8 ms·

The downside are populistic decisions like the Swiss minaret referendum. Now we have the sentence «The construction of minarets is prohibited.» in the constitu

by _nalply 10y ago

The downside are populistic decisions like the Swiss minaret referendum. Now we have the sentence «The construction of minarets is prohibited.» in the constitution. (https://www.admin.ch/opc/en/classified-compilation/19995395/index.html#a72 https://www.admin.ch/opc/en/classified-compilation/19995395/...) I think such regulations should be decreed as a law and not as a constitution norm if at all. But if everybody has a say you get bikeshedding in the constitution.

shrugger 10y ago
[deleted, vote brigading]
- _nalply 10y ago
  Yes, you didn't understand. Detailed construction regulations don't have a place in the constitution.
elcapitan 10y ago
I agree, but that's not really an argument against direct democracy, but rather in favor of a slightly differently constructed constitution - basically there should be a unchangeable core of norms, and no additions that defy the purpose of those norms should be possible. Religious freedom in that case.
- tomp 10y ago
  Technically, it's not against religious freedom - after all, you can still practice, at home!
Havoc 10y ago
>The construction of minarets is prohibited. Hardly surprising. Nobody wants to be awoken at ungodly hours by that howling.
- Inthenameofmine 10y ago
  While I agree about the howling, that was already not allowed. The referendum was only about the physical minarets. Unfortunately the church clocks make just as much noise in Switzerland.
  - elcapitan 10y ago
    At least both are short noises at predictable times. I'm very sensitive to noise, but neither church bells here nor the muezzin calling for prayer five times a day in my vacations in islamic countries have ever bothered me. On the other hand, I wish somebody would actually enforce anti-noise laws against my trash-techno neighbor at night ;)
    - jamesrcole 10y ago
      * > I'm very sensitive to noise, but neither church bells here nor the muezzin calling for prayer five times a day in my vacations in islamic countries have ever bothered me.* Then I don't think you can characterise yourself as "very sensitive to noise". Perhaps very sensitive to certain kinds of noise, but not noise in general?
      - elcapitan 10y ago
        I think that's obviously implied. If there was a general sensitivity to every kind of noise anywhere, you wouldn't be able to live. If I said "I have a food allergy", you wouldn't assume I don't eat because I'm allergic to food in general, or would you?
        jamesrcole 10y ago
        So what did you mean by saying "I'm very sensitive to noise [but not noises of type X and Y]"? How does that not imply a general issue with obtrusive noises? I've heard of plenty of people who don't have particular sensitivities to noise but find those two types of noise obtrusive.
_yosefk 10y ago
You can say this about any level of democracy though (that its downside is populistic decisions, or, more precisely, decisions that you or I think are wrong.) It's easy to find a country where most decisions are made by elected leaders and they chose leaders you or I find terrible, who proceeded to make a lot of bad decisions. I don't see an argument either for more or less direct democracy here (though I guess with some data and given a belief of what decisions are "good" one could construct an argument.) The US population for instance prohibited alcohol and then undid the prohibition, and I think the least that can be said in favor of this process is that since then there's seemingly a consensus in the US wrt prohibition. I'm not sure such consensus is achievable when elected officials enact laws, not to mention when a Supreme Court reinterprets the constitution to de-facto enact a law. Overall, to me it seems that decisions will be made and reversed no matter what's your process, and it seems that referendums are a great way for the population to "own" the decision - not just affect it but feel responsibility for it. Also I'd guess that more direct democracy would reduce both stability and corruption (people are more likely to change the status quo, harder to bribe, and not as likely to form 2 or some other small number of groups voting together on every issue as professional politicians.) It seems that we have a lot of both stability (presumably a good thing) and corruption (presumably a bad thing) and it doesn't look like a terrible gamble to attempt to reduce both.
- 980198201 10y ago
  I'm not so sure about corruption and cronyism. Perhaps a Swiss person could comment here, but from reading some Friedrich Duerrenmatt novels the picture isn't that rosy either over there.
  - _nalply 10y ago
    Yes, that's a thing in Switzerland. http://www.nzz.ch/schweiz/politische-literatur/stochern-im-eidgenoessischen-filz-1.18384115 http://www.nzz.ch/schweiz/politische-literatur/stochern-im-e... (German). Even the 'Ndrangheta from Italy has a branch. http://www.thelocal.ch/20160317/mafia-suspects-refuse-to-leave-switzerland http://www.thelocal.ch/20160317/mafia-suspects-refuse-to-lea...
  - 10y ago
Ralfp 10y ago
I would actually sign under such prohibition. Few years back my city (in Poland) rolled in regulations prohibiting churches to ring the bell for mass with exception to one 1000 years old cathedral located in "church's town" (de facto small island owned and containing only buildings operated by the church).
