A "Racist, Disrespectful and Dangerous Image"

Two years ago, I wrote a column about the Swiss People's Party (SVP) racially-tinged campaign to ban minarets and expel immigrants who commit crimes in Switzerland:

Expelling non-native criminals is hardly a novel policy prescription in Europe. But the SVP went a step further, demanding that the immediate families of criminals under 18-years-old also be deported, leading critics to compare it to the Nazi policy of Sippenhaft—kin liability. Nor is this the SVP's first brush with controversy. A previous ad campaign featured a black hand dipping into a box of Swiss passports (over 20 percent of the population is foreign born), and a recent SVP proposal to ban the construction of minarets has roiled opposition politicians and activists. (Polling data shows that almost half the population supports the minaret ban).

The SVP is still the largest party in the country, and still agitating against the building of minarets in major Swiss cities, an issue that will be settled by referendum next month. But their latest campaign poster urging peoples that minarets be forbidden by law has been branded racist by authorities in Basel and Lausann, both of whom banned the poster from being displayed on city billboards. It is, local politicians say, a "racist, disrespectful and dangerous image." The city council of Zurich approved the posters as protected speech. From the BBC:

Zurich city council said on Thursday that although it disapproved of the "negative and dangerous" poster, it had to be accepted as part of political free speech ahead of the 29 November national referendum.

The city followed the examples of Geneva, Lucerne and Winterthur, who earlier also gave the green light to the use of the SVP's advert.

Here is the offending poster:

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • Yale University Press||

    Oh, NOOOO!!!!

  • ||

    I don't see what's "racist" about showing a woman in traditional Muslim dress. Do the Muslims consider burquas racist now? I hadn't heard.

  • JB||

    It's racist to wrap a woman in a Hefty bag on a poster.

  • Robert||

    You're the one that Moon missile's aimed at.

  • ||

    I don't see what's "racist" about showing a woman in traditional Muslim dress. Do the Muslims consider burquas racist now? I hadn't heard.

    Muslims. minarets and missiles.
    Geez, how could anyone call that religious bigotry?

  • ||

    I don't see any missiles in there.

  • Amakudari||

    Yeah, them's minarets.

    Still, black on a red and white flag, a sinister minority in ethnic dress, and a big "verbot" creep me out.

  • ||

    What's sinister about it? That's what they actually wear, isn't it?

  • ||

    Okay, the verbot seems creepy, but I doubt the swiss can help it if that is how "ban" is spelled.

    I don't read German, but it looks like that says "yes to ban minarets", or something like that.

  • Amakudari||

    The burka isn't sinister; her shadowy depiction is. And she serves no purpose in the poster -- this isn't about banning burkas -- other than to appeal to anti-immigrant sentiment.

    You're right, the Swiss can't control how "ban" is spelled. They also can't control the colors of their flag, what a minority wears, or that black provides good design contrast. And importantly, none of those in isolation matter. But when you combine them the way that poster does, it's definitely creepy.

  • ||

    She does serve a purpose in the poster. It is to project opposition to fundamentalist Islam. The abaya (burqua) is a symbol of extremist Islam. If anything her presence in the poster makes it more specific that they are not against all Muslims, or just big towers, but against a particular radical variant of Islam that they feel the mosques are spreading.

  • ||

    The abaya is NOT necessarily a symbol of extremist Islam. Certainly not in the wealthy and more liberal Gulf States, where it's an actual status symbol as much as it is a religious one.

    The sky blue Afghan version with the face grille and all is more associated with extremism than the simple black abaya.

  • Suki||

    How can you tell she is a minority in that outfit? Do you think only minorities are Muslim?

  • Robert||

    It must've missed you, Ms. Meade, and hit Martin Landau instead.

  • ||

    It seems awfully phallic to me. Sure this isn't some sort of porn ad?

  • ||

    We can't help if Muslims are patriarchal.

  • Suki||

    I think it's just you. John just started a Cavalcade of Porn on our blog, nothing to rival your fine work, and I am still working on my initial post.

  • ||

    Yeah, you can all make fun, but this poster contains crucial hints at how it actually works. In every mosque erected in the world, the imam has only to slap his Koran down on a certain corner of his desk and the Koran swivels around into the desktop, replaced by a big red button from the other side. When the imam pushes the button, the minaret reveals itself to be a massive ICBM, and blasts off to obliterate one world capital or another. (And since they’re Muslims, there are no pre-launch procedures to evacuate worshipers from the building.)

