First up there is the infuriating story of Muslims trying to eradicate the hosts identity where they can: Immigrants Want Cross Removed from Swiss Flag.
An immigrant group based in Bern has called for the emblematic white cross to be removed from the Swiss national flag because as a Christian symbol it "no longer corresponds to today's multicultural Switzerland."This is a school example of how the destruction of identity is couched in such lovely terms as 'progressive' and 'open-minded'. There's a lesson here.
Ivica Petrusic, the vice president of Second@s Plus, a lobbying group that represents mostly Muslim second-generation foreigners in Switzerland (who colloquially are known as secondos) says the group will launch a nationwide campaign in October to ask Swiss citizens to consider adopting a flag that is less offensive to Muslim immigrants.
In a September 18 interview with the Swiss newspaper Aargauer Zeitung, Petrusic said the cross has a Christian background and while the Christian roots of Switzerland should be respected, "it is necessary to separate church and state" because "Switzerland today has a great religious and cultural diversity. One has to ask if the State wants to continue building up a symbol in which many people no longer believe."
In the interview, Petrusic said Switzerland needs new symbols with which everyone, including non-Christians, can identify. As an alternative to the current Swiss flag (see image here), Petrusic proposed the former flag of the Helvetic Republic (see image here) which was officially introduced in 1799 and consisted of green, red and yellow colors. "Those colors are similar to the current flags of Bolivia and Ghana and would represent a more progressive and open-minded Switzerland," Petrusic said.
But that is not the main point. This is: Reactions to this absurd proposal where furious all round:
The proposal to change the Swiss flag has been met with outrage across the political spectrum and is sure to fuel anti-immigrant sentiments in Switzerland. (...)And thus it seems that this particular proposal is back-firing spectacularly. There's an example to remember!
The issue of Muslim immigration to Switzerland has been a hotly debated topic in recent years and the flag controversy is sure to add fuel to the fire.
The Muslim population in Switzerland has more than quintupled since 1980, and now numbers about 400,000, or roughly 5% of the population. Most Muslims living in Switzerland are of Turkish or Balkan origin, with a smaller minority from the Arab world. Many of them are second- and third-generation immigrants who are now firmly establishing themselves in Switzerland.
The new Muslim demographic reality is raising tensions across large parts of Swiss society, especially as Muslims become more assertive in their demands for greater recognition of their Islamic faith.
The ensuing controversies are fuelling a debate over the role of Islam in Swiss society and how to reconcile Western values with a growing immigrant population determined to avoid assimilation.
But it doesn't end there. We all remember the Swiss minaret referendum, don't we? At the time it was expected by many on the other side of the issue that the ban on the construction of mosque minarets would not survive exposure to the European Court of Human Rights.
But they were wrong.
The news has not been widely reported. I wasn't aware of it until today, when a kind reader left a note in the KV mailbox. The note contained this link: Swiss Minaret Ban Survives Legal Challenge.
The European Court of Human Rights has rejected two cases brought by Muslims against Switzerland's constitutional ban on building minarets, the tower-like structures on mosques from which Muslims are often called to prayer.So, what do we have here? Are these the first swallows to announce the proverbial summer? One swallow does not a summer make. I know. But both of these items may show that in Europe at least muslim activists are overplaying their hand. The system may be about to turn against them. And about time too!
A seven-judge panel at the Strasbourg-based court said on July 8 that it would not consider the cases as the plaintiffs failed to show how the ban harmed their human rights and they therefore "cannot claim to be 'victims' of a violation" of the European Convention on Human Rights, which the court enforces.
However, you do have to wonder why this news, dating back to July, never made the main headlines. I've asked it before, but fears of repeating myself be damned: Where the HELL is our intrepid MSM?