Banning of minarets in Switzerland

oscarBravo

prinz wrote: »

Comparing laws of different times and places I thought was out of the question on this thread. I mean is that the yardstick we're going to measure ourselves by? Saudi Arabia.

We've established that you think some forms of discrimination are perfectly acceptable. You're refusing to come out and say so, but I'll hazard a guess that you think some others are not.

I'm trying to establish the metric by which you decide when it's OK to discriminate against people, and when it's not. So far, the best guess I can make is that discrimination is OK as long as it's against people you personally don't care about.

If that's not a fair assessment, then please stop dancing around the subject and explain exactly why some forms of discrimination are OK and some are not.

djpbarry

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Would it be acceptable to you for the display of the American national flag to be banned in Ireland on the basis that capital punishment is applied in many US jurisdictions?

prinz

oscarBravo wrote: »

We've established that you think some forms of discrimination are perfectly acceptable. You're refusing to come out and say so, but I'll hazard a guess that you think some others are not.
I'm trying to establish the metric by which you decide when it's OK to discriminate against people, and when it's not. ..

There are always 'winners' and 'losers' when it comes to legislation etc. Just because someone loses out doesn't mean they're discriminated against. Just like this law in Switzerland doesn't affect the practice of Islam, the freedom to choose Islam, the freedom to have places of worship etc, your average <1% of the population of Switzerland who are practising Muslims are not discriminated against.

oscarBravo wrote: »

So far, the best guess I can make is that discrimination is OK as long as it's against people you personally don't care about..

..and you guessed wrong.

prinz

oscarBravo wrote: »

If that's not a fair assessment, then please stop dancing around the subject and explain exactly why some forms of discrimination are OK and some are not.

All depends on what your definition of discrimination is.

Nodin

prinz wrote: »

All depends on what your definition of discrimination is.

....yes, and using the normal understanding of that term, not yours.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

bonkey

prinz wrote: »

I don't care where you took the terms from, they're the terms being applied to the Swiss on this thread, and not just because of that article.

So then you must agree that your claim about those terms referring to you is in accurate.

You, after all, are not "the Swiss".

I always disputed the Islamophobic, xenophobic angle.

Always?

Post 166 Just read this excellent article which would be actually pretty much spot on to my own opinion on the matter

No dispute there. How about the next time you mention it?

Post 181Islamic scholar - reasonable assessment of the situation.

Again...nope. Post 195, after being asked for the second time about whether or not you agree with the xenophobic comment, you state that you don't. You answer a question about it in 201, basically saying you disagree that its xenophobic because you don't believe the Swiss are xenophobic.

The Islamophobic comment? YOu never reference it, as far as I can see. The "right-=wing zealot" bit?

First time you mention that is to complain that you're being called that...when the only person who called anyone a right-wing-zealot is someone who's opinion is pretty-much spot on, according to you.

You haven't once pointed out what parts you disagreed with....they have had to be pointed out to you.

Nodin

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Saudi...its the gift that keeps on giving, isn't it?

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

prinz

bonkey wrote: »

So then you must agree that your claim about those terms referring to you is inaccurate.
You, after all, not "the Swiss"..

Well forgive me. I forgot how enlightened we all were on that side of the issue. A blank generalisation would never occur....such as "the Swiss".

bonkey wrote: »

Now that you've been questioned further on it, it appears that there's quite a lot about the article you disagree with....pretty-much everything to do with the law and the Swiss, in fact.

I also said if the law was over turned tomorrow I wouldn't care. It's the symbolic nature of the law that counts in my book, not it's application. I disagree that it is xenophobic or discriminatory.

oscarBravo

prinz wrote: »

There are always 'winners' and 'losers' when it comes to legislation etc. Just because someone loses out doesn't mean they're discriminated against.

If a law is introduced to curtail the freedoms of one specific section of society, and not others, then yes: they are being discriminated against.

