Could a minaret start a war?

[nikimcbee]

Originally Posted by Blood_splat

It makes me want to kick a field goal.

ah, you stole my thunder.

Wow, if iran gets upset, Switzerland could just turn off the money spigot. Problem solved. Even better they could seize the accounts and donate them to some nice holocast charity.

Switzerland siezes accounts and donates them to charity??????
They are still fighting tooth and nail to avoid handing over the money the Nazis robbed from the Jews.

[Stealth Hunter]

Actually Tribesman does have a point. The Swiss took a lot of the German wealth after the war ended, not all of it being gold, valuable paintings, loot in general. The medical experiments the Germans conducted on Jews were studied and documented by Swiss physicians (including Dr. Alois Raesch), particularly ones dealing with blood flow, changes in pressure, hypothermia, poison, saline solutions, and various diseases; Dachau was a favorite place to visit by them.

Here's a few photographs of the high-altitude/pressure experiments the Germans carried out (the last one is of a hypothermia study; note the subject is dressed as a Luftwaffe flier):





The first two aren't dead, just so you know. They've simply blacked out. I doubt very much they survived in the end though.

I don't think they ever bothered to investigate the Japanese and their medical experiments, probably because the Germans received and shared information with them that they gained. Most of us I assume have heard of Unit 731 and some of the horrible things they did to the Chinese, which they regarded as "firewood".

Furthermore, if Switzerland did "turn off the money spigot", Iran would simply stop giving them oil, or cut their exports drastically. The good thing, however, is that the Swiss leaders are not that moronic; the trouble in reality is simply that these nationalists stirring up hate between the ethnic groups. But they're hardly going to be any problem in the long run. If the EU doesn't intervene then the European Islamic community certainly won't hesitate to do so, as they've demonstrated now through their vocal protests and in the past. Should it come to violence, which I don't think it will on a large scale (but I'm not saying it's impossible), they'd best be prepared for a hard fight.

[Skybird]

http://www.welt.de/politik/ausland/a...inaretten.html

The dhimmis in Switzerland are mobilizing, and copy the Eurocrats' winning tactic on the Lisbon dictate: Swiss liberals (the party) prepare a new referendum that should reverse the first one and make the minaretts legal again.

Send them voting until you get the vote you want.

Interesting understanding of what a majority vote means in a democracy. First the EU (repeated offender), now this.

What was it that Bertold Brecht wrote?

"After the uprising of the 17th June
The Secretary of the Writers Union
Had leaflets distributed in the Stalinallee
Stating that the people
Had forfeited the confidence of the government
And could win it back only
By redoubled efforts. Would it not be easier
In that case for the government
To dissolve the people
And elect another?"

This poem bases on a real event, reported by a GDR fugitive claiming to be an eye witness, that saw Brecht attending an assembly and protesting the violent suppression of the rebellion on the 17th of June, then he raised and said

"Ich habe eine Resolution vorzuschlagen. Da sich herausgestellt hat, daß unser Volk eine dumme Hammelherde ist, empfehlen wir der Regierung, sich ein anderes Volk zu wählen."

Voting in a referendum is a very important part of the Democratic Process, and in turn Freedom.

It's interesting to see how many EU supporters want to see that process abolished, even in non-EU countries.
When an Appointed Court can over-ride the Democratic Process, Freedom is lost, and a new Dictatership has gained control.

[Respenus]

Originally Posted by Snestorm

When an Appointed Court can over-ride the Democratic Process, Freedom is lost, and a new Dictatership has gained control.

What about your "ordinary" constitutional court? Isn't that one appointed as well, or do you, the people elect the judges? How can you be assured that they will follow the constitutions and protect all your human rights, independent of the political and economic situation?

While I am not claiming that the ECHR is infallible, it has proven in the past the highest respect for all human rights, even when national governments were against their respect. Slovenia has to pay its citizens damages with out court process having been determined by the ECHR to be too slow (6 months per case is the norm in order to ensure the right of a fair trial). While you may consider this to be against the "sovereignty" of the state, it is still far better than states being closed from one another as far as human rights go, with a strong possibility that they will be infringed upon if there is no external control.

The question now is, how will the ECHR respond. It takes a lot of time to get there and you have to go through the motions of the national justice system, up to the constitutional court if you wish to appeal at the ECHR. IT is quite possible that this will stop somewhere along the line, when someone will realise that this is a bigger issue than minarets.

