Europe’s Choice: Switzerland or Serbia?
After the controversial decision taken in Switzerland about Minarets and freedom of belief, we decided to re-publish an interesting post Andrei Tuch wrote on his blog as an answer to the concerns expressed by another blogger, Julien Frisch.
The issue is controversial and, by publishing this post – with the agreement of Andrei – we hope we will manage to involve our readers in a discussion that is worth being taken.
Julien Frisch is very upset about the Swiss referendum banning minarets.
I disagree.
Julien says that a ban on minarets goes against the values of liberty, democracy and Europe. Now, I’ve said this before on AnTyx, but I’ll say it again: as someone born in the Soviet Union, grown up in 90s Eastern Europe and now living in the EU, I think I can speak about democracy and freedom with some degree of authority. And there is an absolute, fundamental, irrefutable tenet of freedom:
Your freedom stops at the tip of my nose.
Switzerland did not ban Islam. Switzerland did not ban mosques. (And though I won’t dwell on it, let’s not forget that neither minarets nor even mosques are vital to the practice of Islam, that is a big part of why it’s managed to thrive.) A minaret by its very intention is a thing that imposes itself on its surroundings. Not just architecturally, but socially: it exists as a platform for a cleric to call people to prayer. Five times a day, it saturates the neighborhood with sound that is unequivocally dogmatic. On that fact alone, a ban on minarets is entirely in line with European values of tolerance and coexistence. A secular state, particularly a European state, is obligated to protect its citizens from imposition of religion against their will.
I could leave it at that, but I won’t. If there’s a central message to everything I write on AnTyx, it is that you must know both cause and pretense; that you must not get bogged down in disingenuous arguments adopted by all sides because they are not willing to admit – often to themselves – what exactly it is that drives them.
I’ve done a Google search on Julien’s blog for articles on Lithuania, and have found no mention of the country’s deplorable anti-gay legislation. That’s just one major issue I came up with, off the top of my head, simply because it’s in my neighborhood. (Full disclosure: yes, Estonia isn’t much better in this regard; I signed the recent petition in support of legal recognition of same-sex marriages, but I don’t think it had any effect. But at least we don’t have laws making it illegal to talk about LGBT in a positive light.) Another big issue that I can think of without really doing any research is the half of Cyprus that is currently occupied by Turkey. My point being: there are a lot of areas that threaten European values far more immediately than a non-EU country with a history of vehement direct democracy adopting a policy that can just as easily be implemented with a few administrative guidelines discreetly issued by whichever ministry oversees the urban planning commissions.
No, the reason why everyone suddenly cares about the Swiss referendum is because of the context, the discourse of Islam in Europe that is being actively promoted by the same caliber of activist that would torch cars and throw rocks at shop windows over a newspaper cartoon. Muslim punditry is, by far and away, the squeakiest wheel in Europe, and I dare Julien to prove me wrong.
Here is the question that critics of the Swiss ban have to ask themselves: Would you want these guys in your back yard?
European constitutions include, and European values are generally thought to contain, the protection of minorities against discrimination. I am continually astounded by how this is tragically misunderstood (and occasionally, criminally misconstrued). Democracy does not serve the interest of every citizen unequivocally. Democracy is the art of resolving conflicting interests, and it very rarely manages this to the satisfaction of all parties.
When the interest of the minority is so fundamentally at odds with the interest of the majority, the minority will simply have to be disappointed. (And when the interest of the minority is literally shouting religious propaganda from the rooftops, the minority really ought not be so surprised.)
And what is the alternative, exactly? When the double majority of the population is against something, enough to go and vote, then is it really the best course of action to condemn the un-European, discriminating bastards? Is it really so in line with the values of 21st century European civilization to force people to subdue their dislike of an ideology imposed by an aggressive minority? Do we take a nation where every adult male is legally required to own an assault rifle, and force them to live alongside the Muslims they want nothing to do with?
Because that happened, right here in Europe, less than two decades ago – and we’ve still got a bunch of judges in Strasbourg trying to figure out what happened.
Ur a sad confused person. It's easy to say this when ur part of the majority. Provide some consideration to the minority and think about at what cost you're imposing the new law on the minority.