Just like this law in Switzerland doesn't affect the practice of Islam, the freedom to choose Islam, the freedom to have places of worship etc, your average <1% of the population of Switzerland who are practising Muslims are not discriminated against.

As long as you carefully define "discrimination" to suit your argument.

..and you guessed wrong.

...and you continue to dance around the subject.

donegalfella wrote: »

Yes, I agree. But when such controversy occurs, how do you determine who is right? I agree that the symbolic meaning of the swastika has become pretty unambiguous since the 1930s—but consider a more appropriate analogy in the Confederate flag. Some people see the flag's display as an overt endorsement of racism. Others see it as a symbol of Southern culture and heritage, or of states' rights, and display (or wear) it with pride. So what is the "actual meaning" of the flag?

Likewise, the Confederate flag is not exclusively an emblem of racist intolerance. But that does not stop the constant controversy over its display.

I'm pretty sure that when Cork supporters use the flag, it's a reference to the "rebel" county, with a nod to the fact that Cork is in the south of the country.

If its use is intended in a racist way, then that use should be criticised. But I don't think the flag should be banned - and certainly not by statute - just because some people consider it a racist emblem, and not even because some people use it as a racist emblem.

While I agree with that sentiment, I'd note that Switzerland has not suppressed Islam as Saudi Arabia has suppressed Christianity. In Switzerland, Muslims are still free to practice their faith; in Saudi Arabia, Christians are banned from practicing their faith or from displaying any non-Islamic religious symbol. Swiss Muslims are free to renounce or change their religion if they choose; in radical Islamic nations, acts of apostasy are punishable by death.

Once again, I don't think "not as bad as Saudi" should be the standard we set ourselves.

No, I don't. But do you believe that we in the West have a democratic right to hold referenda on what kinds of symbolism we find acceptable?

Yes, I do, and I equally believe that the results of such referenda should be criticised where merited.

I personally find it ironic that Muslim activists have no qualms about calling for novels, cartoons, the Star of David and the like to be banned in Western nations. They don't even want the matters decided democratically—they riot, stampede, shoot, burn, and terrorize in support of their demands.

How many Swiss Muslims rioted, stampeded, shot, burned or terrorised over those issues?

I believe that we in the West should not suspend our democratic processes for fear of making decisions that might offend Muslim minorities.

I believe that too, but I also feel that we shouldn't gratuitously make decisions that offend Muslim minorities.

Yes, it certainly would. But the Irish establishment has been noticably quiet on that issue.

The Irish establishment has been shamefully quiet on rather a lot of issues.

bonkey

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Maybe you should ask those arguing against discriminatory laws what side of that controversy they stand on? If, for example, they do not support banning the Confederate flag, or indeed the Swastika or other Nazi-associated symbols....aren't you in effect arguing a straw-man?

While I agree with that sentiment, I'd note that Switzerland has not suppressed Islam as Saudi Arabia has suppressed Christianity.

Why is this relevant? As noted several times on this thread already, unless the benchmark is "not the most oppressive", this in no way deflects from the accusation being made here, which is that this is a discriminatory law, and that there is no valid justification for said discrimination.

No, I don't. But do you believe that we in the West have a democratic right to hold referenda on what kinds of symbolism we find acceptable?

Personally speaking, I believe a democratic nation has the right to hold referenda on whatever it likes. That doesn't prevent them, for one second, in making a bad decision, nor should it ever prevent them for being criticised for their decision.

I personally find it ironic that Muslim activists have no qualms about calling for novels, cartoons, the Star of David and the like to be banned in Western nations. They don't even want the matters decided democratically—they riot, stampede, shoot, burn, and terrorize in support of their demands.

Muslim activists aren't the people on this thread saying that the decision is discriminatory and condemnable.

What, exactly, does it matter how Muslim activists behave, unless (again) we're trying to justify this decision on the basis that "there's worse".

I believe that we in the West should not suspend our democratic processes for fear of making decisions that might offend Muslim minorities.

