Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Ban on Building of Minarets in Switzerland
#1
A tough message must be sent to Switzerland. We must also beef up swift responses to human rights emergencies like the Swiss vote.

The condemnation of the Swiss referendum held on November 29, to forbid the building of Islamic minarets has drawn international condemnation. Even as experts say that the ban will eventually be thrown out, this vote is yet another example of the rampant right-wing extremism that remains unchecked, and now it has cost Swiss Muslims their religious rights.

We should find offensive the notion that fundamental freedoms basic to human rights should be up for popular vote. Freedoms that we hold dear should be above and beyond the research of the ballot box. The sentiment was shared by Thorbjørn Jagland, Secretary General of the Council of Europe, who said Monday that “Bearing in mind that it is a fundamental right of democratic States to debate and vote on issues of importance to their societies, the referendum held yesterday on the construction of new minarets in Switzerland raises concerns as to whether fundamental rights of individuals, protected by international treaties, should be subject to popular votes.”

No – the public must be forbidden to vote on fundamental freedoms. Otherwise, all of our liberties are at stake. Freedom and liberty must be absolute and protected from the whims of the ballot box. There must be an international call – now –to amend European and international human rights conventions that forbid popular votes on fundament freedoms, like the freedom to worship, including the ability to construct houses of worship. Most observers believe that this vote will be throne out, eventually, by a court either in Switzerland, or the European Court of Human Rights.

Officials of the United Nations have condemned this vote as openly aimed Muslims and is part of the latest episode of European elections and the voting public being driven by fear. UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Navi Pillay stated that Switzerland was “on a collision course with its international human rights obligations.”

“I hesitate to condemn a democratic vote…but I have no hesitation at all in condemning the anti-foreigner scare-mongering that has characterized political campaigns in a number of countries, including Switzerland, which helps produce results like this.

While a couple of observers are saying that the Swiss vote along with the election victory of right-wing parties in European elections this summer – should be a wake-up call. The director of the International Crisis Group, Swiss-national, Alain Deletroz, hope that there will be tough action against Switzerland. Such a vote should have never been allowed to take place.

Quote:“[I]n Europe I would say if you appeal to this fear of Islam you would get the same result. I think it’s very dangerous to travel this road of giving unrealistic fears a political stage.”
“We should have a debate about where we draw the line. In a democracy you can imagine a situation where the majority want things that are bad for human rights, or freedom of speech or religion, but are still democratically chosen or elected. I think there’s a problem there. How do we react when populist individuals abuse the system for their own gain?”


With world condemnation, there must be meaningful action and meaningful action against nations that make these kind of ill-defined choices are often ineffective and meaningless. The Swiss took over the Council of Europe presidency as if the vote against religious freedom in Switzerland was not big deal. As far as we know, Switzerland still has full membership of the United Nations and all of its bodies. So far, the tough response is slow in coming and it may take years to get full religious freedom restored in Switzerland. It appears that business as usually for the relationship between the EU and Switzerland. There should be some kind of reaction, suspension of relationships with Switzerland, as the world cannot view the country as the same before Sunday’s vote.

Now would be the time to start the European Union’s activism on the world stage in defense of human rights, and in the EU own backyard, in Switzerland. I am searching for a reaction, at least a statement, from a European Union institution. In fact, a meeting of General Affairs and relations of the Council went on in Geneva, the day after the vote. With the passage of the vote that places Switzerland in clear violation of European and international human rights conventions that it is a party to – the holding of a General Affairs council meeting in Geneva should have been postponed and moved to another venue. Given that the two facts that the United Nations and its officials have condemned the Swiss vote and the role that the EU now wants to play on the world stage, this is a truly awful way for the EU to start off in its ambitions on the world stage that represent its values.

Nations that chose to vote away the basic rights of its minorities have no place among civilized nations of the world. Switzerland is now one such nation that must be excluded from the civilized world.

What is for sure, these violations of basic human rights need to not keep going unanswered – especially when they occur in Europe’s own backyard. There should be tough action against Switzerland, which should include suspension of membership of the Council of Europe and the United Nations. We get the Swiss assuming the presidency of the human rights body. The needs to be a beefing up of human rights institutions that produce swift responses to outrageous actions, like the Swiss vote. It might take a few years for the case to work its way up to the ECHR, and in the meantime, these threats against religious freedom in Europe continue to grow, as more of Europe’s loony right-wing have now called on more votes on religious freedom in EU Member States!
Reply
#2
May peace be for everyone!

