Swiss Minaret Ban and other European Issues

[Túrin Turambar]

You’ve probably all heard by now that a referendum has passed in Switzerland banning the construction of new minarets. It’s almost certainly a reaction by the Swiss electorate at a perceived encroachment of Islamism.

I doubt the ban will get much sympathy here, and I think it’s, at best, pretty silly. Still, there’s some interesting issues raised. Switzerland’s unique system of direct democracy, for example, where political parties can basically circumvent the legislature to pass laws through the people. Plus the comparison between this and the hijab ban in French Schools. And the unexpected success of nationalist and far-right political parties throughout Europe in the recent EU elections, which I don’t believe we discussed here.

[Nin]

I will say more (being the only Swiss... I waited if someone would open a thread - I was rather ashamed), but so far only: Geneva did not accept this referendum!!!!!!!!!!!

[Voronwë the Faithful]

I was hoping that you would express an opinion, Nin. I look forward to hearing more from you.

I think everyone can guess that I think this is a horrible mistake.

[Túrin Turambar]

I will say more (being the only Swiss... I waited if someone would open a thread - I was rather ashamed), but so far only: Geneva did not accept this referendum!!!!!!!!!!!

Yes, interesting to note that the 'yes' vote was weakest in the Francophone Cantons and apparently strongest in the Italian and Romansch ones:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Minar ... 009_de.svg

[Lalaith]

That is interesting.

[Nin]

The Swiss votes on Minarets:

First to understand this vote, you need to know a tad more about the Swiss direct democracy. In Switzerland, all laws changing the constitution (like this one) have to be approved by the people. In fact, simply most laws have to be approved by the people. This can be done upon proposal by the parliament or after an initiative risen by a political party or a lobby or interest group or – in theory – an individual. Once you have presented your initiative, you have to gather a certain number of signatures in a certain time (I think it’s 100.000 signatures in 100 days) . This happened in the case of the Minaret initiative started by a right wing popularist party. Signatures were mostly and quickly gathered in the German speaking parts of the country, I only heard of the initiative when it came to vote.

The parliament checks beforehand if an initiative is against the constitution and in this particular decided that it is not – as the freedom of religion is not questioned, but only one particular form of exercising this religion.

The vote this week-end happened in a particularly charged atmosphere against muslims for reasons which have nothing to do with the actual vote: since several months two Swiss citizens are held hostage in Libya. This is the result of a personal vendetta of Mr. Kadhafi whose son got arrested last year in Geneva for having beaten a female employée. The Swiss president presented a rather humbling public excuse while visiting Libya, although it was perfectly legal and justified to arrest his son after charges had been pressed. Despite a guarantee given that after that excuse the hostages would go home, they have not been liberated until this day. And in Switzerland, it has created a lot of resent, some of which has shown up in this vote, although the Swiss Muslim community has strictly nothing to do with it (and one of the hostages is muslim).

Then, there is the Swiss Muslim community: the major part of it is European and originating from Kosovo or other parts of Ex-Yougoslavia. Then comes a north-african (Tunisia, Algeria, Marocco) part, mostly in the French speaking part, many of whom are in fact French by nationality. The last part – but which is mostly present in Geneva are very, very rich Arabs form the Gulf countries. They often have houses around the lake (as used to have the king Saad of Saudi Arabia) and come for the summer –they spend a lot of money, are not integrated at all and their women often wear not only hijab but burqua and/ or facial mask. (This summer, when we were shopping, there was a group of those arab women dressed in black with face masks in a shop and a little girl could not stop to stare at them and then tore her mother’s sleeve and told her: “Look mum, a ghost…”)

Minarets are not allowed to call out for prayer anyway and have never been. They are only symbolic. I don't know how many requests for minarets have been disposed in the last years, but there were not a lot. This is not a building or architecture issue!
The Muslim community of Switzerland was for long years a "silent" community. It has become more present since the downfall of yougoslavia, as many are from Kosovo and their religion has a great part in the affirmation of their identity as being different from the other parts of Ex-Yougoslavia.

Astonishgly enough, in Geneva, where this not integrated and not tolerant branch of Islam is very present every year, the initiative to forbid minarets has been rejected by close to 60%. This is where I live, so I don’t have much insight to the German speaking part of the country, where the initiative was accepted.

The campaign was quite nasty: some posters of the party who has created the initiative were forbidden in some cantons, but not in all. They showed a woman in burqa and a minaret looking like a missile. And there is probably one of the reasons of this vote: it’s a rejection of what is resented in Islam: Treatment of women and terrorist potential. This fear has been played by the party and the gouvernement did not oppose itself clearly enough IMHO. Communication around this initiative was dreadful.

In the very rural cantons of Switzerland you also have a tradition of opposition to the Federal gouvernement. None of the gouvernement members supported the initiative and most are very concerned about the outcome, especially about the neatness of the result.

Only a few months ago, or in a few months, with the Kadhafi affair not being so close, I think that the initiative could have been rejected. Timing was awful.

Now, as said in Geneva (where a mosque and a minaret exist…), as often people have voted differently and this shows several things: the strongest rejection comes in fact from the regions where almost no muslims live. It is the fear of the unknown… But the result is neat enough to be worried and – in my case – also ashamed. Unlike other opinions expressed, I think that direct democracy actually often favours manipulation as people vote about issues about which they have no or little idea. It favours populism. Often, the Swiss resist quite well, but in this particular case, things went horribly wrong. This is a pity as so far, Switzerland has been rather tolerant (I had for example students with headscarfs in class – the daughters of the Iranian ambassador…). But maybe this is just Geneva. The vote has shaken the population and there have been several counter-manifestations, like a oecumenian wake in the cathedral today.

