No doubt the Swiss voters thought of themselves as striking a blow against “fundamentalist” or “radical” Islam—but the funny thing is that it’s the most radical versions of Islam that are skeptical of objets d’art like minarets, which didn’t become a feature of the Islamic world until nearly a century after the death of the Prophet. Muhammad ibn Abd-al-Wahhab, the 18th-century iconoclast who gave his name to the “Wahhabist” variety of Sunni Islam, hated the things. To the point of ordering rather a lot of them knocked down.
It goes without saying that when you scratch the surface of the Swiss minaret controversy, you pretty much find the Charlottetown accord—that is, a generic popular revolt against supercilious elites acting in perceived concert. I’m not sympathetic to religious discrimination in anybody’s law, but I am somewhat sympathetic to the Swiss idea of grassroots democracy, and very sympathetic to the Swiss passion for self-determination. My half-informed guess is that if the liberals in Switzerland had been intelligent enough to resist saying “European human-rights law requires us…” over and over, then a local dispute over minarets might not have exploded into a constitutional struggle. And Switzerland would not now find itself resisting Islam as manifested in, of all things, its architecture—i.e., the one artistic aspect of that faith which has surely contributed the most to the mainstream of European civilization.
Print
Comment
If we could just get a princess to kiss Crit_Reasoning, I'm sure you'd have good company. He's just down Queen Betty highway a few hours.
I just think of you as "That Guy"…
I'm a Darwinian atheist who likes abortion, drugs, and pornography. Conservatives don't even let me in the backyard with their pets. But the confusion is understandable: I mostly write when there's a chance of annoying somebody, so EVERYBODY thinks I'm on the opposite side at all times.
Toronto's a good case in point; as a visitor I really dig the place, and without it English Canada would stand among civilizations as the cultural equivalent of a Siberian oblast, but what purpose or function, even to Torontonians, would my goopy love letter to Toronto serve? That's a piece I would ONLY be interested in writing for an Alberta audience, which would despise the challenge to its prejudices and consider me a liberal traitor fit only for slow death by livestock hot-shot.
That's a piece I would ONLY be interested in writing for an Alberta audience, which would despise the challenge to its prejudices and consider me a liberal traitor fit only for slow death by livestock hot-shot.
Hey, then you'll jump at a chance to write about the myth of the NEP in Alberta. Here's a YouTube video I have posted here before http://www.youtube.com/user/DotDunster#p/a/u/0/Op... and more material in Potter's latest Linkage blog. Feel free to run with it.
Wasn't it also the case that the oil industry in Texas collapsed around the same time? I guess the NEP was responsible for that too?
I understand some of your angst. As a young man, in AB i greatly admired both Trudeau and Lougheed, often at the same time – still do…i've never really recovered.
It's time…it's time…oh! It's time to hate the Swiss!
It's WAR between the Swiss and me!
Move over America. There's a new a**hole on the map!
I was going to suggest shaving your head, but quickly realized that that would invite the obvious "skinhead" references from the progressive crowd.
And…that alleged popular revolt didn't include much of the MSM, if i recall correctly…which i probably don't as i ceased caring after meech. CC may well have been leading the charge for all i know.
I couldn't say it better, except I'm reluctant to use the term "small-mindedness" until the multilingual federation I live in celebrates a 700th birthday.
IF I think of you, I worry about Big Brother and sheep (well, the cute ones). "Two legs good, MaggiesFarmboy baaaaad".
Sorry, Dot, I was referring to Colby.
Excuse my improper reply ettiquette.
P.S. I never think of you at all, no offence.
"Three days after Switzerland voted to ban minarets on mosques, enraging the Muslim world, a Libyan court has sentenced two Swiss businessmen to 16 months in prison for violating immigration laws. That could be a coincidence, but I doubt it. It is much more likely to be Colonel Gaddafi’s latest act of vengeance against a country that has seriously upset him." The Times, Dec 03 '09
There is an article in The Times today that looks at heated relationship between Switzerland and Libya at the moment. Author of article does not say there is direct connection but Swiss might have been pissed with Libyans and this was one way to express their displeasure.
