Irony: France condems swiss minaret ban

[Geel_jire]

France's foreign minister has condemned Switzerland's referendum vote to ban the building of minarets.

 

Bernard Kouchner said he was shocked by the decision which, he said, showed "intolerance" and should be reversed.

 

More than 57.5% of voters and 22 out of 26 cantons - or provinces - voted in favour of the ban on Sunday.

 

The proposal had been put forward by the Swiss People's Party, (SVP), the largest party in parliament, which says minarets are a sign of Islamisation.

 

"I am a bit shocked by this decision," Mr Kouchner told France's RTL radio on Monday. "It is an expression of intolerance and I detest intolerance.

story

[Geel_jire]

The damn toads tried to ban the hijab which is a much more fundamental issue then mere minarets and they have the nerve to talk about intolerance.

 

walee niman dhiman wax weliba wuu arki

[Ibtisam]

Geel Jire: This is good for us as Muslims- It forces all kinds of issues out. Don't forget your role is to educate people now on Islam. For a non-Muslim they do not know that one is more fundamental than the other. There is where we come in. These debates are healthy and we should promote them as much as we can.

[Malika]

^I agree,these kind of debates enables us to challenge their policies,constitutions etc etc..

 

I honestly,believe there is going to be further changes in Europe,we are European citizens,and through laws, we are going to fight for what is rightly ours,including what we believe in,how and where we worship etc etc.

 

I remember the times,when schools shun upon hijabs to now promoting hijabs as part of their school uniforms..Time,in time even minarets will be the norm.

[Ibtisam]

^^Parts of London look more Islamic than the city centers of some Muslim countries. I look more normal and fit in more in East London than I did in the high class areas of Syria. Even some primary schools have prayer rooms now, I remember not long ago we were fighting for prayer rooms at university level.

[Geel_jire]

I agree with you ibti and malika

 

If they truly consider this intolerant .. it will at least force them to reevaluate their original stance on the hijab.

[N.O.R.F]

LoL

 

Where is little man Sarkozy on this?

[NGONGE]

No irony that I could see.

[ElPunto]

^You can't see it or choose not to see it?

[Abwaan]

Originally posted by Geel_jire:

The damn toads tried to ban the hijab which is a much more fundamental issue then mere minarets and they have the nerve to talk about intolerance.

 

walee niman dhiman wax weliba wuu arki

Waa iska siyaasad iyo iyagoo dareemay sharaf-dhacii ka soo gaarey mamnuuciddii xijaabka haddana dunida Muslimka isku deyaya inay ku beer-laxawsadaan Swiss baan ka soo horjeednaa...horta adinku tiinna ka soo baxa dheh..!

[N.O.R.F]

Originally posted by NGONGE:

No irony that I could see.

Come on then. Looking forward to hearing this

[Gabbal]

It is called doing damage control. After all, France's own committee in charge of the campaign to ban the Burka now says it will recommend not to ban it as it will intrude on "freedom of religion"

 

Before it was;

 

Bowen, who is preparing expert testimony for the French parliamentary committee considering the burqa ban,

believes the Islamic clothing debate is a "symbol" of a larger goal. France's goal, which Bowen describes as a "state project," is secularist

and concerned with, he says, "trying not to be taken over by what they would call an Islamist ideology."

 

Source

Now it is:

 

France will issue recommendations against full face veils but not pass a law barring Muslim women from wearing them, a leading backer of a legal ban said on Friday.

 

Source

As for the Swiss and the banning of the minarets, it is more then apparent the banning intrudes on the freedom of religon clause and will have to be struck down but I think two questions will ultimately have to be arrived at and both bode well for the Muslim communities in Europe.

 

The first question is should basic freedoms and basic principles be put up for popular referendums? Granted Switzerland is a special case and any issue can be put up for referendum if a certain number of signatories are found but this specific campaign itself seems to be leading to changes in the Swiss law. I watched an interview in which the recent head of what is their supreme court explained there is a hole in the rule of law in Switzerland in which nationally, the Parliament runs above the powers of the Supreme Court and not parallel to it and such a situation needs to be reformed. For example, in the present system the Supreme Court can strike down a Canton's (federal state) referendum but not the national parliament's. If such a change takes place, basic principles for Muslims shall be cemented as they are in such places as the U.K and the U.S. Also this is a good lesson for the rest of Europe who now understand, fully, that their societies are at where the American public was at during and prior to the fight for civil rights. Successive American governments forcefully maneuvered their citizens to be the plural society they are today. Imagine if Abraham Lincoln had put up the issue of slavery up for "referendum". Would slaves have been freed? Lyndon Johnson lost the south for the Democratic party to this day when he maneuvered the civil rights laws with his own political muscles. He said as he signed the civil rights bill "I have lost the south for my party". Today in 2009, the case is true but without that bill, the president of the Union would not be a black man.

 

The second issue will have to be how to ally local fears and concerns. Embracing the idea of multiculturalism and pluralism on the national level is a perhaps the important first step, but how can such an idea be implemented without local support? For the past couple decades, European governments have tried to emulate the pluralism of the United States but without preparing their people for such a signifanct socio-politico change. They forget America is itself an immigrant nation and the idea of indigenous culture and sense of entitlement and notion of ownership is and was nonexistent. Europe is not America and to get to where it is at, it needs its own model. This means drafting better policies on not only integrating its immigrant population better but as well as changing their own people to reflect the multiculturalism they seek and need in this globalizing world.

[Geel_jire]

Originally posted by Gabbal :

 

The first question is should basic freedoms and basic principles be put up for popular referendums? Granted Switzerland is a special case and any issue can be put up for referendum if a certain number of signatories are found but this specific campaign itself seems to be leading to changes in the Swiss law. I watched an interview in which the recent head of what is their supreme court explained there is a hole in the rule of law in Switzerland in which nationally, the Parliament runs above the powers of the Supreme Court and not parallel to it and such a situation needs to be reformed. For example, in the present system the Supreme Court can strike down a Canton's (federal state) referendum but not the national parliament's. If such a change takes place, basic principles for Muslims shall be cemented as they are in such places as the U.K and the U.S. Also this is a good lesson for the rest of Europe who now understand, fully, that their societies are at where the American public was at during and prior to the fight for civil rights. Successive American governments forcefully maneuvered their citizens to be the plural society they are today.

This is a good example of when democracy leads to mob rule.

 

Democracy is two lions and a lamb voting on what's for dinner

[Geel_jire]

Originally posted by NGONGE:

No irony that I could see.

I've already 1diot proofed my post sxb .. by explaining exactly why I think it is an Irony .. just in case the title was not enough.

[Malika]

^ ..faraa waaweyn maa ugu qorti,a visit to spec savers is due for Ngonge..heh