I believe that we in the West should not suspend our principles of fairness and justice, out of fear of Muslim minorities.

oscarBravo

prinz wrote: »

I disagree that it is xenophobic or discriminatory.

Only because you've re-defined "xenophobia" and "discrimination" to suit your ends.

irishconvert

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Do you think allowing minarates on mosques in Switzerland will lead to this? Please explain as I don't see what the link is.

Scofflaw

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

They're both beyond the possibility of appeal afterwards - so the difference seems to consist solely in what one views as "due process" (and "appropriate penalty").

cordially,
Scofflaw

bonkey

prinz wrote: »

It's the symbolic nature of the law that counts in my book, not it's application. I disagree that it is xenophobic or discriminatory.

So like I said...you disagree with pretty-much everything your chosen source had to say about the law itself.

The only thing you agree with him on is how you feel Muslims should consider minarets...which isn't really what anyone here has been trying to defend.

prinz

bonkey wrote: »

So like I said...you disagree with pretty-much everything your chosen source had to say about the law itself.

Not exactly, he labels it xenophobic and discriminatory and then goes on to outline how it has no real effect on Islam or Muslims whatsoever. Bit odd that in my view.

bonkey wrote: »

The only thing you agree with him on is how you feel Muslims should consider minarets...which isn't really what anyone here has been trying to defend.

Well I think some have been given the libellous accusation levelled against the man, and also the clear refusal to even consider any sort of conciliatory gestures etc.

bonkey

prinz wrote: »

Not exactly, he labels it xenophobic and discriminatory and then goes on to outline how it has no real effect on Islam or Muslims whatsoever. Bit odd that in my view.

You're now saying that his "spot on" assessment in that excellent article is a bit odd. OK....

The author doesn't outline, as you claim, that it has no real effect. He argues that it does not infringe on religious liberty. I'm not sure how you can only equate discrimination with a curtailment of religious liberty...maybe if you could explain that association, your position would be easier to understand...how it can only be discrimination if religious liberty is impacted.

prinz

oscarBravo wrote: »

Only because you've re-defined "xenophobia" and "discrimination" to suit your ends.

Main Entry: xe·no·pho·bia
Pronunciation: \ˌze-nə-ˈfō-bē-ə, ˌzē-\
Function: noun
Etymology: New Latin
Date: 1903
: fear and hatred of strangers or foreigners or of anything that is strange or foreign

Given the noticeable lack of any other laws against "strange" or "foreign" things or people, or any indication that this vote was the result of fear or hatred I think we can discount xenophobia as nothing other than a mudslinging catch-phrase in this case.

Main Entry: dis·crim·i·na·tion
Pronunciation: \dis-ˌkri-mə-ˈnā-shən\
Function: noun
Date: 1648
1 a : the act of discriminating b : the process by which two stimuli differing in some aspect are responded to differently
2 : the quality or power of finely distinguishing
3 a : the act, practice, or an instance of discriminating categorically rather than individually b : prejudiced or prejudicial outlook, action, or treatment <racial discrimination>

Are Muslims treated any differently under this law than say Hindus, Catholics, Jews, Jedi Knights? AFAIK only minarets are banned, not that certain people are banned from building them.

prinz

bonkey wrote: »

...how it can only be discrimination if religious liberty is impacted.

On what other basis are you calling it discriminatory?

wes

prinz wrote: »

Given the noticeable lack of any other laws against "strange" or "foreign" things or people, or any indication that this vote was the result of fear or hatred I think we can discount xenophobia as nothing other than a mudslinging catch-phrase in this case.

You are joking right? We know that the whole thing was against a sign of Muslim power, as per the supporters own words. The whole thing was aimed at Muslims, and it is clearly Xenophobic. Making the same argument repeatedly does not make it true. You have been shown to be wrong on this several times already, in this thread and the other one.

prinz wrote: »

Are Muslims treated any differently under this law than say Hindus, Catholics, Jews, Jedi Knights? AFAIK only minarets are banned, not that certain people are banned from building them.

