NationStates Jolt Archive

"Switzerland is known as a haven of peace and neutrality. But today it is home to a new extremism that has alarmed the United Nations. Proposals for draconian new laws that target the country's immigrants have been condemned as unjust and racist. A poster campaign, the work of its leading political party, is decried as xenophobic. Has Switzerland become Europe's heart of darkness?" By Paul Vallely

At first sight, the poster looks like an innocent children's cartoon. Three white sheep stand beside a black sheep. The drawing makes it looks as though the animals are smiling. But then you notice that the three white beasts are standing on the Swiss flag. One of the white sheep is kicking the black one off the flag, with a crafty flick of its back legs.

The poster is, according to the United Nations, the sinister symbol of the rise of a new racism and xenophobia in the heart of one of the world's oldest independent democracies.

A worrying new extremism is on the rise. For the poster – which bears the slogan "For More Security" – is not the work of a fringe neo-Nazi group. It has been conceived – and plastered on to billboards, into newspapers and posted to every home in a direct mailshot – by the Swiss People's Party (the Schweizerische Volkspartei or SVP) which has the largest number of seats in the Swiss parliament and is a member of the country's coalition government.
Here are some important quotes I took from the article:

"has announced its intention to lay before parliament a law allowing the entire family of a criminal under the age of 18 to be deported as soon as sentence is passed."

"Dr Schlüer has launched a campaign for a referendum to ban the building of Muslim minarets. In 2004, the party successfully campaigned for tighter immigration laws using the image of black hands reaching into a pot filled with Swiss passports. And its leading figure, the Justice Minister, Christoph Blocher, has said he wants to soften anti-racism laws because they prevent freedom of speech."

"UN special rapporteur on racism, Doudou Diène, warned earlier this year that a "racist and xenophobic dynamic" which used to be the province of the far right is now becoming a regular part of the democratic system in Switzerland."

"Until war broke out in the Balkans, we had some good workers who came from Yugoslavia. But after the fighting there was huge influx of people we had a lot of problems with. The abuse of social security is a key problem. It's estimated to cost £750m a year. More than 50 per cent of it is by foreigners."

"How direct democracy functions is a very sensitive issue in Switzerland," he says, explaining why he has long opposed joining the EU. "To the average German, the transfer of power from Berlin to Brussels didn't really affect their daily lives. The transfer of power from the commune to Brussels would seriously change things for the ordinary Swiss citizen."

" It is what lies behind the SVP's fear of even moderate Islam. It has warned that because of their higher birth rates Muslims would eventually become a majority in Switzerland if the citizenship rules were eased."

"It can also ask, as one commune did of 23-year-old Fatma Karademir – who was born in Switzerland but who under Swiss law is Turkish like her parents – if she knew the words of the Swiss national anthem, if she could imagine marrying a Swiss boy and who she would support if the Swiss football team played Turkey. "Those kinds of questions are outside the law," says Mario Fehr. "But in some more remote villages you have a problem if you're from ex-Yugoslavia."

"At the end of 2006, 5,888 people were interned in Swiss prisons. 31 per cent were Swiss citizens – 69 per cent were foreigners or asylum-seekers."
http://news.independent.co.uk/europe/article2938940.ece

What do you guys think about this? I strongly encourage reading the whole article.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/6992670.stm

Swiss citizenship system 'racist'
An official report into the process of naturalisation in Switzerland says the current system is discriminatory and in many respects racist.
The report, from Switzerland's Federal Commission on Racial Discrimination, recommends far-reaching changes.

It criticises the practice of allowing members of a community to vote on an individual's citizenship application.

Muslims and people from the Balkans and Africa are the most likely to be rejected, the report points out.

Switzerland has Europe's toughest naturalisation laws. Foreigners must live for 12 years in a Swiss community before they can apply, and being born in Switzerland brings no right to citizenship.

Under the current system, foreigners apply through their local town or village.

They appear before a citizenship committee and answer questions about their desire to be Swiss. After that, they must often be approved by the entire voting community, in a secret ballot, or a show of hands. This practice, the report says, is particularly likely to be distorted by racial discrimination.

It cites the case of a disabled man originally from Kosovo. Although fulfilling all the legal criteria, his application for citizenship was rejected by his community on the grounds that his disability made him a burden on taxpayers, and that he was Muslim.

The report recommends that decisions on citizenship should be decided by an elected executive and not by the community as a whole. But such a move is likely to encounter stiff opposition.

Foreigners are a key issue in the run-up to Switzerland's general election next month.

The right-wing Swiss People's Party, currently leading in the opinion polls, claims Swiss communities have a democratic right to decide who can or cannot be Swiss.
I agree with the Swiss People's Party. What is wrong with a a community deciding who they want or do not want in a community. Nobody outside that community has a God-given right from birth to live in the Swiss community in question. If they choose to exclude, democratically, let them. Remember, this is not dictatorship of the majority, because the people they are excluding are not in the minority, since they are not part of the system at all.

Germany and France need to invade Switzerland. We can't let this bullshit stand.

I know you are joking about the "invading", but what makes you think that the situation in France and Germany is any better? What makes you think that France and Germany are devoid of the problems facing Switzerland?

I know you are joking about the "invading", but what makes you think that the situation in France and Germany is any better? What makes you think that France and Germany are devoid of the problems facing Switzerland?

No, I am not joking about invading Switzerland. We, as a civilized people, cannot allow this 19th century thinking to be permitted in the world, much less Europe. People must be brought into the 21st century, by force and pain of death, if necessary.

Well, if that's what the people want, that's democracy, and we should not question it.

As Aleutian Islands said, this is a problem facing all of Europe, not just Switzerland. I've read other articles about this in the past, and this one isn't the most balanced. Although the SVP is a large party, it is also considered far rightwing in Swiss politics, and many of their actions have been condemned by other parties and the Swiss government.

always wondered why the swiss , never joined the E.U. , i mean its nothing to do with being neutral , my country (Republic of Ireland ) joined and we're neutral.

As this article , i am not mad about stuff like this on the net , it tends to be one sided , but i can see the point people are making , hmm was planing on visting Switzerland and Austria for the European Championships next year , so i guess i will get a feel for the country then.

And every country in the world has problems with immigrants and racistism .
been to France and Germany and i know those countries handle it well.
I mean western nations are all trying there best (well most are ), but you cant stop there being a racist red neck american , or neo right wing german , or just people with who always think bad about immigrants and people who are different to them . But i think in most countries the majority of people are not like this .

And like i said this problem faces all western nations , Europe , North America , Austrialia , etc

Swiss cheese wouldn't be quite the same without bubbles in it. *nod*

Switzerland still has a ways to go to catch up with Belarus and Kaliningrad, if it really wants to compete for "Heart of Darkness" status. I mean, in Kaliningrad they don't even accept checks or credit cards, cash or jewelry only, please!

People must be brought into the 21st century, by force and pain of death, if necessary.
Lawl at the unintentional irony.

But yeah. This can't be accepted. The question is, are we witnessing a disease or a symptom? I recommend a system of diplomatic and economic pressure and a calculated barrage of media ridicule, accompanied by an appropriate display of the values we are celebrating, to tide us over until we can work out whether it really is just base racism or whether it is the result of a deeper flaw within the modern Swiss (and general European?) lifestyle.

Oh, so EBUL DARK PEOPLE (:eek:) are problems now? Well, why don't we just send anyone not of Pure Aryan Stock (© Germany 1937) back to their smelly little homes.

PRESERVE ARYAN STOCK, KICK THE DARKIES OUT!

We should all be admiring the Swiss system of government.

always wondered why the swiss , never joined the E.U. , i mean its nothing to do with being neutral , my country (Republic of Ireland ) joined and we're neutral.

The Swiss are very peticular about soverenty issues. They hardly give their own Federal government much power. Do you expect them to turn over any power to Eurocrats sitting 500 miles away?

The Swiss are very peticular about soverenty issues. They hardly give their own Federal government much power. Do you expect them to turn over any power to Eurocrats sitting 500 miles away?

To be fair , if they joined they would be sending their own Eurocrats to Brussels , so it would not be like they would be powerless . but i guess its fair enough , they voted on it and said no, but i think that was in the 70s , maybe they should vote again , hopefully they would not be put off by some of new members , some of who are not the biggest or richest countries but in my opinion they all make the E.U. better

We should all be admiring the Swiss system of government.
Intentional counterpoint a-la "devil's advocacy", genuine personal viewpoint or base trolling? I still can't quite work you out.

What do you guys think about this?
I think the Indy is being as sensationalist as ever; although this is obviously not a piece of good news, the SVP is a minority party in a coalition, already noted for its extremist views on immigration and foreign workers.

Hell, Labour in the UK are wanting to deport criminals, have already tightened up immigration and detention laws, and have done away with trial by jury in certain cases.

Nutters, all of 'em.

The Swiss have always defined the right-wing extreme of Europe (well, excepting the brief period in the early 20th century when the Germans managed to outpace them). I think it even took them until the 70's to give women the vote.

We should all be admiring the Swiss system of government.

Assuming you are being truthful, this is the first time ever that I've agreed with you. If I wasn't an American, I would want to be Swiss.

Devolution FTW.

Assuming you are being truthful, this is the first time ever that I've agreed with you. If I wasn't an American, I would want to be Swiss.

Devolution FTW.
My point being that if they wanna be racist that's fine, at least it's the majority who agree and not the minority.

Well, if that's what the people want, that's democracy, and we should not question it.

Uh, no.

Debate and discussion, between citizens with foreigners* is absolutely vital to a democracy. The airing of grievances of offering of opinions is vital.

*For perspective and other opinions. Americans, for example, would do well to learn to utilize other's experiences and viewpoints. They've got something we can learn, and we have something they can learn. The free exchange of ideas amongst all peoples of the world is absolutely vital.

Uh, no.

Debate and discussion, between citizens with foreigners* is absolutely vital to a democracy. The airing of grievances of offering of opinions is vital.

*For perspective and other opinions. Americans, for example, would do well to learn to utilize other's experiences and viewpoints. They've got something we can learn, and we have something they can learn. The free exchange of ideas amongst all peoples of the world is absolutely vital.
Sure, they have the option of listening to the opinions of these minorities, but they don't have to to, if they are indeed the majority all that matters if what they think, that's what a democracy is all about, it's not that we disagree or think it wrong that matters, only that it's democratic.

My point being that if they wanna be racist that's fine, at least it's the majority who agree and not the minority.
Come now Andaras, surely you jest?

Your saying that (to pick a completely random example ;)) that if the majority decided to expunge all traces of Marxist/Communist theory from the annals of thought, you'd be absolutely fine with it?

The danger of dictatorship of the majority is as great as dictatorship of the minority.

Come now Andaras, surely you jest?

Your saying that (to pick a completely random example ;)) that if the majority decided to expunge all traces of Marxist/Communist theory from the annals of thought, you'd be absolutely fine with it?

The danger of dictatorship of the majority is as great as dictatorship of the minority.

Well I guess I would, but that would kinda be silly seeing as Communism in essence is pure democracy, it would be like a democracy deciding to erase all knowledge of democracy, it wouldn't really work if the system was to continue.

Sure, they have the option of listening to the opinions of these minorities, but they don't have to to, if they are indeed the majority all that matters if what they think, that's what a democracy is all about, it's not that we disagree or think it wrong that matters, only that it's democratic.

First off, we should be reviewing your statements here. You said that because it's democratic, we shouldn't question it. Yeah right. I'll question from here to the big crunch.

And, secondly. No.

No, no, no, no, no.

Democracy is not a virtue in and of itself, rather it is a governing process that is more likely to produce virtuous results than other governing processes. It's more transparent, and exhibits a greater tendency to efficacy because it is required to be responsive, but that's why we choose it. Not for some baloney about the value of group decision making.

Well I guess I would, but that would kinda be silly seeing as Communism in essence is pure democracy, it would be like a democracy deciding to erase all knowledge of democracy, it wouldn't really work if the system was to continue.

There's a substantial number of people who would fully disagree with you on that matter.

Ah, my fault. I forgot, AP, that you're really just a common absolutist, stuck back in the dark ages, so certain of your own belief structure that you've banished doubt, questioning and reason. It's not an ideology for you, it's a religion, just as surely as it was for the knights of the crusades, amongst whom you would have been phenomenally comfortable screaming "GOD WILLS IT!!!!!" as you chop off the heads of Muslim women and children fleeing your onslaught.

There's a substantial number of people who would fully disagree with you on that matter.
Democracy in the literal Greek means 'peoples power' and is about total political equality, and the natural extension of this is economic equality, true equality, so that no citizen has economic or political advantage over the next one, and then merit be the only decider. So education too is essential for democracy. Given the Swiss system is not as good as the old Athenian one, it's still acceptable.

Well I guess I would
K.

As Andaluciae said, democracy is not a virtue in and of itself. Democracy can, and has, had disastrous consequences; poor decisions made democratically are still poor decisions. If me and my friends decide, democratically, that the sky is red, or to eat poison ivy, or that we should beat up the next black guy we see, the sky is still blue, the poison ivy still bad for us and we are still being racist.

Democracy, especially brute democracy without any thought to the individual, is not some wonder salve that can be applied to cure all ills.

K.

As Andaluciae said, democracy is not a virtue in and of itself. Democracy can, and has, had disastrous consequences; poor decisions made democratically are still poor decisions. If me and my friends decide, democratically, that the sky is red, or to eat poison ivy, or that we should beat up the next black guy we see, the sky is still blue, the poison ivy still bad for us and we are still being racist.

Democracy, especially brute democracy without any thought to the individual, is not some wonder salve that can be applied to cure all ills.
You see, when it comes down to it, the only argument people can muster against democracy is the oligarchic 'well the people are stupid' notion. As I said earlier, education is key to democracy, it is in the interests of the political/economic minority elites to decrease education and divorce the masses from politics so the 'best men' can run the country. Democracy is a virtue in of itself.

Given the Swiss system is not as good as the old Athenian one, it's still acceptable.
The Athenian model of democracy was terrible!

Sexist, racist, discriminatory against the poor, to name but a few flaws, it produced an elitist society that regarded all outsiders as savages worthy of slavery.

See Thucydides' History of the Peloponnesian War and Aristotle's Politics for more details.

The Athenian model of democracy was terrible!

Sexist, racist, discriminatory against the poor, to name but a few flaws, it produced an elitist society that regarded all outsiders as savages worthy of slavery.

See Thucydides' History of the Peloponnesian War and Aristotle's Politics for more details.
Dude, I am talking about the constitution and system of government, which most scholars admit, was solid. So the franchise was restricted, that was just traditions of the time, keep in mind this was thousands of years ago, and keep in mind when women in the US got the vote etc. The Athenian system under universal suffrage would be perfect, especially if you read some of the 'inclusive democracy' work from Takis Foutolous (a Greek scholar) about implementing it today with economic reforms.

<snip>
Do you even read the posts you reply to Andaras?

Where exactly did I say that the people are stupid, or where did I start spouting elitist, oligarchic notions?

Have you seen my political compass score?

Do you believe that a bad decision taken democratically is a good decision?

How am I serving the interests of the elites?

Would you eat poison ivy or attack some innocent dude just because a majority of people told you to? Really?

I think the whole deporting families thing is going too far but I do think they have some good ideas. Of course, it is difficult when dealing with a foreign criminal who's under 18 but there are other ways, such as deferring deportation until they reach 18. I think it's a good idea to increase the deportation of foreign criminals and also a good idea to tighten up on immigration, particularly if it's costing them money through their social security. And I don't think it's Switzerland's responsibility to let anybody in if there's even a hint of involvement in islamist politics. They have good naturalisation laws as well, it's far too easy in Britain, we could do with taking a leaf out of their book.

Overall I admire Switzerland, they keep their noses out of other countries' problems and stop getting dragged into their conflicts. I like how that SVP man Schlüer told the UN guy to butt out of what doesn't concern him. Plus they seem to do a good job of efficiently running their own country, all while keeping a political system going which seems to be the closest thing to direct democracy in the world.

Who is best placed to decide what is a good decision or virtuous result if not the people? Should everyone have the same morals?

Switzerland still has a ways to go to catch up with Belarus and Kaliningrad, if it really wants to compete for "Heart of Darkness" status. I mean, in Kaliningrad they don't even accept checks or credit cards, cash or jewelry only, please!
Actually, Kaliningrad is quite nice these days. It's where the Russian Oligarchs meet the German Oligarchs to sip champagne and exchange their thoughts on the newest version of the Beemer 7 Series.

http://www.spiegel.de/international/spiegel/0,1518,463530,00.html

So I'd say it's a toss-up between Belarus and Moldavia.

As for the OP: you're not actually surprised, are you? That's what the SVP is all about. Germany's only protected because of its reaction to anything that even sounds remotely Nazi. Otherwise the DVU/NPD coalition would be part of government as well.

Dude, I am talking about the constitution and system of government, which most scholars admit, was solid.
The constitution embedded deep inequality into Athenian life. That's what the 'Athenian Model' was.

So the franchise was restricted, that was just traditions of the time, keep in mind this was thousands of years ago, and keep in mind when women in the US got the vote etc. The Athenian system under universal suffrage would be perfect, especially if you read some of the 'inclusive democracy' work from Takis Foutolous (a Greek scholar) about implementing it today with economic reforms.
So how is the Athenian model of democracy, with limited suffrage, better than the Swiss model, with universal suffrage?

The Athenian system required slaves and housewives to run the households (including the business) of citizens, so those citizens could give almost all their time to the city and its institutions. Who would take the place of the slaves today?


EDIT: For those interested, AP was referencing Takis Fotopoulos, whose website is here (http://www.democracynature.org/fotopoulos/). Interestingly AP, I believe Fotopoulos would have some beef with you and your Leninist views.

It's people like these that give assimilation a bad name.

No, I am not joking about invading Switzerland. We, as a civilized people, cannot allow this 19th century thinking to be permitted in the world, much less Europe. People must be brought into the 21st century, by force and pain of death, if necessary.

So, we should invade other countries that promote pre-21st century thoughts? I think the list would be large.

Bah, who cares about Switzerland? They're not even a has-been, they're a never-was. If they want to reenact the good old fashioned xenophobic nationalism that went out of style in the 1950's, go ahead. I'm sure they'll only suffer because of it.

Good for them. Extra-european immigration hasn't worked, it isn't working, and integration is nothing short of an unteneble dream; I agree with every policy they have in this respect.

Dude, I am talking about the constitution and system of government, which most scholars admit, was solid. So the franchise was restricted, that was just traditions of the time, keep in mind this was thousands of years ago, and keep in mind when women in the US got the vote etc. The Athenian system under universal suffrage would be perfect, especially if you read some of the 'inclusive democracy' work from Takis Foutolous (a Greek scholar) about implementing it today with economic reforms.

Athenian democracy was, admittedly, superior to our own; limited suffrage ensured that those who participated were literate, intelligent and politicised, viewing their role not as an inconveniance but as a genuine delight. However, Athenian love of sophistry, debate and the prevarication ensueing still saw it defeated by monocratic rivals.

Athenian democracy was, admittedly, superior to our own; limited suffrage ensured that those who participated were literate, intelligent and politicised, viewing their role not as an inconveniance but as a genuine delight. However, Athenian love of sophistry, debate and the prevarication ensueing still saw it defeated by monocratic rivals.

Although it's also true that many of those rivals have been more or less forgotten, their achievements having no lasting value or influence. On the other hand, the principles of Athenian democracy, philosophy and culture are still celebrated today as a watershed moment in the evolution of human thought, politics, and culture.

Although it's also true that many of those rivals have been more or less forgotten, their achievements having no lasting value or influence. On the other hand, the principles of Athenian democracy, philosophy and culture are still celebrated today as a watershed moment in the evolution of human thought, politics, and culture.

Would you rather endure defeat, economic, social and logistical collapse and everything then following, warmed by the knowledge you might be considered important in two millenia, or be rich, powerful and comfortable in the present?

