November 30th, 2009 at 10:45 am
pmt, if the minaret was a religious rather than political symbol you might have a point. However there is nothing about minarets which is essential to Islam as a matter of religion; rather minarets are a cultural artifact which, apparently, the Swiss find unappealing. There is no “human right” to erect buildings; rather there is a cultural consensus as to what sort of buildings are acceptable in particular contexts.
November 30th, 2009 at 10:51 am
A question to everyone:
Is there such a thing as a right to a (specific) culture?
That is, is it true (or even plausible) to say that Swiss have a right to live in a “traditionally Swiss” culture?
Or, to put it another way, if group X is used to living in a certain culture, does something morally wrong happen if immigration/demographic trends/etc dramatically alter that culture?
(Obviously, I only mean cultures that pass a certain moral threshold. No one wants to say, I hope, that there is such a thing as a right to an evil culture, i.e. one in which slavery is normal.)
Anyway, I can’t say I believe in such a right. Or, at least, I need to be convinced. Presuming a baseline of mutual non-violence, why should people be obligated to maintain some other group’s culture?
Also, if the Swiss are morally justified in banning minarets to preserve “Swiss culture”, are the Québécois morally justified in banning English-only signs to preserve Québécois culture?
November 30th, 2009 at 10:58 am
Abolish Bill 101 !!
November 30th, 2009 at 11:17 am
Terrence, your rephrased question “if group X is used to living in a certain culture, does something morally wrong happen if immigration/demographic trends/etc dramatically alter that culture?” leaves something vitally important to the question out. Are these immigration/demographic trends just something that happens or are they the deliberate result of state activity? In Canada, for example, the Liberal Party set out in the 1960’s and 70’s, to get rid of traditional English Canada and French Canada, and replace both with a new Canada that would be a multicultural mosaic. As part of the process, they began actively recruiting for immigration in countries that had not traditionally provided large numbers of immigrants to Canada. If the state sets out to deliberately create demographic trends that will radically alter the culture of the country, against the wishes of the people already living there, do you see something morally wrong there? I certainly do.
November 30th, 2009 at 11:43 am
Arnie: ...the race card no longer holds any credibility..
========================
Indeed, the accusation of racism is frequently somewhere between a good joke, capable of inducing peals of hearty laughter to the point of causing breathing troubles, on the one hand, and a badge of honour, on the other.
November 30th, 2009 at 11:47 am
Gerry,
Yep, you’ve definitely got a point, and I left something out. In fact, we can break it down even further:
(a) Is the demographic shift something the government brought about on purpose?
(b) Even if (a) is false, was the shift nevertheless the result (mainly) of government policy?
I’m not sure if (b) is always a problem, but I share your reservations about (a) (and was not familiar with the background you provided.)
Perhaps ironically, my reservations come from my liberal position: a properly neutral liberal state should not set out to produce diversity (as such a policy could never be justified to all reasonable citizens.)
But what about the situation in Europe, and Switzerland in particular? Is it more like (a) or (b)? I’ve read that, at least in part, immigration in Europe is a matter of ensuring a consistent tax base, despite falling birth rates. That’s a policy that could at least be potentially justified on neutral ground.
Hmm. Thank you for your response!
November 30th, 2009 at 12:00 pm
TW: “Is there such a thing as a right to a (specific) culture?”
No one can escape from the fact that history is a never-ending process, that nothing stands still forever; even in traditional cultures that go out of their way to enforce a ritual code of uniquely correct behaviour, there are, however muted, dynamic processes at work.
What i think people today should aspire to is the right to govern themselves through free exercise of speech, reason, and the good faith that maximizes that freedom. (I don’t have much respect for faith or religion that doesn’t posit a God, or cosmic force, that has given man his freedom to sign and keep deals, in an open-ended history).
Thus, i’d say the Swiss have a right to a culture that maximizes their freedom, not one that necessarily makes the preservation of any particular, say alpine cow maids, its highest value. One has a right to a national identity, in as much as you can’t conceive of a self-ruling democracy without some such. Attempts to overcome nationality lead to Brussels-type imperial arrangements which, at least at present, are highly centralized, and a restraint on creativity and freedom which only really exist locally, among people who rule themselves and who not only have the “right” to tell their own story but can also access power, from within that story, and thus engage history fully with all the experiences and feedbacks and revelations that come from sharing in the power to advance a shared story. For various pragmatic reasons of scope and scale, in the modern world there can only be so many stories fully empowered by their own state. There can only be so many nations, espcially nations with a state (there have been far more ethnic, than national, identities, in history). In wondering whether the Quebecois get to be a nation with a state that advances their story (while maybe, say, the Metis don’t get to be a nation or state in such a full sense) we have to have some respect for pragmatic forces that shape our principles.
Among other things, ruling yourself means recognizing you have external competitors who, like you, bond themselves, at least partly, against you. This means the line between inside and outside has always to be contested; in a free society, there have to be ways of measuring and redrawing lines in repsect for human freedom. But that does not mean accepting the Utopianism of doing away with drawing lines that define inside and outside. There will always be conflict and you can’t usefully define freedom as just freedom from, or freedom to…
The Quebecois banning English signs does not strike me as a fundamental moral scandal. It is a recognition that any form of practicable human organization, any ethics, necessarily compromises, in some way, our fundamental moral intuition of human equality. But humans need order and no worldly order of Being can freeze and make absolutely inviolate our fundamental moral intuition of equality, which is fundamental because it is rooted in the nature of our origins as language-using humans; yet morality, or fundamental equality, is always compromised to some degree by any actual ethical order because morality, while essential, is not the be all and end all of our origins as humans. That origin did not just require all the apes or proto-humans involved to all sign off on being humans, equally; it also required one of the apes to take a lead in making a sign of difference for others to pick up, change, or reject. In other words it required drawing lines, negotiating, and favoring one kind of proposed order and not another.
November 30th, 2009 at 1:02 pm
jay [37],
So where is the referendum to ban steeples?
November 30th, 2009 at 1:09 pm
Terry, “immigration in Europe is a matter of ensuring a consistent tax base, despite falling birth rates. That’s a policy that could at least be potentially justified on neutral ground”.
Perhaps, but my own sense is that that policy was on shaky ethical (not to mention empirical) ground from the get go. What right does a nation have to import tax serfs to pay for its retirement? And, conceding for a moment that importing tax serfs is ok, does it make any sense at all to continue to do so when evidence is mounting that while some immigrants are of net benefit to the society, others are not.
A viable alternative to mass immigration was and is to extend the working lives of the population and reduce the over all benefit structure to a level which that population can afford. That seems rather more ethical than importing people for purely instrumental reasons.
November 30th, 2009 at 1:20 pm
The Swiss have struck a blow for the preservation of their culture. A culture which does not include minarets.” Jay Currie
“In Italy for thirty years under the Borgias they had warfare, terror, murder, bloodshed—but they produced Michelangelo, Leonardo da Vinci, and the Renaissance. In Switzerland they had brotherly love, 500 years of democracy and peace, and what did that produce? The cuckoo clock.” Orson Welles – The Third Man
November 30th, 2009 at 1:28 pm
I’m curious as to whether the prevailing sentiment here means that the “none is too many” immigration policy here during WWII was also fine. If not, what is the distinction?
November 30th, 2009 at 1:42 pm
“A viable alternative to mass immigration was and is…”
Figure out what is crippling the growth of the nation’s native population and address the primary issue at hand.
Why import a population unfriendly to your heritage? And while we are at it, why raise a population unfriendly to your national heritage?
November 30th, 2009 at 1:43 pm
MM:
Ouch. You might not like the answer you get.
November 30th, 2009 at 1:47 pm
The Swiss have struck a blow for the preservation of their culture. A culture which does not include minarets.
Nor people named Mohammed. Why not follow the Bulgarian example, and force everyone to adopt good Swiss names?
Keep stomping on that Speech Warrior mask of yours, Jay.
November 30th, 2009 at 2:05 pm
MM, assuming for the moment that you intend you question seriously, in the one case Canada, to its shame, turned away people fleeing for their lives from a regime expressly intent on their destruction. In the current Canadian situation we have a refugee policy – which needs work – to explicitly ensure that does not happen again.
So far as I am aware, no regime is,at the moment,explicitly killing Muslims just because they are Muslims.
November 30th, 2009 at 2:05 pm
Jay,
I still don’t get it: why is it morally permissible for the Swiss to infringe on religious freedom in order to preserve “Swiss culture”?
And it is an infringment on religious freedom, no? What if a law was passed banning steeples on churches? As far as I know, you can have a Catholic church without a steeple (and many protestant churches omit the steeple by default.) Still, I would say a blanket prohibition of steeples would represent a violation of religious freedom.
General building codes, limiting the height of buildings, etc. would be different, but that’s not what the Swiss passed. They passed a law targeting Muslims. Indeed, the reason the People’s Party didn’t try for a more general law was that a ban on “tall religious spires” might come to include steeples.
It is wrong to stamp on religious freedom to preserve “Swiss culture” in precisely the same way it is wrong to stamp on freedom of speech to preserve the “Canadian culture” of peace and tolerance.
November 30th, 2009 at 2:14 pm
Truewest is all for warfare, terror, murder and bloodshed I see, and certainly there is something to be said for that, but I doubt that is the center piece to his argument against the actions taken by the Swiss.
November 30th, 2009 at 2:33 pm
I was serious. Canada didn’t accept Jewish refugees because the prevailing sentiment was that Canada was to remain the home of “heritage” Canadians. Canada didn’t want to become multicultural and Jews were representative of the “other” or foreign. Switzerland now appears to be saying no to a multi-cultural/multi-ethnic/multi-religious state. No, Muslim immigrants aren’t fleeing death camps. But I’m not sure that is at the heart of the Swiss vote.
I don’t think every country has an obligation to become a multicultural country-we do still have the idea of nation states and self determination for different peoples. What works in North America may not work everywhere.
November 30th, 2009 at 2:37 pm
Terry,
Once again, if the minaret was a religious requirement you might have a point; but it isn’t. Muslims remain free to practice their faith in Switzerland. And no one, Muslim or non-Muslim can build a minaret.
(I can hardly wait for a devoutly secular group to test the law by building a tall pointy object with an onion dome.)
November 30th, 2009 at 2:50 pm
Jay,
Why does it have to be a religious requirement to be included under the aegis of religious freedom? That seems awfully slippery. As Dawg and I have pointed out, it is hardly a religious requirement for Christian churches to have steeples, yet a blanket ban on steeples would (we’d argue) infringe on religious freedom.
I’m also pretty sure that white clerical collars are not literally required in Catholicism (they serve a purpose, true, but then so do minarets for Muslims…) So could the state ban those without infringing on religious freedom?
Why not also ban stained glass windows? Also not a requirement, as far as I know (but, again, they do serve a purpose.)
Where do you draw the line, and by what moral authority?
November 30th, 2009 at 3:02 pm
And no one, Muslim or non-Muslim can build a minaret.
I can’t figure out if Jay is sending us up or sending himself up.
Echoes of Anatole France here.
November 30th, 2009 at 3:04 pm
Terry, I don’t particularly draw the line: the Swiss did. So did the French but in a different place.
My own suspicion is that this line drawing exercise is a way of asserting particular values. In France the commitment to a secular society, in Switzerland perhaps a commitment to a liberal society or a society which prefers its Christian history to take pride of place. And certainly there were those pesky feminists who kept withering on about how Islam is not the most female friendly religion on the planet.
Mainly, however, I suspect that various Europeans are seeing Muslim immigration as rather too much of a fairly indifferent thing.