The ban only really effect Muslims, so yes it is discriminatory.

oscarBravo

prinz wrote: »

Given the noticeable lack of any other laws against "strange" or "foreign" things or people, or any indication that this vote was the result of fear or hatred I think we can discount xenophobia as nothing other than a mudslinging catch-phrase in this case.

No, we can't.

It's interesting to note the efforts that are being made to undermine the very idea of xenophobia, largely such as you've just done, rather than confront the xenophobic nature of actions such as the proposal for this referendum.

Are Muslims treated any differently under this law than say Hindus, Catholics, Jews, Jedi Knights?

Of course they are! Do Hindus, Catholics, Jews or Jedi Knights build minarets?

AFAIK only minarets are banned, not that certain people are banned from building them.

Wow, you really are clutching at some very thin straws here.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

prinz

wes wrote: »

The ban only really effect Muslims, so yes it is discriminatory.

Do you have a minaret on your house Wes? How many Muslims do you know have a minaret?

oscarBravo wrote: »

Of course they are! Do Hindus, Catholics, Jews or Jedi Knights build minarets?

Can you say Muslims build minarets? Do Christians build churches? I'm Christian, I haven't built one. How many Muslims are planning on building a minaret?

oscarBravo wrote: »

Wow, you really are clutching at some very thin straws here.

Does the law say permission to build a minaret is decided by the religion of the applicant?

wes

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Mosques were vandalized before the vote:
Swiss police: Geneva mosque vandalized

Scofflaw

prinz wrote: »

Are Muslims treated any differently under this law than say Hindus, Catholics, Jews, Jedi Knights? AFAIK only minarets are banned, not that certain people are banned from building them.

Ah now - that's an awful, awful, argument. Equivalent arguments would be banning the sacraments of the Catholic Church, and claiming that the law wasn't discriminatory because "it applies to everyone" - or banning kosher butchery and saying that such a ban "applied equally to Christians".

appalled,
Scofflaw

oscarBravo

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

And he'd very likely be wrong. Do you think the GAA should ban Confederate flags just in case their intent might be misinterpreted thus?

prinz wrote: »

Do you have a minaret on your house Wes? How many Muslims do you know have a minaret?

Can you say Muslims build minarets? Do Christians build churches? I'm Christian, I haven't built one. How many Muslims are planning on building a minaret?

Doesthe law say permission to build a minaret is decided by the religion of the applicant?

I'm at an absolute loss as to what point you're trying to make here, unless it's to further stretch way beyond all logic and reason your personal definition of "discrimination".

prinz

Scofflaw wrote: »

Ah now - that's an awful, awful, argument. Equivalent arguments would be banning the sacraments of the Catholic Church, and claiming that the law wasn't discriminatory because "it applies to everyone" - or banning kosher butchery and saying that such a ban "applied equally to Christians".

appalled,
Scofflaw

The sacraments and kosher food are central to their respective religions and religious beliefs. Minarets are not. An equivalent argument would be banning Halal meat, something I would be totally against.

wes

prinz wrote: »

Do you have a minaret on your house Wes? How many Muslims do you know have a minaret?

Utter nonsense, Minarets go on Mosques and not on peoples homes.

You really need to think a little harder about your examples, as they have long ago descended in farce.

prinz wrote: »

Can you say Muslims build minarets? Do Christians build churches? I'm Christian, I haven't built one. How many Muslims are planning on building a minaret?

Again, pure nonsense. The same argument can be used to defend the Saudi's, as Muslims can't build a church just like a Christian. So I take you don't consider Saudi Arabian ban on churches as discriminatory either then?

prinz wrote: »

Doesthe law say permission to build a minaret is decided by the religion of the applicant?

Once more, the only people likely to want a minaret are Muslims. Christian are unlikely to want to build, just like a Muslim is unlikely to want to build a Church in Saudi Arabia for instance.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.