Good for them. Extra-european immigration hasn't worked, it isn't working, and integration is nothing short of an unteneble dream; I agree with every policy they have in this respect.
As far as I can tell, all those Czech doctors, Polish teachers, Australian waitresses, American scientists, African nurses, etc., are keeping our economy afloat. Not to mention their countrymen doing all the jobs you and I refuse to do.

Would you rather endure defeat, economic, social and logistical collapse and everything then following, warmed by the knowledge you might be considered important in two millenia, or be rich, powerful and comfortable in the present?
I'd rather live in somewhere without political elitism, slavery or tyranny, TYVM. ;)

But killing 'savages' or kicking out the black sheep sounds right up your alley...

Well, if that's what the people want, that's democracy, and we should not question it.

So if the people - rather, the majority - democratically voted to dip you in hot tar and set you on fire, you would not question it? After all, it's what "the people" want. ;)

Looks like I'm going to have to move all of my money to different international shadow accounts :p. Scrubbing the Benjamins has gotten to be really difficult when trying to find a banking institution that will allow me to operate in a politically correct fasion.

Looks like I'm going to have to move all of my money to different international shadow accounts :p. Scrubbing the Benjamins has gotten to be really difficult when trying to find a banking institution that will allow me to operate in a politically correct fasion.

Caymans are better anyways.

No, I am not joking about invading Switzerland. We, as a civilized people, cannot allow this 19th century thinking to be permitted in the world, much less Europe. People must be brought into the 21st century, by force and pain of death, if necessary.

We cant allow Iraq to support terrorism. We, as a civilized people, cannot allow extremist thinking to be permitted in the world, much less in a strategic region like the Middle East. People must be made moderate, by force and pain of death, if necessary.

Caymans are better anyways.

Yeah, but they're a bit pricey for their services. I suppose I could just go straight to them, but then it's raising a red flag just a wee bit higher for those FBI guys.

The Athenian model of democracy was terrible!

Sexist, racist, discriminatory against the poor, to name but a few flaws, it produced an elitist society that regarded all outsiders as savages worthy of slavery.

See Thucydides' History of the Peloponnesian War and Aristotle's Politics for more details.

Technically, that would be their laws around citizenship, not their democratic model. All citizens were allowed to vote, but citizenship was limited to men with an Athenian father. There was also a period where voting was mandatory for retaining citizenship.

You see, when it comes down to it, the only argument people can muster against democracy is the oligarchic 'well the people are stupid' notion. As I said earlier, education is key to democracy, it is in the interests of the political/economic minority elites to decrease education and divorce the masses from politics so the 'best men' can run the country. Democracy is a virtue in of itself.

Actually, the argument is that the people in a fit of passion can make mistakes, just as any other ruler in a fit of passion can. As we would all be well advised to recognize, an inflamed individual, much like an inflamed polity, is more likely to choose poorly when impassioned. Which is why, in liberal democracies, we use Constitutional measures to make the process slow and deliberate (oooooh! Double Entendre!). We encourage discussion and debate, as well as introspection of our own beliefs. Self doubt.

Furthermore, we seek to foster debate and discussion, and as a mechanism to encourage these things we also guarantee the rights of the minority, so as to not have a chilling effect on their speech. After all, a minority of the people might just be right, and if they have a chance to voice their opinions, they might be able to break through the noise before its too late. Without minority rights, there would be little prevent them from being raped by a majority, flush with victory, perhaps simply because they disagreed with them, usually using "purity" as a justification for whatever they might do.

Furthermore, your example of Athenian democracy is flawed. Athens was hardly a democracy in any sense. Women were denied suffrage and Athenian society held many slaves in bondage. It was notoriously unstable, it pilfered money from its neighbors constantly, was imperialist, and was quite prone to make awful judgments based solely on vindictive personality issues (see: Socrates meets Hemlock tea). In many ways the democracy of Athens was little different from any of the other tyrants of the era, they just wore white robes and wrote the history books.

So, we should invade other countries that promote pre-21st century thoughts? I think the list would be large.

Context is the key. Sure, there are dozens of nations abusing human rights, North Korea, Iran, Myanmar, etc. But this is a nation grossly abusing Human Rights in Europe. All European nations are held to a much higher standard then other nations. We must stop this Racist, nationalist, sexist, and homophobic thought before it spreads across it's boarders to the other civilized nations.

Switzerland belongs to the swiss and not to immigrants. If they want tight controls on who can come in and become swiss, that is their issue, not anyone else's.

It is not a human rights violation to refuse citizenship to foreigners.

A poster campaign, the work of its leading political party, is decried as xenophobic. Has Switzerland become Europe's heart of darkness?" By Paul Vallely


See, I don't accept that the SVP is Switzerland's "leading party." The Swiss parliament is bicameral, consisting of the National Council and the Council of States. Each Council has equal powers, according to the Swiss Constitution (Chapter 2, Section 1, Article 148) (http://www.admin.ch/ch/itl/rs/1/c101ENG.pdf). In the National Council, seats are distributed according to proportional representation, while in the Council of States seats are distributed according to "first-past-the-post" plurality.

According to the basic political science literature, the key is that proportional representation balances representation across all (qualified) parties, whereas "first-past-the-post" plurality tends to lead to the hegemonic positioning of a minority of parties (typically exactly two parties). Thus, the power of dominant parties is amplified in the "first-past-the-post" system (Council of States), while the same power is dampened in the proportional representation system (National Council).

The SVP does hold the largest number of seats in the National Council, at 55 seats (http://www.parlament.ch/e/homepage/ra-raete/ra-fraktionen/ra-fraktionen-47-legislaturperiode.htm), but this alone doesn't make it a "leading party." Because the National Council is a system of proportional representation, other parties also hold large numbers of seats. (http://www.parlament.ch/e/homepage/ra-raete/ra-fraktionen/ra-fraktionen-47-legislaturperiode.htm) Thus a coalition of even just two of the other major parties can easily outnumber the SVP. Thus, while the SVP might represent more "extreme" policy, the proportional design of the National Council acts to check the ability of the SVP to implement it.

In the Council of States, where this check does not exist, owing to the "first-past-the-post" plurality design, the SVP holds the least number of seats (http://www.parlament.ch/e/homepage/ra-raete/ra-fraktionen/ra-fraktionen-47-legislaturperiode.htm). Interestingly enough, in the chamber of parliament where party power can be asserted most strongly, the more moderate parties possess the largest share of seats. (http://www.parlament.ch/e/homepage/ra-raete/ra-fraktionen/ra-fraktionen-47-legislaturperiode.htm)

I would hypothesize that the Swiss voter is more willing to accept the large presence of the SVP in the National Council exactly because the National Council provides better control over its more "extreme" policy (if necessary, a coalition of other more moderate parties can more easily outnumber the SVP). This control does not exist in the Council of States, thus the Swiss voter appears far more hesitant to award the SVP more than the fewest number of seats. Somewhere in the SVP platform there is general policy in which the Swiss voter finds merit (perhaps support for the general ideology of "neutrality" or "independence"), but the actual distribution of seats clearly demonstrates the desire of the Swiss voter to keep the SVP's more "extreme" policy well under control.

So I wouldn't worry too much. Considering that Switzerland is home to all kinds of international human rights organizations and other movements, I've no doubt that the opposition to "extreme" policy is quite strong. The media simply focuses on those who support such policy because of the shock value. At any rate, we need to wait for the 48th Legislative in order to see how the SVP gains or loses seats before we can start speculating about the impact of this poster campaign or other activities.

It's their country, if they want to imprison primarily foreigners because of statistics and for security...let them.

This should be a lesson for all - Want out of your shit country? Don't immigrate to Switzerland.

Honestly, look at what France is doing with their Muslims now under Sarkozy [I'm rooting for him..] ...

Learn to realize that things are just going to happen, and your pitter patter cries over the internet is not going to bring the iron hand of justice into play else where.

Turn the cheek, enjoy your life, and think of it this way - Hell, it ain't you that it's happening too.

Have a problem with how I chose to view this, then fine...that's your problem. Expect me to respond, no...I wouldn't, I'm going to be here in a bit...ie, try to sleep for the next 5 hours.

Well, I hope my pitifully evil soul rests well tonight on these thoughts.

They weren't actually neutral in WWII. They just said they were because they new that we would kick their asses if they said that they were Nazi's.

They weren't actually neutral in WWII. They just said they were because they new that we would kick their asses if they said that they were Nazi's.
Hey, who are we to tell them not to be occupied?

Hey, who are we to tell them not to be occupied?Us, because the people occupying them were also occupying our buddies.

It's people like these that give assimilation a bad name.

They put the 'ass' in assimilation? :)

Slightly off-topic:

Just giving the Athenian democratic model a bad name because they endorsed slavery and didn't have any womens rights is essentially quite silly to say the least. Almost every nation upon the earth at that time had slavery and didnt have universal suffrage. To compare it with contempary Switserland is therefor quite moot.

(Actually Switserland comes out even worse because they only had universal suffrage at the 70s in a world where almost every democratic nation had womens rights and votes)

Secondly, democracy isn't just about voting for crying out loud otherwise it would just be the dictatorship of the majority.

Switzerland belongs to the swiss and not to immigrants.
No, Switzerland is split into lots of little pieces, and people own those lots of little pieces.

"Switzerland" as a geographic entity doesn't belong to "the Swiss". They just happen to be associated with each other.

What do you guys think about this? I strongly encourage reading the whole article.

Rampant sensationalism, 'tis what it is.

(Actually Switserland comes out even worse because they only had universal suffrage at the 70s in a world where almost every democratic nation had womens rights and votes)
Actually, not all of Switzerland's cantons gave their women the right to vote in the 70's. One canton held out until the 1990's!:eek:
They weren't actually neutral in WWII. They just said they were because they new that we would kick their asses if they said that they were Nazi's.
Actually, they were very neutral and there was a very strong anti-nazi feeling in Switzerland because the Swiss are very fond of their soverignty and indepedence. Anyway, Switzerland was very valuble for spies and "diplomats" between the Allies and Germany, exchanging money/information/defecting...ect.
No, Switzerland is split into lots of little pieces, and people own those lots of little pieces.

"Switzerland" as a geographic entity doesn't belong to "the Swiss". They just happen to be associated with each other.
Switzerland is split into cantons, but the Swiss of each canton own those cantons. As such, they can decide who they wish to let, and who not to let, into their cantons.
Rampant sensationalism, 'tis what it is.
No, actually. It addresses a very important problem facing Switzerland and Europe as a whole.

Bah, who cares about Switzerland? They're not even a has-been, they're a never-was. If they want to reenact the good old fashioned xenophobic nationalism that went out of style in the 1950's, go ahead. I'm sure they'll only suffer because of it.
....Uh? Are we talking about the same Switzerland? Nationalism has is what protects Switzerland. They would have much to lose by opening up to the European Union and such. The thing about Switzerland is they like to help people IN THOSE PEOPLE'S RESPECTIVE COUNTRIES. That's why they have all these international organizations centered in Switzerland....but the Swiss want to keep their country to themselves. Switzerland is a unique paradise, and would lose that by opening itself up.

Slightly off-topic:

Just giving the Athenian democratic model a bad name because they endorsed slavery and didn't have any womens rights is essentially quite silly to say the least. Almost every nation upon the earth at that time had slavery and didnt have universal suffrage. To compare it with contempary Switserland is therefor quite moot.

(Actually Switserland comes out even worse because they only had universal suffrage at the 70s in a world where almost every democratic nation had womens rights and votes)

Secondly, democracy isn't just about voting for crying out loud otherwise it would just be the dictatorship of the majority.

It is. Either that or a moronocracy.

(Actually Switserland comes out even worse because they only had universal suffrage at the 70s in a world where almost every democratic nation had womens rights and votes)


My understanding is that it wasn't until 1971 that the Federal government adopted women's suffrage (I'm not aware of any place on Earth that has "universal" suffrage; the vote is widely restricted by some standard, such as age or criminal conviction, etc.) as federal policy. But individual Cantons had been adopting women's suffrage since 1958. Apparently Appenzell Innerrhoden held out until forced by the Federal Supreme Court of Switzerland to adopt women's suffrage in 1990.

There was a similar process in terms of time frame in Canada. Canada adopted women's suffrage at the federal level in 1918. But Quebec held out as the last province to do the same until 1940.

It took the United States 51 years to get complete women's suffrage from the first individual states to a complete federal policy. It took Canada 24 years. It took Switzerland 32 years.

In terms of starting the process, Switzerland held out until a much later time than the United States or Canada. But once initiated, the process took a similar amount of time. Another similarity between the three is the federal structuring (states, provinces, cantons) and a strong tradition of deferring thereto.

No, I am not joking about invading Switzerland. We, as a civilized people, cannot allow this 19th century thinking to be permitted in the world, much less Europe. People must be brought into the 21st century, by force and pain of death, if necessary.

That very philosophy of "make them think like us through force" is the very 19th century thinking that you claim to be against in the first place.


Great way to be a hypocrite.

*Idly throws the words 'Verdingkinder'* & 'Jenische'** into the thread*

Yes, the Swiss have a history of being, in essence, the European version of the most stereotypical versions of the American south you can find. Somehow, I'm not surprised by anything that's happening now.

* Essentially, child slavery, practised at least until the late forties/ early fifties. Probably right into the sixties and early seventies, too.

** Ties in with the former. Taking children away from gypsies to raise them into good and proper citizens. In prisons, or as the aforementioned Verdingkinder. Practise continued until 1972.

Just because the people want it doesn't mean it's the right thing. People in the South wanted to blacks to be second-class citizens. Should they have been allowed to do so?

..Switzerland is a unique paradise, and would lose that by opening itself up.

Your sudden concern for all things Swiss is very touching. I'd imagine when you typed that, somewhere in the back of your brain was left something that we could use to trace how "keep the darkies out and away from our wimmin folk" got changed into"unique paradise and would lose that by opening itself up" without great trouble.

ASwitzerland is split into cantons, but the Swiss of each canton own those cantons. As such, they can decide who they wish to let, and who not to let, into their cantons.
No, they don't own the cantons either.

People own their properties, and that's it. If they don't want to brown people on their property - fine, though it makes them arseholes. Beyond that, I'm afraid they'll just have to act like humans.

That very philosophy of "make them think like us through force" is the very 19th century thinking that you claim to be against in the first place.


Great way to be a hypocrite.

Not if it is Correct thought. Incorrect thought (like what the OP references) is 19th century.

I don't know what all this fuss is about to be honest. Different nation, different way of doing things. Personally, I may not agree with their policies, but far be it from me to tell them how to run their own country.

Good for the Swiss. In Canada it takes forever to get rid of crooks, yet the fucking lefties scream "they're deporting 17000 people a year!!!". Yeah, and we should kick out more.

If you wanna invade, declare war on us because that's how things are done out here in the west... y'all. Ha-Ha.

Jesus, I'm such a redneck.

I think is just a shallow attempt by Eurocrats to get the last, free, non-EU Central European country into their Soviet Union styled coalition of nations under the guise of protecting the only people they have, ironically, have a worse track record with then Switzerland.

Malta isn't in the EU just because it's immigration laws are way to 'loose', in the sense that America would sooner roll over and die, instead of rolling over and dying, then rolling over in the grave some more, when compared to European mainland immigration laws.

*Idly throws the words 'Verdingkinder'* & 'Jenische'** into the thread*

Yes, the Swiss have a history of being, in essence, the European version of the most stereotypical versions of the American south you can find. Somehow, I'm not surprised by anything that's happening now.
Except that Switzerland enjoys a higher standard of living than the major Western European nations surrounding it and also has an extremely advanced economy, not to mention a very clean and efficient soceity.
Your sudden concern for all things Swiss is very touching. I'd imagine when you typed that, somewhere in the back of your brain was left something that we could use to trace how "keep the darkies out and away from our wimmin folk" got changed into"unique paradise and would lose that by opening itself up" without great trouble.
Actually, it's a known fact that Switzerland has much to lose and everything to gain by opening up to European integration with the EU and uncontrolled immigration. Why do you think Switzerland HAS been holding out?
No, they don't own the cantons either.

People own their properties, and that's it. If they don't want to brown people on their property - fine, though it makes them arseholes. Beyond that, I'm afraid they'll just have to act like humans.
No. They own their cantons by the communities they build. These communities have been together for generations and generations, and have a strong feeling of connection between them. It's not some American gated community where neighbors don't know each other. The community (and there is a community here, don't deny it) owns the Cantons and can restrict who enters the Cantons and what the Cantons wish to accept or reject (within reason, which is why there does exist a larger government in Switzerland beyond canton level).

No. They own their cantons by the communities they build. These communities have been together for generations and generations, and have a strong feeling of connection between them. It's not some American gated community where neighbors don't know each other. The community (and there is a community here, don't deny it) owns the Cantons and can restrict who enters the Cantons and what the Cantons wish to accept or reject (within reason, which is why there does exist a larger government in Switzerland beyond canton level).
How does that equate to exclusive ownership? Hey, if they all want to form their own little club and only talk to one another, we can't stop them (though again, it would make them arseholes).

But denying others physical proximity? How are you going to justify that?

Democracy is a virtue in of itself.No. Andaluciae is correct; democracy is virtuous because it most often leads to virtuous decisions.

No, actually. It addresses a very important problem facing Switzerland and Europe as a whole.Indeed. Racism and xenophobia are problems.

Except that Switzerland enjoys a higher standard of living than the major Western European nations surrounding it and also has an extremely advanced economy, not to mention a very clean and efficient soceity.Yes, absolutely. Very clean and efficient. So clean and efficient, they cut out everything that doesn't neatly fit in, submitting to the glory that is swiss conservatism.

Including humans.

Anyway. What was your point again? I observe that you quoted me, yet you didn't actually write anything even remotely relating to the quote.

Pity, that.

Indeed. Racism and xenophobia are problems.

The mating call of the left; "Racism and Xenophobia". Has it occurred to you that immigration, multiculturalism and the like might be opposed for a ream of factors; it is undeniably socially divisive, if not properly regulated, it is economically counter-productive, it contributes to overrpopulation of deprived areas hence causing building in green belts, and it creates a disproportionate increase in crime.

But noooooooooooooooooooo, it could only be because we don't like those damn darkies eh?

'The Times' should be ashamed for publishing such a hit-piece on Switzerland. 'The Times', it seems, prefers to overlook the very real problems facing Europe, and instead takes the typical PC route of attacking without logic.

The mating call of the left; "Racism and Xenophobia". Has it occurred to you that immigration, multiculturalism and the like might be opposed for a ream of factors; it is undeniably socially divisive, if not properly regulated, it is economically counter-productive, it contributes to overrpopulation of deprived areas hence causing building in green belts, and it creates a disproportionate increase in crime.

But noooooooooooooooooooo, it could only be because we don't like those damn darkies eh?Pretty much, given the focus on immigrants from outside Europe.

'The Times' should be ashamed for publishing such a hit-piece on Switzerland. 'The Times', it seems, prefers to overlook the very real problems facing Europe, and instead takes the typical PC route of attacking without logic.

I wouldn't expect the Times to support such a policy in honesty. The Telegraph bloody well ought to, but the Times target audiance would not subscribe to a piece supporting such a policy, what with them being metropolitan, pretentious Londoners for the most part.

How does that equate to exclusive ownership? Hey, if they all want to form their own little club and only talk to one another, we can't stop them (though again, it would make them arseholes).

But denying others physical proximity? How are you going to justify that?
Because it's their community, and I beleive in borders. If the United States of America has reason to beleive that it would be a negative impact to the nation to allow immigrants from the former Yugoslavia into their nation, and the citizens of America agree on it, then it is their nation to decide that. Same concept applies to these Swiss communities.

Pretty much, given the focus on immigrants from outside Europe.
Actually, wrong, but way to jump to conclusions. A main focus of the "anti-immigrant" crowd, has to deal with immigrants from the former Yugoslavia.

Actually, wrong, but way to jump to conclusions. A main focus of the "anti-immigrant" crowd, has to deal with immigrants from the former Yugoslavia.Okay, let me rephrase.

Pretty much, given the focus on immigrants who have religions that Europeans typically don't like.