  • Abdul Al Haqqani Jihad||

    Dude, on the DL!! Stop snitching!

  • ||

    Won't work. The Pope has a missile defense shield built into the dome of St. Peter's Basilica. If that doesn't work, then the papal network of hunter-killer satellites will do the job.

    I also understand that the Protestant churches have a similar anti-missile capability.

  • Suki||

    And Israel has the IDF, with Jews in Space.

  • ||

    It's racist against asparagus lovers! A sinister bigotry, I say!

  • ||

    Damned agricultural bigots.

  • ||

    C'mon, Ms. Mangu-Ward would have gotten some sly alt-text on that poster.

  • ||

    How exactly are the proponents of this ban planning to define the difference between minaret and steeple? Seems like all the Muslims have to do is contend that they have "steeples" on top of their "churches."

  • ||

    I imagine it might have something to do with loudspeakers blasting koranic verses at 6:00 AM.

  • Mario||

    No. It's just about the buildings, not the Adhan.

  • Bruce||

    Banning any public display of religion is always a good thing.

    Freedom of religion doesn't and shouldn't extend beyond the right to go into your home, close the door, and quietly think about or pray to whatever god(s) you choose. I don't believe freedom of religion even applies to the exterior of one's home - no nativity scenes, no crosses, not even on private property. Religion should only be permitted INSIDE one's home, and only insofar as it remains quiet. As long as you can go into your bedroom closet, close the door, and pray your right to religious freedom is secure. Anything more than that should be prohibited.

    I'd support banning the building of a christian church just as readily as I'd support banning the building of an islamic prayer phallus. We're too tolerant of intolerance (which is all religion is).

  • ||

    We're too tolerant of intolerance (which is all religion is).

    This is high quality trolling.

  • GILMORE||

    Neither here nor there, but you don't ever really get around to the point of *why" "Banning any public display of religion is always a good thing.

    You just list the strictures you want to put on free speech without ever saying what it is about that speech that you find so necessary to ban. You seem to take it for granted that religion is something so contrary to civic life that it needs proscription.

    Consider for a second that the majority of people who originally colonized this country did so in large part because they wanted to practice their particular version of religion without jerks in Europe telling them how they were allowed (or not) to do it.

    The freedom "of" religion idea was born of Quakers, Puritans, Catholics, Deists, etc. agreeing to disagree about god without ever being able to tell each other what they could or couldnt do.

    The idea of keeping religion out of "government" is perfectly ok and consistent with the constitution. I dont think that necessarily requires taking "in god we trust" off of coins.

    Banning religion from "public life", however, is not something I think the constitution allows any basis for. as someone below said, it's not "Freedom From Religion". This seems to be a common misconception.

    Id like to hear why you think "Freedom From Religion" would be something consistent with either the constitution or 'classical liberal' thinking in general. Just curious.

    In any case, I think your proposal is probably doomed to begin with. The Mafia really, really, really like their Christmas-lawn-decorations. Seriously.

  • ejay||

    Bruce, that's ridiculous. If you don't want to see someone's nativity scene -- on THEIR property -- then look the other way. It's not that your notions, like banning church buildings, are a slippery slope or anything; they're the END of the slope, right down in Tyrant Land. Who are you to tell any person, or group of likeminded people, what they can or can't do? You are so blinded by your anti-religious beliefs you would sacrifice all kinds of liberties to purge society of any religious taint. Not possible, never has been, never will be. Get used to the fact that you have to live in a world where the majority of people will ALWAYS be doing things you don't like. You are perfectly free to buy a few thousand acres somewhere (or a few hundred, or a few, period) and enforce any kinds of building codes you like... well, until the county and state come in and stop you, of course. But you can probably pull it off if you stay low-profile.

    You're way too angry about this to come to any reasoned action. Just chill, man. I don't like fundies, Islamonuts, or any fanatics, but they don't have to be religionists to be dangerous. A thousand of you, for example, could ignite a civil war in some parts of L.A. -- where the illegals are overwhelmingly superstitious Catholics. They'd barbecue you and have a picnic!

    Again, I can relate to your ire, but your "solutions" are tyrannical in the extreme. That's what makes liberty hard, bud, living with people who are hard to live with.

  • hammeredHead||

    Great now its racist to be against a group professing an ideology which is extremely intolerant and sexist.

