Pre-election polls showed support for an initiative to ban the construction of new minarets in Switzerland at only about 35%. However, thanks in part to backing from feminists, the ban passed with 57.5% on Sunday, sweeping all but a few of Switzerland’s 26 cantons. The website for the ban’s supporters is here, along with a picture of a campaign poster (showing the Swiss flag punctured by missile-like minarets, along with a woman in a burka) that was banned in some cities because it was said to be discriminatory.
A legal challenge is likely under the European Convention on Human Rights. The most relevant provision is Article 9, which provides:
1. Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief, in worship, teaching, practice and observance.
2. Freedom to manifest one’s religion or beliefs shall be subject only to such limitations as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society in the interests of public safety, for the protection of public order, health or morals, or the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.
Proponents frequently cited the 1997 words of Turkey’s Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan: “Mosques are our barracks, domes our helmets, minarets our bayonets, believers our soldiers. This holy army guards my religion.” A useful Wikipedia article is here. Switzerland’s population is about 5–6% Muslim, mostly immigrants from southeastern Europe.
Update: A commenter asks for what the arguments were in favor of the ban. According to the website of the initiative’s proponents, the argument was that minarets are intended as a symbol of Muslim superiority, particularly of superiority to any different religious/political system, and accordingly a vote against minarets is a vote against creeping shariaism. As the Wall Street Journal noted, the initiative is not a particularly effective tool for accomplishing its proponents’ objectives, but perhaps the Swiss majority decided that it was the only tool available to send a message to the political establishment.
Back in 2003, after I visited Geneva, I wrote the following for my Rocky Mountain News media column: “Local investigative reporting appears weak. A Swiss television station recently exposed a secret deal between the Geneva police and the Iranian government: The Iranians would not commit terror in Switzerland, while the Geneva police would turn a blind eye to Iranian terror bases in Geneva. In the United States, such a revelation would set off a frenzy of newspapers advancing the story with further investigation about a gigantic local police scandal, but the Geneva papers did little with the story.”
This is just one of many examples of the Swiss elite’s feckless and amoral dealing with the Islamonazis of Tehran. Roger L. Simon has written extensively about the Islamist hate-fest at the UN’s “Durban II” conference earlier this year in Geneva, where “I watched as the Swiss President welcomed the Holocaust-denying-nuclear-bomb-buliding-mega-misogynistic-homosexual-denying-and-now-demonstrator-murdering-religious-psychopath President of Iran Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.”
The Swiss government has provoked a backlash from the Swiss people. The decent, pro-freedom Swiss Muslims from places like Albania, who see a minaret as symbolizing nothing more than a Muslim parallel to a church spire, are the innocent victims.
J'accuse! says:
Finally! I’ve always been against the Semites, and finally, here’s an anti-semitism that is socially acceptable to profess!
Quote
November 30, 2009, 1:04 amDavid Schwartz says:
Is there anywhere a statement by the ban’s supporters of why they think minarets should be banned? All I see are arguments why it should be permitted to ban them, but I’ve yet to see any argument for why they actually should be banned.
I have heard arguments that under US constitutional law, the government can ban the consumption of water. However, that is certainly not an argument that it should do so.
Quote
November 30, 2009, 1:33 amTatil says:
I’d like to hear how feminist groups think banning minarets will help women throw off their burkas. Shouldn’t they ban burkas instead? They could come up with flimsy, but “religion neutral on paper” excuse for it.
Quote
November 30, 2009, 2:10 amD.O. says:
Last time i checked, Switzerland is a democracy. Unsatisfied people might, you know, vote somebody down.
Quote
November 30, 2009, 2:39 amAndrew J. Lazarus says:
Why are you so sure that the poor, uneducated, “freedom-loving” Albanian and Bosnian immigrants aren’t in some part the target of this measure, whether they are deeply observant or merely casually so? Banning minarets in Switzerland seems like an awfully roundabout way of punishing the Iranian mullahs, and an effective way of telling Muslim immigrants to go away.
Quote
November 30, 2009, 2:56 amGuy says:
I would think a law banning consumption of water would be subject to strict scrutiny, I also can’t imagine such a ban surviving rational basis (unless we were in some kind of post-apocalyptic water rationing scenario, at which point we’d be lucky if the courts even functioned)... not that that has anything to do with anything, but I found the suggestion interesting.
As for the minaret ban... It always makes me feel warm and fuzzy inside to see gross tramplings on people’s basic rights in Europe that the U.S. constitution would prevent. Lets me feel all morally superior and stuff. Is that a kind of schadenfreude?
Quote
November 30, 2009, 2:57 amAthena says:
Let’s not get worked up about this, as it doesn’t ban mosques, only minarets. It is partly an architectural matter seized upon by those against sharia and immigration.
Quote
November 30, 2009, 3:05 amptt says:
There’s nothing in the U.S. Constitution to prevent the passing of a constitutional amendment like a ban on minarets. The only thing we have going for us a significantly more difficult process for amending the constitution.
Quote
November 30, 2009, 3:08 amptt says:
Athena raises a good point. What happens if a mosque requests a permit to build a bell-tower, a really tall, slender one, with a teeny-tiny bell on top?
Quote
November 30, 2009, 3:10 amKuzbad says:
Odd that neither this post nor the linked to Wikipedia article mention that Erdoğan (then an almost universally popular mayor of Istanbul, and today PM of Turkey) was arrested and jailed merely for reciting a few lines of that poem! Turkey takes (took?) its secularism very seriously.
Minareler süngü,
Kubbeler miğfer,
Camiler kışlamız,
Müminler asker
I did not think Erdogan recited any line translated as “This holy army guards my religion” but I could be wrong (I haven’t been able to find the video of Erdogan 1998 reading and it’s been awhile since I’ve it). The poem (of which this is one stanza) was supposedly written by Ziya Gökalp (d. 1924) who was a Turkish national, a Pan-Turkish, and a Kemalist. Not exactly a firebrand Islamist–quite the opposite in fact.
Quote
November 30, 2009, 3:23 amLitigator London says:
The Swiss Confederation has a very low threshold for popular referenda. Regrettably, there has always been a very great deal of xenophobia hidden behind the cuckoo-clock quaintness, particularly in the more rural Germanic cantons.
The anti-immigrant and islamophobic nature of some sections of Swiss society is nothing new. In some cantons, decisions to accord Swiss citizenship are also subject to cantonal referendum and non-white and muslim candidates for naturalisation are regularly voted down. As it happens, Switzerland did not give women the right to vote in Federal elections until 1928 if my memory serves me correctly.
The unique position of Switzerland as an enclave entirely surrounded by EU member states is largely a consequence of Swiss xenophobia. No other solution makes economic sense and it has been federal government policy to join the EU for years. The Confederation is formally a candidate, but everyone knows that a referendum is unlikely to succeed and so Switzerland survives by means of a series of bilateral agreements.
I suspect there is going to be trouble about this, particularly in relation to the Council of Europe and the European Convention on human rights.
Quote
November 30, 2009, 4:41 amClaudia says:
well,what if you go to those muslims countries and try to build a giant catholic church or a evangelic temple????? do you know what happens then?
Quote
November 30, 2009, 5:31 amGuy says:
So you think that Muslim countries should be considered the global moral leaders on freedom of religion, and others ought to take their cues from them? Or are you saying that all people can be held personally accountable for the policies of countries they don’t live in, but which are dominated by people who share a religion with them?
Quote
November 30, 2009, 6:14 amOwen H. says:
What a wonderful way to show the Muslims of Europe that not only are they not accepted, they will never be accepted as part of their new homes. No possible disaffection could ever come from such acts.
Quote
November 30, 2009, 7:18 amNickp says:
Kuzbad,
It’s a poem? In that case, it reads to me as an updated, Muslim version of Ephesians 6. Compare Domes our helmets/Minarets our bayonets to Helmet of Salvation and the Sword of the Spirit.
Scary stuff indeed.
Quote
November 30, 2009, 8:43 amSam Hall says:
I think that is exactly what the voters intended.
Quote
November 30, 2009, 8:46 amEd111 says:
for 12
there are giant catholic churches in every muslim country in the world (except Saudi which is equal to vatican).
after all why do you want catholic churches in a country where 100% of the natives are muslim?..
do you realize how uncomfortable this ban would make the 5% Swiss muslim feel?..and how unwelcomed it will make them feel?..t
Quote
November 30, 2009, 8:59 amEd111 says:
Oh and by the way..
since when the religious majority are asked to approve of the minority religion>?..
had that been the case there would one big religion in the entire world..and they brag about human rights!
Quote
November 30, 2009, 9:05 amFloridan says:
Would a Swiss Muslim group be allowed to purchase a surplus church that has a steeple?
Quote
November 30, 2009, 9:22 amStrict says:
“This is just one of many examples of the Swiss elite’s feckless and amoral dealing with the Islamonazis of Tehran.”
An yes, the Islamonazis in Tehran that...issue fatwas ordering special protections for the Jewish minority in Iran?
(Granted, in return for the ongoing protections, some of the Jews have to make anti-Israel pronouncements and pledges of allegiance to Iran — even though most have family in Israel and I’m sure they don’t believe their own pronouncements).
Until the mullahs start murdering Jews, you shouldn’t call them Nazis. Spying on Jewish organizations isn’t enough (the FBI spied on Martin Luther King, that doesn’t make the FBI Nazis).
