The Swiss Vote - 2010
Most of you have heard about this story from your English-language papers and blogs. The French websites are bemoaning the fact that there has been no comparable referendum in France.
In case you have forgotten, Switzerland voted last year in a referendum to ban the building of minarets. The UDC party initiated that action.
Now, Switzerland has once again voted in a politically incorrect manner for a UDC initiative, arousing the ire of the policy makers, the media and the tenants of "official thought". Part of official thinking always revolves around the innocence of minority criminals and the guilt of white European victims. Another part revolves around horror at the idea of deporting immigrants, even hardened criminals. So in voting for the deportation of criminals, the Swiss patriots caused much rain to fall on the parade of the do-gooders.
Yves Daoudal, writing at his blog, gives this summary:
The Swiss people approved, by a majority of votes (52.9%) in a majority of cantons (20 out of 26), the UDC's proposition on the automatic expulsion of foreign criminals.
As in the vote on the building of minarets, exactly one year ago, the whole press was against it, as was the entire political class, except for the UDC that has once again strengthened its status as Switzerland's first party.
In the politico-media circles, where official thought prevails, there is consternation and anger (against the people). Especially because it is not only a victory for the UDC, but a stinging defeat for the other parties and for the federal institutions that had advocated a counter-proposal: it was rejected by 56% of the voters and by all the cantons.
Brussels is looking with a jaundiced eye: the UDC proposition, which is now an article of the Constitution, contravenes the agreement on freedom of travel between the EU and Switzerland (that allows foreign criminals to file appeals)...
The lobbies are denouncing a "xenophobic" article. "This is a dark day for Switzerland, for we have offended a large part of the foreign population of our country and shown a lack of respect," said the general secretary of the Swiss Organization for Aid to Refugees.
In his weekly newsletter, Daoudal Hebdo #106, Yves Daoudal goes further in describing the reactions of the Swiss press:
Le Courrier begins its editorial: "How low can we sink? Visibly, the margin of the extreme Right in Switzerland has progressed considerably. Yesterday, Switzerland experienced another Black Sunday."
The Tribune de Genève: "One thing is certain, the image of Switzerland abroad is going to continue to deteriorate, beginning today, and the price will be high."
Liberté wonders: "How far will Switzerland go in the regression of the Rule of Law and the discriminations erected as fundamental rules." The paper reproaches both the Left and the moderate Right for their "guilty denial of the reality of criminal acts committed by a minority of foreigners," and adds: "To leave this field unattended, despite the growing anger of the population, was to offer the space to poisonous plants."
Le Temps, billed as the "newspaper of reference for French-speaking Switzerland" ran an editorial entitled "Anxiety" that decries the growth of "populism":
"The UDC imposes its sovereigntist dogma despite the universal rules of law. Its victory sets us on an unhealthy course, that of discriminating against and punishing, without appeal, a foreigner. (...)
A majority of citizens expressed through this vote a second denial of the judicial branch, which is troubling for a democracy whose very essence is to fight against abuses of all the branches of government. (...)
Rational arguments, complex by nature, are leveled by the brutality with which populism numbs reason. (...)
For the large parties respectful of institutions, this new defeat has major consequences, for it reveals that the citizens ignore the limits posed in the exercise of civil rights. With such naïve indifference that it causes anxiety and warns us of other perils. (...)"
Note: As with the minarets, the Swiss press is seeing this as a return to Nazism, a rejection of rule of law, and as a dangerous movement arising from the depths of the irrational. They cannot or will not acknowledge that the real danger lies in allowing these immigrants into Switzerland.
Daoudal quotes Oskar Freysinger (photo at top), the Swiss deputy who spearheaded both referendums. Freysinger has been in the French news frequently in recent weeks. He was quoted as saying that "France needs another Charles Martel."
Here his tone is milder, as he supports those immigrants who are suffering because of the bad behavior of a few criminals. His argument is humane and fair, but not helpful (in my opinion) because even if you get rid of the few who commit major crimes, they will soon be replaced, and the problems will continue to grow. Major crime is not the only issue. Unequal abilities, different mentalities, affirmative action, and the potential for a mixed-race Switzerland are some of the insurmountable problems that would have to be dealt with:
"I have met many foreign and naturalized persons who support our initiative. They too are fed up with crime and the suspicion and mistrust that, as a result, target them, the honest citizens. This is especially true of visible foreigners such as Africans. It is the laxness of the Socialists that creates xenophobia, not our posters."
The last line of the above statement was not included in the article by Yves Daoudal. I found it at a Swiss website:
"For I am for the mixture that brings cultural and genetic enrichment to Switzerland. But that cannot prevent us from being able to filter the migrants and above all from expelling the riff-raff."
Does he mean that he welcomes racial mixing so long as it is not accompanied by crime? Then why did he say that France needed another Charles Martel?
In an earlier interview published by Novopress, a more severe Freysinger discussed crime in Switzerland:
- What is the rate of crime committed by foreigners in Switzerland?
- The ethnic statistics prove that more than 70% of crimes and misdemeanors in Switzerland are committed by foreigners.
On December 2008, the opening of our borders to the Schengen Space took place in a kind of naïve rejoicing, but if the politicians have still not opened their eyes, the people, especially in the canton of Geneva, realized that Pandora's Box had been opened. Our country is now directly a victim of the European open borders reality. Criminals come and go as they please.
The craziest thing is that the leaders of the country had lied, during the 2005 campaign in which we voted for entry into the Schengen Space, when they sold the people the idea that Schengen would be a panacea against crime! The exact opposite happened. There has been an explosion of insecurity ever since the borders were opened, to such a point that it can no longer be controlled.
We experience veritable raids by African and Arab gangs who come from your country (i.e., France), especially from the Lyons ghettos. These criminals engage in waves of car thefts, burglaries and all kinds of trafficking...
Later in the interview he talks about Islam:
(...) With the Muslims, only a small number escape their own community and accept our rules. While the Sri Lankans and Asians, who are often Buddhists, integrate perfectly into Swiss society, as do Christians, Islam creates tension not appeasement. I do not stigmatize a religion, but I do observe an important political fact. Islam, with its large juridical-political component, poses many problems. This religion rejects our Christian and secular civilizations, and cannot be lived in a strictly private manner.
Islam in Switzerland is radical, salafist and wahhabi, and often subsidized by Saudi Arabia (...)
Below, one of the UDC posters urging Swiss voters to reject the counter-proposal that the Left had presented in opposition to the UDC initiative. The counter-proposal was very lenient and would have expelled far fewer criminals.
At the top it says, "Ivan S., a rapist, and soon-to-be Swiss citizen?"
Note too that it is not a "racist" poster, although guys named Ivan may disagree.