It could also be that the Swiss have taken a look at Muslim related problems in Holland, Germany, France and other Europeon nations and are afraid of what they see. They likely interpret Islam as not being benign.
DML has it "dead on". Nothing will come of this as Eurabia is a done deal. Most of Europe will be majority Muslim by 2050. This is merely a "Stick in your eye", from the dying White post Christian Swiss. If they didn't want to become Islamic, why did they allow so much immigration in the first place? The PC elites of Europe couldn't understand basic demographics, whereas native population rates at distinction levels, and importing those at rates up to 10 times higher, you had to know it was going to come about at some point. Now with merely 10% Muslim in France, the Jihad is full out, the politicians know which side their bread is buttered (why placate a dying entity when the one that is taking over is more vocal and follows through on their threats of violence against those that don't adhere. So the question remains and always has:
"how does the rest of the world solve the problem of [all of] Islam that is fundamentally and inherently violent, has demonstrated this innumerable times over the 1400+ yrs of its tyranny, mixing with gentle people that pride themselves on human rights, decency and fairness for all regardless of race, colour, gender, political persuasion (unless you're a Conservative that is). Can the newcomers be modified enough to be fair and benign to the indigenous hosts? Since Islam cannot be Renaissance(d) as witnessed by the Ahmadiyyah (not considered Islamic any more), it seems that a new round of Inquistion may be the only possible solution to this serious and deadly problem.
I was born around the time Neville Chamberlain returned from Nazi Germany proclaiming "peace in our time". Germany had made it perfectly clear that peace would be impossible. I mention this because the excuses and accommodations that well-intentioned liberals give Islam remind me of the 1930's attempts to appease Hitler.
To enumerate just a few illustrations of Islamic misbehaviour over the last decade, there was the hysterical fuss over the Jyllands-Posten cartoons, the fact that in the UK Scotland Yard has had to set up a special division to investigate "honour" killings, the murder of Theo Van Gogh in Holland, the 9/11 massacre, countless bombings, plots, abductions, threats, and continual whining that Islamists are the victims, not the perpetrators. In view of what Islam actually does in this world, as distinct from what its proponents claims it does, I think Islamophobia (fear of Islam) is a logical position to take. Islamophobia requires a confrontation with a toxic ideology, not the persecution of Moslems.
Minarets are just symbols, I guess, but just the same I'm glad to hear of measures like banning them or the wearing of hijab, because they suggest a growing awareness of the need to stand up to Islam. Personally I don't care how many Moslems settle in my country. I just want it made clear to them that although they are welcome, there will be no tolerance of Islamic values in our schools, laws or institutions.
I almost agree with you, A-U, except for that word "Inquisition". Islamophobia requires a confrontation with a toxic ideology, not the persecution of Moslems.
And just as we speak about the growing threat that has been witnessed and evidenced in Europe (and elsewhere in the world), the Uber-Socialist L.A. Times has a new story regarding the increasing "radicalization" of MUSLIMS in America.
http://preview.tinyurl.com/yf47pxe
Interesting to note that the larger the 'radical' base becomes the smaller the 'moderate' base is and also more fearful of retribution from those radicals and the less likely we will see any co-operation from them turning in their co-religionists for processing under our infamous catch and release program called the "Canadian Criminal Justice System". We are imposing a closed society on Islam by not openly and forcefully supporting the Islamic reformers in their weak – and getting weaker- fight against the fundamentalists.
Pretty soon they will be another "first Nations" community with special rights (can you say Shariah Law?) and privileges similar to our indigenous one, and of course the mainstream Canadian of course will have to pay the price with lowered security.
I would be amenable to a wholesale conversion of all Muslims to the Ahmadiyya sect as they are the only Muslims that have demonstrably proven they have reformed and removed (most) of the violence from their religion. Considered non-Muslim and outright Apostates by the remainder Islamists, the punishment for Apostasy is a one time chance to re-convert and repent or DEATH. Welcome to the peaceful world of Islam.