No, Switzerland is split into lots of little pieces, and people own those lots of little pieces.

"Switzerland" as a geographic entity doesn't belong to "the Swiss". They just happen to be associated with each other.


So you want us to believe that someone other than the swiss make swiss laws?

I insist you tell us who this is, this group that actually owns and controls the CH.

Otherwise, confine posts that don't present any relevant new information to the spam forum and to things like 'postcount +1.'

Pretty much, given the focus on immigrants from outside Europe.

I object to Eastern European immigrants every iota as much as those from outside the EU. I'm offended you'd think otherwise:)

Yes, absolutely. Very clean and efficient. So clean and efficient, they cut out everything that doesn't neatly fit in, submitting to the glory that is swiss conservatism.

Including humans.

Anyway. What was your point again? I observe that you quoted me, yet you didn't actually write anything even remotely relating to the quote.

Pity, that.
You were saying how pathetic Swiss soceity is by comparing them (wrongly) to the American South. I showed you that actually, Swiss soceity is generally better than most of the world, including Western Europe.

I think is just a shallow attempt by Eurocrats to get the last, free, non-EU Central European country into their Soviet Union styled coalition of nations under the guise of protecting the only people they have, ironically, have a worse track record with then Switzerland.

Malta isn't in the EU just because it's immigration laws are way to 'loose', in the sense that America would sooner roll over and die, instead of rolling over and dying, then rolling over in the grave some more, when compared to European mainland immigration laws.

Wa wa we wah?

How does that equate to exclusive ownership? Hey, if they all want to form their own little club and only talk to one another, we can't stop them (though again, it would make them arseholes).

But denying others physical proximity? How are you going to justify that?

I don't know if you know this or not, but a country has this thing called sovereignty and also, if it is a democracy like the CH, it has a thing called popular rule.

What this means is that the people get together and take a vote, and whatever is approved by a majority of the people becomes law with the force of their country behind it.

The ability to exercise such deep and profound control over their country makes them the owners of it.

So, if the CH wants to make it difficult for foreigners to enter the country or to live there, they can use the mechanisms of their government to enact laws to that effect, because they have that legitimate power over their territory.

Because it's their community, and I beleive in borders.
I know you believe in borders, and it has no relevance to the question at hand. I asked you to define the notion of ownership that allows people to bar others from moving outside their own property.

Tell me, if a great Swiss hero/celebrity/other important person to the Swiss community, wanted to leave Switzerland and live in Monaco instead, would you support refusing to allow that? Why? Why not?

I insist you tell us who this is, this group that actually owns and controls the CH.
The people who own the various properties that happen to be within the geographical area called Switzerland. Some of those are "public" properties, meaning they belong to the state, which graciously decides to let people wander across them. Or, like in Sydney right now, doesn't.

So, if the CH wants to make it difficult for foreigners to enter the country or to live there, they can use the mechanisms of their government to enact laws to that effect, because they have that legitimate power over their territory.
They have the power to do it. But there's jack all legitimacy about it.

Just because Switzerland is sovereign or ruled by a democracy doesn't mean that the majority can do whatever it pleases. That principle has been established quite a while ago.

There's no justification for excluding people from migrating. They don't affect the community if people won't let them participate, if they bum around and receive welfare money it's no different to a Swiss person bumming around and receiving welfare money.

The only reason to exclude them from entering one's physical proximity is for aesthetic reasons. Racists getting offended by brown people, nativists and conservatives getting offended by anyone or anything that's different, ultra-catholic types getting offended by people with a different religion. Old people getting offended by languages they haven't heard before.

None of these can be considered legitimate reason to stop someone's freedom to move across geographical distances, nor should we be making any effort to excuse them.

If I and a bunch of my buddies decide to pick up some beer and a bunch of porn and move into your living room for the next 2 weeks you would be a racist xenophobe if you objected ???

I know you believe in borders, and it has no relevance to the question at hand. I asked you to define the notion of ownership that allows people to bar others from moving outside their own property.

Tell me, if a great Swiss hero/celebrity/other important person to the Swiss community, wanted to leave Switzerland and live in Monaco instead, would you support refusing to allow that? Why? Why not?


The people who own the various properties that happen to be within the geographical area called Switzerland. Some of those are "public" properties, meaning they belong to the state, which graciously decides to let people wander across them. Or, like in Sydney right now, doesn't.


They have the power to do it. But there's jack all legitimacy about it.

Just because Switzerland is sovereign or ruled by a democracy doesn't mean that the majority can do whatever it pleases. That principle has been established quite a while ago.

There's no justification for excluding people from migrating. They don't affect the community if people won't let them participate, if they bum around and receive welfare money it's no different to a Swiss person bumming around and receiving welfare money.

The only reason to exclude them from entering one's physical proximity is for aesthetic reasons. Racists getting offended by brown people, nativists and conservatives getting offended by anyone or anything that's different, ultra-catholic types getting offended by people with a different religion. Old people getting offended by languages they haven't heard before.

None of these can be considered legitimate reason to stop someone's freedom to move across geographical distances, nor should we be making any effort to excuse them.

It is not a human rights violation to deny foreigners the same status as citizens.

The individual property owners of Switzerland have agreed to be bound by the laws of the swiss nation and their various localities, and to give those laws the same force as they would their private whims regarding their private property. Ergo, the swiss people are the owners of Switzerland.

The swiss have every right to preserve their unique culture if they choose to. Multi-culturalism is not a duty that people have, it is a choice they make.

Sorry Neu Leonstein but your libertarian ideology does not override the indivisibility of the sovereign nation state and it's autonomy to do as it will.

...People must be brought into the 21st century, by force and pain of death, if necessary.

Doesn't make sense

The individual property owners of Switzerland have agreed to be bound by the laws of the swiss nation and their various localities, and to give those laws the same force as they would their private whims regarding their private property. Ergo, the swiss people are the owners of Switzerland.

The swiss have every right to preserve their unique culture if they choose to. Multi-culturalism is not a duty that people have, it is a choice they make.
I think he'd probably argue that the Swiss people haven't actually agreed to be bound by those laws, it's just an accident of their birth, and that any attempts to excercise their will collectively over the nation is illigetimate. I think he's someone who only sees a country as a collection of individuals and nothing more.

Personally I disagree. I think there's more to a nation than just a collection of individuals and I also think that however you run a country you can't please everyone. So I'd sooner just say "fuck it" and accept that than make an even worse job of things by taking the libertarian approach that I think Neu Leonstein would go for (Though correct me if I'm wrong on that one).

I BEFRIEND CHESTNUTS;13036479']I think he'd probably argue that the Swiss people haven't actually agreed to be bound by those laws, it's just an accident of their birth, and that any attempts to excercise their will collectively over the nation is illigetimate. I think he's someone who only sees a country as a collection of individuals and nothing more.

Personally I disagree. I think there's more to a nation than just a collection of individuals and I also think that however you run a country you can't please everyone. So I'd sooner just say "fuck it" and accept that than make an even worse job of things by taking the libertarian approach that I think Neu Leonstein would go for (Though correct me if I'm wrong on that one).

That's the crux of it - he refuses to accept or does not understand the way things are in the real world, and instead focuses on a completely trivial ideology of fantasy.

Communism and anarchism are the same way.

If I and a bunch of my buddies decide to pick up some beer and a bunch of porn and move into your living room for the next 2 weeks you would be a racist xenophobe if you objected ???
Three things:

I don't know whether you and your mates are foreign or are a different race.

Are your mates cool? If so, who says I'd object?

I own my living room (or rather, my parents purchased the right to live in and exclude most others from that living room). I don't own Australia, and Australia doesn't own me.

It is not a human rights violation to deny foreigners the same status as citizens.
Would it be a human rights violation to deny you to move to a different city within your country?

The individual property owners of Switzerland have agreed to be bound by the laws of the swiss nation and their various localities, and to give those laws the same force as they would their private whims regarding their private property. Ergo, the swiss people are the owners of Switzerland.
I'd call this agreement sketchy at best, but I believe I'm already having that debate. And the agreement with any of the individual laws may well be non-existent. Still, this is one of the better arguments I've heard.

The swiss have every right to preserve their unique culture if they choose to. Multi-culturalism is not a duty that people have, it is a choice they make.
And Swiss people can be as Swiss as they want. Whether a Turk lives next door doesn't change their Swiss-ness one bit.

I BEFRIEND CHESTNUTS;13036479']-snip-
I think you captured me quite well there. To you I'd just say that "Fuck it" leaves people power to decide over the lives and wellbeings of others for no other reason that they want to and have the guns to enforce it.

In reality that's how it works, but that doesn't make it right.

So if the people - rather, the majority - democratically voted to dip you in hot tar and set you on fire, you would not question it? After all, it's what "the people" want. ;)

Bump.

It is not a human rights violation to deny foreigners the same status as citizens.

The individual property owners of Switzerland have agreed to be bound by the laws of the swiss nation and their various localities, and to give those laws the same force as they would their private whims regarding their private property. Ergo, the swiss people are the owners of Switzerland.

The swiss have every right to preserve their unique culture if they choose to. Multi-culturalism is not a duty that people have, it is a choice they make.

Well said.

Switzerland, and every other nation in this world, is under no obligation to destroy their own uniqueness because millions of foreigners seek to move in. There seems to exist a universal welfare mentality; something is owed to you by others. This didn't exist in the past. It's a recent phenomena born of stupid domestic policies.

There seems to exist a universal welfare mentality; something is owed to you by others.
Huh? How is peacefully coexisting with others a transfer that can be owed?

Fuck immigrants .:sniper::mp5::upyours:

Fuck immigrants .:sniper::mp5::upyours:
Well, I'm an immigrant. So if you want to list your specific grievances, I'd be happy to sort out the issues.

Don't forget more of those delightful smilies. Make you look sophisticated.

There seems to exist a universal welfare mentality; something is owed to you by others.
Indeed, and this is good, we all owe ourselves to the community which made us and we owe it everything. Neoliberals simply like to peddle capitalist myths like the 'self-made man' and 'personal responsibility' to remove themselves from social responsibility.

I know you believe in borders, and it has no relevance to the question at hand. I asked you to define the notion of ownership that allows people to bar others from moving outside their own property.
The ownership of the community. When a group of people get together and form a community, they can decide who can join and who cant. It's like any high school/university club.
Tell me, if a great Swiss hero/celebrity/other important person to the Swiss community, wanted to leave Switzerland and live in Monaco instead, would you support refusing to allow that? Why? Why not?
No, I would not support refusing that. The community can not allow people to leave, because that does not add any (in their opinion) negative outside influences into the community, it's just that guy leaving. The state should not control if you can LEAVE, but it should control who may enter. It's like your house. You control you may enter, but once people are inside, they may leave whenever they want....there is no problem with that.

And Swiss people can be as Swiss as they want. Whether a Turk lives next door doesn't change their Swiss-ness one bit.
No, because if more and more of said "Turks" moved in, this would institute a culture flop and then the inevitable white flight. Much like areas of South Florida, or Southern California or Detriot....after culture flops affected the areas.
Well said.

Switzerland, and every other nation in this world, is under no obligation to destroy their own uniqueness because millions of foreigners seek to move in. There seems to exist a universal welfare mentality; something is owed to you by others. This didn't exist in the past. It's a recent phenomena born of stupid domestic policies.
I agree. Well said. Where you from, man?
Well, I'm an immigrant. So if you want to list your specific grievances, I'd be happy to sort out the issues.

Don't forget more of those delightful smilies. Make you look sophisticated.
:DCouldn't help but laugh. Somehow I knew you'd reply to that idiot.

The ownership of the community. When a group of people get together and form a community, they can decide who can join and who cant. It's like any high school/university club.


... except for the rules clubs generally have against discrimination?

Indeed, and this is good, we all owe ourselves to the community which made us and we owe it everything. Neoliberals simply like to peddle capitalist myths like the 'self-made man' and 'personal responsibility' to remove themselves from social responsibility.

A quick and easy answer would be to cite John Rawls and the difference principle, dearest.

Ugh. Weak minded fool! You're mental powers are obviously nothing compared to mine.:rolleyes:
It can apply to anything. From "cliques" in high school, to organizations and Frats in college where if the group doesn't like you, they can expell you...or they can choose to not offer you entrance. Sure there is "anti-discrimination" rules...but they are more like guidlines anyway. And plus, everyone "discriminates". "Discriminate just means to choose and to exclude based on things you don't like. Any group that is not just a general admission group "discriminates" because it "excludes" to stick to it's theme. For instance, a all male group doesn't have to say "we hate women"...to not let women join. They can just not accept any women who apply to join, and just state that she does not meet qualifications or something like that.

You don't have any problem with that?

... except for the rules clubs generally have against discrimination?
Ugh. Weak minded fool! You're mental powers are obviously nothing compared to mine.:rolleyes:
It can apply to anything. From "cliques" in high school, to organizations and Frats in college where if the group doesn't like you, they can expell you...or they can choose to not offer you entrance. Sure there is "anti-discrimination" rules...but they are more like guidlines anyway. And plus, everyone "discriminates". "Discriminate just means to choose and to exclude based on things you don't like. Any group that is not just a general admission group "discriminates" because it "excludes" to stick to it's theme. For instance, a all male group doesn't have to say "we hate women"...to not let women join. They can just not accept any women who apply to join, and just state that she does not meet qualifications or something like that.

You don't have any problem with that?
Of course not. I like diversity of groups with different themes....not just all bland general groups with no themes.

For instance, I make a group that only people who speak German with a Swiss accent can join. Then I discriminate against people who want to join but cannot speak German with a Swiss accent. Is this bad? No. It's keeping the theme of my group from being diluted. It is discrimination though. Do you think it's unnacceptable to do this?

Joining a group and joining a community are not the same thing, as one lives and often works within the community. The group is just for people who share similar interests. It's not prohibiting people from joining your group who don't fit the requirements; it's prohibiting people who don't fit the requirements from being on the same university campus. Despite what you may say about the community deciding who can and cannot join, the last time I checked it wasn't legal for the residents of my street to get together and stop the sale of a home in the street to a black family, for example. The immigrants will not dilute Swiss culture, since as NL said the Swiss can practice their culture all they like. If they leave the area because they can't stand the sight of brown people, then that's their own damn problem.

Indeed, and this is good, we all owe ourselves to the community which made us and we owe it everything. Neoliberals simply like to peddle capitalist myths like the 'self-made man' and 'personal responsibility' to remove themselves from social responsibility.

What do I owe to my "community"? I've attended a different school to the rest of the chav lower middle class numpties, I have a different social network, and have spent as little time there as possible. All I owe my "community" in the geographical sense is the quite justifiable sense of superiority I feel when looking at the poor fools.

Joining a group and joining a community are not the same thing, as one lives and often works within the community. The group is just for people who share similar interests. It's not prohibiting people from joining your group who don't fit the requirements; it's prohibiting people who don't fit the requirements from being on the same university campus. Despite what you may say about the community deciding who can and cannot join, the last time I checked it wasn't legal for the residents of my street to get together and stop the sale of a home in the street to a black family, for example. The immigrants will not dilute Swiss culture, since as NL said the Swiss can practice their culture all they like. If they leave the area because they can't stand the sight of brown people, then that's their own damn problem.

No, it's not legal in the USA.

If the Swiss wish to democratically vote that people from X country can't immigrate, why do we have the business to tell them not to? Will of the people and all that.

Any person has the right to tell any other person to keep off their property. If the Swiss as a collective wish to decide that they don't want certain people on their collective property, how is that 'bad' or 'illegal'?

Besides which, the Times article is vastly sensationalized, and I'm willing to bet that the reality is a good deal less interesting.

I'll comment back after I get some sleep.

Morge muess ech am 7 uufstoh, gopferteckel!:headbang:

:(
What's wrong with people?

*snip*

When the UN starts to do something about the other troubles on this planet, then maybe I will care what the UN has to say.

:(
What's wrong with people?

Indeed, it is sick that so many people feel such antipathy toward the good swiss people that they would have their nation's just laws subverted and their culture destroyed on the altar of multi-culturalism.

There is nothing inherently right or wrong about multi-culturalism, it is a choice each society must make. When foreigners come to be guests in a country, it is up to that country how long they can stay and how they should live.

Some countries are obligated by their laws, their culture and their traditions to accept all comers - the United States is like this, but some countries are not.

It is the prerogative of every people to decide, if they choose, to maintain their way of life in keeping with their traditions, especially if those traditions do not violate human rights.

especially if those traditions do not violate human rights.Human rights...do you mean like freedom of movement?

No, because if more and more of said "Turks" moved in, this would institute a culture flop and then the inevitable white flight. Much like areas of South Florida, or Southern California or Detriot....after culture flops affected the areas.


Jesus, if you're the culture, I say let it flop to fuck.....

I'll comment back after I get some sleep.




How can you sleep? WAKE UP WHITE MAN!!!!!!!

The Swiss have always defined the right-wing extreme of Europe (well, excepting the brief period in the early 20th century when the Germans managed to outpace them). I think it even took them until the 70's to give women the vote.

Women were granted the right to vote in the first Swiss cantons in 1959, at the federal level in 1971, and after resistance, in the last canton Appenzell Innerrhoden in 1990. After suffrage at the federal level women quickly rose in political significance, with the first woman on the seven member high council being Elisabeth Kopp from 1984–1989. The first female president was Ruth Dreifuss, elected in 1998 to become president during 1999. (The Swiss president is elected every year from those among the seven member high council). The second female president currently holds the 2007 Swiss high office, Micheline Calmy-Rey. She is originally from the French-speaking western area of canton Valais (Wallis in Swiss German). She is presently joined on the seven member cabinet/high council by a second woman, Doris Leuthard, from the canton Aargau.
(from wiki)

How many female presidents have the US got till today?

The fact that the Swiss women have got political right very late is somewhat balanced by the fact that Swiss women, today, are very active in politics and have already achieved the higest places of the federal government.
Germany: first Bundeskanzlerin in 2005, Angela Merkel.
France: never got a female President de la Republique or PM.
Italy: never got a female Presidente della Repubblica or Presidente del Consiglio dei Ministri. Highest office held by women, Presidente della Camera dei Deputati (speaker of the lower house), by Nilde Iotti in the '80s and Irene Pivetti in the '90s.

Maybe the Swiss were late, but now they're clearle ahead of many others.

No, because if more and more of said "Turks" moved in, this would institute a culture flop and then the inevitable white flight. Much like areas of South Florida, or Southern California or Detriot....after culture flops affected the areas.
That doesn't exactly explain how a Swiss guy would suddenly no longer be Swiss if both his neighbours were Turks.

That doesn't exactly explain how a Swiss guy would suddenly no longer be Swiss if both his neighbours were Turks.

Following the well thought out ideas of Atlantis there, I'd say that their "Turkness" would seep through the walls, and cause his "cultural flop". Having thus been unmanned he'd have to convert to Islam, develop "Turkness" and lower the price of his house, to stop it flopping and get it back up. This will continue until the entire Canton turns into a Caliphate.

Having thus been unmanned he’d have to convert to Islam, develop “Turkness” and lower the price of his house, to stop it flopping and get it back up. This will continue until the entire Canton turns into a Caliphate.
*nods*

It’s an inevitable flop.

Living, as I do, in a city with many different peoples and cultures all mashed together, I can hardly go one day without culturally flopping. As I write this text, I am flopping at about 45°, dangerously close to flopping completely.

It’s all this vibrant culture, fantastic food, boosts to the economy and general enriching of social life that does it.

Damn those flopping bastards!!

*waves fist*

No, it's not legal in the USA.

If the Swiss wish to democratically vote that people from X country can't immigrate, why do we have the business to tell them not to? Will of the people and all that.

Any person has the right to tell any other person to keep off their property. If the Swiss as a collective wish to decide that they don't want certain people on their collective property, how is that 'bad' or 'illegal'?

Besides which, the Times article is vastly sensationalized, and I'm willing to bet that the reality is a good deal less interesting.

The rule of the majority fails. Half the point of democracy is to protect minorities, not to have the majority screw them over. Godwin, but one can make the same argument for allowing the Swiss to round racial or national group X up and send them to gas chambers with the same amount of credibility.

