Re:Basic income plan clearly rejected by Swiss voters
by rbanffy on Sunday June 05, 2016 @04:47PM
(#11843035)
> Lets be honest here, the 'minaret' issue is extremely minor one.
Not at all. It violates the very idea of freedom of religion. I doubt a ban on building of churches would be approved and this shows that a more popular group can (and does) trample on fundamental human rights of other smaller groups.
Re:Basic income plan clearly rejected by Swiss voters
by Godel_unicode on Monday June 06, 2016 @01:55AM
(#11844915)
I guess it's a good thing mosques aren't minarets. I see this as a good compromise between "we want to allow others to practice their religion" and "we want to preserve our own cultural heritage". Not knowing the back story of why that line is in the Constitution, I hope it's there as this type of concrete example; practice your religion, build your mosque, but meet Switzerland halfway architecturally speaking.
Also, your metaphor is incorrect; this is banning bell towers not banning churches.
Re:Basic income plan clearly rejected by Swiss voters
by rbanffy on Monday June 06, 2016 @12:59PM
(#11848240)
> this is banning bell towers not banning churches.
Would a ban on bell towers become part of the Constitution? I seriously doubt it. A ban on minarets, one that actually made sense and didn't look like religious intolerance, would belong in construction codes or zoning laws.
Re:Basic income plan clearly rejected by Swiss voters
by saiya-jin on Sunday June 05, 2016 @05:41PM
(#11843272)
ok let's get down back to earth and reality - it's their country, they are a bit hardcore christians, and since they don't bow to anybody but themselves, they can choose to do whatever they deem good for their society. Most armed and most free nation said it's opinion and I have to agree with them on this one. One's freedom ends where other's begins.
If similar vote would be done now in countries around europe, results would be pretty similar.
Re:Basic income plan clearly rejected by Swiss voters
by rbanffy on Monday June 06, 2016 @07:48AM
(#11846026)
I am pretty sure the ISIS guys being pretty hardcore Wahhabis Muslims doesn't exactly makes us comfortable with mass executions, does it? One's freedom may end where other's begins but how far can the other deny freedoms to one and still claim it's an exercise of other's freedom?
Re:Basic income plan clearly rejected by Swiss voters
by saiya-jin on Monday June 06, 2016 @11:49AM
(#11847643)
These lines are blurry to the point of invisibility, that's why they had public vote (and for other reasons). See, what I find perfectly OK for given situation, you don't. Majority decided as they did. There might be a million Swiss citizens which agree with you, another million (or two) who don't care much but the rest expressed their opinion.
Lets be honest here, the 'minaret' issue is extremely minor one. I does not effect large numbers of people and it does not effecte them in a particularly strong way. Based on first principle I voted against it, but was not the most important issue for me or for Switzerland.
Most of the time the results Switzerland gets to usually are really good. Many things that passed in other countries did not pass in Switzerland.
I think that the argument that Swiss democracy is bad because of this minaret example, is extremely weak. If that the best argument you can bring against the Swiss system, then its doing something right. You can't find cases of gross misjudgment or fiscal or social issues or anything like that? I can find stuff like that in most other countries.
The Swiss system can also be used to remove stuff from the constitution. So this minaret stuff need not be there forever.
Edit: One addition I would make to the system is that if a law is rejected by a 'human rights' evaluation group, it needs to pass with 2/3 majority.