Why is it spectacularly undemocratic? You are certainly no democrat.

The argument looks structurally similar to those who argue for a ban on pornography.

In both cases there is a willingness to attribute to the object of the ban a particular meaning, which is not entirely implausible in itself. Those intending the ban believe it to be the ONLY reasonable meaning of the object, whereas those that actually use the object attribute a variety of different meanings to it. In the case of minarets, it is Islamic supremacism, in the case of pornography, it is the violent subordination of women. Both types of prohibitionist, because of the targets, can come up with plausible (even ‘liberal’ reasons) but both are, in fact, misunderstanding what liberalism is about.

Oh, but it is a quintessentially “democratic” outcome for what its worth.

When you get people to vote on others civil liberties and fundemental freedoms the result is often ugly.

Imagine if the decriminalisation of homosexuality in the UK or the end of segregation in the US were put to a public referendum.

Democracy is a wonderfull thing but can also be an expression of peoples most base prejudices.

Even democracy has it’s limits, sometimes elected governments must lead in order to do the right thing, even if that means ignoring the populace.

Yet the same thing, ignoring public opinion, led us into Iraq.

A cantadiction to be sure, but consistent with human nature.

It can be quite a dilemma.

The phrase is “tyranny of the majority”.

The post is right – it is a complete joke that anyone self-describing as “libertarian” could even contemplate supporting this repressive law.

It’s further evidence that a significant proportion of so-called “libertarians” are nothing of the kind, not when it comes to upholding the rights of people they dislike. (Their own rights, of course, are sacrosanct.)

You don’t have to believe democracy is perfect to defend it. It’s perfectly capable of making very bad decisions.

Democracy had a bad name for millennia after what was seens as the disastrous Athenian experiment, which saw just this kind of trigger-happy decision. In fact we don’t generally operate the direct Athenian (and Swiss referendum) system. Usually the people who take final decisions are relatively few in number, and do not vote anonymously, so they can be held to account for their decisions. A referendum makes the decision everybody’s so it is nobody’s. In this case it isn’t impossible that the same decision would have been taken by elected representatives voting in public, but I think it is less likely.

Democracy and the left

Tony Woolf needs to go back to school.

The Athenian experiment was remarkably stable for the vast majority of its hundred and seventy-odd year history. It took the ancient equivalent of a world war and two revolutions to get rid of it, only for it to pop up again a couple of months later. The ‘extreme’ behaviours attributed to the Athenian democracy were to be found in virtually any ancient society, whether monarchic, oligarchic or democratic.

The cultural elite have always been rather afraid of the masses.

When their values are challenged they might suggest the law itself is wrong?

Or that populist sentiments are wrong?

It seems that in most of Europe the cultural elite and masses are at loggerheads over national identity again?

Larry Teabag I think has it down for me on this issue, I must confessed I did wince when I saw this post as I thought the comments would not be pretty.

I’m with Larry Teabag on this one, he seems to have summed it up best and it did make me wince when I saw this was to be a thread as the comments never bode well on issues like this.

We have (or should have) constitutional rights to protect us from the tyranny of the majority and/or the executive.

I’m not sure that such rights need extend into the architectural sphere however.

Meanwhile Tariq Ramadan is jumping the shark on CiF.

Muslims are under siege everywhere: in Holland they are being attacked via homosexuality (!) while the Danes are of course constantly unleashing their own special WMD, the dreaded cartoon.

Somehow, though, I doubt that many Swiss Muslims will be leaving that prosperous land for the shores of Ramadanistan.

Guthrum over at Old Holborn is managing to do a great disservice to Libertarians everywhere by holding up this as an example of democracy in process.

Yes, he has messed up badly with that article and I have told him so.

The Old Hoborn blog tends to cater for the more virulent end of the libertarian spectrum and I suspect he wrote it with that particular audience in mind.

Of course he has every entitlement to do so but banning architecture is about as authoritarian as you can get.

Before a democracy can function certain preconditions must be met. To be a follower of a legally censured religion is damaging to these basic freedoms that form the foundations of democracy. No majority vote can rewrite the preconditions necessary for a democratic and free society.

Islam has not been banned, mosques have not been banned.

“Of course he has every entitlement to do so but banning architecture is about as authoritarian as you can get.”

Really? I’d have thought banning freedom of speech would be. Regulations on architecture can often be quite positive if for example they put a stop to ghastly concrete tower blocks being created.

I don’t approve of the minaret ban but I don’t think it’s some act of monstrous tyranny. Chances are it’ll be overturned if the Arabs start boycotting the Swiss finance industry.

Virulent end of the libertarian spectrum?

I think Larry summed that up well with his take on it, pick and mix libertarian attitudes never looks good.

banning architecture is about as authoritarian as you can get

I see you’ve met some local council planners!

it is a complete joke that anyone self-describing as “libertarian” could even contemplate supporting this repressive law.

It’ll certainly come as a surprise to anyone who believed libertarianism was about anything other than maximising the wealth, freedom and political power of well-to-do white blokes, at any rate.

In other news, Santa doesn’t bring you presents at Christmas. It’s really your mum and dad.

I’m curious – what is the precise legal definition of “minaret” under this ban? Is it based on form, function, or a combination of the two? If I were a Swiss citizen, could I build something that looked like a minaret, as long as it wasn’t attached to a mosque? Can Swiss mosques issue the call to prayer from other structures? What, exactly, has been banned here?

@Dunc – the call to prayer is already banned under noise pollution legislation. The Minaret is simply a beautiful architectural form.

Here’s a wonderful get-out-of-jail free card played at Samizdata (where most of the folks are in favour of, or at best ambivalent to, the ban):

“only when we are in a society that is governed by true Libertarian principles can a principled Libertarian stance be taken”

That pretty much exempts the speaker from ever having to deal with the real world!

Yet despite all this, banning one particular sort of building seems spectacularly undemocratic.

Illiberal perhaps, but (assuming no electoral fraud) not undemocratic.

Guthrum over at Old Holborn is managing to do a great disservice to Libertarians everywhere by holding up this as an example of democracy in process.

libertarianism != democracy

only when we are in a society that is governed by true Libertarian principles can a principled Libertarian stance be taken

For a bunch of jokers who claim to despise the commies, it’s amazing how often they find themselves reaching for the same argumentative tools. Which is doubly ironic, since you’d struggle to find a better description of Samizdata’s patrons and punters than “argumentative tools”.

…in Holland they are being attacked via homosexuality…

Yes – that was one of the strangest sentences I’ve read since I tried to understand the popularity of Twilight.

A quote from Samizdata…

But when a clear majority of the demos say no, well, then it gets rather harder. At least, it does for me.

I thought libertarians opposed the dictatorship of the majority. If most of the public demanded the imposition of soccccialismumumum, would they find it similarly “hard” to disagree?

@21,

Libertarianism — that is to say, the extremist, full-on version of it — would only work in a society populated by libertarians. In a human society, it would never work.

@23,

Libertarianism and communism both appeal to a certain sort of mindset: one that yearns for a simple, clean, total, solution to all of society’s problems. Unfortunately, there is no such solution that accounts for humanity’s crooked timber.

@Dunc – the call to prayer is already banned under noise pollution legislation. The Minaret is simply a beautiful architectural form.

Yeah, but I’m curious about the precise definition… Is it just anything taller than it is wide, owned by a Muslim? How close to a mosque does it have to be to count specifically as a minaret? How tall does it have to be? What I’m trying to get at here is whether there’s any objective definition of what constitutes a minaret specifically, rather than any other form of tower, which could get around the fairly obvious “equal protection” objection -. i.e.: It’s only minaret if it’s built for Muslims. If I build something that looks exactly the same, but I’m not a Muslim, I can fairly assert that it’s not technically a minaret. Therefore, Muslims are being unfairly discriminated against. Alternatively, you decide that anything taller than it is wide, attached to a mosque, is a minaret – again, that’s unfair discrimination as I’m pretty sure nobody’s going to be banning church towers any time soon. Banning “minarets” only makes any kind of sense if you can say what a “minaret” is, and what makes it different from any other similar structures.

Didn’t know about the pre-existing ban on the call to prayer, so thanks for clearing that up.

It’s easily within the current state of technology to conduct jury trials on TV with viewers pressing buttons on handheld gizmos to decide guilt or innocence – or the maximum permissible height of minarets.

And why not?

@10: “The cultural elite have always been rather afraid of the masses.”

Which is why JS Mill pressed for Representative Government (1861):
http://www.efm.bris.ac.uk/het/mill/repgovt.pdf

And Edmund Burke made his famous speech in 1774 to the electors of Bristol:

“Your representative owes you, not his industry only, but his judgment; and he betrays instead of serving you if he sacrifices it to your opinion.”
http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Edmund_Burke

Amused that libertarianism now apparently equals opposing anything elected governments do, even when those governments are the ones opposing banning things.

This has more to do with the problems with government by referenda than it does with problems with democracy.

I don’t think has got anything to do with architecture, or noise – anybody who thinks that must be crazy?

No, ‘minaret-gate’ is just the latest chapter in cultural war engulfing much of Europe. Perhaps some people are getting excited because the Swiss are seen as the bastion of a certain kind of isolationism, and if the Swiss fall then so will the rest of Europe?

Deary me Girls,

Now tell me. Can Christian women build a church, drink a gin and tonic and sunbathe on a beach in Saudi? If not, why not?

It may frighten you to know that the left wing feminists in Switzerland voted for a ban too. Can’t think why, can you?

Quote of the day on my blog goes to

“It’s democratic tyranny” !!!!

Can Christian women build a church, drink a gin and tonic and sunbathe on a beach in Saudi?

So Libertarians take their lead from Saudi Arabia these days.

How about you atempt to gain moe than a tissue thin understanding of your own (supposed) ideology?

Libertarianism according to Old Holborn

“Do what you want as long as it does not adversely affect the lives of others”

Now YOU work out why the Swiss people said no to minarets regardless of what their government (or the European left wing) wanted.

Now tell me. Can Christian women build a church, drink a gin and tonic and sunbathe on a beach in Saudi? If not, why not?

No, because the Saudis are a bunch of medieval authoritarian bastards. We should not seek to emulate them in that regard.

“But so-and-so is doing it too!” was a lousy excuse when you were a toddler, and it’s no better now you’re an adult. When you claim to be a libertarian and the “so-and-so” in question is one of the most repressive regimes on the planet, it just makes you look like an arse.

Now I see. The Swiss people can’t have what the Swiss people want in Switzerland because YOU don’t like it and are offended on behalf of someone else.

Thanks for clearing that up

[34] ‘the Saudis are a bunch of medieval authoritarian bastards. We should not seek to emulate them’.

So, is that a ‘no’ to the minarets?

“Do what you want as long as it does not adversely affect the lives of others”

Right, and saying “your a minaret adversely affects my life therefore you can’t have it” is comparable to me saying “your blog adversely affects my life therefore you can’t have it”. i.e it’s not an argument, it’s a joke. Property rights at all? I thought Libertarians were keen on those.

Now YOU work out why the Swiss people said no to minarets regardless of what their government (or the European left wing) wanted.

Because they wanted to show the middle finger to Muslims. Or am I missing something?

Quote of the day on my blog goes to
“It’s democratic tyranny” !!!!

The problem of the tyranny of the majority has been known since Plato, and anyone serious about Libertarianism* should recognise it as a threat. This is about as clear an example of the genre as you could hope to see.

*Obviously that excludes Old Holborn.

Howabout mini-minarets – about 5 ft tall?

Ooh! Or a minaret with a wind farm on top?

“No, because the Saudis are a bunch of medieval authoritarian bastards. We should not seek to emulate them in that regard.”

Remind us again who is trying to emulate the Saudis in Switzerland? The ones trying to build minarets perhaps? The ones trying to force all of us to eat Halal meat? The ones who demand Sharia law? To set up madrassas? To stone gays?

I can see why you’re so upset. How DARE the Swiss against that.

How about you atempt to gain moe than a tissue thin understanding of your own (supposed) ideology?

I think you’ll find there’s nothing in the Swiss Screw the Muslims vote that would prevent Ol’ Hole riding his motorbike at 120mph helmetless while whacking off to violent twink porn on his mobile phone, ergo no problem.

Now, if there the Swiss had voted for a licence fee for publicly funded broadcasting, that would be actual, goosestepping Hitlerian state fascism. Legislation specifically targetting religious minorities to which OH doesn’t belong = direct democracy at its finest.

This might look more like the political philosophy of a seven-year-old whose Dad has just told him he’s not allowed to play on the roof, but that’s because we’re all wannabe Stalins striving to crush liberty itself beneath our socialist jackboots.

Remind us again who is trying to emulate the Saudis in Switzerland? The ones trying to build minarets perhaps? The ones trying to force all of us to eat Halal meat? The ones who demand Sharia law? To set up madrassas? To stone gays?

One of these things is not like the others. Can you tell which?

Oh, and while you’re at it, can you perhaps clarify exactly what you mean by “minaret”? In what manner is a “minaret” specifically different from any other similar structures?

@36: you missed off “in that regard”, which I believe clarifies my position for anyone with a reasonable understanding of English, when read in context.

I’m not sure why Old Holborn is struggling with the concept of “democratic tyranny” (or “tyranny of the majority”). As others have pointed out, this has been expressed as a risk of democracy for some time: notably by JS Mill and de Tocqueville, among others.

It’s why democracy in itself is not enough for a liberal society – we also need to protect the rights and interests of minorities.

As for “what the Swiss people want”, the turnout was 55%, and the ban was approved by 57.5% of voters, which looks to me like under a third of those eligible to vote approved of the ban. It therefore seems more accurate to claim that a third of “the Swiss people said no to minarets”, rather than leave people to infer that all “the Swiss people said no to minarets”.

I am sorry to say a little on the fence. I would not of voted for the ban but if I am arguing at a practical level the local council could preclude a certain height for the minarets.

It seems a shame that the Muslims in Switzerland appear to be very moderate, being Turkish and Bosnian mainly and hence not a terrorist threat. My local convenience store is Turkish owned and the guy usually has Turkish TV on and you never see burkas and the lady presenters dress like their European presenters to give you a trivial example.

However, I believe the Muslim presence in Europe is a long term threat. From the Moorish invasion in the 8th Century to the attempt to overrun Europe at the gates of Vienna in 1683. I also find the most blatant hypocrisy from the liberal/left on Islam from women’s rights.

Arranged (forced?) marriages, repressive dress, female circumcision, 2nd class citizen status, enshrined in law, real homophobia, if this was white middle class men defending that agenda there would be blood in the streets.

I am trying to get a handle on what percentage of British Muslims are perfectly reasonable and who are a threat. My reading and instinct suggests a 90/10 split.

In conclusion, we as a country are probably most entiltled to defend in law our western liberal democracy/culture as I feel we have compromised it far too much. I have no shame in saying if you want to live under Sharia law go and live in a country with Sharia law.

[41] only teasing, I will not lose much sleep over the Swiss Minarets, I doubt if anyone here will?

