Swiss Move to Stop Radicle Islam!

[wulf42]

How demanding of you to state "i am waiting" as if I'm bound to provide a solution, and to post it to you. This after you have failed to answer questions on this board. In any case, I will answer:

I trust that our law enforcement agencies are competent so I trust them to continue their mostly-successful efforts to stay ahead of the situation. As far as policy goes, I support their efforts to improve their abilities to get information.

That's my solution - trust that our governments can keep us safe.

And I will continue to do "something" by reading, analyzing and DISCUSSING the situation - basically doing my job by keeping informed as a citizen.

Only doing the same as you and JB demanding an answer....and basically i have stated the same, give CSIS free power to do,watch and listen to whoever they want! As far as the Swiss go they voted and the matter was settled the issue is done and the people have spoken! what is wrong with that and why wouldn t that work here for different issues?

Edited December 7, 2009 by wulf42

[Michael Hardner]

Only doing the same as you and JB demanding an answer....and basically i have stated the same, give CSIS free power to do,watch and listen to whoever they want! As far as the Swiss go they voted and the matter was settled the issue is done and the people have spoken! what is wrong with that and why wouldn t that work here for different issues?

Yeah, except that when we ASK (not demand) for a reply - which is what you're supposed to do anyway on these boards when asked questions - you ignore it.

The Swiss vote couldn't pass for a few reasons, not the least of which is it wouldn't pass a constitutional challenge. Do you follow me ?

[wulf42]

The Swiss vote couldn't pass for a few reasons, not the least of which is it wouldn't pass a constitutional challenge. Do you follow me ?

Well........it did and the issue is settled, i see no problem with their solution whatsoever in Canada we talk and debate for years and drag the issue out longer than need be,they voted issue done can't get any better than that.

[Michael Hardner]

Well........it did and the issue is settled, i see no problem with their solution whatsoever in Canada we talk and debate for years and drag the issue out longer than need be,they voted issue done can't get any better than that.

Sorry - I mean it couldn't pass in Canada. In response to:

why wouldn t that work here for different issues?

If you see no problem with it passing, then I would say you don't understand how our laws work. If I'm wrong, then explain how this could pass in Canada.

Talk and debate what ? Drag what issue out longer ?

[DogOnPorch]

That is a naive comment to make.

They are proposing to ban a religious symbol while allowing others to have their religious symbol. That's discrimination. It doesn't matter how you try to rationalize it, you support discrimination.

Really, how can you, with a straight face, compare a structure with Mormons having more than one wife?

You have thrown yourself in the same category as people like wulf and DogsOnPorch with your support for this ridiculous vote.

How quaint. A terrorist supporter is upset that Saudi money can't be used to usurp another country's culture in this particular way. Oh, boo hoo. Have you thought about a violent riot to underscore your anger? That'll work...

[Michael Hardner]

Your question or point or whatever you're trying to get across is moot. There is no point in trying to compare the two, because the situation and the circumstance is different. The ban is for a religious structure for a specific religion while other religious structures for other religions are allowed to be built.

Yes, that's a tricky analogy. Further to your point that other religions are banned from poly-marriage, you can still be poly-married in the eyes of your religion but NOT in the eyes of the state I believe. So it's not even a true restriction on religious practice.

Much as the Catholic church doesn't recognize divorces as legitimate, some religions would see poly-marriages as legitimate though not legally sanctioned.

[Black Dog]

It says that I'm not interested in that type of discussion.

What: rational?

That would be a completely inaccurate analogy since taking more than one wife is strictly a practice of the Mormon religion, just as minarets are strictly a practice of Islam. Your "better analogy" makes no sense at all since religions other than Islam aren't allowed to build minarets, either; it's not as if the Swiss banned Muslims from having minarets while allowing others to do so.

They allow others to build their places of worship with any design features they see fit. Including things like steeples, which aren't really all that different from minarets. Sorry if you're too much of a literalist to see the obvious (if not explicit) parallels.

I'm not referring to people defending Saudi Arabia; I'm clearly referring to people not criticizing Saudi Arabia as they criticize Switzerland.

If people are silent on the question of Saudi Arabia,that would probably be due to the fact that what they do or don't do in Saudi Arabia has little bearing on what they do or don't do it Switzerland. Again: it's a red herring.

No, it isn't irrelevant. As I clearly stated, if people are going to criticize one, they best apply the same standards to the other.

Fine: boy those Saudis are a bunch of jerks. Feel better now? Can we talk about the actual subject at hand or are there any other countries you want to see called out?