Quote
November 30, 2009, 9:56 amShag from Brookline says:
Personally, I could go along with a minuet ban in a minute.
Quote
November 30, 2009, 10:07 amwow says:
Only those peaceloving Albanian muslims have a right to practice their religion, I see. Maybe we should impose a peaceloving limitation on rights here in this country. Perhaps only ‘peaceloving’ Americans can own guns? Everyone from Albania is peaceloving, everyone from Iran is a nazi, and everyone from Colorado is a ski instructor or member of focus on the family.
Wow, the analytic rigor in this post is astounding!
Quote
November 30, 2009, 10:27 amArthurKirkland says:
or perhaps Switzerland has many small-minded citizens who can’t resist a chance to declare that ‘my fairy tale can beat up your fairy tale’
Quote
November 30, 2009, 10:31 amYankev says:
So locking them up (and if I recall, executing some of them) on trumped up charges of espionage don’t count. And neither does blowing up the Jewish Communuity Center in Buenos Aires, thereby murdering only non-Iranian Jews. Or providing arms, training and funding to Hamas and Hezbollah to kill Israeli Jews. Or holding international conferences to promulgate holocaust denial and international contests for anti-Jewish cartoons in “revenge” for the Danish Muhamed cartoons. Okay, Strict, it’s good to know where you are coming from.
Quote
November 30, 2009, 10:45 amAndrew J. Lazarus says:
What do you mean, “trumped-up”? At least some of the suspects confessed. Now, I view this as evidence that torture of detainees produces false positives, but Cheney-conservatives who believe in torture are stuck explaining away the guilt of some random Iranian Jewish shoe salesman.
Quote
November 30, 2009, 10:58 amyankee says:
“In some part?” When somebody passes a mostly-symbolic measure that targets a particular group, and nobody else, we can safely infer that the affected group is the intended target of the legislation. The idea that going after Swiss Muslims is “perhaps” “the only tool available to send a message to the political establishment” about its foreign policy vis-a-vis Iran is just transparently absurd.
I’m very disappointed by Kopel’s attempt to defend this law as a reasonable way of sending a message to the Swiss foreign policy establishment. In fact, it’s a xenophobic attack on freedom of conscience that says something very bad about 57.5% of Swiss voters.
Incidentally, since when is being a “decent, pro-freedom” person a legitimate condition to place on liberty? A society where liberty only applies to “decent” people who support a particular ideology is not a free society at all.
Quote
November 30, 2009, 11:02 amdavod says:
You need to read up on the Muslims of Europe. For a proportion of the Muslims this will be one among many excuses to attack the local population.
Quote
November 30, 2009, 11:04 amStrict says:
Yankev,
I didn’t say the regime has not committed crimes against Jews, or that the regime is not hateful. I said that the regime is not Nazi. There is a difference. A Nazi regime wouldn’t tolerate any Jews at all (see: Nazi Germany).
The Ba’athists in Iraq also hanged Jews on trumped-up charges of spying. That doesn’t mean that Baathism is Islamonazism.
Also, are you sue that none of the victims of the Buenos Aires bombing were Iranian?
Quote
November 30, 2009, 11:07 amLitigator London says:
Claudia might care to know that there is a Cardinal Patriarch of Baghdad, and there are bishops and patriarchs all over the muslim majority countries of the world. In the rite most used in the Middle east, the language used is Aramaic also known as Syriac which was the language of Jesus, or Issa. When I worked in Algeria, not only was the Cardinal Archbishop well respected, but the Algerian state had employment legislation under which Algerian and foreign Christians had holidays with pay for the major Christian festivals just as Muslims do for their big holidays.
Obviously there are sometimes tensions between religions — often quite contrary to the religious teachings of the religions concerned as I well recall happening between Protestants and Catholics in England during my lifetime — not to mention Northern Ireland.
Davod needs to read up on the Muslims of Europe and perhaps meet some. My family has been here since the time of Oliver Cromwell and by now we have got over the obscenity of the Catholic Reconquista of Andalusia just as has the Shephardi Jewish community which got here about the same time and for the same reason.
Quote
November 30, 2009, 11:23 amGuy says:
What does that have to do with Muslims? If you systematically alienate a group out of nothing but xenophobic, racist, and bigoted spite, you can expect that group to become, gasp, alienated, and prone to violence. I guess antebellum laws making it illegal to teach slaves to read were justified because of the slaves’ dangerous and savage tendency to, for some inexplicable reason, rise up in armed revolt and brutally kill their masters and their family. (Not that I’m saying that the conditions of Muslims in Europe are the same as conditions of slaves in America were, but, Jesus, was that a stupid thing for you to say.)
Quote
November 30, 2009, 11:24 amMartinned says:
Actually, Switzerland is part of the EEA now, the European Economic Area that also includes Norway and Iceland. As for the ECHR, that is very tricky question. In my country, the Netherlands, a constitutional amendment of this kind would probably end up being null and void to the extent that it violates the European Convention on Human Rights. (Treaties can trump even the constitution itself here.) Something tells me, though, that the Swiss constitution doesn’t work that way. AFAIK, the Convention does not have any particular solution for the situation when a High Contracting Party refuses to change its laws in accordance with the Court’s judgement. All the Court can do is find a violation of the Convention and order damages, which it presumably will have to do over and over again any time anyone wants to build a minaret in Switzerland.
Ultimately, this story comes back to the same question already raised last year during the argument about Prop. 8 in California: What’s the point of having human rights if they can be abolished with a simple majority?
Quote
November 30, 2009, 11:31 amSadiq says:
I grew up in Pakistan (now live in the US). Went to a Roman Catholic School built around 1857. Was tought by teachers from all faiths including Irish Jesuit Brothers. Have friends from all faiths. Believed in religious freedom and could not tolerate the views of fanatic rightwing muslims who are in minority in Pakistan. But this vote in Switzerland makes us moderate/liberal muslims weaker. The fanatic christians have finally joined hands with fanatic muslims. Swiss are known to be xenophobic and now the world knows it better. The people who will loose the most in Swizerland are those who work for MNCs like Nestle, Roche, Novartis, Tobler Chocolate, UBS bank and more. I am sure an average muslim would not like to do business with these entities. After all 57 percent of people who work in these companies’ HQ have shown their extremist face.
Quote
November 30, 2009, 11:34 amMatthias Neeracher says:
This referendum was the work of a party (notably the largest single party in Switzerland—so much for “the people vs. the Swiss establishment”) which makes a living exploiting xenophobic resentments, using a propaganda language that should be easy enough to understand, even if you don’t speak German.
These resentments are particularly easy to exploit against religious minorities: Kosher slaughter was outlawed in a late 19th century referendum which appears to have been motivated by anti-semitism (and I can assure you that this was NOT a backlash against an overly philo-semitic government), and remains outlawed to this day. The Jesuit order was outlawed in Switzerland for more than 100 years (ending in 1973). Even Catholics in Protestant communities were prevented into the 20th century from building church towers or ringing bells.
Quote
November 30, 2009, 11:52 amDG says:
{Obviously there are sometimes tensions between religions}
Tell it to the Copts.
Quote
November 30, 2009, 11:55 amcaliforniamom says:
I see this as cultural preservation. The Swiss want Switzerland to look Swiss, not Middle Eastern. It’s no different than other architectural restrictions whether it be on American-looking fast food restaurants or mosques. In addition to banking, tourism is important to the Swiss economy. If Switzerland no longer evokes images of half-timbered chalets with geraniums in the window boxes it has lost something essential to being and looking Swiss. I think countries have the right to preserve their culture, architecture and traditions through architectural restrictions.
Quote
November 30, 2009, 11:55 amYankev says:
Facism took different forms in different countries. The Muslim Brotherhood, a Baathist group, was the form that it took in the middle east.
Quote
November 30, 2009, 12:02 pmYankev says:
You mean it was not a justifiable reaction to a racist Israeli government and its mistreatment of peace loving Arabs who sought nothing more than mutually beneficial co-existence?
Quote
November 30, 2009, 12:04 pmJohn Armstrong says:
It’s like they’ve never heard of metaphor.
Quote
November 30, 2009, 12:06 pmMartinned says:
Point of context: At the moment, there are only four mosques with minarets in all of Switzerland.
Quote
November 30, 2009, 12:08 pmGuy says:
Matthias Neeracher, regarding your first link, with the sheep, I never realized that racism was so cute and adorable, it just warms my heart.
Quote
November 30, 2009, 12:11 pmMartinned says:
O, and another thing: The Swiss (federal) political system is very strange, in that it is impossible to vote a major party out of government. The four (?) big parties form a sort of perpetual grand coalition. Nevertheless, if ever there is a country where the government cannot sensibly be described as some arrogant, out of touch “elite”, it is in Switzerland. In Switzerland, all politics is local.
Quote
November 30, 2009, 12:13 pmKuzbad says:
Additional point of context: At the moment there are maybe 400,000 Muslims in Switzerland–small, maybe 5% of the population. Similar in percentage to Germany where there are over 4 million muslims and France 4–5 million (estimates).
The European countries are running scared of change. Muslim population growth in many of the European countries is higher than that of White Europeans and, imho, it does come down to wanting to preserve a cultural and even racial Europe. Xenophobic? Most definitely. Rational? Perhaps, if you believe in the idea of a Europe (or individual country) defined by specific cultural (and again, race DOES play a role in this) identities, and don’t want to see those fundamentals change.