OH may be a rambling lunatic but he has a point when he says;
“The Swiss people can’t have what the Swiss people want in Switzerland because YOU don’t like it and are offended on behalf of someone else” [35].

The Swiss people can’t have what the Swiss people want in Switzerland

Not the Muslim ones, anyway.

Old Holborn

Now tell me. Can Christian women build a church, drink a gin and tonic and sunbathe on a beach in Saudi? If not, why not?

At least the Saudis do not pretend to be anything other than patriarchal and authoritarian. You should know better.

First they came for the Minarets ………

The Muslims are not Swiss. They are Bosnian and Albanian “refugees”. Last time I checked, both countries (and their minarets) had been liberated.

Pagar,

Sue the Swiss people then. Each and every one that voted to keep their country how it is and how they like it. After all, it does belong to them. The evil bastards.

It’s not so much that I don’t like it, it’s more that I can’t see any reasonable way of defining “minaret” such that this legislation wouldn’t contravene the UDHR (specifically Article 7). I’m quite a fan of the UDHR myself, and I don’t give anyone a pass for violating it on the basis of either their religion or the religion of the people they’re unfairly discriminating against, nor am I any happier about letting the Swiss violate it than I am the Saudis.

‘Bizarrely he concludes with “The people told the Government, not the other way round” when in fact what has happened is the “the people told some other people to stop doing “that”.” Moreover, they told them to do it by co-opting the massive repressive potential of the state’

As I wrote the piece perhaps I can be allowed to restate what I said not what you all would like to think I said, then make some points.

It is not bizarre or unlibertarian to say ‘The People told the Government, not the other way round’ That is my admiration of a society that organises itself on the lines of the individual counts.

What is distinctly unlibertarian is the way we organise our civil society in that the individual does not count at all.

We have a parliamentary democracy, where a landslide vicory for the Tories will be getting around 38% of the vote, ditto Labour in the last election, QED 63% have no representation at all.

We have a Parliamentary democracy, where those who are actually elected have no control over the executive, because we have no constitution, or checks and balances over those who exercise power. They are mere lobby fodder for the kitchen cabinet.

We have a Parliamentary democracy where the like of Peter Mandelson can assume almost complete authority over the mechanism of Government and are completely unelected.

My thrust and summary of my piece is one of the consitutional differences between between Switzerland and the less than United Kingdom.

The BNP has arisen in strength because of the legitimate concerns of people in this country, there is not democratic voice or vent to these concerns, because they are judged ‘ illegitimate concerns’ by a small coterie of an elite. The Left have for as I have been an adult have followed the ‘no platform for fascism’ stance for the last thirty plus years, whilst imposing their own intolerant views and values on an unwilling populace in the name of being ‘progressive’

Inviting Referenda into our Constitution is I believe better than living under Authoritarian Left or Authoritarian Right minority regimes.

The risks are that you will get a popular movement for bringing back judicial state murder in the form of capital punishment or the banning of religions or not washing your cars properly etc etc. This is indeed the tyranny of the Majority

The threat however of a referenda hanging over a Government tends to make it tread carefully. Unlike an unfettered Westminster minority Government that produces bad Law virtually every day.

Personally I think the Swiss system has many superior points over our bankrupt repressive and corrupt Westminster system, that was my central point. If you wish to fly off in different directions making assumptions that is you freedom to say so, but please do not attribute these views to me.

A Libertarian and a Libertarian Society should prioritise the freedom to speak, but also prioritise the responsibility to listen and respect others views no matter how uncomfortable you feel personally about them.

The full force of the State has not been mobilised in this situation, the full weight of the popular will has over something it feels deeply uncomfortable with. The State has been curbed, to me a a Libertarian is a good thing. Nothing seems to curb the State in the United Kingdom much at all.

It’s not our business. It is a matter for the Swiss to decide how their government serves them.
I wish we had the same political structure here, then we could make our government serve us too, perhaps with a similar result.
JD.

[45] no that wasn’t OHs point – the question is why take such offense on their behalf?

Personally I can’t resist an inward chuckle when any of the monolithic religions get taken a peg or two – and before you suggest it my antipathy is not just restricted to the muslim faith.

Guys, it’s not difficult.

A libertarian society would allow people to build minarets on their own property if they want to.

Full stop.

Honestly, I’m more libertarian than you two clowns, and I’ve got a photo Uncle Joe on my mantlepiece.

I can’t be arsed to read all the comments, so I’ll just agree with whoever has already made the point that this is obviously a rather nasty case of xenophobia. Otherwise, why pick on minarets? You might perfectly reasonably pass a law amending building codes to control the height of structures; or perhaps one to legislate for building design to be sympathetic with local construction methods and designs. That’s still democratic – and it’s also (crucially) fairly applied to everyone in the country.

But picking on minarets? That’s just having a pop at a tiny group. It’s also cowardly: why not have a law banning mosques altogether? Or the practice of Islam? Or people without grandparents born in the country? Or non-whites? Cowardly, mean-spirited, angry, arrogant little f***ers these Swiss. Can’t they just be happy with all their Nazi gold and their automatic weapons?

And, to my great regret, I can find all that and more in the UK at Old Holborn. How I wish you hadn’t put in a link to that bouquet of vileness.

@24 – of course what he meant is that the Dutch have the *gall* – the *sheer gall* – to complain about Muslim attacks on gay people in Amsterdam…

I mean, how very dare they!

He is beyond parody.

Still, I’m sure he’ll register his protest by leaving oppressive Switzerland, er, won’t he….

Sue the Swiss people then. Each and every one that voted to keep their country how it is and how they like it. After all, it does belong to them. The evil bastards.

No it doesn’t.

William Tell Jr’s land in Switzerland belongs to William Tell Jr. No Muslims have any power to interfere with what he can do with the land that belongs to him.

Ali Khan’s land in Switzerland belongs to Ali Khan. A bunch of non-Muslims have just passed a law that interferes with what he can do with the land that belongs to him.

Had Ali Khan built a minaret, there would have been no impact at all on William Tell Jr. But banning Ali Khan from building a minaret has a significant impact on Ali Khan, if he really wants to build one.

That’s pretty fucking straightforward, isn’t it?

@35: “Now I see. The Swiss people can’t have what the Swiss people want in Switzerland because YOU don’t like it and are offended on behalf of someone else.”

ROFL !

Switzerland, a landlocked country, has borders with Germany, France, Italy and Austria.

The Swiss decided a long time ago that neutrality was more likely to be conducive of their national affluence than engaging in the periodic conflicts which have afflicted Europe. On the evidence so far, they made a shrewd choice.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Switzerland

As for their tradition to hold national plebiscites on constitutional issues, some of us recall the national plebiscites in Nazi Germany, the second of which established Hitler as Supreme Leader (Der Führer) and terminated democracy:
http://www.kgv.edu.hk/history/Y12-13/Nazi_Germany/Plebiscites.ppt#272,1,Slide 1

Evidently, plebiscites are not a sufficient condition for continued liberty for all citizens.

@51, that’s a stupid point, since it bans you from criticising Saudi Arabia for stoning adulteresses and flogging drinkers (as “it’s a matter for the Saudis to decide”).

But picking on minarets? That’s just having a pop at a tiny group. It’s also cowardly: why not have a law banning mosques altogether? Or the practice of Islam? Or people without grandparents born in the country? Or non-whites? Cowardly, mean-spirited, angry, arrogant little f***ers these Swiss. Can’t they just be happy with all their Nazi gold and their automatic weapons?

Lets not be too xenophobic then

Stop Press

Reuters, Zurich

Swiss people have voted against allowing Satanists to sacifice their blond children on bonfires twice a month.

Lucy Fir, a 32 year old witch from Luzern said “Ain’t fair innit. Bloody Muslims can cut animals throats, imprison their women, mutilate their genitals and stone gay people to death wailing their heads off 5 times a day and they weren’t even born here or have a Swiss passport. It’s our kids after all”

Various left wing groups have described the ban as “awful”, “a blow against religious freedom of expression” and “Bourgeoisie bastards”

[58] “it bans you from criticising Saudi Arabia for stoning adulteresses and flogging drinkers (as “it’s a matter for the Saudis to decide”).

It might in Saudi Arabia but NOT amongst the minaret-hating Swiss – at least not unless they decide to vote on the matter.

@58 – only once confirmed by referendum!

Are you really arguing that building a sodding minaret is equivalent to practising human sacrifice? Really? Because if you are, that might just be the stupidest thing I’ve ever seen anyone say on Teh Internets, and I read SYB…

It’s a perfect example of the difference between a direct and a representative democracy.

In a representative democracy, such as operates here in the UK, we choose representatives to weigh up the evidence and make informed decisions on our behalf (in theory). If we like what they do then we keep them in power, otherwise we vote for someone else.

However issues that we know a lot about or which affect us a lot will tend to be more important when it comes to voting. So for example if I work in a hospital and see the problems occurring there every day then I will be more likely to vote for the candidate who I feel has the better healthcare policy. On the other hand if I’m fit and healthy and have private medical cover, I’m probably going to ignore what happens to the NHS and vote on other issues. Similarly if I’m gay and want to get married, I’m going to be looking very hard at my local candidate’s voting record on gay rights issues, whereas somebody with no vested interest probably isn’t going to care very much one way or another. So in this situation a politician will tend to produce an agenda based on the views of their constituents weighted by importance.

In a direct democracy, on the other hand, everybody votes on everything, regardless of whether they know or care about the issue. This is pretty much guaranteed to produce an extremely conservative (as in resistant to change) result, and gives the classic outcome of the wolves voting to eat the sheep. And of course, it’s the reason Switzerland was the last country in Europe by some margin to give votes to women.

The current situation is precisely the same – it’s an issue that affects a few people a lot, and a lot of people not very much. So while in a representative democracy few sensible politicians would do something as silly as banning minarets, when put to a direct vote the many can vote to curtail the rights of the few.

Stop Press!

Reuters, London

Libertarian blogger can’t tell difference between killing a child and building a small tower.

“They seem pretty much the same to me”, said the rambling idiot.

Thank God for Larry Teabag!

@63 Dunc

No, I’m just trying to see if I can hear the sweet sound of UAF supporter exploding through indignation on behalf of someone else.

Listen..

sh….

*pop*

and another

*pop*

From where I’m sat, all I can see is libertarian explosions…

No, I’m just trying to see if I can hear the sweet sound of UAF supporter exploding through indignation on behalf of someone else.

Ah, I see… So, rather than trying (and failing) to make any kind of sense, you’re actually just trolling for the sake of it? Well, thanks for being so honest about it.

In other news

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/andrewgilligan/100018317/policy-exchange-1-north-london-mosque-0/

[70] are you suggesting that minarets are synonymous with nefarious goings-on under the cloak of religious respectability?

Old Holborn @47:

“The Muslims are not Swiss. They are Bosnian and Albanian “refugees”. Last time I checked, both countries (and their minarets) had been liberated.”

Ah, so there are no Swiss Muslims? It is impossible to be both Swiss and Muslim?

Nice libertarian view of nationality there.

OH @ 39

Yeah but none of those things were addressed in this vote, where they? No-one voted to ban the stoning of gays or the force feeding of Halal meat or even the call to prayer. All that has been banned is a style of tower. A style of tower favoured by Muslims. A fucking style of architecture has been outlawed for no other reason than 60% don’t like it. You and the halfwits who contribute posts are jumping up and down cheering because the Swiss have managed to put one over the Muslims and took away their freedom to build a tower.

These are the same people who demand freedom from the State and now the find themselves on the side of the State. The same people who shudder at the idea that that State would ban a minority of people from smoking or a minority of people hunting or a minority of people drinking too much, or eating too much red meat owning guns or doing anything that the majority of people find odd, but see no problem in ‘banning’ people from building a tower on their own land.

As you are perfectly aware, it will be the State that will scrutinise your plans, it will be the State that visits your place of business and it will be the State that employs people to prosecute you for having an ‘illegally shaped building on your own land. How do you distinguish between a tower and a minaret? Oh, that’s right if a Muslim has built it, it is a minaret!

Ah, but the State is not poking their unwelcome nose into the business of its citizens, it is the state poking their noses into the business of Muslims, so that’s alright then! The State (and it is the State, don’t pretend otherwise) are using their draconian powers to kick seven shades of people other than the rich white males, so that’s okay.

So, what if 60% of the population vote against decking, conservatries, The Gherkin, 4×4 or caravans are offensive and demand them banned?

What if 60% your (or my) neighbours decide that you (or I) are such a wanker that they have voted to have our houses pulled down?

You and your so called ‘Libertarian’ mates are quite happy to go with the majority, just as they are in the majority. Fucking retards.

You would think that being a libertarian would involve at least _slightly_ different political choices to being a run-of-the-mill prejudiced right-wing fucknut.

Right everyone, I’ve checked with the Swiss Embassy.

Apparently NO ONE is allowed to build a minaret in Switzerland. Jews, Sikhs, Buddhists OR Muslims. Or even the Swiss.

I must say I don’t agree with many of the reactions I’ve read so far.

Bottom line. I’d rather the Swiss had voted the other way and for a variety of reasons. The yes vote is wrong, stupid, narrow-minded, inflammatory, impulsive, counterproductive and all the rest of it.

But…but. Here’s the big BUT.
Do we really believe that 57% of the Swiss are hardcore racists? Do you think there may also be a case for reflecting upon the fact that sectors of Islam are triggering such widespread degrees of suspicion and hostility?

I know I’m probably going to get pilloried by many of my friends on LC, but this is my humble opinion.

Is this debate really about the demographic changes occuring in Europe, that within 100 years Christians may well be a minority in their own continent?

The State of Texas was once a part of Mexico along with New Mexico, California and Arizona. After 1801 European settlers migrated to Texas as it was sparcely populated and land was cheap. By about 1830 the Europeans were 75% of the population and the Mexican President Antonio Lopez de Santa Anna and I quote “the Mexican authorities decided in 1830 to prohibit continued immigration from the United States.” But it was too late, Texas wanted to be independent and went into revolt, the siege of The Alamo is probably one of the more widely known engagements.and in 1836 after defeating Santa Anna became a sovereign state. They became a part of the Union in 1845.

So we have two choices, either to carry on as we are and hope that succeeding generations become sold on the idea of western liberal values or use democracy to restrict and neutralise the continuing Islamisation of Western Europe. The latter is the insurance policy that perpetuates liberalism with greater confidence.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas

“Apparently NO ONE is allowed to build a minaret in Switzerland. Jews, Sikhs, Buddhists OR Muslims. Or even the Swiss.”

Not quite what the discussion is about…

Anyway, you’re now saying that “Swiss” is mutually exclusive to being a member of any non-Christian group…

Guthrum

My thrust and summary of my piece is one of the consitutional differences between between Switzerland and the less than United Kingdom.

Thanks for the clarification of what you intended. It seems you have taken the point that banning the building of minarets is pretty unlibertarian.

I think the interesting point to arise here is the obvious tension beween libertarianism and democracy and how that tension is affected by different types of democratic systems.

