Muslim students refusing to take mandatory swimming lessons in same sex pools as required for all children of various races, backgrounds and religions, have had their applications for citizenship denied. The reason: their refusal to assimilate and respect the very culture they wanted to take them in was proof that they weren't there to better Swiss society, but to force its citizens to adopt their foreign beliefs,

The Law of the Land is for ALL. This is the attitude in Switzerland and it should be our attitude too. Is it ? And if it isn’t we are all responsible to see that it is. Multiculturalism means all citizens means that all immigrants must accept the mores of Australia and in return will be accepted. All immigrants must accept that it does not mean that your mores will be accepted by Australians

The Swiss are a funny crew.

They rejected the citizenship of an American who had been living in Switzerland for over 40 years because he couldn't name enough Swiss friends. Over 50% of Swiss are negative toward the USA making it the most hostile in Europe.

In 2006 a study by the University of Geneva found that 20 percent of the Swiss are “affected by anti-Semitism” as in openly anti-Semitic.

There has only been a small and now diminishing Jewish presence there because of active discouragement of Jewish immigration. Part of this was achieved through a ban on Jewish ritual slaughter 'shechita', something that was tweeked a little in 1973 but remains in place.

Partly as a result the Jewish population in Switzerland is very small and diminishing.

So my question to the both of you is are you happy with the steps the Swiss took to limit Jewish migration into their country and what lessons do you think are applicable to Australia. Should we ban Kosher and Halal foods here?

No we should not ban anything. But we should try to discourage both Halal and Kosher. Perhaps making it compulsory to mark items for sale with a clearly visible mark, like cigarette packages.
Personally I have no idea what steps were promoted to restrict Jewish immigration or when or even if they are used. So no comment on that

While Switzerland is great for tourists, it's closer to North Korea for its citizens.

They have conscription and all men are forced to have a gun at home and serve in military reserves for one month a year, sometimes until the age of 50.

So while I am not surprised at this news of compulsory swimming lessons, it may further discourage me from buying Swiss goods.

The concept of "the law of the land" is an atrocity. Laws may only legitimately apply to those who willingly accept their framework.

The concept of "the law of the land" is an atrocity. Laws may only legitimately apply to those who willingly accept their framework, AND those not willing to accept those laws should not be permitted to live in that land.

There fixed that for you Yuyutsu.

Dear Hasbeen,

So it appears that you support atrocities - your words, not mine.

//Perhaps making it compulsory to mark items for sale with a clearly visible mark, like cigarette packages.//

They already are, so that people with those diets know that the food they're buying complies with their diet.

Years ago when I frequented the ratepayer funded swimming pool in Lidcombe, I objected to the main pool being closed for a period in the mornings so that Jon Konrad and other Olympian aspirants could train.
The compromise was that two lanes were set aside for the hopefuls and the rest of us got to enjoy the pool that we'd paid for.

These days various public pools have segregated swimming for Muslim women, and there is cause for objection to this as it does not fit in with Australian society and, frankly, those people who come here and then object to our mixed swimming can either shut up or leave.

Swiss ONE!!

//those people who come here and then object to our mixed swimming can either shut up or leave.//

Or buy their own pools.

But I agree, public swimming should be public.

I don't know about refusing citizenship to those who feel differently. That seems a bit over the top. Just have a rule that says you swim with the public or not at all. They can take it or leave it. If they're sensible they'll start to let pragmatism outweigh dogma once the mercury gets past 310 K; if not the silly buggers can put up with the heat.

somewhere where true democracy is practiced!

Steele,

I would have Australia do exactly as the Swiss did in the same situation. I have no problem with Jews.

We should not ban kosher or halal, which would have most of us starving. Most of the food we eat is halal and kosher. The problem lies only in the 'certification' of hahal food, which has nothing to do with Islam, does not exist in Islamic countries. You will know that there is no kosher certification. Halal 'certification' is a money-making scam, benefiting a few cooks, who might or might not be Muslims.