FWIW, I had some decent kabobs (served by Kurds I believe) in Fribourg last year, and walked through a solidly Muslim neighborhood in Basel.
Quote
November 30, 2009, 12:19 pmcaliforniamom says:
I know there are only four mosques with minarets in Switzerland. So the Swiss decided to nip something in the bud. In the United States we have a natural landscape to preserve, so we rail against anything that would spoil one of our iconic natural views. No power plants near the Grand Canyon, no power lines marching across the Smoky Mountains. There are major building restrictions along the California coast. The natural landscape is our culture. There are a few cities in the U. S. that have strict building codes to preserve a cultural look. Charleston, South Carolina comes to mind. Charleston allows no building to be taller than the steeple of St. Michael’s church, in addition to other regulations. Would Charleston be Charleston is they permitted a high rise glass and steel office tower along the battery amid the antebellum homes. Switzerland has a cultural landscape as well as a natural one. The Swiss want to look around and see the Switzerland they grew up in and a Switzerland that will continue for their children. I understand that the same way I understand why I wouldn’t want condos to line the road in Big Sur.
Quote
November 30, 2009, 12:25 pmyankee says:
Which is why the advertising and rhetoric of supporters of the measure were devoted to the importance of preserving the tourist industry.
Quote
November 30, 2009, 12:26 pmsbron says:
How about setting a cap of the number of minarets in Switzerland equal to the number of church steeples in Saudi Arabia?
Quote
November 30, 2009, 12:28 pmGuy says:
Not only are you ignoring that this ban implicates religious freedom, you’re also ignoring that it was motivated and sold by resort to xenophobia and bigotry. tell me, what other architectural styles have been banned by Switzerland in order to preserve their “cultural heritage”? Neoclassical styles? Modernist styles? Gothic styles?
Quote
November 30, 2009, 12:33 pmGuy says:
I refer you to my previous comment:
Quote
November 30, 2009, 12:40 pmEurope Reacts to the Swiss Minaret Ban - The Lede Blog - NYTimes.com says:
[...] Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and to the European Convention on Human Rights. On the Volokh Conspiracy blog, David Kopel writes that Article 9 of the European convention will probably be the basis for legal [...]
Europe Reacts to the Swiss Minaret Ban - The Lede Blog - NYTimes.com says:
[...] Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and to the European Convention on Human Rights. On the Volokh Conspiracy blog, David Kopel writes that Article 9 of the European convention will probably be the basis for legal [...]
Europe Reacts to the Swiss Minaret Ban - The Lede Blog - NYTimes.com says:
[...] Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and to the European Convention on Human Rights. On the Volokh Conspiracy blog, David Kopel writes that Article 9 of the European convention will probably be the basis for legal [...]
yankee says:
And such a concept is antithetical to the idea of a free society. Maybe the government has some legitimate role in promoting a specific cultural identity, but to do so by prohibiting expressions of other cultural identities is an attack on freedom. Remember that we are not just talking about zoning restrictions to preserve the look of a particular area: this is a total ban on a particular (harmless) expression of Muslim identity anywhere. If those who purport to support freedom feel compelled to comment on this, it should be to condemn it.
As restrictions on liberty go, this is pretty minor, but the government has no business using force to send a big “fuck you” to a religious (and ethnic) minority. I’m very disappointed by Kopel’s decision to defend this measure rather than condemn it.
If you think it’s your government’s job to impose a particular “cultural identity” by force, and your concept of “cultural identity” involves people being the right race, it’s even worse.
[DK: I didn’t defend it. I reported it.]
Quote
November 30, 2009, 12:44 pmArthurKirkland says:
I hope the United States doesn’t get mad about what appears to be the latest development in more than a century of official bigotry from the Swiss. Instead, let’s get even — perhaps by attacking objectionable Swiss banking practices and wrecking a selfish and profitable industry that deserves to be dismantled?
Quote
November 30, 2009, 12:49 pmMatthias Neeracher says:
You will find that pretty much EVERY place in Switzerland has very strict building codes (ironically, the biggest exceptions to this were often found in tourist oriented mountain villages, who should have had the most to gain from strict building codes, but couldn’t resist the lure to make a quick buck by approving just one more construction project).
The Swiss city I grew up in has featured a minaret since before I was born (Which, serving Ahmadiyya muslims, is unlikely to advance Saudi or Iranian interests).
Switzerland also has secular buildings that look exactly like minarets, and even in the future, building codes will be the only thing standing between chocolate tycoons and their dreams of Islamic architectural grandeur.
Quote
November 30, 2009, 12:50 pmKuzbad says:
Yankee: I agree with you.
More fundamentally I think it speaks volumes about European ideals of freedom versus American ideals of Freedom. When you say “the government has no business using force to send a big “fuck you” to a religious (and ethnic) minority” I would of course agree–no government SHOULD concern itself with such things, however, governments are in the business of getting in people’s business.
If you view the government not as an entity that exists solely to protect freedom and liberty and instead as an entity that exists to take care of people, make sure they’re educated, fund appropriate artists and musicians, decide which types of research should get funded and which should not, etc (ad nauseam) then the government using its force to maintain cultural heritage DOES make a lot more sense.
Quote
November 30, 2009, 12:58 pmWim Prange says:
Incorrect.
Women in Switzerland had to wait until 1971 before they were “granted” the right to vote, on a federal level. And that wasn’t even the end to that story. Some women even had to wait until 1990 before they could vote on the cantonal level as well.
Quote from this website
Quote
November 30, 2009, 1:06 pmKirk Parker says:
Litigator London,
Good, but too many of your co-religionists haven’t. Hopefully you’re working to reduce their influence.
(Not that this necessarily is germane to the Swiss initiative in question...)
Quote
November 30, 2009, 1:12 pmyankee says:
Then what are we to make of your ludicrous assertion that this measure was a “backlash” against “the Swiss elite’s feckless and amoral dealing with the Islamonazis of Tehran” and that “perhaps the Swiss majority decided that it was the only tool available to send a message [about foreign policy] to the political establishment”? You refuse to condemn the bigoted advertising and rhetoric of the proponents, saying it was “said to be” discriminatory rather than that it was discriminatory.
The only critical things you have to say are that the resolution “not a particularly effective tool for accomplishing its proponents’ objectives” and that there’s a negative effect on “decent” Muslims.
What you said, essentially, is that the resolution resulted from reasonable motives to criticize the government’s Iran policy, and the problems were just ineffectiveness and a collateral effect on “decent” Muslims. This is not a “defense” in the sense of saying the measure was actually a good idea, but it is a defense of the measure as not very bad. In fact, the measure was a xenophobic and bigoted attack directed at a religious/ethnic minority group. It merits condemnation and I am very disappointed by your decision to imply otherwise.
Quote
November 30, 2009, 1:13 pmcaliforniamom says:
It’s not bigoted for a culture to want to maintain a cultural identity; for a country to preserve its cityscapes as part of its culture. The Europeans are worried that European culture (and European people) are going the way of the dodo bird.
Quote
November 30, 2009, 1:13 pmbyomtov says:
it does come down to wanting to preserve a cultural and even racial Europe. Xenophobic? Most definitely. Rational? Perhaps, if you believe in the idea of a Europe (or individual country) defined by specific cultural (and again, race DOES play a role in this) identities, and don’t want to see those fundamentals change.
Ein Reich. Ein Volk.
Quote
November 30, 2009, 1:16 pmMK says:
Europe is not America and European countries are, for the most part, actually self-defined by their prevailing ethnicity, culture and language.
To yankee: you would not force your American ideal of melting pot on, say, Yanomami Indians or the Japanese, would you? So why do you want the Swiss to adhere to them and why do you condemn them for living in their own preferred way?
In my experience, that is what quite a lot of Americans do not understand. Most of the Euro nations are quite ancient, comparable to the ancient nations of China. And the people feel it and they do resent attempts to turn the lands of their forefathers into multicultural salad bowls, especially if enforced by politicians from the top, without any consultation with the population and its approval.
Quote
November 30, 2009, 1:27 pmMK says:
Byomtow wins the Godwin’s law. Patriotic = Nazi. Yes, that is how some people view it.
Never mind that most of the people who fought against Hitler were fighting him for the sake of their own countries, nations and cultures! In the postmodern version of history, the Tommies and the Ivans and the resistance in French woods were fighting for cosmopolitan universe, and not for England, Russia or France.
Quote
November 30, 2009, 1:30 pmyankee says:
It does? It is one thing to fund public education, another to prohibit private schools; one thing to fund artists and musicians, another to prohibit unapproved art and music; one thing to fund research, another to prohibit any research the government isn’t interested in funding. Supporting one does not in any way imply support for the other.
If the government wants to promote its vision of Swiss culture by subsidizing traditional Swiss architecture, I don’t find it particularly objectionable. Same with using zoning laws to promote a particular look and feel in a particular area. (I dislike those types of restrictions too, but I’m not going to get really upset about them.) But it serves no legitimate public purpose to impose an absolute ban on a form of cultural expression that causes no harm to anybody and the local community does not object to. Such a ban does absolutely nothing to “take care of people.”
