Thursday, December 3, 2009

Finally--One Nation Says "Enough"

Switzerland, the home of famous cheese, lonely goatherds (OK, so that was Austria), and a fully-armed citizenry, has made a decision that no other western nation has had the guts to do. It has declared that it has a national identity that it will not apologize for, and that monster mosques and minarets fly in the face of that identity.

This was a vote of the Swiss people, not its legislatures. Although mosques were not forbidden by any means, the legislation bans the highly offensive needle-like towers from which a Muslim warbler screeches praises to Allah and hatred of all other religions multiple times a day. So the Swiss have simply banned minarets, single or multiple. God love the Swiss.

The Swiss banned the towers last Sunday, appropriately enough. "This is the day which the Lord hath made; let us rejoice and be glad in it." The result of the vote caught almost all the usual prognosticators by surprise. Switzerland is known as being neutral on almost everything, and rather tolerant of things not Swiss. But apparently the Swiss have had it with the proliferation of the obnoxious towers and their vicious devotees. The measure was expected to lose significantly, but instead garnered a 57.5% favorable vote. Equally significantly, it was passed in 22 of the nation's 26 cantons (think "provinces" or "states"). Swiss law requires that national referenda must gain both a majority vote of all eligible voters as well as the approval of the majority of cantons. And, no surprise, the weakest support for the measure was in the French-speaking cantons (Switzerland is tri-lingual).

In a vote which may parallel a growing voter discontent here in America, the government strongly opposed the measure. Like our wimpy submissive politicians, Swiss elected officials fretted that the ban might offend international human rights. They also worried that their dear friends in the middle east and Eurabia might be offended. The Swiss people themselves announced in no uncertain terms that they choose not to be whipping boys for the international community which wants so much to eliminate all western norms and national boundaries by demeaning Christianity and Judaism while building up the religion of the primitives.

"The government is disappointed that it was not possible to convince voters to reject the initiative," said economics minister Doris Leuthard (rhymes with blowhard). In other words, the government is upset that its own people have rejected cultural and national suicide, unlike the United Kingdom, France and Germany. The only reason I'm not throwing the United States into that mix is that we have been fortunate enough so far not to have to import cheap labor from the lands of sharia to support our social welfare economy by welcoming people who breed like rats, and live like them as well. But President Obama is working on that.

As it stands, the Federal Council, Switzerland's executive branch, shows no signs that it will defy its own people by claiming some higher authority to deny a legal and constitutional change in Swiss law. It's official statement is that it will add the line "the building of minarets is prohibited" to its basic law. And unlike America, there will not be a fifty year battle preventing the implementation of the law by arguing that the word "minaret" is vague and ambiguous and therefore unconstitutional. Everybody knows what a minaret is, and that common knowledge is sufficient for nations which don't agonize over the absolute perfection of the words of a well-understood law.

Logically, the proponents of the measure argued that the minaret represented not a religious matter, but rather a "symbol of political power well-known in Muslim lands" which "demeans an historically Christian country" and that minarets represent Islamic concepts of "creeping radicalism, forced marriages, defiance of Swiss law and implementation of sharia law, and other purely political aspects of Islam."

Experts in Islam point out that minarets have a place in the lore and practice of Islam, but that they are not a theological requirement found anywhere in the Koran. Furthermore, even in nations built on sand which do have multiple minarets attached to their mosques and other monuments in which terrorism and hatred of all things non-Muslim are taught, the call to prayer is often still conducted from the main building, not the minarets. They are comparable to church bells, which call Christians to worship and prayer, but not to hatred of all things non-Christian.

The reaction from the Swiss bureaucrats and foreign critics was swift and hysterical. "Human rights advocates" from all over Europe quickly denounced the vote as being detrimental to the growth of the "religion of peace" and its sweet, loving adherents. Babacar Ba, spokesman for the Islamic Conference (whatever that is) and ambassador to Switzerland, said the vote would result in "extremism." Well, he certainly ought to know about extremism. Some Swiss politicians worried that this might result in a boycott by Muslims of Swiss products. The Arab-Swiss Chamber of Commerce (do you believe these organizations actually exist?) says that Swiss exports to the lands of Mohammed were more than $7 billion in 2007 while imports exceeded $3 billion. A proper Christians response to that is "What profiteth it a man if he gain the world, but lose his soul?"

Swiss versions of the Obama-Honduras feint of "unfair, stolen election" have already arisen. One group, the Swiss news site swissinfo swiftly conducted an unscientific poll of its Muslim-flavored Swiss readers which showed that as a result of the new law, a boycott of Swiss products is not, I repeat not justified. The vote was running 72% to 28% against a boycott within 24 hours of the successful national referendum. It appears that even in Switzerland, the press is out of touch with its own readers.

Needless to say, the British Muslims were among the loudest in attacking the Swiss vote. After all, they have plans to build a mosque with multiple minarets right in the heart of London, planned to dwarf the Houses of Parliament. This would not be a healthy development for the Islamofascists if it caught on outside Switzerland. The Ramadhan Foundation of England responded to the Swiss vote by calling on believers of all faiths to "stand united against this evil." The Prince of Wales probably endorses that view, since he wants to change the oath of his future office to include the new title "Defender of Faith" instead of the thousand year old "Defender of the Faith." Ramadhan chief executive Mohammed Shafiq called the new law "another example of the modern day oppression Muslims are subjected to in Europe."

The Islamic scholars who see European oppression behind every rock are silent about when the next church with a tall spire topped by a cross will be built in Mecca or Medina, or a massive synagogue, complete with Star of David will be built in Riyadh or Tehran.

On its face, the words of another UK Muslim cleric sound a bit more reasonable. He said: "Although needlessly retrogressive and xenophobic, the legislation should also prompt introspection by Muslims rather than a convenient victim mentality." For those who know how to translate Muslim rhetoric into plain English, that means "don't take this lying down [like a victim] but go to your local mosque to learn how to wreak revenge on Christians and the Swiss for this insult to the religion of the Prophet."

One Muslim cleric (who will soon be joining Salman Rushdie on the hit list of the imams) actually understood the purpose of the Swiss referendum. "Muslims in Europe need to confront the reactionary Middle East and the Indian sub-continent." Dr. Taj Hargey is the chairman of the Muslim Educational Centre of Oxford. He further stated that the "Swiss decision did not curtail Muslim rights to freedom of religion, as there was no sound reason why Islamic houses of worship, particularly in the West, must include such towering and intimidating edifices as the minarets. Swiss Muslims should give up the antiquated cultural baggage of their ancestral homelands and implement a vibrant and valid brand of Islam that is rooted in and relevant to the time and place where they live." Watch your back from here on out, Dr. Hargey.

Contrary to the public statements by European officials, British author Gerald Warner says that running against the grain of those official proclamations, Switzerland will not become a pariah state, but rather gain an increased respect for Switzerland among the ordinary citizens of most western nations.

Here in America, Barack Hussein Obama has made no public announcement concerning the Swiss vote. And while he dithers about how to respond to the vote of a people who do not consider themselves to be "among the largest Muslim nations in the world," perhaps American authorities will, with full respect for the First Amendment guarantee of freedom of religion, discover the validity of laws regarding public nuisances, clear and present danger, and terrorist gathering-places. One can only hope.

19 comments:

Writer X said...

Good for the Swiss! Let them see their politicians for who they really are. Hopefully they have responded in time to save their beautiful country.

CrispyRice said...

When I heard this on the radio, all I could think was, "Thank God!" Maybe there is a light at the end of the tunnel. Perhaps Europe will save itself before it's too late after all.

Now if you'll excuse me, I think I'll go buy some Toblerone or something.

StanH said...

Good on the Swiss. If Europe doesn’t get it together, and fast, they will be under Sharia law before you can say Swiss Cheese.

Tennessee Jed said...

Like a precision time piece, those Swiss sure know how to poke holes in the pro-minaret argument.

Di said...

I was very pleased when I read about this a few days ago. I can't even remember where I read it but, in the article was a quote from a muslim leader of some sort equating the minarets to Islam's swords. And, that is why the Swiss don't want them around - the mosques aren't just like churches, and the minarets aren't just like spires or steeples. They represent more than a place of worship. I would be a little disturbed by a vote that can be seen as a vote against free practice of religion except for the fact that Islam does not really allow others to freely practice their different religions. Good for the Swiss for standing up I say!

AndrewPrice said...

I agree with Di. This would bother me a lot except that Muslims have brought this on themselves by promoting violence and intollerance against non-Muslims. Freedom of religion is fine, but not when you don't extend that same freedom to others.

FB Hink said...

I love Toblerone!

The Netherlands has a strong and growing opposition to the Muslims. Now the Danes have about had enough as well. What these and other Euro countries are finding is that their liberalism and tolerance is being turned back on them as the immigrants from the deserts take from their welfare state and deliver nothing in return to their culture, society, and GDP. Great piece.

LawHawkSF said...

WriterX: It is rather satisfying, isn't it? The Swiss politicians who opposed the measure are putting up a rather lame defense "they made us do it." But their hearts don't actually seem to be in any real opposition to the people's will.

LawHawkSF said...

CrispyRice: And I'm looking forward to a great big swiss cheese sandwich. LOL

LawHawkSF said...

StanH: I'm really pleased with the Swiss people. The Muslim population is not as high in Switzerland as in certain other European nations, but they know it's a vital center, so their demands for "tolerance" have been extremely loud there. Basically, the Swiss have told them "Oh, shut up."

LawHawkSF said...

Tennessee: I love it. Keeping time by getting ahead of the times. Long live the Swiss.

LawHawkSF said...

Di: The Swiss were very clear about the fact that they had no intention of suppressing the Muslims right to worhip. But they did their homework, and found the offensive minarets to be simply an "in your face" announcement of the superiority of Islam to which all others must bow. And they chose not to bow. God love 'em.

HamiltonsGhost said...

I'm sitting here sipping my Swiss Miss hot chocolate and chuckling at the international hysteria over Switzerland taming the beast. The Holocaust slides into oblivion as the horror of banning minarets moves into the forefront of European submission rhetoric everywhere but Switzerland. Whoever came up with that referendum should get the next Nobel Peace Prize.

patti said...

yo-de-la-he-WHO! i plan to fill the christmas stockings of those i love with all things swiss this year!

LawHawkSF said...

HamiltonsGhost: You're so right. The Euroweenie press and politicians have absolutely no sense of proportion and no sense of simple self-preservation. They'll hammer Switzerland for this action, all the while wishing they had the guts to do the same thing.

LawHawkSF said...

Patti: That was exactly my reaction. I still have connections at the Tourneau Watch Company--it's Swiss watches for everyone this Christmas.

LawHawkSF said...

HI, TEAM: For those of you who would like to read an article by one of the few European journalists who understand the real reason behind the banning of minarets, you might want to read this article. The author goes into detail about the political ambitions of Islam that the minarets represent and that the Swiss have rejected. Why The Swiss Were Right.

CalFederalist said...

LawHawk, The Euroweenies are talking up a storm about human rights violations and other dire things. I'm just wondering if and how any of the talk would be translated into action. In fact, I'm wondering if they'll even try.

LawHawkSF said...

CalFed: I wouldn't hazard an educated guess, but my gut instincts tell me that there will be a big show, and the Euroweenies will back off. They have to put on a show or face the murderous indignation of the Islamists they so gleefully imported. There are genuine sanctions available. The bureaucrats in one of the European Federation offices would have to make the decision, since elected politicians and the people have zero control over deciding if something is a violation of that satanic "constitution" they have. It's really anybody's guess.

Post a Comment