  • boscoh||

    Intollerance is the Ace of Spades. Sexism is the Ace of Hearts. Racism is the Joker.

  • ||

    FLUSH!

  • Nigel Tufnel||

    What's wrong with being racy and sexy?

  • JB||

    Why So Stimulus?

  • ||

    This problem is far too complex to be reduced to "racism." The Swiss have a traditional culture, and that culture is being changed/challenged by mass immigration of people with a different culture. The fact that the immigrants look different is probably a minor issue, but the fact that they act different is a major one. To what extent are citizens allowed to preserve their traditional culture? If, following open-borders libertarian doctrine, 8 million Muslims showed up, got voting rights, and adopted Sharia law for the country, would everyone here be OK with that? Or OK with everything except the last step?

    I guess I'm not enough of a libertarian to want to see a largely free society be swamped by people who are likely to change it for the worse.

    As for the minaret ban, yeah, that probably goes too far, but I would support a ban on calls to prayer on noise-ordinance grounds.

  • ||

    Agree. I just think it's a bit overdoing it to call the poster "racist".

    How on earth would you depict a Muslim in a non-racist way, for instance? Or is any depiction of another race/ethnicity inherently bigoted? More particularly, how do you express opposition to fundamentalist Islam without using Islamic symbols like Minarets and abayas?

  • ||

    Does the poster need a person on it at all? I mean, the ban is on minarets.

  • ||

    As stated above I think she's on there to connect it to Islamic radicalism. The minaret isn't as obvious a symbol of militant Islam as the burqua.

    The poster suggests that mosques with minarets tend to be fundamentalist. Possibly true. I don't know.

  • ||

    The poster suggests that mosques with minarets tend to be fundamentalist. Possibly true. I don't know.

    Wtf? You seriously don't think that suggesting that is, I don't know, full of prejudice and wrongness?

  • ||

    If it's true, then how can it be prejudiced? If, in fact, most mosques proposing to build minarets are not radical or fundamentalist, then it would be prejudiced. But nobody here has presented any evidence that that is the case. It's entirely possible that the groups proposing to build minarets are all associated with extremist mosques. It's entirely possible that the people identifying minarets with Islamic radicalism are doing so because Islamic radicals are actually using minarets as a symbol of a more extreme version of Islam. Maybe the non-militant mosques aren't in the habit of builting big, prominent, towers to display their faith to the local population.

  • Suki||

    Muslims come from all races, just like many other faiths.

  • mark||

    If, following open-borders libertarian doctrine, 8 million Muslims showed up, got voting rights, and adopted Sharia law for the country, would everyone here be OK with that? Or OK with everything except the last step?

    No. Yes.

    Luckily the Constitution has an obscure passage somewhere regarding the establishment of religion; I'm pretty sure Sharia law is covered there.

  • ||

    No. Yes.

    Except that's more or less the same as being in favor of walking off a cliff, but being opposed to the sudden stop at the bottom.

    I know nothing about the Swiss constitution, but even here, a majority of voters can amend the Constitution if they try hard enough.

  • Suki||

    And it has an Amendment procedure too.

  • mark||

    I guess I'm not enough of a libertarian to want to see a largely free society be swamped by people who are likely to change it for the worse.

    Is it really that hard to stomach? The price of freedom is tolerating the poor decisions of others. If men want their wives walking around in burkas and having a call to prayer five times a day, they can find friendly towns to support that. If my town adopted some of those practices, I might move out of earshot of the mosque, or deal with it. How is this any different from all the stop-and-go traffic I have to deal with on Saturdays as the Jews walk to synagogue?

  • ||

    Ugh. If this was happening in the US I would hope that libertarians, of all people, would fight it.

    If we're not going to oppose men forcing their wives to walk around in burques, how can we oppose jailing teens for sexting?

  • ||

    Because the wives can leave their husbands at any time, but the teens can't leave jail.

    Duh?

  • ||

    Your original comment implies that it's not just the husbands forcing the wives to wear burquas, but the town laws.

    I hope you aren't suggesting that if a town in the US adopted sharia law, that libertarians wouldn't object.

  • ||

    That was mark's comment, but I certainly didn't read that the town laws were involved.

  • ArkhamOutpatient||

  • ||

    Are you implying that the number of honor killings will increase with greater immigration into western countries? I think the number will decrease.