What we are seeing here and what we will be seeing in the rest of Europe is “push back”. No one asked if a large influx of Muslims was desirable or desired by the various European populations. Instead such influx was presented by assorted elites as a fait d’accompli. Those populations, confronted with an alien culture in their midst, are reacting. I would be very surprised if similar responses were not seen in other European countries.
November 30th, 2009 at 3:06 pm
What we are seeing here and what we will be seeing in the rest of Europe is “push back”.
Bring on that merry European cultural tradition—the pogrom!
November 30th, 2009 at 3:06 pm
Dawg, as I said over on your blog, it would be highly entertaining for a group of non-Muslim Swiss to set about building a tall pointy thing with an onion on top.
November 30th, 2009 at 3:09 pm
Why do we tolerate an extremely intolerant religion? And if we discern a religion imposing itself on the citzenry, do a free people oppose such impositions?
Why do the taliban of Afghanistan, or of Iraq a few years back, fire on our troops from the minarets of their mosques? Is it not the free expression of their religious preference?
November 30th, 2009 at 3:14 pm
Or that other fine European tradition: the border.
We are, I think, some distance from pogroms. But not nearly as far as I would like to see.
The Europeans have a recently acquired tradition of liberalism. Go back half a century, not so much.
The imposition of multiculturalism will live or die on whether or not the populations of various countries are prepared to tolerate it. I would say the jury is out on that question.
November 30th, 2009 at 3:17 pm
Why do we tolerate an extremely intolerant religion?
I’ve been wanting to tax the Catholic Church for decades. Join me?
And if we discern a religion imposing itself on the citzenry, do a free people oppose such impositions?
How did the small minority of Muslims in Switzerland “impose themselves” on the citizenry by building four non-functional minarets?
November 30th, 2009 at 3:24 pm
Barbara Kay in the Post today gives a perfect example of what is happening over here.
November 30th, 2009 at 3:27 pm
Jay,
Not all values ought to be asserted. And rights—like freedom of religion—are there to constrain the ways even decent values are made manifest.
While you’re probably right that the Swiss drew a line, did they draw the best line? And did they draw it for the right reasons?
In other words, I hear you diagnosing the Swiss ban, but not justifying it.
November 30th, 2009 at 3:43 pm
Terry, in such things there is probably no “best line” or “right reason”; rather there is the line drawn and the reason of the moment. As I have said, twenty years from now the Swiss can revisit the question if they are so inclined.
November 30th, 2009 at 3:51 pm
“How did the small minority of Muslims in Switzerland “impose themselves” on the citizenry by building four non-functional minarets?”
I imagine they looked around at their neighbors and assumed the same issues would be visited upon them.
It’s a fine mess, Jay. The new found doctrine of multiculturalism is profoundly unsupportive of the culture from which it arose. Traditions of representative government, freedom of speech and freedom of religion are swept aside in the caliphate state, and in their place we find an ideology that is both comfortable taking advantage of our traditions of freedom, while at the same time utterly rejecting them. It is all a means to an end, and as this thread shows, with this particular challenge it is difficult to both embrace our traditions and defend them at the same time.
November 30th, 2009 at 4:00 pm
While you’re probably right that the Swiss drew a line
There is no such thing as “the Swiss.”
57.5% voted for this disgusting measure. 42.5% voted against. And the turnout upon which these percentages are based was 53%.
Do the math. Only 30% of “the Swiss” voted for this objectionable measure.
Are the other 70% not “the Swiss?” Do we quantify “culture” by electoral pluralities now?
Keep digging, Jay.
November 30th, 2009 at 4:03 pm
MM I was serious. Canada didn’t accept Jewish refugees because the prevailing sentiment was that Canada was to remain the home of “heritage” Canadians. Canada didn’t want to become multicultural and Jews were representative of the “other” or foreign…
-well, aside from the necessary distinction between a refugee and immigraton policy, your attempt to assimilate a Jewish “other” to an Islamic “Other” (small caps if you think the “other” is within and not an external Other), so you can taint opposition to Islamic immigration with the Nazi brush suggests to me we haven’t fuly learned the lesson of the Holocaust.
Not all racism or religious prejudice is just alike. While most Jews in (eastern) Europe were humble shtetl dwellers, Nazi propaganda, centred on the supposed world-controlling conspiracy of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, depicted Jews as in some ways an illegitimately superior people, in the context of the marketplace and certain professions. They were hated for their success, pushiness, etc., for exemplifying certain modern market values that were seen to threaten a traditional, more martial, manhood. The German Jews who were generally the target of “none is too many” would have been similarly viewed by some Canadians, especially those with aristocratic pretensions.
In other words, not only did Canada refuse refugees fleeing for their lives, they refused people who were widely seen as being too competitive, too adapated to the modern world and its resented marketplace. The situation with Muslims in Europe today is different: they are resented for their alleged difficulty in adapting to the values of the modern economy and society. Now while you may well hold that in terms of some ultimate morality, all people must be treated equally, I hope you can see that where it is not a matter of saving a refugee’s life, there may well be an ethical need to distinguish between those who want to live by modern liberal values and those who do not. Whether we are right to depict the Muslims in Europe as in good part fundamentally antagonistic to modernity is another matter, which as I said above the left might take up seriously as a question for disinterested study that begins by throwing off fear of committing Nazi sins.
By the 1930s, German Jews were generally well educated and often very secular, and very much the “other” much within both Western history and modernity; refusing them was to deny part of what the West is and has been from the beginning. It is not coinicidental that the Nazi drive to eliminate the Jews was in so many ways self-destructive, perhaps terminally, for German culture.
I had an aunt who was one of these well-educated German Jews who was lucky enough to find refuge in the USA in the late 30s. She and her like husband more or less obscured their Jewish ancestry from their kids, teaching them to assimilate to be upper middle-class East Coast Unitarian Americans. Accordingly the kids are fairly typical liberals, semi-aristocratic, and became, as adults, resentful of their lack of Jewish identity. The parents, however, could never deny their Germanness. When my Aunt and her husband went, as scholars, to work in Berlin in the 80s and 90s, my Aunt expressed resentment to her children about the growing Turkish presence, as a threat to German culture. The kids, in turn, were shocked that their mother, whose sister and parents had been murdered by the Nazis, hadn’t learned the supposed lesson of the Holocaust.
Once my aunt was telling me about their experiences also living in Atlanta during that city’s recent commercial rise. I said something that suggested her description of these ambitious “pushy” nouveau riche people in Atlanta was intended to be negative. This hit a nerve and she then had to lecture me on the fundamental goodness of ambitious, pushy people :-)
November 30th, 2009 at 4:13 pm
Dawg, I love it when lefties do math.
Let’s try it another way: 30% of the Swiss voted for the banning of minarets, 47% could care less which they demonstrated by not voting at all, so 77% of the Swiss are opposed to, or can’t be arsed about, the minaret menace.
Were I to characterize “the Swiss” I would say that very few Swiss, only 23% supported minaret erection. And, given that 4% of the population is Muslim and likely 100% in support of minarets, among the actual, well, you know, Swiss, that number falls to 19%.
November 30th, 2009 at 4:16 pm
I don’t know truepeers-it seems to me that people in the ‘30’s said the same thing-that the Jews were different/had different values/wouldn’t really assimilate. Individual Jews were judged by affiliation to a group and not as individuals.
What this comes down to is a belief that whereas people then in fact were wrong about “the Jews”, people today in fact aren’t wrong about “the Muslims.” It’s hard to justify the distinction. Either we belive in certain values or we don’t. By “we” I mean Canada. I don’t think Switzerland needs to behave like Canada. Most countries aren’t like us and tend more to some sort of ethnicity based nation states. The Swiss appear to be defining Muslims out of such a state in the same way as the Jews were so excluded, among others.
I guess I’m saying that this example raises the entire issue of nation states, self determination, etc. and it isn’t confined to Switzerland. Of course part of what’s happening is people expect western countries to behave differently while not having any similar expectations for non-Western countries.
But I do look forward to Swiss Apartheid Week coming to a campus soon.
November 30th, 2009 at 4:20 pm
Were I to characterize “the Swiss” I would say that very few Swiss, only 23% supported minaret erection. And, given that 4% of the population is Muslim and likely 100% in support of minarets, among the actual, well, you know, Swiss, that number falls to 19%.
Well that’s pretty clear-you’ve defined Muslims as something other than Swiss.
November 30th, 2009 at 4:27 pm
La umam fi’l-Islam (There are no nations in Islam)
November 30th, 2009 at 4:32 pm
It is not about the minarets so much as the ideology that goes with them. It is the aggressive imposition of a culture of Sharia upon the culture of the host country that is being challenged. The Swiss do not wish to be outsiders inside their homeland, or in parts of their home cities. They do not desire their government officials to be required to ask permission from the local imam to enter the “Islamic section” of Bern. How much religious freedom, or freedom of any kind, exists in Iran? This vote is not a reflection of racism or religious intolerance. It is an attempted answer to the cultural challenge being experienced by their European neighbors that the Swiss are keenly aware of. To see it otherwise is to be blind to the driving issue.
November 30th, 2009 at 4:34 pm
Funny how you rightwingers play with numbers. Let’s try that again:
47% of the Swiss don’t think minarets are much of an issue. 23% did NOT “support minaret erection,” which sounds vaguely pornographic—they OPPOSED putting a ban in their Constitution. Not the same thing.
You are making two additional errors. First, most of the Muslims in Switzerland have not acquired citizenship, and so cannot vote. And among those who can, you are assuming a 100% turnout.
Only 30% of what you call “the Swiss” supported the measure. But you will continue to define “the Swiss” and “Swiss culture” by a 30% plurality.
You’ve outdone Benedict, Mead and DuBois: kulcher is defined by a minority vote in one plebiscite. Who knew it was this easy?
November 30th, 2009 at 4:50 pm
On the face of it the question appears to be one of religious freedom, but for Islam religion and politics are fused entities.
November 30th, 2009 at 5:55 pm
Nicholas,
Nice of you to set your hair on fire. Not only does it light up the room; it captures in stark terms the Muslim Panic that your friend seems to undergoing as they twist themselves into knots trying to keep their speecher hats in place while justifying what any reasonable person would recognize as a gross violation of freedom of relgion and freedom of expression .
Most religions impose it their laws and limitations on their adherents and most seek to persuade the secular political culture to defer to religious law, one way or the other. The Catholic church did it quite successfully for many generations is Quebec and still plays a strong hand in Ireland. Even today, the bishops and cardinals aren’t shy about venturing into politics when the secular state strays from doctrine. Many religions, including orthodox Judaism, operate legal systems that duplicate secular law; for example, in Bruker v. Marcovitz, the Supreme Court of Canada ordered a Jewish husband to pay his wife damages because he breached an agreement to provide with a get, a religious divorce, to go along with the secular divorce granted by the court.
Not a peep about any of that from you lot, but let some Swiss Muslims raise a minoret and suddenly you’re howling about “the aggressive imposition of a culture of Sharia upon the culture of the host country”. I have little time for sharia law (or for any religious interference in secular matters) but, contrary to the howling from the hair on fire crowd, there’s absolutely no chance that a Muslim minority is going to impose sharia on anyone other than its own members. And, even then, its power to do so will diminish over time.
Incidentally, is it just me, or are the howlers the same folks who object when we non-believer object to public funds being used to promote their particular brand of superstition?
November 30th, 2009 at 6:40 pm
@MM “Well that’s pretty clear-you’ve defined Muslims as something other than Swiss”. How many Canadians say they are Jewish rather than Canadian of Jewish faith?
But to the issue of the Swiss – they are highly disciplined (try hanging up your laundry outside on a Sunday) and why would they not be? They are surrounded by countries that have fought each other for centuries thus their isolation and self-reliance including their neutrality during the wars. They even now are not official members of the EU even though they have signed on to some of the protocols.