Quote
November 30, 2009, 1:34 pmSpitzer says:
I’m in the “live and let live” category when it comes to states (especially small ones) making these kinds of decisions democratically. If the Swiss want to ban minarets, I don’t see the point of the fuss made here — it’s not like they’re physically harming or imprisoning people without due process. Heck, it’s like not they’re banning religious missions (of whatever stripe) or prohibiting the practice of particular religions. And they did so democratically, so there is a vox populi aspect to this. Frankly, even with this architectural ban, they’re treating muslims far better than muslims treat christians in the ME (see, e.g., Saudi Arabia).
What’s really interesting to me is that so much of modern liberal western thinking is silently rooted in a heartfelt (albeit racist) belief that westerners are really the only civilized people on earth, and so it is they-the civilized folks who know better-who must apologize and bend over backwards to accept other cultures and beliefs, while permitting everyone else to act as badly as they like because, well, modern liberal westerners don’t really expect much good behavior from non-westerners.
Quote
November 30, 2009, 1:39 pmyankee says:
I’m not sure what you mean by “force your American ideal of a melting pot.” Would I support the literal use of force (i.e., war) over the issue? Of course not. I don’t really like government trying promote its vision of traditional culture by subsidizing traditional forms of cultural expression, but it doesn’t make me particularly upset either; I see it as stupid, not malevolent. But if the Japanese or the Yanomami Indians want to promote traditional expression through a total ban on nontraditional expression, that is going way too far as far and they deserve criticism for it.
Nobody has the right to “live in their own preferred way” if their preferred way to live involves oppressing minority groups. As oppression goes, the minaret ban is pretty minor, but it is oppression nonetheless.
Quote
November 30, 2009, 1:44 pmEinhverfr says:
Can we ban steeples too?
Quote
November 30, 2009, 1:46 pmmicrotherion says:
To the extent that the “backlash” theory is justified, DK would find that the Swiss don’t really share his obsession with that particular Hitler du jour. The islamic countries of concern would be:
(a) Libya, which has been holding a Swiss citizen hostage for more than a year already, and where the Swiss president got involved in the affair in a disastrously inept way (Not that Islam seems to be playing a particularly big role in the affair).
(b) Kosovo, which has been the country of origin of a recent wave of immigrants with a reputation of violence and other criminal activity. Again, Islam appears to be playing a minor role: Kosovars are said to be fairly secular, with the more religious of them tending to be more law abiding.
(c) Turkey, which has been a long standing country of origin of immigrants to Switzerland. In the Turkish community in Switzerland, there do indeed seem to be factions with Islamist tendencies (within a broad range of opinion that also includes quite a few fairly secular people, and many others who remain religious, but don’t subscribe to Islamist ideas of everyday life). It’s hard to see how yesterday’s vote would strengthen the moderate views in this community.
[DK: You’re right that my post, by listing only Iranian examples, might have conveyed the impression that Iran was the only problem, from a Swiss perspective. In addition, to the items you note, I would also suggest that the Swiss are not unaware of what’s going on in France and Germany, where some Muslims immigrants (or their descendants) have become increasingly violent, and some of them use Islam as a (bogus) pretext for their attacks on Jews, women, etc. At least in France, parts of some metropolitan areas have been turned into no-go regions for the secular government.]
Quote
November 30, 2009, 1:48 pmyankee says:
As oppression goes this is fairly minor, but I think it’s appalling that the Swiss have decided to impose a total ban on a harmless form of traditional expression as a way of saying “fuck you” to a minority group. The ban itself is much less bothersome than the motive behind it. I’m also bothered by Kopel’s attempt to defend the measure in the OP (at least as I read him).
As for this stuff about how the Swiss are treating Muslims better than Muslims treat Christians in the Middle East, I think Guy said it best:
Quote
November 30, 2009, 1:53 pmMartinned says:
My Frisian ancestors have lived in the same way in the same region for at least 2500 years, as far as anyone can tell. But none of that matters. Go back to the original post, and read what art. 9 ECHR says. How is banning minarets in any way “necessary in a democratic society”, or conducive to “the interests of public safety, (...) the protection of public order, health or morals, or the protection of the rights and freedoms of others”?
Quote
November 30, 2009, 1:54 pmMatthias Neeracher says:
For the most part, yes, but Switzerland happens to be one of the exceptions. With four traditional language communities (only the smallest of which is confined to Switzerland itself), Switzerland has always defined itself as a nation of will / shared choice.
Quote
November 30, 2009, 1:57 pmMartinned says:
Well, as the abovementioned story about women’s right to vote in Appenzell Innerhoden shows, there are plenty of places in Switzerland where people’s perspective reaches as far as the nearest mountain, without much interest in what happens in the next canton over, much less another country.
Quote
November 30, 2009, 2:00 pmmischief says:
Equal to the Vatican in either size or population? Nice try. That argument doesn’t fly unless Saudi Arabia shrank without anyone noticing.
Quote
November 30, 2009, 2:07 pmkeypusher64 says:
Switzerland is a very nice place. Xenophobia and bigotry have helped make it so. It is presumably due to the same xenophobia and bigotry that Muslim immigration to Switzerland has been limited.
Quote
November 30, 2009, 2:10 pmbyomtov says:
Byomtow wins the Godwin’s law. Patriotic = Nazi.
Actually, the phrase antedates the rise of Hitler by many years. And I don’t see what’s wrong with summarizing Kuzbad’s comment in German.
Never mind that most of the people who fought against Hitler were fighting him for the sake of their own countries, nations and cultures! In the postmodern version of history, the Tommies and the Ivans and the resistance in French woods were fighting for cosmopolitan universe, and not for England, Russia or France.
Nonsense. What you call the “post-modern” version, is very much a romanticized Hollywood view. Flatter yourself as a hard-headed, non-conformist realist if you like, but I don’t think there’s much major disagreement with your opinion. Certainly European countries besides Germany had and have strong nationalist elements who disliked minority ethnic groups and religions. (cough, cough).
Most of the Euro nations are quite ancient, comparable to the ancient nations of China.
No.
Quote
November 30, 2009, 2:26 pmbailey says:
Perhaps they were simply reacting to a group with a track record of sowing strife and causing harm to their host countries. We have our own issues. Is the Swiss defensive reaction worse than General Casey’s real tragedy is the loss of diversity nonsense?
Quote
November 30, 2009, 2:36 pmCato The Elder says:
No doubt all the liberals here live in very diverse neighborhoods.
Quote
November 30, 2009, 2:38 pmMartinned says:
Framing is everything. How is this even an issue of diversity/national identity? Surely the most obvious frame here is one of voting away a minority’s human rights?
Quote
November 30, 2009, 2:42 pmtroll_dc2 says:
So we can infer that you approve of the outcome of the referendum? Why else would you make such a comment?
Quote
November 30, 2009, 2:47 pmAndrew J. Lazarus says:
I do. And I wouldn’t even mind if my sister married one of them.
(Amazing how little it takes to lift the curtain.)
Quote
November 30, 2009, 2:54 pmkeypusher64 says:
I suspect the Swiss voters saw it very much in terms of limiting diversity and preserving local identity. To say it’s voting away a minority’s human rights is simply begging the question.
Quote
November 30, 2009, 2:57 pmMartinned says:
So is “limiting diversity and preserving local identity”. How Swiss voters saw this issue isn’t the point. They saw the issue the way the SVP and other proponents framed it, because the government in Switzerland is traditionally reluctant to pick sides in referenda. (It was already pretty unusual that the government and the other three major parties made an official recommendation in the first place.)
Let me rephrase:
Quote
November 30, 2009, 3:06 pmkeypusher64 says:
“Why is it that the first (and only) question in this thread isn’t whether this result violates Swiss Citizen’s art. 9 rights and, if so, why on earthy anyone would think such a violation is acceptable?”
Speaking for myself, because it’s not a very interesting question, because I don’t know the answer, and because I don’t give a damn about the European Convention on Human Rights.
Quote
November 30, 2009, 3:12 pmptt says:
The idea that this ban is based on a desire to preserve traditional Swiss architecture (whatever that is in a country with an architectural legacy spanning over 1000 years) doesn’t explain much of Swiss religious architecture of the last few decades. Unless, of course, you see a bisected water tank as a natural evolution of the Gothic cathedral.
Case in point
Quote
November 30, 2009, 3:15 pmLN says:
Fascinating “libertarian” discussion here. Basically a grand total of two commenters who can even muster the energy to view this as a curtailment of individual liberties. To top it off Kopel describes “decent, pro-freedom Swiss Muslims” only in the context of trying to show just how irrepsonsible Swiss foreign policy has been with respect to Iran.
Quote
November 30, 2009, 3:16 pmBarry says:
Dave Kopel: “In the United States, such a revelation would set off a frenzy of newspapers advancing the story with further investigation about a gigantic local police scandal, but the Geneva papers did little with the story.”
Um, do really believe that? How many instances of wrongdoing by the US government have produced a resounding ‘eh, we don’t want to know anything about that’ by major newspapers?
Quote
November 30, 2009, 3:23 pmbyomtov says:
No doubt all the liberals here live in very diverse neighborhoods.
Actually, I do live in a diverse neighborhood (not many conservatives, it’s true), though why that’s relevant to the issue is not clear.
What if Swiss neighborhoods are not diverse, and Muslims tend to live in certain areas? Why shouldn’t they have minarets in those areas?
