Switzerland: Referendum to Monitor Potential Terrorists from Age 12 Passes

The Swiss who voted for this did it with Moslems in mind, but we all know the “far-right” is what the people who wrote it were thinking about.

And still no one explains why there are Moslems there in the first place…

Free West Media:

According to projections, a majority of Swiss voters (57 percent) on Sunday supported the law on police measures to combat terrorism, despite warnings from many, including the UN and Amnesty International.

The police will be able to better monitor suspected children, limit their movements and force them to participate in interviews. These measures will apply from the age of 12. From the age of 15, young adults can also be placed under house arrest for nine months, with the approval of a court.

Left-wing opponents of the law believe that it does not respect fundamental rights and human rights, and that it endangers the country’s human rights record.

The government however said that fundamental rights would be guaranteed and asserted that de-radicalization programs have been insufficient in the face of the threat posed by some individuals.

This has been happening forever – they bring Moslems into white countries, Moslems start killing people (as they do), and that is then used as an excuse to take everyone’s freedom away.

In America, after 911, we were never allowed to have the discussion: “maybe we just shouldn’t let Moslems into our country?”

Instead, the George Bush Administration said that we should have more Moslem immigrants because that would somehow help us in our wars in the Middle East by showing goodwill. (That is literally true – it’s impossible to find anything on Google anymore, but someone can dig up an interview where Bush’s DOJ head, the demonlike Russian Jew Michael Chertoff, talked extensively about how large-scale Moslem immigration would help us win wars against Moslems. You can find other such statements from various officials – you can also just check the numbers of these people that came in under Bush.)

Instead of having the “why not ban Islam?” conversation, the sickening Republicans used the Founding Fathers’ statements about “freedom of religion” as if that was meant to include Islam (instead of just various forms of Christianity, which is what it was written to mean – it was included because Anglicans had at various points wanted to ban various puritan cults and/or Catholics or whatever). They then said that because the Constitution says “freedom of religion” that this means we have to have as many religions as possible, and that the only solution to Islamic terrorism was spying on everyone and dehumanizing them at the airport.

Frankly, the airport thing was when “anti-racism” really got started, because they made it so everyone had to be viciously humiliated by the airport security. At the time in the early 2000s, you could still say rather innocently “but why are they checking people who aren’t Moslems?” The government and media (including the Republicans) would both say that it would be “racist and insensitive” to only check Moslems, and that you might not be able to recognize a Moslem (they could disguise themselves as white people) AND that maybe also non-Moslems could be Moslem terrorists somehow.