Unless the Swiss government are now suddenly a Marxist regime and own all the land in the nation, all they can do is keep the immigrants off government property. The government doesn't own Switzerland.

The rule of the majority fails. Half the point of democracy is to protect minorities, not to have the majority screw them over. Godwin, but one can make the same argument for allowing the Swiss to round racial or national group X up and send them to gas chambers with the same amount of credibility.
Since Switzerland grants human rights to every human on its land, there's no risk of gas chambers.
Becoming citizen or immigrating ISN'T a human right, however. It is a civil right, and, as such, it isn't inalienable. A sovereing country has every right to decide whether to allow some person to immigrate, or no.

Unless the Swiss government are now suddenly a Marxist regime and own all the land in the nation, all they can do is keep the immigrants off government property. The government doesn't own Switzerland.

Clearly you don't understand very much about law and representation...

Following the well thought out ideas of Atlantis there, I'd say that their "Turkness" would seep through the walls, and cause his "cultural flop". Having thus been unmanned he'd have to convert to Islam, develop "Turkness" and lower the price of his house, to stop it flopping and get it back up. This will continue until the entire Canton turns into a Caliphate.
Aah, so that's why I can't get a stiffy - the darkies and sand n*****s are making me completely culturally flopped!

Aah, so that's why I can't get a stiffy - the darkies and sand n*****s are making me completely culturally flopped!

It's because they're seducing and kidnapping all the white women. *nods*

Human rights...do you mean like freedom of movement?
International freedom of movement will never be a universal human right until the abolishment of borders and soverignty.

(not that it should be, I'm just saying)

If a community does not wish to accept you into their community, there is no "freedom" or "right" that allows you to move into their community.

Jesus, if you're the culture, I say let it flop to fuck.....
Awww, so kind of you to say that. Fortunatly, I don't live in your community so I could give a shit what you think about me on a personal level. In reality, however..I am quite a nice guy, very intelligent and fun to be around. :)
How can you sleep? WAKE UP WHITE MAN!!!!!!!
I'm hardy a white nationalist or anything like that, so please..give up. If you notice I argue for national soverignty and such..not for "White alliance/White Nation" or whatever other stupid ideas White Nationalists preach.:rolleyes:
Following the well thought out ideas of Atlantis there, I'd say that their "Turkness" would seep through the walls, and cause his "cultural flop". Having thus been unmanned he'd have to convert to Islam, develop "Turkness" and lower the price of his house, to stop it flopping and get it back up. This will continue until the entire Canton turns into a Caliphate.
It's actually a very common case, where immigrant communities grow, a immigrant "ghetto" grows. Areas like Switzerland, Germany, Scandinavia, Holland ect didn't have ghettos* until the immigrant communities established themsleves as these ghettos. Malmoe, in southern Sweden is a PERFECT example of this. Do you know anything of Malmoe? There has already been a culture flop there. I strongly suggest you check it out.

*Since I know you'll jump on "ghettos" and "Germany"...I mean ghettos in the sense of immigrant neighborhoods that have a different culture/religion/community/ethnicity than the people of the country that the ghetto is geographically located in...NOT a Jewish ghetto artificially constructed during Nazi times or anytihng like that.
That doesn't exactly explain how a Swiss guy would suddenly no longer be Swiss if both his neighbours were Turks.
It's not an individual case, but of a community situation. For instance, if on your street, there are 30 houses, and 20 of them become taken by immigrant families, the dominant culture on the block is the immigrant culture, NOT the Swiss culture, which is the culture of the canton that engulfs that street. You are asssuming that people are all the same! People are different and so are cultures and they often times conflict!

It’s not an individual case, but of a community situation. For instance, if on your street, there are 30 houses, and 20 of them become taken by immigrant families, the dominant culture on the block is the immigrant culture, NOT the Swiss culture, which is the culture of the canton that engulfs that street.
That’ll be the dominant multicultural Swiss culture with four languages, influenced by the many countries surrounding it, yes?

You are asssuming that people are all the same!
No, we know that people are different and ‘difference’ doesn’t equal ‘bad’.

Since Switzerland grants human rights to every human on its land, there's no risk of gas chambers.
Becoming citizen or immigrating ISN'T a human right, however. It is a civil right, and, as such, it isn't inalienable. A sovereing country has every right to decide whether to allow some person to immigrate, or no.
Exactly. Even more so in Switzerland where such soverignty and power is given to each Canton community. Well said.


Clearly you don't understand very much about law and representation...
I get the feeling he doesn't.
Women were granted the right to vote in the first Swiss cantons in 1959, at the federal level in 1971, and after resistance, in the last canton Appenzell Innerrhoden in 1990. After suffrage at the federal level women quickly rose in political significance, with the first woman on the seven member high council being Elisabeth Kopp from 1984–1989. The first female president was Ruth Dreifuss, elected in 1998 to become president during 1999. (The Swiss president is elected every year from those among the seven member high council). The second female president currently holds the 2007 Swiss high office, Micheline Calmy-Rey. She is originally from the French-speaking western area of canton Valais (Wallis in Swiss German). She is presently joined on the seven member cabinet/high council by a second woman, Doris Leuthard, from the canton Aargau.
(from wiki)

How many female presidents have the US got till today?

The fact that the Swiss women have got political right very late is somewhat balanced by the fact that Swiss women, today, are very active in politics and have already achieved the higest places of the federal government.
Germany: first Bundeskanzlerin in 2005, Angela Merkel.
France: never got a female President de la Republique or PM.
Italy: never got a female Presidente della Repubblica or Presidente del Consiglio dei Ministri. Highest office held by women, Presidente della Camera dei Deputati (speaker of the lower house), by Nilde Iotti in the '80s and Irene Pivetti in the '90s.

Maybe the Swiss were late, but now they're clearle ahead of many others.
Also have to imput that not only have the Swiss had two female presidents, but the first one you mentioned, Frau Dreifuss was not only a woman but also JEWISH. So, to all you ignorant fools out there just insulting Switzerland but not actually knowing anything, perhaps pick up a book or open up Wiki and find out that Switzerland is not an ignorant backwards untolerant hick-land.:rolleyes:

That’ll be the dominant multicultural Swiss culture with four languages, influenced by the many countries surrounding it, yes?
Not really. That'll be the dominant culture of the communities/cantons that have been being brought up so much in this thread. I don't know if you know, but each Swiss canton is given alot of soverignty in Switzerland.

No, we know that people are different and ‘difference’ doesn’t equal ‘bad’.
Difference equals bad when you want stability, community and cohiesion. Anyway, who's to say all cultures are equal and there are not better cultures/values and worse cultures/values?

It's not an individual case, but of a community situation. For instance, if on your street, there are 30 houses, and 20 of them become taken by immigrant families, the dominant culture on the block is the immigrant culture, NOT the Swiss culture, which is the culture of the canton that engulfs that street. You are asssuming that people are all the same! People are different and so are cultures and they often times conflict!
That's doesn't make the Swiss any less Swiss, regardless of how many immigrants they have next door or on their street. There's nothing preventing them from speaking Romansch, French, German or Italian, eating Swiss cheese, or whatever Swiss people do that they think defines their culture, in the same way there is nothing preventing any immigrants from doing whatever they think defines their culture. As such, it hardly matters whether the 'dominant' culture of my street is different to the street, canton or county next to it or in which it resides: any Swiss citizens will not suddenly become an immigrant should immigrants move in next door, and neither will he cease to be a part of whatever Swiss community his neighbours left.

Malmoe, in southern Sweden is a PERFECT example of this. Do you know anything of Malmoe? There has already been a culture flop there. I strongly suggest you check it out.

Do you know anything about Malmø?

Last I checked, there wasn't any culture flop there. It was, always has been and seems to always will be the kind of border city between Sweden and Denmark.

As such, it hardly matters whether the 'dominant' culture of my street is different to the street, canton or county next to it or in which it resides: any Swiss citizens will not suddenly become an immigrant should immigrants move in next door, and neither will he cease to be a part of whatever Swiss community his neighbours left.
Actually, what tends to happen ALOT is a culture flop of the area along with a White flight, that is...the economically better off and culturally/ethnically similiar to what the national/regional ethnicties tend to be LEAVE the area because the immigrant community drags down the community/region. This has happend to multiple areas of America and Western/Northern/Central Europe. Malmö, a city in Southern Sweden addressed below...is a PERFECT example of that. See below:
Do you know anything about Malmø?

Last I checked, there wasn't any culture flop there. It was, always has been and seems to always will be the kind of border city between Sweden and Denmark.
Check again.
"Malmö has the highest proportion of individuals of non-Scandinavian extraction of any Swedish city. It remains a city of sharp social divide and high unemployment."

"In 1995, Malmö had Sweden's largest unemployment rate."

"Immigrants form nearly 40% of the population of Malmo, the third-largest city."

"They feature largely on welfare rolls, have higher jobless rates and push up crime.

There are also fears radical Islamic groups are finding terrorism recruits in Sweden.

In October, 2005, a 19-year-old Swede, a refugee from Yugoslavia, was arrested in Sarajevo in an apartment that contained suicide-bomb vests and explosives.

To encourage greater integration and to underline efforts to re-emphasize Sweden's Western values, the government wants to ban girls under 15 from wearing veils, introduce mandatory medical examinations to detect ritual genital mutilation, end arranged marriages and cut off state funding for religious schools."

Leader of the Danish People's Party of Denmarl, Pia Kjaersgaard said: "If they want to turn Stockholm, Gothenburg or Malmö into a Scandinavian Beirut, with clan wars, honour killings and gang rapes, let them do it. We can always put a barrier on the Øresund Bridge." (Clan wars, honor killings and gang rapes in Sweden!?!?..Oh, by the way..Malmö, Stockholm and Gothenburg all have large immigrant communities/ghettos)
Read this:
http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/938

International freedom of movement will never be a universal human right until the abolishment of borders and soverignty.Certainly; however most people believe that freedom of movement is a human right. The existence of borders contradicts this.

If a community does not wish to accept you into their community, there is no "freedom" or "right" that allows you to move into their community.If the community doesn't believe in freedom of movement, then this is true. If the community does believe in freedom of movement, then there is the right to move into the community.

Do the Swiss have laws protecting freedom of movement?

Well, if that's what the people want, that's democracy, and we should not question it.

AP, the majority of NSG wants to disembowel you. Perhaps you should just surrender to the majority and not question their attacks on you.

1) Based on what little I know of Switzerland's history and its modern culture reported to me by Swiss expatriots, I'd have to say that anyone who is surprised that such an obviously racist and xenophobic party has a strong voice in Switzerland just needs to read more about Switzerland. Let's be honest, folks -- Switzerland wouldn't be the tiny, ultra-"neutral" enclave it is if the natives didn't hate outsiders. It wouldn't even exist if the natives didn't hate outsiders so strongly that they beat back invasion attempts viciously enough to earn an evil reputation, until the Florentine bankers of the late 1500s figured out that they could use these bull-headed refusniks to safeguard their gold for international transactions.

2) It is possible that racism, per se, would not be such an issue in Switzerland, if the natives of that region had originally come in different colors. But xenophobes typically find shallow ways to demonize outsiders, and color is an obvious point of difference, and so most xenophobes also are or act like racists. Color is especially noticeable in the case of Switzerland, since -- no, I won't make the non-pc joke, even though I do enjoy giving bigots doses of their own medicine -- but not this time. So, the black sheep thing is not surprising, whether the anti-immigrant feeling in Switzerland actually is limited to immigrants of one color or not.

3) We must remember there is a price for everything in this world, so I favor letting the Swiss determine their own destiny. If they want to be hysterical racist xenophobes, let them be that. The price for it will be loss of tourism revenue and loss of power and status in their transactions with the EU, especially as EU countries become more full of the kinds of people the Swiss like to insult. Let them enjoy their tiny little snow white population in the blessed isolation that will give them freedom to do what they like and the rest of the world freedom from having to listen to their ignorant bullshit.

But if they expect to be rewarded by others for their ignorant bullshit, that would be asking too much. The price is the price, and it must be paid. Let the Swiss lie in whatever bed they choose to make for themselves.

Just like in NSG, when people want to post page upon page of racist crap while insisting that they are not racists, they are and should be completely free to do so -- but they must accept that the price for their freedom is page upon page of ridicule and disrespect. Just as the price of my freedom to ridicule them is that I would have to spend my time doing that instead of talking to people who I don't think are full of crap.

It just occurred to me: I wonder if the Swiss are so a-scared of "culture flop" that they are checking the sources and holders of all those numbered accounts? Another detail from Swiss history is that they tend to be very uptight about the horrible influences of foreign cultures when it comes to sharing their own stuff with people they can see, but when it comes to actually taking money from people far away, they don't care who they deal with or how -- whether it was robbing dead or exiled Jews decades ago, or laundering the funds of their own enemies now.

Indeed, let the Swiss reap whatever they choose to sow.

In Belgium the same is happening.

One party called Vlaams Belang is doing comparable stuff as the Swiss parties.

And I like it.

20 years ago you didn’t saw a lot of Islamite girls wearing a veil. Now most of them do.
The Minarets were not that high in numbers, now they are on every corner in some areas of the big cities.

They demand that we, Belgians, should adapt our laws, so they can wear that veil when doing a job in a public environment, like a teacher, a policewoman, etc...

And that’s for me and about 35% of the people a bridge too far.

Take Saudi Arabia. Women can’t drive there. I can’t drink my beer (oh well, it’s more difficult to get). I know that. If I want to move in, I have to accept.
If I don’t then I’ll be jailed or I could choose to stay away.

I prefer the last one.

But those Muslims want it all. They come to here, breed a light speed, swallow our social security system and WE should adopt their religion lifestyle.

So one party Vlaams Belang, says NO. And they are also very clear in their messages:

"Go back home, where you belong”

Or

“I, as host can invite guests, but when the party is over, the guests are supposed to leave the building”

Look, Belgium and Switzerland are rather small countries. We don’t have enough room for everyone. Belgium is already having the highest density per square mile in the world (well, I believe we are 2nd place…)

Switzerland is somehow bigger, but it is loaded with mountains. (btw, that’s why it’s stupid to invade them)

And we have more troubles with them. Most 'small' criminals are Muslims. No, it has nothing to do with their religion. But that's for real! You see the same amounts in other European countries.

Or we could jail those ‘small’ criminals are return them to sender.

I prefer the last option.

Not really. That’ll be the dominant culture of the communities/cantons that have been being brought up so much in this thread. I don’t know if you know, but each Swiss canton is given alot of soverignty in Switzerland.
Yes, the ‘dominant’ culture, made up of a mix of varied peoples, ethnicities, sub-cultures and general fun, as in any country.

Difference equals bad when you want stability, community and cohiesion.
So how are the majority of countries/cultures in the world relatively stable, with all their disparate elements? Look at any culture in the world, excluding perhaps small, isolated tribal cultures, and the first thing you’ll notice is that you can’t point to any single characteristic, attitude or belief that every single member of that culture agrees with or practices.

Modern cultures cannot be boiled down to a small set of characteristics; they’re far too varied. I may have shared geographic background with my neighbours, but I certainly don’t share their beliefs, attitudes, customs, etc., and I’m thankful for that. It makes for a much more interesting and rewarding social experience.

Anyway, who’s to say all cultures are equal and there are not better cultures/values and worse cultures/values?
Not me.

Cultural relativism is a load of jobbies.

Actually, what tends to happen ALOT is a culture flop of the area along with a White flight, that is...the economically better off and culturally/ethnically similiar to what the national/regional ethnicties tend to be LEAVE the area because the immigrant community drags down the community/region. This has happend to multiple areas of America and Western/Northern/Central Europe. Malmö, a city in Southern Sweden addressed below...is a PERFECT example of that. See below:
If whites want to go for white flight, it's their decision and their problem, not anyone else's, if you can't stand being around 'the darkies'.

In Belgium the same is happening.

One party called Vlaams Belang is doing comparable stuff as the Swiss parties.

And I like it.

20 years ago you didn’t saw a lot of Islamite girls wearing a veil. Now most of them do.
The Minarets were not that high in numbers, now they are on every corner in some areas of the big cities.

They demand that we, Belgians, should adapt our laws, so they can wear that veil when doing a job in a public environment, like a teacher, a policewoman, etc...

And that’s for me and about 35% of the people a bridge too far.

Take Saudi Arabia. Women can’t drive there. I can’t drink my beer (oh well, it’s more difficult to get). I know that. If I want to move in, I have to accept.
If I don’t then I’ll be jailed or I could choose to stay away.

I prefer the last one.

But those Muslims want it all. They come to here, breed a light speed, swallow our social security system and WE should adopt their religion lifestyle.

So one party Vlaams Belang, says NO. And they are also very clear in their messages:

"Go back home, where you belong”

Or

“I, as host can invite guests, but when the party is over, the guests are supposed to leave the building”

Look, Belgium and Switzerland are rather small countries. We don’t have enough room for everyone. Belgium is already having the highest density per square mile in the world (well, I believe we are 2nd place…)

Switzerland is somehow bigger, but it is loaded with mountains. (btw, that’s why it’s stupid to invade them)

And we have more troubles with them. Most 'small' criminals are Muslims. No, it has nothing to do with their religion. But that's for real! You see the same amounts in other European countries.

Or we could jail those ‘small’ criminals are return them to sender.

I prefer the last option.
Enough with the Evil Muslim conspiracies already.

The Minarets were not that high in numbers, now they are on every corner in some areas of the big cities.

For all my time in Brussels, I've never seen one minaret.

Nor have I seen any in Copenhagen.

Are you sure you know what a minaret looks like?

Also, Vlaams Belang is more than just anti-immigration, they're anti-everything that isn't exactly like us.

Also, Vlaams Belang only has 25% of the support in Vlaanderen, so that's about roughly 12,5% of the people in Belgium, not 35%.

Look, Belgium and Switzerland are rather small countries. We don’t have enough room for everyone. Belgium is already having the highest density per square mile in the world (well, I believe we are 2nd place…)

You want statistics?

top 10:
#1 Macau: 20,824.4 people per sqkm
#2 Monaco: 16,486.7 people per sqkm
#3 Hong Kong: 6,571.14 people per sqkm
#4 Singapore: 5,539.77 people per sqkm
#5 Gibraltar: 4,486.92 people per sqkm
#6 Gaza Strip: 3,090.71 people per sqkm
#7 Bermuda: 1,249.44 people per sqkm
#8 Malta: 1,192.51 people per sqkm
#9 Bahrain: 1,014.66 people per sqkm
#10 Maldives: 1,000.73 people per sqkm

Belgium is:
#30 Belgium: 336.82 people per sqkm

Awww, so kind of you to say that. Fortunatly, I don't live in your community so I could give a shit what you think about me on a personal level. In reality, however..I am quite a nice guy, very intelligent and fun to be around. !

...well the first two I've seen no evidence of, but my 5 year nephew might think a man in a white sheet was trying to be Casper, so I'll have to concede the latter.....

I'm hardy a white nationalist or anything like that, so please..give up. If you notice I argue for national soverignty and such..not for "White alliance/White Nation" or whatever other stupid ideas White Nationalists preach.:rolleyes:
!

I've read enough of your crap to know you try to intellecualise your own bigotry. And your still "flopping".

It's actually...............it out.
!

There was no areas with a different culture where outsiders weren't welcome?
I can think of a few like that, and theres nothing there but white faces.....

"Immigrants form nearly 40% of the population of Malmo, the third-largest city."

Actually, it's closer to 26% (Wikipedia), but just keep referring to people born in Sweden, by immigrants, as immigrants. I'm sure the 14% Swedes you're referring to will like that.

There are also fears radical Islamic groups are finding terrorism recruits in Sweden.

I know Malmø is in Sweden, but this doesn't say anything about Malmø.

In October, 2005, a 19-year-old Swede, a refugee from Yugoslavia, was arrested in Sarajevo in an apartment that contained suicide-bomb vests and explosives.

Notice how he was arrested in Sarajevo and not Malmø...