Riiiight. Because I think a nation has a right to be an Islamic nation, I'm okay with them putting infidels to death for practicing their religion. Presumably, then, you think "Islamic nation" and "putting infidels to death for practicing their religion" is synonymous. You, presumably, think Islam = putting infidels to death. Just for the record, I don't

FWIW, I don't know if Saudi Arabia actually executes people for practising other religions: but if you insist on accuracy, I will happily count you as a supporter of their right to execute homosexuals, adulterous women and drug users.

I am the left.

Yikes.

Again, it applies because people aren't criticizing Saudi Arabia.

People aren't even talking about Saudia Arabia.

You keep trying to turn it around, but there's a huge difference between "not defending" and "not criticizing," and I've clearly been referring to "not criticizing." So please try to respond to what I'm actually saying. One more time. Just to make it really clear. I've never once said anyone defended Saudi Arabia; I've said they aren't critical, they aren't holding them to the same standards, they aren't going ballistic over Saudi Arabia the way they are Switzerland.

Just for you, I've changed my user info. That way, should a similar situation arise in which the actions of one country, group, corporation, political party or individual become questioned, people will know exactly where I stand WRT Saudi Arabia.

In all seriousness, I guess I'll spell it out. People are criticizing Switzerland because they did something rather silly. They are not criticizing Saudi Arabia, because Saudi Arabia is not Switzerland. However, if you ask the same people criticizing Switzerland what they think of Saudi Arabia's stance on religious freedom or human rights in general, I'd wager good money those same people would have nothing complimentary to say. But I think it's quite unreasonable to expect people who are criticizing Switzerland to suddenly launch into a tirade about Saudi Arabia apropos of nothing at all.

Now if you can't respond to what I actually say rather than making it about something else entirely, I will definitely be "ignoring every aspect of your argument" again ... because it has nothing to do with mine.

Does it have something to do with Saudi Arabia, though? That's the real question.

[wulf42]

Sorry - I mean it couldn't pass in Canada. In response to:

why wouldn t that work here for different issues?

If you see no problem with it passing, then I would say you don't understand how our laws work. If I'm wrong, then explain how this could pass in Canada.

Talk and debate what ? Drag what issue out longer ?

The Swiss obviously think this is the right decision,they see Islamic Extremism exploding in France and England so they are trying to curb Islamic extremist Influence before it becomes a problem there........is it a good idea? will it work? we will have to wait and see but i bet other European Countries will be watching.

[Michael Hardner]

The Swiss obviously think this is the right decision,they see Islamic Extremism exploding in France and England so they are trying to curb Islamic extremist Influence before it becomes a problem there........is it a good idea? will it work? we will have to wait and see but i bet other European Countries will be watching.

My questions ? Actually, never mind - this isn't going anywhere really.

[Guest American Woman]

Yes, that's a tricky analogy. Further to your point that other religions are banned from poly-marriage, you can still be poly-married in the eyes of your religion but NOT in the eyes of the state I believe. So it's not even a true restriction on religious practice.

Really? So, since gays can still be married in their own eyes after performing such a ceremony, I guess even though it's against the law and the state doesn't recognize it, it's not a "true restriction" on gays.

Furthermore, to read your response, one would think you would be ok with banning some Islamic practices, just not with banning some architecture; which I believe would result in an even greater out roar.

[wulf42]

My questions ? Actually, never mind - this isn't going anywhere really.

I am not sure why you have such a hard time understanding this issue?? The Swiss had a national Issue and they decided to have a referendum to decide said Issue (much like we did over the Quebec issue a few years back) they took a vote and that was that! 57% of the Country supported the ban so the problem was solved!.....you can't get anymore democratic than that. I find it Ironic the same people who complain and whine about the Swiss ban are the same people who say we should not interfere in Afghanistan it's their business we should stay out of it..........not meaning you necessarily but some of the other poster's.

Edited December 8, 2009 by wulf42

[Michael Hardner]

Really? So, since gays can still be married in their own eyes after performing such a ceremony, I guess even though it's against the law and the state doesn't recognize it, it's not a "true restriction" on gays.

Furthermore, to read your response, one would think you would be ok with banning some Islamic practices, just not with banning some architecture; which I believe would result in an even greater out roar.

Gays don't have an equivalent of religious marriage, so that analogy doesn't work either.

I would indeed by ok with banning religious practices, if they are in that grey area where rights conflict with each other. Architecture, though, is not one of those.