Quote
November 30, 2009, 3:24 pmMartinned says:
Why am I not surprised? Q: Do you only care about Human Rights in the US, or not even there? (I assume we agree that this ballot initiative would be neither constitutional nor desireable in the US?)
Quote
November 30, 2009, 3:28 pmTweets that mention The Volokh Conspiracy » Blog Archive » Swiss vote to ban minarets -- Topsy.com says:
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by brianweiner and Bethan Tuttle, Eugene Volokh. Eugene Volokh said: Swiss vote to ban minarets: Pre-election polls showed support for an initiative to ban the construction of new .. http://bit.ly/6sBwRg [...]
Wim Prange says:
It would be interesting to see the comments here when for instance the Dutch had voted in a referendum to prohibit the Churches in the Netherlands to ring their bells. Just imagine the cries of “War on Christianity!” on the right.
The sound of those bells are far more invasive into my private life on Sunday morning than the sight of a minaret will ever be.
Quote
November 30, 2009, 3:32 pmMartinned says:
BTW, here’s a post on another legal blog, concluding (as I did above) that the ECHR would problably find against Switzerland on this. (I’m not sure about the last sentence of this post. I don’t see why it matters that Switzerland is not an EU Member State. EU law has nothing to say about this matter.)
Quote
November 30, 2009, 3:33 pmMartinned says:
Indeed. None of the four minarets currently existing in Switzerland are actually used for a call to service. (I’m not sure to what extent Dutch churches still ring their bells for that purpose. I’ve never been woken up by any, but then I don’t live very close to a church.)
Quote
November 30, 2009, 3:36 pmmischief says:
If having a minaret is a human right, it’s being denied everyone, not just the minority.
Quote
November 30, 2009, 3:39 pmWim Prange says:
Lucky you. I live close to two churches (with just a few worshippers) and on Sunday morning they both compete for who can ring the most annoyingly. Since I often work nightshifts during weekends, it’s really a nuisance when you’re just about to fall asleep and they start to ring.
Bell ringing is regulated in the Netherlands in local law: decibels, time of ringing, duration, on which occasions) and some churches consider those regulations as an infringement on their right to “free speech”.
Quote
November 30, 2009, 3:46 pmkeypusher64 says:
You should not capitalize human rights unless you’re using the term as part of a title. I care more about laws that I am subject to than laws I am not subject to, if that answers your question.
Quote
November 30, 2009, 3:55 pmbailey says:
Bell ringing? I would be more concerned about cars burning and certain other practices that follow this particular religion, most of which are negative. That’s just me though. I am sure that Swiss practitioners are good tolerant liberals, unlike those of every other country on the face of the Earth.
Quote
November 30, 2009, 3:59 pmMatthias Neeracher says:
I’m not aware of any cars being burned by Muslims in Switzerland. Furthermore, I don’t see how minarets would promote this practice, except possibly by serving as a vantage point from which to watch the fire.
Swiss Christians were the last in Western Europe to burn a woman for witchcraft. By your logic, that means that church bells SHOULD be outlawed.
Quote
November 30, 2009, 4:18 pmWim Prange says:
Yep. Perfectly.
To paraphrase: “I’ve got mine and I don’t give a damn about yours. Since I’m a man, I don’t give a f_ck about a woman’s right to choose. Since I’m white, I don’t give a damn about taking rights from blacks. Since I’m straight, I don’t give a sh_t about taking rights from gays. As long as I am not subject to those laws, I don’t have any compunction about taking basic human rights from other people
And then you justify invading a country by claiming to bring “freedom and democracy”. The irony.
Quote
November 30, 2009, 4:23 pmkeypusher64 says:
I am sorry, have we met? I can’t image anything I’ve ever said to anyone that would make them think I supported the invasion of Iraq for any reason. Freedom and democracy especially.
Quote
November 30, 2009, 4:27 pmbailey says:
It’s pretty simple. Maybe the folks there don’t want members of the religion there. If there were a global network of Swiss christian witch burners, I might give some thought to fearing them. However, the more modern problem is the regressive, bomb exploding, terror networking practitioner of the religion of peace. Ask the French about the cars burning once they get to critical mass.
Quote
November 30, 2009, 4:31 pmASlyJD says:
Wim,
Some of us believe in the human rights laid out by Locke: life, liberty, and property. When the EAHR actually stands for those things, I’ll give a damn about it.
If this law is a violation of human rights, it is only a violation in that Muslims are not being permitted to use their property to build what they want to on it. Considering this infringement happens all over the civilized world, I’m not crying too hard.
Quote
November 30, 2009, 4:35 pmGuy says:
Yeah, and the Texas statute struck down in Lawrence v. Texas didn’t violate the Equal Protection clause because it prohibited straight people from having gay sex too. And the anti-miscegenation laws struck down in Loving v. Virginia were okay because no one was allowed to marry someone of a different race. Your logic is airtight, not a denial of reality at all.
Good point, the best way to keep currently peaceful Muslims from rioting is to treat them like second-class citizens and make it as clear as possible that you regard them with contempt. This thread is filled with masters of sound analytical thinking.
Quote
November 30, 2009, 5:07 pmGuy says:
I’d really like to see someone here comment on one point Martinned raised. Does anyone hear think that it’s remotely plausible that this law would be upheld by a court as constitutional in the U.S.? If so, I would love to see a “mini-brief” explanation explaining either (1) why this law shouldn’t be subject to strict scrutiny under the Free Exercise, Establishment, or Equal Protection clauses and it survives the rational basis test, or (2) how on Earth it survives strict scrutiny.
[DK: I don’t think that such a law could possibly survive constitutional challenge in the U.S., given that it explicitly targets one particular religion.]
Quote
November 30, 2009, 5:11 pmkeypusher64 says:
Probably one of the main motivators for the Swiss voting for the ban was to discourage Muslims immigration, and to instill fear into Muslims living there. Will this make Muslim rioting more or less likely? The answer isn’t obvious to me.
Quote
November 30, 2009, 5:19 pmFloridan says:
There is a lot of cheerleading for this law on what puports to be a libertarian blog.
I wonder what the reaction would be should, say, the City of Berkeley, CA, pass a law restricting the architectural styles of franchise restaurants?
Quote
November 30, 2009, 5:27 pmkeypusher64 says:
I think the posters are mostly libertarian; I think the commenters mostly are not.
Quote
November 30, 2009, 5:31 pmGuy says:
(emphasis mine)
Well now I’m really convinced that this ban isn’t vile.
I think it’s safe to say that of these two factors, discouraging muslim immigration is the only one that plausibly reduces the risk of rioting. So why don’t they just prevent Muslims from immigrating entirely? I’m not familiar with Swiss law, but my guess is that it goes against treaty obligations, so “discouraging” Muslim immigration is not only a racist policy, but also a bad faith attempt to undermine a “liberal” immigration policy that they present to the rest of the world.
(and before anyone takes issue with the “racist” part on the grounds that Islam is not a race, First let me note that most Muslims are not of the same genetic stock as the swiss, and second let me note that religion-based prejudice is no less contemptible than race-based prejudice.)
Quote
November 30, 2009, 5:35 pmkeypusher64 says:
Why do you think that?
Quote
November 30, 2009, 5:39 pmGuy says:
History. Look at any minority’s experience in any country. Absent a coordinated terror campaign like the one perpetrated by the KKK, this kind of penny-ante disrespect is only going to cause Muslims to become more disaffected, more alienated, and less well integrated into Swiss society. People who feel like they belong don’t riot. Angry people will riot unless they’re struck with mortal terror (and sometimes even then).
Quote
November 30, 2009, 5:55 pmXanthippas says:
Kopel should’ve slept on this post.
Quote
November 30, 2009, 5:58 pmMatthew Carberry says:
Is rioting ever an appropriate response to a rights violation?
Protest marches, sit-ins, strongly worded letters, boycotts... Sure, that’s all fine but isn’t it implicitly, backhandedly, racist/religionist to assume that Muslims will or should respond with rioting to every affront?
Is rioting an inherent religio-cultural response to oppression they get a pass on that everyone else doesn’t, because “that’s how they are”? How patronizing of us civilized Western liberal types.
On a practical note, if the structural/active religious purpose of a minaret is to call to prayer, and it isn’t being used for that purpose, how does a discriminatory zoning (essentially) restriction violate the actual freedom to worship in the manner of their choice in a mosque (the only real human right involved).
It was mentioned “what about barring steeples or bell towers?”, well what about it? There is no active religious significance to a steeple, it is merely a sometimes used architectural device utterly divorced from active worship. Ban away per your Constitutionally determined zoning process.
Do all mosques everywhere have minarets? If not, how can this admittedly discriminatory zoning rule violate a fundamental right?
Quote
November 30, 2009, 6:00 pmAnderson says:
Obviously, the solution is for the Muslims to keep and bear arms. Then the Swiss won’t dare push them around like that.
Quote
November 30, 2009, 6:04 pmkeypusher64 says:
This seems very simplistic to me. There have been lots of persecuted and marginalized groups in American history. Some groups rioted. Most didn’t. Many of those that did riot did so at a time when they were less persecuted, marginalized and discriminated against than in the past.
Also, wouldn’t it make sense for the Swiss to look at European experience with Muslim immigration? Were French immigrant Muslims treated with less respect in the middle of this past decade, when they rioted, than in the 1960s, when they did not?