Ancients used to make minarets. They thought, through the minerats they could be closer to heaven and find its spiritual secrets and talk to angels and spirits.

For example, when the Prophet Moses (upon him be peace) presented his claim to Pharoah he said: “…….O Haman, build thou for me a lofty tower that I may attain to the means (of access)----The means (of access) to the heavens, so that I may have a look at the God of Moses……” [partly verses 37,38: chapter 40 of Quran]. Pharaoh disbelieved the claims of Moses about God and he tried to get closer to heaven to check the spiritual matters.

Egyptians used to make high minarets. They too thought spirits like to descend upon these high places. They raised the graves of their kings as minaret like pyramids. Since mathenmatics for rounded minarets was not mature yet, they made pyramids.Through pyramids-minarets they tried to get closer to heavenly spirits.

Minarets were also used for:
…to spread light. In Arabic, the word for minaret is “minar” and it means place of noor (light).
…for using instruments to forecast fortune and future.
…to remember some one’s name.

But all these wishes to make minarets remained short to achieve the desired results.... Minaret failed to help Pharoah and others' desire to meet divine..... Lighted minarets became obsolete soon..... Those who wanted to know unseen and future through minarets disappeared somewhere in time..... World has forgotten the names attached to minearts too.

On the other hand, "spiritual minarets" of divine light are still remembered. All Holy prophets of God are the minarets of light. I believe, Unity was the topic of all prophets. When practice upon it deteoriated long times after the advent of each prophet, the next prophet came to rekindle Unity in hearts and succeeded against all odds. Evolution of divine message continued----- peacefully and swordlessly reminded by the Promised divine peace Reformer (@ w.alislam.org) . Let continue the spread of cool divine light radiated from divine minarets which brings warmth of love with God and descends into hearts and souls translating into peace for individuals and for unions in society.
Reply
#3
Thanks for sharing.
You opened my eyes( Not)
Reply
#4
I cannot understand that negative reaction which I hear from some of EU officials in connection with recent ban building of minarets in our Switzerland.
The minaret ban is not a rejection of the Muslim community, religion or culture. It simply reflects fears among European population towards growth of Islamic extremist tendencies in our society. And all of us have to take this danger seriously.
Most painful for us (all those, who voted against building new minarets in Switzerland) is the fact that our authorities continue to ignore a growing anxiety about Islam, especially its fundamentalist forms, in many European countries even in context of existing terrorist danger!
Well, I think it should be clear for everyone in Europe now that continuation of minaret construction in our cities and towns is the spread of Islamic values among our Christian youth and establishment of Shariah in future!
Reply
#5
I think that our authorities don't ignore a growing anxiety about Islam, authorities just don't want to provoke a new flash of discontent of the Muslim Community apropos of limitation their rights.It is not a secret that any limitation leads to resistance :banghead . I agree with the fact that the minaret ban is not a rejection of Muslim community at all. And I think that there is no necessity to construct so many minarets in Europe.
“Love is like a booger. You keep picking at it until you get it, then wonder what to do with it.”
3ds Max tutorials | Light Wave 3d tutorials | MAYA tutorials | XSI tutorials
Reply
#6
Quote:No – the public must be forbidden to vote on fundamental freedoms. Otherwise, all of our liberties are at stake. Freedom and liberty must be absolute and protected from the whims of the ballot box.

Do you realise how ridiculous you sound with such a totalitarian statement? I remember reading Hitler's own words about the folly of the ballot box and the weakness of democracy, perhaps you dream of a new dictator to tell us all how to act Wink

It has always been thus within the European Union, the people have a say unless what they say is contrary to what the ruling class want.
Reply
#7
EurophileAmerican Wrote:A tough message must be sent to Switzerland. We must also beef up swift responses to human rights emergencies like the Swiss vote.

The condemnation of the Swiss referendum held on November 29, to forbid the building of Islamic minarets has drawn international condemnation.

I really think you need to get a grip on yourself. This is not a human rights emergency. This is a planning application that has been turned down.

There is nothing in the Qu'ran that requires minarets to be built in order to meet religious obligations.

I heard no condemnation of Switzerland in Europe. Quite the opposite in fact. You're on the wrong soapbox with the wrong audience.