[Michael Hardner]

I am not sure why you have such a hard time understanding this issue?? The Swiss had a national Issue and they decided to have a referendum to decide said Issue (much like we did over the Quebec issue a few years back) they took a vote and that was that! 57% of the Country supported the ban so the problem was solved!.....you can't get anymore democratic than that. I find it Ironic the same people who complain and whine about the Swiss ban are the same people who say we should not interfere in Afghanistan it's their business we should stay out of it..........not meaning you necessarily but some of the other poster's.

I understand it fine, I just don't understand why you keep forgetting to answer my questions.

[M.Dancer]

Your question or point or whatever you're trying to get across is moot. There is no point in trying to compare the two, because the situation and the circumstance is different. The ban is for a religious structure for a specific religion while other religious structures for other religions are allowed to be built.

The other religious structure can't have minarets either....to the point, they can build mosques but not the accompanying tower.

[Shakeyhands]

I am not sure why you have such a hard time understanding this issue?? The Swiss had a national Issue and they decided to have a referendum to decide said Issue (much like we did over the Quebec issue a few years back) they took a vote and that was that! 57% of the Country supported the ban so the problem was solved!.....you can't get anymore democratic than that. I find it Ironic the same people who complain and whine about the Swiss ban are the same people who say we should not interfere in Afghanistan it's their business we should stay out of it..........not meaning you necessarily but some of the other poster's.

Perhaps this is just further proof that the majority is not always right nor democratic? Majority rule isn't the beall and end all of a democracy, thankfully.

I think this whole issue is a knee jerk reaction, there can be no argument made that this is in any way reasonable.

[Black Dog]

I find it Ironic the same people who complain and whine about the Swiss ban are the same people who say we should not interfere in Afghanistan it's their business we should stay out of it..........not meaning you necessarily but some of the other poster's.

That's only ironic if those same people were calling for military intervention in Switzerland.

[JB Globe]

The Swiss put it to a vote with their Population!

So it's just because a majority supports it? Okay - would you support a resolution that revoked men's voting rights, if the majority of a population supported it? Let's see just how deep this commitment to majority-rules goes with you: do you actually support it, or do you support it only because there was a decision made against the rights of a group of people you don't like?

Islam radicalism has proven itself to be a growing dangerous problem and is threatening Europe!

Is it a dangerous and growing problem in Switzerland? This is the 9th time you've failed to provide any examples, which MUST mean there aren't any substantial ones, which MUST mean that your claims are uninformed and false.

The Swiss made the decision to protect their Culture and say enough already!

HOW DOES BANNING MINARETS DO THIS???

HOW DOES BANNING MINARETS DO THIS???

HOW DOES BANNING MINARETS DO THIS???

HOW DOES BANNING MINARETS DO THIS???

HOW DOES BANNING MINARETS DO THIS???

HOW DOES BANNING MINARETS DO THIS???

This is the 9th time you've been asked to explain yourself, I'm going to assume that you just lack the intelligence to do so at this point.

they are just drawing a line in the sand and stating "if you come to live in our Country don t try to change it"

I've said this several times already: Swiss Muslims aren't trying to change any laws or customs of Switzerland. If you have any examples PROVIDE THEM or we'll have to assume that you're lying through your teeth.

The right to religious expression is in Switzerland's constitution - it says that Jews, Hindus, Sikhs, Muslims and others are allowed to build religious structures so long as they comply with municipal guidelines, which ALL of the four minarets in the entire country did.

It's their Country they can decide for themselves.

Of course, if they want to violate their own constitution, and blatantly discriminate against people, they can go ahead, but this decision has the biggest blow to Switzerland's international reputation and "neutralism" in decades. Just because you CAN do something, does mean it's a good idea to do so. ie - Canada could try and invade the US, but it would be stupid to do so.

You make alot of noise about reasonable discussion and talking but you have yet to offer any kind of solution not one!!

Either you're lying or you haven't been reading my posts - either wouldn't surprise me.

Want to know how to combat radicalism within any religious or ethnic minority group? Listen to what the European Council of Rabbis said: work with moderates and reformers within communities to strengthen ties and gain the trust of people. Demonstrate you're committed to them becoming equal citizens of your country by removing discriminatory barriers and working to educate the general population on their history and beliefs. Aggressively prosecuting any violent or discriminatory acts against that group. Assist that group in attaining education and job training.

That's how us Jews became integrated and accepted into Canadian society. That's also how plenty of other groups integrated as well.

