You can stick your CCTV, Police State, wheelie bin Stasi, DNA, WMD, “Social Cohesion”, benefits for all, guilty until proved innocent, don’t do that it’s illegal now, can’t say that, ID cards for all, where are you going, what have you been saying/doing/reading, can’t photograph that, how very dare you, golliwog banning, we know where you live, we’re watching you Soviet Utopia up your arses. Sideways.

Sunday, 29 November 2009

Minerets? Non Merci, Nein Danke


Switzerland is often portrayed as a neutral and tolerant place where people are allowed to go about their business. But today - if the exit polls are right - it has become the first country in Europe to formally vote in a referendum to discriminate against Muslims with a ban on the building of minarets - the towers in mosques from which the moezzins can be heard calling the faithful.

There are only four minarets in the whole of Switzerland - but it seems the Swiss find them threatening and want to slow the growth of Islam. The government opposed the move, and various people have warned of the potential inflammatory effect of this. We will be talking to Muslims here about how they feel about it - so far they are saying it is wrong, depressing and Islamophobic but not as provocative as the Danish cartoons of the Prophet Mohammed. Channel 4


Missed the point by a mile, the people of Switzerland have the direct right to say how their country is run, basically they told their Government this was a step too far. In this country we would have running fights in the street between the BNP and left hired thugs, plus the Government would give them a fifty per cent grant.

The people told the Government, not the other way round

OH Update: The Swiss people deciding what they wanted and voting for it has just been called "democratic tyranny" and anti Libertarian by someone in the comments. You really, really couldn't make this shit up.

78 Comments:

Anonymous,  29 November 2009 at 18:14  

Bloody GREAT news!

Norton Folgate 29 November 2009 at 18:21  

Good for them!

Would the have been allowed to do it if they had joined the EU?

I think not

mathew hopkins,  29 November 2009 at 18:23  

in the uk we had thousands of people tortured and murdered over their religious views in the past.

fortunately we have ditched this medieval madness........

importing another crock of shit is not what we need......
i know-the archangel gabriel told me!

cromwells apprentice,  29 November 2009 at 18:37  

So thats how democracy works.

Meanwhile matters that directly affect sleepy yUK, where it is impossible to keep the hospitals clean or educate the kids - Rwanda joins commonwealth (ha-ha nice own-goal), Sarkozy and Ban Ki-Moon (remind me again what commonwealth countries they represent) get to waffle on about Copenhagen and carbon dioxide, brown announces another $10,000,000,000 guilt fund to be transfered to the "turd world" - all at no cost to taxpayers I am sure, so you would not not need a vote on these decisions or have a debate in parliament.

Cool Britaania, don't make me laugh. Gruel britannia - its the poorhouse for you.

God save the Queen, we mean it ma'am.

fewqwer,  29 November 2009 at 18:43  

Islamophobia? Is that like Communismophobia?

killemallletgodsortemout 29 November 2009 at 18:46  

We should start dismantling a few minarets over here.

Oops. Come to think of it, we're about thirty years too late to do anything about the fucking minarets.

Oh, well. Mustn't grumble.......

john in cheshire 29 November 2009 at 18:50  

Good old Switzerland. If only we had the cojones to do the same over here. Pull down the minarets. Pull down the mosques. Re-consecrate all those Christian churches that have been taken over by the satanic cult of islam. Maybe then we could begin to find our true civilised path. The one that was fought for by all of our reltives not so long ago.

Oh Bollocks,  29 November 2009 at 18:52  

Limp wristed Anglican church disappears up its own arse trying to please everyone and former followers join the vatican instead. being fed up with Christianity "lite".
The once Tolerent people of the uk become pawns stuck between the worlds two most dogmatic religions.
Talk about rock and a fucking hard place.

Sue 29 November 2009 at 19:01  

Yes well, we don't live in a democracy do we? We don't get to be consulted on such things!