Minarets, as Jay pointed out are just not a religious necessity. They are ugly blots on the landscape. Germany, which has allowed (and paid for some along with S Arabia) 2500 Mosques will quickly move to minimize Minarets which in the last Grand Mosque design was to be 35 Metres high.
So I agree with Truewest that a secular society is the ideal with absolutely no public funds being spent on any religion nor religious institution nor special interest/lobbying group. This is clearly not a religious issue as people are allowed to practice what they want, just not violate city ordinances and country traditions.
Why not have a few in Toronto or Vancouver or even Ottawa? I think it was an area of Ottawa that banned Clotheslines not that long ago for aesthetic reasons so why should anyone else have to accept Minarets in otherwise peaceful neighborhoods?
November 30th, 2009 at 6:58 pm
MM,
I tend to agree with your core belief and wouldn’t like an immigration policy that didn’t allow people to show Canadian officials abroad their likelihood for success, as individuals, in Canada, irregardless of the religion of their ancestors. The “point system” tends to help in this; the family unification rules less. But valuing the individual also entails questioning the forms of communal restraint that may come to exist on his ability to adapt to modern Canadian life. Inevitably this means questioning things like Sharia and any tendency to ghettoization or totalitarian political ideology. That raises questions of numbers, but it’s not just a problem of immigration policy, since many problems arise in the second generation. If we value the individual, we need politicians and all kinds of workers in civil society who won’t seek support or alliances with those whose values are totalitarian in their implications, and will pursue policies that actively marginalize those who confound religion and politics, even when they are only a small percentage of the overall population. To some significant degree, we don’t have that today. And one of the many reasons for it is the popular tendency to assimilate any form of “discrimination”, any recognition of meaningful differences in experiences and vlaues, to the “Nazi-Jew” model, and hence to deny it any legitimacy.
But the modern individual is a paradox because one can be, say, a successful electrical engineer and at the same time a fan of Shariaization. As groups like the Mormons show, success as an individual in the modern economy can be positively facilitated by maintaining a sacrificially intense religious discipline that in various respects may strike us as logically at odds with the modern world. We often succeed in the marketplace, as producers, by learning to resist the desires it promotes for consumption. And yet we destroy the market freedom if we try too seriously to impose our winning values/discipline on others.
I think here is a fundamental difference between Jews and at least some Muslims (with all due respect to the Bernie Farber speech police). You will never encounter a Jewish supremacist outside of the context of Israeli politics, and Israel is a tiny place. You are most unlikely to meet a Jew who wants to convert you or to make Canada as a whole more Jewish, in any orthodox sense, though I blather on because I think certain Judeocentric perspectives are suited to modern conditions, as they are antithetical to both aristocratic, and popular mob resentments.
Anyway, policy has to account not just for what we need to hold ultimately sacred – the responsible individual – but for the problems that come when you cross certain thresholds in terms of numbers and ghettoization and identity politics. We need our principles, but we must also learn from experience. Jews have lived in Canada for well over 200 years, were often pioneers in business, and we should have had, by the 1930s, a clear understanding of the “risks” they posed, i.e. few except to those with aristocratic or popular anti-market resentments.
When I was growing up, few people had problems with the many Muslims in the neighborhood. They were Ismailis and keen for their children to remain Ismailis, marry in group, while also assimilating to liberal, market-oriented values. In the end, a lot of the kids had big problems keeping those two desires together but that didn’t lead them to totalitarian ideologies, as far as I know. One never heard of (the ritually private, formally secretive) Ismailis trying to impose their values on the Canadian political or civic process though they do participate actively in it. Now we have a local Sunni mosque that seeks to influence the political process, e.g. thinks a house of religion (not that Islam is just a religion) is an appropriate venue for all-candidates meetings, not to mention antisemitic, anti-free speech speakers. More generally, there is an assumption that has reached deep into government, that the Umma as a whole needs to be a concern of Canadian foreign and even domestic policy, as if it (and not just the various states where Muslims predominate) is a legitmate political entity, and that Canada needs its representative leaders of the Umma taking sides in our domestic political life (whereas Jewish “political” leaders pretend to be generally non-partisan, to stake out discrete Jewish concerns). Our principles need to take into account, measure and negotiate the nature of our historical experience and not seek to deny real differences therein.
November 30th, 2009 at 7:55 pm
Punch My Ticket [44], in Saudi Arabia, except there was no referendum needed. What’s good for the goose….
November 30th, 2009 at 8:12 pm
DAwg: Bring on that merry European cultural tradition—the pogrom!
=========================
Sure. Right after the main course of carbeque.
November 30th, 2009 at 8:22 pm
truewest-
Well, it took some coaxing, but I finally did get my response. Though a tad shrill, I appreciate your rather confident view. The area I would most take issue with would be the following:
“contrary to the howling from the hair on fire crowd, there’s absolutely no chance that a Muslim minority is going to impose sharia on anyone other than its own members.”
First, the Muslim minority has no intention of staying in the minority. They expect to become the majority, and actively promote whatever measures will lead to that end.
More significantly, though you expect they will be unable to impose their will, they intend to do otherwise, as seen here:
and here:
Whether these efforts are successful or not today, those that believe or are sympathetic towards them fully intend to be successful in the future. Further, the Muslim community in Belgium and England have imposed their religious beliefs on the communities they inhabit to such an extent that women going out cover they heads in scarves, not out of religious belief, but to avoid being harassed by local youths.
These are real problems that must be addressed. The Swiss have made a first effort to address them. I agree with Mr. Neal that the problem is principally one of immigration and assimilation. However, though I prefer taking other measures, I understand the actions of the Swiss.
November 30th, 2009 at 8:36 pm
Guess we’ll have to add radical feminists to the list of Swiss Islamophobes:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article6936267.ece
November 30th, 2009 at 10:02 pm
Nicholas wrote:
More significantly, though you expect they will be unable to impose their will, they intend to do otherwise, as seen here:
“Five sharia courts have been set up in London, Birmingham, Bradford and Manchester and Nuneaton, Warwickshire.”
Nicholas of the hair of fire, do you actually read the stories you quote from?
The Sharia “courts” of which you speak are not courts at all A court has the power to summon people to appear before it, to pass judgment on those people and to give remedies and impose penalties, all without the actual consent of those people. The sharia “courts” are arbitral panels, which are established to resolve dispute between people (presumably Muslims) who have agreed to have their dispute resolved pursuant to sharia principles. Which is to say they aren’t courts at all.
As one person noted in the comments, religious arbitrations have been conducted in the UK for decades. They have been conducted in Canada for nearly as long. They deal with private disputes and like any arbitration panel, they’re decisions are enforcable by the courts.
As for Islam4Uk, don’t make me laugh. Anyone can “launch a campaign”, but rallies don’t change laws.
Now, if you’d kindly lean forward, I’d like to light my cigar off your head.
Craig,
It’s all very well to link to a story. But you really should quote the first paragraph;
A right-wing campaign to outlaw minarets on mosques in a referendum being held in Switzerland today has received an unlikely boost from radical feminists arguing that the tower-like structures are “male power symbols”.
November 30th, 2009 at 10:33 pm
I don’t get what you are saying Dawg. Are you suggesting that Canada is racist to only let 250,000 or so immigrants a year into the country? What other than racism limits the number to that?
I worked for a swiss couple a few weeks ago. They retired in the interior of BC, had sold their business and home in Switzerland and are living quite well.
He was from Berne, she from Lucerne. They were teasing each other on the different characteristics of each city. Switzerland as a nation, made up of three language groups, has traditions and ways that make it work, including I would suppose, large mountains separating different groups from one another.
Maybe some swiss people have seen other countries changed beyond recognition by immigration. Maybe they feel the social compact that is Switzerland could not support a foreign body seemingly unable or unwilling to integrate. Maybe they feel that mosques are a political center that would cause problems they don’t want.
Who are we to say? You are willing to give away a charter right to try to keep your multicultural dream from collapsing. Maybe the Swiss aren’t willing to give away what they like, a well ordered society with clear expectations of it’s citizens.
I am mature enough to recognize that groups of people have characteristics and ways of doing things that are different from others. Not right or wrong, just different. I would hate to see this province become like Quebec with their Roman law and what I consider the rather ugly citizen/government relationships. People who live there are fine with it.
This particular instance is a reaction to a policy that created a situation that people don’t like. It would be nice if people could just be happy and not think, but maybe that is what has already happened, and things have gotten ugly enough that people are reacting.
Maybe the Swiss don’t want to move away like the Danes are doing in great numbers.
Derek
December 1st, 2009 at 4:25 am
Terrence (42),
With regards to the European situation we need to remember that since World War II the governments of Europe have been actively working to dissolve their own national identities into a larger European identity. It is not coincidental that the same decades in which the construction of what we now call the European Union took place, were also the decades that saw mass immigration, largely from Muslim countries, into Europe. Nor is it coincidental that in Europe opposition to mass immigration and Euroskepticism tend to go hand in glove, or that the governing powers of Europe, both national and at the level of the European Parliament treat every expression of such opposition to their designs on the part of a right-of-center party, group, publication, or individual as a sign of resurgent fascism.
The Swiss voted against joining the European Union and their own immigration and naturalization laws are the most sensible on the European continent. Their location, however, is such that the anti-national policies of the surrounding European countries affect their own demographics. The Muslim percentage of their population, has risen from less than 1 percent 30 years ago, to a little over 4 percent today.
December 1st, 2009 at 6:31 am
Those terrible Swiss. Who wouldn’t want this on the streets of their cities? (The ones that have not been bombed by ‘misguided teenagers’.)
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/beds/bucks/herts/8387110.stm
December 1st, 2009 at 7:39 am
Gerry @86. The large numbers of Muslims coming into the countries of the EU had much to do with post WWll demographics and the need for workers thus the “Guest Worker” programs. Plus countries like France and the UK were left with little choice but to allow citizens of their former colonies full citizenship/entry and it spiraled out of control.
The formation of the UN after WWll contributed to significant confusion as to who was running the place along with USA bases in most EU countries. Some countries still consider themselves “occupied” by guests that stayed too long after the cold War was over.
The formation of the EU was in fact designed to further national identity not dissolve it – but to rationalize trade and monetary issues thus the Euro for a common currency, the Schengen agreement of free movement and a common set of laws and legal agreements (extradition, EU Arrest Warrants, Europol and the formation of an EU defense force among others) that were binding on all signatories.
Clearly the EU Parliament and it’s human rights bodies are needing some tweaking. Thus the Swiss – as they do – decided they did not need for approval from the EU they do not belong to officially and let “Direct Democracy” work. Kinda a “Freedom of Speech” thingy.
December 1st, 2009 at 8:58 am
Louise [80],
If I understand what you’re saying, the Swiss should hold to a standard no better than Saudi Arabia. What low expectations you have.
Should the Swiss revoke women’s suffrage or ban women from driving, I take it you’ll be all for it.
December 1st, 2009 at 9:28 am
No PMT @89 – (not speaking for Louise of course) but I would suggest a reciprocity of agreements – kinda like Visas.
A Woman from the EU or NA cannot drive in Muslim countries = no Muslim woman can drive in EU or NA countries. Then Bikinis vs Burkas vs Beanies.
No person can practice their religion in Muslim countries = no Muslim can practice their religion in EU or NA countries – Minarets notwithstanding. Bahia’s for example tend to get executed a lot thus…well you know where this will all end up.
It would be interesting if it was not so deadly. The 2500 Mosques in Germany are freely subsidized by Saudi Arabia but how many Christian Churches, Bahai shrines and temples let alone Synagogues are allowed to be financed over there?
