Talk:2009 Swiss minaret referendum

contentious issues

The call to prayer may be one of the main contentious issues with Islam in Western countries.

why? Isn't terrorism one of the more contentious issues? freedom of speech? the Islamic dress controversy? Misheu 07:39, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

I think it should be: The call to prayer may be one of the main contentious issues with minarets in Switzerland.Hup 20:15, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

sounds much better. though supposedly no mosque has a call to prayer. i think it's more the symbolism of a minaret Misheu 22:26, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Cannot provide a citation but I lived near the mosque in Zürich for a few years. They don't make a call to prayer.

this is messed up...Hup 20:15, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Arguments

According to the initiative committee, the minarets are not religious structures. They are not mentioned in the Qu'ran or Islamic scriptures. Many Mosques around the world do not have minarets. The minaret is a symbol of political-religious power which ignores the tolerance of guaranteeing the freedom of religion for all. Quoting a speech of current Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan in 1997 (then Mayor of Istanbul): "Mosques are our barracks, domes our helmets, minarets our bayonets, believers our soldiers. This holy army guards my religion." The committee argues that by allowing minarets, it would have to allow muezzins because of freedom of religion. Leading Islam groups would give up the muezzins only on condition that Christian church bells stop ringing. Thus the minarets are instruments to eliminate other religions.

First, this seems to be supporting this opinion, and is largely written as if it is an original thought. Though I'm sure its not, it needs to be reworded to make this clear. Second, it sort of devolves into non sequitors at the end. "...by allowing minarets, it would have to allow muezzins." What? Why is there a problem with muezzins? Then it goes on, "Thus the minarets are instruments to eliminate other religions." How? Because they refuse to give up muezzins (which they have to give up because..?) unless the church bells are given up? so by forcing their evil freedom of religious agenda on this and demanding equal rights, they are eliminating other religions? This whole section just doesn't make sense. Atropos 08:04, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

four mosques with minarets

There is also a mosque with a (little) minaret in the city of Winterthur. [1]. Besides, the minaret in Wangen was built in the meantime.[[2]] Primusinterparem (talk) 21:22, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

The Position of the Government and the Parliament regarding the popular initiative

It seems to be reasonable to add the following passage to the chapter "Opposition - The Swiss Government":

The Swiss government (Swiss Federal Council) and both chambers of Parliament are opposed to the initiative and have recommended that voters reject it at the voting polls. Press release „Federal Council opposes building ban on minarets“, August 27th 2008 Both chambers of the Swiss Parliament treated the initiative between March and June 2009. The National Council recommended in its final voting with 132 to 51 votes (with 11 abstentions) the rejection of the initiative, the Council of States with 39 to 3 votes (with 2 abstentions).

The Swiss government believes that a ban on the construction of minarets would represent an inadmissible restriction of the right of members of the Muslim community to openly profess their religious beliefs In the view of the Swiss government and of Parliament, a prohibition on the construction of minarets would not be compatible with the values of a free and democratic society.

In its official press conference of October 15th 2009 the Swiss Federal Council emphasizes that acceptance of the initiative would constitute a violation of the freedom of religion, the freedom of conscience, as well as the right to equal treatment under the law and thereby endanger religious peace in Switzerland. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.5.216.100 (talk) 14:00, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

"The Swiss government believes that a ban on the construction of minarets would represent an inadmissible restriction of the right of members of the Muslim community to openly profess their religious beliefs" This sounds thoroughly illogical to me. How would they respond if the Church of Scientology insisted that the only way that they could "openly profess their religious beliefs" was to erect 50-meter tall statues of L. Ron Hubbard atop each of their "churches"? And minarets have never been essential to a Muslim's religious beliefs or freedom of conscience. The Qur'an and Hadiths never even mention them. NON-ISSUE. Bricology (talk) 04:09, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

A systemic question about weight, content and bias

In the current state of the article, arguments and views are described against the proposal with 4x the amount of space and text as for the proposal. The proposal however won the majority vote, which raises some questions about bias:

- Have nobody who is for the ban spoken anything which can be quoted? If so, why isn't it quoted? If pretty much nobody is for the ban, how come that the majority of the population is for it?

- The views of the people who are for the ban are responded to and commented in-line by those who are against the ban. But the views of the people who are against the ban where they are described are not responded to or commented by those who are for the ban. Does this mean that in the reality of Switzerland, no such comment has been made? Or is it just that it hasn't been quoted and incorporated into the text?