There - I've re-stated an example and one which has been proven to work.

I ANSWERED YOUR REQUEST THE FIRST TIME YOU ASKED ME, I'VE ASKED YOU ABOUT 9 TIMES NOW TO ANSWER SOME OF MY QUESTIONS, ARE YOU GOING TO DO SO??? THEY'RE AT THE BOTTOM OF THIS POST

As i have stated there are things we could and should be doing in Canada such as giving CSIS full reign on phone tapping and surveillance on Right wing groups, suspected Mosques and anyone that may pose a threat to National Security,deporting or convicting anyone who even makes a threat of terrorism, stricter Immigration policy,

We're already doing all that - but the minute you start discriminating against Muslims as a whole, you turn ALL Muslims into the enemy, meaning no one will help you catch the terrorists, meaning you just made your job of fighting terrorism harder. This is why the minaret ban is a stupid idea.

Let's list the unanswered questions/unsubstantiated claims of Wulf so far in this post:

1 - Has not explained HOW banning minarets fights Islamic Radicalism

2 - Has not provided examples of Islamic radicalism being a "rapidly increasing threat" in Switzerland

3 - Has not offered an example of Swiss Muslims "trying to change Swiss society into an Islamic one"

4 - Has claimed that far-right nationalist parties are almost as bad as terrorists, yet has not explained why he has no problem supporting a ban drafted and promoted by a far-right nationalist party.

5 - Has not offered an explanation as to why he thinks Jews are overwhelmingly against this ban, if (as he says) Jews and Muslims are eternal enemies.

Edited December 8, 2009 by JB Globe

[JB Globe]

Rights have been stripped away from a specific group in democracies. As I pointed out, Mormons aren't allowed to have more than one wife even though that was their religious practice. Gays have had rights stripped away, too. I'm sure there are other examples, but those two come to mind. I do see where voting on everything could be a problem, though, as civil rights may never have come to pass had it been left up to a popular vote.

I think the precedent I was looking for was if there was a case where another religious group already had a certain right established for a long period of time (decades or more) and then had it taken away (by popular vote or otherwise) while other religious groups still could exercise this same right.

[Michael Hardner]

Let's list the unanswered questions/unsubstantiated claims of Wulf so far in this post:

1 - Has not explained HOW banning minarets fights Islamic Radicalism

2 - Has not provided examples of Islamic radicalism being a "rapidly increasing threat" in Switzerland

3 - Has not offered an example of Swiss Muslims "trying to change Swiss society into an Islamic one"

4 - Has claimed that far-right nationalist parties are almost as bad as terrorists, yet has not explained why he has no problem supporting a ban drafted and promoted by a far-right nationalist party.

5 - Has not offered an explanation as to why he thinks Jews are overwhelmingly against this ban, if (as he says) Jews and Muslims are eternal enemies.

You're letting this type of poster get to you, JB Globe. As I said in my post, the discussion isn't leading anywhere. You can lead the horse to the trough, but you can't get it to explain its logic to you.

[wulf42]

So it's just because a majority supports it? Okay - would you support a resolution that revoked men's voting rights, if the majority of a population supported it? Let's see just how deep this commitment to majority-rules goes with you: do you actually support it, or do you support it only because there was a decision made against the rights of a group of people you don't like?

Is it a dangerous and growing problem in Switzerland? This is the 9th time you've failed to provide any examples, which MUST mean there aren't any substantial ones, which MUST mean that your claims are uninformed and false.

HOW DOES BANNING MINARETS DO THIS???

HOW DOES BANNING MINARETS DO THIS???

HOW DOES BANNING MINARETS DO THIS???

HOW DOES BANNING MINARETS DO THIS???

HOW DOES BANNING MINARETS DO THIS???

HOW DOES BANNING MINARETS DO THIS???

This is the 9th time you've been asked to explain yourself, I'm going to assume that you just lack the intelligence to do so at this point.

I've said this several times already: Swiss Muslims aren't trying to change any laws or customs of Switzerland. If you have any examples PROVIDE THEM or we'll have to assume that you're lying through your teeth.

The right to religious expression is in Switzerland's constitution - it says that Jews, Hindus, Sikhs, Muslims and others are allowed to build religious structures so long as they comply with municipal guidelines, which ALL of the four minarets in the entire country did.

Of course, if they want to violate their own constitution, and blatantly discriminate against people, they can go ahead, but this decision has the biggest blow to Switzerland's international reputation and "neutralism" in decades. Just because you CAN do something, does mean it's a good idea to do so. ie - Canada could try and invade the US, but it would be stupid to do so.