Quote
November 30, 2009, 6:12 pmKuzbad says:
No. Strict fundamentalists (think Saudi / Wahabi types) are almost like some of the strict protestants who build plain unadorned churches.
Minarets date back to the very early days of Islam and are seen as a both a prestige symbol to compete with churches etc, as well as a way for the muezzin to perform the call to prayer. I would say that while minarets are a defining part of a mosque (ie, if you have a minaret, you have a mosque), but that you can have a mosque without them.
Quote
November 30, 2009, 6:14 pmKuzbad says:
The closest analogy to Christianity is definitely the bell tower. You can have a church without a bell tower, but many people would say a bell tower is an integral part of an church. Both bell towers and minarets are used to advertise the religion and “remind” people to pray.
Quote
November 30, 2009, 6:16 pmLN says:
There have been lots of persecuted and marginalized groups in American history. Some groups rioted. Most didn’t. Many of those that did riot did so at a time when they were less persecuted, marginalized and discriminated against than in the past.
Many groups in Amercan history? What does this even mean. There have been only three groups in American history — Christians, Muslims, and Jews — and behavior within each group has been monolithic, as I can prove by noting that adherents to each religion all emphasize a particular set of religious texts.
Quote
November 30, 2009, 6:19 pmMatthew Carberry says:
Thank you Kuzbad.
Just to be clear, I think such a patently focussed zoning law is both unjustifiably discriminatory in motive and intrudes on property rights (as do all zoning rules) but as long as it passes internal Constitutional muster and doesn’t really effect the right to worship I can’t get all up in arms to the point of calling folks (volks?) fascists.
Quote
November 30, 2009, 6:23 pmRyan Waxx says:
The funny thing is, if you reverse the sexes and races (not so much the orientations... yet) and you’d have the current state of affairs in identity politics... let me take a WILD guess and say that you aren’t shedding a tear for... to take one example... the current mancession which occurred after women’s groups pressured the Obama administration to steer stimulus money away from the male-dominated industries that were most at risk.
Seems to me, you need a mirror.
Quote
November 30, 2009, 6:33 pmWim Prange says:
No, I don’t shed a tear, because it isn’t true. This “mancession” is not caused by the Obama administration diverting stimulus money from one group to another. Every recession in history has been a “mancession” since men are more likely to work in cyclically sensitive industries while women are overrepresented in more downturn-resistant — and in many cases absolute essential — sectors like education and health care. Those cyclical sensitives industries were perfectly clear to hire more women so they would share the pain equally, while men are perfectly free — in many cases even encouraged — to apply for jobs in more downturn-resistant sectors.
And you don’t have to bother with the ‘White males need not apply’ nonsense from the right. It was nonsense then, it’s still nonsense now.
Quote
November 30, 2009, 7:28 pmWim Prange says:
I quoted that particular sentence because it was exemplary for what I see as a basic attitude from many on the right nowadays. You are correct, I don’t know you and shouldn’t have put those words in your mouth or attributed that sentiment to you personally: I haven’t seen you cheerleading for this ban here, unlike a few others.
Quote
November 30, 2009, 7:41 pmWim Prange says:
The funny thing is: people who are affected by what they see as a violation of their rights and start to riot think it is. Who are you to decide what the proper reason for a riot is or not?
Quote
November 30, 2009, 7:48 pmMatthew Carberry says:
I’m someone who believes in the rule of law?
I’m someone who grew up in a country that has had decades of, and continues to have, civil rights protests, over real physical and economic abuses, most of which accomplish(ed) their goals without rioting or destroying the private property of others?
I’m a rational person who takes the time to do research and finds that in almost every case worldwide rioting and violence are counter-productive to achieving the claimed goal of justice?
I’m that guy, the guy who certainly understands the impetus to lash out but is intelligent and mature enough to know when it is and isn’t utile.
Who are you to excuse and defend irrational, emotional, counter-productive violence and criticize others for not doing so?
Children can be (occasionally) be excused irrational tantrums, they lack maturity and experience. Adults, of any culture, cannot, at least not without implicitly infantalizing them.
Which I refuse to do.
Quote
November 30, 2009, 8:00 pmreadery says:
CaliforniaMom,
Would you object to a mosque that put up a minaret that had some Swiss architectural features but was nonetheless functionally a minaret?
One difficulty would seem to be that there’s actually a lot of overlap between a minaret and a steeple. In some parts of the world, they can look quite a bit like each other.
In the United States, it’s not impossible to have a situation where a church is subject to architectural restrictions except where necessary for religious purposes. They’re often subject to zoning restrictions which can have quite a bit of influence on the design. Nonetheless, that influence is limited.
Because of the similarity between steeples and minarets and because of the wide variety of architectural designs used for minarets throughout the world which suggests possible room for architectural flexibility while conforming to religious needs, it seems difficult to understand how architectural concerns could justify an out-and-out ban on minarets without even an attempt at accommodation or discussion to address specific architectural and land-use concerns. And there seems to be no problem with steeples with modern or culturally non-conforming designs.
Quote
November 30, 2009, 8:02 pmArthurKirkland says:
Have those guys been vacationing for a number of months? I would welcome their return.
Quote
November 30, 2009, 8:11 pmbyomtov says:
This is just one of many examples of the Swiss elite’s feckless and amoral dealing with the Islamonazis of Tehran.
Apparently, the way to become “elite” is to do or say something that Dave Kopel disagrees with.
Was Reagan also an elitist guilty of dealing with “the Islamonazis of Tehran?”
Quote
November 30, 2009, 8:50 pmLN says:
Yeah, I love how this just boils down to “good versus bad,” rah rah. Feckless elites, Islamonazis, the backing of feminists, poor “decent and freedom-loving” victims. Too bad the “ordinary” Swiss voters had no free will in this matter.
Quote
November 30, 2009, 8:58 pmRicardo says:
We’re talking about Switzerland here, a country with four main ethnic and language groups. If Switzerland wants stronger immigration laws, that’s one issue. But this measure singles out one feature of Islamic architecture and doesn’t even try to be neutral in its application.
Quote
November 30, 2009, 9:26 pmiMounim says:
Claudia says:
well,what if you go to those muslims countries and try to build a giant catholic church or a evangelic temple????? do you know what happens then?
Have you ever been to Tangier, Rabat or Fes in Morocco? maybe you haven’t, am sure, because I think you are speaking out of a groundless experience. Islam has never forbidden other religions’ practices or buildings. The problem is you the new little zionists who are building up a filthy conspiracy against the world and humanity. And I am quite positive that this fire you are playing with, you will be burnt by it...Leave Islam and Muslims in peace, this is good for you/
iMounim
Quote
November 30, 2009, 9:40 pmRicardo says:
This is completely wrong. While many other multilingual countries have either failed or continue to face semi-serious secession or partition movements like Belgium, the UK, and even Canada, Switzerland stays together as a multilingual, multinational federation apparently without any serious attempt to split up the country along linguistic lines.
Aside from that, you don’t think that maybe geology has more to do with the fact that Switzerland is a nice place?
Quote
November 30, 2009, 9:52 pmKuzbad says:
That is very much false. Since the earliest days of Islam, churches have been turned into mosques (examples: Hagia Sophia in Istanbul, Umayyad Mosque in Damascus) and many Islamicate governments have prevented the construction of new churches or even the maintenance of existing churches. True, at times churches have been allowed to be built with stipulations (limited in size, no bells, etc) but I would say rarely (if ever?) in any area government that considered itself Muslim/Islamic have Christians or Jews or other minorities been able to build religious structures entirely as they would OR practice their religion entirely as they would. Heck, the Ottoman Empire picked the Greek Orthodox Patriarch of Constantinople, and still requires the Patriarch to be a Turkish citizen.
Beyond the Ahl al-Kitab / People of the Book (aka Christians, Jews, and Saebeans), there are no protections. Thus the Western African Jihads and the jihad against the “Kafirs” of “Kafiristan” in Afghanistan (“The land of Unbelievers” — after their forced conversion in the late 19th century, now known as Nuristan — the land of light) were perfectly permissible.
Somewhat ironic when it comes down to it–Islam formally protects the right of Christians and Jews (the Ahl al-Kitab — and sometimes though extension to Hindus, etc) to maintain their religions, but in practice there are many limitations. Like not being allowed to build minarets, er, bell towers.
Quote
November 30, 2009, 10:21 pmCornellian says:
This is just one of many examples of the Swiss elite’s feckless and amoral dealing with the Islamonazis of Tehran.
That’s the great thing about being a voter these days — you’re never responsible for how you voted because you can blame any outcome on those pesky elites.
Quote
November 30, 2009, 10:32 pmRicardo says:
Kuzbad, the claim was that Islam has never forbidden the practice or buildings of other religions, not that historical Islam followed 20th century notions of religious freedom. Many municipalities in non-Muslim countries limit the size of churches and regulate their use of bells to comply with noise ordinances as well.
If you think requiring the Greek Orthodox Patriarch of Constantinople to be a Turkish citizen is an infringement on religious freedom, you should see how they regulate the practice of Islam there. As I recall, the state has veto power over any Imam or other Islamic leader who they feel is too extremist or threatens national unity and can also regulate the content of sermons.
Quote
November 30, 2009, 10:35 pmfirst history says:
It’s not bigoted for a culture to want to maintain a cultural identity...