By the way, what is the 'tough message' and who are the 'we' that must beef up a swift response?

Is the USA still trying to play the global policeman?

:roll:
Reply
#8
what would happened if they said no to building Jewish sinagog? :haha
Reply
#9
I disagree with all of you ?
I am the head of a Islamic and multi faith community and business group and can not understand your logic ?
as the original problem is simple they were forced to except people by treaty that states you take in people or we take away money for Switzerland, the other problem is the European set up of Islamic charties but are really ways of importing money from drugs into Europe... there is also the actions of you do as we say stated in 2000 which divide the country but was the process of outside Islamic groups for money .... so the bad blood between people is 70% set up from outside the country ...but the true Islamic law states you must be invited to live in another country to follow Islam, unless you are invited you are not a follower of Islam ?
and 'to be invited you have to be married to some one from that country and have lived there four 126 years or 3x 42 to be apart of the land according to he who can not be named.'

there are at the moment no legal mosques in any European country ? according to the original Quoran, and is included in Jewish law and Christain laws in the early days and all religions worldwide it is the act of a false prophet ...nor is there according to Mohamad allowed to be any as that makes a direct claim above God or he who can not be named. so sorry if you do not understand but most people are conned these days when a religion says this word or I need this for my religion ... 30 years and have read all the original transcripts of the Quoran and Torah and the first book which is older than both and am a follower of the first book as refer to (name not given for reasons not stated) ....most of the problems is people want others to do the work for them and they sit on the lazy backsides for 'money for nothing'..............
Reply
#10
manro1 Wrote:what would happened if they said no to building Jewish sinagog? :haha

Obviously the synagogue would not be built either.

Just another big 'so what?' in the history of the world.

;-)
Reply
#11
the world needs people like a whole in the head at times as we go over the top about every little detail ?
If god or he who can not be named made the world why build any thing religous as nothing is better than what he has built ..... the original trinity stated, take care of your family, take care of the land, make no claim on another's land and you shall have peace ..........prophet Mohamed and Jesus and Samual and Moses and Samson and King David and Solomon and many others refer to this is beginning of all religions and yet today it is lost.

So why create arguements over nothing ? enjoy being alive for Gods sake............grow up world.
So sorry you are having a sad time over a little thing EurophileAmerican.........
family and homes for people come first as feeding the world is his plan and enjoying the fruits of your labour ..like the idea Primark.
Reply
#12
PRIMARK
i AGREe THe wORLD SHOWS IT IS sTUPID AND hATES THINGS BEING DIFFERENT TO WHAT PEOPLE EXPECT THEM TO BE.
WE ARE ALL USED TO OUR OWN WAY OF LIFE AND EXPECT OTHERS TO CHANGE BUT NOT OURSELVES.
Reply
#13
QuikShop Wrote:
Quote:No – the public must be forbidden to vote on fundamental freedoms. Otherwise, all of our liberties are at stake. Freedom and liberty must be absolute and protected from the whims of the ballot box.

Do you realise how ridiculous you sound with such a totalitarian statement? I remember reading Hitler's own words about the folly of the ballot box and the weakness of democracy, perhaps you dream of a new dictator to tell us all how to act Wink

It has always been thus within the European Union, the people have a say unless what they say is contrary to what the ruling class want.

Do you know how ridiculous YOU sound?

Putting up people's basic rights to popular votes is the shinning definition of tyranny. It's called tyranny of the majority - and is the oldest form of tyranny there is..from ancient Greece.
Also - dictators are often installed by popular votes. Slobodan Milosevic was elected to power and the National socialists in Germany enjoyed a lot of election successes. Hitler was also quite popular.

The "popular will" must be controlled - otherwise we will be back to dictators and gas chambers... :deg
Reply
#14
Primark Wrote:I heard no condemnation of Switzerland in Europe. Quite the opposite in fact. You're on the wrong soapbox with the wrong audience.

Yes - that's the problem.
:banghead
But - this ban is likely to fail the test at the Council of Europe, or even in Switzerland's own courts.
Reply
#15
The Swiss did right.

It's time that all of us in Europe started to reclaim our lands, our history, and our culture. And yes, ourselves.

If people want to live in our lands then they should come to terms that they must live in our ways, to our standards, and be prepared to become us.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)