rodcss %3Ca href="http://iegjkexdyhqq.com/"%3Eiegjkexdyhqq%3C/a%3E, [url=http://mvdpmrrjpvyo.com/]mvdpmrrjpvyo[/url], [link=http://bdkstrsgaoqe.com/]bdkstrsgaoqe[/link], http://zohkoksybapw.com/

y9Wnot %3Ca href="http://hcheixdebohh.com/"%3Ehcheixdebohh%3C/a%3E, [url=http://jgboibzkxfgf.com/]jgboibzkxfgf[/url], [link=http://evybkcxzinzg.com/]evybkcxzinzg[/link], http://wxfvfcoxnsqi.com/

On 29 November 2009 the Swiss voters supported a referendum proposal to ban the building of minarets. I was flabbergasted to see that in a statement, the Swiss government said it had accepted the decision. It said: "The Federal Council (government) respects this decision. Consequently the construction of new minarets in Switzerland is no longer permitted." [1]
One of the key elements of democracy is ‘The Rule of Majority’. However, another key element emphasises that such ‘ruling’ should not be unlimited. This other principle states that the constitution should guarantee the Human Rights in general and the protection of minority rights in particular [2].
One major Human Right is the right of people for having any religion or philosophical belief (or no belief). With this right goes right to worship in one’s religion or belief. In general, a person should have the right to enjoy his/her life in any way he/she wishes, as long as he/she does not infringe the rights of others.
If in a referendum, the majority of people vote to confiscate the belongings of a few billionaires and give them to charity organizations, and the government accepts that vote, that government will certainly be in breach of democratic principles.
Can the Swiss government (in the United Nations, for example) object to an Islamic government that bans building churches in its country?
As a Humanist I deplore the government of Switzerland for allowing an undemocratic referendum to take place and accepting its result, of not allowing the Muslim minority to build minarets in their mosques, although I personally do not believe in any religion. Governments are representatives of majority, but are there to act on behalf of all the population, and as such they should be neutral (secular) to any religion or belief or to any particular group. Government offices should not bear any religious symbol and the courts should be completely religion-neutral and everyone should adhere to the rule of democratically established laws that guarantee Human Rights.
A consequence of this decision of the Swiss government is antagonising the Muslims all over the world and encouraging them to restrict the freedom of non-Muslim populations in their countries even more than they did before.
Dabir H. Tehrani
United Nations Association - Edinburgh

[1] - Swiss voters back ban on minarets, 29 November 2009.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/8385069.stm
[2]- D. H. Tehrani, “Seminar on International Democracy at the Scottish Parliament” On the Occasion of ‘The Democracy Day’ by D H Tehrani http://www.edinburghuna.co.uk/31.html

Pa3ydN %3Ca href="http://ezqyptxjxhdl.com/"%3Eezqyptxjxhdl%3C/a%3E, [url=http://glvuuostbian.com/]glvuuostbian[/url], [link=http://lccriaoksqjr.com/]lccriaoksqjr[/link], http://wpzwgjbvyrah.com/

The preamble of the UN Charter states: to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war,... and ...to establish conditions under which justice and respect for the obligations arising from treaties and other sources of international law can be maintained...

I therefore conclude that abiding by the 'Rule of Law' is a very important principle and plan to suggest something along the following lines to be adopted as a UNA policy: All individuals and States should abide by 'The rule of just law'.

The reason I have added the word 'just' is that if the term is used in its existing general form people should not defy any law. If this were correct then India would still be a British colony and South Africa would still be under the rule of a racist regime. Also the existing dictatorships, such as those in Myanmar and Saudi Arabia would continue to rule undemocratically. Therefore, as a UNA member, I would not urge the people of Myanmar and Arabia to follow the 'rule of law' in their land. I would, however, call upon every one, everywhere, to follow the 'Rule of Just Law'. How do I define the 'Just Laws'?
1. Universal just laws are the democratically legislated and internationally accepted laws, at the UN level.
2. All States, powerful or not, large or small, should obey such international laws.
3. Each State must have national just laws, which should not contradict any international law.
4. Within each State local regional laws can exist, but they must not contradict the State laws.
5. People within a State, whether powerful or not, whether a president, or a government official or a legislator or a judge or an ordinary citizen should all follow the 'Rule of Just Law'.
6. All laws must be published using the most easily available communication media.
7. Just laws must not be retrospective, unless they bring an un-punishable and/or advantageous result. In other words, no one should be punished retrospectively, but some may be rewarded retrospectively by a just law.
8. A just law will not contradict another just law and will be clear and simple to understand.
9. My suggested 4D, (1 time + 3 space dimensions) principle, would require the laws to change with time and allows them to be different in different places as the social and political circumstances will require. A just Constitutional law should last longer than the normal laws, but provision should be made for amending them as the underlying social circumstances change with time, at different locations.
10. Any law, international or local, which is considered to be unjust by the subjects, should be targeted for change by non-violent and democratic processes.