  • ArkhamOutpatient||

    I was implying it's not as easy as the wife up and leaving the husband. And how will honor killings decrease? They're not doing it any less in majority Islamic countries.

  • ||

    It will decrease because the larger society -- as well as the law -- in western countries frowns on it much more. So allowing freer immigration of wives in such circumstances decreases the total incidents of honor killing.

  • ArkhamOutpatient||

    How are the wives supposed to immigrate here alone? They have no money, no support, likely no family, can't drive, can't be in public without a male relative, and if they're caught before they get out they'll be killed by their family.

    And as for the law and society frowning on it here, I don't believe these men give a good goddamn. They don't feel they've done anything wrong and I'm sure are willing to go to jail rather than offend their family's "honor".

  • ||

    I am assuming the whole family immigrates. And I am arguing that it will be easier for the wife to leave, and harder for the husband to murder, here in the West than back in their home country.

  • ArkhamOutpatient||

    I would agree if there was evidence that people who adhere to this version of Islam assimilate into the culture of their new countries. My understanding is that they rarely do, that they instead attempt to force implementation of sharia law in their new home. We can arrest and prosecute, but we have a very hard time preventing.

  • ||

    Wow. No assimilation at all, even at the margins?

    Your "understanding" must be extremely thorough indeed to make that claim with confidence.

  • ArkhamOutpatient||

    I said people who adhere to the version of Islam that encourages them to shoot their female relatives rarely assimilate. Not never, not all Muslims. But immigration certainly doesn't seem to be preventing the growth and spread of radical Islam, particularly in Britain and Europe, where they are reluctant to encourage assimilation.

  • ||

    Just to clarify, if fewer honor killings happen in the world because radical Muslims immigrate to western states -- but at the possible cost of honor killings in those western societies that will of course be prosecuted -- is that better or worse?

    My point is that the total number of honor killings in the entire world almost necessarily decreases with greater immigration of radical Muslims to the west. Articles that talk about radical Muslims immigrants do not refute that claim unless they demonstrate that those immigrants become more radical and insular than they were in their home countries.

  • Suki||

    Tell that to the dead woman in Buffalo.

  • ||

    Would she be less dead in Pakistan?

  • Mario||

    There already is a ban on noisy stuff like calls to prayer. The initiative is about minarets, not the Adhan.

  • ||

    If, following open-borders libertarian doctrine, 8 million Muslims showed up, got voting rights, and adopted Sharia law for the country, would everyone here be OK with that? Or OK with everything except the last step?

    Following open-borders libertarian doctrine only leads you through the "showed up" step. The "got voting rights" step is a pragmatic one based on how pluralistic the present citizenry wants the future citizenry to be.

  • ||

    I think that a country is liberal enough to say to everyone "Hey! C'mon in!" would be very liberal in granting franchise. The problem here is that Muslims in Europe have made it quite clear that they want Sharia enforced as a second, special standard for themselves - and perhaps for everyone later on.

  • ||

    "IF a country"

  • GILMORE||

    You dont even seem to be enough of a libertarian to find saying "noise ordinances" kind of distasteful... :) I suppose Christmas Caroling is now also to be banned in your benign universe?

    Dude, just replace muslims with "papists" in what you wrote, and you did a pretty good impression of 19th century Know Nothing dogma.

  • ||

    If Christmas caroling was done through loudspeakers five times a day, every day, I'd be opposed to that, too.

  • JB||

    Oh sweet Jesus.

    Please never put that image (sound?) into my mind. I love me some Christmas music...for about 1 week. When I start hearing it before Halloween I tend to lose it.

  • ||

    "If"? Obviously you don't do too much shopping in November or December.

  • ||

    You're correct, I don't. But it's easy to avoid some malls, and not easy to avoid a whole city if you live there.

    And there's nothing non-libertarian about my objection. They're my ears, and I don't want them regularly assaulted, especially by obnoxious religious sounds. (Church bells are fine, and even Christmas music in small doses is OK with me, but the Muslim call to prayer is just annoying to me. Hearing it five times a day would drive me nuts.)

  • ||

    Church bells are fine, and even Christmas music in small doses is OK with me, but the Muslim call to prayer is just annoying to me. Hearing it five times a day would drive me nuts

    So, now laws should be written based on what is fine and not fine for you, your likes and dislikes?

  • ||

    I'm saying it's a matter of degree.

