Others have covered the minarets in Switzerland story – and pretty much come to the same conclusion; jolly good for the Swiss. I, however, tend to share a slightly different view.
Okay, on the one hand, I despise Islam utterly and completely and I have a sneaking admiration for a populace that has dared to do the unthinkable and say “no” to this despicable, authoritarian and alien superstition. And, to be fair, I do share Juliam’s amusement at the Guardian’s discomfort.
On the other hand…
Those who trumpet democracy need to remember that it is merely the least worst system so far discovered. A panacea, it ain’t. Look at it this way; a majority has voted to remove liberty from a minority of which it disapproves. Is this right? Why should the sheer weight of numbers decide on what others may or may not do? Democracy is, frankly, vastly overrated – a sanitised version of mob rule. Just because the majority want something, it doesn’t mean that they are right and it doesn’t mean that they should have their way. That way leads to vigilante law and lynch mobs. I want to live my life as I see fit, not how the demos think I should.
So, on balance, a bad thing, I think.
It’s hard to worry about the rights of people who would deny so many to others, but you are quite right. Well done for keeping a clear head when so many others are throwing principles to the wind in tribal glee. The point here is the limit to state power, not the way in which decisions are taken (democratic or otherwise) to use it.
It’s like a virus in the body. The corpuscles have a vote and decide that it is undemocratic to attack the poor virus.
.-= My last blog ..December 1st – the day England died =-.
Tolerance only works if it is a two-way street. Any news of planning applications for Christian churches being granted in Saudi Arabia?
Remember that the Nazis were democratically elected to power in 1933 under the most liberal constitution Germany had ever had.
I agree that minarets aren’t the point. It’s the totalitarian mindset of Islam that needs to be successfully confronted in Europe, and as yet that isn’t happening – quite the reverse.
Agreed about Islam being tackled and agreed about the totalitarian mindset. This, however, is not the way. So what if Saudi Arabia doesn’t allow Christian churches? It is because we are better than they are that is at stake here. If we stoop to their methods then we are no better.
What needs to happen is a repeal of all the stupid equality laws and hate speech laws that protects this insidious plague. We need to have absolute freedom of speech, the right to openly criticise and ridicule without demands for undeserved respect. Now, that would be the first step in the right direction, not a silly ban on minarets which should be a matter for local planning applications.
For a moment here, put aside Islam and look at the underlying principle. One large group of people has decided to impose its will on a minority. Apply that principle to any other minority group and you see how ugly this can be. Democracy is merely two wolves and a sheep discussing supper.
2nd paragraph – agreed. Agreed also that it’s not a terribly good way to go with the ban on building and yet there has to be a start somewhere, rather than wishful thinking. This referendum was an opportunity, a rare one which doesn’t come all that often and not phrased as people would want but hey – the tide has to be turned back somehow.
While the PTB only offer questions like this and while people are still disenfranchised, then what else can people do?
.-= My last blog ..Meanwhile, in America … =-.
“What needs to happen is a repeal of all the stupid equality laws and hate speech laws that protects this insidious plague.”
Yes, yes, yes!
p.s. Glad you agree with me. But not at all surprised. 🙂
.-= My last blog ..Of foxes, chickens, direct democracy, and Swiss minarets =-.
I entirely agree with you about ‘hate speech’ laws. You cannot stop people believing whatever they want to – you can only drive their opinion underground where it will fester and become even more toxic. Other peoples’ beliefs only become my business when they seek to assert their freedoms by curtailing mine.
Current European government policies towards Islamic intolerance are driven – consciously or unconsciously – by fear. As someone who is old enough to remember how many people were falling over backwards to appease the Nazis in the 1930s, I find this extremely worrying.
I agree that it is the wrong way to go about it, but in that particular case, it is not about denying something rather minor in terms of building per se (I believe mosques can still be built), but something which is a symbol of supremacy for islam.
And it is right that somewhere, a line has to be drawn. That line won’t be drawn by our “elites” who are in fear.
It just shows how disconnected those “elites” are.
Hi Longrider nice try but uptodate democracy and referendums are still the fairest way. Plato seemed to imply that democracy was overrated and that a benevolent dictatorship was by far the best method. Any suggestions?
