Swiss minister: The minaret ban is aimed at fundamentalists, not all Muslims
posted at 8:31 pm on November 30, 2009 by Allahpundit
And yet, it targets structures used by … all Muslims.
A top Swiss official said Monday that voter approval of a ban on minarets next to mosques could be struck down in court, as critics at home and abroad swiftly condemned the vote, saying it undermined the country’s secular image…
“The ban contradicts the European Convention on Human Rights,” Zurich daily Blick cited Widmer-Schlumpf as saying. Switzerland currently presides over the European Court of Human Rights, which rules on breaches of the convention…
Arriving at a meeting of European Union justice ministers, Widmer-Schlumpf argued the vote was not “a referendum against Islam … but a vote directed against fundamentalist developments.”
She defended the referendum as being “about minarets and not, of course, about the Islamic community,” she said. “We are interested in a multi-religious society in Switzerland.”
What’s weird about this is that, for an act of religious discrimination, it’s oddly restrained. They didn’t vote to ban the construction of new mosques; they didn’t vote to demand that the four mosques in the country that already have minarets remove them. They banned construction of new minarets, presumably as a warning to Swiss Muslims that cultural assertiveness — symbolized by the height and visibility of the towers, I guess — will be challenged going forward. It’s the architectural equivalent of banning the burqa (and indeed, per the front-page screenshot, a woman in a burqa was pictured on ads supporting the referendum). But if the goal is assimilation or, at the very least, quiescence, how likely is it to achieve that goal? Says the Journal:
There is no denying the connection between radical imams and terrorist acts. Nor should anyone look away from the fact that too many European Muslims flatly reject the norms of their host countries, sometimes in ways that are criminal: honor killings, child brides and the like.
Yet banning minarets does nothing to address that fear. It merely makes it less likely that the average Swiss will be confronted by a visible symbol of Islam upon his skyline. Thus, even as a symbolic gesture, it seems to encourage a head-in-the-sand approach toward the 5% of Swiss who are Muslim. In much of Europe, this is the norm anyway, the result of political correctness and cowardice.
Rather than being a blow against that attitude, Sunday’s vote seems only to reinforce it.
I don’t think it’s a head-in-the-sand approach, I think it’s a minimalist approach: They know they’re discriminating, and in order to reconcile that as best they can with Enlightenment values, they’re going to discriminate as little and as cosmetically as possible. (Needless to say, the referendum would be grossly unconstitutional in the U.S.) LauraW and DrewM make the point at Ace’s site that this is, to some extent, a populist reaction to European bureaucrats papering over cultural differences with Muslims for fear of giving offense, but I wonder what the Swiss are looking for in concrete terms. Muslim emigration from Switzerland? If that happens, neighboring countries will move quickly to enact bans of their own. What if the Muslim population of Switzerland continues to rise? Would that warrant a ban on new mosques, or something worse? And what if jihadis decide to target Switzerland now? Does that warrant extending the ban or repealing it in fear? A lot of players are suddenly in motion here, and it’s hard to imagine a scenario in which the discrimination doesn’t gradually get much worse.
Exit question: If you’re going to make a move like this, why not at least tie it to the sort of discrimination non-Muslims routinely experience in the Muslim world? E.g., “One new minaret will be permitted for every church built in Saudi Arabia”? At least that way the scrutiny is shared.
Related Posts:









Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3
Doomberg Says We’re Just Gonna ‘Have to Change’ How We Interpret That Old, Antiquated Constitution In Wake Of Boston Bombings
M2RB: Styx
Resist We Much on April 23, 2013 at 11:24 AM
That link from the Jester site is verrrry interesting. I suppose the powers that be could be playing dumb and saying we think they acted alone so other conspirators aren’t put on notice.
mikeyboss on April 23, 2013 at 11:29 AM
Are they sure it wasn’t a Ben Affleck movie?
RadClown on April 23, 2013 at 11:36 AM
The one guy — a boxer, no advanced education. The other guy, a pothead college student, no technical education.
The difficult part is (a) detonator and (b) radio control of detonation. Would appear difficult, yes? Apparently not. The info is readily available on the interwebs. Like here. If you can use Google, then read and look at pictures, yes you can create a remote detonator out of toy parts.
Welcome to the 21st century.
SunSword on April 23, 2013 at 11:42 AM
Yep. And even that example is overly complicated.
stvnscott on April 23, 2013 at 12:00 PM
Here’s the real problem believing these two did this alone.
Where?
Tamerlan had his wife and mother living with him. So the wife has to be an accomplice. I wouldn’t doubt the mother is.
Jahar had several roommates. Some of these winners are being arrested and released, rinse repeat.
Neither had a job that provided the workspace.
So to believe no one else was involved, means they bought the supplies just a few days before and built it that morning, during the race. With no training or testing.
Along with the other IED’s.
And several guns.
And hundreds of rounds.
Just got it all over the weekend.
The Feds are lying that no one else was involved. Whatever statement Jahar gave them fit their needs.
Hell, he could have said yes to a question that asked “was anyone else involved with the Marathon bombing”?
That’s totally different than “Are you working with any groups”?
budfox on April 23, 2013 at 12:08 PM
Looks like Tamerlin may have murdered a few friends on September 11th 2011…
Click Me
Smoothies on April 23, 2013 at 12:13 PM
All I can say is “no shiite sherlock”.
dentarthurdent on April 23, 2013 at 12:33 PM
Yup, so obviously the laws that make it illegal to make a bomb, and the laws that make it illegal to kill and maim lots of people are just not effective – so all we need is some more laws to make those things more illegal and we can solve the problem.
dentarthurdent on April 23, 2013 at 12:37 PM
I’m sure a guy who’s blown people up, shot a cop in cold blood and tried to kill some more in a getaway, would never tell a lie.
IndieDogg on April 23, 2013 at 12:39 PM
Exactly how would the RUSSIANS have pegged one of the two “lone wolves” operating in America as a terrorist if this is true. Are they doing a better job of monitoring American internet traffic than our own intelligence agencies. Either that or our govt is lying to us – again. We are screwed either way.
LarryinLA on April 23, 2013 at 1:18 PM
It was a joke.
farsighted on April 23, 2013 at 1:46 PM
Acted alone?? Really??
Where did the MONEY come from?? For the clothes, the cars, the apartments, the GYM and boxing. I guess they just came in from the internet as well.
Michael73501 on April 23, 2013 at 2:13 PM
I hear the term ‘self radicalized’ all over the news. They can’t understand how the bombers don’t have a direct connection to terrorists, but can do this.
It is imperative to understand it is not ‘radical’ Islam.
It is Islam – the antithesis of western civilization.
TfromV on April 23, 2013 at 8:18 PM
They’ll conveniently come out with information that attacks the internet, and freedom but they won’t tell us who funded these guys. Probably because it was the Sauds or the FBI.
fatlibertarianinokc on April 23, 2013 at 8:46 PM
It’s still too early to say what his motivations were, but I have a hunch he’s a tea partier.
/msm
jhffmn on April 25, 2013 at 12:59 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3