ON A SWISS ROLE….

How very dare the Swiss confound media expectation and vote to ban the building of minarets! I caught the BBC news earlier this evening and the BBC reporter was quick to point out the hypocrisy of the Swiss for allowing Christian churches to stand whilst forcing Islamists to worship in private homes. It clearly escapes the BBC that Switzerland is a Christian country with a rich Christian heritage and has a perfect right to prevent creeping Islamisation. The BBC are’t happy about this.

Bookmark the permalink.

34 Responses to ON A SWISS ROLE….

  1. Anonymous says:

    Sod the Beeb.

       0 likes

  2. Martin says:

    The BBC are clearly annoyed, I’m happy.

       0 likes

  3. Niall Tullow says:

    The Swiss political establishment is already spinning this as a ‘protest vote’ rather than a ‘real’ vote and that the legally binding nature of this vote now may not be so legally binding after all.

    Why are the political establishment so scared of the Religion of Peace?  Well we could ask Theo Van Gogh…

       0 likes

  4. Martin says:

    I see the BBC and co are running the bleating of the Muslim terrorists that live in Europe. Apparently, Muslims are now in fear (yawn) of attack.

    Really?

    How many planes have been flown into Mosques? How many Muslims have been blown up by western suicide bombers? How many Muslims have had their heads hacked off live on the internet? How many Muslims have had their throats slit in public?

    The answer is a big FAT NONE

    The only people at risk are westerners who are forced to allow these evil people to practice this vile religion in our lands.

    So why doesn’t the BBC bother to tell us about the 14 year old Muslim girls sent from shitholes like Bradford to be raped and married to thick inbred Goat herders in Pakistan?

    What about the ENDLESS cases of Muslim honour killings that the BBC seem to ignore?

       0 likes

  5. Enzo says:

    good on the swiss – hopefully the UK will follow suit. not with the islam-appeasing establishment we have at the moment though.

       0 likes

  6. George R says:

    SWITZERLAND:

    -from BBC’s reports, 1.) and 2.), which group is BBC critical of?-

    1.)anti-capitalist rioters:

    “Riots at WTO protest in Geneva”

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/8384852.stm

    2.) Democratic Swiss opposing minarets, muezzins and Sharia law:

    “Swiss voters back ban on minarets”

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/8385069.stm

       0 likes

  7. Ed (ex RSA) says:

    I eagerly await the BBC’s outrage over the Saudis’ ban on churches (with or without spires).

    This is surely a good day for Europe and I’m enjoying the BBC’s discomfort.

       0 likes

  8. Gosh says:

    test

       0 likes

  9. Barking Spider says:

    Good for the Swiss, anything that upsets the BBC must be good – besides, what’s the point of building minarets if the usual racket that comes out of them has already been banned!

       0 likes

  10. David Preiser (USA) says:

    The BBC is falsely comparing this situation in Switzerland with the scene in France and Germany – and, logically, in the UK.  The reasons why Mohammedans are having difficulty integrating into Swiss society may or may not be because the Swiss are racists or because they are iconoclasts or because they know something the BBC doesn’t.   Whatever it may be, it most certainly isn’t the same reason for no-go areas in Nottingham, crowds insulting British troops returning home in Leeds (IIRC), or imams preaching death to the infidel down the block in Birmingham.  Yet, the BBC would have you believe that you’re the problem.  That’s the context of the overall scope of BBC reporting on this issue.

       0 likes

  11. Bob says:

    what exactly is the bias here? I can’t say I found the report to be particularly critical to the vote and it gave plenty of space to both sides

       0 likes

  12. North Northwester says:

    I loved this from the Beeboid website; ”
    Amnesty International said the vote violated freedom of religion and would probably be overturned by the Swiss supreme court or the European Court of Human Rights.”
    Good old Hizbolla and Hamas-supporting Amnesty, eh, BBC?. It’s also against the Geneva Convention to deliberately target civilans, to fight without wearing a uniform or badge, to hide amongst civilians so your enemies risk shooting those civilians when they counter your fire, and of course it’s illegal to torture prsioners of war to death. Strangely, I don’t recall the BBC making any fuss about these daily, routine, and universal policis of the Muslim terrorists.And Sharia law forbids the building of new, and the repair of existing, churches and synagogues. Funnily, Amnesty and theBBC seem not to know this.
    God for the Swiss. Next stop, the burqua, I hope.

       0 likes

    • George R says:

      Yes, the BBC invokes their chums at Amnesty to try to force the Swiss to have minarets, muezzins and Sharia law imposed on their society.

       ’The Gates of Vienna’ has:

      “Yet, despite all of that, despite the pariah status that awaited them, the Swiss people voted overwhelmingly to approve the minaret ban.

      “So what happens next? What can the ‘world community’do to teach Switzerland a lesson?