Assuming we accept that democracy is the least bad method of making communal decisions, I agree with you that the Swiss model of direct democracy is better than ours. But, of course, there needs to be even more protection written into the system in the form of a Constitution and Bill of Rights to protect individuals and minorities from the “tyranny of democracy”.

Thus, it should be unconstitutional, for example, to have a referendum on whether or not to imprison homosexuals and exterminate jews.

If individual rights were properly protected it should have been unconstitutional to vote to ban minarets.

I agree with Old Holborn! You looney left-wing scumbags complain about one set of offensive symbols being used (like those of Nazi Germany), but are outraged when other set of offensive symbols (such as minarets, which promote Saudi Arabian Wahabbist religious imperalism) are outlawed.

Make up your minds hypocritics!

Apparently NO ONE is allowed to build a minaret in Switzerland. Jews, Sikhs, Buddhists OR Muslims. Or even the Swiss.

Oh.

That’s all right then!!!

I’m not sure that the right to build a minaret is one for the constitution!

cjcjc @82

Please tell me that’s a joke argument

If the definition of a minaret is unclear (and no-one has provided a legal definition yet), then doesn’t banning them give the state powers to forbid the building of any tower-shaped building on the grounds that it’s a minaret?

Or do arguments about restrictive laws being abused for purposes they weren’t intended for only apply to British governments?

Turkey’s President defined a Minaret as

“The mosques are our barracks, the domes our helmets, the minarets our bayonets and the faithful our soldiers… ”

Hope this helps

Thankyou, that’s a great legal definition. So Muslims can build any structure they like as long as it’s not a metaphor for a bayonet.

Somewhere in a parallel universe, there’s a blogger called Golden Virginia cheering the Swiss people for voting to ban the yarmulke.

From Wiki

As well as providing a visual cue to a Muslim community, the main function of the minaret is to provide a vantage point from which the call to prayer (adhan) is made. Or to shoot infidels if New Labour has invaded your country illegally. Call to prayer in Islam happens five times each day. These times are at sunrise, noon, day, sundown, and evening and must be broadcast at 120db, in Arabic, with a microphone bought at a car boot sale. In most modern mosques, the adhan is called not from the minaret but from the musallah, or prayer hall, via a microphone and speaker system bought from Argos

Minarets made fom chocolate have not been invented yet, although an attempt to put a Swiss cuckoo clock mechansim in one resulted in widespread riots throughout the Muslim and Socialist world leaving nearly 200 dead and spoiled Islington dinner parties where everyone shouted “racist” at each other and a Volvo belonging to the BBC was scratched with a key..

Minarets also function as air conditioning mechanisms: as the sun heats the dome, air is drawn in through open windows then up and out of the minaret, thereby providing natural ventilation.[citation needed]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minaret

I’m hoping that Old Holborn is trolling…

Apparently NO ONE is allowed to build a minaret in Switzerland. Jews, Sikhs, Buddhists OR Muslims. Or even the Swiss.

This is a fantastic argument. There’d be no problem with laws dictating what both men and women can do with their own vaginas, I assume.

It’s come to something when a bunch of wussy liberals have to explain to libertarians why laws that deliberately penalise particular ethno-religious minorities are so undesirable. Call it whatever you like boys, but your “libertarianism” is just good old-fashioned intolerant Tory tubthumping wearing a whacking great big pair of clown shoes, and no amount of incoherent Randroid psychobabble is going to disguise your cluelessness.

I’m hoping that Old Holborn is trolling

It’s always funny watching libertarians trying to ‘do funny’ – it’s like like that annual flying machine competition at the Serpentine.

Who is being oppressed here? Seriously (just for a minute or two)?

Muslims?

Nope. Build as many mosques as you like. Worship Allah as much as you like. Just don’t wake me up at 4am with wailing from a Minaret. We are Swiss. We like to sleep.

We can have another referendum if you like. All you have to do is get 100,000 to support the building of Minarets and we have to have another referendum. By law. If you win, you can have as many Minarets as you like.

Perfect.

Aha, so your position has changed. Now you don’t mind the minarets as long as there’s no “wailing” from them at 4am. So presumably the existing noise ban met your libertarian criteria, and there was no need for an extra minaret ban.

@92, on the off-chance that you’re merely ignorant rather than lying, the call to prayer was already banned in Switzerland – the country’s four minarets were built solely as architectural features.

Oh, my God; Switzerland’s population is 5% muslim immigrants! That must mean, by the predictions of Dan Dare, Curious Freedom and others for the UK, that sharia law is compulsory and that the muslims have a stranglehold over the state!

Oh, hang on. . .

Nope. Build as many mosques as you like. Worship Allah as much as you like. Just don’t wake me up at 4am with wailing from a Minaret. We are Swiss. We like to sleep.

Except that the call to prayer was already banned under noise pollution laws (which I’ve no problem with, provided the principle is applied equally to other noisy bastards), so all they’ve done is ban a specific type of structure, one which is only associated with mosques. it’s got nothing whatsoever to do with noise.

Nope. Build as many mosques as you like. Worship Allah as much as you like. Just don’t wake me up at 4am with wailing from a Minaret. We are Swiss. We like to sleep

And get rid of those damn church bells while you’re at it – it’s bad enough on Sunday mornings, but they play them at weddings as well – can you imagine if registry offices played “Love is all Around” at the same volume any time a couple wanted to get hitched?

Call it whatever you like boys, but your “libertarianism” is just good old-fashioned intolerant Tory tubthumping wearing a whacking great big pair of clown shoes, and no amount of incoherent Randroid psychobabble is going to disguise your cluelessness.

Hmmmm the word ‘intolerent’ does not quite fit in this rant does it ? Thus politics in this Country at the minute, and no doubt when the Tories get in.

When you have learned the difference between being either a Tory or Nu Labour (both minority Authoritarian) and being a Libertarian. I might take some notice of your kneejerk tribalism

It’s not for me to decide anything. It’s for the Swiss people. And they have decided. No minarets thank you. For anybody. They like Switzerland just as it is, and considering they pay all the bills and own the place, who am I to argue? Or you for that matter?

If you want to call the whole of Switzerland “racist” for not wanting 400,000 foreigners to change the view of little Alpine villages and cow bells/cuckoo clocks forever, I won’t stop you. But they might laugh just as hard at you as I am.

Tell you what, boycott the Swiss. That’ll teach ‘em.

(Sound of a million fat feminists wailing as they throw their Lindt chocolate in the bin)

Perfect.

Great news, Ol’ Hole. I await the full list of things you libertarians find annoying and want to ban. Somehow I suspect your banned list might restrict itself to things certain ethnic minorities like, while leaving things that can be drunk, shoved up your nose or wanked over untouched.

Pay attention here, people – if you’ve ever wondered what libertarian rule would look like, this is as good an insight as you’re ever going to get. A bunch of political teenagers mooning about restructuring their unbelievably shallow political ideology on a whim to allow them to fuck over whoever they like, while complaining about how oppressed they are. Tragic, just tragic.

When the Swiss have had enough of bloody church bells ringing at 8am on a bloody Sunday morning, they’ll have a referendum. Then guess what?

I love direct democracy

100

I don’t want to ban anything. The Swiss do. It’s their country after all.

Just out of curiosity, who do you think has the Swiss Peoples best interests at heart.

1. Islam
2. The Swiss Government
3. The Swiss People

One vote each now.

Old Holborn @102

4. Themselves

But hang on – there ARE no Swiss. Switzerland is a melting pot of refugees from other countries.

German 65%
French 18%
Italian 10%
Romansch 1%
Other 6%

http://www.indexmundi.com/switzerland/ethnic_groups.html

So basically, the French, Germans and Italians have decided what the Albanians can put up, right?

Vote early, vote often

http://bastardoldholborn.blogspot.com/2009/11/swiss-vote.html

Carlsberg don’t do trolling, but if they did….

Pay attention here, people – if you’ve ever wondered what libertarian rule would look like, this is as good an insight as you’re ever going to get. A bunch of political teenagers mooning about restructuring their unbelievably shallow political ideology on a whim to allow them to fuck over whoever they like, while complaining about how oppressed they are. Tragic, just tragic.

Libertarian Rule- there you have it folks- utter failure to compute or comprehend.

Libertarians don’t want to rule anybody, they want to be left alone by the State, they want to control the Government, not be controlled by the Government.

You carry on making Laws,drafting legislation to impose your views on everybody, we will reject them over and over again. The hysterical response by some is the unacceptability of the concept that people will not obey the ‘progressive’ agenda. The next step from this intolerance from the far left and far right authoritarians is to start shooting people.

Anyway I need to go burn down the NHS, put children down the mines and put racial minorities on cattle trucks, its been good to talk.

I don’t want to ban anything. The Swiss do

But you agree that they were correct to do so? And don’t say it’s up to them.

Is it correct, in principle, for the state to ban its population from erecting a particular type of building?

In any other context, you’d be apoplectic. And that’s a worry.

This is actually pretty embarrassing. OH sounds like a LINO.

Ever noticed how they never play the “ha, I wuz only trolling u, suxxorz!” card until *after* they’ve had their arses whipped?

“Is it correct, in principle, for the state to ban its population from erecting a particular type of building? ”

The State hasn’t banned anything. THE SWISS PEOPLE HAVE.

See that? You remember them surely? The ones paying all the taxes? The ones who actually OWN the fucking place? If they decide they don’t want their guests ripping up the furniture after they’ve got it just how they like it, that’s THEIR business.

Nobody is getting hurt. Nobody is oppressed. No one is losing ANY rights to worship or build a mosque.

@106, the point is, you claim to believe that:

Libertarians don’t want to rule anybody, they want to be left alone by the State, they want to control the Government, not be controlled by the Government. You carry on making Laws,drafting legislation to impose your views on everybody, we will reject them over and over again.

…but if you support the Swiss decision, what you’re saying is that the government should control the people, not leave them alone, and create legislation to impose the most popular views on everyone.

So either you can oppose the Swiss decision, and point out that people like OH who support the Swiss decision aren’t real libertarians, or your stated political views are proven to be complete cant.

“The State hasn’t banned anything. THE SWISS PEOPLE HAVE.”

Oh, for fuck’s sake. Over 50% of US voters chose Obama, does that mean that anything he does is A-OK?

The next step from this intolerance from the far left and far right authoritarians is to start shooting people.

Well, that and drafting laws that deliberately penalise ethnic minorities. I would’ve thought the fact that you’re actually defending the latter would embarrass you into keeping the OMG the progressive fascists will gas us like badgers stuff under your hat for five seconds, but then, I’m assuming self-awareness and the power of reason on your part.

I’ll be sure to keep this nice chat we’ve had in mind the next time you crazy kids start cycling all over the internet on your little BMXes earnestly telling anyone who will listen why measure (x) is literally full-blown Nazism, though.

Guthrum,

Libertarian Rule- there you have it folks- utter failure to compute or comprehend.

Libertarians don’t want to rule anybody, they want to be left alone by the State, they want to control the Government, not be controlled by the Government.

You carry on making Laws,drafting legislation to impose your views on everybody, we will reject them over and over again. …

Guthrum, do you not see the irony here? In that a proportion of people (that third of the Swiss who voted for a ban on minarets) has imposed its view on others (those who want to have the freedom to build minarets)?

Flying Rodent has invoked Godwins law and therefore closed this thread.

See ya, it was fun.

I’m starting to suspect that Old Holborn thinks “The State” is some kind of Skynet-like supercomputer or something…

The idea that anyone should hold up Switzerland as a libertarian wonderland is a bit ridiculous. Quite apart from the minaret ban there are a host of stupid, pointless, interfering laws covering such vital matters as when you are allowed to mow your lawn, when you are allowed to have a shower, when you are allowed to wash your car. That these are passed and approved by referendums makes them democratic (for a given value of democratic). It certainly doesn’t make them libertarian.

I suspect that what is making libertarians approve (if we glide over the whole Muslim thing) is that the Government were strongly opposed to this measure, but are committed to implementing the expressed views of a majority of the people.

OLD HOLBORN in EPIC IAIN DALE SHOCKER!!!

The new libertarian motto:

“I’ll do whatever I damn well like. Muslims can do what they’re damn well told.”

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=plyS8sIUjmQ

Great fun. A big hit in Switzerland as well

OH now misunderstands Godwin…

Tim J,

I suspect that what is making [self-proclaimed - ukl] libertarians approve (if we glide over the whole Muslim thing) is that the Government were strongly opposed to this measure, but are committed to implementing the expressed views of a majority of the people.

Sure, but this seems shallow / short-sighted / lacking in insight – it seems to me neither the Government nor the people should be imposing on others where those others are not doing harm. I don’t see how OH’s view is libertarian.

Incidentally, it was only a third of those eligible to vote who voted for the ban, which undermines OH and Guthrum’s points still further.

@120 – I thought you’d gone?

Anyway, it’s hard not to Godwin this thread. I’ll let you work out why.

There we go Godwins Law invoked- Game over

Oh, for fuck’s sake. Over 50% of US voters chose Obama, does that mean that anything he does is A-OK?

It’s Old Holborn’s fault, anyway, for voting in Tony Blair. Well, his country did, which apparently counts.

There we go Godwins Law invoked- Game over

Jolly good – now you can leave with your head held high, and your reputation completely intact. Bye bye.

These guys make Dan Hannan seem positively sensible.

Well, after reading this thread I’ve discovered that “libertarianism” = “majority rule”. Who knew.

Sure, but this seems shallow / short-sighted / lacking in insight – it seems to me neither the Government nor the people should be imposing on others where those others are not doing harm. I don’t see how OH’s view is libertarian.

I agree – the Swiss decision should be seen as either a disaster for libertarians (when “the people” actually do get the power directly set the laws of the land they turn out to be just as petty and reactionary as the liberal caricature of them) or as an irrelevance (famously reactionary and petty nation creates exaggeratedly reactionary and petty law). Surely the one thing it isn’t is a triumph for libertarianism. Dan Hannan’s argument (basically right process, wrong result) is at least consistent with what he thinks.

But then, I’m not a libertarian. I’m a conservative.

This is entirely a matter for the Swiss, it is their country.

But I think its shows that real democracy can only be found outside the EU and that the referendum is indeed the tool of the people that the authorities fear.

Good on the Swiss!

Or the tool of 30% of the people, anyway.

“30% of the people are tools”, surely?

As a Libertarian party member who is rather embarrassed by some of the so-called ‘libertarians’ commenting in this thread, can I just cite the following from the LPUK website;

Libertarians believe in individual liberty, personal responsibility, and freedom from government—on all issues at all times. We don’t say government is too big in one area, but then in another area push for a law to force people to do what we want. We believe in individual liberty, personal responsibility, and freedom from government—on ALL issues at ALL times.

I personally don’t see how supporting the infringement of the property rights of Muslims is compatible with Libertarianism at all.

I am afraid that this thread confirms for me that, whatever philosophical attractions various versions of right-libertarianism might have, most actual right-libertarians are little more than simple-minded hypocrites.