One only needs to look at “Broken Britain” to see what the collective PC guilt of left wing labour governments has brought on.
December 1st, 2009 at 9:38 am
Here’s an idea that should find favour in these parts: Why don’t Europeans show their universal disgust with things Muslim by, on a pre-arranged day, smashing all their shop windows?
Ah, nostalgia.
December 1st, 2009 at 10:13 am
You don’t seem to have gotten my point, LS.
Do we (or the Swiss) really want to run our affairs my mirroring the worst of others?
December 1st, 2009 at 10:24 am
Ah, hyperbole!
December 1st, 2009 at 10:46 am
Or how about something like Israeli Apartheid Week Dawg.
December 1st, 2009 at 10:50 am
truewest-
Get that cigar out of my eye and quit waving it around. We all know you don’t smoke the damn things. Address the issues at hand, if you would.
I understand your contention that the law as passed singles out a particular religious group, limits their construction of buildings of religious significance to them and thus violates their free expression of their religion. This, you contend is the main point, and there is no other point.
But of course there is another point, else there would be no motivation for the Swiss taking the action they did. The asymmetry the LS from SK points out underscores the fact that Islams fusion of religion with politics makes it very challenging, as it is difficult to accept a people that do not accept you. You can belittle the point and point to the fact that their numbers are few, but that is more evasion than response, for the time will be at hand eventually, even as it is at hand right now in many parts of Europe and the United Kingdom. The problem is one of cultural survival, and with that the survival of the freedoms and rule of law that are our inheritance, and our responsibility to defend and pass down to our prosperity.
Your response is sound in regards to freedom of religion, but rather airy in regard to the cultural challenge that the law attempts to address.
December 1st, 2009 at 12:23 pm
There’s a sharp point to Dawg’s hyperbole.
If you think it’s permissible to sometimes violate individual rights in order to “express disgust” with an “alien culture” (or in order to “preserve culture”), where do you draw the line?
What if Swiss voters endorsed putting up “We hate Muslim” signs in every town? It’s hard to even say that this would be a violation of rights—but it would sure be distasteful and wrong.
And now I hear far-right parties in Norway, the Netherlands, and other places are itching to hold similar referenda.
That okay with you, Jay?
December 1st, 2009 at 12:35 pm
Terry, for literally decades large scale Muslim immigration was encouraged by elites in various European countries. People who objected on any basis were characterized as racists and their arguments dismissed.
It is hardly surprising that, as the reality of non-integration, becomes evident people who were never asked in the first place are expressing their displeasure with an immigration they neither wanted nor approved of. And, as the elites stumble on that reality, the recession and the scandal of the fraud underlying climate change, ordinary working people are ready to question the underlying premises of elite action.
Referenda are democratic ways of expressing preferences which were not canvassed in the first place. That they are used by populist parties is not a surprise. After all, the working class parties in most of these nations have been entirely co-opted by the multi-cultural identity politics of the post modern left.
So, in principle I am fine with this. Now, in practice, this sort of thing can turn nasty fast. But, realistically, what else can you expect when you dump an alien culture which does not integrate into an indigenous culture without meaningful consultation?
December 1st, 2009 at 12:42 pm
Your explanation of the phenomenon is probably correct, but why encourage it? Why give it your assent, your support?
I’d also ask: is this really going to help integration?
December 1st, 2009 at 12:44 pm
LS from SK, you have expressed my thoughts quite well. It is just a coincidence, of course, that my sir name starts with S and I’m also from Saskatchewan (damn Aloeuttes!), but it seems we frequently share the same take on international issues. I was going to mention the Saudi funding, not to mention Saudi provided textbooks used for the indoctrination of next generation’s Islamofascist, so thank you.
But I also wanted to say that the Swiss could very well ban women from driving or voting and start hanging gays in a generation or two. Heck, why not even allow them to be stoned to death for adultery and all that wonderfully culturally relative stuff, but then again, they won’t really be Swiss any more, will they.
Perhaps there is a compromise available. I might suggest that the Imam’s imported from Saudi Arabia or elsewhere would need to be licensed by Swiss authorities. They should be required to preach in one of Switzerland’s official languages and perhaps on national holidays they should be required to stand at the top of their minarets and yodel instead of reciting the call to prayer. Of course, if they are not sufficiently skilled in the art, they may opt allow a more skilled genuine, blond haired blue-eyed (Note to self: that should get ‘em going!) Swiss artist to do it for them, for a price, of course, all in the celebration of multi-culturalism.
Then again, perhaps it’s all about nothing more than zoning bylaws and the protection of classical European architectural heritage, a sentiment for which I have some considerable degree of empathy. After all, when and if I visit India, or China, or Mexico, for example, I am most intrigued by the local heritage as expressed by those kinds of ancient edifices, so why shouldn’t the Swiss be entitled to preserve theirs. After all, look what happened to the Hagia Sophia in 1453 or the Buddhist temples and monasteries under the Tang Dynasty in China.
In any case, no matter what it is, I’m with the Swiss on this one.
December 1st, 2009 at 12:46 pm
I guess the “volk” are always right.
December 1st, 2009 at 12:57 pm
If the Swiss really want to protect their indigenous culture in a far reaching way, maybe they should ban McDonald’s?
December 1st, 2009 at 12:58 pm
MM, if Europeans dissent from happy clappy multicult in the face of a dramatic challenge to their culture they are suddenly “volk”. Bit of a stretch.
Terry, is it going to help integration? Is that the right question? Perhaps it will make Switzerland a less desirable destination for Muslim immigrants and thereby avoid some of the more intractable problems their “non-integration” currrently presents in France, Sweden, German, England, the Netherlands and other nations in which Muslim immigration has been poorly managed.
December 1st, 2009 at 1:00 pm
MM, the founder of the Slow Food movement suggested that in Italy. So did a nutbar in France. As far as I am concerned that would be perfectly within the rights of the Swiss people.
December 1st, 2009 at 1:03 pm
Gee Dawgie et al, maybe, just maybe – and I do hope you’re sitting down for this – the “Swiss” took a break from making fine watches, clever pocket knives and delicious toblerone bars and peered down from their mountain tops to see what was happening with the rest of Europe? A look at, for instance, next door, 700+ Zones Urbaine Sensible France, or Londonistan, or even my adopted home of Islamsterdam would be edifying (terrifying?) to anyone unafflicted with terminal willful blindness. Do they have TV, newspapers, the interweb in Helvetica? Are the Bünzli allowed to travel beyond their own mountain valley or even leave the country to stumble upon what Muslim immigration has wrought for parts of their continent? Are any visitors allowed in who could, over fondue, accidentally blurt out their own personal horror stories or seething resentment at the situation back home?
Anyway, that’s my theory for the nein danke/non merci/no grazie/na grazia result of this proxy architectural skirmish in the larger immi-multi-culti Islamization battle. Just a “whopping” 4% you say? Those nutty hillbillies looked around and thought: let’s not make the same mistake our neighbours have & try to keep it there. Crazy, huh? But don’t worry, learning from the mistakes of others is unlikely to catch on.
Some background…
From 2 years ago: When Heidi Met Mehmet in the Meadow
http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/2570
From yesterday: A Line in the Air
http://pryce-jones.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ZThkMzJhNTZmZjc2YzBhMDAzZWZhZmJmZTk4ZTZjZjU=
December 1st, 2009 at 1:05 pm
And, er, nostalgically smashing up shops? Hate to break it to you old sock but, around here, there’s an awful lot of that already. Alas, it’s being done not by Brown Shirts but by – what’s the term again? – “youth” of various immigrant afkomst
Sheesh! What sad, bizarre rejoinder next? Native Europeans should maybe go out and set a lot of cars on fire? Perhaps decapitate some mouthy Muslim on a busy street corner and pin a rambling, barking mad note to his chest?
Seriously, dude, you’re losing (lost?) the plot. If some member of your family put you in slippers, tied your ass to a rocking chair and kept you away from the general public, he’d being doing you a big favour.
December 1st, 2009 at 1:17 pm
Jay,
I think this is complicated. For one thing, in most societies the majority (the legislature) can’t do whatever it wants and there are supervening constitutional hurdles to clear.
What strikes me most is the apparent assumption that a Muslim isn’t viewed as a “real” Swiss. I’m comparing that view to analogous historical examples and to things occurring today, including here in Canada. Do you equally favour language laws in Quebec/are Anglos not real Quebeckers? What about the tactics of a particular First Nation here in Caledonia-do their collective rights (viewed by many as akin to sovereign rights) override Canadian law? Also, you strike me as pretty pro-Israel (as am I), but the last sentence of your comment #97 could well be cited by those who completely reject the Zionist idea.
I don’t like Islamism but I don’t think we should assume that it’s the same as the Muslim religion or that any particular Muslim in a western country shares the Islamist view of the world. Either we believe in fundamental western ideals that have developed since the Enlightenment or we don’t. That others in other parts of the world do not share those ideals does not invalidate those ideals.
Sometimes it’s the hard case where commitment to these fundamental ideals is most needed. Unless you believe that the Swiss issue is really about zoning and not about religion, what this is about is a western country saying that Muslims aren’t capable of being real citizens because they possess certain group traits and are incapable of being true loyal citizens.
December 1st, 2009 at 1:25 pm
Well No MM - MacDonalds in the Eu is adapting to efforts to drive them out. The Red and Yellow signs will be changed to Green and Yellow to demonstrate their strides to integrate (true).Global warming and all that.
Now if the Minarets could start using sign lanquage for the Call to Prayer and restrict themselves to about 2-3 metres – there would be no objection.**(sorry MM and the Volk comment) there are 3 official lanquages in Switzerland and 4 national lanquages and English is almost about to become the fifth. Try that in Toronto.
But to warm Arnie’s heart and as further proof the Swiss are right, the UN steps in (a Jenny echo):
UN slams ‘discriminatory’ Swiss minaret ban
By BRADLEY S. KLAPPER – 9 hours ago
GENEVA — The United Nations called Switzerland’s ban on new minarets “clearly discriminatory” and deeply divisive, and the Swiss foreign minister acknowledged Tuesday the government was very concerned about how the vote would affect the country’s image.
U.N. human rights chief Navi Pillay said Sunday’s referendum to outlaw the construction of minarets in Switzerland was the product of “anti-foreigner scare-mongering.”
The criticism from Pillay, whose office is based in the Swiss city of Geneva, comes after an outcry from Muslim countries, Switzerland’s European neighbors and human rights watchdogs since 57.5 percent of the Swiss population ratified the ban.
The Swiss government opposed the initiative but has sought to defend it as an action not against Islam or Muslims, but one aimed at improving integration and fighting extremism.
“These are extraordinary claims when the symbol of one religion is targeted,” Pillay said in a statement. She said she was saddened to see xenophobic arguments gain such traction with Swiss voters despite their “long-standing support of fundamental human rights.”
No further comment necessary I think!
December 1st, 2009 at 2:10 pm
Actually, if Muslims in Europe were as respectful of their surroundings as Macdonald’s there probably wouldn’t be a problem. Anyway, why is this even being discussed? Lefties hate and fear the success of capitalism and western civilization and will cheerfully use Islam to carry on the battle communism lost. Mark Twain, the filthy ‘racist’, wrote in ‘Innocents Abroad’, “Rags, wretchedness, poverty and dirt, those signs and symbols that indicate the presence of Moslem rule more surely than the crescent-flag itself, abound.”
December 1st, 2009 at 3:05 pm
LS:
Now if the Minarets could start using sign lanquage for the Call to Prayer and restrict themselves to about 2-3 metres
None of the existing four minarets have been used for this purpose. Do your homework.