In fact, we don't get to be consulted AT ALL!

sickofit,  29 November 2009 at 19:03  

Have a laugh and listen to the truth hallelujah brothers & sisters.
http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&source=web&oi=video_result&ct=res&cd=1&ved=0CAgQtwIwAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DMeSSwKffj9o&rct=j&q=george+carlin+religion&ei=O8USS5XnHZOA4Qbv5_GUBA&usg=AFQjCNFAcAC4eFLXAdTonJUJIlFU5X-WIQ

sickofit,  29 November 2009 at 19:06  

Sorry friggin Microsofts clipboard shit.
Here's the SHORT link.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MeSSwKffj9o

J Demetriou 29 November 2009 at 19:28  

I agree with you.

It was a straight, democratic vote and the majority of people asked for something.

That's pretty fair and libertarian, if you ask me: the people spoke, asked for something, and want the government to implement their wishes.

Some Muslims over there might be unhappy about it, but let's be honest, they do have the right to move to a country that is more accepting of their ways and customs.

If I went to India, would I have a right to feel hard done by because I had trouble getting hold of a beefburger?

If that's how people want it, that's their business.

This entire debate revolves around notions of the nation state and the integrity of the nation state.

People who believe in the integrity of the nation state realise that peoples within a state border have the right to full democracy within those borders. The Swiss are the citizens of Switzerland, so if 59% of them want something, that's pretty much the final word as far as I'm concerned.

Marcellus 29 November 2009 at 19:44  

We have a basic problem here don’t we.

The elite who run this country (politicians and media) tells us what we are going to get.

I thought they were there to do what we want. Ha.

If any politician says he will do what we want, the others say that is “populist” - as if that was automatically wrong.

An elite running the country for their own benefit.

The Swiss have shown the way.

Revolutions are caused by the elite being out of touch.

We need a revolution.

Anonymous,  29 November 2009 at 19:53  

Good for the swiss!

If muslims don't like it they can go live in a muslim shit hole.

But they won't get the hand outs they do in europe ... so they won't.

;-)

The minaret is a symbol of conquest,anyone who says different is a lying cunt.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ec-V5FVt_bs


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qutb_Minar

The Abu Hamzah Shadow Puppet Theatre Co.,  29 November 2009 at 19:55  

Infidel bastards. Mighty Mo and Allah will sort them out.

Anonymous,  29 November 2009 at 19:58  

Finally someone is beginning to stand up.

Hairy Arsed Bloke 29 November 2009 at 20:15  

"... where it is impossible to keep the hospitals clean ..." - cromwells apprentice

A year ago I had the 'pleasure' of a stay in hospital. The cleaning staff did a wonderful job, but the place, especially the toilets, was a shithole. Why, because of the other patients and the worst offenders: Muslims; fucking filthy cunts.

Warsteiner 29 November 2009 at 20:21  

Great news.

The hand-wringing apologist, right thinking appeasers will be furious

Mind you, perhaps there will be a second vote to get the right result

Long-john,  29 November 2009 at 20:28  

20:15 Hairy....

My recent stay in hospital... I witnessed muslim patients having relatives bringing food in. Most of it riddled with all kinds of germs. The staff nurses tried to get it stopped, all to no avail.

Anonymous,  29 November 2009 at 20:49  

Islamophobic?

Pfsh. Mosques are not like churches and the temples of Buddhists. Mosques are political gathering places.

Hooray for Switzerland!

Almost 60% of the population voted in favor of banning new minarets. Bravo Switzerland! Hop Schwyz!

Oh, and Italy banned the burqa.

Anonymous,  29 November 2009 at 20:53  

Good result - Muslims can still get to practice their religion in Switzerland - they'll just have to do it quietly! No 'Wa-aa-aa' at daybreak. The election posters were very clever - made the minarets look like rockets.
Cojones? Don't be silly, neither Brown nor the Anglican church know what those are.
When there was 'ethnic cleansing' in the former Yugoslavia back in the 90's I was horrified. Now, in the UK I can understand what prompted it, barbaric though it was.

Will U Stand,  29 November 2009 at 21:01  

Good News

Anonymous,  29 November 2009 at 21:14  

Ritually slaughtered food products should be next on the Swiss hitlist.
wouldn't it be great to live in a democracy?
Urban11

Anonymous,  29 November 2009 at 21:27  

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/belief/2009/nov/29/swiss-vote-ban-minarets-fear

Comment is free... unless you want to criticise this cunt.