- jacalata 10y ago
  Mosques were already prohibited from making an audible call to prayer. The new law was explicitly and only banning them from being visible. It's more like if your city was introducing a new law today that banned the existence of church towers.
_delirium 10y ago
California is another example of frequent referenda producing poor governance. Part of the problem is that you accumulate another 1-5 new initiatives every election, none of which are designed to work together; after a few decades you have a big mess of conflicting mandates in the state constitution.
- malloryerik 10y ago
  Agreed. And it's so easy for uninformed residents to vote "Sure, let's issue more more and more bonds for x, y and z" without having the ability or will to make a sound decision about the state's budget.
notahacker 10y ago
From a Brit perspective (where we tend to have fewer referenda on bigger issues) the other downside appears the sheer, incredible nastiness of referendum campaigns when instead of campaigning to convince people they're a competent government, the campaign leaders (usually the same elites) are prepared to say literally anything to frighten people into voting a particular direction. Not to mention of course the first casualty of any referendum campaign on anything remotely complex is the truth. I mean, currently the UK referendum on EU withdrawal arguments seem to have peaked around "leaving the EU will knock £62000 off the value of your house and please Putin and ISIS" vs "women will be at risk of sex attacks from foreigners if we don't leave"[1]. I'm not familiar with the Swiss situation but doubt the constitutional changes around minarets were fought over the merits of Islamic architecture or nuanced arguments about zoning. [1] There are slightly subtler arguments being used, but virtually none of them are based on fact either.
- DominikR 10y ago
  > I'm not familiar with the Swiss situation but doubt the constitutional changes around minarets were fought over the merits of Islamic architecture or nuanced arguments about zoning. It is a misconception to believe that these are the only valid types of arguments against minarets. There are many that value their own culture and want to keep it that way without necessarily viewing other cultures as inferior.
  - notahacker 10y ago
    I'm not sure how having [already legally silenced] minarets affects the culture of Swiss people that don't attend mosques in the slightest apart from its visual impact on the surrounding area. (I'm not sure minarets or lack thereof affects anyone's culture that much tbh) Frankly I'd have thought enshrining the principle of intolerance of the symbols of a particular religion in the constitution represented a more substantive cultural change, but then I'm not Swiss.
    - DominikR 10y ago
      It would be a visible symbol that Islam is part of mainstream culture which it is not. It is part of other cultures and these cultures have very different views on social norms and order, laws and politics.
areyoucrazy 10y ago
The downside are populistic decisions like the Swiss minaret referendum... Oh, you liberals. You hide behind democracy when, in fact, you are a bunch of tyrants who would like to jam your ideas of immigration, multiculturalism, socialism etc. down the people's throats whether they like it or not. Why are you labeling direct democratic decision by majority of people as bad/downside? It seems that when people do something you like, then democracy is great, but if they do something you disagree with, then it's bad.
- Vaebn 10y ago
  Because its all fun and games until the "majority" suddenly realize they can just say "oh, and also, how about we vote to take all the money of that 10% here". There is such a thing as tyranny by the minority, and tyranny by the majority. The second is in fact much easier to do, since the first requires a modicum of power & ability for someone to keep himself in that position. The minaret thing is irrelevant, as a minaret thing, but relevant as a right to construct the things you damn like thing upon your private property.
  - alva 10y ago
    Democratic countries should live or die on the decisions they make. I think that is the ultimate freedom. On the whole, most developed countries have broad consensus on core issues. I don't believe gap between left and right is large enough to destroy a country, there is a lot of common ground.
  - zo1 10y ago
    Everyone is a minority and under "tyranny by the majority" in one way or another.
  - swombat 10y ago
    There is no right to construct the things you damn like upon your private property in most of Europe. There are a lot of zoning laws, safety laws, standards, etc. Generally, even if fairly loose places like the UK, each locality gets to veto the construction of something if they don't like it. Also, the idea of private property, here or anywhere else, is highly tenuous. Have you looked into how much you actually own that property? Try not paying your property taxes for a few years and see who really owns your so-called private property. "Real" in "Real estate" doesn't stand for reality, it stands for royalty. Your private property is granted by royal decree, and can be withdrawn by the same mechanism.
alva 10y ago
Out of interest, why is populistic commonly used as a pejorative? It seems to be the best friend of democracy.