MM:
The “real Swiss” slip is a telling one—reminds me a bit of the nameless fellow who talked about “real Canadians”—you’ll remember.
I remember something from Mein Kampf that would warm the cockles of the Kulturkampfer here:
One day when I was walking through the inner city,
I suddenly came upon a being clad in a long caftan, with black curls.
Is this also a Jew? was my first thought.
At Linz they certainly did not look like that. Secretly and cautiously I watched the man, but the longer I stared at this strange face and scrutinized one feature after the other, the more my mind reshaped the first question into another form :
Is this also a German?
We know his answer.
December 1st, 2009 at 3:24 pm
Perhaps if the political left spent as much time addressing Political Islam supremacist’s ideology instead of addressing their never ending battle cry of racism we might be able to stop the genocide in the Horn of Africa and the current genocide in the Sudan? Dawg men like you look in the mirror and see nothing but the color of your skin, one day I hope you wake up and look in said mirror and just see a man. Islamic Supremacism is growing world wide and the political left aide those who want to subjugate us and force us to live as second class citizen in the name of tolerance and diversity. A result of left wing tolerance and diversity policies in Europe is the importation of the rape of non-Muslim women (google the Rape of Europe), gay bashing and Jew hatred. The self same groups the left have championed for decades are led to the slaughter by the social justice and tolerance and diversity crowd in the name of racism. Have the political left abandoned all that was once just in the name of tolerating the Islamic Supremacist ideology? If so why because it mirrors the political left’s love of loopy upside down demented marxist’s logic?
I can dig a hole but I can’t put anything in said hole without government approval, the list of limitations on my daily life by the Nanny nation lovers is expansive but when the right decides to place limits on symbols that signify Islamic Supremacism it’s deemed racist. Thus I can only conclude the political left consider White Supremacism bad but Islamic Supremacism (including hatred of black African Muslims) should be tolerated why is that?
December 1st, 2009 at 4:05 pm
TW – the point is that you don’t have to be an xenophobe to be worried about certain aspects of modern Islam – including, but not limited to, patriarchy. You and Dawg on the other hand seem to think that European Islam poses no threat to liberal values.
Time will tell.
– I know you have trouble with big words, but Anne Applebaum has a nuanced account of European Islam in the most recent TNR (it’s a review of Christopher Caldwell’s new book on the subject).
December 1st, 2009 at 4:28 pm
Hitler’s hangup was racial purity. You keep trying to make this all about race, but tell me this: if the Swiss are racially motivated then why haven’t they also taken restrictive measures against the Copts or the Bahais? They’re Arabs, they’re brown-skinned, they’re immigrants. But no plebiscites against them. Funny, isn’t it?
December 1st, 2009 at 4:37 pm
“We know his answer.” Yes we do Dawg, it was a 12 year run of Israeli Apartheid Week.
December 1st, 2009 at 4:40 pm
Ellie, here is Dawg logic:
Muslim=Other Other=Not White
Therefore, Muslim=Not White and it is too about race.
Sigh.
December 1st, 2009 at 4:41 pm
I dunno, Ellie. Why didn’t Hitler go after Methodists? You tell me.
December 1st, 2009 at 4:44 pm
Craig, you were making a good point up till the last sentence. Truewest is a far more capable writer than some of his antics might lead you to believe. Copying his prose style gains you no traction.
Terrance Watson on the other hand, has asked a number of good questions. The issue is troubling. Freedom of religion is a cornerstone of the heritage of the United States, and holds some sway in Canada as well I do believe. Yet you cannot ignore the fact that many Muslim’s hold their primary allegiance to Islam, and will act accordingly. How do you open a free society to an element that has no care for it? If the minority is small than the group’s ideology can be tolerated by the society at large. But as the minority grows its ability to impact and infringe upon the freedoms of the rest of society grows. The ideological answer offered will not allow the free society to survive the stark cold reality.
December 1st, 2009 at 6:21 pm
Sound of Muzak 2009 upgrade
As the Baron said to Maria and the kids, “follow me, I see the minarets shining in the distant valley below.”
December 1st, 2009 at 6:24 pm
the more my mind reshaped the first question into another form :
Is this also a German?
We know his answer.
______
Well then, is this a Canadian?
“The group was preparing a large-scale terrorist attack in southern Ontario. They planned to detonate truck bombs at at least two locations, and open fire in a crowded area. They also made plans to storm various buildings such as the Canadian Broadcasting Centre and the Canadian Parliament building, and take hostages. Law enforcement authorities identified other targets, including the Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS), the Parliamentary Buildings’ Peace Tower, and power grids.[24][25]
According to one of the suspect’s lawyers, they were also accused of planning to ‘behead the Prime Minister’,”
If you asked the Toronto 18, I think I know their answer also.
December 1st, 2009 at 7:00 pm
MM: Either we believe in fundamental western ideals that have developed since the Enlightenment or we don’t. That others in other parts of the world do not share those ideals does not invalidate those ideals.
All the more reason to put up defenses against those “ideals” from other parts of the world, most especially those associated with political Islam, which, far and way, is the biggest threat today to those very ideals, and which is funneled into the West via the mosque.
December 1st, 2009 at 7:44 pm
Louise,
There is a principle of criminal law that it is better to have rules of evidence that result in 10 guilty men going free than one innocent man bring convicted. What’s happening here is that because some members of a group believe in political Islam, ALL members of that group are being judged as if they shared the same belief system and, worse, as if they committed the same crimes as a minority. You simply can’t say that all Muslim immigrants (and many Muslims in the west are not first generation) are “bad” citizens or not “real” citizens. Once you go there, you’ve given up what makes western liberal democracies distinctive.
Now let’s say you want to make individual assessments in the immigration process-how would that work? Are prospective immigrants to be asked about their political and/or religious beliefs? What are the questions and what are the right and wrong answers?
Again, let’s face it-many believe that mass Muslim immigration will destroy society. They want Muslim assimilation or no Muslims to immigrate. It’s not that different an idea from what gave Nazism traction in Germany. What’s really being said is that the Germans were irrationsl whereas it is not irrational to want to exclude Muslims.
If a nation wants to choose an immigration policy that maintains the pimacy of the dominant group, that can be defended on the basis of collective rights. When the policy is to let in some groups who are thought to be good and exclude others who are thought to be bad, that’s racism.
December 1st, 2009 at 8:58 pm
Craig,
No, you don’t have to be a xenophobe to be concerned about certain aspects of modern Islam. But joining forces with the xenophobes to pass idiotic measures like a ban on minarets is a fine way to ensure that you lose the battle for the hearts and minds of the great mass of Muslims to those very aspects that concern you.
While I haven’t read Caldwell’s book, Applebaum makes some interesting points in her review, although she buries them in self-deprecation:
“Perhaps because I belong to the group of people who fondly and naïvely imagine that Islam may evolve—every other monotheism has—I am not entirely persuaded by Caldwell’s elegant pessimism. There are multiple examples—many multiples of examples—of Muslim immigrants who have integrated seamlessly into Europe.”
We will not encourage that integration by outlawing Islam or minarets; those measures will serve only to empower radicals. Nor will we do it by treating Islam as one undifferentiated mass, made up of 1.5 billion fanatics determined to outbreed and subjugate all those that lie before them. Or by launching some new holy war, based on a some revival of muscular Christianity, as Caldwell appears to suggest.
Applebaum recognizes this near the end of her review:
“At times Caldwell underestimates the power of the European project itself, which for all its frequent stupidity, hypocrisy, and fluffiness does have some cultural and even moral attractions. The very mildness of modern Europe, the absence of extremes, the irony and the distance from national symbols, the low-key and humble attitude to the past: all of this has an appeal. And over time, as the consequences of rampant ethnic and religious passion become clearer, that appeal may grow.”
We can believe in the appeal of our secular society. Or we can line up with the paranoids, the bigots and bloviators who think we should refuse to recognize the civil rights of Muslims because Saudi Arabia does the same thing to Christian.
December 2nd, 2009 at 1:02 am
Europe Reaction: Swiss Accord? .... oui
December 2nd, 2009 at 2:15 am
sNarky Mark: What’s happening here is that because some members of a group believe in political Islam, ALL members of that group are being judged..
All it takes is “some members”. Take your patronizing gobble-de-goop and try it on someone else.
December 2nd, 2009 at 2:42 am
truewest: But joining forces with the xenophobes to pass idiotic measures like a ban on minarets is a fine way to ensure that you lose the battle for the hearts and minds of the great mass of Muslims to those very aspects that concern you.
If there is a battle on in Europe to win hearts and minds, why is it the European’s job to win the hearts on the Muslim’s. This is, after all, the heartland of Europe and Islam is not indigenous to Europe.
It should be the Muslim’s job to win the hearts and minds of Europeans, not the other way around. There really is no answer to that other than, when in Rome or Switzerland or France or Denmark, you do as the Italians, Swiss, French or Danes do. You have pretty much asserted that it is the non-native European who has the right to trump the European.
I’ll bet you my bottom dollar you wouldn’t be championing the imposition of European ways and values on some non-Western people, would you. But pure, unadulterated hypocrisy and double standards are what we have come to expect from the left.
December 2nd, 2009 at 4:27 am
Cool. The ‘no bad pit bulls, just bad owners’ argument. If we do not make sudden moves, or provoke them, and they are in a good mood, our throats won’t be torn out.
December 2nd, 2009 at 7:31 am
Louise, then I take it that “the Jews” can be blamed for Bernie Madoff? What’s the distinction?
December 2nd, 2009 at 7:46 am
Louise, just go away. The grown-ups here are trying to have a conversation.
Next you’ll be citing Pamela Geller.
The fact remains that the free-speechers are suddenly in favour of curtailing religious freedom and oppressing a minority because of the religion they follow. You want pure unadulterated hypocrisy? Look in the mirror, if you can stand it.
December 2nd, 2009 at 9:11 am
Louise,
The Enlightenment values of freedom and tolerance have won because lots of people, who disagree (about religion, morality, and other significant matters) have come to realize that they do better—by their own lights—living under those values.
To some degree, that’s how liberalism (in the broadest, classical sense) has produced converts. The Swiss have just provided Muslims (even peaceful, non-militant ones) evidence to the contrary; that Enlightenment values, or at least an interpretation of them, may actually be harmful to their important religious interests. How such a demonstration is good for those Enlightenment values in the long run, I have no idea.
And I’m not really a leftist, but maybe you could explain this to me: how is putting up a minaret “imposing” Muslim “ways and values” on the Swiss? If some Christians build a church next door to me, would they be imposing Christian ways and values on me? Should I resent them for it, or just get on with my life, as freedom and tolerance demand?
Or is any imposition or denial of freedom acceptable as long as the “indigenous”
volkinhabiting theFatherlandheartland support it?December 2nd, 2009 at 9:15 am
Actually, forget those errant strikeouts.
After reading Louise’s blog, I’ve decided that the struck-out words better express my intended meaning.
December 2nd, 2009 at 9:20 am
Mirror Mirror on the wall…
December 2nd, 2009 at 9:27 am
Dawg,
To be fair to Jay, I think he’s still claiming that this isn’t a violation of freedom of religion, and I suppose that’s one way to avoid the hypocrisy charge.
It’s also a slightly different position than the one some others (e.g. Louise) have taken: that promoting the values of the volk requires suppressing Islam. Jay’s trying to argue that the ban on minarets isn’t suppression of Islam, per se, at all.
I do find it interesting that so many of those who hate Islam are finding Jay’s position so… congenial.
December 2nd, 2009 at 9:37 am
No doubt in a diseased brain or two Arnie’s bizarre cartoon might be relevant. Pretty intellectually feeble response, but, as they say, consider the source.