  • ||

    What would happen if somebody wanted to build Christian churches all over Saudi Arabia? Why is it OK for "Islamic Republics" to completely outlaw all religions other than their own in their countries, but it's racism if another country even hints at doing the same thing. I've had it with these Islamo-NAZIS.

  • cross44||

    I guess I'm not enough of a libertarian to want to see a largely free society be swamped by people who are likely to change it for the worse.

    Indeed. I've long ago concluded a nice Hitleresque Final Solution for the Enlightened and Tolerant would do more for human freedom than the Enlightened and Tolerant ever have. Immigration fetishists are the societal equivalent of terminal cancer.

  • Seamus O'Donnell||

    This problem is far too complex to be reduced to "racism." Americans have a traditional culture, and that culture is being changed/challenged by mass immigration of people with a different culture. The fact that the immigrants look different is probably a minor issue, but the fact that they act different is a major one. To what extent are citizens allowed to preserve their traditional culture? If, following open-borders libertarian doctrine, 8 million Irish showed up, got voting rights, and adopted Papal law for the country, would everyone here be OK with that? Or OK with everything except the last step?

    I guess I'm not enough of a libertarian to want to see a largely free society be swamped by people who are likely to change it for the worse.

    As for the beer on Sunday ban, yeah, that probably goes too far, but I would support a ban on calls to prayer on noise-ordinance grounds.

  • Seamus O'Donnell||

    Correction

    As for the beer on Sunday ban, yeah, that probably goes too far, but I would support a ban on those bastards ever becoming politicians

  • ||

    "They said Edison was crazy! They said Einstein was crazy! They said my Uncle Herb was crazy!"

    "Who was your Uncle Herb?"

    "Oh, nobody, he really was crazy."

    (In other words, if you can't see the difference between Irish culture and Muslim culture, you're not looking very hard.)

  • ||

    I don't see any missiles in there.

    It's possible my previous career leads me to see missiles where none is intended. Of course all those minarets with no attached mosques ...

    No matter, the whole campaign is steeped in religious bigotry. Of course I'd allow the posters and of course I'd vote against outlawing architecture.

    I always thought Americans were supposed to lead the world in this kind of bigoted crap. I guess not.

  • ||

    I'd vote against it too. But how do you express in a poster opposition to radical Islam, and the threat of it spreading via mosques, without calling up violent imagery.

    If those images seem to have negative connotations, it's not solely because racist observers have invented them.

  • Mario||

    These images for the campaign have been prepared by the same communication consulting company, which during the last few years produced posters with similar "subliminal" references for the same political party.

  • ||

    So?

  • Slap Maxwell||

    Minarets do not equal radical Islam. Last time I was in Moscow, I saw plenty of them; but I don't recall meeting any radical Islamists.

  • ||

    Not necessarily, but in the context, of (say) western Europe and it's muslim minority, it's entirely possible that radical islamists have adopted the minaret as a symbol of their version of the faith.

    I don't KNOW if that's true or not. It just seems plausible, and may be be why some Europeans associate minarets with radical Islam. Not because they are all racists, but because the radicals actually are the ones preferring to erect minarets.

  • Suki||

    You were going to the wrong bars.

  • jtuf||

    I disagree with the ban on minarets. However, I find it interesting that the medica has not declared Muslims a "race". This allows Muslims to lable any discrimination against them as racism instead of religious intolerance, thus saving them from a general discussion of religious intolerance in Europe and the Middle East.

  • ||

    Perhaps if Islamic "republics" would allow Christians, Hindus, and other religions to build their religious places of worship in their countries, other countries would be a little more tolerant too.

  • jtuf||

    Correction: I find it interesting the the media has now declared Muslims a "race".

  • Suki||

    I find it interesting that toe people of this thread have too.

  • Kroneborge||

    @Bruce

    Ahh, I see you really don't believe in freedom of religion, only freedom "from" religion.

    Maybe we could do some type of inquisition, get rid of all the religion ehh?

  • Untermensch||

    I think Bruce is Akira in drag. We've not seen her in a while. On second thought, Bruce didn't advocate forcibly removing children from religious parents in the name of liberty, so he must not be Akira.

  • smartass sob||

    Her??? Akira was a guy, dude.

  • Mario||

    Uhm ... these are no missiles. No matter what CNN says.

    It's all about the minarets. And integration. And a heeeeeeeeell lot of racism ... Shame on my country.