Switzerland was notoriously anti-Semitic during World War II, even to the extent of cooperating with Nazi policies such as the German stamping of their passports with a red “J” and turning back refugees even after being informed they would be sent to concentration camps. The Swiss even sealed railroad tunnels to prevent (in part) trains bringing Jewish refugees into the country. This was dramatically shown in the 1981 Swiss film Das Boot ist voll (The Boat is Full). One of the reasons for these policies were right-wing demands to maintain “cultural identity.”
It wasn’t until the 1990’s that the Swiss government acknowledged their cooperation with the Nazis and subsequent retention of Jewish assets over the course of the post war period.
In fact, the major Swiss Jewish organizations opposed the referendum. This vote is just a continuation of historic Swiss xenophobia. The hills weren’t always alive with the sound of music.
Quote
November 30, 2009, 11:52 pmKuzbad says:
Hello, sorry if my earlier post was unclear. To summarize again: Historically, Islam has provided some limited protections for Jews and Christians (and to lesser degrees Sikhs and Hindus, etc). If you look at most any other religion, no protections. Islam sought out and stamped out polytheistic religions (for instance in Arab and Persian areas). The jihad in Kafiristan and the many in West Africa are but a few examples of this. The level of protections for Jews and Christians varied. For example, frequently, churches were not allowed to be built–at all. At others times (always) there were restrictions. There’s a big difference between “noise ordinances” and this.
Perhaps you are confused by my point about the Patriarch–the government of Turkey today merely maintains that power. But for centuries the Ottomans Sultan-Caliph in essence controlled the church by controlling the first among equals–the Patriarch of Constantinople. I fail to see how the modern secular government of Turkey has any relevance?
So basically if I’m reading your post literally–you claim 1) Islam has never forbidden the practice other religions 2) Islam has never forbidden the buildings of other religions–are both absolutely false. I’m willing to concede I may be missing your point as I don’t think I’ve ever seen either of these points under dispute...
Quote
November 30, 2009, 11:59 pmcaliforniamom says:
No. I wouldn’t. (The call to prayer may bring up other issues on noise pollution, however.). In some locales, the tiles and artwork on the mosques are very beautiful and add a lot to the cultural heritage of a country. I’m thinking of the former mosques in Spain, for example. But it would look ridiculous and completely out of place in Lucerne. Cities regulate architectural requirements on a daily basis. Religious houses shouldn’t be exempt.
Quote
December 1, 2009, 12:28 amuberVU - social comments says:
Social comments and analytics for this post...
This post was mentioned on Twitter by VolokhConspirac: Swiss vote to ban minarets: Pre-election polls showed support for an initiative to ban the construction of new .. http://bit.ly/6sBwRg...
Ricardo says:
That wouldn’t be a “literal” reading of my post since I never actually said either of these two things. What I said is I felt you did not directly address these two points with the necessary qualifications — your follow-up does, though.
It is of historical interest that Muslims in India gave Hindus the same status as Jews and Christians. I believe this decision was originally made by the Mughal Emperor Akbar. A true “Islamofascist” ruling over a majority Hindu country would have engaged in massive forced conversion or ethnic cleansing to change demographic reality. Akbar’s decision probably is not consistent with any literal reading of the Koran or Hadith but rather seems to be one of those religious edicts stemming from mere pragmatism.
[The 20th century witnessed true Islamofascism in the Indian subcontinent along with an equivalently virulent strain of Hindu fascism with the horrific acts of ethnic cleansing and gang violence engaged in by all sides during Partition.]
Quote
December 1, 2009, 12:57 amLN says:
The Swiss vote for a specific constitutional ban on the construction of minarets (there are currently a grand total of four in the country) and you think this is just a natural extension of city zoning laws? And on top of that, someone protesting the constitutional amendment (which targets a specific religious minority) would be asking for some kind of special treatment for religious houses?
The mind boggles.
Quote
December 1, 2009, 1:16 amMatthew Carberry says:
I suppose it could be a national security issue. By eliminating minarets the Swiss are eliminating targets for the Sharif’s jet fighters.
Quote
December 1, 2009, 3:44 amGuy says:
Perhaps it is simplistic, for example, majorities sometimes riot too, and yes, it’s not as easy to predict as my comment may have made it sound. But you’re ignoring the issue I was addressing. I don’t see how banning minarets would cause Muslims to “fall into line”, the only “fear” this could instill is the fear that they will be the target of such hateful legislation in the future. That doesn’t come anywhere near to the kind of oppression a people need to face to be kept from rioting. This law is howeveer, a clear symbolic message to Muslims that they are not welcome in Switzerland. Not only is punishing a group based on the perceived collective attitudes of that group morally unjustifiable, it’s also the kind of thing that can only lead to alienation and cultural strife. If you believe that this reduces the chance of a riot, I’d like to hear why, because such a claim is certainly beyond my comprehension.
Quote
December 1, 2009, 5:46 amAnderson says:
Prof. Kerr wins the thread, and he’s not even *on* the thread.
Quote
December 1, 2009, 8:52 amStrict says:
California Mom: “But it would look ridiculous and completely out of place in Lucerne.”
Why?
Minarets aren’t that weird looking. There are already similar looking structures in Lucerne, like the twin towers of Leodegar. The famous Water Tower resembles a minaret. The flanks of the City Tower feature two lookout tower structures. The Jesuit Church features twin bulbous “onion” domes, an architectural design reminiscent of Muslim and Russian Orthodox culture.
Have you been to Lucerne?
Anyway, your aesthetic opinion would be an awfully strange basis for a Constitutional amendment.
Quote
December 1, 2009, 10:26 amcaliforniamom says:
Aesthetics aside, the basic question is this: Do the Swiss have a right to define their country’s identity?
Quote
December 1, 2009, 10:38 amgray says:
I’m an expat living in Switzerland these days. Most answers I received when I asked about the vote describe it as more specifically a reaction to Islamic culture. Also a more general reaction to multiculturalism and change. So really it was about xenophobia and conservatism. Nothing to do with architectural taste.
T
Quote
December 1, 2009, 10:39 amkeypusher64 says:
I leave it to others more knowledgeable to say the extent to which local control helps keep Switzerland together. More importantly, though, it is perfectly possible for a German-speaking Swiss to regard his French– and Italian-speaking compatriots with benevolence while disliking, say, Turks and Somalis.
No, I think it’s the Swiss.
Neither one of us knows that.
Quote
December 1, 2009, 10:44 amTwo-Fisted Law Student says:
So what? In democratic countries, good laws and bad laws are both passed by the majority; if you think that the imprimatur of the majority makes the thing itself virtuous, I’ve got some speeches by an old dead Greek guy you oughtta read.
Quote
December 1, 2009, 11:25 amLN says:
Not sure where you got that from. I just found it interesting that the Swiss majority issued a clear blow against freedom and liberty, and Kopel the libertarian decides to blame Islamonazis, feckless Swiss elites, and feminists, all while shaking his head in sorrow that “decent, freedom-loving” Muslims “had” to suffer this fate.
Quote
December 1, 2009, 1:38 pmcaliforniamom says:
Well, if the Swiss want Switzerland to stay the way it is, that is their right as a nation.
Quote
December 1, 2009, 2:53 pmRichard Aubrey says:
I would be concerned about this. I would be concerned about any restriction of any religious practice. There are common-sense issues of public nuisance, human sacrifice (theoretically), zoning, and so forth, but I am for considerable latitude.
Unfortunately for freedom-loving Muslims, presuming they are so even after they have “critical mass”, for many of their co-religionists, Islam is also a culture and a system of social organization which is to be imposed even on non-believers. The social violence we see in France and Holland (bad place to be gay says Bruce Bawer)at the hands of Muslims and justified by reference either to the Koran or the rights of Muslims makes this a different issue than what we consider only religion.
Looking at this as if it’s only a First Amendment issue does not cover all the issues. I’m not sure what does. Applying local law and common sense falls down when we see how Nidal Hassan’s red flags were passed by in silence for fear of looking Islamophobic.
It has been reported that the Norwegian authorities stopped–which means they had been–breaking out the ethnic group of rapists due to the huge disproportion of Muslims involved. Apparently they didn’t want the population to get the wrong idea, whatever that was. Of course, when you do that, the population can only think things are even worse.
We see Euro and UK governments doing the same sort of things.
A kid in England said, when transferred from one class project group to another that she wanted one which didn’t speak Urdo. She was arrested for hate speech.
This sort of thing is going to make the indigenous personnel angry at the elites who, as usual, take care to live at a distance from the chaos they so cheerfully impose on others.
Quote
December 1, 2009, 3:45 pmTwo-Fisted Law Student says:
I completely misread you; comment retracted and agreement proffered.
Quote
December 1, 2009, 5:41 pmGuy says:
So your defense is that maybe, just maybe, this ban will cow Muslims into submission for some reason that you’re unable to articulate, even though that flies in the face of (my understanding of, at least) human nature?
I want to emphasize that I don’t think rioting is terribly likely or necessarily justified, but I don’t see how stigmatizing Muslims is going to reduce the likelihood of rioting. And to the extent that I understand you to be saying that Muslims ought to be punished in advance for rioting that might occur, I find your position morally reprehensible.