As I recall, I supported the right of students to put up that exact-same poster. Free expression and all that jazz. The university banned it. As I recall, the Speechers were somewhat muted on that occasion.
And I support the right of people to freedom of religion, which is a kind of expression, so long as that expression is not hate speech. The Speechers are cheering the ban on minarets, which are not hate speech.
All that means is that I’m consistent—and so are the Speech Warriors, consistent in their inconsistency as usual. Thanks for making my point.
December 2nd, 2009 at 10:07 am
I agree 100% with how Terrence just put it.
As well, Jay and Arnie constantly make the point that section 13 and other infringements on free speech will backfire because in the future it will be the “good” speech that is shut down by those same misguided laws. I’m challenging them to look at this issue through the same framework-is there not a critical value to all these post-Enlightenment principles that must be protected even when it’s hard to do so? Muslims bad/others good isn’t an acceptable distinction.
December 2nd, 2009 at 10:09 am
Well, this is certainly one of the longer and more interesting threads this blog has seen.
Terry, you have my position pretty well nailed. Minarets are not in anyway mandated by Islam but are, like burkas, female genital mutilation, and the prohibition on women driving, cultural artifacts which are tolerated by or even promoted by the imams of an essentially primitive and backward looking religion.
But it gets much more complicated because Islam and the Muslim world have never undergone a process equivalent to the Western Enlightenment. And, realistically, for all of the palaver about Islam being the religion of peace, if you look at the early history of Islam and the creation of the Islamic world it was pretty much a continual conversion by conquest.
Which means that Islam has never managed to come up with a sharp delineation between the political and the spiritual. The original minaret was a dual purpose technology: it provided a place from which the faithful could be called to prayer and it served as a watchtower. Symbolically, that is precisely the function of the minaret in the modern world: its spiritual function is deeply intertwined with its political function.
Now, Dawg has pointed out that the Swiss minarets are not, in fact, used for any spiritual purpose. No call to prayer issues forth five times a day. So what then is their function? Well, it is hard not to see religiously non-functional minarets as having a primarily political significance. And that was certainly how the Swiss saw them. There are immigrants and there are colonists. The Swiss have never particularly welcomed the former and they have spent several hundred years of armed neutrality rejecting the later.
December 2nd, 2009 at 10:10 am
Well, then, refusal to permit synagogue construction isn’t an attack on religion either.
Jay’s position is not founded upon any earthly logic.
December 2nd, 2009 at 10:15 am
The issue is Israeli Apartheid Week not the poster Dawg, which for the record I agree should be allowed for publication, however I have no obligation to publicly defend a viewpoint, as expressed by the poster, that I don’t agree with.
Have you ceased your support of Israeli Apartheid Week Dawg?
Personally I find the Minaret ban silly, though not as morally repugnant as IAW, however it did serve the purpose of opening up a larger debate on the issue of muslim immigration reflecting a growing divide between the politically correct elites and the general public.
December 2nd, 2009 at 10:21 am
Have you ceased your support of Israeli Apartheid Week Dawg
No. And what the hell does that have to do with religious oppression?
December 2nd, 2009 at 10:31 am
Oppression is oppression, whether it’s religious or not is moot. Israeli Apartheid Week is widely, and in my view rightly, regarded as an oppressive form of demonization.
“The new anti-Semitism urges boycotts and resolutions against Israel, and accuses the 60-year-old nation of behaving like Nazi Germany or South Africa’s apartheid regime.”
Mark Freiman
December 2nd, 2009 at 10:33 am
Jay,
Thanks for setting out your position more precisely. I was particularly interested in this bit:
“in the modern world…[the minaret’s] spiritual function is deeply intertwined with its political function.
Now, Dawg has pointed out that the Swiss minarets are not, in fact, used for any spiritual purpose. No call to prayer issues forth five times a day. So what then is their function? Well, it is hard not to see religiously non-functional minarets as having a primarily political significance.”
Now I don’t think this follows. The minarets may not be used for their original spiritual purpose, but that doesn’t mean they’re devoid of spiritual purpose altogether. And it certainly doesn’t force us to conclude that their purpose must be political. Probably, they have a spiritual purpose in that curious modern kind of way, in which “spiritual” is code for “symbolic” or “ceremonial.” That’s why the call to prayer isn’t required (and would the Swiss really find that less political than silent minarets?)
Actually, delving into the meaning of minarets too closely (and whether or not they have a “valid” spiritual purpose), seems somewhat incongruous with the liberal ethos as I understand it. Liberalism shouldn’t and needn’t ask such questions. We tolerate certain religious practices because we respect the people who believe in them, not because we ourselves believe those practices have any objective spiritual value.
The free speech case is exactly analogous: we respect the inviolable dignity of Marc Lemire (insofar as he is a rational human being.) This respect obliges us to tolerate his views, even as we reject them as erroneous and wicked.
December 2nd, 2009 at 10:33 am
Just posted this update:
Kathy trenchantly observes:
Minarets are not the “moral equivalent” of church steeples.
They are the moral equivalent of burning crosses. fff
December 2nd, 2009 at 10:35 am
Arnie,
I don’t like IAW or the term being applied to Israel (but, as I’ve said, I now look forward to Switzerland Apartheid Week).
But you can’t just make the bald statement that critics of Israel are anti-Semites. You can argue why Israel does NOT practise apartheid without accusing those that disagree of having a fatal character flaw.
December 2nd, 2009 at 10:43 am
“But you can’t just make the bald statement that critics of Israel are anti-Semites” It was not my intention to endorse such a statement Marky, my views reflect your own. That said Hypocrisy is not fatal according to recent medical studies.
December 2nd, 2009 at 10:52 am
This essay by Mark Mercer of St. Marys may interest people in light of the Minaret issue: Multiculturalism: Liberal or Communitarian
December 2nd, 2009 at 10:53 am
OK.
What this comes down to is a concern that western nations are allowing the immigration of some people who won’t fit into the culture. This is a thorny issue requiring bureaucrats to make distinctions among desirable and undesirable groups. It also requires societies to protect their collective rights but without running roughshod over fundamental principles that define them. Yes, it would be irrational to let in Osama bin Laden or others like him. But in rejecting him one can’t err on the side of rejecting Muslim immigrants altogether.
The other point is that today’s Muslim is yesterday’s undesirable Jew, black, Asian, etc. and tomorrow’s yet unknown “undesirable.”
December 2nd, 2009 at 10:58 am
Minarets are not the “moral equivalent” of church steeples.
They are the moral equivalent of burning crosses.
“Trenchantly?” I suggest that “stupidly,” or “illogically,” or “dishonestly” – or all three – would be better adverbs.
By analogy, then, the Swiss Muslim population, by all accounts a fairly non-observant one, is equivalent to the KKK?
I’d suggest some people for whom that equivalence might be better suited.
December 2nd, 2009 at 11:04 am
Arnie,
That’s a pretty interesting essay. I’ve been self-consciously taking up the broadly liberal position, as usual, and Mercer seems to get that position very well.
While it’s true that there are alternatives to it, I have yet to see anyone officially repudiate liberal ideas in favor of the communitarian vision outlined in the essay. That’s not that unusual: the real communitarians (Taylor, Sandel, Walzer, MacIntyre, etc.) haven’t really done very much to spell out their position, as far as I can tell.
Amy Gutmann claimed that communitarians want, at bottom, “Salem without witches,” and I haven’t been able to improve on that formulation.
December 2nd, 2009 at 11:04 am
I’m off to the dentist Marky but I will leave you with this – Has the nature of immigration itself changed? Has the ease of travel and communication for instance lent itself to the development of a settler mentality that previous generations never faced?
December 2nd, 2009 at 11:24 am
Arnie,
I think every country has the right to decide what sort of society it wants to be, including what kind of immigration policy to have. Quebec negotiated rights vis a vis Ottawa regarding immigration because it wants to maintain dominance of the French language and culture. Quebec is not anti-English as much as it sees itself as the homeland of the “French People” in North America. Ditto re: Israel and a Jewish homeland and its relationship to neighbouring Arabs.
I think if a western country wants to say that as a policy matter it wants to maintain itself as the homeland of the X People, requiring a certain majority, that isn’t racism. Among other things, usually there is only one or two “official” languages and immigrants are expected to adapt.
But in the Swiss example we’re not talking about that sort of a fact situation at all. What seems to be happening is a shot being fired across the bow at a certain small minority when other minorities aren’t under fire at all. Further, this distinction is justifiable only on the basis that Islam and Muslims are viewed as different than other beliefs and minority groups. So: 1. Is this true? and 2. Even if it is believed to be true, is the benefit gained from marginalizing that minority not outweighed by the damage done to the post-Enlightenment liberal principles that built the society?
December 2nd, 2009 at 12:21 pm
burning crosses
Another sad day for this blog, Jay. Anything for traffic, eh?
December 2nd, 2009 at 12:28 pm
pmt, plenty of traffic thank you.
dawg, the argument is that the minarets are markers whose religious element is overwhelmed by their political significance. I don’t expect you to agree with that but the Swiss have had enough of Islam’s symbols of conquest. And, I suspect, a great number of other Europeans have also had more than enough of non-integrating, political, Islam in their midst.
Mass Muslim immigration is turning out to be a nightmare in France, Italy, Germany, England, the Netherlands and Scandinavia. The political elites in those nations are trying desperately to ignore that fact. The general population cannot ignore it. So I suspect we will see a great deal more push back over the next few years.
December 2nd, 2009 at 2:05 pm
sMarky Mark: “The other point is that today’s Muslim is yesterday’s undesirable Jew, black, Asian, etc. and tomorrow’s yet unknown “undesirable.”
What a bunch of crap! Thousands of Muslims have emigrated to Canada and other Western countries and have integrated very well and are treated very well, my ex, being an example. He’s a very successful businessman in Calgary and he didn’t get to where he is today without participating fully in Canadian society and making contacts – and contracts – with hundreds, if not thousands, of business people and investors along the way.
He left Baghdad way back in 1967 to get away from the violence and the hatred in his own culture that existed even back then, and that was long before the modern variant of cross burning, known as Islamism, became wide spread in Muslim countries.
He personally witnessed the bloody and brutal “revolution” of the July 14, 1958 that ended the Hashimite rule in Iraq, the first of several bloody coups, culminating with Saddam Hussein’s seizure of power. What he witnessed in 1958 as a 14 year old boy would make your blood curdle.
During my marriage to him, and indeed, even after, I met many of his relatives. His brother is now Second Counsel at the Iraqi embassy in Washington. Among the large extended family are several who were victims of Saddam Hussein’s brutality. Also during my marriage to him, I only saw him enter a mosque once, and that was as a tourist in Cairo, way back in 1973. I forget the name of the mosque, but it was one of considerable fame, which, like most of the big cathedrals of Europe, was a tourist attraction.
There is a huge mosque nestled in the hills on the south west sector of Calgary. My ex lives behind and further up the hill from that mosque. He has never set foot in it. Not all Mosques are the symbol and the loci of creeping sharia in the Western world, but many are and whining about discrimination is one of their strategies.
All of this is to say that some folks here would like to believe I know nothing about Islam or about Muslims because I speak out against the current tide of Islamism, some of which we have even experienced in Canada. What’s happening across the Middle East and in Europe is far more sinister than any supposed European bigotry that may be perceived by the intellectually lazy who have never allowed themselves to read any book about Islamism and it’s strategies or talk to secular Muslims who know what’s going on. This cry-baby meme about Muslims being the new whipping boy is strait out of the Islamist’s book of tricks, and the left, as usual is buying it, lock, stock and barrel. I am 100% behind Europe’s right to stop it before it gets worse and I know many Muslims who are frustrated at the mainsteam left of centre publics that refuse to deal with this reality.