- "The Society for Minorities in Switzerland calls for freedom and equality." - is this a view or an authoriative statement? I am sure that the Egerkinger committe also would describe itself as calling for freedom and a good society. Should I therefore add this to the Egerkinger section: "The Egerkinger Commission calls for freedom and a good society"?

- The quotation "it appears that the material content of popular initiatives is subject to ill-considered draftsmanship because the drafters are affected by particular emotions that merely last for snatches" is included. This quotation effectively says nothing that 'the proposers are evil idiots'. If I source interviews and quotes from newspapers where people who are for the measure describe the organisations against, such as the Red Cross, Amnesty, the Bishops etc. as evil idiots, is that a relevant view to include? What determines if a quote which contains nothing but scorn and derision is relevant and notable? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.143.133.35 (talk)

'If pretty much nobody is for the ban, how come that the majority of the population is for it?' - An answer would be that the considerable majority of notable figures in Switzerland (politicians, religious leaders, lawyers, media figures, and so on) are against it. Support for it, with the exception of the Swiss People's Party, seems to come overwhelmingly from 'ordinary people', who unfortunately are generally not notable. I agree that the section of this article on 'arguments' looks a bit lopsided at the moment, but it honestly does represent the nature of the debate in Switzerland. It would be helpful for more quotes from supporters to be added, if they can be found, but only as long as they are from notable people/organisations or reported in reliable sources. Robofish (talk) 23:28, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Robofish. This is (1) not politically correct (2) people are scared to speak up individually and get jihaded. I can put some sources but don't want to deal with other editors claiming they are all 'hate mongers' and 'neo nazis' and arent valid. Been through that all before. Way to go Swiss! Meishern (talk) 01:15, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

That's all very interesting, but...

Why? Why is this even an issue? The article says next to nothing about the motivations of the people seeking a ban. 68.14.133.151 (talk) 00:59, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree. I was looking for a /reason/ as to why this was done. Can no one find this out? -Ottoo —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.245.36.123 (talk) 13:50, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree as well. What is the basic contention? Who's for the minaret ban and why? Who's against the minaret ban and why? 198.151.12.10 (talk) 13:53, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

"Persecution of Muslims" / See also-link

from that article's lead: "...may refer to beating, torture, confiscation or destruction of property."

While many people are offended by this initiative, no mention of any of the above here. I will remove the link. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 01:36, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree. Muslims were not persecuted. Their religious 'in your face' architecture was simply forbidden. They are still free to pray as often as they wish. Meishern (talk) 02:13, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

'In your face'? Would you be singing the same tune if christian church steeples were banned as well? Doubtful. Racist retard. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.126.2.173 (talk) 04:24, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Christianism is forbidden or persecuted in some muslim area of the world. In both way, that's simply stupidity. --140.120.55.61 (talk) 05:25, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

I have mixed opinions on this removal. "Their religious 'in your face' architecture was simply forbidden" seems to me to persecute if not persons then architecture, thereby, Muslim culture. Perhaps it would be better to leave the See also item in place. The causality need not be present and tangency is all that is needed for a legitimate see also. --Mareklug ^talk 02:44, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

In English usage, you do not "persecute" objects or cultures -- "persecution" can only take place against people; moreover, the word "persecution" is usually (though not always) connected to the use of physical violence, destruction, or annihilation. If someone wants add a link to "oppression", that could be justified. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 03:09, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

"(The law) seems to me to persecute if not persons then architecture, thereby, Muslim culture - "Except, of course, that "Muslim culture" has never been a component of Swiss culture, and thus is an (apparently unwelcome) import. The irony is that most Westerners who decry the new law would also probably be supportive of say, Bhutan's policy against allowing "creeping Westernism", such as Tibet has suffered. This double-standard seems to say that, if you're a nation of "noble savages", you're welcome to keep out McDonald's and Wal-Mart, but if you're an advanced, industrialized nation, you're required to accept any and all outside influences, no matter how backward and intolerant they may be. Bricology (talk) 04:18, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Please remember that this is not a forum. Hardly any of this is helpful. No matter what any of us think of the law or the situation, the link isn't related; if someone went to an article about Bhutan's law and added "persecution of white people," I'd remove that just as well. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 12:04, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Definition of Minaret?