*While Switzerland is great for tourists, it's closer to North Korea for its citizens.*

Oh nonsense. It is probably the only true democracy around, as people vote 4-5 times a year, on just about everything. If the people say no, the Govt can't force it.

Every Swiss male does 17 weeks army training, which means that in times of war, hundreds of thousands can be mobilised at short notice. This was one of the reasons why Hitler never invaded Switzerland during the war.

The Swiss voted against Minarets being apart of their Swiss landscape, so there is not a single mosque around which looks like a mosque. They voted against joining the EU, thank goodness for that.

That is true democracy. You all say that you want the Govt to hear you and to decide. That is exactly what the Swiss have

"Every Swiss male does 17 weeks army training, which means that in times of war, hundreds of thousands can be mobilised at short notice."

But they always claim neutrality.

"This was one of the reasons why Hitler never invaded Switzerland during the war."

No, that may have had more to do with Nazi finance from the Capitalists than anything to do with military action. There is neutrality, and then there is neutrality! Swiss style!

Paul, if you know anything about Switzerland you would know about the alps. Hitler knew perfectly well that trying to get his goods across the alps, if the Swiss army blew up every bridge, would cost him losses that he simply could not afford, for no gain. The Swiss army was one good reason for not attempting to invade the place.

Now if you reread my post you will note that I wrote "one of the reasons", not "the only reason".

The Swiss army is there purely for defence. It is indeed neutral, but claiming so is not enough to keep some dictators away, so it is a clever and effective measure.

Switzerland has issues.
It earns big with the Red Cross and UN refugee headquarters.On the down side it has to act as though it is being a global citizen by accepting refugees.
The Youth Hostel Association used to be an organisation for young first world youths to experience meeting similar people from around the world and visiting tourist destinations.
Today it has disintergrated into hostels for black homeless youths.
I stayed at the Geneva Youth Hostel a few years ago and in a dorm for ten,two white youths bedded down.In the middle of the night the other beds were filled with homeless black youths.
No wonder even the Red cross and refugee burocrats are rethinking what it means to be charitable.

Yabby there is no evidence that Hitler ever seriously contemplated invading Switzerland, although the Swiss army thing would have been a consideration it certainly would not have been a deterrent to Hitler as he thought Germany was invincible. Hitler was crazy, not completely mad, and the Nazi's had free access to Swiss banks for most of the war, which is what they wanted from Swaziland. Had Germany won the war, Swiss neutrality would have been dealt with sooner rather than later.
Sweden, also remained officially neutral during the war, but was complaint with German trade demands in particular.

All those blokes in Switzerland having guns gets up the Green nose!!

Hi Toni,

"Just have a rule that says you swim with the public or not at all. They can take it or leave it. If they're sensible they'll start to let pragmatism outweigh dogma once the mercury gets past 310 K; if not the silly buggers can put up with the heat."

I agree 100 %. It should be made clear to would-be immigrants that they leave their peculiar attitudes to equal rights for women, etc. at the door. Although one can't predict how gutless any particular government may be in its pursuit of votes, I fervently hope that Shari'a will never, ever be law over any part of Australia.

If people want to buy and consume kosher or halal meat, that would be their choice. As I understand it, Jewish butchers do all their own slaughtering and processing for their own customers. So I'm mystified why on earth non-Muslim Australians should have to pay extra for halal certification: why don't Muslim butchers follow the obviously sensible example of Jewish butchers ?

By the way, in yesterday's Australian, mention was made of an imam in Sydney and his two wives. Does any Australian jurisdiction recognise such breaches of the law ? How does that work ?

That's enough spleen for one day.

Cheers,

Joe

Hi Paul,

Yeah ! What has Swaziland ever done for us ?

Joe

Paul, the Swiss know pretty well what Hitler was thinking, which is why they came through the war in such a good shape. You now claim to know more than they do, well fountain of knowledge as you imagine yourself, I'll back their wisdom and information over yours.