“Liberty, property rights, freedom from the tyranny of the state… except for those fuckers I don’t like. Screw them.”

Libertarians believe in individual liberty, personal responsibility, and freedom from government—on all issues at all times. We don’t say government is too big in one area, but then in another area push for a law to force people to do what we want. We believe in individual liberty, personal responsibility, and freedom from government—on ALL issues at ALL times.

And Muslims believe in the exact opposite, just like Christians and politicians.

The Swiss had a voice and they used it.

With immaculate timing, posting as I was writing, Libertarian #567, swoops in to demonstrate that there are actually some ethically consistent libertarians out there after all.

I’m not taking back my earlier statement though. So there.

@31 Old Holborn: It may frighten you to know that the left wing feminists in Switzerland voted for a ban too. Can’t think why, can you?

It may surprise you to know that most of Switzerland’s Muslims come from Albania or former Yugoslavia. If they came from Saudi Arabia or other countries that are culturally inferior to Europe, it’d be reasonable for Swiss feminists to be worried. But these are Europeans, i.e. decent civilised people.

(Note for avoidance of doubt: I’m not claiming that all Europeans are more civilised than all Saudis, merely that they are on average. Cultures are not all deserving of equal esteem; some cultural practices are evil and contemptable, and Saudi culture contains more of these practises than European cultures typically do).

“I personally don’t see how supporting the infringement of the property rights of Muslims is compatible with Libertarianism at all.”

Which is all well and good, and I salute you for it, but it does leave open the question ‘what happens when direct democracy decides that the state should take the power to ban something’? There would have to be some sort of Constitution forbidding this which would end up having to have an arm of the state set up specifically to uphold it over the will of the people, or, in other words, a fairly strong state is required in order to uphold a fairly basic tenet of Libertarianism,

Mmm.

And Muslims believe in the exact opposite

So the hell what? Whatever happened to “I hate what you say but will defend to the death your right to say it”. Oh right, you binned that idea.

Not that Voltaire is even required in these circumstances. “I hate what you say but willl not prevent you from building a small tower on your own property, not that it’s any of my fucking business anyway”.

You’re an authoritarian collectivist, Old Holborn.

@ Libertarian #567

“ personally don’t see how supporting the infringement of the property rights of Muslims is compatible with Libertarianism at all.”

Do you see how it is compatible with real democracy and the decision of the majority as to what they want in their own country as opposed to the politicians the rest of Europe has who think they are lordly elites rather then our supposed elected servants?

Besides, your argument is invalid now because Muslims do not have these particular “property rights” anymore.

Simples.

And Muslims believe in the exact opposite, just like Christians and politicians. – Even if that were true, so what, OH?

You don’t believe in persecuting people for their beliefs, do you? That’s pure thought crime.

I persecute no one. Neither have the Swiss.

Old Holborn: “Nobody is getting hurt. Nobody is oppressed. No one is losing ANY rights to worship or build a mosque.”

That seems wilfully naive: the Swiss People’s Party didn’t seek to ban minarets because they “change the view of little Alpine villages”. The whole entire point of the referendum was to give local Muslims a signal that Switzerland hates their collective and individual guts. The minarets themselves would obviously cause no problem if they were built by anyone else for any other purpose. This was a vote on a euphemism. It’s about declaring Muslims no longer equals in Switzerland.

Which of course is exactly why you applaud it yourself, as your comments on this thread amply show. The idea that measures toward banning Islam are libertarian is ridiculous; unless of course you have a paranoid and irrational fear that allowing more than a few people to pray to Allah anywhere in any country inevitably results in everyone else in that country being ruled by crazed fundamentalist mullahs.

On the subject of whether the vote was democratic: I don’t see the point of quibbling over democracy being more or less than a country fair and unbiased voting. This result was democratic – that doesn’t that everyone who believes in democracy has to endorse it, or that it’s a good thing.

Besides, your argument is invalid now because Muslims do not have these particular “property rights” anymore.

That is absolutely brilliant. So in CuriousFreedom’s world, we can vote to confiscate his house because we think he’s a tosser, and if he complains then we can say “your complaints are invalid, as you don’t have that particular ‘property right’ any more”? Bring it on.

@ Old Holborn : As I posted on your blog and shall repeat here;

If the British people were offered a referendum on the outright ban of tobacco and voted to do so, just because it would be ‘democratic’ would not make it right. Indeed, a majority of the public would probably vote to ban ALL recreational drugs except alcohol, but the position of the Libertarian Party is to legalise them.

Let’s have some consistency please, or we run the risk of looking and sounding like a bunch of right-wing fucknuts.

@ Tom : Fair point. At this point in time I’d like to see a renewal of the Constitutional Settlement guaranteeing the civil liberties and property rights of ALL citizens. If future laws were drafted that contravened this Constitution, I would expect the Judiciary to point this out and refer the matter back to the Parliament who could either redraft the law or change the Constitution according to the procedure laid down for that purpose.

For me Libertarianism is a philosophy which informs my political outlook. I’m not a fundamentalist who believes in no state whatsoever. I believe in a small powerful state which is subject to the desires of its citizens.

@ Curious Freedom : Your argument is ludicrous. If there was a positive referendum in Britain to confiscate the property of the wealthiest 10% and redistribute it amongst the other 90% would that be compatible with ‘real democracy’ And would those who had property confiscated not have had their property rights infringed because they no longer had the property to have rights over? You are either simply trolling or a clown

Aside from the bizarre definition of libertarian, the other weird thing is that people keep claiming the majority of Swiss voted for the ban.

They didn’t.

It’s panto season

“Oh yes they did!”

Interesting the Old Holborn thinks Swiss muslims are “foreigners” rather than, oh I don’t know, Swiss citizens or something. Sounds rather like Nick Griffin’s view that black and Asian Britons are “ethnic foreigners”.

Old Holborn, turnout was 55%, and the ban was approved by 57.5% of voters i.e. the Swiss who bothered to vote, not all the Swiss. So you not only have a poor grasp of English, you also can’t do simple math.

@35

Now I see. The Swiss people can’t have what the Swiss people want in Switzerland because YOU don’t like it and are offended on behalf of someone else.

I’ve seen something like that being said in other places. Suddenly people are sensitive about denouncing other nations’ crappiness. It’s very likely, sadly, that if Saudia Arabia or Iran had a referendum on eg making things difficult for other religions, there would be a resounding yes. I don’t imagine that libertarian bloggers would say, well, it’s their decision, I’m not going to denounce them as a pack of bigots. But a European nation against Muslims, suddenly it’s okay, we shouldn’t say this is a disgrace and a pretty creepy one at that.

I’ve heard women from Saudi Arabia saying that when the government there thinks the people are getting restless about corruption and lack of accountability, they bring in a new law against women, and that is quite popular. Just as it would have been popular in the southern states of the USA in 1950 to make sure blacks were kept down. No reason why we shouldn’t criticise them as a pack of neanderthals because it’s a majority of neanderthals. I would bet liberal Swiss are embarrassed as hell as I would be if a similar law was passed in this country.

Question – if this decision by the Swiss is so obviously the ‘wrong’ one, then how on earth was the argument ever lost? As referendums go, this one wasn’t even close (57.5% voted in favour of the ban).

Are the Swiss Islamaphobes? No, I don’t think so – I just think that whoever was arguing against the ban has done a pretty shocking job.

@ Nick

**“That’s pure thought crime.”**

My God no! Not thought crime! The worst of all crimes! We must eradicate all thought crime through some sort of behavioural modification programme, maybe the Gulags or the asylum.

@ john b

**“That is absolutely brilliant. So in CuriousFreedom’s world, we can vote to confiscate his house because we think he’s a tosser, and if he complains then we can say “your complaints are invalid, as you don’t have that particular ‘property right’ any more”? Bring it on.”**

Great comment as it aptly illustrates the lefts utter contempt for the people and their decisions when it doesn’t go their way and the malicious anger they feel duty bound to lash out at dissenters as a result and also the complete ignorance of the system they seek to criticise when direct democracy gives the Swiss to put a constitutional amendment to a national vote, if they can get 100,000 voters to sign the proposed amendment within 18 months.

Now unless my house is somehow tacitly enshrined in the Swiss constitution, and I seriously doubt it is, your whole comment is just as I described it: A malicious, vindictive piece of weird revenge fantasy. Complete nonsense based upon complete ignorance.

You are just another so-called Liberal crying because not everyone wants to dance to your tune and you can’t make them.

@ Libertarian #567

**“Your argument is ludicrous. If there was a positive referendum in Britain to confiscate the property of the wealthiest 10% and redistribute it amongst the other 90% would that be compatible with ‘real democracy’ And would those who had property confiscated not have had their property rights infringed because they no longer had the property to have rights over? You are either simply trolling or a clown”**

And here is another so called Liberal with another anger filled nonsense rant because he cannot make everyone do as he wants.

We do not have direct democracy in the UK clown, in fact, thanks to trolls like you and your ways we don’t even have much of any real democracy left at all anymore.

But if we did get rid of the unelected EU tyranny, introduced a constuition and a similar direct democracy to Switzerland and had enough signatures to effect a constitutional amendment it would not really be possible to make a proposal for a constitutional change on the basis you have made up; but if it were somehow reworded to make sense and able to be enshrined in the constuition and enough votes were passed then that is true democracy, the will of the people and whoever didn’t like it could leave and that would be that.

Simples.

Funny how Switzerland has never felt the need to go down the lines of your shock / horror fantasy scenario though is it not?

@ ukliberty

**“Aside from the bizarre definition of libertarian, the other weird thing is that people keep claiming the majority of Swiss voted for the ban.”**

The majority of the Swiss who voted in the referendum did vote for the ban and they are the only ones who count my angry little friend: 57.5% in favour of the ban; 22 of the country’s 26 Cantons in favour of the ban, on a national turnout of 53%.

PASSED!

You see how this works?!!

Simples.

Old Holborn

You started off on the wrong side of this argument. Deal with it and stop digging.

I actually think it has provoked an interesting debate. The point is that libertarianism is at it’s best as a political philosophy rather than a political movement. As a movement it has a tendency to pick up some fairly unsavoury fellow travellers but, as a philosophy, it can have a tremendous influence.

The reason the statist trolls have had so much fun with this thread is a reflection of the above.

Pagar

I don’t CARE what others think. I am not a member of ANY political party nor indeed registered to vote. I don’t have to justify my views to anyone unless I break the law.

There is no standard Libertarian. We don’t wear uniforms and are not left wing or right wing. We simply exist and have a voice. If I’m not a “Libertarian”, it won’t make the slightest bit of difference to my views. My views belong to me, others can label me as they see fit.

I don’t CARE if people call me a Tory, a Marxist, a fascist, a Liberal or a racist. It doesn’t matter in the slightest. People on the left are so desperate to know “who are you”, “what do you look like?” “What is your real name?”. Does it matter? To them it does. When they have my real name, they can set about destroying me. Until then, any one of us could be Old Holborn and indeed, many of us are.

It scares them shitless. As it should.

Excellent OH

Be true to yourself-a pretty good philosophy.

Scratch a libertarian and you find a right wing authoritarian? Seems so, shame they hate Islam so much, religion should be a choice, I wonder if any of these people know any Muslims, they don’t have three heads.

I know a lot more liberal Muslims than liberal libertarians, ironic.

Bet they will be back praising Saudi Arabia ban on churches, should we not reject both the Saudi and ‘libertarian’ models and practice tolerance rather than bulldozing religious buildings.

I don’t like Jehovah Witnesses but I am not calling for their Kingdom Halls to be refused planning permission.

Nick, way back at comment 2:

‘In both cases there is a willingness to attribute to the object of the ban a particular meaning, which is not entirely implausible in itself. Those intending the ban believe it to be the ONLY reasonable meaning of the object, whereas those that actually use the object attribute a variety of different meanings to it. In the case of minarets, it is Islamic supremacism, in the case of pornography, it is the violent subordination of women. Both types of prohibitionist, because of the targets, can come up with plausible (even ‘liberal’ reasons) but both are, in fact, misunderstanding what liberalism is about.’

That’s simply one of the most intelligent comments I’ve ever seen on this site.

I’d have thrown in the word ‘polysemy’ just for good measure but that’s just me.

It scares them shitless. As it should.

Doesn’t worry me at all, to be honest – I’ve met hundreds of people who are fiercely proud of their unorthodox opinions over the years. Generally at bus stops, although the vehemence of their opinions on Britain’s minorities largely depends on whether they’re guzzling White Lightning or have broken the bank for a bottle of Buckie.

Rodent

Don’t ask me how this happened

http://www.wikio.co.uk/blogs/top/politics

(PS. Public transport gives you nits or worse. Avoid)

Of course, national plebiscites in Switzerland are very democratic. Women didn’t get the vote there for national elelctions until 1971. In the plebiscite that year:

“The official result shows 621,403 of the all-male electorate supported the vote for women and 323,596 were against. . .

“The poll was almost a complete reversal of a 1959 referendum, when women were refused the federal vote by a 2-1 majority.”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/february/7/newsid_2738000/2738475.stm

Curious Freedom @ 153

The majority of the Swiss who voted in the referendum did vote for the ban and they are the only ones who count my angry little friend: 57.5% in favour of the ban; 22 of the country’s 26 Cantons in favour of the ban, on a national turnout of 53%.

PASSED!

You see how this works?!!

Yes, I was already aware of all that, which I think is obvious from my comments.

What I was puzzled about is the claim that the Swiss voted for the ban, or that the majority of Swiss voted for the ban, as it isn’t true. Your claim that the “majority of the Swiss who voted in the referendum did vote for the ban” is true, well done. I’m not sure why you claim I’m angry. I’m bemused by the crowing about this result from people who claim to be interested in individual freedom and how they reconcile their ostensible support for freedom with their support of that third of the voting population imposing its views on the rest.

Sigh

Swiss individuals, who LIKE Switzerland as it is, their home, pooled their votes and told the State, who were happy to change it for a 5% minority, to fuck off.

Perfect. No one was hurt (apart from a few Islington Liberals and a BBC Volvo). The Swiss PEOPLE get to keep what they built, own and WANT.

PERFECT.

Stop Press. 5% of the population (not Swiss passport holders) not quite happy although they can still do what they did. World is OUTRAGED.

I’m with Old Holborn on this. The “liberal” soft left cannot seem to understand what’s wrong with government acting on behalf on a minority, but they squeal like stuck pigs at the thought that it acts on the wishes of the majority. Neatly encapsulates why this country is in such a fucking mess.

@ Derek – Scratch a libertarian and you find a right wing authoritarian? Seems so…

There are plenty of left-leaning Libertarians (Noam Chomsky self-describes as such I believe) – and there are even Green or eco-libertarians.

Libertarianism comes in many flavours, not all of them Bitter like OH.

@ Old Holborn

And Muslims believe in the exact opposite, just like Christians

Glad to see your pig ignorance extends to religions other than Islam. For your information this Christian is both left-wing and libertarian. BTW, I think your blog’s great but you really have let yourself down rather badly in this matter.