- areyoucrazy 10y ago
  It's used in a negative sense when liberals don't like the outcome of a direct democratic decision.
  - RobertKerans 10y ago
    And also every other political group, in any situation. And, in this context, eg the dangers of pure democracy, almost every political thinker that's ever existed.
- zo1 10y ago
  Because democracy and "people voting" are all fine and dandy until the outcome is one you don't like. So "populist" gets thrown out when the outcome is the majority deciding on something that is seen as "wrong", but popular. It's quite a disconnect from the definitions themselves. As most people think democracy means "everyone get's a say, and the leading opinion is the one that the ruling-body should take". On the other hand, when people complain about "populism", they expose another problem with democracy I've long complained about. Opinion gets swayed by all sorts of reasons, actions and emotions. E.g. In the Brexit vote, the vote-stay side is trying to use fear and no-doubt some will be swayed by that. Does that mean that they actually want it? Would they have voted it if they weren't exposed to that influence? Must we keep the voters in a sterile-bubble until they decide? What about making informed decisions? Who decides what is fear-mongering vs informing the voters? Next up, you have influential persons. This can be everyone from your local community activist, your overbearing and opinionated family member, to public figures such as actors and artists. You can see it now with Donald Trump's campaign. Every single person that has any wide "reach" to the public is using it to promote their view of Trump, whether good or bad. I call them vote-multipliers; their singular vote means a whole lot more than yours or mine, no matter how valid or factual our arguments are. When opinion and emotion sways voting, the "one-person one-vote" mantra doesn't hold up anymore.
krisdol 10y ago
I'm not sure that's a downside, unless you prefer hearing prayer 5 times a day. I fled Bosnia during the war, but I visit it occasionally and each time it appears more religiously extremist than the last. All other countries should take a look at what has happened there and consider the importance of implementing cultural integration in addition to economic integration when accepting large incoming migrant populations. When you hire for a company you want your dream team to have a diverse background of ideas and experiences but that doesn't mean you let them work on the goals and products they worked on at their previous employer with whatever processes they want. Edit: to be clear, I'm not sure the specific minaret law is a downside from my experience, but that is not to say that your overall point on populist reforms is invalid. I was just focusing on the specific law.
- mweibel 10y ago
  > I'm not sure that's a downside, unless you prefer hearing prayer 5 times a day Is/Was prohibited anyway in Switzerland, so this vote didn't change anything on that fact. Though this argument has been used during the campaign before the vote.
  - krisdol 10y ago
    A good point. I'm not familiar with the switzerland law or referendum.
- Ressuder 10y ago
  You deal with that by restrictions of noise. Outlawing minarets to stop noise is like banning vodka to stop alcohol drinking. It doesn't make any sense.
  - usrusr 10y ago
    It is very common in many places to restrict highly visible outside advertisement (e.g. the Hollywood sign would not have happened in Switzerland). Visual attention-grabbing is considered just as much as annoying as noise. It seems very reasonable to not exclude religious communities from that rule. I do agree however, that things like minarets should better be left to a general building code addressing the problem of architectural shouting contests without explicitly mentioning religion. The stupidity of having the literal phrase (well, in german) "it is forbidden to erect minarets" in the constitution should serve as a warning to anyone who praises direct democracy all too blindly. I really don't get it why cases like that are solved with a polar vote (change or no change), not with approval voting offering more than two possible results on different levels of compromise. There seems to be a tiny glimse of it (only on the wiki in german: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doppeltes_Ja_mit_Stichfrage https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doppeltes_Ja_mit_Stichfrage ) but that is just three way between no change, proposal and one administrative counter-proposal, which still leaves the door wide open to polarism.
ck2 10y ago
As long as church bells are also prohibited, I don't see the problem. Allowing any religion to advertise itself in any form should be prohibited as it is intrusive to all. What if someone invented a religion that told everyone to use airhorns every hour?
- sbmassey 10y ago
  Different religions have different effects on society. There is no fundamental reason why they should all be treated the same.
nickik 10y ago
As a Swiss let me give you my opinion of this. First I will say that I voted against this. 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.
- rbanffy 10y ago
  > 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.
  - saiya-jin 10y ago
    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.
    - rbanffy 10y ago
      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?