I am curious exactly how the ban defines a minaret. Is it by size and shape only, or is the religious context taken into account? If a Christian church were to erect a steeple that looks just like a minaret except for the crucifix at the apex, would that be allowed?--JWWalker (talk) 03:28, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't. The government will have to draft a law—this could take up to a year—defining and differentiating minarets, and the resulting punishments. The government and intelligentsia almost universally oppose the ban, so it will be interesting to see what will come therefrom. Ssahsahnatye (talk) 03:33, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Categories

I've added the categories Anti-Islam sentiment and Islam-related controversies, but both were removed from the article. I'm adding them again because, needless to say, the banning of minearets is both controversial and relating to Islam, as well as the fact that minarets being an important symbol of Islam, the banning of their construction is an example of anti-Islam sentiment. I'm not going to add them a third time if they are again deleted, as I don't wish to break the three-revert rule, so please, just leave them be. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.199.45.136 (talk) 03:55, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

That's your personal interpretation, one that is strongly based in the ideology of the OPPOSE side. By the same licentious rules, I will categorize this article under Islamism since minarets are not a purely religious symbol (not being mentioned in the Koran), but a political symbol, most prominently associated with the Ottomans' taking of Constantinople and subsequent raising of the minarets. Thus, the minaret is a symbol of rising Islamic political power, and coming shariah law; Islamism. Ssahsahnatye (talk) 04:10, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

I removed it from the "Islam-related controversies" category because it is already in a subcategory of that category. Kimchi.sg (talk) 05:29, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Text or description of initiatives

As a reader who are not familiar to the issue, I wish that the text (or if unavailable, some description), translated in English, of the initiative passed is added into the article.--203.192.187.2 (talk) 04:06, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Not being specifically acquainted with Swiss referenda, from the government website I gather that on the ballot it reads, "Initiative 'against the construction of minarets'. Yes or No?". It is not a law, it is a referendum; the implementation and details are to be decided by the government at a later date. Ssahsahnatye (talk) 04:21, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

I have no problem on lack of implementation. So the initiative text seems to be "Against the construction of minarets". There is no further wording on definition of "minarets", or "how to against". Just the wording used in the initiative is simple enough. --203.192.187.2 (talk) 05:47, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

In Simple English Wiki, it reads: The committee’s proposition reads: "The building of minarets is prohibited". It also include the fact that federal initiative cannot be reviewed. I think that is what I need.--203.192.187.2 (talk) 06:01, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Pictures

Minarets

Shouldnt the picture in the Legal Dispute section be of the Wangen bei Olten mosque? Even tho it states that it is a picture of the Ahmadiyya mosque in Zürich one could wrongly assume its the mosque thats behind the controversy due to its placement in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.63.21.200 (talk) 08:29, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Not a bad idea. The image of Wangen bei Olten is currently used in the lead stacked (bad) on top of the map. The caption is ridiculously long. Any concerns with a) Putting the image in the seciton and/or b)removing the bulk of the caption. c) What is the best image for the lead? For your viewing pleasure: Wikipedia:Images and Wikipedia:CaptionsCptnono (talk) 11:15, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Done. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 12:24, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Better now, but the picture box should probably more clearly state that it is the minaret that sparked the controversy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.63.21.200 (talk) 13:52, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Poster

Why was the picture with the poster taken out and the file deleted? It is a significant element of the story.Alandeus (talk) 12:05, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

I hope it is OK that i broke these up. I saw i the history that it was deleted. I like the picture so if anyone knows why it was deleted that would be sweet. I assume it was a copyright concern knowing commons.Cptnono (talk) 12:11, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

As Cptnono aptly points out, the photograph was deleted from Commons because it was a violation of copyright. Rama (talk) 12:18, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Nonsense

"... was approved by 57.5% of the population ... The voter turnout was 55%." Do you mean 57.5% of those who voted? Peter jackson (talk) 11:42, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Corrected to "voters" instread of population. Alandeus (talk) 11:50, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Seems like the PC police has showed up

I didn't even get to click save before someone had deleted the very paragraph I was responding too! 93.161.106.59 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 12:43, 30 November 2009 (UTC).

It isn't the PC police. It is because Wikipeida is not a forum. There are plenty of places to chat about this subect in general on the internet. This tlak page is for building an encyclopedic article. See WP:NOTFORUM. Cptnono (talk) 12:58, 30 November 2009 (UTC)