Hitler was not beyond some common sense. What he needed to get through Switzerland was his trains of freight, heading for Italy. Those sealed trains were allowed through, as long as he paid his freight bill like anyone else. Swiss banks remained open to anyone, as the country was neutral.

Given the Swiss alps and the size of resistance from armed Swiss, nobody can get freight through as without bridges it is impossible and it is too easy to blow them up and not so easy to build them.

So even if Hitler had invaded Switzerland, he would have still failed at moving freight across the alps, so the whole thing would have been pointless for him.

The Green Gestapo gets off the subject and drags up anything it can to rubbish Switzerland, because, unlike them, the Swiss have pride in their country and culture and, totally reject attempts by foreign ingrates to undermine their values. And, undermining the West is the only reason Muslims are infesting the West. That they are not refugees is plain to see in the very fact that they want to abide by the same oppressive, chauvinistic rules that fools in the West think they are escaping from. These 'moderate' Muslims are the enemy: far more dangerous than ISIS and rag tag terrorists. They don't have to kill anyone. All they have to do is keeping coming, with the help of political useful idiots, gain citzenship, and eventually take over democratically through the ballot box. When the crunch comes, I will be long gone, and I do not wish you, young, Green/socialists good luck. I hope you get what's coming to you.

Joe said;
mention was made of an imam in Sydney and his two wives.

Nothing will be done if he has married twice, because the powers that
be have been brainwashed into believing that enforcing the law is
Islamafobia.

Of course the second "wife" may not be legally married..
Are Islamic marriages legal ?
If 2nd marriages are performed then obviously not.
The real crunch comes with claiming various benefits including public housing.

Hi Bazz,

While there is supposed to be a separation of church and state in Australia, surely ecclesiastical law can't conflict with civil law ? Church or mosque can't enforce or create rights which conflict with Australian law ? i.e. in this case, the superior rights of men over women ? After all, those marriage 'rights' flow over into other fields of law such as divorce, property settlement, access to children, etc. ?

Perhaps there may be a feminist somewhere who is monitoring, or even protesting against, such unequal 'rights' ?

No, this is 2016, not 1976, so maybe not.

Joe

Yabby, I don't claim to know more than they do, just more than you do.
Remember Hitler was the bloke who declared war on the United States, and invaded Russia. War with Switzerland would not have been a "problem" if Hitler had considered war with his neighbor was necessary.

As a neutral state Swiss banks were able to act as a point of transfer between western capitalism and the Nazi regime, at a profit of course. They also acted as a safety deposit box for Nazi wealth, once again at a profit. The old Swiss Bank account, where no questions are asked. you have heard of that have you not.

*just more than you do.*

Oh yeah... Its just your bad luck that I happen to have both a Swiss and Australian passport and in fact did my Swiss army training, so do know a bit about the subject, more than you think.

Once again, without agreement by the Swiss, nobody moved anything through the Swiss alps. Hitler was clearly smarter than you are, in understanding the issue.

Lots of people had money in Swiss banks. Lots of Jews too, it was a safe place to store money and as Switzerland is neutral, it does not let others squabbles intefere with its commerce. Makes perfect sense.

Yes, numbered accounts existed and make perfect sense.

Hi Paul,

Yes, you could be right, that all countries should be forever castigated for whatever their governments may have done, or not done, in its past history, especially its past seventy seven years. After all, who can forget the Cucumber Wars, forever a stain on relations between Lithuania and Poland back in 1629, or the brutal oppression of Wallachians by the Turks in the fifteenth century ?

And, as you imply, people don't change, it's in their DNA: once an evil-doer, always an evil-doer - that sort of quick judgment saves so much thought. Tell them to shove their crappy Volvos.

Cheers,

Joe

Ahh Joe I thought you knew better than that.
Islamic Law over rides Australian law, just ask the judges that let
moslems refuse to stand in court.
Already even with 2% they are changing the law in Australia.

Joe, Volvos are made in Sweden and is owned by the Chinese.