  • Mad Max||

    'I always thought Americans were supposed to lead the world in this kind of bigoted crap. I guess not.'

    ؟ You mean like in Texas, where the Tutsis massacred the Hutu? ؟

  • GILMORE||

    That was funny. Texas Tutsis

    Someone once said that the only people most Arabs hate nearly as much the Jews is the other Arab tribe a little bit down the road.

  • jtuf||

    I would allow the poster and just put up my own posters to counter it.

  • jtuf||

    If you crop the poster and keep just the top half, it would work well for a campaign to legalize polyandry.

  • Mister DNA||

    It's too bad the Swiss public can't show their disapproval for the poster by voting against a ban on minarets.

    What?

  • Mario||

    For your information:

    The reference to racism at this point is probably because the anti-discrimination law in Switzerland is commonly referred to as Anti-Racism Law. This does not imply that anyone here considers Muslims a race.

  • ||

    A good many of the Swiss are practicing Christians, so I'm hoping there is a really nasty civil war.

    Because, if the secular Swiss are able to remain neutral, then they could sell Sig Sauers until all the fools are dead or at least don't own anything worthwhile having, such as property on which you can build churches or mosques.

  • Mario||

    "a good many of the Swiss are practicing Christians"

    Yeah, that would be about 6% of the population.

  • ||

  • Pre-Columbian American||

    I guess I'm not enough of a libertarian to want to see a largely free society be swamped by people who are likely to change it for the worse.

    Word up, Kimo-sabe.

  • SIV||

    Nobody is even close to 500+ years old

  • Pre-Columbian Mel Brooks||

    The Hell.

  • ||

    In addition, the Swiss would then have to rent my conference centers for peace talks and buy my overpriced chocolate for a change.

  • Dello||

    The solution is easy: Drop your bombs between the minarets.

  • ||

    I like swiss cheese.

  • BakedPenguin||

    Dello, how would that help? The problem isn't that crazy Casbah sound.

  • Muttley||

    Wait: do mosques in Switzerland need by law to be equipped with fallout shelters?

  • ||

    Does the same poster appears in French and Italian as well? Or is that too pluralistic for the SVP's tastes.

  • jester||

    the Swiss built their socialist cradle-to-grave society. May they wallow in it. Long time coming.

  • ||

    Do you actually know anything about Switzerland?

  • ||

    The Swiss don't have a cradle to grave society. You must be thinking about the Swedish.

  • Underzog||

    Islam is a friggin death cult! They are worse than the Nazis. Even the Nazis did not jump up and down for joy when they killed Jews or for that matter, Americans as the Muslimns did.

    Maybe the Swedes are sick and tired of their girls being raped in Malmo, Sweden.

    I know the Ernst Röhm wannabes here are pro Islamic terror, but some in Europe such as Vlaam Belang and Filip DeWinter are not going to take it any more.

    "There's no need to fear. Underzog is here."

  • Untermensch||

    Yep, all them monolithic Muslimns [sic] did that. They're all the same, no variation.

    I'm guessing if someone who knew all of about six Americans and had seen BBC made a pronouncement about what Americans are like, you'd look at it a little askance, but when you do the same about Muslim it's somehow different?

  • jester||

    Underzog,

    Islam is not the problem, it's international socialism. Without socialism, immigrants would come to work when it was there and they would leave when there wasn't any.

    What's your fucking problem?

  • jester||

    BTW, what is there to fear about underzog? No more than the dipshit I have to deal with on any given day as part of my work.

    Part of doing business. Even dipshits affect the bottom line.

  • Paul||

    The word 'Stop' is made more effective with the extra 'p'. Wouldn't you agree?

  • Chrispy||

    I still sort of want to move to Switzerland.

  • Chrispy||

    This in particular is remarkable: "Zurich city council said on Thursday that although it disapproved of the "negative and dangerous" poster, it had to be accepted as part of political free speech ahead of the 29 November national referendum."

    Standing up for free speech even when the message isn't something you necessarily agree with? Amazing.

  • monolith||

    hasn't the swiss football (soccer) team benefitted massively from muslim immigrants?

  • dhex||

    underzog is the best troll ever. his impression of the protocols of the elders of islam is impeccable.

    "some jews are in banking. therefore jews control the world!"

    excellent!

  • ||

    I find it somewhat bizarre that opposition to a religion/ideology is racist.

