2009 Swiss referendums

Only one political party, the right wing Swiss People's Party supported the referendum. It aimed at stopping the "Islamization of Switzerland".[8] Pakistani newspaper The Nation on 30 January 2010 carried a fabricated story according to which "the first man who had launched a drive for imposition of ban on mosques minarets" had seen the error of his "evil ways" and had converted to Islam, which had supposedly "created furore in Swiss politics", claiming that Streich "is ashamed of his doings now and desires to construct the most beautiful mosque of Europe in Switzerland." [9] Tikkun Daily on 5 February debunked The Nation's story as a distorted version of a report on Daniel Streich, a Swiss Muslim who left the Swiss People's Party because he was outraged with their campaign.[10]

Final results showed 57.5% of voters in favour of the ban, 19.5 cantons out of 23 in favour of the proposals.[11]

Key to above graph:

Horizontal axis: abbreviations of Swiss cantons

Red: percentage opposed to ban

Green: percentage supporting ban

The arms referendum sought to ban the export of military weapons and ammunition, in order to further reduce Switzerland's involvement in war. Current law prohibits the exports of materiel to countries involved in armed conflict, or violating human rights. The Swiss arms industry warned of possible job losses if passed, and the cabinet recommended against it saying that existing legislation offers enough protections. The group backing the initiative argued that weapons exports contradict the country's neutrality. A similar initiative was defeated in 1997.

Voters rejected the proposal by 68.2%, with 31.5% in favour of the measure. Turnout was 53%.[12]

The aviation fuel tax referendum was initiated by centre-right and right members of parliament to direct much of the taxes on kerosene to airport spending. Previously two-thirds of the taxes collected were spent on road safety, with the rest going to the federal general fund. The initiative directs the two-thirds to aviation safety and environmental concerns, with the remainder continuing to be used for discretionary spending.[13]

Voters approved the measure with 65% in favour.[14]

In the canton of Obwalden, the voting population turned down plans to reserve sections of land for the wealthy, officially designated "high quality standard of life zones of cantonal interest". These zones were part of Obwalden's strategy of increasing tax attractiveness in competition with other cantons. The referendum was successfully opposed by the cantonal section of the Swiss Green Party. Obwalden already has a flat tax system for the benefit of its rich residents, and attempted to introduce a regressive tax system, which was ruled unconstitutional by the Swiss Federal Court.[15]