Interesting understanding of what a majority vote means in a democracy.

An interesting understanding indeed.
The framework of the initial vote means that the issue can be voted on again and again.
It can be approved , then disaproved then approved again as many times as they like as long as someone gets together the required amount of signatures to put forward a motion. Thats democracy.
After all how many times in Switzerland did they have a vote or attempt to have a vote on giving women voting rights?

Come to think of it we must be due another vote soon on abortion over here, the process for having yet another vote on that issue started as soon as the votes were counted last time.

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by Respenus

What about your "ordinary" constitutional court? Isn't that one appointed as well, or do you, the people elect the judges? How can you be assured that they will follow the constitutions and protect all your human rights, independent of the political and economic situation?

While I am not claiming that the ECHR is infallible, it has proven in the past the highest respect for all human rights, even when national governments were against their respect. Slovenia has to pay its citizens damages with out court process having been determined by the ECHR to be too slow (6 months per case is the norm in order to ensure the right of a fair trial). While you may consider this to be against the "sovereignty" of the state, it is still far better than states being closed from one another as far as human rights go, with a strong possibility that they will be infringed upon if there is no external control.

The question now is, how will the ECHR respond. It takes a lot of time to get there and you have to go through the motions of the national justice system, up to the constitutional court if you wish to appeal at the ECHR. IT is quite possible that this will stop somewhere along the line, when someone will realise that this is a bigger issue than minarets.

The problem with the European court is the way the judges get called. They are called by the government, and their service time is short, but they earn a lot of money for it. This has two effects. The history of the european Court shows that it hardly ever decides against the wishes of the EU. Effect one is if they want to earn those high paymeents any longer, they must be reelected in their jobs. Effect two, to get reelected in their jobs, they tend to fulfill the wishes of the governments' chiefs. And that is why the European Court is unreliable in objectively judging cases against the EU's desire. And their record for such cases shows that. But at least it explains why the service time is short, and the payment is high.

Originally Posted by Respenus

What about your "ordinary" constitutional court? Isn't that one appointed as well, or do you, the people elect the judges? How can you be assured that they will follow the constitutions and protect all your human rights, independent of the political and economic situation?

While I am not claiming that the ECHR is infallible, it has proven in the past the highest respect for all human rights, even when national governments were against their respect. Slovenia has to pay its citizens damages with out court process having been determined by the ECHR to be too slow (6 months per case is the norm in order to ensure the right of a fair trial). While you may consider this to be against the "sovereignty" of the state, it is still far better than states being closed from one another as far as human rights go, with a strong possibility that they will be infringed upon if there is no external control.

The question now is, how will the ECHR respond. It takes a lot of time to get there and you have to go through the motions of the national justice system, up to the constitutional court if you wish to appeal at the ECHR. IT is quite possible that this will stop somewhere along the line, when someone will realise that this is a bigger issue than minarets.

I find it interesting that you have chosen to ignore 66% of my post.

Your methods remind me of ex-USP Bill Clinton, amongst other politicians.:
If an issue is undefendable, find another, and attack it.
It's called a smokescreen.

The issue is Switzerland being dictated to, not how my country works.
Shall we move back to Switzerland now?

[Respenus]

@Skybird

We're talking about the European Court of Human Rights, which is part of the Council of Europe which spreads from Vancouver to Vladivostok as the saying goes. While most member states are EU member states, you cannot claim they have absolute control over it. Even though the European Convention on Human Rights might be that of what the EU defines as human rights, it was created at the time when there was no EU, nor even the European Coal and Steel Community.

As far as the European Court of Justice goes, you are most probably right. Yet a closer examination of ECJ cases can show us that a lot of decisions, particularly at the start of the EEC were against the wishes of most member states and the fact that we have a functioning common marker as we have today, is also thanks to the ECJ. While I am not claiming its complete independence, as it is easy to see certain cases where the decision was "personal" (it either protected the perceived interests of the European Commission or of member states), that does not change the fact, that their record is far from what you claim it is. The ECJ's allies are the EC and minor national courts which work together against constitutional courts to fight for a certain EU legal system.

Although we both agree that the system of how they're called is something which only adds to the democratic deficit not solves it. Yet it is not to be to be the final judge of ECJ decisions for they are both positive and negative, as are the decisions of any court.

@Snestorm
I was making a valid comparison between the national and the supranational system. You call it smokescreen, I'm saying that in the current construction of the EU and the nation state, the question of judges in the ECJ is as valid as those in the national state. It is your representatives that chose your national judges, at least that's how it goes in Slovenia and I admit I am not familiar with other constitutional arrangements.