CJH

Mark Wadsworth 29 November 2009 at 21:51  

Good for them.

Wasn't this sort of thing the subject matter of OH's very first post (originally in the comments at DK). The Swiss system is looking more and more attractive, isn't it? First making heroin available on prescription, now standing up to the Islamists.

electro-kevin 29 November 2009 at 22:10  

So we're just about to throw off the last shackels of a fundamentalist religion (Christianity) and along comes another to fill its place.

Ban the erection of minarets - not because its Islam ... but because ALL religion is nonsense.

(WV - nonsea)

Ed P,  29 November 2009 at 22:10  

A good Libertarian result for "freedom from" rather than "freedom to" (Cr Bella). From the Swiss!
And with Nick Griffin hopefully about to spread AGW doubt at Copenhagen, the world really has turned upside-down

Nick 29 November 2009 at 22:30  

Quite. It's an error. Banning what people do and don't do is wrong, particularly when you target one flavour of religion.

If they banned the bells in Switzerland it would have more effect.

However, its their choice. If I was Swiss, even though its wrong, I would accept it.

Part of democracy.

gordon brown issues fatwa,  29 November 2009 at 22:38  

Mr Brown said: “We have got to focus the attention of the world on the continuing threat from al-Qaeda. Three quarters of terrorist plots that threaten Britain arise from that area of Pakistan.

“I believe that, after eight years, we should have been able to do more . . . to get to the bottom of where al-Qaeda is operating from. I want to make sure that the Pakistani Army and Pakistani security services, as well as the Pakistani politicians, will make sure that in South Waziristan we are taking on al-Qaeda directly. We want to see more progress in taking out these top two people in al-Qaeda who have done so much damage and are clearly behind many of the operations in Great Britain.”

isnt this illegal? wanting to kill another person? especially a muslim?

and where were all these attacks?
i dont have a tv so have they been happening all over the uk and i was unaware?

cromwells apprentice,  29 November 2009 at 23:06  

HAB said....The cleaning staff did a wonderful job.....Excellent, I hope they were recognized and got a bonus.

But then said...... but the place, especially the toilets, was a shithole.....I like the irony of that statement, but you make the point, because shitholes are supposed to be clean, aren't they? Nurse Nightingale proved this in the 19th century, is it too much to expect that hospitals in the yUK in the 21st century adopt her findings?

The problem can be resolved today at NO cost. Able bodied benefit recipients will report to the hospitals where they will be assigned cleaning equipment, twenty minutes training and two shitters to maintain spotless. After each use the shitter and surrounding surfaces are to be thoroughly cleaned. A pencil pusher will be re-assigned to continuously monitor washroom cleanliness, if the cleaning job is not done to perfection the benefit recipient will be declared UCS (unfit for cleaning shitholes) DWP will be notified electronically and the recipient will lose any ability to claim further benefits.

This would be a massive incentive to reduce welfare rolls and would solve hospital cleaning issues without redundancies in the cleaning staff who would be reassigned to cleaning wards and surgical areas.

Those hospitals had better fucking sparkle.

caesars wife,  29 November 2009 at 23:51  

mmm wheres swiss tony when you need his opinion ?

Cw would like to point out how wonk socialism is . "it was nae me"

I just hope they are sorry for creating this .

guthrum helped to create this mess,  29 November 2009 at 23:55  

you can ban all you want but you will not change the demographic trend which will overthrow this rule in another 15 years unless repatriation is implimented.

the bnp realised this some time ago, while the rest of you kept your head in the sand.

well done! you created the mess and demonise the only solution!

aghast!,  30 November 2009 at 00:31  

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1231795/Taxpayers-pay-1-600-week-family-ex-asylum-seekers-live-luxury-storey-home.html


it's YOUR MONEY!!!!!!!!!

Ron Broxted,  30 November 2009 at 01:28  

This decision by a bunch of neo nazi goose stepping cuckoo clock makers is no surprise to many recent converts like me to the Islamic faith, who see it as an attack on Islam. I take it then that it is still ok to wake your all your neighbours up at 5am by yodelling from a fucking mountain top at the top of your voice. But it is wrong to call the faithfull to prayer? This is an attack on my brethren, I for one will no longer being wasting my money on bars of Toblerone.