Really?

Can I buy a bottle of Whiskey at 4.01pm on a Sunday? Why not?

Why are there 26 unelected Bishops making laws I have to live by in Parliament?

OH at 4.50pm: “See ya, it was fun.”

Bit of a habit yours, that, I gather.

Neil

Maybe a constructive comment.

You know. About this topic.

Come on.

Just once……

That was the last Old Holborn. I’m a different one. God, there’s loads of us. Millions.

pagar, as I pointed out upthread, it’s impossible to comment on this nonsense without Going Godwin. Anyway, who made you moderator?

it’s impossible to comment on this nonsense without Going Godwin

If that’s how you feel, there’s always the option to say nothimg.

It scares them shitless. As it should.

Oh… My… God… There’s an anonymous blogger here… and he’s spouting shite! Run for your lives!

He he

Name the top ten Wikio bloggers.

http://www.wikio.co.uk/blogs/top/politics

I can

They can’t. Neither can you

Swiss individuals, who LIKE Switzerland as it is, their home, pooled their votes and told the State, who were happy to change it for a 5% minority, to fuck off.

Except this isn’t really what happened, is it? It’s more like a load of right wing race-baiting fucks pushed through a referendum on restricting the rights of a religious minority, and less than a third of the populace voted it into law.

Well hell, if the Swiss want to paint “We’re a bunch of paranoid, reactionary dicks” on their flag, that’s up to them. Yet to read Ol’ Hole and various others a-whoopin’ and a-yellin’ and a-cheerin’ this sorry, silly bullshit on, you’d think the Swiss government had been thwarted while trying to impose a programme of forced Islamisation through aggressive minaret-building. Anyone with eyes can see that’s not the case.

No doubt there’s a sound reason for painting small-minded bigotry as some kind of populist revolution, but I can’t for the life of me see it. In fact, it looks exactly like the libertarians are a shower of small-minded bigots trying and failing to force the square block of their prejudices through the circular hole of their half-assed political ideology.

Come on guys – stop struggling and have the stones to wear it. This The tyranny of the majority doesn’t apply when folk are cracking down on the Muslims stuff was funny for a while, but ultimately makes you look like feeble bullshitters with some very nasty hangups.

@ ukliberty

You were clearly deriding the democratic process for your own political ends; not all Swiss can vote, you know with some of them still being in nappies and other odds and sods; and then, as we saw, not all Swiss want to vote.

(Tell me smartass, which country had the last 100% population turnout on a vote for anything?)

The ones who can and did and obviously believe in democracy are the only ones who voices count and they voted for the ban and so yes, the majority of the Swiss did vote for it and into the constuition it goes.

Deal with it.

Simples.

The above @ FlyingRodent too.

Deal with it anger boy!

Damn.

The global warming conference is going to be covered in ….er…

snow

So, just as a matter of interest, if every mosque in the Country builds a ‘clock tower’ is that okay? Or will it be illegal for Muslims to build ‘clock towers’?

The idea that the ‘Swiss people’ will enforce this law is just stupid. Surely to fuck even the most backward Libertarian cunt can see this ‘ban’ will only come into force once legislation is drawn up? For it to be enforced, there is going to have to be people whose job it is to inspect what is and is not allowed they are going to have to examine what does and what does not constitute a minaret. Is it merely height? Is it circumference? Is it colour? Or just a name? What is it that these people are actually banning? What if every mosque in the Country does build a cuckoo clock tower in its grounds? What could be more Swiss than an ornate cuckoo clock?

The tyranny of the majority doesn’t apply when folk are cracking down on the Muslims stuff was funny for a while, but ultimately makes you look like feeble bullshitters with some very nasty hangups.

You’re a dirty rat.

But, sadly, on this occasion you are correct.

Matt Munro,

The “liberal” soft left cannot seem to understand what’s wrong with government acting on behalf on a minority, but they squeal like stuck pigs at the thought that it acts on the wishes of the majority. …

What majority? Only a third of the Swiss were sufficiently bothered by minarets to vote in favour of banning them. Not that it answers the point regarding the ‘tyranny of the majority’ and the rightful exercise of power.

Old Holborn @164, I understand that you are over the moon regarding the result, believe me – it seems to be affecting your precision. But you have yet to answer the question about how you reconcile your support for freedom with your support for any proportion of the population imposing its views on the rest. I’m interested to read your views on that.

I wonder, if the Swiss people voted to ban restaurants which display a pair of golden arches in the shame of an M, would our libertarian and conservative friends here be:

(a) Applauding democracy at work

or

(b) Screaming about the dangers of protectionism, before reciting salient passages from The Lexus and the Olive Tree.

Curious Freedom,

@ ukliberty

You were clearly deriding the democratic process for your own political ends;

In what way did I deride the democratic process, and what political ends do you think I have?

not all Swiss can vote, you know with some of them still being in nappies and other odds and sods; and then, as we saw, not all Swiss want to vote.

I wrote much earlier on @43 that “As for “what the Swiss people want”, the turnout was 55%, and the ban was approved by 57.5% of voters, which looks to me like under a third of those eligible to vote approved of the ban”, so I did make the distinction clear.

(Tell me smartass, which country had the last 100% population turnout on a vote for anything?)

I don’t know, but I’m not the one implying all the Swiss voted to ban minarets – I corrected the (implicit) claim that all Swiss voted to ban minarets.

The ones who can and did and obviously believe in democracy are the only ones who voices count and they voted for the ban and so yes, the majority of the Swiss did vote for it and into the constuition it goes.

Do the Swiss who voted against the ban not count? Do they not believe in democracy? You’re becoming a bit incoherent.

Whatever; in summary, you seem to believe it is fine for a third of the population to impose its views on the rest, and that the banning of minarets is a rightful exercise of power. If only you could say it in such clear terms – it would have saved a bit of time.

Neil @ 182

Yeah. Vegetarianism has become more and more popular in the UK. In a few years time there could be an actual majority of vegetarians. A referendum where a 57% majority decided that all meat sales and consumption should be banned – now that would be the proper democratic result. The carnivores would just have to grind their redundant incisors and bear it.

Democracy does not necessarily equal liberalism.

Der Spiegel newspaper had an interesting article, particularly relevant to LC was the line:

“It is also an expression of the failures of the liberal political elite to adequately address the issue and to find solutions to the real and perceived problems with Muslim immigrants.”

On LC, my view is that there is a denial in general of those problems at all.

But was a good summing up overall:

“Concern about growing numbers of Muslims and the visibility of Islam isn’t, of course, just limited to Switzerland. Both Cologne and Copenhagen have seen minaret debates of their own, the burqa is an issue in France and anti-Muslim politicians have had great success in Holland. So far, centrist politicians across the continent have failed to find an adequate response to the growing concern.

As such, it would be inaccurate to explain away the Swiss referendum results by merely pointing to xenophobia in the country. It is also an expression of the failures of the liberal political elite to adequately address the issue and to find solutions to the real and perceived problems with Muslim immigrants.

It is an issue that clearly concerns a large portion of the Swiss population; it would be a major misstep to allow right-wing populists to control the debate. Otherwise, extreme measures, like bans on minarets, can be expected to increase — in Switzerland and elsewhere in Europe.”

Not sure if anybody already said it – but the catholic bishops opposed the ban, and also (if wiki is not wrong)

The Federation of Swiss Protestant Churches holds that the popular initiative is not about minarets, but is rather an expression of the initiators’ concern and fear of Islam. It views a minaret ban as a wrong approach to overcome such objections. Many other religious organisations find the idea of a complete minaret ban as lamentable. These are: the Association of Evangelical Free Churches and Communities in Switzerland; the Swiss Evangelical Alliance; the Old Catholic Church in Switzerland; the Covenant of Swiss Baptists; the Salvation Army; the Federation of Evangelical Lutheran Churches in Switzerland; the Orthodox Diocese the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople; the Serbian Orthodox Church in Switzerland; and the Anglican Church in Switzerland.

Good to see you’re all playing nicely without me!

I mainly intended this to be a piece which argued that the fundamentals of democracy extend beyond voting rights, and the results of plebiscites etc. Such that if some fundamental liberties were restricted for some effective and legitimate democracy would become impossible.

However, I can see that what is of particular interest here is that some self styled Libertarians (Guthrum) and some people who others consider Libertarian (Old Holborn), see this as a vote to against state enforced multiculturalism, rather than a vote to suppress a religious minority.

Basically, I would like to see evidence that the Swiss government were forcing minarets on the populous, rather than just letting residents and citizens do as they please.

As far as I can see there were only 4 in the country and a relatively small Muslim population in any case. Please show me how the state was pushing Minarets on the country.

(I would like to agree with the various people who have expressed the sentiment that this referendum was only won because the “liberal” side argued their case incredibly badly. I’d much rather believe that than believe the Swiss were illiberal fuckwits in general.)

Is a referendum in which a third of the electorate vote for a ban on minarets any less legitimate than a general election in which a government favoured by only 22% of the electorate is returned to power?

How is it rational to decry the former and not the latter?

Because a General Election is a ‘direction of travel’ mandate – people know what the turnout would be, and the difference is made on a constituency by constituency basis. The main difference locally is that a different head gets to sit in office, no actual new laws are passed as a result without consideration by informed politicians of all stripes – if PR was brought in, you might have more of a point.

Where’s that referendum on hanging? that’s what I’d like to know.

As it stands, some constituencies – mostly in Wales – had a 72%+ turnout in 2005. Dorset West got 76.3% Staffordshire South was the lowest, with 37.2%

http://www.ukpolitical.info/Turnout05.htm

The same argument is levelled against those who said yes to Europe back in 1975.

This offers some additional analysis – apparently the vote might partly be an anti-globalisation backlash:

http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2009/11/foreigners-in-switzerland.html

Also, in this referendum there were only two options. In a general election there are several different parties you can vote for. Both “yes” and “no” got more votes proportionate to the population than the winning party did in the GE last time (and probably than the winning party will get next year, whoever it is).

However, I can see that what is of particular interest here is that some self styled Libertarians (Guthrum) and some people who others consider Libertarian (Old Holborn), see this as a vote to against state enforced multiculturalism, rather than a vote to suppress a religious minority.

As you will have seen, this has been a tricky topic for libertarians.

We all rightly detest the enforced multicultularism imposed by our own government and the social engineering and illiberal laws that have gone with it.

For some, that subject is a key driver of their “libertarianism” and such people can, correctly, be accused of degree of xenophobia. This is not to my taste but as long as they consistently apply libertarian principles, there is no allegation of hypocrisy to be made.

For others who comment on some of the “libertarian” blogs opposition to Islam is their only driver and these can rightly be accused of racist wing-nuttery or any other liberal insults you’d like to think up. (Please note this does not apply to either of the libertarians mentioned above).

What seems to have happened here is that, because the Swiss people have gone against their government in opposing the advance of Islamism, some libertarians were initially tempted to see this as a vote for freedom- a victory for collective individual thought and expression over the state and a defeat for the hated multiculturalism we have been force fed here.

But of course, when thought through, it’s nothing of the kind. It’s actually a vote for the state to further restrict the freedom of its citizens. Had the government of Switzerland suggested the banning of minarets and this had been voted through the correct libertarian response would have been clear. This is wrong, wrong, wrong.

And it is.

Anyway, can we not get back to discussing how these evil climate change alarmist scientists have been plotting to deceive us?

That was much more fun!!!!

apparently the vote might partly be an anti-globalisation backlash

Hmm, now it’s getting interesting.

There’s never such a upwelling of support from the right when (for example) the French have their periodic anti-globalisation backlashes…

I’ve only just seen this post and I’m not going to attempt to reply to any particular poster other than to say several have hit the point.
For those who believe that this is democracy, they really are delusional, For those who believe that this represents the’ ‘tyranny of the majority’ – ditto.
Representative democracy most cetainly represents ‘elected dictatorship’ ask yourselves ‘who brought this issue on to the agenda?’ Who determines what goes on to any agenda? referendum is the worse form of voting which purports to be ultra-democratic. Representative democracy is the ‘tyranny of the minority’, unless the majority coincidently agree.

Dan Dare,

Is a referendum in which a third of the electorate vote for a ban on minarets any less legitimate than a general election in which a government favoured by only 22% of the electorate is returned to power?

How is it rational to decry the former and not the latter?

FWIW, I have ‘decried’ both. But I’m not so much concerned about whether power is exercised via a referendum or the state, particularly: rather, the ‘rightfulness’* of an exercise of power is not dependent on who or what exercises it** but why it is exercised.

* hope this is a proper word.

** Of course an electoral mandate would lend it an air of legitimacy, but this isn’t the same thing as ‘righful’.

[195] “rather, the ‘rightfulness’* of an exercise of power is not dependent on who or what exercises it** but why it is exercised”.

I fear the ‘rightfulness’ of WHY is impossible to capture in terms that would satisfy all parties.

Doesn’t the idea presupposes a hierarchy of ‘rightness’?
So, who becomes the final arbiter, the ECHR? – as far as I can tell the issue of human rights has ushered in a set of conflicting interests that we are having great difficulty unravelling?

Pagar @ 192

I am not sure that you can say this subject has been ‘tricky’ for most Libertarians. OH’s website is not some kind of extreme wing of the Libertarian movement. He proudly displays his top three Libertarian blog rosette with pride. I would say top three is pretty much in the mainstream of the movement. The people who have responded to Guthrum’s post have not found the ‘tricky’ in the slightest. This subject has been far too important for them to sully with ideological principles, few of them have wrestled with the internal contradictions with their position. When the Muslim is on the receiving end of a State sponsored boot, the ‘movement’ lined up wearing bovver boots and all took a swipe. Kudos to the guy that managed to slide his anecdote about hospital toilets into a debate about which type of architecture should be banned.

The fact of the matter is, for anyone remotely interested in ‘Libertarianism’ this subject should not have been ‘tricky’ in the least. This was an open goal from two foot out. This was an exact clear cut, open and shut case.

A third of the population voted to instruct the state to curtail the rights of an otherwise law abiding minority. Had this been any rich, white minority group, (bikers, hunters, gun owners) the movement would have been of one voice, as you would no doubt admit that, but the bogeyman Muslims? Fuck ‘em.

If the Libertarian movement can get this one right, then what is the point? If they are unable to strip away race/religion aspects of this simple issue and see what has actually occurred and what the implications for that are, then can your movement really be described as ‘Libertarians’? Seriously, Pagar, look at the comments section of OH blog and tell me those are (small ‘L’) libertarian sentiments.

This subject has shown your movement up for what it is. An idealistically bankrupt umbrella for rich white men who have done rather well out of a Liberal functioning State that don’t want to pay for that State

The irony being that subjects that your movement SHOULD find tricky where there are real issues regarding personal freedoms versus responsibility, i.e. Global Warming, you have absolutely no problem with. You declare the entire scientific community wrong and hey presto! You are able to continue regardless. No need for personal responsibility, for Libertarians, not when it is YOUR responsibility we are talking about. No, just throw the science in the bin.

