One point that no-one has mentioned relates to the claim in the article that "the referendum result contradicts the Swiss Constitution". I believe this is factually incorrect, as the referendum result AMENDS the Swiss Constitution by inserting a new clause, and that henceforth clauses relating to religious freedom must be read together with the new clause stating that minarets are banned.

What a pity the we do not have citizen initiated referendum here. I will not bore readers with a list of possible topics for such a referendum, as I am sure the major parties will ensure that we never have the privilege.

odo: << CJ who is intolerent of other posters who do not agree with him >>

Huh? I tolerate posters who disagree with me all the time - however, some like you can't tolerate it when I point out their hatred. Tolerance doesn't mean that you have to like people or their opinions, but rather that you acknowledge their right to have opinions, however distasteful they may be.

When have I ever suggested that people can't have opinions with which I disagree?

stevenlmeyer: << No doubt CJ Morgan would accuse Australians of being "racist" or "Islamo-phobic" (whatever THAT may mean) for wanting to restrict immigration. >>

Huh? I'm an advocate of reducing immigration. However, I disagree with those people wish to reduce immigration selectively on the basis of ethnicity, religion etc, rather than across the board on ecological grounds. I've frequently argued at OLO that Australia should axe completely 'skilled' migration, while increasing substantially our refugee intake as circumstances demand. The ideal to aim for in the longer term is zero net immigration.

I do wish that those who disagree with me would desist in trying to misrepresent my views.

On topic, it appears that most posters here don't understand the notion of the "tyranny of the majority" as it relates to this mass expression of Swiss bigotry. The Wikipedia article is a good start:

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

I hope this helps.

plerdsus: "I believe this is factually incorrect, as the referendum result AMENDS the Swiss Constitution by inserting a new clause"

I thought this had to be wrong. Surely no one would put an article in a Constitution to ban a particular style of architecture. What determines whether it is a minaret anyway, the architectural style, the use it is put to, the buildings around it - what? Surely something so specific, so uncommon, so inconsequential doesn't belong in a Constitution. What are they going to put in there next? The days households are allowed to water their gardens?

But no, its true: http://edition.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/europe/11/29/switzerland.minaret.referendum/index.html

I agree with CJ Morgan, although probably for completely different reasons. It is a very good case of what's wrong with so-called Citizen Initiated Referenda.

"Right wing parties who live off xenophobia and preach a rabid form of anti-Islam ...are usually confined to the lunatic fringes..."

Sorry, this is just P.C. rubbish... Despite all the institutions of Switzerland opposing the referendum (major parties, church, the baby-boomer leftie power elite, all opposing the referendum) it got passed with around a two-thirds majority!

The problem is NOT immigration.. but birth-rates!

With muslin fertility rates often around triple western fertility rates, Muslims have become a world-force. 7 children per woman are common. Osama Bin-Laden's father has 300 grand-children!

Meanwhile I know several lovely older Australians watching their families die out because their children have missed out on having children.

This would be fine if we are happy to accept that we are committing a genocide against ourselves, and to accept Muslim values.

But since we are not... we have to look at the cause of the problem.

We need to provide more carrots for middle/professional class adults to become parents.

In Australia, the baby-bonus works very well for welfare and drug-dependent women to become mothers. $6000 is a lot of money to a drug addict. But not for middle-class families. CHILDREN SHOULD BE TAX-DEDUCTABLE !

Most women WANT to have a family, but tragically fail because few men are willing to commit to them. This is a tragedy.

But men are not commitment-phobic, they are just AFRAID. Every man knows the long-years of long hours most dads put in at the office, and the seemingly in-evitable divorce, that will rob them of their most loved children and everything else.

MAKE Families tax-deductable. Wipe out the stupid Family Tax A, B, baby bonus, maternity leave, childcare benefit and rebate, single mums pension, and all means-tested payments... wipe them all out and instead two-parent FAMILIES should be tax deductible! Income splitting between patenrs and kids!

This will have the wonderful effect of encouraging fatherhood, reducing divorce and allowing the middle/proferssional class to have the families they want, while releaving the financial pressure on welfare-dependant and migrant women to become beby-factories - children they struggle to manage and look after.

PartTimeParent@pobox.com

“I tolerate posters who disagree with me all the time”

Huh? And you watch a herd (flock?) of flying pigs pass over your house every dusk as well do you?

Dear oh dear CJ (:>|

“I do wish that those who disagree with me would desist in trying to misrepresent my views.”

Oh really. So that then means that you won’t misrepresent the views of others ever again eh. Wonderful!

On topic, I agree that CIRs are problematic. But probably for different reasons to you CJ. The views of the majority do not always serve their best interest. Good governance often needs to go against the will of the people.

But as far as minarets in Switzerland go, I think that the CIR has worked well. The outcome seems eminently sensible or at least understandable to me.

However, the Swiss are now left with a mucky situation whereby the four existing minarets can stay and new mosques can still be built, minus their phallic symbol bits.

I wonder if they’ll try and sort this out or leave it as a schizophrenic mess?

The author purports to teach history but he doesn’t appear to have learnt anything from it.
Islamic history is one of domination, subjugation, oppression and enslavement.
Small wonder then that regular rednecks fear its encroachment into their country.
Fear yes, phobia no.
Fear is rational when it’s based on knowledge gained from history.
Anti-Islamic yes, racist no.
Lebanese Christians you are welcome in our country.
Lebanese Islamists please stay home.
Same race, therefore racism has got nothing to do with it.
To get around this the dhimmi apologist has invented the concept of the “racialisation” of Islam. Nice try, but you only convince each other.
Mohammed was a desert dwelling despot who murdered, raped and pillaged.
He married little girls, he took the women of the enemies he beheaded as his sex slaves and he authorised his followers to beat their wives (they are allowed up to four each, although Allah granted Mohammed special dispensation to have eleven for himself, not counting his war booty).
This is history!
Are you going to pretend this is not true Mr Doolan, in order to satisfy your multicultural sensibilities?
While the vast majority of Muslims are peace-loving, this is due to their humanity which is essentially antithetical to the teachings of Mohammed which literally call for the death of unbelievers and the global implementation of Islamic law.
It’s all very well to cherry pick a few nice verses out of the Koran and pretend that it is a religion of peace but if you threw away the nasty bits you’d be left with a leaflet.
Notwithstanding the majority of peace-loving Muslims, there are sufficient hard line Islamists, who know what Mohammed actually taught and are intent on implementing his plan, to represent a real threat in any country in which they gain a foothold.
The only answer is to keep them out.
Islam is a special case which doesn’t deserve equal treatment.
Islamophobic?
Moi?