Ciaran Rehill,  30 November 2009 at 01:55  

I'm with Broxted on this one 100%. Tonight I threw my Swiss Army 35 piece pocket knife in the dustbin in disgust. To be perfectly honest the main blade was far too short for beheading infidels and the gadget for removing Roman Catholic priests from the rear of sweet apple cheeked choir boys was never any good. Having a mosque at the end of my road has saved me having to waste good money on a fucking alarm clock.

swissbob,  30 November 2009 at 02:29  

Good. We got our say. We have decided. Thank you.

Call to prayer,  30 November 2009 at 04:35  

I've noticed that many British muslims born in Britain and indeed recent immigrants look for marriage partners in Pakistan, Bangladesh, India etc, rather than finding partners amongst muslims already here. And this has been going on for quite some time.

Apparently, these marriage partners are then allowed to bring in their extended families because they claim they're dependant upon them.

I've absolutely no idea what the British national interest is in bringing so many additional third world people, of limited skills, into the country. No one has ever explained this.

It's almost as if there were a plan to undermine the British natives, to ethnically cleanse us from our own land. Jack Straw has made statements which indicate that he would approve of such a policy and recently his party were exposed as desiring to rub the British people's noses in multiculturism. The British people are guilty of crimes of colonialism and must ber punished by having their own country colonised by others, is the gist of his argument.

It's curious too the way we're told we're in a massive fight to the death with Islamicism on the one hand but importing increasingly more of it on the other.

When you think back to that chap who was sacked for exposing the way in which the immigration system was being abused, you'd be forgiven for wondering if there is not a massive criminal conspiracy at the heart of British government.

Anonymous,  30 November 2009 at 08:25  

I'm afraid that there will be another vote. This time the correct vote of 'Yes' will be forthcoming.

This is exactly why Brown will never have a referendum on anything.

TG 30 November 2009 at 08:37  

Small point - the minaret ban wasn't about the Muezzin call to prayer thing, that was already outlawed under another existing law. This is literally about building the minarets themselves i.e. Muslims can still have meeting places/mosques, they just can't have minarets.

adam 30 November 2009 at 09:06  

Maybe I've missed something, but...the government is going to ban a group of people from doing something that causes no harm to others, and you support this? Very libertarian.

Road_Hog 30 November 2009 at 09:08  

The thought of all those leftist Guardianistas multiculturists frothing away at this result will keep a smile on my face all day.

Anonymous,  30 November 2009 at 09:11  

Call to prayer - unbelievable or not, there IS a criminal govt scheme to ethnically cleanse the UK, only of the original, white, Christian, English speaking people you understand. Non-English, non-Christian, non-white immigrants, preferably with multiple wives & children - all of whom they can claim benefits for - and also preferably with barbaric practises, including genital mutilation are to be welcomed.

Anonymous,  30 November 2009 at 09:41  

Call to Prayer, Google 'Frankfurt School'. The criminal conspiracy do just that and worse has all been there for a long time.

banned 30 November 2009 at 09:43  

Well that will finally have scuppered our chances of ever getting a referendum on Europe or anything else. Even the gnomes of Zurich can't get their own people to do what they are told.

Anonymous,  30 November 2009 at 09:52  

That should have been 'non-English speaking' of course. I'm trying to deal with the inbuilt mouse on a laptop instead of a proper one & making all sorts of mistakes.

Old Holborn 30 November 2009 at 09:54  

Ah, the Swiss. Good on them

The ban was also backed by left wing feminists. Can't think why. Don't they know that Islam is GOOD for women?