[197] I have noted your power-house contributions during this debate, which despite the mischievous OH, have remained good natured in the main.
From what you say the thread over at OH-central sounds less far cordial?

Even so your observations lead to the following points.
*no ideology or political creed is perfect and this includes the idealistic libertarians.
*libertarianism (according to authorities like OH) may be more a state of mind, or a set of governing principles that cannot always, or easily be translated into a catch all, or coherent set of rules – one of the reason why, perhaps, they remain a rather misunderstood and even embittered minority?

Having said that, ‘minaret-gate’ certainly highlights a lack of insight amongst some Libertarians especially when we contrast their views on ‘freedom’ against the rights of groups they are hostile to?

Jim @ 197

I agree with much of what you say.

Old Holborn does not moderate comments on his blog and there are undoubtedly commenters there who say unpleasant things- that is the downside of a commitment to free speech. If you don’t want to risk offence, don’t read it.

I also agree that libertarian principles are only effective and fair if applied evenly- not only to areas that suits the prejudices of the individual concerned.

However I know a number of libertarians and I can assure you that your stereotype of rich white men who have done rather well out of a Liberal functioning State that don’t want to pay for that State is way wide of the mark. Not even remotely close. Nor have I met one that holds his pinkie to his chin whilst stroking a cat.

Libertarians are just ordinary people, perhaps a little more self sufficient than the average, who want the freedom to be able to live their lives on their own terms without undue interference from authority.

Too much to ask? Surely not.

the a&e charge nurse @ 196

[195] “rather, the ‘rightfulness’* of an exercise of power is not dependent on who or what exercises it** but why it is exercised”.

I fear the ‘rightfulness’ of WHY is impossible to capture in terms that would satisfy all parties.

Well, let’s start from something that seems axiomatic to me: “the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others.”

We can argue about what constitutes harm but that principle seems fundamental.

Doesn’t the idea presupposes a hierarchy of ‘rightness’?

I’m sorry, don’t understand what you mean.

So, who becomes the final arbiter, the ECHR? – as far as I can tell the issue of human rights has ushered in a set of conflicting interests that we are having great difficulty unravelling?

The ECHR is good to an extent but doesn’t go far enough – ‘we’ (society, the state, our government) still interfere in the lives of consenting adults. It really is quite extraordinary, for example, that people aren’t allowed to do anything they want to themselves, or each other, where that activity would harm no-one else.

and @198

‘minaret-gate’ certainly highlights a lack of insight amongst some [self-proclaimed - ukliberty] Libertarians especially when we contrast their views on ‘freedom’ against the rights of groups they are hostile to?

Well, quite. So they aren’t really libertarians – they have co-opted that word. It is a bit like (although obviously not as abhorrent as) people who claim to be Christians who nevertheless support murdering abortion clinic staff.

A&E @198

Well to be fair to Pagar, he and a few others have been making good points, but for the rest of them, it appears to less about which types of building should be banned and more about Muslim bashing, hence:

http://bastardoldholborn.blogspot.com/2009/11/minerets-non-merci-nein-danke.html#comment-

John of Cheshire

Good old Switzerland. If only we had the cojones to do the same over here. Pull down the minarets. Pull down the mosques. Re-consecrate all those Christian churches that have been taken over by the satanic cult of islam. Maybe then we could begin to find our true civilised path. The one that was fought for by all of our reltives not so long ago.

‘Hairy arsed bloke’ takes the baton on

“… where it is impossible to keep the hospitals clean …” – cromwells apprentice

A year ago I had the ‘pleasure’ of a stay in hospital. The cleaning staff did a wonderful job, but the place, especially the toilets, was a shithole. Why, because of the other patients and the worst offenders: Muslims; fucking filthy cunts.

repeat to fade throughout the thread.

I accept your point about no political movement being perfect, but they should get the basics right!

If you are a Marxist, you should manage to get your position on bank ownership right. If you are an environmental party, you would expect to understand the need to regulate airlines. Or free market Party’s should instinctively want free enterprise etc.

The problems should be at the very margins. Are two guys with an allotment private enterprise? Should we ban bottled water? Should the roads be privatised?

The Libertarians have fallen at the first hurdle. They have got tied up in a pickle on an issue right at the very heart of what passes for their shoddy ‘idealogy’. A third of the population want to ban the other 5% from building on their own land!!!!!!

Yet even Pager accepts this is ‘tricky’ for them! It is only ‘tricky’ because the retards who stand shoulder to shoulder with the more astute in the movement cannot see past the Muslims in the picture! Few of them whould be happy for 30% of the population to ban 5% from enjoying hunting, fishing super car ownership, speed boats or a coke habit, but are quite happy for the State (and it WILL be the STATE) to leglistate a type of building out of existence!

FAIL.

Nope, my ears are definately burning

Let’s try another angle

5% of the population stopped from defacing what the other 95% quite like.

Discuss

Discuss

Ok.

You are not a libertarian. You are just some loudmouth who hates Muslims.

Sorry, I should say one of the UK’s top ten loudmouth, Muslim-hating bloggers. (Respect where its due.)

End of discussion.

Well, as far as majorities go; the UN has set their cap against the Swiss, and I think that the UN represents a larger proportion of the world than just Switzerland. Of course, they’re not going to do anything about it, but they’re ag’in it anyway.
http://www.smh.com.au/world/un-condemns-swiss-minaret-ban-20091201-k3yq.html

Oh, wait, the Swiss own their own land? Or the bits of France, Germany and Italy that they stole to make it, anyway? They should have the right to self-determination?

Listen, if the Swiss said “We don’t want any free standing towers bigger than 20ft in urban areas,” that would be fine – health and safety or summat. But they haven’t even couched it in subtle terms; it’s a plain and simple dig at a religious practice and will do nothing to stop extremism.

“Death to the Swiss Infidel! May your blood spil – hey, where’s the minaret? No minarets? Screw this, I’m off to Britain.”

Pagar @ 199

I would accept that many of the people align themselves with large ‘L’ libertarianism (the political movement) do not fit the stereotype I portray, but the people I read, perhaps the more vocal ones do seem to fit it quite nicely.

Take AGW for example. Few Libertarians accept the science on this issue. Let’s cut to the car chase, Pagar, and halt this canard. We both know that reasons that they do not accept the science, is not that the science is flawed, these people never attempt to point out the flaws in string theory or the black holes etc. They are only contesting the ‘Greenhouse effect’ because of the implications of the theory being accepted. Had the solution for AGW been cut welfare and oversees aid, you people would be demanding an immediate implementation, ‘for the good of the grandchildren’.

You know it, I know it, you know I know it and I know you know it, so why bother pretending otherwise?

Remember the guy who was sacked because he advocated legalisation of certain drugs? He is a hero to Libertarians as a fearless defender of, wait for it…) ‘scientific truth’, yet the GW guys are liars, thieves, scum etc.

Could it be that your average Libertarians have both coke habits that keep much Columbia in work and a car that uses pack of Tyrannosaurs Rex worth of fossil fuel to move fifteen feet?

OH @ 202

“5% of the population stopped from defacing what the other 95% quite like.”

What is being defaced exactly? the Skyline? Give me a break, you and I know this is all shite. You hate Muslims, ergo anything that hurts Muslims is good in your book. Why keep up a charade?

We are talking about a building ‘odd’ shaped towers, OH. Not towers per se, but towers that happen to be called minarets and used by Muslims.

[199] ‘Libertarians are just ordinary people, perhaps a little more self sufficient than the average’ – correct me if I’m wrong, Pagar, but the idea of self-sufficiency is one of the most important, perhaps THE most important plank in the Libertarian world view?

A sensibility, I admire by the way and one that is conducive to the greater good (although not mutually exclusive from other ideologies).

Sadly, as minaret-gate demonstrates ‘freedom’ does not count for much amongst some libertarians, especially if you have a penchant for pointy towers?

OK

Let’s try yet another angle, just for fun.

The Swiss are all racists. Switzerland is racist and hates Muslims

So what?

(Ps For the record, I don’t hate Muslims, I hate Islam)

It’s a retrograde step in the furtherment of understanding between individuals in a nation who happen to believe different think. It’s symptomatic of a deeper malaise within Western society and a trajectory that leads towards isolationism and entrenchment to the detriment of all.

That’s ’so what’

OH @ 208

Not all Swiss are racist, not all Swiss voted for this. The ’so what’ is the fact that the Libertarian movement in this Country have seen this vote as a great victory for their cause.

They have seen a type of building banned. Of course this ban will need to regulated and enforced, not by the people who voted for the ban but the STATE. The state will have define what is and what is not a minaret.

This is not ‘direct democracy’ this is people ganging up on a small minority and infringe on their rights.

Not their ‘Right’ to stone gays to death.
Not their ‘Right’ to strap a bomb to their chest and ‘Allah Akbar’ themselves to 72 virgins
Not their ‘Right’ to commit honour killings
Not their ‘Right’ to marry a fifteen year old cousin.

It may suprise you to learn that these things are allready illegal and rightly so. Had these things not been illegal, and you were trying stop any of the above, then we would be on the same side, but no, what you people chose to support is banning a shape of tower you can build.

Well done! A blow has been struck for direct demoracy everwhere, the Swiss are no longer able to build a long thin towers with a walkway at the top the city of Berne’s skyline will not be sullied by a long thin tower. Instead they will have long, thin clock towers with a walkways instead

Oh, wait, the Swiss own their own land? Or the bits of France, Germany and Italy that they stole to make it, anyway? They should have the right to self-determination?

The foundation of the Swiss Confederation dates back to the late 13th century – making it 650 years older than either Italy or Germany. France is, of course, older than that, but the bits of ‘France’ that Switzerland ’stole’ were mainly parts of the Duchy of Burgundy, which only was only subsumed within France in the late 15th century. Chuh – lets insert a little history into this thread shall we?

“Hmm, now it’s getting interesting.

There’s never such a upwelling of support from the right when (for example) the French have their periodic anti-globalisation backlashes…”

Uhh… Le Penn?

Jim @ 205

Thank God we’re back to global warming.

The reason you find a higher proportion of climate change sceptics among libertarians is because they are naturally more sceptical about what they are fed as truth. In fact there is a propensity to refuse to believe anything anyone tells them until they can see it proved for themselves.

Most people, on the other hand, just feel sorry for the polar bears that can’t find any ice, worry briefly about dying (drowning, frying or whatever the BBC last told them) then realise its only likely to affect their grandchidren and switch over to X Factor.

They then turn off the TV stand by when they go to bed and feel good about themselves for saving the lives of future generations. As they drop off to sleep they might wonder, very briefly, whatever happened to that mad cow disease they heard about.

The problem for the sceptic libertarian is that, when he looks at the science that underpins what he is being told about AGW by the alarmists, it quickly seems to start unravelling and he wonders whether this is the latest in a line of Great Big Lies. It may not be of course, but that’s the worry.

If you really want to discuss the subject properly, I’d suggest you read this very balanced article

http://www.devilskitchen.me.uk/2009/11/crudgate-why-this-cant-be-swept-under.html

and we can talk more.

I’d be surpised if the Muslims took any notice of the ban anyway. They don’t here

http://www.birminghampost.net/news/west-midlands-news/2009/05/18/green-light-for-handsworth-mosque-built-without-permission-65233-23646544/

http://www.lep.co.uk/fulwood/Mosque-39rode-roughshod39-over-planning.5787439.jp

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1542995/Supermosque-for-70000-will-be-blocked.html

http://www.thisisgloucestershire.co.uk/gloucestershireheadlines/Cheltenham-mosque-dome-criticised/article-977883-detail/article.html

http://www.thisisnottingham.co.uk/news/Action-mosque-dropped/article-1271404-detail/article.html

http://www.libertiesalliance.org/2009/09/18/enforcement-action-threatened-at-tablighi-jamaat-mega-mosque-site/

Really great one here

http://www.dudleynews.co.uk/news/3216268.Mosque_decison_a__smack_in_the_teeth___/

Council Leader David Caunt said the decision showed the Government did not appreciate the depth of local opposition – despite 22,000 residents signing a petition against the plans.

He added: “The people of Dudley have been given a smack in the teeth with this decision by a Labour-funded quango and in giving Dudley Muslim Association outline planning permission for their major development, they have shown they do not appreciate local feelings.

“Local decisions should be left to local people,” he said.

What fun.

The foundation of the Swiss Confederation dates back to the late 13th century – making it 650 years older than either Italy or Germany

A wee bit disingenuous. The Swiss confederacy was a collection of trading cantons; it’d be like saying the EU has existed since 1100 AD.

The federal constitution of Switzerland wasn’t established till 1848.

214, well blimey, the constitution of France wasn’t instituted until 1958! The German constitution wasn’t introduced until 1949, and Italy’s came in in ‘47…

Switzerland has existed in more or less its current guise as a confederation of semi-autonomous cantons since the 13th century, with a brief Napoleonic break. Sure, the precise details have changed since, but that’s true of every European state.

Oh well.

Despite all of that indignant disapproval here the ban still stands as does the Swiss direct democracy system and that is pretty much that.

Pagar @ 213

The reason you find a higher proportion of climate change sceptics among libertarians is because they are naturally more sceptical about what they are fed as truth. In fact there is a propensity to refuse to believe anything anyone tells them until they can see it proved for themselves.

Oh, come of it mate, your having a laugh! When does this natural scepticism ever manifest itself other than when the evidence clashes with their prejudices? When someone asserts that young women get pregnant to get council houses, or that the majority of asylum seekers are here purely because of the lavish benefits, all that is taken as gospel, based on what ‘someone down the pub said’ and similar anecdotes. Where are the peer reviewed extensive, long term studies to prove any of that? And even if it does exist, surely you ‘natural sceptics’ would disagree with it on principle? Or perhaps as that is what you want the answer to be, you feel more inclined to let that slide?

When James Purnel stated that most incapacity benefit claimants could actually work, but simply choose not to, I obviously missed the Libertarians who denounced him as a common purpose drone, whose flimsy and flawed evidence was generated purely as a money making scam for a Government of liars. Funnily enough, for some reason, the only Libertarian comments I saw where people who instantly agreed with and where quite happy to take his statements at face value! Funny that. Have you an explanation as to the lack of scepticism? Surely we should accept nothing from the Government and question everything and till he are absolutely convinced? So can you name the Libertarian who debunked Parnel so easily and proved that 2 million cannot actually work? Daniel Hannan perhaps?

The reason you find a higher proportion of climate change sceptics among libertarians is because they are naturally more sceptical about what they are fed as truth. In fact there is a propensity to refuse to believe anything anyone tells them until they can see it proved for themselves.

That certainly plays a part for some. It’s worth remembering, though, that AGW would – I think we can all agree – indict unrestricted consumption, and, thus, fit uneasily with their ideology. Is there a common libertarian position on peak oil (which the government seems rather less willing to talk about)?

You want to see minarets ? go to Israel, there are thousands there. You know Israel, the only democracy for thousands of square miles in the middle east.