And if that means more howling and whining from the left, so be it. Because I choose to mock you does not mean I know less than you. My mocking is simply a technique to draw you out. Indeed, I know more and am sick of this condescending attitude that serves only to assist the Islamists in their stealth attempts slowly destroy the West from within. You are among moderate Islam’s worst enemies.
December 2nd, 2009 at 2:07 pm
Terrence Mark will be happy to hear that he is a regular reader and contributor to my blog. He’s a self described Lefty but one of the good guys – a true Free-Speecher.
December 2nd, 2009 at 2:18 pm
Louise, I’m against Islamism and would be delighted if moderate Islam gained the upper hand, but where do you get that minarets=Islamism and how do you think the referendum results will affect this struggle?
As for the “snarky mark” name, how ironic that you end up calling me the same name as a Protocols spouting blog commenter calls me:
http://myblahg.com/?p=2164#comment-39125
Since Barbara Kay’s column was raised above (Arnie’s comment #30), you might want to read the column linked to in that post as well.
December 2nd, 2009 at 2:49 pm
Well MM - I suspect that if Torontonians ever visited Switzerland, they might understand.
But, when Turkey intercedes (remember the nice folks that brought the Armenian genocide no one can talk about)- there is fire and not smoke.
http://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/0,1518,664641,00.html
December 2nd, 2009 at 2:53 pm
Or it may be Marky that adherents of a specific belief set of Islam are being singled out. To some there is no distinction between the political and the religious in Islam. For instance certain believers regard singing the national anthem as haram as is joining a host nations armed services. Barbara Kay pointed out that students were excused from observing the National Anthem in Canada:
“Cultural presentations involved only Muslim culture and no Canadian content. Students were allowed to leave assembly during the playing of the national anthem.”
...
Turned around what you seem to be suggesting is that enlightenment principles should in fact be put at risk of sacrifice in order not to give the appearance of sacrificing enlightenment principles. Was the Minaret ban extreme? Sure. Did a shot need to be fired across the bow? Not being Swiss I can’t say with certainty, however given the wealth of background information from other EU countries grappling with the issue of Muslim immigration this action may be seen as justifiable. Germany for instance is developing a ‘values contract’ for new immigrants.
December 2nd, 2009 at 3:33 pm
Marky this is a comment at my place from Mark Mercer on his article: Multiculturalism: Liberal or Communitarian
See this is why I hate Mercer, he makes my head hurt, but I think it mirrors what you may be getting at;)
Mark Mercer
Kai and I agree that much policy in Canada regarding multiculturalism has been communitarian, and neither of us is much happy about that—not only because of the frictions and injustices that follow in the wake of communitarian policies, but also because of the possibilities for enjoying and enriching each other that these policies take away.
Kai, though, says that if we are to avoid what communitarian multiculturalism threatens, we have to abandon multiculturalism itself, and not pursue a different form of multiculturalism. Kai holds that what I describe as liberal multiculturalism must quickly lead to communitarian multiculturalism. According to Kai, Canadian society can be either liberal, that is, marked by institutions that honour liberal values, or multicultural in the communitarian mode. It cannot be both liberal and multicultural. That’s where Kai and I disagree.
I’m not sure why Kai thinks a society must be monocultural if it is to be liberal. I don’t find in his remarks any argument that it must be.
My own view is that no liberal society could be monocultural for very long without becoming multicultural. (I think Canada has been fairly multicultural for a quite a while, and I mean within regions, not just between regions, as I indicated in the article.) No liberal society can remain monocultural without betraying its liberalism, for the freedom and equality characteristic of liberal society promote all sorts of innovations and experiments in living. To remain monocultural, a society would have to get into the business of regulating people’s lives closely, and that would be to say goodbye to freedom and equality.
Of course, for a society to stay liberal, there needs to be a wide and continuing consensus among its citizens on the form of its basic political, legal, educational, and economic institutions. That is, most of the members of most of the cultures have to support impartiality, civil liberties, compulsory education for children, a market economy, and riding-based representative democracy. Perhaps Kai and I disagree about the extent to which newcomers to Canada support liberal institutions, or will find themselves supporting them as they make their lives here. Maybe I’m optimistic where Kai isn’t. But I suspect that Kai and I do agree on another important matter, namely, that liberal institutions have been eroding from within for decades, and that the prime agents of this erosion have quintessentially Canadian names like “Trudeau” and “Lynch.”
December 2nd, 2009 at 3:53 pm
sNarky Mark: “...but where do you get that minarets=Islamism and how do you think the referendum results will affect this struggle?”
I have never made such a claim that minarets=Islamism, although I find it quite reasonable to assume that many mosques are indeed vehicles through which Islamism is nurtured, not just in the West, but throughout the Muslim world, as anyone who has been paying attention for the past eight years or so will surely know.
What I find reprehensible about the standard argument from many people on the left, is that they equate any criticism or suggestion such as that made in my previous paragraph amount to bigotry and the “Muslims are the new undesirable”. This is the very argument that has rendered Europeans so angry about their elites and why what has happened in Switzerland should put the left on notice.
The left, with their insipid fetish with political correctness, have systematically eliminated debate by hurling accusations laced with words like “racism”, “Islamophobe”. You know, statements like “The other point is that today’s Muslim is yesterday’s undesirable Jew, black, Asian, etc. and tomorrow’s yet unknown “undesirable.” That is complete balderdash and it betrays the deep seated hatred the left has for their own cultures and countrymen.
December 2nd, 2009 at 4:00 pm
I truly doubt that Canadian society can coexist with Islam and Islamic values. The Dutch have found their tolerant society cannot tolerate the intolerance of Islam, but it is already too late for them, the French and the Swedes. If and when Mr. Harper wins a majority, I am sure there will be a comprehensive review of immigration policy in light of undeniable events in other western societies.
December 2nd, 2009 at 4:12 pm
LS from SK, I wonder when Erdogan will cast the same aspersion on Saudi Arabia for disallowing the erection of any house of worship from any other faith, never mind just the piece that may adorn the top of it?
December 2nd, 2009 at 4:42 pm
Mark Mercer appears to answer his own question “I’m not sure why Kai thinks a society must be monocultural if it is to be liberal” when he writes “Of course, for a society to stay liberal, there needs to be a wide and continuing consensus among its citizens on the form of its basic political, legal, educational, and economic institutions”. What he fails to take into account is that political, legal, educational and economic institutions are themselves cultural, and thus to the extent that he calls for a broad consensus in support of “liberal” versions of these issues, he is calling for monoculturalism.
I place the word “liberal” in quotation marks, because while I value such so-called “liberal” freedoms as freedom of conscience, freedom of religion, freedom of speech, etc., quite highly, I do not see these things as liberalism does, i.e., as superior models of society derived from abstract rational processes divorced from the history, tradition, and cultures of real peoples, in the minds of armchair philosophers, but rather as aspects of culture, that some peoples and cultures value highly, others less so. That should not be taken as an expression of relativism – I think that a culture, such as ours used to be, that places a premium on such things is superior to one that does not, and have no problem saying so even if that results in Dawg and other progressives jumping up and down, babbling madly and incoherently, about Hitler, Nazism, and the KKK. That our culture, with a strong emphasis on such basic freedoms, is superior to some other culture that prefers group think and despotism, does not justify our imposing our culture on other peoples. For those, whose political memory stretches no further back than the last American administration, that is not a new thought on the Right. Long before the Left abandoned the cause of the working man and took up the cause of anti-colonialism, and anti-imperialism, the great Tory Evelyn Waugh was satirizing the 19th-early 20th century progressive attempts to export liberalism to the colonies, in such novels as “Scoop” and “Black Mischief”. However, we should be wary of allowing other cultures that do not share our values to subvert ours.
To apply all that to the subject of this thread, the Swiss referendum has its positives and its negatives. The primary positive, is that it reflects a long overdue backlash, on the part of a Western society, against the arrogant, revolutionary, contemporary elites that have been imposing society-transforming, culture/tradition subverting, multiculturalism on Western societies for decades now.
The primary negative is that it compromises a very important liberty (freedom of religion) and sets the dangerous precedent of saying that the government, if backed by a majority, can limit such liberties for minorities. The government’s job, for those of us who prefer to live in a free society, is to administer and enforce the law. The law should protect all people under the authority of the government, from violence. If to do so, it is necessary for the law to limit a basic freedom, by for example, saying that it is against the law to commit violent acts of jihad against your neighbor, that is not an unreasonable limitation of such liberties, even though it “discriminates” against a particular religion. I don’t think this minaret ban can be justified on such grounds however. If it were a matter of a local community or neighborhood, where the people voting would be the ones who had to live with it in their backyard, so to speak, that would be a different matter altogether.
I don’t particularly care to see minarets popping up all over Christendom myself, but a better response to multiculturalism, is to a) demand saner immigration policies that are not designed to subvert Western traditions, cultures, and society and b) for us to rediscover our own cultures and traditions and reconnect with our own roots and religion. b) is by far the most important step to take, and the state cannot help us take that step, except by minding its own business and leaving us alone.
December 2nd, 2009 at 5:15 pm
I suspect that a good deal of the motivation behind the Swiss vote was to stick a collective finger in the eye of the Swiss political elite who were, more or less, lockstep against the minaret ban.
While religious freedom is an important pillar of the Enlightenment, that freedom was never seen as a sufficient justification for allowing inherently intolerant sub-cultures to gain purchase within a tolerant state. All over Europe, protestations of “religious freedom” have lead to the de facto creation of no go areas in which the writ of the tolerant state no longer runs.
In part this is because the political elites had absolutely no clue that mass Muslim immigration was qualitatively different from mass Chinese or South Asian or West Indian immigration. The happy model of three generations to complete assimilation assumes a desire to assimilate. To leave the old country behind. But for some Muslims, there is no “old country”; there is only Islam.
December 2nd, 2009 at 5:41 pm
“All over Europe, protestations of “religious freedom” have lead to the de facto creation of no go areas in which the writ of the tolerant state no longer runs.” Square Mile Wife is an ex-pat Canuck residing in London, she will attest to this.
December 2nd, 2009 at 6:45 pm
Arnie,
I wrote a long, probably rambling reply to both Kai and Mercer over at your place. It looks like there is an interesting debate shaping up, and it may be that I have something to contribute.
Jay,
What makes you think that Muslims in Switzerland formed an “inherently intolerant sub-culture”? Do you think Muslims are inherently intolerant, or that Islam is an inherently, irredeemably intolerant religion?
December 2nd, 2009 at 7:00 pm
TW, what makes you think they didn’t? The point is, we don’t know. None of us, I think, are Swiss. None of us know what tensions exist there. But some of us apparently think they know that this is all due to bigotry and racism, simply because that is the only thing their little minds are programmed to think. They are our superiors and we must accept the aspersions they cast upon us, for alas, we are not worthy.
December 2nd, 2009 at 7:06 pm
anonymous coward, there is already a review going on and so far, I like what I am seeing. I read just a day or two that Kenney is implementing a long overdue feature, namely that potential immigrants will be advised before they come her whether or not their credentials are recognized and duly compensated by Canadian authorities. This should have happened decades ago. The failure of successive Liberal governments to ensure prospective immigrants that their advanced degrees would get them anything close to what they expected, rather than washing rest rooms in airports, was a blight on our country, if you ask me. I’m sure a great many immigrants felt horribly betrayed once they arrived.
December 2nd, 2009 at 7:12 pm
Excellent post Jay. I appreciate Dawg, Truewest, Marky Mark, Terrence Watson and others for your thought provoking questions, insight and perspective.