Either you're lying or you haven't been reading my posts - either wouldn't surprise me.

Want to know how to combat radicalism within any religious or ethnic minority group? Listen to what the European Council of Rabbis said: work with moderates and reformers within communities to strengthen ties and gain the trust of people. Demonstrate you're committed to them becoming equal citizens of your country by removing discriminatory barriers and working to educate the general population on their history and beliefs. Aggressively prosecuting any violent or discriminatory acts against that group. Assist that group in attaining education and job training.

That's how us Jews became integrated and accepted into Canadian society. That's also how plenty of other groups integrated as well.

There - I've re-stated an example and one which has been proven to work.

I ANSWERED YOUR REQUEST THE FIRST TIME YOU ASKED ME, I'VE ASKED YOU ABOUT 9 TIMES NOW TO ANSWER SOME OF MY QUESTIONS, ARE YOU GOING TO DO SO??? THEY'RE AT THE BOTTOM OF THIS POST

We're already doing all that - but the minute you start discriminating against Muslims as a whole, you turn ALL Muslims into the enemy, meaning no one will help you catch the terrorists, meaning you just made your job of fighting terrorism harder. This is why the minaret ban is a stupid idea.

Let's list the unanswered questions/unsubstantiated claims of Wulf so far in this post:

1 - Has not explained HOW banning minarets fights Islamic Radicalism

2 - Has not provided examples of Islamic radicalism being a "rapidly increasing threat" in Switzerland

3 - Has not offered an example of Swiss Muslims "trying to change Swiss society into an Islamic one"

4 - Has claimed that far-right nationalist parties are almost as bad as terrorists, yet has not explained why he has no problem supporting a ban drafted and promoted by a far-right nationalist party.

5 - Has not offered an explanation as to why he thinks Jews are overwhelmingly against this ban, if (as he says) Jews and Muslims are eternal enemies.

Millions of Swiss disagree with you! Obviously they think this is a good thing for their Country, Remember it is their Country they took a democratic vote and the matter was decided! Maybe they are worried their security and culture are at risk and feel that this is best for Switzerland.Nicolas Sarkozy is even defending their decision,the article below highlights some of the reasons this vote came about.... maybe you should read it and you will have a better understanding on this issue.The last article i posted should help you see the Swiss point of view! maybe before you judge another country or another poster you should do some research first. Again this move is not against main stream Muslim's it is a move to stop Radicals.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/daniel-ammann/the-real-reasons-why-the_b_373947.html

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/france/6761632/Nicolas-Sarkozy-defends-Swiss-minaret-ban.html

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/07/19/AR2006071901795.html

Edited December 8, 2009 by wulf42

[Guest American Woman]

I think the precedent I was looking for was if there was a case where another religious group already had a certain right established for a long period of time (decades or more) and then had it taken away (by popular vote or otherwise) while other religious groups still could exercise this same right.

Appeals Court Upholds Nativity Ban in NYC Schools

A federal appeals court in New York ruled it's okay for New York City Public Schools to ban the display of Christian nativity scenes during the Christmas season, even though displays of the Jewish menorah and Islamic star and crescent are permitted during Hanukkah and Ramadan.

[JB Globe]

Millions of Swiss disagree with you! Obviously they think this is a good thing for their Country, Remember it is their Country they took a democratic vote and the matter was decided! Maybe they are worried their security and culture are at risk and feel that this is best for Switzerland.Nicolas Sarkozy is even defending their decision,the article below highlights some of the reasons this vote came about.... maybe you should read it and you will have a better understanding on this issue.The last article i posted should help you see the Swiss point of view! maybe before you judge another country or another poster you should do some research first. Again this move is not against main stream Muslim's it is a move to stop Radicals.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/daniel-ammann/the-real-reasons-why-the_b_373947.html

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/france/6761632/Nicolas-Sarkozy-defends-Swiss-minaret-ban.html

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/07/19/AR2006071901795.html

I answered your request the first time you asked, I've asked you 10 times to answer some of the following:

1 - Has not explained HOW banning minarets fights Islamic Radicalism

2 - Has not provided examples of Islamic radicalism being a "rapidly increasing threat" in Switzerland

3 - Has not offered an example of Swiss Muslims "trying to change Swiss society into an Islamic one"

4 - Has claimed that far-right nationalist parties are almost as bad as terrorists, yet has not explained why he has no problem supporting a ban drafted and promoted by a far-right nationalist party.