      “If it were a member of the European Union, the solution would be easy. The example of Austria a few years back shows how the EU handles a member state whose internal politics violate the sensibilities of the bien-pensants in Brussels.

      “But Switzerland is a tougher nut to crack. Will the OIC call on its member states to boycott cuckoo clocks and watches? Will the jet set give up their skiing holidays in Switzerland? Will the rich and powerful close their numbered Swiss bank accounts and put their money elsewhere?

      “In any case, the Swiss people have made their opinion clear.”

      http://gatesofvienna.blogspot.com/2009/11/switzerland-says-no-to-bayonets-of.html#readfurther

         0 likes

  13. North Northwester says:

    I meant to type “Good for the Swiss” – I really hate the absence of a preview function here at B-BBC.

       0 likes

    • deegee says:

      Work-around
      I post, note changes to be made, copy and then delete. Then I paste the text back into a new comment, make my changes then post again.

         0 likes

  14. George R says:

    The dhimmi BBC’s verdict on Swiss vote: BBC’s Mr. Hardy parrots the recently invented Muslim word,:  ” It’s Islamophobia”.

    -Such is the pro-Islamic profundity of the BBC’s Mr. Hardy:

    “Swiss referendum ‘reflects unease with Islam’”

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/8385389.stm

     For BBC: an analysis (by Hugh Fitzgerald) of the Islam-concocted word ‘Islamophobia’:

    “The word islamophobia’ is not an acceptable term for intelligent apprehensions over Islam, and the adherents of a total belief-system whose central and moving idea is that of a complete division between Believer and Infidel, that asks of Believers that they offer their sole loyalty to Islam as a Total System, and to the Jihad, furthered through many conceivable instruments, to spread the dominance of Islam to lands that for now may still be under Infidel rule, and to ensure, along with that dominance of Islam (by removing ‘all obstacles’ to its spread) that Muslims rule, and not just here or there, not just in the lands now part of Dar al-Islam or once part of Dar al-Islam, but everywhere. ”

    -Extract from:
    http://www.newenglishreview.org/blog_direct_link.cfm/blog_id/5043

       0 likes

  15. DP111 says:

    Some people argue that just because Muslim countries persecute Christians, does not mean that we should put restrictions on Islamic ideology and practice.

    This proposition, if allowed to go unchallenged, means that Muslims can demand tolerance in Western countries, but when they become the majority, there will be no tolerance for non-Muslims, becomes acceptable behaviour for Muslims and Islam. Given the very high demographic rate of Muslims, this virtually ensures the death of civilisation, and replacement by Islam.

       0 likes

  16. piggy kosher says:

    The BBC is dazed and confused on this one. Amnazi international claims it to be an attack on yuman rites.
    Its a ban on minarets, not mosques. Minarets are pure power projection and a form of vocal intimidation to the dhimmis listening.
    Way to go Swiss!

       0 likes

  17. Allan@Aberdeen says:

    “when they become the majority…..” Should they be allowed to become the majority? This step by the Swiss should be viewed as the first necessary step to ensuring that muslims do not become the majority because they would oppress non-muslims anyway: that is their track-record and it is as instructed in their scripture.

       0 likes

  18. David Preiser (USA) says:

    Here’s one important angle in the Swiss vote that the BBC doesn’t want you to know about:

    Women lead Swiss in vote to ban minarets


    A right-wing campaign to outlaw minarets on mosques in a referendum being held in Switzerland today has received an unlikely boost from radical feminists arguing that the tower-like structures are “male power symbols” and reminders of Islam’s oppression of women.
    A “stop the minarets” campaign has provoked ferment in the land of Heidi, where women are more likely than men to vote for the ban after warnings from prominent feminists that Islam threatens their rights.

    So was it Racist Swiss feminists?  The cognitive dissonance must have been to great for the Beeboids to go any further down that path. Once again the BBC ignores women’s rights in order to protect Mohammedans against people like you.

    Either the BBC did a very poor job of the basics of reporting and didn’t know about this women’s rights angle, or they feel it’s unimportant.  I seriously doubt the Beeboids are unaware that women were more likely to vote against the minarets than men, so they deliberately chose to hide this important information from you.

    All in the interests of Social Cohesion, and because they think people like the inhabitants of this blog are more bigoted and more likely to cause violence than Muslims in Britain.  Your license fee hard at work.

       0 likes

  19. Fat Face Penguin Seal says:

    putting aside the issue of whether the ban is right or wrong, what is there in that link that suggests the reporting on the BBC is biased about this? I saw coverage on BBC news yetserday and it was very even handed. Show me a link to something that suggests the BBC were upset about the ban, or that they editorialised against the ban.

       0 likes

    • cassandra king says:

      You see no bias in the BBC coverage and thought it was even handed?
      Did you hear any pro ban anti islamist groups invited to give their opinions and did the BBC in fact provide any balance to the long line of critics of the referendum result?