No, Peter, I don’t… That’s why I said it is the least worst option. It is better than the alternatives, but it is still pretty nasty – just look at how it works in the UK. Ultimately, unless carefully controlled, democracy is another form of tyranny. I do, however, like the localised democracy we get in France.
And while I agree with all of you who have commented about the rise of Islam in Europe and the elite’s reactions to it, I still worry about those two wolves… Also, I feel that the Swiss have sacrificed the high moral ground here by doing to Muslims precisely what they would do to us. We are supposed to be better than that. We are supposed to be enlightened. We I suspect are nothing of the sort.
So, on balance, wrong target and wrong approach even if it was the right message.
I believe democracy is essential, but an essential leg of a stool. Without the other legs, limited government and national sovereignty, democracy can indeed degenerate. However, our current problems here in England do not include a surfeit of democracy – plutot l’inverse.
.-= My last blog ..Saints and sinners =-.
Unless you are a total anarchist, and believe that society should be capable of functioning simply as a collection of autonomous individuals with no regulating authority, what is the alternative to representative democracy (however imperfect) as the best option over autocracy or tyranny? If the majority – ignorant and prejudiced though they be – don’t decide, some self-selected minority is going to. Government with frequent referenda would be all very well if the voting population were educated to think and act as responsible citizens. But where in the modern world are they? Do you really want the return of capital punishment, dire criminal penalties for “unorthodox” sexual and other unpopular eccentric but harmless behaviour, and effectively rule by the Murdoch press-inspired mob? That’s what government through frequent referenda would most likely produce.
Anticant, thats exactly the sort of argument that is being trotted out by those who “know better”, and who are happy with referenda as long as the answer is the right one. Unfortunately for you, the swiss did not ask for any of the things you describe as far as I know, although they could, so its a bit of a strawman argument. Muslims can still build mosques, but without minarets. Big freakin deal.
Personally, I’m for capital punishment. You’re not. Do you really think that it makes you better?
Democracy in the UK means less than 25% of the population voted for the collection of showers which governs us.
Longrider, I understand your argument but the problem is that the people we’re supposed to humour do not see it that way, and the end game for them is that this kind of choice is no longer possible for any of us. So at some point, there has to be a line in the sand. I would suspect that it won’t be long before the French wonder aloud why it is that they cannot give their opinion…That said, there has to be safeguards in any democracy against mob rule, and that’s where a constitution comes in handy.
Lastly, unless I am very much mistaken which is entirely possible, I did not notice any big protest in the muslim countries compared to what happened with the cartoons. Would that be related to the probable presence in Switzerland of large bank accounts belonging to the various despots and clerics one usually finds in muslim countries? Just wondering.
Longrider writes: Democracy is, frankly, vastly overrated – a sanitised version of mob rule. This having also said (following Churchill) that it’s a better way than all the others.
I disagree with him on two grounds. Firstly, criticising the imperfect without suggesting something better is easy but unhelpful; especially when acknowledging that imperfect is the best known method. Secondly, the Swiss vote is not mob rule, and nor is representative democracy as mostly practised. The biggest problem with the mob is making decisions in hast. Parliament also makes some decisions in haste (well actually, for a decade or so in the UK, without much thought beyond subservience to the executive).
Back to the Swiss, there are all sorts of interesting possible subplots in this decision, perhaps best summed up as Swiss democracy prefering one law applicable to all, versus foreign oligarchs not agreeing.
More generally, democracy has variants that are better, worse and middling. Whichever variant is chosen and over time, power-seekers will adjust their behaviour and the system to maximise the benefit that accrues to themselves – not to the electorate. And, IMHO, we see that currently in the UK, in the EU (yes, it is a democracy of sorts), in the USA and probably in most of the Western world.
What is necessary, from time to time, is to flush the system. This is better done with changes to the details of democracy, such that the abuse by the power-holders is reduced. It’s also preferable to do this without leaving it so long that things get nasty for the general population rather than just for those that need
cullingcurbing.In the UK, that time has arrived.
In the frame as potential improvements are: more frequent elections (including overlapping terms rather than general elections); fixed term elective service (rather than at the whim of the party in power); moving from first-past-the-post to the single transferable vote (STV, and certainly not to variants with party lists); avoidance of too much multi-seat election; a fully democratic House of Lords; direct election of an executive prime minister; introduction of regular referenda, including those on constitutional reform. In fact, constitutional reform decided other than by referendum (ie by current power-holders and power-seekers) will surely make things worse.
So, democracy is the best method of all the imperfect ones, but some different imperfect democracy may well be better than the imperfect one we currently have.
Best regards
Anticant,
I do not share your fear of the ‘mob’. The term ‘representative democracy’ seems to be used almost exclusively to refer to a system whereby the people are denied their voice.
Right now we are experiencing the end of democracy. The politicians elected to Parliament no longer have the power to change the laws imposed on the country. You ask what the alternative to ‘representative democracy’ – we’re seeing it, a cross between oligarchy and bureaucracy.
.-= My last blog ..Saints and sinners =-.
Nigel, I do not offer an alternative because I remain to be convinced about how a better system might look – and some of the suggestions you offer do look attractive, particularly fixed terms and overlapping elections. That said, I have no problem criticising without offering an alternative. I do not hold a pilot’s licence, but I can tell a bad landing when I see one 😉
I do agree that the rotten state of the UK’s democracy is reaching a crunch point and really does need sweeping aside.
On the matter of the Swiss result, I see that the the Great Simpleton offers an interesting viewpoint. Should the majority take away the right of local planning agreements?
On the Swiss referendum, I too would not have voted with that majority.
Longrider writes: That said, I have no problem criticising without offering an alternative. I do not hold a pilot’s licence, but I can tell a bad landing when I see one 😉
In modern words I have learned from my adult and almost adult offspring: good comeback, but …
So, following the analogy of the bad landing, is there enough evidence from the one event to: (i) send the pilot on a refresher course; (ii) withdraw the pilot’s licence; (iii) close down the airline that employs him; (iv) close down the flying school that trained him; (v) ban aeroplanes?
Surely we know that realistically only (i) and (ii) are in the frame; also not necessarily (i) and certainly not (ii), without further evidence and analysis. Likewise, I limit my realistic disappointment on the Swiss issue, and remain exceptionally strongly in favour of both democracy and referenda.
As Longrider and I readily agree, democracy is imperfect; thus it will make mistakes, and this may be one. I also question whether our joint view, that this was a mistake, has the absolute stamp of righteousness. I found the view of The Great Simpleton well worth the read, but not conclusive in any way. Strange things happen also in negotiation and diplomacy and, with ongoing societal and political relationships, does the final reckoning ever really come?
Much more important mistakes have been made with our recent wars.
Best regards
I chose the pilot analogy deliberately because I am not competent to decide which sanction should apply from choices i or ii.
The improvements so needed for the democratic system to be effective without disadvantaging minorities is up for discussion. I remain open minded about what might be the best option. Another comeback therefore is; I’ll listen and reach a conclusion when I’ve fully digested the implications of the alternatives on offer. In the meantime, I’ll point out the flaws and keep that open mind.
A classic example of understatement there 😉
I think the demise of Greek general Phocion illustrates democracy well:
“They were conducted to a prison, and were harassed along the way. Someone spat on Phocion’s face and he said to the archons: “You should force these people to behave.” When Phocion and his friends had drunk the hemlock provided, the dose proved insufficient to be lethal. The executioner refused to prepare more unless he was paid 12 drachmas. Phocion remarked, “In Athens, it is hard for a man even to die without paying for it.” A friend paid the executioner the extra sum on his behalf; Phocion drank his poison and died. It was May 19, 318 BC. This coincided with the traditional Athenian parade of Zeus.
It was decreed that the corpse could not be buried in Attica; neither could anyone cremate it. A hired man brought it across the Megarian frontier. There the body was burned. Phocion’s wife set up an empty tomb, brought Phocion’s bones and heart home by night, and buried them there.
Soon afterward, the Athenians had a change of heart; they were properly reburied, at public charge, and a bronze statue was erected. Agnonides was executed; Phocion’s son Phocus then tracked down and killed two other conspirators who had fled the city.
.-= My last blog ..Saints and sinners =-.
What needs to happen is a repeal of all the stupid equality laws and hate speech laws that protects this insidious plague. We need to have absolute freedom of speech, the right to openly criticise and ridicule without demands for undeserved respect
So absolute freedom to libel you as a child molestor? Or absolute freedom to march up and down calling for unbelievers and apostates to have their throats cut? Or is your concept of ‘absolute freedom’ a little less absolute than that?
We’ve had this discussion before. I am not suggesting repealing libel laws and nothing I said here suggests that – although they do need revising. What we do not need are silly hate speech laws that outlaw freedom of expression and send dissent underground. So, yes, I am that absolute – I thought you would have realised that by now. Of course, with absolute freedom of speech comes consequences, and anyone exercising the right must be prepared to accept those consequences. if you defame someone, they have the right to sue – seems reasonable to me.
I am not suggesting repealing libel laws and nothing I said here suggests that – although they do need revising
Then we are of a common mind on that. There is a pretty good case for reforming of libel laws, which are mostly used to suppress inconvenient truths that rich people would prefer were not known. I wouldn’t repeal them in their entirety but limit action only to cases where there was knowing and deliberate malice in the libel.
What we do not need are silly hate speech laws that outlaw freedom of expression and send dissent underground
I take a pretty simple view of words such as ‘absolute’. To me it means without any restraint or moderation. If you still wish to preserve laws against incitement and libel – and I think that is a good thing – then you are not in favour of absolute free speech. Where you draw the line is then a matter of pragmatism and balancing of competing interests. For example, should accusing all Jews being tax fiddlers be protected free speech? No matter how many examples of honest Jews you present to rebut the argument, traces of the lie will remain to stir up prejudice and cause actual harm to its targets. And if you accept that accusing an individual of being a tax fiddler is libellious and actionable, why should making the libel against every Jew be protected? Surely evidence of malice is much clearer when an entire group is libelled than just one person?
So, yes, I am that absolute – I thought you would have realised that by now. Of course, with absolute freedom of speech comes consequences, and anyone exercising the right must be prepared to accept those consequences
Your position appears quite confused. If someone can take action against you for exercising a right then it wasn’t a right in the first place. And I don’t see how the ‘consequences’ you refer to are any different in kind from the sort of consequences you might face if for example you break the law and incite racial hatred.
If you defame someone, they have the right to sue – seems reasonable to me
The civil law is not the correct vehicle for dealing with criminal actions.
Not at all confused. It’s very simple; say what you like, but if you cause harm, then be prepared to accept the consequences. The subject of your speech has the right of rebuttal or action in the event of harm caused.
What we absolutely do not need is government telling us what we can or cannot say. It is far better that “hate speech” is out in the open where it can be seen for what it is. Your Jews example openly stated will be rightly ridiculed by the vast majority. Those who might believe it will believe it anyway.
Not at all confused. It’s very simple; say what you like, but if you cause harm, then be prepared to accept the consequences
And same applies now. No one can physically stop you from inciting racial hatred but if you choose to do so then you must face the consequences of that.
The subject of your speech has the right of rebuttal or action in the event of harm caused
The ‘right of rebuttal’ in the event of anti-semitic hate speech is utterly meaningless. The point of the big lie is that traces of it survives any rebuttal. Look at the De Menezes shooting. Despite the police account being proved to be false, years later people are using those lies against the victim. Rebuttal does not put things right.
What we absolutely do not need is government telling us what we can or cannot say
In the small number of cases where speech causes direct harm, such as the incitement of hatred or harm against individuals or groups, why do you think this should be a no-go area for the law?
It is far better that “hate speech” is out in the open where it can be seen for what it is
Complacent nonsense, that could only be said by someone who has never been the object of hate speech. We don’t need for it to be ‘out in the open’ for it to be seen for what it is. We know what it is and what its consequences can be already.
Your Jews example openly stated will be rightly ridiculed by the vast majority. Those who might believe it will believe it anyway
The repeating of lies and incitement is to do with egging people on to action, not simply about what they believe.
When a group of Hitler Jugend boys saw the Nazi movie Jude Suss they went out afterwards and kicked an elderly Jew to death. You could say that the film only told them what they already believed and felt about Jews but it had another effect as well.
It is not nonsense to state that “hate speech” should be out in the open. Laws don’t make thoughts go away, they merely create resentment and cause them to fester. Free speech should not be a matter of criminal law. Where there is actual harm caused to an individual through defamation, then that should be a matter for civil law. Where there is demonstrable evidence of incitement to violence then there is a case for prosecution under statute law.
Laws that prevent people from speaking their minds are deeply abhorrent and have no place in a civilised society.
Frankly, I don’t think we are going to see eye to eye on this one – we haven’t before…