To encourage greater integration and to underline efforts to re-emphasize Sweden's Western values, the government wants to ban girls under 15 from wearing veils, introduce mandatory medical examinations to detect ritual genital mutilation, end arranged marriages and cut off state funding for religious schools."

Notice again how it mentions Sweden and not Malmø...

Leader of the Danish People's Party of Denmark, Pia Kjaersgaard said: "If they want to turn Stockholm, Gothenburg or Malmö into a Scandinavian Beirut, with clan wars, honour killings and gang rapes, let them do it. We can always put a barrier on the Øresund Bridge."

And you know what? She was very heavily berated for saying that, both in Denmark and in Sweden, for two reasons - 1) Sweden and Denmark are both part of the Scandinavian treaty and putting a barrier up is simply not acceptable and 2) Saying that solves none of the problems and only creates greater division among those willing to solve them.

How many female presidents have the US got till today?
At what point did the US become a part of Europe?

Props to the Swiss for finally starting to do what needs to be done. Hopefully the rest of Western civilization will soon wake up, so we can avoid a repeat of AD 476. Or worse yet, 1453.

Props to the Swiss for finally starting to do what needs to be done. Hopefully the rest of Western civilization will soon wake up, so we can avoid a repeat of AD 476. Or worse yet, 1453.

476, fall of the roman empire I presume? Entry into the dark ages? That was mostly due to internal conflict and the germanic tribes though. And it's not as if the germanic tribes weren't themselves in the dark ages.

1453. Invention of the printing press! Woohoo! But I suppose you're talking about the fall of Constatinople? This time was the Ebil muzlims, I'll admit, but I don't really feel sorry for the Byzantine empire. They should have fallen back in 476.

The toll of the various incursions, yes on the internal strife...Few plagues and the inherent instability of a slave economy.

I hate the way these muslims bashers and right wing shites hop on dates in the past and then try to draw some modern allusion, when hitherto they neither knew understood or cared (and still don't the former two)...Yet bring up Reagan, death squads and the 1980's or the Shah of Iran and all of a sudden "THAT WAS THE PAST - it doesnt matter now".........

Props to the Swiss for finally starting to do what needs to be done. Hopefully the rest of Western civilization will soon wake up, so we can avoid a repeat of AD 476. Or worse yet, 1453.
Nah, we'll get obliterated by the Outsize Dhimini Meteor that the Evil Muslims are building on their secret Martian base first.

Props to the Swiss for finally starting to do what needs to be done. Hopefully the rest of Western civilization will soon wake up, so we can avoid a repeat of AD 476. Or worse yet, 1453.

A gross misrepresentation of the fall of Rome I feel. It was, one might readily contend, fatally flawed by its strength; a system that necessitated military expansion.

As for the fall on Constantinople; Byzantium was far from Western either in culture or society. It looked towards the Levant, not Europe, and should be considered as such.

However, history geekyness over, I quite agree that the Swiss are being bloody reasonable.

20 years ago you didn’t saw a lot of Islamite girls wearing a veil. Now most of them do.:eek: Oh no, not...clothing!
Fear the clothing scourge! Soon parkas will be crushing us! Soon scarves will strangle us in our sleep! We must fight back against this clothing menace!
I'll get the fabric shears, you get the starch!

:eek: Oh no, not...clothing!
Fear the clothing scourge! Soon parkas will be crushing us! Soon scarves will strangle us in our sleep! We must fight back against this clothing menace!
I'll get the fabric shears, you get the starch!

Too late! (http://tylerzander.com/images/burberry.jpg)

Too late! (http://tylerzander.com/images/burberry.jpg)

We're going to need drastic measures against that.

Somebody get LG on the phone, we're in need of his more unusual mud services :eek:

Sweden: Paradise Lost
Swedish Tolerance - A Rapidly Extinguishing HopeActually....
Ok, let's do this. I just asked a buddy of mine who's actually lived in Sweden who's very up on the conflict (and yes it very much is a conflict) there about this because I told him about this debate. He said these babies speak for themselves:

http://gatesofvienna.blogspot.com/2007/03/muslim-violence-crime-or-jihad.html
A high school teacher in Malmö discovered that about a dozen Arab students were laughing and shouting “Allahu Akbar!” while watching a DVD of infidel hostages being beheaded in Iraq. The headmaster didn’t think the incident was such a big deal. At least 139 schools in Sweden suffered arson attacks during 2002 alone, a number which by 2007 has grown to at least 230. Such as an incident in Malmö, where three schools were put on fire during one night. “Teenage boys” are suspected to behind the arson. Björn Vinberg from the fire department in Kroksbäck in the Malmö area says it’s humiliating and degrading to put out fires again and again in the same immigrant areas, with school kids laughing at them and lighting a new one just afterwards. His colleagues have been to the same place no less than twenty times, all totally unnecessary.http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/938
The number of rape charges in Sweden has quadrupled in just above twenty years. Rape cases involving children under the age of 15 are six times as common today as they were a generation ago. Most other kinds of violent crime have rapidly increased, too. Instability is spreading to most urban and suburban areas. Resident aliens from Algeria, Libya, Morocco and Tunisia dominate the group of rape suspects. Lawyer Ann Christine Hjelm found that 85 per cent of the convicted rapists were born on foreign soil or from foreign parents. The phenomenon is not restricted to Sweden. The number of rapes committed by Muslim immigrants in Western nations is so extremely high that it is difficult to view these rapes as merely random acts of individuals. Malmö in Sweden, set to become the first Scandinavian city with a Muslim majority within a decade or two, has nine times as many reported robberies per capita as Copenhagen, Denmark. Yet the number one priority for the political class in Sweden during this year’s national election campaign seems to be demonizing neighboring Denmark for “xenophobia” and a “brutal” debate about Muslim immigration. During last years Jihad riots in France, Sweden’s Social Democratic Prime Minister Göran Persson criticised the way the French government handled the unrest in the country. “It feels like a very hard and confrontational approach.” Persson also rejected the idea of more local police as a “first step” in Sweden. “I don’t believe that’s the way we would choose in Sweden. To start sending out signals about strengthening the police is to break with the political line we have chosen to follow,” he said. Meanwhile, as their authorities have largely abandoned their third largest city to creeping anarchy, there is open talk among the native Swedes still remaining in Malmö of forming vigilante groups armed with baseball bats out of concern for their children’s safety. As I argued in another essay: If Arnold Schwarzenegger fails to get re-elected as Governor of California he may like to do a sequel to “Conan the Barbarian.” He could shoot it in Malmö. He will get the extras for free.
http://gatesofvienna.blogspot.com/2006/05/new-york-times-and-sweden-dark-side-of.html
On the surface, Sweden is a tolerant nation and peaceful democracy. In reality, there is massive media censorship by a closed elite that is scared of having a debate about immigration. Opinion polls have revealed that two out of three Swedes doubt whether Islam can be combined with Swedish society. “It is not as wrong raping a Swedish girl as raping an Arab girl,” says Hamid, in an interview about another gang rape involving a Swedish girl and immigrant perps. “The Swedish girl gets a lot of help afterwards, and she had probably f**ked before, anyway. But the Arab girl will get problems with her family. For her, being raped is a source of shame. It is important that she retains her virginity until she marries.”“It is far too easy to get a Swedish whore…… girl, I mean;” says Hamid, and laughs over his own choice of words. “Many immigrant boys have Swedish girlfriends when they are teenagers. But when they get married, they get a proper woman from their own culture who has never been with a boy. That’s what I am going to do. I don’t have too much respect for Swedish girls. I guess you can say they get f**ked to pieces.” The number of rape charges in Sweden has quadrupled in just above twenty years. Rape cases involving children under the age of 15 are six times as common today as they were a generation ago. Resident aliens from Algeria, Libya, Morocco and Tunisia dominate the group of rape suspects. Lawyer Ann Christine Hjelm, who has investigated violent crimes in one court, found that 85 per cent of the convicted rapists were born on foreign soil or by foreign parents.

Also, I'd try reading the articles I linked to for tons of other fun facts and information. It's scary.
And if you don't like those, try these for the "nice" visual!
(Only the intro is in Swedish) http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=byQD8VPhvdM
(Here is the city of Malmö, though perhaps not exactly as you remember it, "last time you checked". Swedish medics can't enter some neighborhoods because they are afraid of being attacked and firefighters are attacked as they put out the fire of a mosque!)

<snip>
Lovely.

A Neo-Nazi blog, and a xenophobic discussion about Sweden, not Switzerland.

Wonderful proof that you’re not talking complete nonsense there Atlantian.

There are going to be nutters out there in all parts of the world, whether they be rabid racists, religious zealots or those who like Marmite. The thing to remember is that these people are in the vast minority, and a level-headed, rational approach to the small amount of trouble they cause is the only proper action.

No need to develop a phobia.

Lovely.

A Neo-Nazi blog, and a xenophobic discussion about Sweden, not Switzerland.

Wonderful proof that you’re not talking complete nonsense there Atlantian.

There are going to be nutters out there in all parts of the world, whether they be rabid racists, religious zealots or those who like Marmite. The thing to remember is that these people are in the vast minority, and a level-headed, rational approach to the small amount of trouble they cause is the only proper action.

No need to develop a phobia.
1. It's not a neo-nazi blog!:eek:
2.Him and I were in a discussion about Sweden, Malmoe in particular..though I admit it has nothing to do with Switzerland, but rather on the growing tensions in Europe as a whole.
3. That's just it...that "it's the vast minority" and "islam is peacful, it's just the minority" isn't really holding up to much scrutiny anymore and people are starting to realize that more and more.

1. It's not a neo-nazi blog!:eek:
Yeah. Everyone knows there's a clear difference between a race-romantic with an anti-immigrant agenda and a neo-nazi.

Just not on the key issues at hand.

2.Him and I were in a discussion about Sweden, Malmoe in particular..though I admit it has nothing to do with Switzerland, but rather on the growing tensions in Europe as a whole.
Tensions which you have of course a skewed view of, due to your self-confessed belief that mixing ethnic groups is bad because it destroys that fiction you call diversity and your dislike of the Islamic religion (which I can only speculate must come from your flawed understanding of the Arab-Israeli conflict, because you sure as hell don't know enough about the religion to hate it for a reason).

EDIT: Oh, and Malmö's economy is growing much faster than the Swedish average. And look what I found, from a reputable source: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/5348622.stm

3. That's just it...that "it's the vast minority" and "islam is peacful, it's just the minority" isn't really holding up to much scrutiny anymore and people are starting to realize that more and more.
You know, people didn't start believing in witches or evil Jews from one day to the next either. It took a concerted campaign over some time of repeating "evidence" and retelling the same old stories. In this case, it's "they're taking our women" - and you can even combine it with "they took our jerbs" or "they're taking our money" (which in ye olde days would of course have been "she poisoned my cow").

I am so sick of collectivism. I really am.

1. It’s not a neo-nazi blog!:eek:
It is rather confusing.

On the front page of the blog the authors applaud Neo-Nazi gains in Germany, link to other blog’s with names like ‘Templar Times’ and ‘Foehammer’s Anvil’, and indirectly sell merchandise depicting a mythological Norse warrior famous for killing many Muslims.

So, maybe not your classic Nazis, but certainly the blog certainly approves of authoritarian, violent oppression of certain ethnic groups; a lovely trait.

2.Him and I were in a discussion about Sweden, Malmoe in particular..though I admit it has nothing to do with Switzerland, but rather on the growing tensions in Europe as a whole.
So is Sweden now the “Heart of Darkness”?

3. That’s just it...that “it’s the vast minority” and “islam is peacful, it’s just the minority” isn’t really holding up to much scrutiny anymore and people are starting to realize that more and more.
For a start, I wasn’t talking about Islam in particular; unless you believe that the majority of the world’s population is engaged in violent religious extremism. I was pointing out the obvious fact that those who engage in irrational violence and other extreme measures are in the vast minority.

And care to show how the majority of the world’s 1.4 billion Muslims are violent?

Threads like this are so interesting to me because they don't just illustrate what other people are like, they also remind me of how conflicted I can be. Being a humanist, I admire a lot of what I've heard along the lines of "freedom of movement, multi-culturalism, humanity without borders, etc." Being a human-- that is, a homo sapien-- I understand and have a sympathetic gut reaction where people have said "forming groups and maintaining their integrity is legitimate." As a humanist who thinks about the world I wish all the noble ideals being talked about were the way of things, and think it's good to work towards evolving humanity's consciousness pursuant to that, but as a human who observes and lives in the world I know that we homo sapiens form (or are born into) tribes and packs and hives that compete for limited resources and a sense of security and a feeling of legitimacy and worthiness to survive.

As to the specific case of the Swiss and the shift in public and political attitudes-- the 'xenophobia' and 'racism' and 'discrimination'-- because those issues are in the here and now, idealism is nice but they have to be engaged realistically, on the basis of what is, not what would be 'ideal.' And realistically, we live in a world of nation-states; we're all humans living on Earth, yeah, but we also live in communities. They're largely defined by geographic boundaries, and for the purpose of self-organisation and maintenance they collaborate to define and evolve societal rules and conventions that we call their 'culture.' That culture interacts with external influences, assimilating some aspects of outside cultures and rejecting others. So do the people who live in a given culture 'belong to it' or does it 'belong to them?' Am I, for instance, Canada's citizen, or is Canada my country, or are both true? How much say do I have in defining Canada's culture, and do I (or we) have any right to say that it's exclusive? If Canada's society (as I'm born into it, or as it evolves subsequent to my birth into it) takes a turn that I don't like-- ie. it democratically enacts a law I disagree with-- should I try to change it more to my liking or should I leave? If Canada is letting in people that I don't like, because they're bringing in attitudes that offend me or whatever, should I rally a movement to kick them out to 'preserve Canada's cultural integrity' or, or is assimilating those outsiders-- absorbing and either changing, or being changed by their ideas-- in fact one of the defining characteristics of Canada, suggesting I'm the 'outsider' in my own culture? If 'equality' and 'democracy' and welcoming 'the other' are "Canadian values" then what if an influx of 'others' leads to the democracy becoming less egalitarian? What's the heirarchy of values, which do we work harder to maintain and which get comprimised? I suppose a big part of it is how much I trust the existing society's mechanisms to protect me? How much does one 'cell' (or citizen, like myself) in 'the body' (state) trust 'the brain' (government, culture, or whatever guiding/guided spirit of the community you invoke) to act in the interests of the whole body, or of individual cells?

People have brought up clubs and associations and how they form with specific mandates to serve specific interests, and those arguments appeal to me because as a member of a minority, being gay, I feel that in a society where there's homophobia it's perfectly legitimate to form gay groups where gay people can feel secure congregating and talking about how to advance our interests in being treated more justly. I also value the existence of gay bars for us to go to and socialise, without advances or propositions being met with "get away from me, fag/dyke!" But if I think "we should all be equal" and "get along" and society should be welcoming to us, where does that leave me when straight people want to come to 'our' bars or attend (some would say hijack) 'our' groups?

The closest I can come to an answer when I ask myself these questions is that-- as much as I like idealism-- in the imperfect world that I live in, I can work to evolve my community's (even, at risk of sounding ambitious, my species') consciousness but I also have to deal with the facts and confront reality realistically. Realistically, on the 'micro' scale (dealing with clubs and bars and smaller consentual groupings within the society I live in) as long as 'my group' is under threat-- as long as it's a target for discrimination and hate-- then it's legitimate to form 'safe' groups and erect safe spaces that exclude potential detractors from derailing our interests, which I take to be just. As we change the environment around us, making it more accepting, and as the threats decrease and the inclusion of 'the others' poses less of a risk of our being attacked from within, then we can become more open. What makes my group's cause just, even if we're a minority trying to change 'the majority's' environment? To me, it's a matter of what is and what isn't a choice. Being gay or straight is not a choice, it's an in-built human trait, while homophobia is a choice; the colour of one's skin is not a choice, it's an in-built human trait, while racism is a choice. And one's gender is not a choice, while sexism is. Religion, no matter how strong an individual's commitment and belief, is a choice that artificially divides people against their shared humanity. So I think justice and the higher virtues accept human diversity, and that groups united by their un-chosen traits in the face of ignorance and bigotry are legitimate, and excluding people on the basis of their chosen beliefs-- when those beliefs are toxic to a society or culture that accepts trait diversity-- is justifiable.

So does that translate to the 'macro' scale of nations and their cultures? Is Switzerland justified in becoming more insular and less welcoming of outsiders? Is Switzerland a willing association of individuals, like a club, with the right to insulate itself from influences that it's membership consider incompatible with their interests? What about those born there, with no say in their membership? Humanist-Me says that Switzerland is 'just geography' and should admit anyone who wants in, should accept diversity and through comprimise become better; but Human-Me says that ideal works best (or, perhaps, only works) when a certain critical mass of the population within and coming into the system can be trusted to uphold the higher virtues of trait-affirming diversity. Humanist-Me says "I want to believe that enough 'new Swiss' people share that existing community's values that they won't sabotage it once they're allowed in." Human-Me says "don't count on it, the would-be immigrants they're worried about mostly aren't affirming of diversity and would push the culture backwards in favour of ignorant, chosen bigotries." Is Human-Me right, or wrong? The Swiss politicians in the article would seem to think right, and if that's the case then they're willing to look like jerks and xenophobes in order to defend higher virtues and insulate their community against infiltration by those who would undermine its values.

A lot of people have weighed in on both sides of this, and unfortunately a lot of the loudest 'voices' have also been the most simplistic, which hurts an important debate. "Keep the darkies out" on one side, betraying base ignorance, and "you just want to 'keep the darkies out'" on the other side, presumptuously denying that anyone on 'that side' could have legitimate or reasoned concerns, relegating them all to the label of mere 'bigots.' Is it possible that the Swiss 'bigots' genuinely, sincerely believe that the outsiders they're trying to expel or keep out threaten to import attitudes corrosive to Swiss virtues? Undoubtedly, some of them are merely bigots who hate outsiders, but the assume all of them are is naive.

Anyway, I'm sure this was "TLDR" for a lot of people, and for many others it'll do nothing to open (much less change) their minds. It just seemed like a lot of people were just taking sides without providing any rationale, and certainly without acknowledging that it's a complex question where both sides can and do make legitimate points. For my part, I suck at empathising with others and am often stuck firmly on my side of ideological divides, but ironically, it's often the debates that draw those most like me where I actually feel that I've got a better view of the big picture to share.

Indeed, and this is good, we all owe ourselves to the community which made us and we owe it everything. Neoliberals simply like to peddle capitalist myths like the 'self-made man' and 'personal responsibility' to remove themselves from social responsibility.

So if the people - rather, the majority - democratically voted to dip you in hot tar and set you on fire, you would not question it? After all, it's what "the people" want. ;)

Still waiting for the answer, AP. :p

Sweden: Paradise Lost
Swedish Tolerance - A Rapidly Extinguishing Hope
Ok, let's do this. I just asked a buddy of mine who's actually lived in Sweden who's very up on the conflict (and yes it very much is a conflict) there about this because I told him about this debate. He said these babies speak for themselves:

http://gatesofvienna.blogspot.com/2007/03/muslim-violence-crime-or-jihad.html
http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/938

http://gatesofvienna.blogspot.com/2006/05/new-york-times-and-sweden-dark-side-of.html


Also, I'd try reading the articles I linked to for tons of other fun facts and information. It's scary.
And if you don't like those, try these for the "nice" visual!
(Only the intro is in Swedish) http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=byQD8VPhvdM
(Here is the city of Malmö, though perhaps not exactly as you remember it, "last time you checked". Swedish medics can't enter some neighborhoods because they are afraid of being attacked and firefighters are attacked as they put out the fire of a mosque!)

So, an blog (which even on the very surface of it screams neo-nazi by the way, I mean come on, gates of vienna? this thing is caught in the past!) about kids being stupid, because let's face it, some kids just are and it has very little to do with them being immigrants and more to do with them needing parents that actually value their education and welfare. In other words, the blog does find a problem, but being the baised source that it is, it automatically contributes any and all problems immediately to immigration, which is where it goes offtrack.