All it would take is a couple of Swiss hairy lipped fat feminists to appear on QT defending their right not to wear a burqa and the Left would implode

Anonymous,  30 November 2009 at 10:05  

In Brown's Stasi UK there never was nor will be a chance of us getting a Referendum on anything. That's why it's important to vote in June & get rid of the Labourite scum - even with their faked postal voting method of winning elections. Must say, I hope the other Parties re-check all results. Must say I'm looking forward to Gordon explaining how, in a constituency of 100, 000 inhabitants, there are 110,000 Labour postal votes, 49,000 Tory votes, 22,000 Lib Dem votes, 3,000 ordinary Labour votes and 27,000 BNP votes

Anonymous,  30 November 2009 at 10:39  

''Call to Prayer'' is right. Many of the Muslims of Pakistani origin where I live bring over Pakistani Brides and husbands for their offspring. If you hang around in St Mary Street Southampton (to name a place I now well) you will see very large numbers of young veiled and burqua'd Somali women pushing prams with a toddler or 3 walking along behind. They weren't there a few years ago. those kids are going to have lots more of their own, they aim to take over by demographics and because EU law prevents us doing anything about it.

No point whimpering about the comibng Islaic take over, its already built in. Oh and by the way, the Swiss token resistance will be overturned. Europe's fate is sealed, and we asked for it. We, and particularly our grandchildren, are gonna find out the hard way what happens when a country deliberately rejects the Christianity which provided the best of its values and traditions.

The British ruling elite has willed this, largely because of their blind hatred of Christianity. Read Peter Hitchens' latest book 'The Broken Compass'. If you don;lt like Peter HItchens, read Oriana Fallaci or Ali Sina.

Anonymous,  30 November 2009 at 10:41  

"The ban was also backed by left wing feminists."

Point here being the subjugation of women, my wife holds VERY liberal views, but hates Islam - like any sensible person should.

Its a SLAVE religion, 1000times worse than Judeo-Xtianity.

pagar,  30 November 2009 at 10:57  

I can't believe this article and the comments that follow. I thought this was a libertarian blog?

What is libertarian in people voting to prevent others erecting the type of building they want to on their own land?

Is this site actually populated by racists and little Englanders?

Guthrum, you do some great work in a great cause but you've messed up badly, here. this is deomocratic tyranny.

Road_Hog 30 November 2009 at 11:09  

@pagar

The trouble with Islam is it is not tolerant and it (Muslims) wants to dominate the populations of countries subject them to their views.

There are plenty of other religions/races such as Sikhs who do not want to assimilate us and because of that you won't find much discussion about them.

Old Holborn 30 November 2009 at 11:11  

Pagar

Muslims have the same right to worship whoever they please in Switzerland

Muslims have the same right to build a place of worship as anyone else in Switzerland.

Muslims do not have the right to build minarets because the majority of people in Switzerland feel they are architecturally not compatible with the Swiss landscape or culture.

See that? Do what you want as long as it does not adversly affect others. Building minarets however adversly affects others. So don't do it.

I can't think of anything MORE libertarian than what the Swiss have just done, in defiance of the their government who obviously have the peoples interests at heart more than the people themselves.

Perfect.

Anonymous,  30 November 2009 at 11:12  

Marcellus said...

Revolutions are caused by the elite being out of touch.

We need a revolution.

29 November 2009 19:44

But not before the X Factor final, please... oh, and then it's Christmas and the New Year - can't miss all those great films and Chrsitmas specials...oh, and then it gets really, really cold in January and February... and I'm away in March some time.

So April looks best for me.. unless something else comes up in the meantime, of course!

Old Holborn 30 November 2009 at 11:13  

PS> Democratic tyranny. Love it.

Anonymous,  30 November 2009 at 11:24  

Can someone please tell me why the BBC is so in love with the religion which subjugates women? (all at our expense of course)

pagar,  30 November 2009 at 11:41  

OH

"Building minarets however adversly affects others"

No.

It does not.

The rest of the population could vote unanimously that they did not want me to build a kennel for my dog but, providing I was doing so on my own land and the construction did not impinge on the life of anyone else, I would have the absolute right to do so. That's libertarianism, mate.

I don't like Muslims so "ha fucking ha".

That's something else.

Old Holborn 30 November 2009 at 11:46  

Pagar. They don't want a dog kennel. They want minarets.

You do know what a minaret is, don't you?