Can national judges, or can they not override the "democratic process" (the naming is questionable itself considering how the process is run today, with economy and state working together to control public opinion, the reason why both me and Skybird are sceptic about the power of elections nowadays)? Any constitutional court can decide that a vote was unconstitutional as long as the constitution is not change to include what is perceived as a new social structure, which needs to be enshrined in the highest law, that is the constitution.

Gentleman, you'd be surprised how much law European studies entail and what details we are shown. I've changed a lot of perceptions in the past two years and even though I understand and fundamentally support what you are saying, a small amount of knowledge is required if you wish to discuss any matter.

[Skybird]

I indeed mixed uzp the ECHR and the ECJ, becasue of the the different names in german and anglish. I meant the ECJ. I stick to my criticism of the ECJ to be extremely in line with the official course of the EU commission. Also that the influence of national governments on both gremiums, is doing great damage to democracy (although here we already seem to agree).

As I repeatedly said, I do not necessarily argue that demcioracy is the best solution always, everywhere, eversytime. But I measure any party claiming to be demcrartic, by it's own claim. And that is why I attack the EU for it'S democratic deficits, that have potenbtially been increased, imo, by the Lisbon dictate.

I think european governments seem to think they are a new feudal elite that tries to rule in an absolutistic manner. That must not be a problem - if the nobleness would be the result of competence and altruism - and selfishness and incompetence and megalomania and narcissism would not be mistaken with nobleness. Indeed I believe that some people can be more noble (important, competent, valuable for the people), than others. Not all people are equal, in no way, sorry. But that status of nobleness is not to be claimed, or bought, or chosen by votes, or won by family heritage, but gets deserved by personal records showing the superior thoughts and deeds.

[Respenus]

And I agree completely Sky. Except the Lisbon treaty. The question of the democratic deficit is one which has been with the EU for far longer and the Treaty of Lisbon neither solves, nor increases.

@Respenus:
Considering our perspectives, there will always be room for disagreement, which is healthy in any society. It indicates that people are independently thinking.

We are however, moving closer in understanding eachother's views. I think this also to be a healthy thing, and quite educational. This is like discussing world politics with my politicaly opposite uncle. On many issues we just have to agree to disagree. Remarkably, we have a very close relationship.

One should keep in mind that Danmark still holds 4 opt-outs in the EU, most of which concern this very issue, directly or indirectly. And yes, it takes a referdum by the people to change the constitution. No legislation or court, in Danmark or the EU, can change that. While some politicians consider it a hinderance, most people don't.

On a personal note. I think we're going to get along just fine.

[NeonSamurai]

The only comment I am going to make is that if the European Court of Human Rights, comes down on Switzerland for banning the construction of Minarets (which I don't see as being a major issue as they are not denying them the right to build mosques, or the freedom to practice Islam), then they better come down hard on all the major human rights violations on going in the middle east, africa, etc or they will be total hypocrites.

I have to say I find all the bluster and rage over the decision that is coming from the middle east to be totally farcical, given what goes on in their own countries when it comes to human rights and basic freedoms.

[Respenus]

@Snestorm
I'm sure we'll get along just fine, let us just keep our language on the rational level and have a genuine discussion.

@Neon
The intricacies of international law and any and all supranational entities having either direct or moral influence on the action of a state are far greater than I or you (although I cannot be sure of that) can understand. Just getting the CoE together with the ECHR was a job I am not sure we are capable of doing today. The ECHR is limited even in Europe and it can only "come down hard" on human rights violation on connection with states which have ratified the European Convention on Human Rights, otherwise it is merely a superficial body with no influence what so ever.

This is what has to be understood about any and all international organisations. They are limited in nature and contrary to states cannot issue declarations or make their own mind against what has been decided in the founding treaty of such an organisation. While we might like the idea of a ECHR support human rights fight across the world, it has no more moral or legitimacy to do so than any state and at the same time, it is no allowed to do so. And as Neon has reminded me, it also lacks legal legitimacy, although one should ask himself, which law allows states to criticise human rights abuse?

About Turkey and the ECHR. Cases must be presented before the court and as I have said, you need to go through the national motions before you are allowed to appeal to the ECHR, so it's also possible for Turkey to delay this process inside its own legal system, making sure that too major allegations don't come out.