In my opinion, Mr. Neal at Comment #160 provides an excellent summary, and what I would consider to be the most ‘correct’ conservative view on the question. Jay at #161 adds valuable perspective. For my part, I cannot improve the position further.
Thanks all.
December 2nd, 2009 at 7:17 pm
Arnie @ 155: Turned around what you seem to be suggesting is that enlightenment principles should in fact be put at risk of sacrifice in order not to give the appearance of sacrificing enlightenment principles.
Precisely. Typical of the circuitous logic of the left, though. In a tolerant society there can be no tolerance of extreme intolerance of the very foundations of tolerance, except in the minds of our superiors, of course.
December 2nd, 2009 at 8:06 pm
Terrence:
Do you find the proposed communitarian/liberal dichotomy plausible, or even intelligible?
If you do, then I might join this debate. I found it facile, even silly. Convince me.
December 2nd, 2009 at 8:27 pm
Terrence Mark is having trouble with comments at my blog, his replies may take time, plus he is swamped with students (finals etc) he informs me.
December 2nd, 2009 at 11:47 pm
Dawg,
I’m not quite sure dichotomy is the right word here. That would require there to be a clear, at least somewhat precise, communitarian agenda. You won’t find much of that in the work of prominent communitarians (MacIntyre, Sandel, etc.)
Instead, you’ll find a cluster of criticisms of (what’s taken to be) the dominant liberal view. Those criticisms, at least, can be spelled out in some detail, as Allen Buchanan does in his paper in Ethics, July 1989 (that entire issue is relevant to this discussion.)
I actually have come to think—and I tried to get at this in my comment at Arnie’s place, somewhat badly—is that Rawls’ move from A Theory of Justice to Political Liberalism basically encapsulates everything that is important and interesting about the debate between communitarians and liberals.
That may be why that debate died off. The ongoing one, in my view, is between the purely political liberals (Rawls, Larmore, Joshua Cohen), the perfectionists (Raz, Macedo), and the anti-liberal pluralists (Gray, Kekes, me on some days.)
In a way, these three positions pretty neatly chop up and redistribute all the ground the communitarian position was supposed to cover or address.
The political liberals accepted the worry that liberalism rested on a sectarian (e.g. Kantian) view of the person and his relation to the community. Thus, they sought to detach it from that foundation, and any other “thick” moral or metaphysical theory.
The perfectionists agreed with the communitarians that the foundations of modern liberalism are too shallow, and sought to replace them with a more robust, comprehensive moral theory.
The anti-liberal pluralists agree with the communitarian critique of liberalism wholeheartedly, but reject any attempt to offer a substitute political theory as incompatible with the incommensurable diversity of moral values and ends.
That’s a very, very long winded way of saying that I share your impression that, in terms of its positive proposals, communitarianism is utterly vague and even incoherent. At the same time, I don’t think the criticisms communitarians have made against liberalism are insignificant.
That’s the aspect of communitarianism I was hoping would be engaged in a debate. And, in a way, the minaret controversy (and, in particular, the defense Jay and others have given the ban) illuminates the minefield liberals face, and may still successfully navigate (we’ll see!)
December 3rd, 2009 at 7:41 am
Turned around what you seem to be suggesting is that enlightenment principles should in fact be put at risk of sacrifice in order not to give the appearance of sacrificing enlightenment principles.
That’s somewhat what I’m getting at, but I’d say it’s more than appearance. When Japanese Canadians are rounded up, when Jews are subject to restrictions on land ownership, quotas at universities and barriers to employment, when blacks are subject to separate but equal—these things aren’t just a matter of appearance-rather they are toxic to our post-Enlightenment values which I believe are shares among liberals and conservatives. What’s really being suggested is that political Islam is so different and its adherents so treacherous that as a matter of fact they could bring down our society from within. This has yet to be proven and what I’m saying is that characterization of them is really no different from what was said (and still is said on the fringe) about Jews. So if you think it was/is wrong re: Jews, how is it OK re: Muslims?
Thanks for the link to the other discussion-I will go check it out.
December 3rd, 2009 at 7:50 am
By the way I heard Ms Kay deliver her remarks in full to the Parliamentary hearing looking at anti-Semitism. What was reproduced in the Post is not the full presentation. She was careful to say that she was talking about immigrants from specific countries where anti-Semitism is not only socially acceptable but in fact is “mandatory.” She thinks policy makers need to take a look at what’s going on and recounted the one specific example in detail. But she did NOT advocate a “none is too many” immigration policy for Muslims. If the facts she recounts are accurate then I agree that the principal, school board and others completely screwed up.
December 3rd, 2009 at 10:04 am
Dr. Dawg – being a Pom perhaps you need to insert terms us ordinary “Volk” miss eh MM? Torontoonians ?
>>>Terrence:
Do you find the proposed communitarian/liberal dichotomy plausible, or even intelligible?
If you do, then I might join this debate. I found it facile, even silly. Convince me.”
Coninvince YOU? ...and you wonder why our community colleges are LAGing/YOBing behind!
December 3rd, 2009 at 2:20 pm
Just Muckrakin:)
Barbara Kay – Swiss Right On Minarets
“Switzerland is not banning mosques, in which religious activity and observance takes place. They have banned what in Islamic countries is very well understood as a symbol of cultural dominance.”
...
This from the CATO Institute – The Problem of Islamic Religious Persecution
“The recent Swiss vote to ban the construction of minarets in that European nation has become the latest controversy to generate Muslim protests worldwide. However, Islamic governments are in no position to complain about Western intolerance and “Islamophobia.” Most Muslim nations are repressive or offer only limited political freedom. More often than not, Islamic states violate basic human rights; and almost all persecute Christians, Jews, and other religious minorities”
...
This from the JDL:
Subject: CJC Press Release regarding the Swiss Referendum
Hello Mr. Kerbel,
Please be advised that the Jewish Defence League of Canada does not support your recent press release against the Swiss Referendum. The press release negates the realities of hate and violence being preached from many so called Islamic Houses of Worship under Swiss rule.
With Love of Israel,
Meir Weinstein National Director Jewish Defence League of Canada
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
December 3, 2009
Canadian Jewish Congress Expresses Deep Concern
over Swiss Minaret Ban
TORONTO—-Canadian Jewish Congress President Mark J. Freiman issued the following statement in response to the results of a referendum supporting a ban on the construction of minarets in Switzerland:
“Canadian Jewish Congress believes deeply in equality and freedom of religion. These are essential human rights, guaranteed in Canada by the Charter of Rights and Freedoms but also protected in international law by instruments such as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. State-imposed bans on essential elements of houses of worship are inconsistent with freedom of religion. When the bans apply only to one group, they are also inconsistent with the fundamental right to equality. For this reason, Canadian Jewish Congress is deeply concerned by the results of a Swiss referendum that would ban the construction of minarets in that country. As Canadians and as Jews, we hold tolerance dear to our hearts and understand the consequences of discrimination. We hope that these fundamental values will guide the Swiss authorities.”
...
Of course I notice Ol’ Bernie didn’t issue a press release about this: Mouths filled with hatred Not MultiCulty enuff I suppose.
December 3rd, 2009 at 2:40 pm
Arnie,
I expected a little more than tu quoque from Cato. That’s disappointing.
Supposedly, in the Soviet Union, devout Soviets had a habit of responding to American criticisms of their system with the saying, “All that may be so… but your country lynches its black people.”
Is this response really that different?
December 3rd, 2009 at 2:53 pm
Terrence “Is this response really that different?” Yes in the sense that muslims in western countries have both democratic means and allies to fight back against injustices like the ban whereas it’s doubtful persecuted minorities of whatever stripe would enjoy a similar degree of support in Islamic nations, yes they could and do fight back, unfortunately with consequences far more grave than any faced in say Switzerland.
December 3rd, 2009 at 3:05 pm
Arnie,
Well, in theory, after the passage of the 15th Amendment in the United States, blacks also had the means to fight back against oppression from democratic majorities.
Didn’t exactly work out that way. Or rather, it took a hundred years or so. Muslims in Switzerland may not even have the same means African Americans did, as it is not altogether clear how many of them have been granted full-fledged citizenship.
Obviously, no one is saying that Muslims in Switzerland are as badly off as blacks were in the United States. No one is saying that Muslims in Switzerland are as badly off as religious minorities in Saudi Arabia. No one is making those kinds of comparisons at all. Except that guy at Cato, apparently.
December 3rd, 2009 at 3:33 pm
To be honest I’m not familiar enough as to what means exist within Switzerland for guest workers vs. citizens, this report may shed light on things -Assessment for Foreign Workers in Switzerland , But I have to make dinner so haven’t even had a chance to read it yet – looks juicy though.
December 3rd, 2009 at 4:27 pm
Terrence:
OK, I’ll wade through the essay once again. I just found the use of the specific categories muddy on the first pass.
Gotta love the Cato Institute, eh? “We should be able to violate X’s human rights because co-religionists of X violate rights of others in some hell-hole to which European culture is infinitely superior.”
Something like that.
I quizzed my Turkish son-in-law earlier today. He’s Muslim, as I’ve said here before, in the same way that Easter-and-Christmas Anglicans are Christian. He takes a stab at fasting on Ramadan, doesn’t drink, doesn’t eat pork. That’s about it.
So I asked whether that was about typical of Turkish Muslims in general. He said, “No: most of them drink.”
A large number of the Swiss Muslim population are from Turkey.
December 3rd, 2009 at 8:29 pm
Dawg,
Heh. Well, the Cato guy who wrote the column also writes for National Review Online. It makes a bit more sense now. My guess is that Tom Palmer’s reaction (to take an example) would be somewhat different.
About communitarianism: the essay itself is more of an adumbration of the debate. But the author seems to know some of the background literature, which is good. One of these days I should look up the Lukes piece he references.
December 5th, 2009 at 4:02 am
Good morning. My, we have been busy on this haven’t we? There’s too much to go through & write about so, as usual, I’ll stick to the Dawg.
[...]A large number of the Swiss Muslim population are from Turkey.
Huh? Are you implying that if the Swiss Muslim population were, say, for instance, more observant Arab teetotaller then they’d be justified with the minaret ban? Do tell.
Well, then, refusal to permit synagogue construction isn’t an attack on religion either. Jay’s position is not founded upon any earthly logic.
The earthly logic is that religious freedom is reserved for religions that believe in religious freedom. Otherwise it’s just self-extinguishing tolerance. Parenthetically, next time you’re quizzing your son-in-law, why don’t you ask him what the punishment is for leaving Islam?
Thanks much for the Cato Institute summary. I wouldn’t have read it anyway but if that’s what they’re saying then they’re wrong. I’ve got the correct Klootzak Institute summary on why the Europeans (if given the chance) will vote for a minaret ban: “We should be able to violate X’s human rights because we’re effing fed up to the back teeth with the grief being caused by X and it’s starting to dawn on us that if we don’t do something soon, X will turn Europe into some hell-hole, with no human rights, infinitely superior to nowhere.”
Listen everybody, the unseaworthy SS Immimulticulti has foundered on the rocks of Islam and the Swiss are just doing what they’re good at in these situations: making sure they’re in the lifeboats first. That’ll be the grand question over the next decade or two: which nations will get in a lifeboat and which will go down with the ship. Vote & act accordingly.
A few of the more memorable dispatches from 21st century Europe; where not every Turk is as nice as Dawg’s son-in-law:
http://www.spiegel.de/international/0,1518,344374,00.html
http://www.spiegel.de/international/0,1518,329060,00.html
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F8I9BUUolvk
They’re from Germany today. Does anybody know if they understand German in Switzerland? It’s close to Germany, isn’t it?