counter demonstration against the English Defence League

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 ?

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.

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.

Welcome to Faisal Private Bank, the first Swiss bank exclusively dedicated to innovative wealth and asset management in accordance with the principles of Islamic finance. With Faisal Private Bank you will benefit from a banking model that is highly per…

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.

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

It was Douglas Murray instead.

Or are they the same person?

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.

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

Ha! Would you fuck.

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

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

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.

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.

What was that about cognitive dissonance, again?

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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