1. There are noise laws in some cities. As long as the law applies to all, thats ok.
2. There are height restrictions for buildings or constructions in some cities. As long as the law applies to all, thats ok.
This law fails on both, by limiting it to one construction icon, and indicates nothing but hatred and racism towards a minority built up by politicians for political gains. The people have been lied and they don't seem to realize it.
Remember, scare the people enough, and they'll believe anything.
Hopefully u understand, or will eventually understand.
Here is the comment I have left at Flasher_T's blog, and since you took up the matter, I'll publish it here again:
"Dear Flasher_T,
I appreciate the debate, in fact I appreciate it a lot. But you reacting to my post without respecting the full argument that I have elaborated in my post, and by bringing up argumentative subtexts that have nothing to do with the topic.
First and foremost, my argument is about equal rights.
You cannot have a free and democratic society without granting equal rights to everyone. The basic idea of having a democratic referendum is that you consider every citizens to have these equal rights, but allowing to withdraw this equality from a minority by such a vote is against the basic principle of the procedure itself.
Since these rights include, in our societies, the right to believe or not to believe in whatever you want – called religious freedom – and to pursue these believes freely and actively, treating single religions better or worse than others is against this basic principle of equal rights and religious freedom.
And I have to say that I who I have been raised in the former East, too, although actually growing up in a unifying Europe as you did, too, I am an atheist. I think religion is something private, not public.
Yet, my private and personal opinion, as important it might be, is equal to the opinions of others, many of whom think that religion constitutes an important part of their identity, whether Christian, Muslim, Jew or whatever else one can believe in. And they want a society in which they may live their believes openly.
All I want is that we have equal rights, that I can live my life without being forced to believe and that they may live in accordance with their faith.
So coming back to the minaret matter: If the referendum would have been on banning religious towers penetrating into the lives of others, and if a majority had agreed that no religious or non-religious group may build such towers nor have any bells, shouting people or other disturbing elements with these towers or their religious buildings, I would have been happy and silent.
But a referendum initiated by a group of politicians who openly dislike muslims (for them this whole thing was never about minarets) and want to underline their dislike with the means of a referendum that does nothing but creating unequal rights for different groups of citizens according to their faith is against my understanding of a democratic society based on legal equality.
This is what I care about, and this is why I blog about it.
And this brings me to my last point:
You deliberately misused a seemingly objective Google Search regarding gay right in Lithuania to prove your arguments. If you had been interested in the matter and didn't want to use it just to strengthen your argumentation that wasn't really based on my arguments, you would have found that I have been writing about anti-gay incidents at the Moscow Gay Pride (including a follow-up) or about homophobia in Hungary when no other euroblogger did. It is true, I did not write about that matter in the Lithuanian case, but as an individual blogger I cannot write about everything for simple time reasons, even though I notice that there is a lot of injustice all over Europe and all over the continent (including the treatment of Russian minorities) that I should write about much more.
I hope I was able to make my point much clearer now.
Best, Julien"
There are noise restrictions already in place in the relevant municipalities in Switzerland. with existing minarets. This article should not have been reprinted without that correction of fact. Now THAT'S disingenuous.
"Sound saturation" is the only way the minarets could interfere with the "tip of the nose"/freedom of this blogger.
By the same token, I can say that Pentecostal churches are noisy and unruly in Mississippi, thus no new church steeples should be built in Estonia if a majority of people here say so. Tip of my nose.
From all the noise I can hear about this "Swiss minaret referendum", I can just see that this political party reached its goal! A referendum, what a clever idea. Ask people "yes" or "no" (there's no maybe, no compromise) about something they ignore, something people secretly fear, don't want to talk about – minaret. If you ask me to vote, I would answer a big "NO". Why? Because I don't want a muezzin to bother me all the time with his calls. I am an atheist and I don't ask anybody to have my "church" built…
However, if I start thinking…. There is about a dozen of these towers in France, none of them has ever had a Muezzin, they are purely architectural elements. If you ask me to vote again after giving me that very important information, then I'd say "Yes"!