Okay, socialist mismanagement in Sweden? The mere fact that the journal implies that there is a mismanagement taking place in Sweden with regards to socialism makes me laugh. Also, one would imagine that including utopian with anything would automatically make it good. Funny how "Utopian Multiculturalism" suddenly means "Dystopian Multiculturalism". Also, it likes to switch paragraphs and sentences around, seemingly at will, from the article it quotes. Finally, the article leaves out the crucial part where one of the people involved in the making of the study say "Hate is too strong a word". A very picky article you found there - only picks out what it likes and then re-arranges it to fit its own picture? Also, Sweden doesn't need more than 5000 soldiers, so I don't see how their army fits into any of this.

And quite frankly, stop quoting gates of vienna, because it's clearly a xenophobic blog that isn't worth my time.

Fox news? you think I am going to ever take such a sensationalist news outlet seriously? They managed to turn 25% into 99% miraculously. That's how credible they are.

1. It's not a neo-nazi blog!

well, as the following puts it....
It is rather confusing.

On the front page of the blog the authors applaud Neo-Nazi gains in Germany, link to other blog’s with names like ‘Templar Times’ and ‘Foehammer’s Anvil’, and indirectly sell merchandise depicting a mythological Norse warrior famous for killing many Muslims.


Nazi? No!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! How could he possibly come to such a conclusion?

Most amounts you used are from city-states or small islands.

Belgium is a little country, but it's still a country.

Compare apples with bananas, please.

In the list of real countries Belgium is achieving the 8th place.

You were comparing areas of 1.49 square km like Monaco with the 30,528 square km of Belgium.

To give you an idea how crowdy Belgium is, we have 341 people living in one square km, in the US it's 31 people for each square km.
In Switzerland it's 176 people for each square km but most of it is not suited to build a house due the mountains.

Believe me, there's no room here. We can't handle tons of foreigners as some big countries could do.

Source:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_population_density

With statistics you can proof everything, more people die from slipping out their bath than from XTC, but no one is out there to outlaw baths

You want statistics?

top 10:
#1 Macau: 20,824.4 people per sqkm
#2 Monaco: 16,486.7 people per sqkm
#3 Hong Kong: 6,571.14 people per sqkm
#4 Singapore: 5,539.77 people per sqkm
#5 Gibraltar: 4,486.92 people per sqkm
#6 Gaza Strip: 3,090.71 people per sqkm
#7 Bermuda: 1,249.44 people per sqkm
#8 Malta: 1,192.51 people per sqkm
#9 Bahrain: 1,014.66 people per sqkm
#10 Maldives: 1,000.73 people per sqkm

Belgium is:
#30 Belgium: 336.82 people per sqkm

Maybe you are not a Muslim or you were not allowed to leave your cage.

17% of the people from Brussels is Muslim.

Hello! This is not some Arab country, this is the west.

And what do you think? That they don't go to their 'churches' ?

Get real. There are 328 mosques in Belgium.

Anyway, in the original posting, minaret is used as a metaphor for mosques. I took it over.

Vlaams Belang is anti everything? They are by instance pro life. It’s a conservative party and no I do not share all their points.

Compared to the American Republicans, Vlaams Belang are pussies. The Republicans are far more conservative as Vlaaams Belang. I did some test a few years ago and I showed the main party issues of the Vlaams Belang to about 50 Americans. They liked the party, but most of them said ‘they are not hardcore enough’

Vlaams Belang isn't doing business in the South of Belgium, the French speaking part. So that's why your amounts are showing 12,5% for Belgium.

One of the main goals of this party is achieving the independency of Flanders and thus the end of Belgium. The south isn’t interested.

Your're talking about Vlaams Belang only has 25% of the support in Vlaanderen...

The 25% is correct, I quoted from my head and I'm living in Antwerp, over here they reach about 30%-35% with each election. (and since Antwerp is the centre of the universe... :p)

But only 25% ? That's about 1 million people. That's making them the biggest party of Belgium.

While CD&V - NVA was scoring better results in the last elections, it are actually TWO parties, CD&V and NVA.


Source:

http://polling2004.belgium.be/en/vla/results/results_graph_etop.html


For all my time in Brussels, I've never seen one minaret.

Nor have I seen any in Copenhagen.

Are you sure you know what a minaret looks like?

Also, Vlaams Belang is more than just anti-immigration, they're anti-everything that isn't exactly like us.

Also, Vlaams Belang only has 25% of the support in Vlaanderen, so that's about roughly 12,5% of the people in Belgium, not 35%.

Wouldn't be such a problem if stopped handing out so much welfare, as for deporting their family, shitty idea. You'd have to institute that kind of violation of rights to ordinary Swiss families in order to make that policy "fair" (though on principle a policy like that can never be fair).

As for the person who said if this is what the "people" want, then let it be, note how the people this affects, the under 18 criminal, and (not sure on the suffrage right of immigrants) their families, can't vote.
Democracy is nothing more then mob rule, where 51% of the people take away the rights of the other 49%- Thomas Jefferson

Finally, to the ignorant trigger happy person who suggested invading Switzerland, that would be like trying to invade Israel. Probably harder. Ever been to Switzerland? They have some of the most rugged terrain in Europe. Their population is armed with Swiss military grade (one of the world's best) assault rilfes, and plenty of ammo.
It would be a Vietnam in Europe.

And one final note: The Swiss are a very small state on a continent of diverse people. Perhaps they should consider the fact that multiculturalism will be forced on them regardless of what they try.

As for the person who said if this is what the "people" want, then let it be, note how the people this affects, the under 18 criminal, and (not sure on the suffrage right of immigrants) their families, can't vote.
Democracy is nothing more then mob rule, where 51% of the people take away the rights of the other 49%- Thomas Jefferson

Yes, but you can't do good for all. And there is more, I think one can easily find a majority for having no taxes at all. Question is, if this good for any sudden country?


Finally, to the ignorant trigger happy person who suggested invading Switzerland, that would be like trying to invade Israel. Probably harder. Ever been to Switzerland? They have some of the most rugged terrain in Europe. Their population is armed with Swiss military grade (one of the world's best) assault rilfes, and plenty of ammo.
It would be a Vietnam in Europe.

I agree. That's why they didn't suffer a lot from wars in the past.

And one final note: The Swiss are a very small state on a continent of diverse people. Perhaps they should consider the fact that multiculturalism will be forced on them regardless of what they try.

If we don't do anything, then we will have to eat it. But we can fight back.

Each European country has its own policy regarding foreigners. And it seems nothing is working.

In the past, most countries had a soft approach, now most of them are introducing anti-foreign laws.

Demographic amounts are teaching us that in the major cities of Holland about 50% will be Islamite around 2030. That's rather soon.

And I don't want to live in a Sharia country.

Demographic amounts are teaching us that in the major cities of Holland about 50% will be Islamite around 2030. That’s rather soon.

And I don’t want to live in a Sharia country.
Looks like you’re in luck; no European country is in any danger of adopting Sharia law.

And is an ‘Islamite’ a stalagmite that faces Mecca?

"Keep the darkies out" on one side, betraying base ignorance, and "you just want to 'keep the darkies out'" on the other side, presumptuously denying that anyone on 'that side' could have legitimate or reasoned concerns, relegating them all to the label of mere 'bigots.' Is it possible that the Swiss 'bigots' genuinely, sincerely believe that the outsiders they're trying to expel or keep out threaten to import attitudes corrosive to Swiss virtues? Undoubtedly, some of them are merely bigots who hate outsiders, but the assume all of them are is naive.It's not so much that I want to assume that they're bigots, but there isn't enough evidence pointing to anything else.

Demographic amounts are teaching us that in the major cities of Holland about 50% will be Islamite around 2030. That's rather soon.

And I don't want to live in a Sharia country.Islam =/= Sharia Law.

If we don't do anything, then we will have to eat it. But we can fight back.

Each European country has its own policy regarding foreigners. And it seems nothing is working.

In the past, most countries had a soft approach, now most of them are introducing anti-foreign laws.

Demographic amounts are teaching us that in the major cities of Holland about 50% will be Islamite around 2030. That's rather soon.

And I don't want to live in a Sharia country.
Great, thanks for the update mate, you can get back to getting 88 tattoos and doing fascist salutes with your friends now.

It's not so much that I want to assume that they're bigots, but there isn't enough evidence pointing to anything else.

Islam =/= Sharia Law.

No, it is not the same. I didn't say that one as well.

But I believe there is correlation between them, no?

No, it is not the same. I didn't say that one as well.

But I believe there is correlation between them, no?Sharia Law is one type of Law that some Muslims live under. Simply having Muslims or even a Muslim majority doesn't indicate that Sharia Law would be enacted.

But I believe there is correlation between them, no?
That depends entirely on the political system in your country. Incidentally, I believe Belgium has a constitution that would require rather significant rewriting to allow for Sharia Law (not that there is one Sharia Law we could be talking about). You would no doubt be aware what a complex process this is.

And even if all that is done (and the King for example approved Sharia Law...lol), you'd still have the EU to deal with, whose law afterall overrides that of member states in many areas.

Of course, that is assuming that this hypothetical Muslim majority even wants Sharia law. It rather seems like there are secular Muslim states and Muslim states in which the Sharia is not law.

Great, thanks for the update mate, you can get back to getting 88 tattoos and doing fascist salutes with your friends now.

Hello no I'm not a Nazi and I have not one tattoo.

But it bothers me to see my country changing in a way that I do not recognize my country anymore.

It bothers me that foreigners come to here, do not adapt themselve on our way of life, do not show any interest in our culture and after a while say we should adapt us to them.

It bothers me that the Belgium jails are housing for 50% people from foreign origin.

It bothers me that the majority of 'small' crimes are commited by people from foreign origin.

I want to get rid of the bad apples. Return them to sender.

When you are invited, I expect that you'll behave yourself according my houserules.
And if you don't, I'll kick you out.

And if you don't like it, do not come to my house.

<snip>
No-one is ‘sending’ any ‘bad apples’, as if on some mission to disrupt culture.

The analogy with a house party is totally inappropriate. Your country is not ‘your house’; it does not belong to you. There are laws in place already to deal with those people who murder, incite violence, etc. Plus, there are supranational laws and human rights guarenteed by the EU, as Neu Leonstein pointed out, which would prevent any hardline Sharia law coming into place in Belgium or any other European state.

Most amounts you used are from city-states or small islands.

Ten of those I listed have more than one million in population. Not to mention, Singapore, a so-called city state, has 4,4 million, in an area that is 3% that of Belgium.

Singapore and Malta, despite being city-states or small islands, are still countries. Malta has as much a veto power in the EU as Belgium, so just being an island doesn't exactly make you powerless.

In short: There are places far more densely populated than Belgium and Belgium could in fact handle another ten million people. They don't all have to be immigrants, but the point is that there's no reason to kick people out.

Compare apples with bananas, please.

You know, at least the apples with oranges makes a bit of sense, but apples with bananas I can quite easily compare them and go "The apple is round and the banana is long"

In the list of real countries Belgium is achieving the 8th place.

However much you might not like it, there are 28 autonomous regions that each have a higher population density than Belgium.

You were comparing areas of 1.49 square km like Monaco with the 30,528 square km of Belgium.

Yeah so? One would imagine that if Belgium were to be in such a pickle that a place like Monaco should not even be able to handle the amount of people they have living on what little land they have. It merely emphasizes that space is not an issue in today's world.

To give you an idea how crowdy Belgium is, we have 341 people living in one square km, in the US it's 31 people for each square km.

To give you an idea of how uncrowded Belgium is, try going to the countryside. Try going to the ardennes. It's full of farmland and nature.

That's not crowded and it's not even close to being crowded.

Believe me, there's no room here. We can't handle tons of foreigners as some big countries could do.

Actually, you could and you do.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_population_density

Amusingly enough, this newer source lists Belgium at 29. Still 21 away from 8.

Yes, but you can't do good for all. And there is more, I think one can easily find a majority for having no taxes at all. Question is, if this good for any sudden country?

Hmm, I wouldn't be too sure about that.

People know what their taxes go to. If they feel their taxes are being used correctly, they might not want to lose the services they get from the taxes they pay.

Singapore is not a so-called city state, it is a city state.

Just like Macau, Monaco, Hong Kong and several others.

Sorry, but we already do. We already kick people out our country:

* Illegal immigrants
* Immigrants that are waiting for a stay-permission and committed a crime.

Sure Belgium has no high density at all. You're right. :)

There is almost no 'country' here. The Ardennes are rather small. You can't walk for hours without seeing other humans, houses or cars. Compare this to Germany, France, UK, etc...

I was once in Patagonia. I was driving with a Jeep for DAYS without seeing humans or human development... There's some room!

And if you really think we should destroy that little piece of green land to make sure that immigrants would have a house...

You never were in Monaco right?

Monaco is very small. 99,999% of its citizen are living in a very small apartment (yes including the rich and famous). People live there to protect their income for the government taxes. Lots of sportspeople have a residence in Monaco pending their sport career.

If we should have a house as in Monaco, can I have the life standard as well?

I was comparing apples with bananas to make lucid how ridiculous it is to compare one single city as Monaco with an entire country.




Ten of those I listed have more than one million in population. Not to mention, Singapore, a so-called city state, has 4,4 million, in an area that is 3% that of Belgium.

Singapore and Malta, despite being city-states or small islands, are still countries. Malta has as much a veto power in the EU as Belgium, so just being an island doesn't exactly make you powerless.

In short: There are places far more densely populated than Belgium and Belgium could in fact handle another ten million people. They don't all have to be immigrants, but the point is that there's no reason to kick people out.



You know, at least the apples with oranges makes a bit of sense, but apples with bananas I can quite easily compare them and go "The apple is round and the banana is long"



However much you might not like it, there are 28 autonomous regions that each have a higher population density than Belgium.



Yeah so? One would imagine that if Belgium were to be in such a pickle that a place like Monaco should not even be able to handle the amount of people they have living on what little land they have. It merely emphasizes that space is not an issue in today's world.



To give you an idea of how uncrowded Belgium is, try going to the countryside. Try going to the ardennes. It's full of farmland and nature.

That's not crowded and it's not even close to being crowded.



Actually, you could and you do.



Amusingly enough, this newer source lists Belgium at 29. Still 21 away from 8.

It seems to me that there is no argument over whether the Swiss poster campaign is racist and xenophobic. It obviously is. The only debate here seems to be whether the Swiss are right to be racist and xenophobic. And it further seems to me that the only posters so far arguing in favor of this Swiss racist, xenophobic propaganda are posters who in the past have espoused racist and xenophobic views and who have spent a lot of time bashing Muslims and calling for race/religion/culture-based war/genocide against Muslims, and who are using this thread to post some of those same views again, even though they are not related to Switzerland.

But the actual substance of the topic is NOT about Islam. It is about immigration/migration, whether by Muslims or not. And so the anti-Muslim posters are merely trying to exploit Switzerland's issue to promote their own agenda. Not surprising really. But I would suggest then, that Islam is technically off topic.

For the record, when it comes to Islam and Muslim immigration into non-Muslim countries, my position is squarely in the center, i.e. everyone on both sides can go to hell with their ignorant BS. I don't want to hear idiotic bullshit from Muslim-bashers anymore than I want to hear idiotic bullshit from fundamentalist Muslims. Both sets of arguments are nothing more than the moronic, self-serving rantings of willfully ignorant savages.

That out of the way, when it comes to immigration, I'm not so firm in my position. I'm in the US, which depends on immigration for its growth and economy. But the US is having problems with immigration over its southern border with Mexico right now. Many idiots on both sides of the immigration issue are exploiting racism and xenophobia to skew the public debate over what to do about it. As a result, the problem continues, gets worse, and the political corruption that drives it continues to expand. So what to do?

As an American, I have to acknowledge that I wouldn't have my country if not for immigration. I think it would be hypocritical to turn against it now. As a liberal progressive, I cannot tolerate anti-immigration arguments that are based on bigotry. However, as a liberal progressive, I am concerned about social justice and equality, and I can see very clearly how unregulated immigration and the toleration of illegal immigration is hurting those aspects of my society. Clearly immigration must be regulated somehow -- but not, NOT, by race or creed because that would violate every ethic on which my country is supposedly based.

So, the American people must decide what kind of a country they want, and must force their government to create and enforce an immigration policy that supports that. And then the American people must suck it up and pay whatever price comes along with that policy -- whether it is more foreigners entering the country, or fewer foreigners, loss of work force, ripple effects on the economy, etc.

So too with Switzerland. They must decide what they want Switzerland to be -- a crossroads of international commerce, or an isolated mountain backwater. A place where the world is welcome or unwelcome. And they must pay the price that comes with their choice -- accepting changes in what a Swiss person is expected to look like, or allowing their country to fade into irrelevance as the world changes around them.

So too with Switzerland. They must decide what they want Switzerland to be -- a crossroads of international commerce, or an isolated mountain backwater. A place where the world is welcome or unwelcome. And they must pay the price that comes with their choice -- accepting changes in what a Swiss person is expected to look like, or allowing their country to fade into irrelevance as the world changes around them.
Your arguments for America don't work because Switzerland, and Europe as a whole have only recently adopted this "universally correct" multicultural/immigration policy. They weren't founded on this and do not owe it anything except for the problems they now face.

As to the above:
"crossroads of international commerce, or an isolated mountain backwater". Actually, it can EASILY be a crossroad of international commerce without being a multicultural immigrant state. Capitalists argue for the free-flow of capital across borders, not the free flow of humans. Swiss do the same. They are highly capitalistic and highly anti-immigrant. So, because of this...Switzerland can be, and was until recently, homogenous and an international crossroad of commerce.

Threads like this are so interesting to me because they don't just illustrate what other people are like, they also remind me of how conflicted I can be. Being a humanist, I admire a lot of what I've heard along the lines of "freedom of movement, multi-culturalism, humanity without borders, etc." Being a human-- that is, a homo sapien-- I understand and have a sympathetic gut reaction where people have said "forming groups and maintaining their integrity is legitimate." As a humanist who thinks about the world I wish all the noble ideals being talked about were the way of things, and think it's good to work towards evolving humanity's consciousness pursuant to that, but as a human who observes and lives in the world I know that we homo sapiens form (or are born into) tribes and packs and hives that compete for limited resources and a sense of security and a feeling of legitimacy and worthiness to survive.

As to the specific case of the Swiss and the shift in public and political attitudes-- the 'xenophobia' and 'racism' and 'discrimination'-- because those issues are in the here and now, idealism is nice but they have to be engaged realistically, on the basis of what is, not what would be 'ideal.' And realistically, we live in a world of nation-states; we're all humans living on Earth, yeah, but we also live in communities. They're largely defined by geographic boundaries, and for the purpose of self-organisation and maintenance they collaborate to define and evolve societal rules and conventions that we call their 'culture.' That culture interacts with external influences, assimilating some aspects of outside cultures and rejecting others. So do the people who live in a given culture 'belong to it' or does it 'belong to them?' Am I, for instance, Canada's citizen, or is Canada my country, or are both true? How much say do I have in defining Canada's culture, and do I (or we) have any right to say that it's exclusive? If Canada's society (as I'm born into it, or as it evolves subsequent to my birth into it) takes a turn that I don't like-- ie. it democratically enacts a law I disagree with-- should I try to change it more to my liking or should I leave? If Canada is letting in people that I don't like, because they're bringing in attitudes that offend me or whatever, should I rally a movement to kick them out to 'preserve Canada's cultural integrity' or, or is assimilating those outsiders-- absorbing and either changing, or being changed by their ideas-- in fact one of the defining characteristics of Canada, suggesting I'm the 'outsider' in my own culture? If 'equality' and 'democracy' and welcoming 'the other' are "Canadian values" then what if an influx of 'others' leads to the democracy becoming less egalitarian? What's the heirarchy of values, which do we work harder to maintain and which get comprimised? I suppose a big part of it is how much I trust the existing society's mechanisms to protect me? How much does one 'cell' (or citizen, like myself) in 'the body' (state) trust 'the brain' (government, culture, or whatever guiding/guided spirit of the community you invoke) to act in the interests of the whole body, or of individual cells?