by _nalply 10y ago

shrugger 10y ago

[deleted, vote brigading]

_nalply 10y ago
Yes, you didn't understand. Detailed construction regulations don't have a place in the constitution.

elcapitan 10y ago

I agree, but that's not really an argument against direct democracy, but rather in favor of a slightly differently constructed constitution - basically there should be a unchangeable core of norms, and no additions that defy the purpose of those norms should be possible. Religious freedom in that case.

tomp 10y ago
Technically, it's not against religious freedom - after all, you can still practice, at home!

Havoc 10y ago

>The construction of minarets is prohibited. Hardly surprising. Nobody wants to be awoken at ungodly hours by that howling.

Inthenameofmine 10y ago
While I agree about the howling, that was already not allowed. The referendum was only about the physical minarets. Unfortunately the church clocks make just as much noise in Switzerland.
- elcapitan 10y ago
  At least both are short noises at predictable times. I'm very sensitive to noise, but neither church bells here nor the muezzin calling for prayer five times a day in my vacations in islamic countries have ever bothered me. On the other hand, I wish somebody would actually enforce anti-noise laws against my trash-techno neighbor at night ;)
  - jamesrcole 10y ago
    * > I'm very sensitive to noise, but neither church bells here nor the muezzin calling for prayer five times a day in my vacations in islamic countries have ever bothered me.* Then I don't think you can characterise yourself as "very sensitive to noise". Perhaps very sensitive to certain kinds of noise, but not noise in general?
    - elcapitan 10y ago
      I think that's obviously implied. If there was a general sensitivity to every kind of noise anywhere, you wouldn't be able to live. If I said "I have a food allergy", you wouldn't assume I don't eat because I'm allergic to food in general, or would you?
      - jamesrcole 10y ago
        So what did you mean by saying "I'm very sensitive to noise [but not noises of type X and Y]"? How does that not imply a general issue with obtrusive noises? I've heard of plenty of people who don't have particular sensitivities to noise but find those two types of noise obtrusive.

_yosefk 10y ago

You can say this about any level of democracy though (that its downside is populistic decisions, or, more precisely, decisions that you or I think are wrong.) It's easy to find a country where most decisions are made by elected leaders and they chose leaders you or I find terrible, who proceeded to make a lot of bad decisions. I don't see an argument either for more or less direct democracy here (though I guess with some data and given a belief of what decisions are "good" one could construct an argument.) The US population for instance prohibited alcohol and then undid the prohibition, and I think the least that can be said in favor of this process is that since then there's seemingly a consensus in the US wrt prohibition. I'm not sure such consensus is achievable when elected officials enact laws, not to mention when a Supreme Court reinterprets the constitution to de-facto enact a law. Overall, to me it seems that decisions will be made and reversed no matter what's your process, and it seems that referendums are a great way for the population to "own" the decision - not just affect it but feel responsibility for it. Also I'd guess that more direct democracy would reduce both stability and corruption (people are more likely to change the status quo, harder to bribe, and not as likely to form 2 or some other small number of groups voting together on every issue as professional politicians.) It seems that we have a lot of both stability (presumably a good thing) and corruption (presumably a bad thing) and it doesn't look like a terrible gamble to attempt to reduce both.

980198201 10y ago
I'm not so sure about corruption and cronyism. Perhaps a Swiss person could comment here, but from reading some Friedrich Duerrenmatt novels the picture isn't that rosy either over there.
- _nalply 10y ago
  Yes, that's a thing in Switzerland. http://www.nzz.ch/schweiz/politische-literatur/stochern-im-eidgenoessischen-filz-1.18384115 http://www.nzz.ch/schweiz/politische-literatur/stochern-im-e... (German). Even the 'Ndrangheta from Italy has a branch. http://www.thelocal.ch/20160317/mafia-suspects-refuse-to-leave-switzerland http://www.thelocal.ch/20160317/mafia-suspects-refuse-to-lea...
- 10y ago

Ralfp 10y ago

I would actually sign under such prohibition. Few years back my city (in Poland) rolled in regulations prohibiting churches to ring the bell for mass with exception to one 1000 years old cathedral located in "church's town" (de facto small island owned and containing only buildings operated by the church).

jacalata 10y ago
Mosques were already prohibited from making an audible call to prayer. The new law was explicitly and only banning them from being visible. It's more like if your city was introducing a new law today that banned the existence of church towers.