      I actually heard the BBC first report and the BBC reporter was most certainly upset and offended, unable to comprehend the result and clearly showing which side of the debate her loyalties lay.
      I do not know what your standards for impartial reporting include but my minimum standard includes an equal representation of the two sides of the debate.

         0 likes

    • deegee says:

      In addition to Cassandra King’s comments. Read Swiss referendum ‘reflects unease with Islam’  
       
      BBC bias is usually clearer over a longer period of time but here are some indicators: 
      *The Swiss Peoples Party is described in articles about the referendum as the ‘right-wing party’ sometimes ‘far right-wing’ or even ‘a few xenophobic right-wing parties’ but mostly not described as Switzerland’s largest party. In BBC speak right-wing translates as a negative. When a party is ‘left-wing’ it is generally not labelled. 
      *The result is described as Islamophobia. This made-up word is a strong negative. The BBC tends to refrain from judgemental descriptions like this e.g. calling something antisemitic under the pius defence that would be going beyond their remit for pure reporting.

      *The report headline Papers express dismay at Switzerland’s ban on minarets highlights opposition but the text shows two negative unsurprisingly the (never labelled far-left) Guardian and the (never labelled far-left) Independent against the Times. None have large circulations and 2:1 proves nothing.

         0 likes

    • Martin says:

      The article is biased one sided crap. The people have spoken. Enough said.

         0 likes

  20. George R says:

    This a recent piece, the like of which the EU and the BBC dhimmis would prefer to censor:

    http://www.dianawest.net/Home/tabid/36/EntryId/1059/Banned-Swiss-Peoples-Party-Poster-Opposing-Minaret-Construction-in-Switzerland.aspx

       0 likes

  21. DP111 says:

    Meanwhile, the UN commission on Human Rights, members include Sudan, Saudi Arabia, Cuba, Pakistan etc ( the list is quite illuminating), is going to investigate if the Swiiss vote is against the UN charter of Human rights. If so, I suppose the Swiss government will be ordered to ignore the vote. Maybe even punish the Swiss voter – that is the usual custom in many countries.

    And this from another undemocratic institution, that has managed to seize power by stealth and deception.

    “The decision, although an expression of popular opinion, is a source of serious concern,” said Lluís Maria de Puig, president of the EU.

    http://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/front/World_s_press_dissect_Swiss_minaret_ban.html?siteSect=108&sid=11560694&cKey=1259611926000&ty=st

    We know, we know – the EU has never liked the idea of popular opinion.

    Swiss beware – if you join the EU, it will be the last time you will have the luxury of “popular opinion”. You will though, have lots of unpopular opinions shoved down your throat.

       0 likes

    • Bob says:

      Are they? – I’d like to know your source, seeing as the UNCHR was dissolved in 2006 and replaced by the UN human rights council (UNHRC) – if that’s pedantic of me, Cuba and Sudan are not currently on the council

      Switzerland has ratified both the ECHR and the UN charter in its own constitution (also by popular vote – not had it forced on by an undemocratic body), this bill was ruled unconstitional several times by judges and canton parliaments before the parties involved resorted to a popular initiative, which is not subject to judicial review as it alters the constitution itself – creating a legal minefield in the process

      anyway, back to BBC bias – yet to see a shred of reasoning that this article was biased

         0 likes

      • David Preiser (USA) says:

        You must be joking.  This article was written from the persepctive that Mohammedans were nothing more than victims, and falsely conflated the Swiss situation with that in France and Germany. It should go without saying, but I’ll say it anyway:  this also must be viewed in the overall context of BBC reporting on the situation of Mohammedans in the UK as well.  Ti’s all part of the same story, which is why the BBC dragged the French headscarves and German über-mosque into it.

        Not a single line was devoted to discussing Muslim responsibility for a failure to integrate anywhere in Europe.  The Muslims in Switzerland may very well be discriminated against so badly that they are forced underground and to live in fear or whatever.  To equate that with the situation of Muslims in France or Germany is an absolute joke.  Yet that’s what this article tries to do in summation.

        All responsibility is laid on the shoulders of those racist Swiss.  This is the same Narrative of all BBC reporting and commentary on Muslim integration – or the lack thereof, if we’re honest – anywhere in Europe, especially the UK.  Bias.

           0 likes

  22. Grant says:

    Of course the Swiss represent everything the BBC hate. The most democratic country in the world and not members of the EU.

       0 likes

  23. Beeboidal says:

    Seeking out any counter argument they can, the Beeb find a Swiss politician who believes the ban is a provocation against Muslims, thus allowing the Beeb to trumpet

    Minaret ban ‘a security risk’ – Swiss minister

    For balance they go with

    ‘Navi Pillay, the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, said the ban was “deeply divisive” and at odds with Switzerland’s international legal obligations.’

    Nice.

       0 likes

  24. DP111 says:

    Bob
    Thanks for the correction. I was going by this in Wiki

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

       0 likes