Bazz "Already even with 2% they are changing the law in Australia."
Really Bazz?
Exactly which laws are Muslims changing in Australia?

Suse,

Recognition of the authority of the Court, and thereby its authority as upholder of the laws of Australia. For one thing.

Hi Bazz,

What, you mean it's not Swaziland which is persecute Julian Assange and hand him over to their US bosses ? No, you're right, that's the Swiss.

But back to topic: Each country has its own laws, based on principles derived from its particular combination of history, social development, philosophies and external constraints. It will never be possible to reconcile those factors in Australia with a desert-tribal, gynophobic and backward set of unchangeable and vicious rules. There are many countries where adherents of that grab-bag can exploit their reactionary practices, but thankfully not ever in Australia.

Cheers,

Joe

Suseonline, "Exactly which laws are Muslims changing in Australia?"

Easy peasy, what about ritual slaughter?

Jue, you seem to be guilty of selective reading as usual, it was Yabby who first made reference to Hitler on this thread and Swiss military prowess. Yabby said Friday, 8 July 2016 7:57:36 PM, "This was one of the reasons why Hitler never invaded Switzerland during the war."
So your smart ass comment to "Cucumber Wars" should be directed at Yabby or better still, stick it up on your web site. it should fit in well with the rest of the material.

Hi Paul,

In that first paragraph, you may have confused me with someone else.

Sorry, I don't put trivia up on my web-site: -- all nine thousand of the SA Protector's Letters, 1837 to 1912; Protector's annual reports up to 1949; royal commission transcripts, at least one from each state; national conference transcripts during the crucial 1960s; a 600-page 20-year missionary's Journal; 20-years of letter-books from one Mission; a section on Land law and land tenure in many parts of the world; higher education statistics that you won't find anywhere else; all up, about 400 files.

So not much room there for other material. Perhaps you could start your own web-site - it costs only a couple of thousand dollars a year :) Take it from one who knows, it's a good way of venting.

Cheers,

Joe

A reference was made to Volvo by someone.
Anyway Suzie, Joe answered the question.
Swimming pool times for moslems only etc.

At present it is being done by regulation and by legal precedent.
Still a member of the useful idiot brigade ?

So the swimming pool gender regulations are made by actual laws of parliament are they Onthebeach and Bazz? It's the first I ever heard of those laws?

For the record, I have never said I agreed with segregated swimming for different genders, but I suppose the golf clubs in Australia have been refusing playing access for women on different days and times that the men are playing for years....

"Yes, you (Paul1405) could be right, that all countries should be forever castigated for whatever their governments may have done, or not done, in its past history"

Now Joe, where did I say that, a blatant lie on your part.

Talking of "past history" what is the relevance of "all nine thousand of the SA Protector's Letters, 1837 to 1912;" (pre WWI) etc etc, other than of passing interests for those with a historical fascination for such moldy old material. How does this stuff relate to the Swiss in anyway? I fail to see the connection, please enlighten me, I'm fascinated.

Sounds good to me. Let's have the same system here.

Paul,

Moldy old material ?! Moldy ?! How dare you,sir ! Actually, in its original condition, the writing wasn't so much mouldy as either smudged to blazes, or faded almost to nothingness, either way very hard to decipher. Old-fashioned ink, old-fashioned paper.

Good trick, Paul: to pull two unconnected issues together and then demand that someone explains how they are connected. No, I don't know how the nine thousand letters of the SA Protector could have any bearing on Switzerland. But I'm open to your suggestions, since you have brought it up :)

Cheers,

Joe

Back to topic: here's an article on the views of the new British PM, Theresa may, on Islamism, the slow imposition of Shari'a law, and terrorism generally, from Clarion, a brilliant web-site:

https://www.clarionproject.org/news/5-things-you-need-know-about-britains-new-prime-minister

I don't think the Review mentioned has yet published its findings.