How exactly does this NOT adversly affect others?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QMp5s0TpEto

oap mbe bj mp hiv doa,  30 November 2009 at 11:57  

"Parallel" Sharia, good luck with that!

Anonymous,  30 November 2009 at 12:04  

Guido is remarkably quiet on this subject, and some are commenting that he is deleting anti-muslim comments!

order-order: Another phoney-front aimed at "misdirection/mirrors".
Channel the malcontents, and round 'em up.

pagar,  30 November 2009 at 12:05  

I can't understand why someone would want to build something that looks like an erect Alsation's penis but that's up to them.

Of course the noise could be seen as unacceptable to passers by and there is an argument that it should be turned off. But then I feel the same way about church bells.

I think, deep down, you don't want anything banned without good reason and there is no good reason here. Some people find your blog offensive- would you accept a mojority vote to close it down?

Anonymous,  30 November 2009 at 12:24  

Pagar
Minarets are a symbol of muslim domination.The Turkish PM has described them as "our bayonets".
Mosques have traditionally been used a weapon stores,and in case you havn't noticed,every country that islam has "exported" itself to has seen the host culture destroyed and replaced with theirs.
Before you say what about this country or any other non islam country,they are just in the early stages of the process.
Urban11

Billy Blofeld 30 November 2009 at 12:45  

I particularly liked suggestion number 17 "Mock elections" that OH published in his Push Back post.

It would be great to hold an on-line mock referendum on this minaret issue.

And after that a mock referendum on Lisbon.

The politicians in this country don't like the idea of direct democracy. They would rather not hear what the public thinks on either of these issues.

Ron Broxted,  30 November 2009 at 13:17  

They can take their minarets ans shove them right up McEgan's arse. Lord knows they'd surely fit...

ullage,  30 November 2009 at 13:28  

What about a referendum on hideous new blocks of flats being built along the Thames? In fact, on any building which substantially alters the urban or rural landscape? I don't see that as anti-libertarian: anyone who wants to buidl something hideous would still be free to do it where no one could see it.

Lee,  30 November 2009 at 14:09  

This whole thing is wrong in so many ways. Will see if I can get my manage to get my thoughts written down and into some order.

Personally I fear for the future of Europe as it stands today due to the massive influx of islamic immigrants, I cannot find any flaws in the mathematics that says that the natives are being outbred and will be in the minority in my lifetime. So anything that helps to slow this down is good in my eyes

...
but
...

I am a liberterian, and as such I cannot deny the truth of Pagar's comment that this is anti-liberterian and an example of tyranny of the majority.
To take an example, if we held a referendum to imprison ginger people and it was passed with a 60-40 vote, it would be democratic, but it would be fucking horrific. If I want to build a fucking minarets on my fucking rightly acquired land then I cunting well have the god damn fucking right to do it (arguments on how planning permission works now or should work according to liberterian principles aside for the time). A blanket ban on this is sickening and I cannot belive a blog with which I have rarely disagreed with, could fail to see how wrong this is and even go on to update the main page denigrating the only true liberterian comment here.

I will be awaiting the opinion of the humble Devil on his return (who's blog originally taught me about what being Liberterian actually menas and as such I hold him as some sort of god on the subject)

Guthrum 30 November 2009 at 14:22  

To Pagar and others-

My post at Liberal Conspiracy

'Bizarrely he concludes with “The people told the Government, not the other way round” when in fact what has happened is the “the people told some other people to stop doing “that”.” Moreover, they told them to do it by co-opting the massive repressive potential of the state'

As I wrote the piece perhaps I can be allowed to restate what I said not what you all would like to think I said, then make some points.

It is not bizarre or unlibertarian to say 'The People told the Government, not the other way round' That is my admiration of a society that organises itself on the lines of the individual counts.

What is distinctly unlibertarian is the way we organise our civil society in that the individual does not count at all.

We have a parliamentary democracy, where a landslide vicory for the Tories will be getting around 38% of the vote, ditto Labour in the last election, QED 63% have no representation at all.

We have a Parliamentary democracy, where those who are actually elected have no control over the executive, because we have no constitution, or checks and balances over those who exercise power. They are mere lobby fodder for the kitchen cabinet.