    It seems to me that the people playing the race card are giving away the game. They seem to be saying that being a Muslim, like being Asian or black, is something you are born with and can never change, that Muslim ideas somehow are genetically encoded.

  • vinnygates||

    I'm offended by this because Impact is an awful typeface.

  • ||

    Forget 'not speaking the language and smaller things' though they are important. The most important thing is this will encourage Muslims to gain power gradually and then have their way in just about any issue in future, and then go on to impose their will on others, and then finally get an upper hand. Well many will ask "is this really true?". Well look at several regions of the world like countries in Africa, Kashmir etc - first migrate, then multiply, then finally occupy. Its not a big problem if Muslims mix with people of other religions and if Muslim Girls are under Muslim law allowed to marry Non-Muslim men of their own free will, and so on - But thats not the case. Do Muslim countries permit building of churches?, leave alone elaborate church towers - No they dont and will not. Does the United Nations go about threatening Muslim countries to allow building of Churches and Church Towers? - No. This discrimanatory attitude should be pointed out to the United Nations. There should be a million signatures collected in switzerland forcing the United Nations to persuade the Muslim countries like Saudi Arabia and Gulf Countries to allow construction of churches, Synagogues, Buddhist and Hindu Temples - If they want to blame Switzerland on this issue. Equality should not be a discrimatory one way traffic. --- If Muslims change their law to permit mixed religious marriages, then automatically AT LEAST their children(who will study in local schools) will be sure to integrate, and thus the basic fundamental culture of Switzerland(free thinking, freedom in general which leads to healthy human development) will be preserved.

  • ||

    Forget 'not speaking the language and smaller things' though they are important. The most important thing is this will encourage Muslims to gain power gradually and then have their way in just about any issue in future, and then go on to impose their will on others, and then finally get an upper hand. Well many will ask "is this really true?". Well look at several regions of the world like countries in Africa, Kashmir etc - first migrate, then multiply, then finally occupy. Its not a big problem if Muslims mix with people of other religions and if Muslim Girls are under Muslim law allowed to marry Non-Muslim men of their own free will, and so on - But thats not the case. Do Muslim countries permit building of churches?, leave alone elaborate church towers - No they dont and will not. Does the United Nations go about threatening Muslim countries to allow building of Churches and Church Towers? - No. This discrimanatory attitude should be pointed out to the United Nations. There should be a million signatures collected in switzerland forcing the United Nations to persuade the Muslim countries like Saudi Arabia and Gulf Countries to allow construction of churches, Synagogues, Buddhist and Hindu Temples - If they want to blame Switzerland on this issue. Equality should not be a discrimatory one way traffic. --- If Muslims change their law to permit mixed religious marriages, then automatically AT LEAST their children(who will study in local schools) will be sure to integrate, and thus the basic fundamental culture of Switzerland(free thinking, freedom in general which leads to healthy human development) will be preserved.

  • ||

    Forget 'not speaking the language and smaller things' though they are important. The most important thing is this will encourage Muslims to gain power gradually and then have their way in just about any issue in future, and then go on to impose their will on others, and then finally get an upper hand. Well many will ask "is this really true?". Well look at several regions of the world like countries in Africa, Kashmir etc - first migrate, then multiply, then finally occupy. Its not a big problem if Muslims mix with people of other religions and if Muslim Girls are under Muslim law allowed to marry Non-Muslim men of their own free will, and so on - But thats not the case. Do Muslim countries permit building of churches?, leave alone elaborate church towers - No they dont and will not. Does the United Nations go about threatening Muslim countries to allow building of Churches and Church Towers? - No. This discrimanatory attitude should be pointed out to the United Nations. There should be a million signatures collected in switzerland forcing the United Nations to persuade the Muslim countries like Saudi Arabia and Gulf Countries to allow construction of churches, Synagogues, Buddhist and Hindu Temples - If they want to blame Switzerland on this issue. Equality should not be a discrimatory one way traffic. --- If Muslims change their law to permit mixed religious marriages, then automatically AT LEAST their children(who will study in local schools) will be sure to integrate, and thus the basic fundamental culture of Switzerland(free thinking, freedom in general which leads to healthy human development) will be preserved.

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Video Game Nation: How gaming is making America freer – and more fun.
  • Matt Welch: How the left turned against free speech.
  • Nothing Left to Cut? Congress can’t live within their means.
  • And much more.

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement