Waqqas, Switzerland 'approves minaret ban'
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20091129/ts_afp/switzerlandreferendumreli...
Talk of 'an elegant system' that Swiss have.. So tomorrow if one can collect 100,000 signatures to legalize human sacrifice in Switzerland, it will go to referendum?
Article 8 clearly states 'equality before law'.. if Swiss ban Minarets, they should also ban anything which resembles minaret on churches, synagogues and governmental building.
After all cross on Church represents the "political-religious claim to power" etc etc...heck they should ban cap on priests head as well..
This is great example of Tyranny of Majority in a governance system.
"A final tally of 26 cantons indicates that 57.5 percent of the population have voted in favour of the ban on minarets -- the turrets or towers attached on mosques from where Muslims are called to prayer. Only four cantons rejected the proposal brought by Switzerland's biggest party -- the Swiss People's Party (SVP), which claims that minarets symbolise a "political-religious claim to power." The SVP had forced a referendum under Swiss regulations on the issue after collecting 100,000 signatures within 18 months from eligible voters. The Swiss government was firmly against the call, arguing that accepting a ban would bring about "incomprehension overseas and harm Switzerland's image." Switzerland has an uneasy relationship with its Muslim population of some 400,000 in a country of 7.5 million people. Islam is the second largest religion here after Christianity."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Title_2_of_the_Swiss_Federal_Constitution
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federalist_No._10
-- Shiraz
------- Waqqas
Yes, one can. In a "weighing the heads" kind of system of governance (as opposed to counting-the-heads d-e-m-o-c-r-a-c-y) 100'000 voices of educated (the bar being set at under-graduate level) citizens merit a legislation making referendum (again, among the remaining educated citizens only). The central assertion is: The right to have a say in choosing the leaders (and thus the legislation) has to be earned in a progressive structure, like most other earned statuses in life. What exactly is your problem with it? And what is your counter argument to this proposition (for Pakistan)? [I request you to keep your pointers limited to Pakistan's circumstances, as for most EU countries, where literacy rate is as high as 90 - 99 %, both systems effectively converge to one and the same thing.]
-- Waqqas
------- Mukarram Bin Tariq (مکرم بن طارق)
Sad indeed. More coverage:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091129/ap_on_re_eu/eu_switzerland_minare...
Prop 8 in California last year, and similar measure in Maine this year are further examples of tyranny. US supreme court has yet to review whether these propositions were constitutional in the first place, so we will see. I think that a democracy without guarantees of basic rights is basically mob-rule. Further, AFAIK, Swiss law, unfortunately, puts these constitutional amendments beyond court review. There is still a sliver of hope though. The margin is not huge and I think that cogs would already be in motion to undo this law (thanks to freedom of speech guarantees).
I think that the formula in US is by and large good and guarantees of fundamental rights are very strong, and the bar for overturning these rights is very, very high. It prevents a lot of tyrannical laws to be formed in first place.
Lastly, as sad as this situation is, I think that Muslims minorities also need bit of self check. They at times abuse the very freedoms that allow them to practice their religion in personal capacities. In Britain they are campaigning for Sharia laws and stuff. The very freedom allows Muslim women to dress and act as they please, but they have trouble as their children embrace the freedoms. The sermons in many mosques in US seem to be promoting self-righteous behavior that will set Muslims on a collision course with the rest of the population. Muslims should learn to appreciate the fruits of liberation and understand "vulgarity" as necessary cost of having a free society (if they cannot rationalize it in any other way). If not, they will loose rational supporters in the general population and it will make the extremists on the other side to garner support and reach the high-bar needed to overturn the freedoms.
Before the Mullah party jumps on this, let me remind you that tyrannies in Pakistan are worse. Pakistan, for example, has an outright ban on promotion (tabligh) of religions other than Islam. Instead of using this law in Switzerland to justify what happens in Pakistan, we should use it as a learning experience. If it pinches us when minarets, scarves or call for prayer is restricted elsewhere in the world, then we should be reflective and fix these things in our societies. "We do not claim to be liberal", is neither an answer, nor a solution to the problems.
-- Mukarram
------- Fabulous Freak
Please tell me, When the western schools of thought propogate Secularism and freedom, that is all humans are equal and every human has a right to practice whatever he/she pleases or none at all. but does the constituion also says that all religions are equal ? or is one religion better than the other ? I feel I am stuck in a paradox, being a practicing Muslim to acknowledge that Y religion is also OK ? and people who practice Y are just like me ?? what solution does the western system have abt this ?
-- Fab
------- Mukarram Bin Tariq (مکرم بن طارق)
Main idea of secularism is that state and/or constitution must not favor or suppress any religion. Here is quote from first amendment to US constitution.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
It is pretty clear that it does not favor one or the other religion. Solution to your "paradox" is pretty simple. Religion is to be kept private, and if in that private life, you are fully entitled to feel superior to others based on your religion. If you wish to export the virtues to rest of the society, use the democratic process. You will find that very large fraction of laws in western countries are in fact well aligned with what you may think are virtues described in Islam. Secularism only seeks to prevent blanket and/or irrevocable protections to religions in a nation's legal system.
-- Mukarram
------- Fabulous Freak
Agreed,
So if I get the logic right,
1. State will not promote / demote any religion, it will let every one practice what one wants.
2. Assume that a religion X is successful in gaining a large following, 90 % +
3. Via democracy, the same followers of religion then may cause legislation favoring a religious system.
At step 3, would the first amendment be violated ?
Knowing the predominant religion in USA has there been an attempt at stage 3? if yes what were the consequences? I think there must be some amendment in the constitution which deals with just this issue ?
Problem 2:
I can privately believe that the religion I practice is 100% correct and righteous. All religion except for X, would thus be wrong. I am allowed to express freely what I feel, my speech shall not be hindered. Thus I can declare publicly that all non X are non believers and on the wrong path? Is that assumption correct ? If YES, then how can one stop Mullah declare A B C Kafirs?
-- Fab
------- Mukarram Bin Tariq (مکرم بن طارق)
Of course, you can use democracy to kill democracy. The idea is to set the bar high enough that it becomes very very hard. Case in point, Nawaz Sharif's 1997 government tried to push 15th amendment through parliament, which would have made "Sharia" supreme to the constitution, in a blanket and unequivocal way. They were able to pass the amendment through NA but it was stalled in Senate. One of the basic tenets of any legal system is that new laws cannot be conflicting with previously established guarantees. Thus if constitution is set up in a way that guarantees equality, or secular law, then a new law has to either modify the constitution to remove these guarantees, or new law has to be limited in scope, or it would be struck down by the Judicial system. A funny thing in the 15th amendment that Nawaz Sharif brought was that it expressly legislated that supreme court may not review this law. So sure, you can make mockery of the system, but end of the day if 80-90% of us are so screwed up, then we have a much bigger fish to fry.
In US, afaik, there have not been effort to declare Christianity a state religion in recent times. There are isolated, limited scope incidents, such as:
- Whether tenth commandments should be displayed on government/public properties
- Whether "One nation under God" (part of US national anthem) comprises a violation of first amendment, and whether children should be forced to recite it in schools.
In these two cases, judicial system has upheld the first amendment rights by and large, but sometimes allowed it as an expression of "culture" when the religious references appear on monuments or currency ("In God We Trust" is current US national motto and appears on US Dollar), and in their judgment do not violate the spirit of first amendment. "In God We Trust" is likely to go back to courts soon. Polls suggest that public thinks this phrase is religious and endorses religion. There is a movement to restore the original motto, "E Pluribus Unum" (One from many). "In God We Trust" appeared was popular in cold war days as a contrast to "Godless commis".
Sometimes, religious right has invoked phrases like, "US is a Christian state, we should uphold Christian values", in context of abortion and gay-rights debate. But this is never a legal argument. It can only be used to rally people, and in some cases, such as Prop 8 in California, and recently similar measure in Maine, have been successful in limiting rights of gay couples, using such rallying. All these measures, which are direct public votes, took place after courts had initially struck down laws made by state legislatures. Although these measures are narrowly defined, i.e., they do not ban gays outright, they just prevent them as getting "married", the legal status of these measures is still somewhat uncertain.
Bottom line is that it is inevitable that laws will reflect some preferences of the majority, and 100% equality has been hard to achieve, but that does not mean that we cannot have systems that try to mitigate discrimination based on religion, creed, race, gender, etc. Mullah declaring someone Kafir. If everyone is equal in the eyes of the law, then it does not matter what the Mullah or says. In Pakistan, at present, what Mullah says is important because laws are different for Muslims and Non-Muslim. If what a Mullah says has no legal bearing, I would not care about what Mullah says. At best, they can hurt my feelings, and I can hurt theirs in return :-). Over time, we will both learn to suck it up and focus on our own business than labeling each other.
-- Mukarram
------- Shiraz Bashir
[To: Waqqas]
Is the following not close to your model? I will comment on your email later, once I hear your reply on this..
Let’s give gentleman from France a break ;-) I think that Waqqas wants to ensure that a system selects an "Ideal" candidate for the higher office. This is valid point. I believe that we need to closely review the process by which US Democratic Party picks its nomination for President of USA for general election.
I will again use Signalians [Alumni Association of College of Signals, NUST, Pakistan] as an example to explain:
Signalians need to elect next President of Alumni. Three courses in Signalians go for voting to select their preference (nomination) for next President of Alumni. For example sake, I am just using 3 courses.
1. Voting or Caucus in each course to determine a preferred candidate.
Every eligible member in every course is eligible to vote. Candidates indicate their willingness to run. Voting happens. If a person gets less than or equal to 10% votes, then that person is not a *viable candidate* and is removed from the race. In second round, people vote again for those candidates who got greater than 10% votes in first round. After second round, course A, B, C *preferred* candidate A, B and C respectively. See table at the end of this email.
2. “Pledged Signalians Delegates” (PSD) & “Super Signalians Delegates” (SSD)
There are a total of 30 delegates. There are two types Pledged Signalians Delegates (PSD) and Super Signalians Delegates (SSD). PSD are elected by each course, proportional to their preferred voting for each candidate. SSD are chosen by Alumni Association based on their past record and service to Alumni- e.g., Past Presidents of Alumni, Appointment Holders in college etc.
As we cannot totally ignore Signalians members, so rules state that 21 (70%) of total delegates are PSD and 9 (30%) are SSD. Each of the three courses gets an equal amount of PSD - 7 each.
3. Courses elect respective PSD's
Refer to table at the end of this email. After round 2 voting, Course A, B, C elects 7 ESD in following fashion:
Course A: 5 (70%) *PSD* are *pledged* to Candidate A & 2 (30%) are pledged to Candidate B.
Course B: 2 (25%) *PSD* are *pledged* to Candidate A & 5 (75%) are pledged to Candidate B.
Course C: 3 (45%) *PSD* are *pledged* to Candidate B & 4 (55%) are pledged to Candidate C.
So Candidate A, B, C get 7, 10 and 4 *Pledged Signalians Delegates* respectively. As Candidate C is not a viable candidate, so its delegates discuss and 3 PSD pledge their support for Candidate A and 1 pledge its support for Candidate B. So finally Candidate A gets 10 and Candidate B gets 11 PSD.
4. Alumni Association chooses Super Signalians Delegates” (SSD)
Alumni Association chooses 9 *SSD* based on their historical status in Alumni. For example these can be past Presidents, leading fund raisers, appointment holders in college or any alumni relevant criteria.
5. Signalians National Convention to pick President of Alumni.
21 Pledged Signalians Delegates, 7 from each of 3 courses along with 9 Super Signalians Delegates go to Signalians National Convention. In smoke, chai, samosa filled room, 30 delegates review viability of Candidate A, B based on his/her ability to execute aims and objectives per Signalians Charter, his/her past record and other criteria common for any leadership role. Remember: Before convention Candidate A & B have 10 and 11 Pledged Signalians Delegates. See point 3 above. So in general 9 Super Signalians Delegate will go along with decision of PSD i.e., vote for Candidate B. But 6 SSD review Candidate B’s credential and find that Candidate B is not a viable candidate. So they vote for Candidate A.
Candidate A wins by securing total of 16 delegates (6 SSD +10 PSD). So basically you have *preferences* from each course through their Pledged Signalians Delegates. And you have judgment from Super Signalians Delegate based on their experience and service to Alumni. Together, this ensures that we only 'allow' those candidates to run for election which represent Signalians values and don’t elect the one which cannot represent us well.
Elections for President of Alumni Association:
Round 1 Voting (all alumni association members)
Candidate A: 60%
Candidate B: 10%
Candidate C: 20%
Candidate D: 10%
Round 2-a Pledges by SSD's
Candidate A: 7 pledges
Candidate B: 10 pledges
Candidate C: 4 pledges
As Candidate C is not a viable candidate, so its delegates discuss and 3 PSD pledge their support for Candidate A and 1 pledge its support for Candidate B.
Candidate A: 10 pledges in total
Candidate B: 11 pledges in total
Round 2-b Voting (all alumni association members)
Candidate A: 20%
Candidate B: 70%
Candidate C: 5%
Candidate D: 5%
Signalians National Convention
Candidate A: 10 + 6 = 16 SD votes
Candidate B: 7 + 9 = 15 SD votes
-- Shiraz
------- Waqqas
Sounds good.
Although I'd rather do away with SSD's. They had their time in the office. They did good. Now, thankyou and good bye.
In any case, even if we keep the SSD element or not, this system is superior in its filteration charachteristics as compared to the unfathomably manipulatable democracy that we have in Pakistan.
Why then such rigid opposition to my proposal for doing it (or a vriant of it) on a country-wide scale? Moreso, isn't it close to how the Caliphate system worked?
-- Waqqas.
Aucun commentaire:
Enregistrer un commentaire