We have a Parliamentary democracy where the like of Peter Mandelson can assume almost complete authority over the mechanism of Government and are completely unelected.

My thrust and summary of my piece is one of the constitutional differences between between Switzerland and the less than United Kingdom.

The BNP has arisen in strength because of the legitimate concerns of people in this country, there is not democratic voice or vent to these concerns, because they are judged ' illegitimate concerns' by a small coterie of an elite. The Left have for as long as I have been an adult have followed the 'no platform for fascism' stance for the last thirty plus years, whilst imposing their own intolerant views and values on an unwilling populace in the name of being 'progressive'

Inviting Referenda into our Constitution is I believe better than living under Authoritarian Left or Authoritarian Right minority regimes.

The risks are that you will get a popular movement for bringing back judicial state murder in the form of capital punishment or the banning of religions or not washing your cars properly etc etc. This is indeed the tyranny of the Majority

The threat however of a referenda hanging over a Government tends to make it tread carefully. Unlike an unfettered Westminster minority Government that produces bad Law virtually every day.

Personally I think the Swiss system has many superior points over our bankrupt repressive and corrupt Westminster system, that was my central point. If you wish to fly off in different directions making assumptions that is your freedom to say so, but please do not attribute these views to me.

A Libertarian and a Libertarian Society should prioritise the freedom to speak, but also prioritise the responsibility to listen and respect others views no matter how uncomfortable you feel personally about them.

The full force of the State has not been mobilised in this situation, the full weight of the popular will has over something it feels deeply uncomfortable with. The State has been curbed, to me as a Libertarian is a good thing. Nothing seems to curb the State in the United Kingdom much at all.

Dave H 30 November 2009 at 14:55  

What Guthrum said.

The Swiss can hold their own referenda. It's their system. Outside of elections, we don't have a way of sensing the public mood over a single issue, even though we were promised one.

If you were to hold a referendum in the UK on 'do you wish Islam to be of increasing influence in Britain?' Or 'should we bring back hanging for the most serious offences?' Those with a sensitive nature might not like the answer either.

Still, if I were a Muslim living in Switzerland (or anywhere else for that matter) I'd be none too happy about this.

Intruder 30 November 2009 at 15:49  

Pagar is right.

Others who disagree are probably fed up with minorities telling us how we have to adapt to them, and it's good to see the majority getting a say in return.

But imo the right view is noone gets to boss noone for the sheer pleasure of bossing. Let them build their minarets, provided they go through the same planning permission rigmarole as anyone else.

But revoke all the laws that mean my views are criminal if said in the presence of a professionally offended twit.

Balance. It has swung too far, but I hope it swings back by revoking the crap and not adding a whole new heap of crap.

Tim Carpenter 30 November 2009 at 16:30  

If a minaret is no higher than permitted for other buildings in the location then I am not sure how banning them can be seen as Libertarian. That said, if minarets are "allowed" to tower above other buildings that are restricted, then why should they be a special case?


p.s. Almost all churches built in the UK since 1945 are out of keeping IMHO but they got built.

fewqwer,  30 November 2009 at 16:54  

Any successful meme must contain the means of its own defence.

Idealistic Libertarianism offers no defence against the spread of pernicious memes like political Islam.

Libertarian #567,  30 November 2009 at 17:22  

Like Pagar, I'm really surprised at the position so many of the 'libertarian' posters on this thread have taken.

If the British people were offered a referendum on the outright ban of tobacco and voted to do so, just because it would be 'democratic' would not make it right. Indeed, a majority of the public would probably vote to ban ALL recreational drugs except alcohol, but the position of the Libertarian Party is to legalise them.

Let's have some consistency please, or we run the risk of looking and sounding like a bunch of right-wing fucknuts.

Rogerborg 30 November 2009 at 19:15  

Rationalist it all you want, OH and Guthrum, but you're only defending the State's tyranny here because it happens to agree with your views.

Mine too, but at least I can be honest about it being the majority victimising the minority and removing their liberties, since that's exactly what it is.

Old Holborn 30 November 2009 at 20:01  

Rogerborg

Remind me again, what did the Swiss State want? Did they get it?