People have brought up clubs and associations and how they form with specific mandates to serve specific interests, and those arguments appeal to me because as a member of a minority, being gay, I feel that in a society where there's homophobia it's perfectly legitimate to form gay groups where gay people can feel secure congregating and talking about how to advance our interests in being treated more justly. I also value the existence of gay bars for us to go to and socialise, without advances or propositions being met with "get away from me, fag/dyke!" But if I think "we should all be equal" and "get along" and society should be welcoming to us, where does that leave me when straight people want to come to 'our' bars or attend (some would say hijack) 'our' groups?

The closest I can come to an answer when I ask myself these questions is that-- as much as I like idealism-- in the imperfect world that I live in, I can work to evolve my community's (even, at risk of sounding ambitious, my species') consciousness but I also have to deal with the facts and confront reality realistically. Realistically, on the 'micro' scale (dealing with clubs and bars and smaller consentual groupings within the society I live in) as long as 'my group' is under threat-- as long as it's a target for discrimination and hate-- then it's legitimate to form 'safe' groups and erect safe spaces that exclude potential detractors from derailing our interests, which I take to be just. As we change the environment around us, making it more accepting, and as the threats decrease and the inclusion of 'the others' poses less of a risk of our being attacked from within, then we can become more open. What makes my group's cause just, even if we're a minority trying to change 'the majority's' environment? To me, it's a matter of what is and what isn't a choice. Being gay or straight is not a choice, it's an in-built human trait, while homophobia is a choice; the colour of one's skin is not a choice, it's an in-built human trait, while racism is a choice. And one's gender is not a choice, while sexism is. Religion, no matter how strong an individual's commitment and belief, is a choice that artificially divides people against their shared humanity. So I think justice and the higher virtues accept human diversity, and that groups united by their un-chosen traits in the face of ignorance and bigotry are legitimate, and excluding people on the basis of their chosen beliefs-- when those beliefs are toxic to a society or culture that accepts trait diversity-- is justifiable.

So does that translate to the 'macro' scale of nations and their cultures? Is Switzerland justified in becoming more insular and less welcoming of outsiders? Is Switzerland a willing association of individuals, like a club, with the right to insulate itself from influences that it's membership consider incompatible with their interests? What about those born there, with no say in their membership? Humanist-Me says that Switzerland is 'just geography' and should admit anyone who wants in, should accept diversity and through comprimise become better; but Human-Me says that ideal works best (or, perhaps, only works) when a certain critical mass of the population within and coming into the system can be trusted to uphold the higher virtues of trait-affirming diversity. Humanist-Me says "I want to believe that enough 'new Swiss' people share that existing community's values that they won't sabotage it once they're allowed in." Human-Me says "don't count on it, the would-be immigrants they're worried about mostly aren't affirming of diversity and would push the culture backwards in favour of ignorant, chosen bigotries." Is Human-Me right, or wrong? The Swiss politicians in the article would seem to think right, and if that's the case then they're willing to look like jerks and xenophobes in order to defend higher virtues and insulate their community against infiltration by those who would undermine its values.

A lot of people have weighed in on both sides of this, and unfortunately a lot of the loudest 'voices' have also been the most simplistic, which hurts an important debate. "Keep the darkies out" on one side, betraying base ignorance, and "you just want to 'keep the darkies out'" on the other side, presumptuously denying that anyone on 'that side' could have legitimate or reasoned concerns, relegating them all to the label of mere 'bigots.' Is it possible that the Swiss 'bigots' genuinely, sincerely believe that the outsiders they're trying to expel or keep out threaten to import attitudes corrosive to Swiss virtues? Undoubtedly, some of them are merely bigots who hate outsiders, but the assume all of them are is naive.

Anyway, I'm sure this was "TLDR" for a lot of people, and for many others it'll do nothing to open (much less change) their minds. It just seemed like a lot of people were just taking sides without providing any rationale, and certainly without acknowledging that it's a complex question where both sides can and do make legitimate points. For my part, I suck at empathising with others and am often stuck firmly on my side of ideological divides, but ironically, it's often the debates that draw those most like me where I actually feel that I've got a better view of the big picture to share.
You know, I was gonna comment on this last night but I went to the gym and had to do homework....however now that I come back I'm quite shocked and let down that no one else noticed/commented on it. It was truley a fantastic and fair post and I suggest everyone to read it. Thank you GSM for that truley wonderful addition to my thread and even if everyone ignored it, I honestly didn't.:)

So too with Switzerland. They must decide what they want Switzerland to be -- a crossroads of international commerce, or an isolated mountain backwater. A place where the world is welcome or unwelcome. And they must pay the price that comes with their choice -- accepting changes in what a Swiss person is expected to look like, or allowing their country to fade into irrelevance as the world changes around them.

Switzerland doesn't need Turks living in Luzern and 30 mosques in Lugano to be a "crossroads of international commerce."

This is a bizzare and extremely unrealistic statement.

Switzerland is a center of finance which is so popular and wealthy precisely because it is an 'isolated mountain backwater,' an extremely secure, extremely stable, extremely culturally strong country unaffected by the changes around it.

The world of finance is not run by bleeding heart charities. The swiss are already guilty of ten thousand worse offenses than giving unwanted immigrants the boot - they enable bad people the world over to remain wealthy. No one cares, and no one will marginalize the swiss because they aren't interested in sacrificing their unique nation to the world's swarthy, huddled masses.

Your arguments for America don't work because Switzerland, and Europe as a whole have only recently adopted this "universally correct" multicultural/immigration policy.
So, Switzerland was a monocultural country? Lol.

I don't know why I have to keep repeating this, but every society in history was, is and will be multicultural because within every society there are a huge number of subgroupings with vastly different views, aspirations, meanings and artifacts, and quite often some of those don't get along.

Somehow people managed to associate the whole "multiculturalism" thing with immigration, which is nonsense. Immigration just adds a few more slants on the subgroups, and may even introduce some extra ones. To bring up a tried, tested and never-answered example: a skater from Switzerland and a skater from Pakistan have a lot more in common than a skater from Switzerland and a knitting grandma from Switzerland. They would get along much better too.

Intentional counterpoint a-la "devil's advocacy", genuine personal viewpoint or base trolling? I still can't quite work you out.

With AP it's always the latter two. Always..

Your arguments for America don't work because Switzerland, and Europe as a whole have only recently adopted this "universally correct" multicultural/immigration policy. They weren't founded on this and do not owe it anything except for the problems they now face.
The US wasn't founded on a "'universally correct' multicultural/immigration policy," either, and has not adopted anything even remotely like such a thing, and certainly not to anything like the degree of some European countries. Culturally, large sections of the US are almost as racist and xenophobic as they were 100 years ago (which is why Americans are so good at recognizing racism and xenophobia when we see it). It's just that our laws and public speech have gotten more progressive. The US was, of course, founded on immigration, so to speak, inasmuch as it was founded BY immigrants. But they were not immigrants with a "'universally correct' multicultural/immigration policy." Quite the opposite, in fact.

I only mentioned the US to show that Switzerland and Europe are not the only places dealing with immigration issues, and not the only places facing an increase in jingoistic, racist propaganda because of it. And I described the situation in the US because my views on immigration are based on it, not on the situation in Switzerland.

Apparently you thought I was trying to draw some comparison between the US and Switzerland, but I wasn't. I was merely describing where my views come from.

As to the above:
"crossroads of international commerce, or an isolated mountain backwater". Actually, it can EASILY be a crossroad of international commerce without being a multicultural immigrant state. Capitalists argue for the free-flow of capital across borders, not the free flow of humans. Swiss do the same. They are highly capitalistic and highly anti-immigrant. So, because of this...Switzerland can be, and was until recently, homogenous and an international crossroad of commerce.
If it's all the same to you, I'm going to pass on getting sucked into arguments over literal readings of minutiae that are not on topic. The two examples I listed were deliberately chosen to be over-simplified examples of two opposing extremes -- the two extreme ends of the spectrum of all possible things the Swiss might make of their country. I used those two over-simplified extremes solely for the sake of finishing the goddamned paragraph in a reasonable number of words. I didn't realize I should have, to suit you, listed every single possible choice the Swiss might have available to them in their worthless, uninteresting lives.*


(*Note: I operate on the assumption that all people who annoy me or who I am sick of hearing about have worthless, uninteresting lives; otherwise, I wouldn't be annoyed by them so much.)

Switzerland doesn't need Turks living in Luzern and 30 mosques in Lugano to be a "crossroads of international commerce."

This is a bizzare and extremely unrealistic statement.

Switzerland is a center of finance which is so popular and wealthy precisely because it is an 'isolated mountain backwater,' an extremely secure, extremely stable, extremely culturally strong country unaffected by the changes around it.

The world of finance is not run by bleeding heart charities. The swiss are already guilty of ten thousand worse offenses than giving unwanted immigrants the boot - they enable bad people the world over to remain wealthy. No one cares, and no one will marginalize the swiss because they aren't interested in sacrificing their unique nation to the world's swarthy, huddled masses.
Same answer as I gave the other person:

<snip>

If it's all the same to you, I'm going to pass on getting sucked into arguments over literal readings of minutiae that are not on topic. The two examples I listed were deliberately chosen to be over-simplified examples of two opposing extremes -- the two extreme ends of the spectrum of all possible things the Swiss might make of their country. I used those two over-simplified extremes solely for the sake of finishing the goddamned paragraph in a reasonable number of words. I didn't realize I should have, to suit you, listed every single possible choice the Swiss might have available to them in their worthless, uninteresting lives.*


(*Note: I operate on the assumption that all people who annoy me or who I am sick of hearing about have worthless, uninteresting lives; otherwise, I wouldn't be annoyed by them so much.)
Let me know when you xenophobes feel like reading with comprehension, just like you learned in school.

So, Switzerland was a monocultural country? Lol.

I don't know why I have to keep repeating this, but every society in history was, is and will be multicultural because within every society there are a huge number of subgroupings with vastly different views, aspirations, meanings and artifacts, and quite often some of those don't get along.

Somehow people managed to associate the whole "multiculturalism" thing with immigration, which is nonsense. Immigration just adds a few more slants on the subgroups, and may even introduce some extra ones. To bring up a tried, tested and never-answered example: a skater from Switzerland and a skater from Pakistan have a lot more in common than a skater from Switzerland and a knitting grandma from Switzerland. They would get along much better too.

I would add that the notions of "native" and "indigenous" are relative as well. For nearly a million years, human beings have been migrating around the globe and back again. There are very few people in the world whose DNA can be connected to an ancestor living in the same place they live now back farther than a few hundred years, and I would wager even fewer who have no ancestors who did not migrate around a bit between days of yore and now. In fact, I recall a Discovery Channel show I saw once about the Human Genome Project and how they found a young girl in Mongolia whose DNA showed she was a direct blood descendant of a woman who died, in Mongolia, about 7000 years ago. Interestingly, that ancient woman was an immigrant, from Europe, 7000 years ago.

All these Know-Nothings can whine and cry all they like. Immigration is the way of the world, part of human nature, and the changes will happen whether we like them or not. We cannot stem the tide, so the only sane option is to figure out how to prosper from it -- not sit and whine and cry and perpetuate conflicts.

Germany and France need to invade Switzerland. We can't let this bullshit stand.
I just noticed this. Heh....do you actually think Germany and France are better countries than Switzerland?

Capitalists argue for the free-flow of capital across borders, not the free flow of humans.Is there not such a thing as human capital?

I don't see why this is an issue at all.

Many nations have far, far more stringent rules concerning immigration and citizenship, why should I get upset over the Swiss?

In many nations, you can be an Nth generation native, and if you are not the right ethnic group, you are a non-citizen, or second class citizen.

Japan, for instance. It doesn't matter how many generations your family has been there, if you are Korean, you aren't Japanese.

Somalia- same, for those of Italian heritage.

Algeria and Libya EJECTED their Jewish populations and stripped them of citizenship and stole their homes and posessions.

And the Swiss are bad how? For wanting to keep families of criminals intact? You bring your family to a nice place like Switzerland, you have an obligation to be an honest, law abiding member of society.

I would make an exception only in cases in which the no-goodnik was turned in by the family itself.

I just noticed this. Heh....do you actually think Germany and France are better countries than Switzerland?

Of course they are.

Is there not such a thing as human capital?
Not according to NAFTA.

Not according to NAFTA.
The very reason for NAFTA existing in the first place being of course the very un-capitalistic drive by governments to make crossborder trade a political issue.

If trade wasn't politicised, no one in their right mind would tolerate governments putting up trade barriers, because there is 100% equivalence between trade withing a country and trade internationally.

This is a capitalist perspective on immigration: http://www.mises.org/story/2135

Oh, so EBUL DARK PEOPLE (:eek:) are problems now? Well, why don't we just send anyone not of Pure Aryan Stock (© Germany 1937) back to their smelly little homes.

PRESERVE ARYAN STOCK, KICK THE DARKIES OUT!

Hey wait their banks need to loan to someone. jk

Of course they are.
How so? How so would Switzerland improved by being invaded by France/Germany....notably in the case of the immigration/multiculturalism conflict...in which neither France nor Germany are excelling in, I might add.

How so? How so would Switzerland improved by being invaded by France/Germany....notably in the case of the immigration/multiculturalism conflict...in which neither France nor Germany are excelling in, I might add.

Because Germany and France engage in Correct Thought. Switzerland engages in Incorrect Thought.

Of course they are.

100 years ago, perhaps. Contemporary France is riven by internal ethnic, religious and social fractures; it has an ailing economy, and a disaffected, degenerate youth that would make even the most inveterate chav applaud.

Germany is simply too damn German to be a better country than anywhere:D

Germany is simply too damn German to be a better country than anywhere:D

Yeah the whole reunification thing was supposed to be their big comeback, didn't really happen though. Though it is one of the most prosperous economies in Europe thanks to West Germany being propped up by the U.S.

Yeah the whole reunification thing was supposed to be their big comeback, didn't really happen though. Though it is one of the most prosperous economies in Europe thanks to West Germany being propped up by the U.S.

And the brits and the French :D

Because Germany and France engage in Correct Thought. Switzerland engages in Incorrect Thought.
Ugh, enough trolling. You obviously have no idea what you're talking about.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/6992670.stm

Swiss citizenship system 'racist'
An official report into the process of naturalisation in Switzerland says the current system is discriminatory and in many respects racist.
The report, from Switzerland's Federal Commission on Racial Discrimination, recommends far-reaching changes.

It criticises the practice of allowing members of a community to vote on an individual's citizenship application.

Muslims and people from the Balkans and Africa are the most likely to be rejected, the report points out.

Switzerland has Europe's toughest naturalisation laws. Foreigners must live for 12 years in a Swiss community before they can apply, and being born in Switzerland brings no right to citizenship.

Under the current system, foreigners apply through their local town or village.

They appear before a citizenship committee and answer questions about their desire to be Swiss. After that, they must often be approved by the entire voting community, in a secret ballot, or a show of hands. This practice, the report says, is particularly likely to be distorted by racial discrimination.

It cites the case of a disabled man originally from Kosovo. Although fulfilling all the legal criteria, his application for citizenship was rejected by his community on the grounds that his disability made him a burden on taxpayers, and that he was Muslim.

The report recommends that decisions on citizenship should be decided by an elected executive and not by the community as a whole. But such a move is likely to encounter stiff opposition.

Foreigners are a key issue in the run-up to Switzerland's general election next month.

The right-wing Swiss People's Party, currently leading in the opinion polls, claims Swiss communities have a democratic right to decide who can or cannot be Swiss.
I agree with the Swiss People's Party. What is wrong with a a community deciding who they want or do not want in a community. Nobody outside that community has a God-given right from birth to live in the Swiss community in question. If they choose to exclude, democratically, let them. Remember, this is not dictatorship of the majority, because the people they are excluding are not in the minority, since they are not part of the system at all.

[What is wrong with a a community deciding who they want or do not want in a community. Nobody outside that community has a God-given right from birth to live in the Swiss community in question. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_movement

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/6992670.stm

Swiss citizenship system 'racist'
An official report into the process of naturalisation in Switzerland says the current system is discriminatory and in many respects racist.

I agree with the Swiss People's Party. What is wrong with a a community deciding who they want or do not want in a community. Nobody outside that community has a God-given right from birth to live in the Swiss community in question. If they choose to exclude, democratically, let them. Remember, this is not dictatorship of the majority, because the people they are excluding are not in the minority, since they are not part of the system at all.

Exactly

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_movement
Freedom of movement, mobility rights or the right to travel is a human rights concept which is respected in the constitutions of numerous states. It asserts that a citizen of a state, in which that citizen is present, generally has the right to leave that state, travel wherever the citizen is welcome, and, with proper documentation, return to that state at any time; and also (of equal or greater importance) to travel to, reside in, and/or work in, any part of the state the citizen wishes without interference from the state.
Switzerland does not block people from leaving the country. It also says travel "wherever that citizen is welcome"....so if they are not welcome into a community, this freedom of movement doesn't apply. Switzerland allows people to return to the country after travelling abroad.

Soo....basically I just PWNED you with your own link and even worse, with the opening paragraph. Enjoy the day.:)

.so if they are not welcome into a community, this freedom of movement doesn't apply.Does this also apply to the different cantons? Can the community of one canton prevent a person from moving from a different canton to theirs?

Does this also apply to the different cantons? Can the community of one canton prevent a person from moving from a different canton to theirs?
Actually, that is a good question. I'm not sure as it's not really an issue that's problematic in Switzlerand. I'll check it out though. The main focus here is the fact that immigrants to Switzerland apply their immigration application TO the area they are going to live. If someone is already Swiss and he want's to move into another Canton, it's a totally different process.

But it is a fair question and I to would like to see what it says on it.

Actually, that is a good question. I'm not sure as it's not really an issue that's problematic in Switzlerand. I'll check it out though. The main focus here is the fact that immigrants to Switzerland apply their immigration application TO the area they are going to live. If someone is already Swiss and he want's to move into another Canton, it's a totally different process.

But it is a fair question and I to would like to see what it says on it.Very well. If they are going to restrict access to the community universally, then while I would still disagree with it, at least they aren't being hypocritical about it.

If it doesn't apply to Swiss citizens, surely one could find an area likely to grant citizenship, obtain it and the move?

If it doesn't apply to Swiss citizens, surely one could find an area likely to grant citizenship, obtain it and the move?
True..and I'm sure they thought of this. I'm still looking it up. I might have to just ask some other Swiss and see if they know the answer.

What is wrong with a a community deciding who they want or do not want in a community.
Nothing. But there is something wrong with the Swiss rules.

Because there is no connection between community and geography. We at NSG are a community of sorts, without any geographical aspect. Even if you wanted to make this board a proxy for a geographical area, we have the "ignore" button. There is no difference between NSG and the Swiss nation, except our bonds are probably stronger and more intense than theirs.

I don't want discussion on this to die because I'm still working on the answer to the above. I feel it's very important.

Ok, from what I understand..this is very complicated and it's not so easy to explain. From what I've gathered from reading and talking to Swiss friends and peoples, the immigrant submits his application to an immigration center, which then decides which community the immigrant should admit his application to. This supports the reasoning why there are many more Blacks in the French part....because when the Africans sumbit to the immigration center, they speak French so the center puts their applications to the immigration centers in certain french areas.

Then, once we get to this level..those voting people from the immigrant center of their community review the application and and accept or deny it based on their prejudices..and whether they think he would be good for their community. As it stands, some communities, mainly those in the French area are more "open" and "welcoming" of immigrants than others. If they are accepted, they have to live here, in this community and not in others.

However, once the immigrants (if they eventually do..officially, it takes 12 years) become citizens, it seems they are allowed to move anywhere in the country....but usually they don't because they either don't know the other languages, cultures or have no family/friend/job connections in the other communities.

But honestly, that last part is very hard to quote officially...because it's just really not a problem like immigration from outside of Switzerland TO Switzerland is.

I know it's complicated but I hope you can understand it. If you have questions, go ahead and ask.