_delirium 10y ago

California is another example of frequent referenda producing poor governance. Part of the problem is that you accumulate another 1-5 new initiatives every election, none of which are designed to work together; after a few decades you have a big mess of conflicting mandates in the state constitution.

malloryerik 10y ago
Agreed. And it's so easy for uninformed residents to vote "Sure, let's issue more more and more bonds for x, y and z" without having the ability or will to make a sound decision about the state's budget.

notahacker 10y ago

From a Brit perspective (where we tend to have fewer referenda on bigger issues) the other downside appears the sheer, incredible nastiness of referendum campaigns when instead of campaigning to convince people they're a competent government, the campaign leaders (usually the same elites) are prepared to say literally anything to frighten people into voting a particular direction. Not to mention of course the first casualty of any referendum campaign on anything remotely complex is the truth. I mean, currently the UK referendum on EU withdrawal arguments seem to have peaked around "leaving the EU will knock £62000 off the value of your house and please Putin and ISIS" vs "women will be at risk of sex attacks from foreigners if we don't leave"[1]. I'm not familiar with the Swiss situation but doubt the constitutional changes around minarets were fought over the merits of Islamic architecture or nuanced arguments about zoning. [1] There are slightly subtler arguments being used, but virtually none of them are based on fact either.

DominikR 10y ago
> I'm not familiar with the Swiss situation but doubt the constitutional changes around minarets were fought over the merits of Islamic architecture or nuanced arguments about zoning. It is a misconception to believe that these are the only valid types of arguments against minarets. There are many that value their own culture and want to keep it that way without necessarily viewing other cultures as inferior.
- notahacker 10y ago
  I'm not sure how having [already legally silenced] minarets affects the culture of Swiss people that don't attend mosques in the slightest apart from its visual impact on the surrounding area. (I'm not sure minarets or lack thereof affects anyone's culture that much tbh) Frankly I'd have thought enshrining the principle of intolerance of the symbols of a particular religion in the constitution represented a more substantive cultural change, but then I'm not Swiss.
  - DominikR 10y ago
    It would be a visible symbol that Islam is part of mainstream culture which it is not. It is part of other cultures and these cultures have very different views on social norms and order, laws and politics.

areyoucrazy 10y ago

The downside are populistic decisions like the Swiss minaret referendum... Oh, you liberals. You hide behind democracy when, in fact, you are a bunch of tyrants who would like to jam your ideas of immigration, multiculturalism, socialism etc. down the people's throats whether they like it or not. Why are you labeling direct democratic decision by majority of people as bad/downside? It seems that when people do something you like, then democracy is great, but if they do something you disagree with, then it's bad.

Vaebn 10y ago
Because its all fun and games until the "majority" suddenly realize they can just say "oh, and also, how about we vote to take all the money of that 10% here". There is such a thing as tyranny by the minority, and tyranny by the majority. The second is in fact much easier to do, since the first requires a modicum of power & ability for someone to keep himself in that position. The minaret thing is irrelevant, as a minaret thing, but relevant as a right to construct the things you damn like thing upon your private property.
- alva 10y ago
  Democratic countries should live or die on the decisions they make. I think that is the ultimate freedom. On the whole, most developed countries have broad consensus on core issues. I don't believe gap between left and right is large enough to destroy a country, there is a lot of common ground.
- zo1 10y ago
  Everyone is a minority and under "tyranny by the majority" in one way or another.
- swombat 10y ago
  There is no right to construct the things you damn like upon your private property in most of Europe. There are a lot of zoning laws, safety laws, standards, etc. Generally, even if fairly loose places like the UK, each locality gets to veto the construction of something if they don't like it. Also, the idea of private property, here or anywhere else, is highly tenuous. Have you looked into how much you actually own that property? Try not paying your property taxes for a few years and see who really owns your so-called private property. "Real" in "Real estate" doesn't stand for reality, it stands for royalty. Your private property is granted by royal decree, and can be withdrawn by the same mechanism.

