So after the so-called “conference” in Germany against the building of Mosques, which was really a meeting to formulate a genocidal agenda against Muslim citizens of European countries, another one is making the rounds, this time having to do with the desire to ban Minarets. Boy, are the zionified neo-nazi westerners obsessed with Islam and Muslims….!!! That this even gets “debated”, let alone voted on, is quite telling about the true nature of the western world, which claims it is “civilized”, “freedom-loving”, and “secular.” Civilized, freedom-loving, and secular only when there is no difference of opinion, no “challenge” to prevailing mindsets, no “competition” with the dominant Religion. Westerners’ understanding of “freedom” is as peculiar as that of Saddam Hussein’s, Stalin’s, Hitler’s, Mussolini’s, to name just a few dictators who have at one point or another claimed to represent the people’s interest, needs, and aspirations. Just imagine the House of Representatives in ANY European country debating a ban on Synagogues, claiming they are symbols of political dominance (which they are, aside from being symbols of [Jewish] racial supremacism), and urging intensification of the fight against “Judaization” of the “western world.” ADL, and zionazis would be screaming murder at the top of their lungs, if such a thing ever happened, which it never would. But I bet this has the blessing of most (zionist) Jews in Europe. After all, the neo-nazis and zionazis are the best of friends these days. Arguably, zionazis and nazis were the best of friends. They had a shared interest. 6 million less Jews served Hitler’s interests, and also those of the zionazis, who would create a Holocaust Industry out of it. And now, the zionazis are setting the stage for the persecution and (possible) genocide against Muslims in Europe, at the same time as they kill and maim Muslims all over the region, and take over our lands.
So now, under the cloak of such ridiculous arguments as “Muslim extremists could use Mosques (Minarets????) for ‘criminal activities'” (I guess next in line will be a proposal to ban Muslims from buying or renting apartments or houses, or opening up shops or buying clothes or food or chocolate, because they could be used for “criminal activities” too), they (zionists and their best friends the european neo-nazis) pursue their plans of ethnically cleansing Europe and parts of the Middle East of Muslims.
The Swiss House of Representatives debates and votes on Minaret ban proposal
The House of Representatives has come out against a proposal by rightwing political parties to ban minarets, Urs Geiser writes for swissinfo.
A majority also rejected calls by the centre-left to declare the people’s initiative invalid. The other parliamentary chamber, the Senate, still has to discuss the issue.
The initiative, launched by the rightwing Swiss People’s Party and a small ultra-conservative Christian party, was handed in with 113,540 valid votes last year. It will be put to a nationwide vote at a later date.
Muslim organizations have expressed their concern about the initiative, which has been rejected by the cabinet.
More than 50 parliamentarians took part in Wednesday’s debate which lasted for nearly six-hours. In the end, the House voted 129 against 50 to rebuff the initiative.
An overwhelming majority said the proposal violated human rights and international law and jeopardised the peaceful coexistence of religions.
“The initiative takes aim at the Muslim community,” warned Bea Heim of the centre-left Social Democratic Party. Other speakers described the plan as irresponsible, “an insult for Muslims,” scaremongering or “a campaign to instigate hatred.”
“I’m not willing to provide fuel for arsonists,” said Ueli Leuenberger of the Green Party, when he took the podium to explain his position.
Social Democrat Andreas Gross criticized the government for failing to nullify the initiative at an early stage. He called on parliament to “act bravely and to put respect for religious freedom over political opportunism.”
But his appeal was barely heeded by members outside the centre-left.
For their part, People’s Party parliamentarians argued the initiative was the right answer to counter an alleged “Islamization” of the western world. Minarets were described as claims to political dominance rather than religious symbols.
“It’s time to counter the pretension to power,” said Jasmin Hutter, who also slammed Islam as intolerant and repressive toward women.
“Minarets, muezzins [people at the mosque who lead the call to prayer] and Sharia law have to be seen in the same context,” added Walter Wobmann.
Numerous right-wing parliamentarians slammed Islamic values as incompatible with the Christian ideals and Switzerland’s democratic principles.
They also warned that Muslim extremists would use mosques for criminal activities.
During a heated debate Ulrich Schlüer accused opponents of trying to ignore the concerns of all those citizens who signed the people’s initiative.
Representatives of the centre-right Christian Democratic Party called for more dialogue between the religions.
“I dread the forthcoming campaign by the People’s Party,” said Kathy Riklin.
Jacques Neirynck was among several speakers who expressed their feelings of disgust and shame over demands for a minaret ban and Wednesday’s parliamentary debate.
“The initiative is dangerous, populist and damages Switzerland’s reputation. I wish it was not on the table,” he said.
But several speakers also pointed out that the initiative had to be taken seriously because it reflected serious concerns of citizens.
It was launched in the wake of debates at a local level in parts of German-speaking Switzerland over the planned construction of minarets. At present only four mosques in the county have such spires.
Justice Minister Eveline Widmer-Schlumpf repeated the government’s rejection of the initiative.
“Switzerland would be in violation of international obligations and its credibility would be seriously dented,” she told the House.
However, she said the initiative did not violate international law.
Widmer-Schlumpf added that a minaret ban would endanger the peaceful coexistence of Christians and Muslims.
“Minarets are religious symbols. A ban is an infringement of religious freedom,” she said.
She said the debate had shown that some supporters of a minaret ban were prepared to use unfair and dishonest arguments.
The initiative seeks a ban on minarets, according to supporters of the initiative, but it appeared that many speakers raised general objections against Islam, Widmer-Schlumpf said.