I kow it must be a problem for all you Jew haters out there.

Larry, what point are you making here?

If you’re making the point that Israel, clearly more under threat from Islamist extremism than Switzerland is, does not have a problem with the building of minarets, so neither should the Swiss, then fair enough. But I don’t see who the Jew-haters here are, and why the term is relevant?

On a point of order, Israel is NOT more likely to suffer under internal extremism.

It’s 11% Muslim households. Gee, still no sharia law – what’s happening?

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3811274,00.html

External extremism, of course, bets are off.

It’s like Gates of Vienna round these parts…

#221

Yes, I meant external extremism. Clearly more suicide bombers target Israel than Switzerland. You don’t have to agree with everything the Israeli government does (I certainly don’t) to recognise that. If Israel, with a lot more at stake than Switzerland, can hold it together for long enough to recognise that an increased number of minarets does not an increased threat bring, Switzerland should be able to too.

Jim @ 217

When James Purnel stated that most incapacity benefit claimants could actually work, but simply choose not to, I obviously missed the Libertarians who denounced him as a common purpose drone.

In fact, libertarians are not generally in favour of communitarian workfare projects, as they tend to distort the market.

Of course you’ll now point out that they’re not much in favour of benefits either and we’ll be here all night.

(Did you read the global warming article? Very worthwhile).

Dr Taj Hargey is the chairman of the Muslim Educational Centre of Oxford and the imam of the Summertown Islamic Congregation in Oxford:

“Minarets are not an essential part of Islam
The Swiss vote does not infringe Muslim religious rights.”

Only when Muslim immigrants and converts in Europe reject the twisted ideology of a fundamentalist male clergy will the chief causes of anti-Muslim prejudice in Europe recede. Meanwhile, despite the Islamophobic minaret ban, the religious rights of Swiss Muslims remain intact. They do, however, have a rare opportunity to cut the link with the dominant theology of the East and to restore Islam’s pristine beliefs.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/guest_contributors/article6938161.ece

Muslims who have settled in Switzerland (and elsewhere in Europe) should not confuse culture with creed. To become integrated into their surroundings, they must relinquish the cultural baggage of their ancestral homelands. They should practice a Swiss Islam that is rooted in the society in which they live.

Although the Swiss have been convinced by right-wing zealots that minarets are a problem, local Muslims should not embrace a victim mentality. They must confront the toxic radicalisation of their faith that is imported from overseas.

local Muslims should not embrace a victim mentality. They must confront the toxic radicalisation of their faith that is imported from overseas.

Of course – this legislation makes sense because Swiss Muslims have not eradicated the sins that their neighbours may or may not have committed. Who among us wouldn’t accept being targetted for harsher treatment by the state because of the actions of an unspecified proportion of our own ethnoreligious group? That’s freedom in action for ya!

Do you lads have a single argument that hasn’t been instantly riddled with bullets and plummeted, screaming burning and belching smoke, out of the sky? I ask because it seems that, not content with producing your own terrible ideas, you seem to have taken to outsourcing bad arguments to others.

Just recieved an Email

Hi,

I produce the breakfast show on LBC radio and was hoping you might be available tomorrow morning for a short interview.

We’re discussing the Swiss vote on minarets.

I read you piece on your blog and think you’d be an excellent guest.

The latest angle is that Italy could be the next European country to consider a referendum on the building of Islamic minarets.

Please call me on 0207xxxxxxxxxx if you are interested.

Many thanks,

xxxxxxxxx

Producer

LBC Radio

Sony Speech Broadcaster of the Year 2009

What’dya reckon? Should I?

Hell yeah. It’ll be teh awesome, like Guido on Newsnight.

Should I?

Depends on whether anyone will be listening whose respect you’d like to keep. If not, I say go for it.

On the basis that I think the opinion you represent is a thoroughly disreputable one,
if it must be given a public airing I’d be keen that it is identified as a marginal and freakish viewpoint from the outset, rather than respectable or mainstream. On that basis it’d be best if it was presented by someone unable to frame a coherent argument, and highly unlikely to gather any sympathy from the ‘floating voter’. A ranting far-right nutjob, would be best. So I say go for it.

What’dya reckon? Should I?

How did they know which of the millions of you to send the email to? Or does the email go to a group account, in which case which one of the millions will be on the radio?

On the basis that I think the opinion you represent is a thoroughly disreputable one,
if it must be given a public airing I’d be keen that it is identified as a marginal and freakish viewpoint from the outset,

A bit like Nu Labour saying it reflects the national will with less than 40% of the national vote, is that why referendas are so unpopular ?

@Old Holborn

What do you think of this?

Italy bans kebabs and foreign food from cities

The tomato comes from Peru and spaghetti was probably a gift from China. It is, though, the “foreign” kebab that is being kicked out of Italian cities as it becomes the target of a campaign against ethnic food, backed by the centre-right Government of Silvio Berlusconi.

The drive to make Italians eat Italian, which was described by the Left and leading chefs as gastronomic racism, began in the town of Lucca this week, where the council banned any new ethnic food outlets from opening within the ancient city walls.

Now its the same principle, but its Silvio Berlesconi’s Government doing the banning. Where do you stand? Just out of interest.

Now are you going to go with – Immigrants refusing to integrate (i.e. wanting to run a restaurant people want to visit rather than run a crap business selling stuff no one wants in an inefficient manner in the traditional Italian way [/irony]) are being told they by the majority how to behave.

Or – An unfair infringement by Government on entrepreneurs who want to set up a business which people want to visit?

Listen in to Nick Ferrari on LBC at 7.05

I might swear. A lot.

I might swear. A lot.

Please do.

Pagar @224

In fact, libertarians are not generally in favour of communitarian workfare projects, as they tend to distort the market.

Are they endless posts all over the Bloggasphere from Libertarians debunking Purnell, thus exercising this natural mistrust of Labour/Government figures? If so, can you point me to it its general direction? Flow charts explaining why we should ignore all the evidence no matter the source, not do anything and let further generation clean up after we are dead (yes I did read the AGW post and I am not impressed)
Has your extensive research allowed you to form an opinion on Purnell’s claim?

Left outside

I’ll see your Kebab and raise you a packet of crisps

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/6702455/Smaller-crisp-packets-under-Government-plans.html

Are they endless posts all over the Bloggasphere from Libertarians debunking Purnell, thus exercising this natural mistrust of Labour/Government figures? If so, can you point me to it its general direction?

No. There are not.

But then why should there be when all we are talking about is a minor government lackey trying to garner short term electoral advantage by appearing to try to reverse 12 years of self-indulgent manipulation of the unemployment figures?

Flow charts explaining why we should ignore all the evidence no matter the source, not do anything and let further generation clean up after we are dead (yes I did read the AGW post and I am not impressed)

If that is your considered view of the article I cited, I can only conclude that you read it with one eye shut. Open the other one, then do the same with your mind and you might get some important perspective.

Left outside – The new labour health police have banned crisps and chocolate bars from kids lunchboxes, is that “gastronomic authoritarian racism” as well.
I won’t even start on smoking bans which were first imposed by the third reich……….

Don’t get me wrong Old Holborn, this is the sort of crap that would makes me laugh if it wasn’t so depressing.

Crisps, traditionally sold in bags weighing 40g (1.41oz) or 35g (1.23oz), should be sold in 30g packs or smaller. Manufacturers of pies, sausage rolls and pasties should offer smaller versions of their snacks.

Morons…

Anyway, I’m genuinely asking what you think about banning certain restaurants from Italian town centres because I think its similar to the situation in Switzerland which you are praising.

Left Outside

Let me know when the diners of a restuarant blow up the London Underground.

@240 Matt Munro

Can people please stop conflating actual left wingers with stupid stuff done by New Labour. I don’t suggest that Dan Hannan always agrees with Ken Clark on Europe or that Devil’s Kitchen always agree with Tory policy on drugs, so why bring New Labour into any discussion involving someone either more liberal or more leftwing than you?

Yeah, what Old Holborn links to is stupid, as I’ve already indicated I agree with him. Stop derailing the conversation, if you want to get involved then answer the question.

You obviously think its wrong for governments to recommend smaller portions, but what do you think of them banning certain businesses wholesale?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attacks_on_the_London_Underground#IRA_attacks

Um… Oh well, I mean the sectarian violence is all behind us now.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/northern_ireland/7934426.stm

Next!

I might swear. A lot.

Are those the walls of civilization that I hear tumbling down?

No more ‘bayonets’ of Islam for the Swiss!

Well, unless their own so-called justice minister has her way; or the EU; or the UN; or Turkey…

Everyone knows what the Swiss really want and what’s best for the Swiss bar the Swiss themselves it would seem!

Democracy must only be good if the result is the same one that is required by the political elite and foreign spokesman, it would seem.

Sorry, should be “Spokespersons”!

@243 “You obviously think its wrong for governments to recommend smaller portions, but what do you think of them banning certain businesses wholesale?”

I think it’s wrong for the government to “get involved” in personal choices, of which diet is an obvious example. Going back to the ban on kebab shops. Italians are hardly unique in banning fast food sellers in town centres. You need planning permission from the council to put a kebab on the street in the UK, most London boroughs have regulations which prevent a a concentration of fast food outlets, they can and are effectively banned from some parts of most cities for aesthetic/social reasons. You have put a particular spin on the ban, seeing it as an attack on diversity/unwarranted protection of a certain type of traditional food. I would see it in those terms.

1) Fast food outlets have associations with late nigh noise/anti-social behaviour etc, perhaps residents have put pressure on the authorities because they think feel that banning the shops will reduce the bahaviour ?

2) Perhaps they think that tourists don’t come to Italy to eat kebabs and that they are damaging tourism ?

3) Perhaps local established business are applying pressure to protect their market ?

My view on the Swiss minaret ban is that minarets in Switzerland just wouldn’t work, culturally or aesthetically. They would only have sought the ban if they thought/knew that someone was planning to build some minarets and perhaps they don’t fancy being woken up at sunrise by the call to prayer ? Either way if the Swiss don’t want them they don’t actually have to justify that to anyone except themselves. Be interested to hear what the Lefts position would have been if the ban was on a built symbol of a christian religion (i.e a church)

As someone who smokes and was a frequent and enthusiastic patron of the “traditional” pub – which was effectively banned by “liberals” I have fairly limited sympathy for anyone on the liberal/left moaning about bans on anything to be honest.

Well, my interview tomorrow on LBC Breakfast has been cancelled after I threatened to swear.

Like I care.

If I want Minarets, I’ll go to Damascus or Instanbul. If I want cuckoo clocks, I’ll go to Switzerland. If the people of Cairo decide they don’t want a McDonalds or Stabucks next to the pyramids, then so be it.

CF – surely the term ’spokesperson’ itself is sailing pretty close the wind, what is needed is to alternate that usage with ’spokesdaughter’, or better yet ’spokesoffspring’ to be on the safe side and avoid giving offence.

“If the people of Cairo decide they don’t want a McDonalds or Stabucks next to the pyramids, then so be it.”

Yay! Libertarians for Protectionism!

Yes but its not a fast food ban, its a foreign food ban. That’s the difference. I’m sorry about you not being able to smoke down the pub. I wouldn’t enforce a smoking ban like this if I was in charge because I agree its not just (however, you would be sent to the salt mines [/stalin]). Please don’t bring up things unrelated to this discussion

Also the things which you cite, aesthetics, early morning call to pray, etc were all already covered under Swiss law. They have anti-noise pollution measures so the call to prayers not an issue. They have local planning laws so that minarets wouldn’t be erected next to culturally significant sites.

This law isn’t about the call to prayer because that is already under control, its hard to see how it is about aesthetics because planning permission is dealt with at the local or canton level, so eyesores won’t be built without contest.

“Democracy must only be good if the result is the same one that is required by the political elite and foreign spokesman, it would seem.”

“If I want Minarets, I’ll go to Damascus or Instanbul. If I want cuckoo clocks, I’ll go to Switzerland. If the people of Cairo decide they don’t want a McDonalds or Stabucks next to the pyramids, then so be it.”

Who are “the people”? 57% of 55% of the population? Who were they? It’s all well and good championing democracy, chaps, I doubt many here really disagree with proper democratic process…but does (potentially) a rousing surge of anti-islamist feeling through a portion of the population count as “the will of the people” ultimately? Democratically almost 69% of people at the very least couldn’t give a fuck over whether minarets are allowed to be built or not, yet it is those 31% that specifically didn’t want them built that won the day.

This is not democracy, it is a successfully mobilised protest at best…for it to become actual law without further considered action, and without respect for liberty and alternative processes to safeguard ALL sides from being shut out, would be an affront to democracy and an example of everything that is wrong about direct democracy in itself.

Neil,

Libertarians can also be democrats.

If the Swiss reject the trappings of Islam, that is their choice and their right as the majority*

* Only 36,000 Muslims in Switzerland hold Swiss passports. 88% of Muslims in Switzerland are “guests”.

Would you let occasional guests in your house demand you change the wallpaper and re-arrange the furniture to reflect where they had come from? So they felt at home in your home?

Me neither.

@ Lee Griffin

Well, as I said not all Swiss can vote, you know with some of them still being in nappies and other odds and sods; and then, as we saw, not all Swiss want to vote.

(Answer me Lee: Which country had the last 100% population turnout on a vote for anything?)

The ones who can and did and obviously believed in democracy are the only ones who voices count and the majority of these voted for the ban and so yes, the majority of the Swiss did vote for it and into the constuition it goes.

Pure democracy actually.

I loves it.

“Libertarians can also be democrats.”

Yeah, yeah. Save it for the next time you’re on an anti-Globalisation march, hippy.

@Old Holborn

In 1945 Labour kicked out the Tories and began to set up the Modern Welfare State.

They nationalised hospital, industry and banned people from taking large amounts of money out of the country to name just a few things. Moreover, they instigated a period of cheap money and issued money at well below the market rate.

However, they did all these “socialist” things with a “democratic” mandate. How do you reconcile your love of democracy and your love of liberty?

Because sometimes the two conflict.

“Because sometimes the two conflict.”

Tell me about it. As I’ve explained above, label me as you will. Some will call me a right wing nut job, others call me an anarchist, a Tory, a fascist. I’ve also been called a communist and a nihilist.

Pick a label if it helps you. My readers (over a million to date) don’t care. Neither do I.

So, Old Holborn – if a majority voted to ban booze, fags and V for Vendetta masks, you’d be fine with that?

I’d argue against it.

And win.

“I’d argue against it. And win.”

Yay, democrats against democracy!

Pagar @ 239

The point being that Purnell’s claim, although totally unsubstantiated, was taken at face value among Libertarians because it was saying exactly what you wanted to hear as it backed up your prejudices. Incidentally, I think you are being far too conservative in your description of 12 years of manipulation of the unemployment figures. As far as I can see this has been going on for at least twenty five years.

I am sorry if you found my reply regarding AGW flippant, but to be honest, I didn’t find too much to agree with in it. I see statements that make me shake my head. Things like:

‘Is the warming unprecedented? If not we can go down the pub.’

WTF? What does it matter if we have seen this before? What do we say to a village of refugees? Sorry about your village, but this place flooded three hundred years ago, so not our problem, mate? That statement is just plain stupid.

Who is going to do the adapting? The poor people as usual? People who are displaced or find themselves living in a dustbowl even though they not caused the problem? Why is that fair? Surely Libertarianism has an element of personal responsibility in it? Well surely the people who should ‘adapt’ are the people who have spent the last forty or fifty years pouring greenhouse gas into the atmosphere? You can excuse ignorance to a certain extent, but ignoring science just because you have the power and the money to do so is just sick. When your behaviour is causing damage to others, well denying it only makes your position worse. Then we get the inevitable ‘World Government’ statement, well what can I say?

Looking at the comments section (the best bit of any blog BTW) I see the typical deniers mantra which is basically the same old tosh that boils down to:

‘Snow proves global warming is not true’
‘All just a tax scam’
‘The BBC have made the whole thing up’
‘CO2 is not a greenhouse gas’
‘Linzden says…’

Sorry Pagar I cannot take people who deny the existence of the science seriously. To deny the problem even exists in order to justify their current behaviour makes many of these people untrustworthy in my book.

Want a referendum against booze, fags and V for Vendetta masks?

Try Switzerland. You’ll need to find 100,000 people to support you then the law says it goes to a vote.

Democracy. Like it or (I suspect) not

Good answer, I understand that sentiment.

But it makes it slightly harder to argue with you than most as you seem totally immune to cognitive dissonance. Don’t you want to know how you hold two different beliefs at once?

I understand you think you’d win the vote, but maybe you wouldn’t. Good does not always triumph over meddling bastards.

Surely this vote is a case in point. Those interested in liberty would argue against banning the Minaret, but they might not win. Just as you might not be able to stop people banning booze, fags and V for Vendetta masks.

Pick a label if it helps you.

Thanks. I’ll go for “idiot”.

There are definitely 100,00 people in this country who’d sign up to that and you know it.

It’d be a national disgrace but it could happen OH. There are a lot of illiberal fuckwits out there.

Larry, I was thinking “jester”.

BINGO

I’ll find somewhere that I can wear a V mask, smoke fags and drink booze. Because it’s what I do. If the majority don’t like it, then I am in the minority and I will accept it. I will not force the majority to accept MY version of life against THEIR will.

Swiss Muslims number but 38,000. Yet they are upset because the 99.5% of the Swiss would rather they didn’t impose their views on them.

“Would you let occasional guests in your house demand you change the wallpaper and re-arrange the furniture to reflect where they had come from? So they felt at home in your home?”

It’s poor analogy hour!

“Well, as I said not all Swiss can vote, you know with some of them still being in nappies and other odds and sods; and then, as we saw, not all Swiss want to vote.”

Oh now come on, turnout is a figure based on eligability to vote, therefore 55% of ELIGABLE VOTERS turned out. Simple. You know better than to resort to this.

“The ones who can and did and obviously believed in democracy are the only ones who voices count”

Again, what a gross assumption. Look at our turnout here in the UK. Do you believe that every person who doesn’t vote does so because they don’t believe in democracy, or because that they a) don’t care about the result, b) don’t think the vote matters to them or c) don’t believe their vote will actually make a difference anyway?

Because those people don’t vote (and let’s say Labour stay in power next year) is it right that those people never get taken in to consideration when something that can potentially effect them is put forward by government or parliament?

Labour introduce law that says all non-voters will be taxed 70%. Democratic result in the end, so it’s not a problem, right?

Democracy and it’s process is a tool in a toolbox for getting the right result for the population, not the ultimate goal.

Want a referendum against booze, fags and V for Vendetta masks?

Err — no. I happen to like them (well the masks are a bit passé, so maybe…No, no, priorities, man – go for the Dark Knight face-paint first).

The question is, do you think individual liberties should be subject to the whims of a national majority? If you do – fine! I couldn’t be less bothered.

“Swiss Muslims number but 38,000. Yet they are upset because the 99.5% of the Swiss would rather they didn’t impose their views on them.”

This is nothing to do with imposition of views, but hooray for highlighting your prejudice some more.

Lee

0.5% of the population of the UK would like to fuck your children up the arse and burn down your house. Without your consent.

Go on, represent them. They have rights too.

You do! Excellent.

“If the majority don’t like it, then I am in the minority and I will accept it.”

What was that about cognitive dissonance, again?

But there doesn’t seem to be much forcing of views on anyone. Unless by Swiss views you mean Swiss scenery.

This legislation is about a particular type of building, not against the various tenets of Sharia Law which you disagree with. The Swiss are already protected from that by their own laws.

The things against which it would be reasonable to protect the Swiss majority against, early morning pray calls, stonings, and minarets already exist at the state or federal level. There are noise pollution laws, the fact that few muslims actually want to stone anyone, and local planning laws.

This vote was democratic, but the outcome – the censure of many individuals who have broken no law and who have a long history in the country – will only have undemocratic results. The breakdown in the idea that all citizens are equal before the law.

Actually, to be fair, Switzerland has at least only rejected the unprofitable bits of Islam.

“This is nothing to do with imposition of views, but hooray for highlighting your prejudice some more.”

When I said this it was a lie, it is of course about the imposition of someone’s views…but not from the side of the muslims in the country.

“Go on, represent them. They have rights too.”

Indeed they do, I don’t have a problem with that, even if you do.

If the majority don’t like it, then I am in the minority and I will accept it.

Ha! Would you fuck.

Be honest Old Holborn, you’re making this shit up as you go along.

So, does voting for a government with an electoral mandate mean that that mandate should go unchallenged as the democratic will of a majority, or does this moral purism only apply to referenda?

In other words, should the Countryside Alliance just shut up about bloody fox hunting already?

Of course, if democracy must be allowed to triumph, then who are we to query this manifesto of a party voted in with 40% of the popular vote?

1. We demand the union of all Germans in a Great Germany on the basis of the principle of self-determination of all peoples.

2. We demand that the German people have rights equal to those of other nations; and that the Peace Treaties of Versailles and St. Germain shall be abrogated.

3. We demand land and territory (colonies) for the maintenance of our people and the settlement of our surplus population.

4. Only those who are our fellow countrymen can become citizens. Only those who have German blood, regardless of creed, can be our countrymen. Hence no Jew can be a countryman.

5. Those who are not citizens must live in Germany as foreigners and must be subject to the law of aliens.

6. The right to choose the government and determine the laws of the State shall belong only to citizens. We therefore demand that no public office, of whatever nature, whether in the central government, the province, or the municipality, shall be held by anyone who is not a citizen.

We wage war against the corrupt parliamentary administration whereby men are appointed to posts by favor of the party without regard to character and fitness.

7. We demand that the State shall above all undertake to ensure that every citizen shall have the possibility of living decently and earning a livelihood. If it should not be possible to feed the whole population, then aliens (non-citizens) must be expelled from the Reich.

8. Any further immigration of non-Germans must be prevented. We demand that all non-Germans who have entered Germany since August 2, 1914, shall be compelled to leave the Reich immediately.

9. All citizens must possess equal rights and duties.

10. The first duty of every citizen must be to work mentally or physically. No individual shall do any work that offends against the interest of the community to the benefit of all.

Therefore we demand:

11. That all unearned income, and all income that does not arise from work, be abolished.

12. Since every war imposes on the people fearful sacrifices in blood and treasure, all personal profit arising from the war must be regarded as treason to the people. We therefore demand the total confiscation of all war profits.

13. We demand the nationalization of all trusts.

14. We demand profit-sharing in large industries.

15. We demand a generous increase in old-age pensions.

16. We demand the creation and maintenance of a sound middle-class, the immediate communalization of large stores which will be rented cheaply to small tradespeople, and the strongest consideration must be given to ensure that small traders shall deliver the supplies needed by the State, the provinces and municipalities.

17. We demand an agrarian reform in accordance with our national requirements, and the enactment of a law to expropriate the owners without compensation of any land needed for the common purpose. The abolition of ground rents, and the prohibition of all speculation in land.

18. We demand that ruthless war be waged against those who work to the injury of the common welfare. Traitors, usurers, profiteers, etc., are to be punished with death, regardless of creed or race.

19. We demand that Roman law, which serves a materialist ordering of the world, be replaced by German common law.

20. In order to make it possible for every capable and industrious German to obtain higher education, and thus the opportunity to reach into positions of leadership, the State must assume the responsibility of organizing thoroughly the entire cultural system of the people. The curricula of all educational establishments shall be adapted to practical life. The conception of the State Idea (science of citizenship) must be taught in the schools from the very beginning. We demand that specially talented children of poor parents, whatever their station or occupation, be educated at the expense of the State.

21. The State has the duty to help raise the standard of national health by providing maternity welfare centers, by prohibiting juvenile labor, by increasing physical fitness through the introduction of compulsory games and gymnastics, and by the greatest possible encouragement of associations concerned with the physical education of the young.

22. We demand the abolition of the regular army and the creation of a national (folk) army.

23. We demand that there be a legal campaign against those who propagate deliberate political lies and disseminate them through the press. In order to make possible the creation of a German press, we demand:

(a) All editors and their assistants on newspapers published in the German language shall be German citizens.

(b) Non-German newspapers shall only be published with the express permission of the State. They must not be published in the German language.

(c) All financial interests in or in any way affecting German newspapers shall be forbidden to non-Germans by law, and we demand that the punishment for transgressing this law be the immediate suppression of the newspaper and the expulsion of the non-Germans from the Reich.

Newspapers transgressing against the common welfare shall be suppressed. We demand legal action against those tendencies in art and literature that have a disruptive influence upon the life of our folk, and that any organizations that offend against the foregoing demands shall be dissolved.

24. We demand freedom for all religious faiths in the state, insofar as they do not endanger its existence or offend the moral and ethical sense of the Germanic race.

The party as such represents the point of view of a positive Christianity without binding itself to any one particular confession. It fights against the Jewish materialist spirit within and without, and is convinced that a lasting recovery of our folk can only come about from within on the pinciple:

COMMON GOOD BEFORE INDIVIDUAL GOOD

25. In order to carry out this program we demand: the creation of a strong central authority in the State, the unconditional authority by the political central parliament of the whole State and all its organizations.

The formation of professional committees and of committees representing the several estates of the realm, to ensure that the laws promulgated by the central authority shall be carried out by the federal states.

The leaders of the party undertake to promote the execution of the foregoing points at all costs, if necessary at the sacrifice of their own lives.

Note; I’m not comparing the Swiss; just pointing out that democracy is not, per se, morally inviolate.

Well I listened to LBC at 7.05am – where was Old Holborn?

It was Douglas Murray instead.

Or are they the same person?

cjcjc – see #250. Or maybe it was a double bluff. Or a triple bluff. Or…

[228] ‘Do you lads have a single argument that hasn’t been instantly riddled with bullets and plummeted, screaming burning and belching smoke, out of the sky? I ask because it seems that, not content with producing your own terrible ideas, you seem to have taken to outsourcing bad arguments to others’.

I believe FR dealt the coup de grace to OH some time ago – this observation makes me chuckle every time I read it.

Having just read the last 50 comments on this thread, most of you seem to have spent most of last night poking Old Holborn with sticks.

That may be fun for some but I’m not sure it really moves the argument along.

And he quite likes it.

Of course there will always be some tension between liberty and democracy but, in the end, a decent society cannot function without either. The key to it all is the constitution and that’s what went wrong for the Swiss in this instance.

The Swiss constitution should have prevented a decision on the type of buildings that could be built being taken at the level of a national referendum. It is properly a decision properly made at a local level, probably in a planning context.

Also, the Swiss should have had a Bill of Rights with clauses in there protecting the rights of minorities being discriminated against because of their beliefs- any disputes ruled on by a supreme court.

Localism and direct democracy are the only way forward if we want to achieve a true liberal democracy but it only works if someone has got the rules of engagement right in the first place.

@cjcjc Those the gods wish to destroy they first trick into listening to Nick Ferrari.

You can stick your CCTV, Police State, wheelie bin Stasi – but presumably building regulations and planning departments are ok

DNA, WMD – I can’t beleive the government would scare-monger about Iraq, when the real danger is Minarets! They even look a bit like missiles, which is a hell of a lot more than was found in Iraq!

“Social Cohesion” – You know, society would by a lot more cohesive if it wasn’t for all these f*cking minorities.

guilty until proved innocent – apart from those f*cking Muslims. The Saudi government is oppresive and tyrannical, so surely those Swiss Muslims are up to something. Probably involving Minarets.

don’t do that it’s illegal now – we even had a vote and everything!

can’t say that – don’t you remember the vote? And don’t f*cking build that either!

where are you going, what have you been saying/doing/reading? – Hope you’re not planning on visiting a Minaret! Who knows what dodgy things are said/done/read inside there.

can’t photograph that – And don’t bloody build it, either!

golliwog banning – An offensive, Imperialist symbol of hatred, racialist violence and civil strife. I’m talking about Minarets, of course, the golliwog is a harmless figure of fun. Right?

we know where you live, we’re watching you – And we’re making sure that extension on your kitchen doesn’t start to resemble an Islamic tower. Turn that radio down too, sounds a bit like a call to prayer.

Soviet Utopia up your arses. Sideways. – Of course, they had a terrific policy on Minarets, but went a bit too far picking on the Middle Classes. The Bastards.

==============

The good thing about this legislation, of course, is that it will sorely fail to kill off Islam, but has already done a good job of killing off Libertarianism.

@ Lee Griffin

Once again, how bizarre.

Your reasoning and logic are just nonexistent, and trust me I am not even trying to be funny with you.

You argue against the first line of what I have said as if it was in isolation only to move straight onto the second line that supplemented and validated it. Very odd.

You then go into some strange rant about why people vote and even Labour staying in power when the reality, the only reality is exactly as I have explained it:

“The ones who can [vote] and did and obviously believed in democracy are the only ones who voices count and the majority of these voted for the ban and so yes, the majority of the Swiss did vote for it and into the constuition it goes.”

You see, this is why the Liberals don’t have a fart in a nunneries chance of ever winning power because Liberals will pontificate endlessly and rail against the bleeding obvious whenever something they don’t like happens.

That, and the fact that that happens, we all get to see just how un-Liberal you really are.

CALLING OLD HOLBURN

This is a question just for you, OH.

Scenario: Hypothetical Swiss rich muslin guy happens to personally own a very large valley surrounded by mountains in Switzerland. No one on adjoining property can see the valley. The mountains are so high and steep that even light aircraft don’t easily see down into it through the clouds.

Question 1: Should the group be banned, by ANYONE, under pain of government sponsored violence, from building a tower which looks like a minaret in that valley? Yes|No

Question 2: If so, under what justification ?

http://another-green-world.blogspot.com/2009/12/solidarity-with-harrow-mosque.html

counter demonstration against the English Defence League