alva 10y ago

Out of interest, why is populistic commonly used as a pejorative? It seems to be the best friend of democracy.

areyoucrazy 10y ago
It's used in a negative sense when liberals don't like the outcome of a direct democratic decision.
- RobertKerans 10y ago
  And also every other political group, in any situation. And, in this context, eg the dangers of pure democracy, almost every political thinker that's ever existed.
zo1 10y ago
Because democracy and "people voting" are all fine and dandy until the outcome is one you don't like. So "populist" gets thrown out when the outcome is the majority deciding on something that is seen as "wrong", but popular. It's quite a disconnect from the definitions themselves. As most people think democracy means "everyone get's a say, and the leading opinion is the one that the ruling-body should take". On the other hand, when people complain about "populism", they expose another problem with democracy I've long complained about. Opinion gets swayed by all sorts of reasons, actions and emotions. E.g. In the Brexit vote, the vote-stay side is trying to use fear and no-doubt some will be swayed by that. Does that mean that they actually want it? Would they have voted it if they weren't exposed to that influence? Must we keep the voters in a sterile-bubble until they decide? What about making informed decisions? Who decides what is fear-mongering vs informing the voters? Next up, you have influential persons. This can be everyone from your local community activist, your overbearing and opinionated family member, to public figures such as actors and artists. You can see it now with Donald Trump's campaign. Every single person that has any wide "reach" to the public is using it to promote their view of Trump, whether good or bad. I call them vote-multipliers; their singular vote means a whole lot more than yours or mine, no matter how valid or factual our arguments are. When opinion and emotion sways voting, the "one-person one-vote" mantra doesn't hold up anymore.

krisdol 10y ago

I'm not sure that's a downside, unless you prefer hearing prayer 5 times a day. I fled Bosnia during the war, but I visit it occasionally and each time it appears more religiously extremist than the last. All other countries should take a look at what has happened there and consider the importance of implementing cultural integration in addition to economic integration when accepting large incoming migrant populations. When you hire for a company you want your dream team to have a diverse background of ideas and experiences but that doesn't mean you let them work on the goals and products they worked on at their previous employer with whatever processes they want. Edit: to be clear, I'm not sure the specific minaret law is a downside from my experience, but that is not to say that your overall point on populist reforms is invalid. I was just focusing on the specific law.

mweibel 10y ago
> I'm not sure that's a downside, unless you prefer hearing prayer 5 times a day Is/Was prohibited anyway in Switzerland, so this vote didn't change anything on that fact. Though this argument has been used during the campaign before the vote.
- krisdol 10y ago
  A good point. I'm not familiar with the switzerland law or referendum.
Ressuder 10y ago
You deal with that by restrictions of noise. Outlawing minarets to stop noise is like banning vodka to stop alcohol drinking. It doesn't make any sense.
- usrusr 10y ago
  It is very common in many places to restrict highly visible outside advertisement (e.g. the Hollywood sign would not have happened in Switzerland). Visual attention-grabbing is considered just as much as annoying as noise. It seems very reasonable to not exclude religious communities from that rule. I do agree however, that things like minarets should better be left to a general building code addressing the problem of architectural shouting contests without explicitly mentioning religion. The stupidity of having the literal phrase (well, in german) "it is forbidden to erect minarets" in the constitution should serve as a warning to anyone who praises direct democracy all too blindly. I really don't get it why cases like that are solved with a polar vote (change or no change), not with approval voting offering more than two possible results on different levels of compromise. There seems to be a tiny glimse of it (only on the wiki in german: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doppeltes_Ja_mit_Stichfrage https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doppeltes_Ja_mit_Stichfrage ) but that is just three way between no change, proposal and one administrative counter-proposal, which still leaves the door wide open to polarism.

ck2 10y ago

As long as church bells are also prohibited, I don't see the problem. Allowing any religion to advertise itself in any form should be prohibited as it is intrusive to all. What if someone invented a religion that told everyone to use airhorns every hour?

sbmassey 10y ago
Different religions have different effects on society. There is no fundamental reason why they should all be treated the same.

nickik 10y ago

As a Swiss let me give you my opinion of this. First I will say that I voted against this. 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.

rbanffy 10y ago
> 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.
- saiya-jin 10y ago
  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.
  - rbanffy 10y ago
    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?