Swiss Approve Constitutional Ban on Mosque Minarets
The Swiss want to live in Switzerland, not Saudi Arabia:
Swiss voters overwhelmingly approved a constitutional ban on minarets on Sunday, barring construction of the iconic mosque towers in a surprise vote that put Switzerland at the forefront of a European backlash against a growing Muslim population.
The referendum by the nationalist Swiss People's Party labeled minarets as symbols of rising Muslim political power that could one day transform Switzerland into an Islamic nation. The initiative was approved 57.5 to 42.5 percent by some 2.67 million voters. Only four of the 26 cantons or states opposed the initiative, granting the double approval that makes it part of the Swiss constitution.
The reaction of Muslims was predictable, as well as laughably ironic:
Muslim groups in Switzerland and abroad condemned the vote as biased and anti-Islamic. Business groups said the decision hurt Switzerland's international standing and could damage relations with Muslim nations and wealthy investors who bank, travel and shop there.
"The Swiss have failed to give a clear signal for diversity, freedom of religion and human rights," said Omar Al-Rawi, integration representative of the Islamic Denomination in Austria, which said its reaction was "grief and deep disappointment."
It's Muslim nations where freedom of religion and human rights are imperiled. Worse, as Muslim culture colonizes areas of Europe, it begins to assert itself politically.
It isn't "xenophobic" to protect your way of life from an invasive, hostile culture.
Update: Left-Neocon Charles Johnson continues to campaign for fighting them over there but welcoming them over here.
More at memeorandum.
posted by Old Rebel @ Sunday, November 29, 2009
7 Comments
Links to this post
7 Comments:
Polls showed that this referendum would be voted down 2-to-1. Strange. You've got to love the irony. Muslims persecute Christians in their own countries but demand acceptance in our countries.
Congratulations to the Swiss people. Wouldn't it be great if we could vote on issues such as this here in America? This is why I believe the way forward for Southern Nationalist groups and heritage preservation groups is to make use of ballot referendums. Why not put a referendum on the Georgia ballot to change back the flag? Why not put a referendum on the ballot of every Southern state to fly the Confederate Flag on the top of the capitol building? We can do it. Let's go on the offensive for a change and stop playing defense!
I understand why right-wingers in Swiss (especially the Swiss People's Party) wanted this to pass. And as long as we are going to keep the (ugly) institution we call the modern state, I support the referendum process, generally speaking. However, this new law violates private property rights. If I am a citizen and own land I should be able to do with that land as I wish so long as I am not violating the rights of my neighbours - meaning, doing harm against them or their property. So, this law violates the most fundamental aspect of natural law - the concept of property. Remember, that 'life' as a rights concept in the Declaration of Independence (for example)is based on property. I own my own body; no one else owns it. From this logically flows the basics of natural rights. If I own my own body, I also own the nature-given resources in the world that I have first mixed my labour with (as John Locke, Bastiat and many others argued). That is what we call property. This law violates that basic principle.
Immigration is certainly an important issue. However, there are better ways of dealing with it than passing laws which restrict property rights.
Anonymous,
The upset is a story in iself. It tells me there's more resistance to the globalist agenda than people will let on. And I think that's true here, too.
As for the referendum on the flag, fine, but why stop there? The Swiss got to vote on immigration, so why can't we?
PalmettoPatriot,
Your objections are duly noted. But we're in a situation where our cultural institutions are being used as weapons against us. If we are to preserve Western civilization, we have to stop these invaders, who are openly hostile to our culture.
Old Rebel,
My objections are to the restriction on property rights, not to doing something about the massive number of non-Swiss who are moving into Switzerland. I think a more correct method of dealing with the problem would be to stop access to all social welfare programs for non-Swiss. Non-Swiss shouldn't be able to take advantage of Swiss schools, hospitals, social programs, etc at the expense of Swiss tax payers. Of course, ultimately, the best solution would be to get the government out of the economy completely so that private property rights could be used to restrict access to land, schools, hospitals, etc by the owner as opposed to the government (which only has money to spend on programs based on what it steals from the people - even from people who disagree with the program).
This is the correct way to combat Islamic jihad, by stopping its infiltration into our societies. Pointless wars in Afghanistan and Iraq simply play into the jihadists hands by giving them recruits, propaganda, and a training ground. Unfortunately for the Swiss and other Europeans, unless they get their birth rates back up above the replacement level, victories such as these prove to be meaningless.
Hugh Arnold,
You think restricting property rights of native Swiss and recognised citizens alike to build whatever they wish on their own land is the proper way to deal with a foreign invasion? I strongly disagree. I do however agree with you about how pointless the stupid wars over-seas are. But I think you miss how important property rights are. Without that we are slaves to our governments.
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home