5 - Has not offered an explanation as to why he thinks Jews are overwhelmingly against this ban, if (as he says) Jews and Muslims are eternal enemies.

6 - He supports direct-democracy initiatives which revoke the constitutional rights of certain groups of people (in the Swiss case, this means Muslims) has avoided clarifying if this means he would support a Swiss referendum that revoked the right of men to vote.

You've had over a week to answer #1 & #2, you've been given more than enough time.

BTW - The Huntington Post article you posted stated that the minaret ban wouldn't do a thing to help Muslim integration in Switzerland - it was in the last paragraph. You might want to read articles all the way through before posting them next time.

[JB Globe]

Appeals Court Upholds Nativity Ban in NYC Schools

A federal appeals court in New York ruled it's okay for New York City Public Schools to ban the display of Christian nativity scenes during the Christmas season, even though displays of the Jewish menorah and Islamic star and crescent are permitted during Hanukkah and Ramadan.

Well that's kinda stupid.

[wulf42]

I answered your request the first time you asked, I've asked you 10 times to answer some of the following:

1 - Has not explained HOW banning minarets fights Islamic Radicalism

2 - Has not provided examples of Islamic radicalism being a "rapidly increasing threat" in Switzerland

3 - Has not offered an example of Swiss Muslims "trying to change Swiss society into an Islamic one"

4 - Has claimed that far-right nationalist parties are almost as bad as terrorists, yet has not explained why he has no problem supporting a ban drafted and promoted by a far-right nationalist party.

5 - Has not offered an explanation as to why he thinks Jews are overwhelmingly against this ban, if (as he says) Jews and Muslims are eternal enemies.

6 - He supports direct-democracy initiatives which revoke the constitutional rights of certain groups of people (in the Swiss case, this means Muslims) has avoided clarifying if this means he would support a Swiss referendum that revoked the right of men to vote.

You've had over a week to answer #1 & #2, you've been given more than enough time.

BTW - The Huntington Post article you posted stated that the minaret ban wouldn't do a thing to help Muslim integration in Switzerland - it was in the last paragraph. You might want to read articles all the way through before posting them next time.

I read the articles and i read where the author thinks the vote will do nothing to stop it however the Swiss Population do not see it that way......funny you left out the part of the articles that states Islamic Extremist's are making inroads in Switzerland (Washington Post) which also answers your question #2 about the vote...so i guess you pick and choose what to read.

Edited December 8, 2009 by wulf42

[Black Dog]

Millions of Swiss disagree with you! Obviously they think this is a good thing for their Country, Remember it is their Country they took a democratic vote and the matter was decided! Maybe they are worried their security and culture are at risk and feel that this is best for Switzerland.

But you can't explain how banning minarets will curb the threat of radical Islam, which lends credence to the theory that you don't know.

Again this move is not against main stream Muslim's it is a move to stop Radicals.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/daniel-ammann/the-real-reasons-why-the_b_373947.html

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/france/6761632/Nicolas-Sarkozy-defends-Swiss-minaret-ban.html

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/07/19/AR2006071901795.html

I wonder: did you actually read any of the links you posted? Because they arrive at a very different conclusion than yours (bolded above).

From the first link:

A majority of Swiss voters obviously feels that there are problems with Muslim integration into civil society at the moment.

...

It would be utterly wrong -- and dangerous -- to think that this was primarily a racist vote. I'm convinced that the post-electoral analysis will show that a significant part of the (anti-racist) left and an overwhelming majority of the women supported the ban -- not because they are afraid of minarets, but because they are worried about the role (some would say: about the oppression) of women in Islamic societies and about the role of religion in public life.

...

To not be misunderstood: The ban of minarets will not solve one problem of Muslim integration. But the referendum gave the Swiss people the chance to express their opinion that it is not moving into a good direction at the moment. Their vote turned out to be sort of a wake up call to politicians and judges to take their worries seriously. The result of the vote, as uncomfortable and even embarrassing as it may come to many in Switzerland, will be a more open and hence a more sincere and productive debate about Muslim integration.

In other words: it's about Muslims in general.

The second link simply offers the French perspective, while the third doesn't talk about the ban at all, but included this tidbit:

An estimated 350,000 Muslims live in Switzerland, constituting about 5 percent of the population. Swiss officials said they have done a better job integrating foreigners into the population than other European countries and have fewer radical mosques and organizations.