Ironically, I stumbled across this discussion as I was in the final editing of my book on the subject
of inappropriate influences into our justice systems which allow this kind of referendum to occur.
Anywhere. Is it not ironic that this racism and bigotry arises in a nation where our “international
court” is ensconced, Geneva?

I do not deny that the vehicle of free speech should allow the free flow of these kinds of back and
forth commentaries about religious freedoms. However, the role of our media, our politicians and
our courts in allowing this to be promoted to “a vote” of any kind should not just be a concern. It
is worrisome behaviour which, contrary to PJKEW, is far from being democracy.

When we set aside the promises made at the United Nations in 1948 because of a bloody war to
end the denial of freedoms because of religion and or any other difference in human character, we
defile those legal promises made to the citizens of our democratic world. Democracy is not the
application of a “majority view” anywhere in our world when it targets the minority or the
oppressed.

What is troubling is that we have allowed our courts to become servants to the moral majority
(why does the American Supreme Court allow the motto, “In God We Trust” (who’s god) inside
their court room laws, only after 1954? The rhetorical answer is that this is allowed because the
precedent began in racist South USA states that the god of the “moral majority” could trump all
other considerations. It was not until the race riots of the 1960’s that the racism from this same
cauldron of injustice ended.

Our job as citizens of the world is to stand up against injustice anywhere it appears and to stop it
when it arises before it gets to the state of injustice. Our mega media failed us all by not bringing
this issue, in a nation which ferreted away the riches of dispossessed Jews, to the forefront so that
it would end in international outrage and condemnation before such an idiotic, right-violating vote
began.

Now, if justice and true democracy is to be indeed protected, the international community would
not wait for the Swiss courts to rule on this illegal idiocy. The international communities would be
reaching to credible crown prosecutors to file a complaint before the court in Geneva to charge
the Swiss government with breach of the international promise of 1948.

That law gave citizens of democracy equality in all rights, not the right for one higher fluting
religious or racist group the right to deny freedoms to others. What should concern us is that this
magazine’s debate notes that this referendum was spurred by signatures from barely 1 % of the
Swiss population. It was sponsored by the “Swiss People’s Party”, a political party name too
parallel to the German socialist party from whence came the Nazis. This referendum then passed
with just over 57 % of the voters who did turn out approving the referendum. However, only 53
% of Switzerland’s eligible voters showed up. This means that this referendum gained credence
with support from not even 31% of the Swiss population.

Now we are told that the Italian government is considering a similar referendum.

It should not be surprising to see that I am encapsulating the stupidity illustrated in the Macleans’
sponsored debate into my Just Business book (scheduled to be available in February 2010). It is
time for responsible citizens to stand up against the erosion of the legal requirement to complete
impartiality into our courts so that they indeed become credible protectorates of our international
laws and constitutional promises.

Not servants to the partisan and the immoral “moral majority” which uses religious labels as an
excuse to defile the very promises for democracy which were made in 1948. And which led to that
hypocritical international court located in a city called Geneva inside a hypocritical nation which
obviously does not understand what responsible democracy really is.

I do not deny that the vehicle of free speech should allow the free flow of these kinds of back and forth commentaries about religious freedoms. However, the role of our media, our politicians and our courts in allowing this to be promoted to “a vote” of any kind should not just be a concern. It is worrisome behaviour which, contrary to PJKEW, is far from being democracy.

When we set aside the promises made at the United Nations in 1948 because of a bloody war to end the denial of freedoms because of religion and or any other difference in human character, we defile those legal promises made to the citizens of our democratic world. Democracy is not the application of a “majority view” anywhere in our world when it targets the minority or the oppressed.

What is troubling is that we have allowed our courts to become servants to the moral majority. Why does the American Supreme Court allow the motto, “In God We Trust” (who’s god?) inside their court room laws, only after 1954? The rhetorical answer is that this is allowed because the precedent began in racist South USA states that the god of the “moral majority” could trump all other considerations. It was not until the race riots of the 1960’s that the racism from this same cauldron of injustice ended.

Our job as citizens of the world is to stand up against injustice anywhere it appears and to stop it when it arises before it gets to the state of injustice. Our mega media failed us all by not bringing this issue, in a nation which ferreted away the riches of dispossessed Jews, to the forefront so that it would end in international outrage and condemnation before such an idiotic, right-violating “vote” began.

Now, if justice and true democracy is to be indeed protected, the international community would not wait for the Swiss courts to rule on this illegal idiocy. The international communities would be reaching to credible crown prosecutors to file a complaint before the court in Geneva to charge the Swiss government with breach of the international promise of 1948.

That law gave citizens of democracy equality in all rights, not the right for one higher fluting religious or racist group the right to deny freedoms to others. What should concern us is that this magazine’s debate notes that this referendum was spurred by signatures from barely 1 % of the Swiss population. It was sponsored by the “Swiss People’s Party”, a political party name too parallel to the German socialist party from whence came the Nazis. This referendum then passed with just over 57 % of the voters who did turn out. However, only 53 % of Switzerland’s eligible voters showed up to vote on this issue. This means that this referendum gained credence with support from not even 31% of the Swiss voting population.

Now we are told that the Italian government is considering a similar referendum.

It should not be surprising to see that I am encapsulating the stupidity illustrated in the Macleans’ sponsored debate into my Just Business book (scheduled to be available in February 2010). It is time for responsible citizens to stand up against the erosion of the legal requirement to complete impartiality into our courts so that they indeed become credible protectorates of our international laws and constitutional promises.

Our courts and elected positions must be removed from being servants to the partisan and the immoral “moral majority”. The use of religious labels as an excuse for exclusion of any right of any kind defile the very promises for democracy which were made in 1948. We cannot continue to ignore that this has led to that hypocritical international court located in a city called Geneva inside a hypocritical nation which obviously does not understand what responsible democracy really is.

This must end if true democracy is to survive.

I hope Ezra Levant and Mark Stein are happy. In fanning anti-Muslim flames to promote their pro-war agenda, we get open racists like this "Michael" character. (Note: I am _not_ saying Ezra and Mark's campaign against the Human Rights commissions in wrong. On that score they are _right_. What I am saying is that the general anti-Muslim sentiment they promote in their writing is deplorable.)

Swiss-style direct democracy is desirable, but not when it involves voting on, and violating, the individual rights of others. Lew Rockwell would not agree with what you've written. Rockwell is committed to robust property rights and would argue that Muslims can build minarets on their property if they so choose.

If this is what the Swiss want, who is to deny them?

The Swiss just voted to ban minarets on mosques and this is a great exercise of their unique form of direct democracy regardless of your views on the subject. But my question is why do the Swiss get to overrule their politicians and parliament and here in the US, we don’t have that right?

Let’s bring Swiss style direct democracy to the United States so Americans can vote on the Wall Street bailouts, government health care, whether to audit or abolish the FED, or require Congress declare war before we invade another country. Read why Switzerland is free and America is not and help restore citizen control over the US government and Congress currently under control of special interests. http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig/holland9.1.1.html