Quote
December 1, 2009, 7:25 pmSeth Edenbaum says:
Let me say as a Jew, this isn’t exactly doing any good for my opinion of the Swiss.
After all “Christian Europe” succeeded in getting rid of one group of Semites.
I’m not too impressed that it hasn’t learned its lesson.
Quote
December 1, 2009, 11:44 pmRichard Aubrey says:
Seth.
Point taken.
Problem is, the Jews weren’t causing violence and insisting their way or the highway.
Different.
Perhaps the Swiss were still being unjust, but the cases are different.
Quote
December 2, 2009, 10:17 amSeth Edenbaum says:
“Problem is, the Jews weren’t causing violence and insisting their way or the highway.”
I guess you’re referring to our friends the Saudis. There are no Jews allowed in Saudi Arabia. But there are 7 Kosher butcher shops in Teheran, at least recently.
A secret deal between Iran and the Geneva Police? I’d love to see the documentation.
On the other hand we have the example of Israel and a 40 year occupation, and ongoing expulsions of people from their land and homes.
Believe me I’ve gotten into arguments before on the Zionism is racism debate, once even at the 2nd Ave. Deli. It takes about 3 minutes of ridiculously malformed logic before by debating partner ends up shouting: “But the Arabs are barbarians!”
I speak to children, and I listen. But I don’t argue. You’re not my responsibility. If you were I would have done a better job of raising you than your parents did, that’s for sure.
Quote
December 2, 2009, 10:41 pmRichard Aubrey says:
Seth.
I think you missed the point.
The Jews in pre-war Europe were not holding nightly carbeques, making various parts of large cities no-go areas, beating up gays, and threatening various artists and publishers.
They were not proclaiming the goal of making Jews of all Europe, or of making all Europe subject to Jews.
Their rabbis were not preaching violence against non-Jews.
Gangs of Jews did not conduct rape wars against non-Jewish women.
Am I getting through yet?
There’s a difference between what the Jews did in pre-war Europe and what is being done by Muslims today.
Therefore the question of what to do is different and the answer might be different than if you made it an identical question about what should have been done with/to/about Jews in pre-war Europe.
Quote
December 2, 2009, 10:48 pmSeth Edenbaum says:
Racists try to forget history. Read up on the fear of immigrants in NY 100 years ago.
Your language is that dated.
Interestingly, Muslims in the US have incomes above average. And they’re considered Americans, while Jews even today in Europe (the few that are left) and living in one country for 700 years are still considered Jews first rather than Poles or Germans.
The prime mover of all this is the fear of people like you. All the other factors, without denying their significance, are secondary.
Muslims are the new Jews of Angela Merkel’s “Christian Europe.”
Quote
December 3, 2009, 10:19 amMatthew Carberry says:
Most Muslims in the US are 1st/2nd/3rd generation immigrants. That they have above average incomes is almost certainly an artifact of immigration policies requiring a disproportionate amount of immigrants from some areas to already have advanced degrees, be in school for such degrees, speak English or have other marketable skills. Conversely, in Europe many (I assume most) Muslim immigrants were initially lower income/skilled brought in to do lower income labor. That’s really an apples and orange comparison.
The fact that Muslims in America are considered Americans first is an artifact of how America (over time anyway) culturally treats and embraces its immigrants, and how most immigrants who come here want to be Americans first. They actively self-assimilate into a culture that is ultimately accepting of them.
The lower income/class immigrants in Europe don’t seem, in the main, to want to assimilate, merely to enjoy a better standard of living than they had in their home countries. And it certainly seems their host countries have had little interest in encouraging or forcing any sort of assimilation on them. Temporary visitors, not future citizens.
Quote
December 3, 2009, 4:19 pmSeth Edenbaum says:
http://www.gulawweekly.org/articles/us-muslim-population-examined
Most Muslims in the US are 1st generation.
Germany changed its Citizenship laws around the beginning of this century, they should have been changed by the occupying forces in 1945. Look up Jus Sanguinis v Jus Soli.
European Muslims are Europeans as European Jews were Europeans. Unfortunately, Europeans still have a hard time accepting such things.
There are differences in the demographics of European and American Muslims but assimilation occurs always, when its possible. Next you’ll bring up Mexicans, and you’ll be wrong about that too.
I’m done.
Quote
December 3, 2009, 6:12 pmSeth Edenbaum says:
http://jta.org/news/article/2009/12/03/1009507/swiss-leader-calls-for-jewish-cemetery-ban
Swiss leader calls for Jewish cemetery ban
What did I tell you, schmuck?
Quote
December 3, 2009, 11:38 pmSki Chalets says:
Our view is to live and let live others happily.As Switzerland is called as the heaven on earth.Skiing in Switzerland is lifetime experience.The luxury ski chalets are there to take care of the ski lovers.
Quote
December 4, 2009, 5:31 amMatthew Carberry says:
I hope that schmuck wasn’t directed at me.
I wasn’t disagreeing with you, simply pointing out that sociological factors in the immigrant populations being compared are significant when it comes to the ease of assimilation.
“Middle/Upper class” immigrants of any culture, which is what US policy is geared for, are likely to fairly easily blend in with, and conversely, want to assimilate into, current US culture as we are, and always have been, more of a “classist” than truly racist society (attitudes toward and success rates of non-Afro-American black immigrants versus “domestic” non-upper/middle class African-Americans as a curious example). Money, education, and mastery of common standard English (particularly with a cool accent) has always tended to trump xenophobia in the US over time.
I think we are actually in agreement in general as I just don’t see that parallel in Europe. It is my understanding that there’s a significantly different demographic among the majority of immigrants in terms of education, wealth and language mastery which leads toward cultural isolation on both parts, exacerbated for all immigrants, of whatever generation or “class”, by the various countries official immigration and social policies and what I don’t think is unfair to call a slightly greater degree of cultural xenophobia in the “original” populations.
The US hasn’t taken in “huddled masses” en masse to do low wage labor for a long time, at least not legally, so we aren’t really having to deal with the same demographic issues. In Europe that type of immigration picked up in, particularly in Germany, in what, the ‘70s?
So my point is, European Muslims, who as immigrant or birthright citizens (some Algerians in France for example) should be considered as “European” as any others, are in large part starting demographically at a disadvantage for assimilation in general AND are facing a harder social situation due to various countries laws and policies.
Quote
December 4, 2009, 5:41 pmSeth Edenbaum says:
“So my point is, European Muslims, who as immigrant or birthright citizens (some Algerians in France for example) should be considered as “European” as any others, are in large part starting demographically at a disadvantage for assimilation in general AND are facing a harder social situation due to various countries laws and policies.”
“The US hasn’t taken in “huddled masses” en masse to do low wage labor for a long time, at least not legally,”
And yet the fact is that Europe –still– is not very interested in assimilating outsiders, and that the question of legal or illegal residence in this context is irrelevant. I said you or someone would bring up Mexicans, and be wrong, but instead you dodge the issue, and my point: Spanish speaking immigrants, the new huddled masses by your definition, pick up english as quickly as every other ethnic group.
Assimilation happens when it is allowed.
The harder questions concern the need to for countries to regulate their own economies, and border control plays a part in that. But that’s got nothing to do with the discussion here, which is just stupidity. Trying to sound serious is not the same as trying to be serious.
Quote
December 5, 2009, 11:35 amMatthew Carberry says:
I’m still not sure where your antagonism is coming from. I think you’re assuming some bias on my part that doesn’t exist. I’m in no way defending the lack of willingness to allow assimilation by any government nor projecting it onto any immigrant population.
Pointing out demographic and sociological realities, that fluency, education level and cultural similarity have a real impact on ability to assimilate regardless of official policies is in no way “blaming the victim”. The official policies and (apparent) general xenophobia in Europe could change tomorrow and the populations at issue, isolated by class, language and culture/religion, would still face great difficulty in assimilating. Any policy change has to take that into account to ease the transition and make assimilation efficient.
The “dodge” you speak of was simply noting the difference between official US policy, which restricts immigration based on skills and abilities which are conducive to easy assimilation and the very different starting point in those areas of most of the illegal immigrant population in the US.
You are correct that most of the Mexican/Latin American immigrants, legal or illegal, to the US do desire to fully assimilate, after all, they are merely moving from one “Western” culture to another. Illegals, who are not being selected for traits that make assimilation easier, have to work a bit harder, much like the waves of “huddled masses” of the past. That’s just reality.
You seem to be picking a fight with someone who agrees with you and I don’t understand why.
Quote
December 5, 2009, 6:49 pmJohn Wilson says:
Strict: The Ba’athists in Iraq also hanged Jews on trumped-up charges of spying. That doesn’t mean that Baathism is Islamonazism.
Yankev: Facism took different forms in different countries. The Muslim Brotherhood, a Baathist group, was the form that it took in themiddle east.”
I had been following the thread about Islamonazism and could not help but notice that Yankev seemed to shift from Nazi to Fascist. I think it is useful to distinguish between the two. The German Nazi party, with its history of genocide of Jews and others, was only one of many groups that fashioned themselves after the Italian Fascist movement including Frano’s party in Spain and the Israeli terrorist group Irgun, founded by Ahimeir. But certainly no one would consider Ahimeir to be a Nazi.
I have never posted before and am unclear how one does the indentation of when quoting from previous posts. Please forgive the appearance of my formatting.
Quote
December 11, 2009, 1:25 am