THE LARGEST CONSERVATIVE PARTY HAS BEEN TRYING TO BAN MINARETS FOR A FEW YEARS; IT'S FINALLY COMING TO A VOTE - IN A REFERENDUM - ON NOVEMBER 29TH.
BBC 2007:
A row is brewing over religious symbolism in Switzerland.
Members of the right-wing Swiss People's Party, currently the largest party in the Swiss parliament, have launched a campaign to have the building of minarets banned.
They claim the minaret is not necessary for worship, but is rather a symbol of Islamic law, and as such incompatible with Switzerland's legal system.
Signatures are now being collected to force a nationwide referendum on the issue which, under Switzerland's system of direct democracy, would be binding.
The move has shocked Switzerland's 350,000 Muslims, many of whom have been campaigning for decades for more recognition for their faith.
8 comments:
The Swiss have the world's best political system. Virtually all major decisions are decided by the people in referenda, not by political insiders. And the people almost always vote no to the self-aggrandizing schemes of the politicians.
The balance of power in Switzerland is the opposite of most other countries. There the communes, or municipalities, are the most powerful layer of government, followed by the cantons, or states, and only then the federal government. It's probably the weakest and least powerful central government in the Western world, which is definitely a good thing.
The Swiss People's Party (SVP) are true patriots fighting to preserve the traditional nature of Swiss society. A ban on minarets would be a HUGE victory against Islamization that would reverberate throughout Europe. No doubt the Swiss MSM and dhimmi parties are campaigning hard against the ban, so who knows how it will turn out.
Needless to say, the SVP are vilified as racists, fascists and Islamophobes. Quelle surprise! Their campaign posters have come in for international condemnation for depicting three white sheep kicking a black sheep out of the country, mostly non-white hands reaching for welfare benefits, and a woman with a burka in front of a forest of minarets.
I would compare them to the Vlaams Belang: They're fiscally and socially conservative, pro-family, friendly to the US and Israel, and opposed to immigration, Islamization, the EU, and political correctness in general.
What do you think of them, Pasto?
I don't know anything about the SVP.
I do understand that the VB's platform is "fiscally and socially conservative, pro-family, friendly to the US and Israel, and opposed to immigration, Islamization, the EU, and political correctness in general."
But, I also know their history, and I know that the people who are leading the party now are the same people as the old party, or they were mentored by the old party.
Therefore, I don't trust the VB.
It just comes down to where you want to place your faith. If you want to believe in Filip DeWinter, go ahead.
You could be right. I could be wrong.
I think I'm right. But, why bother going over the same old arguments again.
We've been through the VB debate too many times to count. At this point all I could be bothered to say about it is "who cares"?
I was just curious about what you thought of the SVP. Here's their Wiki page.
I would have to study the SVP quite a bit to formulate an opinion. Sorry to duck the question. If you think it is an important question for me to answer, I will do so.
However, I am busy this morning so I don't have time to study.
:)
Well, I don't know if it's an *important* question for you to answer, but I do think this referendum on minarets is a big deal. I'm glad you brought it up here and hope you'll continue to follow this story.
You and me are definitely on the same side vis-a-vis Islamization, but our views on how to stop it are different. We share the same strategy but differ on what tactics should be used to achieve our common goals.
Regarding political parties, we both like Wilders' PVV, I like the VB but you don't, and I'm sympathetic to the BNP while you definitely aren't. From what I know about the SVP, and I've looked into them a fair bit, they're exactly the type of party needed to put an end to their country's suicidal immigration/Islamization policies.
You probably hold all these parties to a higher standard than I do (maybe impossibly high), so I wonder what you think of the SVP. When you get the time to research them, hopefully you will report back that they're fuckin' A-OK.
:)
You know, there are some things I disagree with Wilders about; the chief among them being that he has proposed that part of Belgium ought to be folded into Holland. I think that is imperialistic. The fact that there is not a huge outcry in Europe over Wilders words on that subject tells me one of two things:
1) no one takes Wilders seriously (which I don't think is true)
or
2) Europeans think about their borders and their allegiances in a completely different way than we Americans do.
Often, when conversing with Europeans, I feel like we are talking about apples, and they are talking about oranges. We never truly communicate, or so it seems.
One solution to this would be to just allow Europeans to be Europeans, and we Americans just shut our mouths.
That seems reasonable, except for the fact that Europeans have not done very well for themselves over the past 200 years. An awful lot of imperialistic blood shed in Europe by madmen whom Europeans deem as saviors.
The Greater Netherlands movement certainly didn't begin with Wilders, he's like a Johnny-come-lately jumping on an already existing bandwagon.
Belgium was part of the Netherlands before 1830, when a Catholic revolt broke out against the Protestant rulers of NL. The artificial state of Belgium was created under British tutelage to create a wedge between France and NL, and so that Britain would retain influence in its important port cities, like Antwerp for example.
Belgium has been just about the worst "ally" that we in the English-speaking world could imagine. They consistently oppose the US and the UK (also Israel), and are the biggest champions of the undemocratic, anti-American EU superstate. David Frum has aptly called them France's pilot fish.
The day that the corrupt Belgian state finally collapses (and it almost certainly will eventually) will be a great day for Americans and freedom-loving Europeans. An independent Flanders and Wallonia would be far better than a united Belgium.
But the best-case scenario IMO is for Dutch-speaking Flanders to join the NL, French-speaking Wallonia to join France (except for a small German-speaking region which should join Germany), and bilingual Brussels to join the NL as well. I think that this division of Belgium would help encourage a healthy nationalism in the bordering states as an antidote to the prevailing and destructive "Europeanism" or "Eurabianism" promoted by the Euro elites.
From an American point of view, you should definitely not worry about propping up anti-American failed states like Belgium. It's in the US national interest to see Belgium disappear from the map forever, replaced by something better.
Some of you might be interested in this interview with Ulrich Schluer:
http://www.vjmovement.com/truth/487
Post a Comment