That being said, I can also understand people's vote. I won't even answer people making the apology of rights, equality, democracy… blablabla.. this has never existed!
The thing is the Swiss see their little quiet country changing – Does a minaret fit with the image they have of their country? Do they want to give more rights to a community that – according to the media- is responsible for the mess in their country? Do this referendum in several European countries and you will probably get the same results – and I'm not only talking about France but definitely Estonia is in there
I say "NO" to referendum!
I am all for this ban, if I were to go to Saudi Arabia and try to build a church I am sure they would not like it. Islam is probably the least tolerant religion out there so I don't see why we need to be particularly tolerant towards it.
On another note though, why is this article entitled "Europe’s Choice: Switzerland or Serbia?"
What exactly does this have to do with Serbia?
In the matter of equal rights:
1. Do I have a right to live, free from assault, murder and the threat thereof?
2. Do I have a right to create, own, use and exchange property, free of theft & extortion?
3. Do I have a right to believe or not, worship or not at a time and in a manner of my own choosing?
Islam answers those questions in the negative. I refer you to Sahih Bukhari 1.8.387.
http://www.usc.edu/schools/college/crcc/engagemen...
My blood and property are not sacred to Muslims. That means they are permitted to kill me and seize my property at will. I have no rights until I become a Muslim. I only protect my life and property by becoming a Muslim.
What did Allah command Moe to do? He said that he was ordered to fight with men until they become Muslim. That command is contained in two Ayat: 8:39, which commands warfare against pagans until only Allah is worshiped on a global scale and 9:29, which commands warfare against Jews & Christians until they are subjugated and make annual extortion payments.
Those imperatives are codified in Umdat as-Salik O9.8 & 9.9. When Muslims seize women and children, they are enslaved by virtue of capture and the woman's marriage is dissolved. This is codified in O9.13.
In Sahih Muslim 8.3371, Moe gave tacit permission to rape captive women.
The bottom line: we have no rights. Muslims have an open season license, no bag limit, to kill us, rape our widows, sell our orphans into slavery and seize our real & personal property.
Jihad is obligatory, not optional: 2:216. Allah purchased the Muslims for the price of admission to Paradise, so they fight in his cause, kill and are killed: 9:111. Allah's cause is to make Islam dominate the world: 9:33.
How then is it possible that a right to practice Islam can coexist with our right to live as freemen?
@ Vuk Panic : probably because many immigrants in Switzerland come from the Balkans and particularly from Serbia – Montenegro: http://www.bfs.admin.ch/bfs/portal/en/index/theme...
Gui 8p · 32 minutes ago
@ Vuk Panic : probably because many immigrants in Switzerland come from the Balkans and particularly from Serbia – Montenegro: http://www.bfs.admin.ch/bfs/portal/en/index/theme...
@@@ I would like to remind you that Serbia, according to the Census 2002, is an overwhelmingly Christian populated country (Orthodox, minority Catholics and Protestants), who make up 95% of its inhabitants. I think the author is referring to the Kosovo region which declared itself independent from Serbia, which contains 88% of Muslim residents. This however has nothing to do with Serbia itself.
hmm… I'm just trying to give an explanation to the title, not to change it – but maybe the author of the article could explain better..
Anyway, even if you're right (Serbia is mainly Orthodox and many of the Swiss immigrants come form Kosovo), I would like to add that "which declared itself independent from Serbia" means it's not internationally recognised. Even if Switzerland did, take a look at the date of the stats: 2008, which means figures are probably from 2007; so before the declaration of independence..
So in the stats, it has everything to do with Serbia (and Montenegro) since it is specified Serbia and Montenegro (also independent and 20% of muslims…) and very likely it includes Kosovo as well.
But now we're miles away from the original topic…
When the beauty of Sunday morning church bells are allowed to start ringing in Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Yemen, Kosovo, Iraq, Iran, etc, etc, etc… then come talk to me about "imposing the new law on the minority." GIMME A BREAK !!
You carry a Bible in those countries at the risk of getting your head lopped off ! How about THAT minority !!!
Hopefully YOU understand, or will eventually understand.
Switzerland said with one voice what everybody else is thinking. Go Switzerland!