No, they fucking didn't.

Clive,  30 November 2009 at 20:56  

About half the episodes of the original Star Trek had Kirk battling a killer robot of some description. The killer robot is programmed to kill everything: Kirk tells it this means it should kill itself. The killer robot obeys!

Dilatory hokum, but nobody would be so stupid as to believe it might happen in real life.

Libertarians claiming it would be unlibertarian to prevent their own enslavement, indeed! Very droll.

Anonymous,  30 November 2009 at 23:21  

I'm sure the muslims will be happy to hear of your libertarian ideals. You can explain it to them while you're chained to a radiator waiting to have your head sawn off.

This video shows how peaceful and tolerant muslims in Bosnia treat churches http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IiAQF7_GhpA

YoungHolborn,  2 December 2009 at 14:32  

You can stick your CCTV, Police State, wheelie bin Stasi – but presumably building regulations and planning departments are ok

DNA, WMD – I can’t beleive the government would scare-monger about Iraq, when the real danger is Minarets! They even look a bit like missiles, which is a hell of a lot more than was found in Iraq!

“Social Cohesion” – You know, society would by a lot more cohesive if it wasn’t for all these f*cking minorities.

guilty until proved innocent – apart from those f*cking Muslims. The Saudi government is oppresive and tyrannical, so surely those Swiss Muslims are up to something. Probably involving Minarets.

don’t do that it’s illegal now – we even had a vote and everything!

can’t say that – don’t you remember the vote? And don’t f*cking build that either!

where are you going, what have you been saying/doing/reading? – Hope you’re not planning on visiting a Minaret! Who knows what dodgy things are said/done/read inside there.

can’t photograph that – And don’t bloody build it, either!

golliwog banning – An offensive, Imperialist symbol of hatred, racialist violence and civil strife. I’m talking about Minarets, of course, the golliwog is a harmless figure of fun. Right?

we know where you live, we’re watching you – And we’re making sure that extension on your kitchen doesn’t start to resemble an Islamic tower. Turn that radio down too, sounds a bit like a call to prayer.

Soviet Utopia up your arses. Sideways. – Of course, they had a terrific policy on Minarets, but went a bit too far picking on the Middle Classes. The Bastards.

Anonymous,  16 June 2010 at 20:08  

This is a great decision by the Swiss . Islam should be discouraged as it is a disgusting vile religion , but wait , aren't they all ? Banning churches of any kind would be far more beneficial.

Related Posts with Thumbnails
visit tpuc.org
Copyright © Old Holborn 2007-2008 and the respective owners whoever they may be - though it's hardly likely is it?. All rights reserved. Every single one. None of the materials provided on this web site may be used, eaten, reproduced, or transmitted, in whole or in part, in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, carrier pidgeon, osmosis, semaphore, chav txting (gr8) recording or the use of any information storage and retrieval system, papyrus, bits of old toilet paper, fag packets, carrier bags, mystic meg etc., except as provided for under fair use, without permission in writing from the publisher - me and my dog. To request such permission and for further enquiries, contact the dog using the contact form. Offer her a bone. She likes bones.

To be governed is to be watched, inspected, spied upon, directed, law-driven, numbered, regulated, enrolled, indoctrinated, preached at, controlled, checked, estimated, valued, censured, commanded, by creatures who have neither the right nor the wisdom nor the virtue to do so. To be governed is to be at every operation, at every transaction noted, registered, counted, taxed, stamped, measured, numbered, assessed, licensed, authorized, admonished, prevented, forbidden, reformed, corrected, punished. It is, under pretext of public utility, and in the name of the general interest, to be placed under contribution, drilled, fleeced, exploited, monopolized, extorted from, squeezed, hoaxed, robbed; then, at the slightest resistance, the first word of complaint, to be repressed, fined, vilified, harassed, hunted down, abused, clubbed, disarmed, bound, choked, imprisoned, judged, condemned, shot, deported, sacrificed, sold, betrayed; and to crown all, mocked, ridiculed, derided, outraged, dishonoured. That is government; that is it's justice; that is its morality.

Back to TOP