Nice interview:

http://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/index.html?cid=7862818

The immigrants!!!

Classification is not that simple here. It would depend on the region.
It would be: expats or émigré, étranger, Ausländer, forestiero.

Good link, thanks. Funny to see someone named HAT giving his feedback after the article; I've been wondering where he went

Should we copy pasta the Minaret thread for them?

If anything quite the opposite. The majority of the people have spoken. Unfortunately democracy is the big stick with which minorities are often beaten.

Uh-oh. Again? Already?



This thing might have caused a chain reaction, not just here, but in Eurpoe. Astonishing poll numbers:


73 to 93 per cent majorities? What?


Quotes:

lFrance: 49,000 readers of Le Figaro, by a 73-27 percent margin, would vote to ban new minarets in their country.

24,000 readers at L'Express agreed by an 86-12 per cent margin, with 2 per cent undecided. P

lGermany: 29,000 readers of Der Spiegel voted 76-21 per cent, with 2 per cent undecided, to ban minarets in Germany.

17,000 readers of Die Welt voted 82-16 per cent in favour of "Yes, I feel cramped by minarets" over "No, freedom of religion is constrained."

lSpain: 14,000 readers of 20 Minutos voted 93-6 per cent in favour of the statement "Good, we must curb Islamisation's growing presence" and against "Bad, it is an obstacle to the integration of immigrants."

35,000 readers of El Mondo replied 80-20 per cent that they support a Swiss-like banning of minarets.

Although not scientific, the lop-sidedness of these (and other) polls, ranging from 73 to 93 per cent majorities endorsing the Swiss referendum, signal that Swiss voters represent growing anti-Islamic sentiments throughout Europe. The new amendment also validates and potentially encourages resistance to Islamisation throughout the continent.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news...-1225808376983



Now, is it really Switzerland here that has a problem?

I posted the article NOT TO rehash the minaret threads elsewhere, but to show the view of one of the Swiss parliamentarians.

I see that. Although I was just pointing out that his singling out of Switzerland may not be even-handed.

I like the rumantsch catogorization. Ester is not only the Balkan refugee, the American expat but also the guys on the other side of the mountain pass or even the guy in the side valley further down the road after the big curve.

Errrr... he's Swiss Phos and as a seasoned politician he's hardly going to engage in needless self-flagellation.

I thought it was interesting that as a centre right politician he mentioned supporting a right to work. This can mean many things, but I suspect in the way he's mentioning it, it's more often found in left-leaning politics.

Yes, because as mentioned in the interview, the Swiss system allows the politics of the moment to affect the constitution. Additional checks and balances may be required.

The SVP/UDC has been playing this dangerous game for years. In this country, the non written rule is that parties are responsible for checking and respecting the consitutionality of propositions put up for vote. Blocher started to disregard this political culture to follow his own agenda only. In this matter, SVP/UDC is being very un-swiss, they are the one ruining the constitution, they are the worse Swiss ever, not respecting the political system of their own country. It became unbearable to the point that Blocher was neutralized in Bern. SVP/UDC is taking revenge in form of anticonstitutional votations, which by the nature of the system, will have to be made compatible with constitution. This is pure Swiss law bashing, pure Swiss culture destruction. They are being bad Swiss, they would be banned from the country by their own criterias.

Whats missing in this article is "DM I have failed the swiss people miserly ,therefor I will resining my senators seat "

Do we know why the federal Council did not offer a counter proposal? A watered down ban on all form of spire regardless of faith or an enforcement of the local will of the population.

It is frightening. Despite what one can think about Sarkozy, I thought his speech was pretty good. He could have acted outraged and bashed the Swiss like the other leaders but he chose to start a dialog.

The moderate parties have to be careful. It is almost an impossible task for them to not alienate the Swiss people and their own base. The SVP may collect more votes.
Swiss politics used to be so boring. Not anymore.

While I agree it allows for extreme measures to go unchecked, there are checks and balances in place. In such cases, a refendum can be overturned. On principle, I wouldn't want any changes that would mute the voice of the people even more. I believe this ban is a blowback from years and years of doing just that - muting the voice of the public.

In Switzerland? With its state religion and mainstream religious-based parties? That would be political suicide, no?

I believe the SVP only got lucky this time around. It was a fluke. They simple managed to capture just enough switch voters to win. I suspect the switch voters were mainly feminists, and religious conservatives. In other words, I do not believe the majority of Swiss people thinks as the SVP thinks. In fact, what this vote demonstrates is that Swiss voters tend to vote according to their own personal belief instead of voting according to their party lines.

I wouldn't give the SVP a lot of credit for getting this ban, but I would put the blame mostly on them for getting it on the ballot in the first place.