Joe

Not to mention that Theresa May has just installed the lying, cheating, tousled-haired dingbat, Boris Johnson, as Foreign Secretary...giving rise to audible guffaws the world over.

She's a beauty is Theresa - further right than Cameron - the poor old UK goes down like a mastodon thrashing in a tar pit.

Hi Poirot,

Yes, May and the Conservatives are Right-wing all right. Are you willing to suggest that Islamism is to the Left of May ? And that the fracturing of women's rights in Britain, on the basis of whether or not they are Muslim, is somehow Left-wing ?

I respectfully beg to differ: I think that Islamism, and Shari'a, are far, far to the Right of the Conservatives, and on those grounds, that the Conservative party should be supported if it comes down hard on Shari'a and Islamism. What do you reckon ?

As well, you may be interested in this, from French philosopher Pascal Bruckner:

"All of the ultra-left is fascinated by the eruptive power of jihadism. This alliance has been theorised by the Socialist Workers' Party in England: under certain conditions, the alliance with Muslims - even if reactionary or retrograde - is necessary in order to shake up the fortress of capitalism. Since we have missed out with the proletariat, the Third World, we have to bring this about through this sacrificial monotheism in which the faithful form a substitute-proletariat. This is what is called 'Islamo-leftism."

Cheers,

Joe

"I respectfully beg to differ: I think that Islamism, and Shari'a, are far, far to the Right of the Conservatives, and on those grounds, that the Conservative party should be supported if it comes down hard on Shari'a and Islamism. What do you reckon ?"

What do I reckon?

I reckon you should make a beeline for Graham's latest thread at the top of the page.

It tells the fascinating story of how the US, UK and Oz destabilised an entire region by bombing the you know what out of Iraq...and how all the folks fleeing bombs provided by arms manufacturers the world over have descended on Europe...and how all we put-upon Euro-Anglos don't like it one bit.

Off you go...no-one else has commented yet : )

Hi Poirot,

Non sequitur. With respect, you haven't answered the question: Do you think that Islamism and Shari'a are far to the Right of the Conservatives in Britain ?

Some nasty person would add, 'Yes, and do you still support it ?' But I wouldn't.

No hurry :)

Joe

Loudmouth,

You appear to be under the false impression that if you toss out one of your well-crafted leading questions - that I am somehow bound to respond to it.

Lol!...

Hi Poirot,

So that's a YES-YES, then ?

No, of course, you're not bound to respond. After all, your non-responses say plenty enough.

So the pseudo-Left here supports the extreme Right there, in keeping with Bruckner's observations ? Who said history was dead ? Fascinating. Horrible, despicable, but fascinating.

Cheers,

Joe

Slight tangent to the original point but I'm of the view that if we have laws where exceptions can be made of the basis of a belief in some deity then the law was not that important in the first place.

Not always practical to implement that but I've been wondering if membership of groups whose belief structure apparently requires them to discriminate could not then cause the removal similar protections from adherents. If you belong to some group that gets a religious exemption from discrimination on the basis of religion, gender, sexuality, political beliefs etc then members of that group also loose any legal protections from similar discrimination.

The trickiest part would seem to be the wriggling done around what defines membership/adherence to some group.

R0bert

Dear R0bert,

Discrimination is a great faculty and an indicator of our intelligence - one must be completely dumb to not discriminate.

We should all be able to choose where, when, how and whom we associate with, we need not have to explain why or belong to a group in order to exercise our freedom and nobody should be "protected" against our free choice to refuse associating with others.

Yuyutsu,

You have committed the fallacy of equivocation again (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equivocation).

The word “discriminate” has two senses:

1. recognize a distinction; differentiate.
2. make an unjust or prejudicial distinction in the treatment of different categories of people, especially on the grounds of race, sex, or age.

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/discriminate

R0bert was clearly referring to 2, whereas you address 1 in your first sentence as a lead-in for what appears to be a justification for behaviour captured by 2. Hence the equivocation.

I think that the Switzerland law should be the example for the whole World. Everything there is really clear and well considered!