Switzerland shows the way
The Swiss, known for their straightforward manner concerning issues others are wringing their hands about and leafing feverishly through the Lexicon of Political Correctness in order to find solutions, voted against the building of minarets in their country. The ink was barely dry on the bottom line of their referendum results when the chorus of “human rights” rose in self-righteous indignation:
A Swiss ban on minarets could violate fundamental liberties, Europe’s top human-rights watchdog said Monday in an indication that the heavily criticized vote could be overturned.
The Swiss justice minister also said the European Court of Human Rights could strike down the Sunday vote, which incurred swift condemnation at home and abroad for banning the towers used to put out the Islamic call to prayer.
The 47-nation Council of Europe said that banning "new minarets in Switzerland raises concerns as to whether fundamental rights of individuals, protected by international treaties, should be subject to popular votes." Switzerland presides over the council, which is associated with the European Court of Human Rights. The court rules on breaches of the European Convention on Human Rights.
Justice Minister Eveline Widmer-Schlumpf said the ban would come into force immediately, but indicated that it could be overturned.
Of course, what Swiss voters did was to openly reject the arrival in their country of (so far relatively low) numbers of Muslim illegal immigrants from some of the poorest countries on earth. In short, the Swiss said: “We need no such neighbors in our neighborhood…” I can understand that.
But, the tom-toms have just started to beat:
Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu, the secretary general of the Organization of the Islamic Conference, called the ban an "example of growing anti-Islamic incitement in Europe by the extremist, anti-immigrant, xenophobic, racist, scare-mongering ultra-right politicians who reign over common sense, wisdom and universal values." [ibid]
Mr. Ihsanoglu is Turkish. Excellent coincidence.
Here’s a question for you, Mr. Ihsanoglu: would Turkey move right away to demolish the minarets desecrating the perimeter of Hagia Sophia in Constantinople and return one of the holiest churches of Christendom to the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople in a clear demonstration of “common sense, wisdom and universal values,” which, apparently, Islamic Turkey demands from others in such biting, aggressive language?
Would Turkey, Mr. Ihsanoglu, take the kind of measures she routinely uses against many of its citizens, who happen to disagree with the policies of the Turkish state, against her own “extremist, anti-immigrant, xenophobic, racist, scare-mongering ultra-right politicians,” who have repeatedly threatened the Patriarchate with violence?
Or, is it that Turkey does not harbor such politicians?
[Readers, please, control your belly-aching laughter!]
The Ecumenical Patriarchate, which was established in the fourth century and once possessed holdings as vast as those of the Vatican, has been reduced to a small, besieged enclave in a decaying corner of Istanbul called the Phanar, or Lighthouse. Almost all of its property has been seized by successive Turkish governments, its schools have been closed and its prelates are taunted by extremists who demonstrate almost daily outside the Patriarchate, calling for its ouster from Turkey.
The ecumenical patriarch, Bartholomew I, is often jeered and threatened when he ventures outside his walled enclave. He is periodically burned in effigy by Turkish chauvinists and Muslim fanatics. Government bureaucrats take pleasure in harassing him, summoning him to their offices to question and berate him about irrelevant issues, blocking his efforts to make repairs in the few buildings still under his control, and issuing veiled threats about what he says and does when he travels abroad.
Successive Turkish governments have followed policies that deliberately belittle the patriarch, refusing to recognize his ecumenical status as the spiritual leader of a major religious faith but viewing him only as the head of the small Greek Orthodox community of Istanbul [source].
Similar questions should be leveled at all Muslim countries, including the “moderate” ones among them.
How ‘bout a big, brilliant Christian cathedral in the middle of, say, Riyadh, where all Christian diplomats, business people, and other “infidels” would be able to worship openly, with the women not wearing those tent-like shrouds before they could walk from the car to the church?
And, of course, we want bell towers, too, complete with these newfangled, infernal electronic sound systems that boom out the sound of bells!
We want all that from our Muslim brothers — benign, peace-loving, Christian-appreciating, non-racist, never extremist.
The principle of reciprocity applies both ways.
And, most importantly:
STOP ACTING LIKE FEARFUL SPINSTERS ABOUT WHAT MUSLIMS WILL DO OR WILL NOT DO BECAUSE THEY HAVE BEEN “INSULTED”.
The more ground we give, the more “righteous wrath” we will collect.
What is so difficult to understand about this?
Paul wrote,
Once again, thank you so much for putting into words so wonderfully what many of us mutter under our breath (with more colorful language). I’m curious to see how the Church of Greece stands up to the crucifix mafia of Brussels now that they’ve muscled Italy around.
“”An appeaser is one that feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last.”" — Winston Churchill
Link | November 30th, 2009 at 23:08
Demosthenes wrote,
Paul,
“Human rights” is the next biggest threat against our civil liberties… It is ironic that we have come full circle: we fought against totalitarianism in order to allow the rise of these “new totalitarians…” But the war is just beginning.
Link | December 1st, 2009 at 22:36
Margaret wrote,
There is nothing wrong with “Human Rights”. There is nothing new about them either. They are as old as the hills and have been given legal protection since forever (qv Magna Carta).
The problems arise because one person’s human rights often clash with another person’s human rights. It it the degree to which one right is given priority over another right which causes the problems. With only very rare exceptions (in Europe), most rights are not absolute. That is, the law recognises that there is this potential for an individual’s rights to clash with “the rights of others”.
To what degree should the rights of others (that is, the majority) be given precedence over the rights of an individual? Difficult question, which, ultimately, is often left unsatisfactorily to judges.
The approach taken in resolving this conflict will depend to a large degree on the underlying philosophical approach of those deciding where the balance lies.
I suspect that you favour a communitarian approach in this instance which gives greater weight to the cultures and values of the community and less weight to the rights of the individual. The balance here is likely to fall in favour of the rights of others.
Lots of human rights activists, however, eschew the communitarian approach, often (in my view) because they have felt excluded by their own community for one reason or another and are outsiders. They take a more Kantian view of freedom (freedom being what human rights usually protect) which ignores the claims of history, culture, family and community.
Of course, this activists’ approach would be a thoroughly good thing where history, culture, family and community seek to preserve inequality, dishonesty, bigotry and violence.
I recognise both tendencies in myself – perhaps we all have a bit of both. On the one hand I have no problem with crucifixes on walls in schools but have no desire to see minarets springing up all over the place (a communitarian view since my background is Christian). On the other hand, I have no desire to see a state religion imposed on an individual’s conscience nor freedom of expression banned. Resolving the tension in myself is difficult enough.
It is little surprise, then, that “Human Rights” are portrayed as the new enemy if, in this instance, the communtarian rights approach prevails, and the advocating of the Kantian approach causes uncomfortable dissonance.
Link | December 2nd, 2009 at 21:18
Alki wrote,
We are not dealing with ” human rights”. What is human rights after all ? Is it human rights the ” right ” empowering a foreigner to arrive and establish himself in a foreign land, bring in his extended family and those families of the extended families and tribe, import his wares, culture and subculture and transform the habitat of the native inhabitants ? The Swis have every right to be concerned about the loss of their territorial and geographic entity. There are too many foreigners for anybody’s comfort in Switzerland ( as in Greece). When these foreigners are the bearers of imcompatible and unassimilable cultures with those of the natives; ethnic problems and social strife would be the attending result. This issue has nothing to do with human rights, it is a confrontation and conflict for the dominance of a demarcated territory.
Link | December 5th, 2009 at 16:49