Switzerland bans construction of minarets

[Partisan]

and the millions of the dead in America and in Africa because the christian faith dicrectly or indirectly?

Without any comment on the correctness of the numbers named, given that you were also totally incorrect concerning National Socialism and Communism, are you really doing what I think you're doing? Comparing atrocities?

Communism and atrocity in the same phrase? It's meaningless.

[JackFrost]

Fact check: Burqas are something new in France, something you didn't see until recently. It's not "Sarko pulling that out of his ass as usual" since even the leftists are heavily discussing a ban.

I found some links on stats using Google in French instead. My apologies. I just wanted some citations on what you've been saying.

http://www.lefigaro.fr/actualite-france ... rance-.php

It doesn't look like a burqa actually. More like a nijab. That's what I've been getting so often in pics on Google about "burqa en France" and not one actual photo of a woman in burqa in a French town. Here's a pic if you don't know the difference between nijab and burqa.


Nijab doesn't bother me. I see them once every while. Once per month more likely.

I'd rather hear from the French instead from you. Let me know when you see the burqa as shown above picture, then I'll believe you. I never, ever saw it. Nijab. Yes. Burqa. No.

[Car]

It doesn't look like a burqa actually. More like a nijab. That's what I've been getting so often in pics on Google about "burqa en France" and not one actual photo of a woman in burqa in a French town. Here's a pic if you don't know the difference between nijab and burqa.

Right, the two are often confused. A couple of weeks ago, I saw a discussion on France 2 between someone from the PS and Daniel Cohn-Bendit from the Greens. They showed some women in France (e.g. French metros) who definitely were wearing a burqa and not just a nijab.
The two were debating if a ban would solve the problem, with the socialist being in favour, Cohn-Bendit against. Both agreed that seeing a burqa is unbearable for them, they just didn't agree on what to do.

Nijab doesn't bother me. I see them once every while. Once per month more likely.

I'd rather hear from the French instead from you. Let me know when you see the burqa as shown above picture, then I'll believe you. I never, ever saw it. Nijab. Yes. Burqa. No.

The burqa isn't a problem in Germany yet, I've never seen one here. I've even rarely ever seen a nijab here (2-3 times or so). But it's sometimes said that problems that arrive in France arrive here, too ... 10 years later.
Apart from that, I saw one in a report from London. It had nothing to do with Islam, just normal politics, but while the correspondent was talking, you could see a woman in a burqa walking by in the background.
The French should know that one better indeed, but if even the Greens agree that there is a problem, then it must exist. They're surely not likely to see problems everywhere when it comes to immigrants.

[Giovanni]

I didn't see women wearing the burqa in Italy either, but there is a "little" perchentage of muslim women wearing the niqab, they say c.ca 2000. I saw some of them, 10-15 in my entire life.
Personally, I'm against the use of the niqab too in our coutry, also for the reason explained above.

[kalemiye]

One cannot be against democracy every time people choose something one doesn't agree with. A referendum was held and people decided, so be it.

[Narbleh]

One cannot be against democracy every time people choose something one doesn't agree with. A referendum was held and people decided, so be it.

Majorities aren't always known for protecting the interests of the minority, especially when it comes to civil rights or freedoms.

[Zorba]

One cannot be against democracy every time people choose something one doesn't agree with. A referendum was held and people decided, so be it.

As Narbleh says, our conception of democracy is not based on mob rule. The Swiss decision to ban minarets reveals precisely the kind of problems that so-called "direct democracy" (where everything is decided by referendum) brings. The tradition of liberal democracy is based upon the maintenance of certain universal rights and freedoms despite public opinion: there is a recognition that public opinion is fickle.

Hitler and Milosevic, do not forget, were democratically elected and their genocidal policies had the support of a significant percentage of the nation. Certain universal standards need to be in place to prevent leaders like these indulging in mass murder and terror. To take a less extreme, but equally effective example: public opinion polls often show high levels of support for capital punishment even in societies where it has been banned for decades: a 1997 poll showed 49% of Swedes in favour of death penalty. Back in 1981, when Mitterand abolished the death penalty in France, 62% of the French were still in favour of capital punishment. We've spoken about the legalization of homosexuality on here before: if you look at the history of the decriminalization of homosexuality, many countries decided to legalize homosexual acts long before a majority of citizens would have approved of the decision.

[Partisan]

One cannot be against democracy every time people choose something one doesn't agree with. A referendum was held and people decided, so be it.

As Narbleh says, our conception of democracy is not based on mob rule. The Swiss decision to ban minarets reveals precisely the kind of problems that so-called "direct democracy" (where everything is decided by referendum) brings. The tradition of liberal democracy is based upon the maintenance of certain universal rights and freedoms despite public opinion: there is a recognition that public opinion is fickle.

Hitler and Milosevic, do not forget, were democratically elected and their genocidal policies had the support of a significant percentage of the nation. Certain universal standards need to be in place to prevent leaders like these indulging in mass murder and terror. To take a less extreme, but equally effective example: public opinion polls often show high levels of support for capital punishment even in societies where it has been banned for decades: a 1997 poll showed 49% of Swedes in favour of death penalty. Back in 1981, when Mitterand abolished the death penalty in France, 62% of the French were still in favour of capital punishment. We've spoken about the legalization of homosexuality on here before: if you look at the history of the decriminalization of homosexuality, many countries decided to legalize homosexual acts long before a majority of citizens would have approved of the decision.

A Quick Observation:
If Milosevic had genocidal policies, the same vision must to be used for Franjo Tudman, Helmut Kohl, Hasim Thaçi and Bill Clinton either.

Returning to the theme:
The problem isn't the direct democracy itself. It's the manipulation of this by xenophobic groups which work with the fear and the "salvation of the homeland".

Another countries who use the direct democracy like Cuba and Venezuela hadn't problems like the Swiss problem now.

[Ludwig Whitby]

And Milošević wasn't democratically elected, as he was first elected by the communist party of Serbia, it was only after he rose to power that the first multi-party (''democratic'') elections were held. With state controlled media, so Milošević's opponents had 0 media coverage, plus were often, especially in later years of the nineties beaten, sent to jail, etc...

[Boes]

Nopt the American usage of the term as in skin color.

You should probably stop talking about America since you've been demonstrating in this thread that you know nothing about it.

Ah yes, the 'you're ignorant-argument' ... to be used when all hope is lost.

When, in the United States, the police are asked for the 'ethnicity' of a suspect, they'll either reply 'caucasian, black, hispanic or asian.

If you'd ask the same question to a European police officer (s)he'd mention the persons cultural background. For example 'he's a Turk/German/Italian/Serb'.

So I know very well what I'm talking about, and you've demonstrated what you know.

and the millions of the dead in America and in Africa because the christian faith dicrectly or indirectly?

Without any comment on the correctness of the numbers named, given that you were also totally incorrect concerning National Socialism and Communism, are you really doing what I think you're doing? Comparing atrocities?

Communism and atrocity in the same phrase? It's meaningless.

Your reply is meaningless. Not in the least part because I cannot for the life of me decipher it. Perhaps you should have paid less attention during your little anarchists club and more during English classes.

One cannot be against democracy every time people choose something one doesn't agree with. A referendum was held and people decided, so be it.

As Narbleh says, our conception of democracy is not based on mob rule. The Swiss decision to ban minarets reveals precisely the kind of problems that so-called "direct democracy" (where everything is decided by referendum) brings.

What problems? That's democracy right there. Just because the majority doesn't conform to your morals doesn't mean the system is wrong, what kind of elitist conception of democracy is that supposed to be?

A Quick Observation:
If Milosevic had genocidal policies, the same vision must to be used for Franjo Tudman, Helmut Kohl, Hasim Thaçi and Bill Clinton either.

A quick observation:
You're bonkers.

[Zorba]

What problems? That's democracy right there. Just because the majority doesn't conform to your morals doesn't mean the system is wrong, what kind of elitist conception of democracy is that supposed to be?

So following your argument to its logical conclusion, the people of any country should be able to vote on any issue and decide policy based on a majority verdict.

Does that mean you would be in favor of the following policies, if a majority voted for them in a referendum:

-- banning the Koran
-- making it illegal for anyone to receive a salary over $100,000 / annum
-- making sex before marriage illegal
-- making cannabis legal
-- bringing back capital punishment
-- forcing immigrants or people of a particular religious persuasion to live in ghettos
-- setting up an inquisition to punish "blasphemers" and "heretics"
-- seizing all the land owned by white farmers and forcefully evicting them from the land

There are societies around the world today where majority of people support these measures and many societies historically in which a majority of people supported these measures. If you believe in direct democracy, you grant legitimacy to all of these regimes and measures.

So no, I do not believe in "democracy" where it conflicts with basic human rights and liberal principles. You say that makes me an elitist; I say that democracy without liberalism is no democracy at all. Historically, we have a poor record when it comes to guaranteeing freedom of speech and we have often treated our minorities disgracefully. We must be vigilant not to fall into those traps and we must have standards which govern our behavior regardless of what the majority think. These standards are written into our constitutions, international law and so on.

To use the old cliche, three wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner is a democratic vote, but it's not a liberal democratic vote.

Do you believe in following what the majority say, regardless of what national and international law say, or what ethics suggest?

And Milošević wasn't democratically elected, as he was first elected by the communist party of Serbia, it was only after he rose to power that the first multi-party (''democratic'') elections were held. With state controlled media, so Milošević's opponents had 0 media coverage, plus were often, especially in later years of the nineties beaten, sent to jail, etc...

I don't really want to get into this here as it's off topic, but AFAIK most commentators recognize that a majority supported Milosevich in his first (1989) election and although the elections weren't entirely transparent, he would have won a victory in any case:

http://www.slate.com/id/1006263/

[Boes]

What problems? That's democracy right there. Just because the majority doesn't conform to your morals doesn't mean the system is wrong, what kind of elitist conception of democracy is that supposed to be?

So following your argument to its logical conclusion, the people of any country should be able to vote on any issue and decide policy based on a majority verdict.

Yes.

Does that mean you would be in favor of the following policies, if a majority voted for them in a referendum:

-- banning the Koran

Yes.

[-- making it illegal for anyone to receive a salary over $100,000 / annum

Yes.

[-- making sex before marriage illegal

Yes.

[-- making cannabis legal

Yes.

[-- bringing back capital punishment

Yes.

[-- forcing immigrants or people of a particular religious persuasion to live in ghettos

Yes.

[-- setting up an inquisition to punish "blasphemers" and "heretics"

Yes.

[-- seizing all the land owned by white farmers and forcefully evicting them from the land

Yes.

There are societies around the world today where majority of people support these measures and many societies historically in which a majority of people supported these measures. If you believe in direct democracy, you grant legitimacy to all of these regimes and measures.

That I do.

Because people aren't idiots.

[Zorba]

Interesting. Well, I think we can close this discussion. I don't see how I can have meaningful dialogue with someone who doesn't believe in basic civil liberties or human rights.

[Boes]

Interesting. Well, I think we can close this discussion. I don't see how I can have meaningful dialogue with someone who doesn't believe in basic civil liberties or human rights.

I don't see how I could have a meaningful dialogue with someone who seems to believe that a society with direct democracy is incapable of having both civil liberties or human rights ...

[Partisan]

Your reply is meaningless. Not in the least part because I cannot for the life of me decipher it. Perhaps you should have paid less attention during your little anarchists club and more during English classes.

I waiting for a reply yet. If possible, with some meaning, please.

[Zorba]

I don't see how I could have a meaningful dialogue with someone who seems to believe that a society with direct democracy is incapable of having both civil liberties or human rights ...

Which specific historical examples suggest that a society can combine the principles of direct democracy with civil liberties and human rights? Athenian democracy, a society based on slave ownership and in which slaves were denied not only property rights but equality before the law? Switzerland, which had cantons that denied women the right to vote until 1990, and which is now restricting religious liberties for its citizens? Venezuela, where on 15th February this year, a referendum passed allowing Chavez to stay in power indefinitely and the people voted in favour of new laws which contravene freedom of speech, allowing the government to close down media outlets that disagree with Chavez and do not give sufficient air time to his speeches?

From the examples above, it's clear that direct democracy often does contravene civil liberties and human rights. When that happens, you say go with the people. I say go with human rights.

Of course, theoretically we can imagine a society where the enlightened wolves vote not to eat the sheep for the dinner but to graze on the grass peacefully together. Theoretically, however, we can also imagine lots of societies that we're never seen, including a Communist utopia which actually works. In practice, we confront the reality that we have all too often abused the principles of human rights and civil liberties, particularly in the name of bogeymen such as "the majority", "the people" or "the revolution".

[Boes]

I don't see how I could have a meaningful dialogue with someone who seems to believe that a society with direct democracy is incapable of having both civil liberties or human rights ...

(...)

From the examples above, it's clear that direct democracy often does contravene civil liberties and human rights. When that happens, you say go with the people. I say go with human rights.

The examples you gave before (ghetto's, religious persecution, capital punishment, etc.) all happened under (formerly) indirect democracies. It just shows you how 'perfectly' your prefered system works.

[Zorba]

Yes, but those societies moved away from the creation of ghettos, religious persecution and capital punishment precisely because they realized that these practices did not accord with the liberal principles of human rights and civil liberties, even though a majority of their population still supported them.

Moreover, our debate is not primarily a question of direct democracy versus indirect democracy, but a debate of illiberal democracy vs liberal democracy. If a representative democracy, like that of the UK or Sweden, suddenly decided to ban minarets or restore capital punishment, I would oppose that decision just as I opposed the Swiss ban on minarets, because all these policies oppose the principles of liberal democracy. However, I do think that direct democracies which emphasize public referendums rather than constitutional precedent tend to gravitate away from liberal principles, because man is fickle.

[Boes]

Moreover, our debate is not primarily a question of direct democracy versus indirect democracy, but a debate of illiberal democracy vs liberal democracy.

No it isn't. It's about you claiming that direct democracy will lead to ghetto's, persecution as well as murder and that indirect democracy is to be prefered because the foolish masses need to be led by people who know whats 'good' for them.

[Zorba]

No it isn't. It's about you claiming that direct democracy will lead to ghetto's, persecution as well as murder and that indirect democracy is to be prefered because the foolish masses need to be led by people who know whats 'good' for them.

The topic of the thread is the Swiss decision to ban minarets. Whether this decision came from a dictator, an elected government, a monarch, or direct democracy, I would oppose it because I believe that it contravenes the liberal principles of human rights and civil liberties.

I don't believe that any form of government is perfect, but I do believe that some forms of government have proved better than others when it comes to maintaining civil liberties and human rights. As far as I can see, direct democracy does not have a particularly good record on this score. I've given some examples of problems with direct democracy already.

I repeat my question: Which specific historical or contemporary examples suggest that a society can combine the principles of direct democracy with civil liberties and human rights?