Monday - November 30, 2009

The Swiss say no to minarets, as muzzies and europe left and vatican wring hands and cry foul.

Well, it isn’t any surprise that a number of oh so politically correct freekin idiots, The Vatican, The Times of London and of course the usual suspects,
The muzzies, are up in arms. Again.

The Swiss voted NO to minarets.  Now there’s this howl of righteous indignation, this moral outrage mouthed by donkeys. No, Donks are smarter.

The charge made by all these holier then tho fools is, that the Swiss are violating freedom of religion. The Times editorial says the vote was an attack on religious liberty and even went to far as to say, and I quote exactly here, “ An attempt to restrict freedom of worship.”

“Intolerance of islam “ says the Times.  (The Times spelled islam with a capital ‘I’ which will not do in keeping with the late Skippers dictum)

The Swiss vote DOES NOT restrict freedom of worship in any way shape or form.  Nice of the Vatican and the Times tho, to continue the suck up tradition and comment on the inner workings of someone else’s country. Wouldn’t you think the Vatican had enough problems on its plate at the moment, or has not the latest boy love scandal made news in the states? 

Of course the French had to add their worthless two cents .... once again sounding retreat.

Earlier on Monday the French foreign minister, Bernard Kouchner, said he was “scandalised” by the Swiss decision and said it represented a “show of intolerance” by France’s neighbour.

He said it was a “negative” move because banning the construction of Muslim mosque towers amounts to “oppressing a religion”.

He told France’s RTL radio: “I hope that the Swiss will go back on this decision rather quickly.”

And further word is that there is “criticism throughout Europe.” That may be.  Most likely from the thumb sucking liberal left.  That jerk is sandalized?”
Sure he is.  Like so many he’s playing a PC role and letting the mudslimes know he’s a fair guy and not anti anything.

Naturally the left in Europe is calling for another vote.  That figures.

As the Swiss say no to minarets, I vote we have many more referendums
Why is making decisions for the nation a right of the government and not one of the people, asks Melanie McDonagh.

By Melanie McDonagh

The Swiss have spoken and, oh dear, the government isn’t best pleased. Against all the approved advice, from churches, politicians and business, the people have voted to ban minarets.

The outcome of yesterday’s referendum was entirely unexpected, given that Swiss manufacturers, pallid at the thought of Abu Dhabi saying no to Swatches, had lobbied vigorously against a ban. The government wasn’t keen on reprisals from excitable Islamists. But notwithstanding all the high-level advice, the people were having none of it.

Actually, the notion of building minarets in Switzerland is pretty redundant. They couldn’t be used to call the faithful to prayer because noise regulations, this being Switzerland, don’t permit it. Small Islamic communities all over Switzerland just wanted to make their presence felt. On the skyline.

It was interesting, the nature of the coalition against the minarets. The campaign was led by the populist Swiss People’s Party, but it was supported, unexpectedly, by Swiss feminists because they have issues with Islam’s treatment of women. And – who knows – because of the phallic shape of the structures concerned. In fact, the most notable thing about the poll was that, in favour of the ban, women outnumbered men.

Personally, I blame the Turkish prime minister, Tayyip Erdogan. The opponents of minarets hardly needed to make an argument; all they needed to do was quote, out of context, his pronouncement that minarets are the bayonets of Islam and the job was done. Nice one, Mr E.

Actually, I felt rather cheered when I heard that the Swiss had voted as they did, for the simple and sufficient reason that I like it when people don’t do what they’re told by politicians. I was ecstatic when the Danes voted against the Nice Treaty; I felt a kind of subversive thrill when Ireland turned against the Lisbon Treaty, though it did vote the approved way second time round.

Referendums are brilliant, precisely because they give people a chance to consider what everyone says they ought to think and do, and then do just what they want anyway. It’s the nearest we get nowadays to the full-on democracy of Athens, unless you count reality television.

The sad thing, of course, is that it couldn’t happen here. Whenever anyone suggests having more referendums, politicians say, in a grand way: nope, we are a parliamentary democracy. Finis.

All very well, but it strikes me that we’re asking an awful lot of our general election vote. When we vote – those of us who can be bothered to – we’re required to cram into one little box the economy, Europe, assisted suicide, whether we like the look of Sarah Brown/Samantha Cameron, post office closures, hunting, and whether the local candidate seems an OK individual. In the event, most people simply go for the party that seems least likely to mess up the economy.

I think that’s too limited. I can see that for major issues in the manifesto, such as education and the economy, it’s pretty straightforward; you know how the parties stand, and you let them get on with it. But the party political box doesn’t do all those other contentious subjects justice.

In Ireland, I’ve seen abortion and divorce, two toxic issues, taken right out of the political realm by being put to the people in referendums in accordance with the constitution. It’s so much better that way. You get informed, interested public debate. I mean, I saw my aunt and her gentleman friend in Ireland arguing the ins and outs of the Lisbon Treaty. They knew more about it than I did.

Occasionally, there are local referendums here on matters other than devolution – a few decades back there was one in Wales about Sunday openings for pubs – but they’re tragically few.

So I don’t think we should turn up our noses at the Swiss. Whatever you think about the result, at least they were asked what they think. More than the Brits ever are.

SOURCE

Posted by peiper     on 11/30/2009 at 10:43 AM   
Filed Under: • Illegal-Aliens and Immigration • Politics • Religion • RoPMA •  
• Comments (9) • Trackbacks(0)  Permalink •  

DISCLAIMER

THE SERVICES AND MATERIALS ON THIS WEBSITE ARE PROVIDED "AS IS" AND THE HOSTS OF THIS SITE EXPRESSLY DISCLAIMS ANY AND ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, TO THE EXTENT PERMITTED BY LAW INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO WARRANTIES OF SATISFACTORY QUALITY, MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE, WITH RESPECT TO THE SERVICE OR ANY MATERIALS.

Not that very many people ever read this far down, but this blog was the creation of Allan Kelly and his friend Vilmar. Vilmar moved on to his own blog some time ago, and Allan ran this place alone until his sudden and unexpected death partway through 2006. We all miss him. A lot. Even though he is gone this site will always still be more than a little bit his. We who are left to carry on the BMEWS tradition owe him a great debt of gratitude, and we hope to be able to pay that back by following his last advice to us all:

1. Keep a firm grasp of Right and Wrong
2. Stay involved with government on every level and don't let those bastards get away with a thing
3. Use every legal means to defend yourself in the event of real internal trouble, and, most importantly:
4. Keep talking to each other, whether here or elsewhere

It's been a long strange trip without you Skipper, but thanks for pointing us in the right direction and giving us a swift kick in the behind to get us going. Keep lookin' down on us, will ya? Thanks.

THE INFORMATION AND OTHER CONTENTS OF THIS WEBSITE ARE DESIGNED TO COMPLY WITH THE LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. THIS WEBSITE SHALL BE GOVERNED BY AND CONSTRUED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND ALL PARTIES IRREVOCABLY SUBMIT TO THE JURISDICTION OF THE AMERICAN COURTS. IF ANYTHING ON THIS WEBSITE IS CONSTRUED AS BEING CONTRARY TO THE LAWS APPLICABLE IN ANY OTHER COUNTRY, THEN THIS WEBSITE IS NOT INTENDED TO BE ACCESSED BY PERSONS FROM THAT COUNTRY AND ANY PERSONS WHO ARE SUBJECT TO SUCH LAWS SHALL NOT BE ENTITLED TO USE OUR SERVICES UNLESS THEY CAN SATISFY US THAT SUCH USE WOULD BE LAWFUL.

Copyright © 2004-2015 Domain Owner