"But now Switzerland is a rich country and many people would like to immigrate here. In some cantons like Geneva, foreigners make up 30% of the population and that's not counting second generation immigrants. This situation has led to the introduction of laws and regulations that restrict immigration and make it particularly difficult to obtain Swiss citizenship. However, you should not be too concerned about this if you want to live in Switzerland. Swiss law favors educated professionals and the rich, and even provides incentives for them to live and set up businesses in Switzerland."

So just become rich or educated...and Switzerland will want you. ;)

Nowadays, there are three kinds of immigrants coming to Switzerland:

1. "Well-educated, skilled professionals such as engineers and consultants, who come to Switzerland to work as highly-skilled employees or start their own business; and the rich who come to live off their wealth. These immigrants are advantaged by Swiss immigration laws."

2. "Political refugees who come to seek asylum. Over the years, Switzerland has welcomed hundreds of thousands of political refugees from the world's trouble spots, and we continue to do so. However, Swiss law prevents us from allowing in persons who try to exploit our social system."

3. "Low-skilled workers, especially from Portugal, Northern Spain and Southern Italy, who come here to offer their work for our excellent wages. The law severely restricts this category of immigrants who are already in Switzerland in large numbers."

Does this also apply to the different cantons? Can the community of one canton prevent a person from moving from a different canton to theirs?

Very well. If they are going to restrict access to the community universally, then while I would still disagree with it, at least they aren't being hypocritical about it.

If it doesn't apply to Swiss citizens, surely one could find an area likely to grant citizenship, obtain it and the move?

bump for importance of the above post

bump for importance of the above post

It is important, and thank you for finding it. However, it does not address the obvious racism in the poster campaign that was the subject of the OP. Those images clearly indicated bias based on color, conflating foreigners (country of origin unspecified) with black with bad (the coincidental connotation of the "black sheep") with should be kicked out. NOTE the posters do not say these "bad" people should be kicked out of this or that canton, but out of Switzerland, so it would seem that this tradition of letting each Swiss neighborhood be as tolerant or intolerant as it likes does not matter to the people who made those posters.

So, what I take from this is that the Swiss people are variously bigoted or unbigoted, that the Swiss government does little to address bigotry within the cantons, and that some Swiss political parties are openly racist and xenophobic and believe that such propaganda will benefit them in elections.

The Swiss are very peticular about soverenty issues. They hardly give their own Federal government much power. Do you expect them to turn over any power to Eurocrats sitting 500 miles away?

I certainly wouldn't give up sovereignty to the EU in Brussels given how terribly they run the economy and the stupid laws they pass which stifle growth and innovation.

Taiwan and Singapore already have such laws in place, and they are strictly enforced. It seems only Europeans are bothered to be tolerant to the point of death.

It is important, and thank you for finding it. However, it does not address the obvious racism in the poster campaign that was the subject of the OP. Those images clearly indicated bias based on color, conflating foreigners (country of origin unspecified) with black with bad (the coincidental connotation of the "black sheep") with should be kicked out. NOTE the posters do not say these "bad" people should be kicked out of this or that canton, but out of Switzerland, so it would seem that this tradition of letting each Swiss neighborhood be as tolerant or intolerant as it likes does not matter to the people who made those posters.

So, what I take from this is that the Swiss people are variously bigoted or unbigoted, that the Swiss government does little to address bigotry within the cantons, and that some Swiss political parties are openly racist and xenophobic and believe that such propaganda will benefit them in elections.
I'll get to this in the morning. Gotta get to bed to catch my early flight.

Then, once we get to this level..those voting people from the immigrant center of their community review the application and and accept or deny it based on their prejudices..and whether they think he would be good for their community.
I think we're missing each other completely here. Do you not realise how disgusting it is to have the majority vote on the life of the individual? Particularly on an issue like this, where a reasonable proportion of voters are likely to vote (as you admit) based on prejudice and stereotyping?

And more importantly: where is the connection between community and geography? It's still nowhere to be found. If the local Swiss xenophobes want nothing to do with immigrants, then they don't have to talk to them, do business with them or otherwise acknowledge them. Just click the "ignore" button.

The immigrant can in all likelihood find nicer and more accommodating Swiss people to interact with. Even if it's just 1% of the population. Or just go and live in an more segregated immigrant community, which I personally find sad but seems to be the only realistic option sometimes.

The only reason some Swiss person could argue against this is because the very idea that there is some "Ausländer" in the area annoys them, that they can't stand to see a black guy at the shops or hear another language on the bus. And you can twist it whatever way you want, that has nothing to do with community. That's not even a remotely valid reason for denying someone's freedom of movement.

I think we're missing each other completely here. Do you not realise how disgusting it is to have the majority vote on the life of the individual? Particularly on an issue like this, where a reasonable proportion of voters are likely to vote (as you admit) based on prejudice and stereotyping?

What individual? These people don't exist in Switzerland.

That's not even a remotely valid reason for denying someone's freedom of movement.

There's nothing to do with freedoms of movement. Freedom of movement is to prevent governments from blocking people in, not keeping them out. Otherwise every country that deports someone is denying their freedom of movement.

What individual? These people don't exist in Switzerland.
What people?

There's nothing to do with freedoms of movement.
I'm not speaking of freedom of movement in terms of legalese. I'm speaking in terms of moving from A to B being something that humans are biologically, naturally, inherently able and likely to do, so there needs to be a pretty damn good reason to stop it from happening.

What is working in one country, isn’t working in another.

Some countries have almost no social security system, other have a very expensive one.
Some countries suffer from high unemployment other don’t.
Some have room for people and housing, others don’t.
Some cultures are more open minded others don’t.

It’s easy to shout out from behind your desk, in which way Switzerland should treat its foreigners.

Reality is a different cake.

Some countries have almost no social security system, other have a very expensive one.
I don't think that is relevant to the topic. If voters are ready to fork out other people's money because they're too stingy to save themselves or be charitable themselves, it doesn't make a difference where the recipient was born.

Some countries suffer from high unemployment other don’t.
Yep. And restricting the labour supply is the last thing to do to get the economy back on track and employment rising again.

Some have room for people and housing, others don’t.
Except for maybe Singapore, Hong Kong and Monaco, you're not going to be able to tell me that a place is physically unable to take in immigrants. And besides, if there's no room, there'll be no place for them to live, so they won't stay even if they're silly enough to come in the first place. Unless they have the money to buy themselves a roof, in which case that's their choice.

Some cultures are more open minded others don’t.
I don't care about cultures, I care about people. "It's my culture" doesn't work for killing your sister because you don't agree with her lifestyle, it doesn't work for being an asshole to people who were born somewhere else either.

Reality is a different cake.
In other words, who cares what is right - convenience trumps it.

Neu Leonstein;13059928]I don't think that is relevant to the topic. If voters are ready to fork out other people's money because they're too stingy to save themselves or be charitable themselves, it doesn't make a difference where the recipient was born.

But I think it is playing a factor. In some countries you are almost on your own and thus not costing a lot for the government, at least direct.

In other countries you can have it all: unemployment wages, free meals, almost free education and hospitals, etc...


Yep. And restricting the labour supply is the last thing to do to get the economy back on track and employment rising again.


I don't know, I know some category of people that seems to be unemployed in a chronic way. Most of the time, it are uneducated people (and if you are uneducated and are actually working, don't feel be attacked).

For those people it is hard to find a job and be honest, such people are, in general, not motivated to work at all. They didn’t learned this from their parents, cause they were unemployed as well.

From what I read in newspapers it are not the immigrants with a doctorate that hide themselves in a cargo ship.

I understood that in USA they have 'some' problems with illegal Mexicans. Those people, are that pilots, doctors, IT-people or can they barely write their own name?

Except for maybe Singapore, Hong Kong and Monaco, you're not going to be able to tell me that a place is physically unable to take in immigrants. And besides, if there's no room, there'll be no place for them to live, so they won't stay even if they're silly enough to come in the first place. Unless they have the money to buy themselves a roof, in which case that's their choice.

Sure, big countries with lots of land can hold lots of people. Small countries can't. And if we open the doors for the entire world then what's next?

In my country we allow about 50.000 people to enter each year. Suppose we allowed 500,000... We'll we Belgians would suffer a lot of problems rather soon.

I don't care about cultures, I care about people. "It's my culture" doesn't work for killing your sister because you don't agree with her lifestyle, it doesn't work for being an asshole to people who were born somewhere else either.

In other words, who cares what is right - convenience trumps it.

It's hard man. When I see on TV 'illegal' people being returned to sender...hey it is doing something with me as well. After all, their only 'crime' is being poor.

On the other hand, you have to be realistic, open the door for everyone and you will be in sh*t soon.

I think we could do other things to bring immigration down.

Both Europe and USA are doing dirty and rigid business in agrarian world.

Both we create huge food walls to protect our ‘own’ farmers. Third world farmers have no chance to enter our market.

Both we allow that our farmers are producing too much.

And we sell those food leftovers again to the third world, at prices uncompetable, cause subsidized by us, for the local farmers…

THAT’s the source of the problem. And believe me, we don’t do this only with food issues…

What is working in one country, isn’t working in another.

Some countries have almost no social security system, other have a very expensive one.
Some countries suffer from high unemployment other don’t.
Some have room for people and housing, others don’t.
Some cultures are more open minded others don’t.

It’s easy to shout out from behind your desk, in which way Switzerland should treat its foreigners.

Reality is a different cake.If they're that worried, they can issue maximum child quotas or forcibly sterilize everyone.

What people?

Exactly.

I'm not speaking of freedom of movement in terms of legalese. I'm speaking in terms of moving from A to B being something that humans are biologically, naturally, inherently able and likely to do, so there needs to be a pretty damn good reason to stop it from happening.

Oh, there is: the men at the borders who will shoot you if you try.

It's hard man. When I see on TV 'illegal' people being returned to sender...hey it is doing something with me as well. After all, their only 'crime' is being poor.

Yes. That and breaking the immigration laws.

Please allow me to digress back onto the subject expressed at the topic's title. On the subject of Switzerland being "racist" and "intolerant" and everything: the articles are completely exagerated. And totally overbloated. Yes, getting Swiss citizenship is not easy, but a country where 20% of the population is foreign is hardly "intolerant".

Myself being a Swiss of Russian descent, and basking in a circle of Swiss citizens ranging from muslim kurds to catholic palestinians passing by protestant brettons and atheist portuguese, I somehow fail to see any racism. Yes, some rural communities have problems. But if one goes to some God forsaken Strumpfpendorf full of haughty peasants, they should expect not to be welcome, since the proud "Bergtutschers" are not known for hospitality to begin with.

As of the SVP/UDC campaign posters with black and white sheep... I quite literally fail to see anything wrong with it. I managed to behave myself without breaking the law for my entire life. If some foreigner comes to Switzerland and seriously breaks Swiss laws, then I deem he should not feel welcome here, whether he is black, yellow, white, green or orange.

And just before you yell anything about me being with the nationalists, I vote Christian Democrats ;)

But I think it is playing a factor. In some countries you are almost on your own and thus not costing a lot for the government, at least direct.

In other countries you can have it all: unemployment wages, free meals, almost free education and hospitals, etc...
Of course it's playing a factor in people's heads. The point is that the fact that it does is irrational and unjustified.

Why does it matter whether some lazy bum getting welfare money was born in Ghent or in Addis Abeba? And if it isn't a lazy bum, then why should a person be helped in a tough time because he's from Ghent, while another won't be helped because he's from Addis Abeba?

You lose money either way. Someone else gains it either way.

If you think that's unfair, then it is unfair in principle and you should be voting to have the welfare state abolished. And if you don't, then I'm hard-pressed to think of a reason why there is a problem.

I don't know, I know some category of people that seems to be unemployed in a chronic way. Most of the time, it are uneducated people (and if you are uneducated and are actually working, don't feel be attacked).

For those people it is hard to find a job and be honest, such people are, in general, not motivated to work at all. They didn’t learned this from their parents, cause they were unemployed as well.

From what I read in newspapers it are not the immigrants with a doctorate that hide themselves in a cargo ship.

I understood that in USA they have 'some' problems with illegal Mexicans. Those people, are that pilots, doctors, IT-people or can they barely write their own name?
If there is a working labour market in the low-skilled area (and granted, in many countries there isn't because of all sorts of government programs and laws), the only unskilled immigrants who will find a job are those for whom there are jobs available.

But you already made my argument for me. Unmotivated, uneducated bums who can't be bothered to work because they never learned how and why are a bad deal for an employer. If instead you get a guy who just crossed the Sahara on foot, at least you know he's capable of something.

Sure, big countries with lots of land can hold lots of people. Small countries can't. And if we open the doors for the entire world then what's next?

In my country we allow about 50.000 people to enter each year. Suppose we allowed 500,000... We'll we Belgians would suffer a lot of problems rather soon.
I'm not asking you to open the doors to the world, I'm asking you to open the doors to individuals who want to move to that particular bit of the globe. There's more than 6 billion people in the world, and I'm willing to bet that not all of them want to live in Belgium.

But to get to the point, if lots of immigrants move to Belgium, then the country would soon become more crowded, real estate prices would skyrocket and ultimately some Belgians might prefer to move abroad and many foreigners decide to go somewhere else. Things stay in equilibrium over time.

I think we could do other things to bring immigration down.

Both Europe and USA are doing dirty and rigid business in agrarian world.

Both we create huge food walls to protect our ‘own’ farmers. Third world farmers have no chance to enter our market.

Both we allow that our farmers are producing too much.

And we sell those food leftovers again to the third world, at prices uncompetable, cause subsidized by us, for the local farmers…

THAT’s the source of the problem. And believe me, we don’t do this only with food issues…
I agree with the measures you propose, but not with the purpose.

I think that everyone should have a chance to succeed on their own, as a human being and according to whatever criteria they choose. In the 3rd World for many that is extremely difficult, and in as much as the West is actually causing it, that should be fixed.

But that doesn't change the fact that if a guy in Addis Abeba wants to move to Ghent, then that is his business and the business of the guy who sells him a place to live there. Not mine, not yours, not the government's.

Exactly.
Your point went straight over my head here. What are you trying to say?

Oh, there is: the men at the borders who will shoot you if you try.
I don't think you're getting what I'm saying. Just because you can hurt someone doesn't mean you should.

Please allow me to digress back onto the subject expressed at the topic's title. On the subject of Switzerland being "racist" and "intolerant" and everything: the articles are completely exagerated. And totally overbloated. Yes, getting Swiss citizenship is not easy, but a country where 20% of the population is foreign is hardly "intolerant".

Myself being a Swiss of Russian descent, and basking in a circle of Swiss citizens ranging from muslim kurds to catholic palestinians passing by protestant brettons and atheist portuguese, I somehow fail to see any racism. Yes, some rural communities have problems. But if one goes to some God forsaken Strumpfpendorf full of haughty peasants, they should expect not to be welcome, since the proud "Bergtutschers" are not known for hospitality to begin with.

As of the SVP/UDC campaign posters with black and white sheep... I quite literally fail to see anything wrong with it. I managed to behave myself without breaking the law for my entire life. If some foreigner comes to Switzerland and seriously breaks Swiss laws, then I deem he should not feel welcome here, whether he is black, yellow, white, green or orange.

And just before you yell anything about me being with the nationalists, I vote Christian Democrats ;)
I'll get to this post filled with funny Swiss pleasantries later when I have the time...

I'm not ignoring it.

"haughty peasants" = "the price of abolishing serfdom". Yez were all warned at the time.

I'll get to this post filled with funny Swiss pleasantries later when I have the time...

I'm not ignoring it.

And I shall await your answer, good Sir. *bows*

Please allow me to digress back onto the subject expressed at the topic's title. On the subject of Switzerland being "racist" and "intolerant" and everything: the articles are completely exagerated. And totally overbloated. Yes, getting Swiss citizenship is not easy, but a country where 20% of the population is foreign is hardly "intolerant".
I've yet to find a site that gives an official number like 20% where did you find that? I'm interested.

Also, it's important to remember that many of these immigrants are the wealthy and the highly educated, which the Swiss immigration system is known to highly favor. These immigrants are not the problem. Also, many of the immigrants are Germans who are obviously not Swiss but still much more culturally integratable than...say...someone from the the Balkans. True, he'd have to learn how to say "Chuchichäschtli", "sicher", "scho" and "Käse" in a way that he will probably never be able to....but atleast he is is of the same "sprachraum". I don't know the translation of that in English.

Myself being a Swiss of Russian descent, and basking in a circle of Swiss citizens ranging from muslim kurds to catholic palestinians passing by protestant brettons and atheist portuguese, I somehow fail to see any racism. Yes, some rural communities have problems. But if one goes to some God forsaken Strumpfpendorf full of haughty peasants, they should expect not to be welcome, since the proud "Bergtutschers" are not known for hospitality to begin with.
:D I laughed.

First of all, I would disagree that all this multi-culturalism is good for the cities. I think it destroys community-feeling, creates crime and brings down education. I think the family, community and friendly-ness of people increases as you leave the city and travel out to the land of the so called "country eggs" (;)).

As of the SVP/UDC campaign posters with black and white sheep... I quite literally fail to see anything wrong with it. I managed to behave myself without breaking the law for my entire life. If some foreigner comes to Switzerland and seriously breaks Swiss laws, then I deem he should not feel welcome here, whether he is black, yellow, white, green or orange.
Agreed. And do you agree that this is a MUCH larger trend of law breaking among the immigrants in Switzerland? Mainly those from the Balkans, not so much the Germans or the rich Americans who come to live on the Zürich sea.
And just before you yell anything about me being with the nationalists, I vote Christian Democrats ;)
Du sollst SVP wählen;)

I've yet to find a site that gives an official number like 20% where did you find that? I'm interested.

Oh, these are figures I've come by during lessons of Constitutional Law, namely ones dedicated to problems of citizenship, naturalisation and everything else. The average for Switzerland is ~20%, Geneva holding the record with ~40%.

Also, it's important to remember that many of these immigrants are the wealthy and the highly educated, which the Swiss immigration system is known to highly favor. These immigrants are not the problem. Also, many of the immigrants are Germans who are obviously not Swiss but still much more culturally integratable than...say...someone from the the Balkans. True, he'd have to learn how to say "Chuchichäschtli", "sicher", "scho" and "Käse" in a way that he will probably never be able to....but atleast he is is of the same "sprachraum". I don't know the translation of that in English.

Well, I believe that every country should encourage the immigration of qualified workforce that knows that coming to another country means obeing the local laws, not imposing your own. And yes, it is obvious that people (whether they are citizens or immigrants) that obey the law, work and pay their bills and taxes are never the problem.

The problem is with those that do break the law and cause trouble and only seldom work, whether they are citizens or not. And while the citizens can't be expulsed for quite obvious reasons, I see no reason why immigrants can't be made to return to their countries of origin.

First of all, I would disagree that all this multi-culturalism is good for the cities. I think it destroys community-feeling, creates crime and brings down education. I think the family, community and friendly-ness of people increases as you leave the city and travel out to the land of the so called "country eggs" (;)).

Multi-culturalism has good sides and it has bad sides. As I've said previously, as long as people behave properly, all is fine.

As far as "country eggs" are concerned... I am a "stupid Welsch" for them :p

Agreed. And do you agree that this is a MUCH larger trend of law breaking among the immigrants in Switzerland? Mainly those from the Balkans, not so much the Germans or the rich Americans who come to live on the Zürich sea.

Well, wealthy people don't really commit street crimes. However, not all poor people do, either. All those portuguese and italians that work in the construction business and municipal services aren't wealthy, yet they find work and they work.

And then come "refugees" that have "suffered from war" so they deem that they have "every right" O.o

There are also Serbs, Croats, Bosniaks and Albanians that are good people who respect the law, who find work and make their lives. But for some reason, these are a minority it seems.

But then again, in Geneva the main problem comes from the borderland French, and more importantly French citizens of Magrebin or African origins. Which is ironic, since quite a few of my own friends are Magrebins and are very decent.

Du sollst SVP wählen;)

Si ça continue à ce rythme... ce sera très probable.