In other countries, an issue like this would never be voted. So, it’s easy to hide behind good conciousness and blame the Swiss – who did vote. I’m not sure the outcome would be very different in many other parts of the world.

[Lidless]

Petty is never pretty, unless it's a spelling error.

[Inanna]

In other countries, an issue like this would never be voted. So, it’s easy to hide behind good conciousness and blame the Swiss – who did vote. I’m not sure the outcome would be very different in many other parts of the world.

But other issues are voted, and same sex marriage referendums in US spring to mind. I don't want to osgiliate this thread, but when I first read the news, my mind immediately jumped to the referendums I have seen here.

In one article I read a very measured response by an Islamic cleric living in switzerland. He said that this issue reflects misunderstanding in Switzerland. AND that fundamnetalists of his religion, outside Switzerland, would misunderstand it and use it. I found a deep level of understanding in his statement (can't find the original ).

[Nin]

Was it this article of Tariq Ramadan?

http://www.tariqramadan.com/spip.php?article10932


Or that one?

http://www.tariqramadan.com/spip.php?article10928

I wrote more about the question on TORC, as there were no answers her.

[Inanna]

No, it was a quote in NYT article, I think. NYT or WSJ.

Can you post your TORC post here? I did not post until now, but I have been reading. As an aside, the all-American issues discussions in Lasto upset me sometimes, and I welcome a discussion about a different country.

[Nin]

I fully understand about the all-American dicussions and I hesitate to post more, because I have the impression that anyway it's not of interest (see that this thread is pretty much dead...)

But as for the posts on TORC, much of it are answers to questions over there, but I can try to see what is resume and post it here too...

[Nin]

Most of the TORC posts:

First about the question weather the vote was motivated by architectural reasons of cultural preservation_

In Geneva (where I live) the mosque has a minaret. But call for prayer is only allowed under special circumstances, and this not at all because of the message, but because of the noise and the nature of the voice (actually it falls under the law of public display of music). Any message that someone would want to call out over a loudspeaker would fall under this law. And a lot of what is “preserved” for the tourism industry is in fact highly artificial. The whole debate and vote is so bizarre, because there has not been an invasion of minarets (or requests to build them) or a rise of extremist islam or anything alike in Switzerland.

If the vote was influenced by tension between the Muslim community and the “rest” of Switzerland and why it was over minarets :

In fact, not really. There is not a lot of tension between the Muslim community and the rest of the country – votes against minarets have been the highest where is no Muslim community at all and the lowest in Geneva where the muslim community is present and active (and has a mosque and a minaret…). The tension is rather between the holders of a traditional Switzerland (the same who refuse the EU) and progressive Switzerland – a gap which you see in many votes in Switzerland and which often cuts the country in two halfs: the German speaking part and the French speaking part. Now, with this particular vote many of those who traditionally vote against xenophobic issues (like limitations of the pourcentage of foreigners or bilateral agreements with the EU) in this case have voted for it – because they perceive islam as anti-democratic and against human rights. So, the precise reasons for which usually they vote tolerant makes them vote otherwise this time.

Why over minarets: If this was an issue which would really create daily tensions and debates (like the headscarfs), I doubt the Swiss would vote for it, conflicts are usually avoided. Minarets are visible, you can focus the debate on them, but in fact, they are a very, very minor problem in Switzerland which could have easily been solved with architectural demands. But they are a way of focusing this obscure fear of islam being an anti-democratic religion which rejects some of the traditional European values, mainly equality. Now, it is interesting to see that one of the cantons where the initiative had the highest acceptance was Appenzell where women’s right to vote in local elections was refused until 1991 and had to be claimed from the European Court of Human rights. Contradiction, isn’t it?
You know, the UDC first wanted a referendum against hallal butcheries, but then realised it would too strike the Jewish community as the rules for kasher are so close. So they chose minarets. It might have been the burqa too. But all those are symptoms and what remains at the bottom is a deep mistrust against change in general and islam in particular.
I mainly think that the UDC (French abrevation of the conservative party) have chosen this issue because it was easy to present and to win. They have lost several votes on xenophobic issues in the last two years, all of them related to Europe or naturalisation. But people are still afraid of islam – and of conflict. If you vote against headscarfs at school, you will actually have daily problems. Not with minarets. So let’s vote about them. We will have a victory… and the governement thinking let them vote, it will be refused like the other latest votes and we will have a clear sign how tolerant the Swiss are –only it fired horribly back, as votes on Islamic issues do not rise the same reflexe as European xenophobic issues.

About the question if the freedom of religion is restricted by this decision:

I do not wish to enter the discussion of the ban of minarets does affect the religious freedom in Switzerland, because I see arguments for both sides. For me it is worse that it singles out a religion. Before this vote, most of the mosques in Switzerland had no minaret and attending Muslims were perfectly fine with it.

Restrictions of religious buildings have a history, for instance, in catholic countries, protestant churches were forbidden and vice/versa. In Geneva, churches of other confessions than Calvinist were only allowed if from the ourside they could not be recognised as a religious buildings.

The Muslims in Switzerland will be exercising their religion just like before (the existing minarets will not disappear), but what makes the difference is the pointing finger. They have been singled out as the dangerous religion. They feel rejected, even though there has never been a problem with Muslims in the country. They are declared guilty by association with the radical fringe of their religion. That is IMHO more damage than the minarets which would not have flourished in the country anyway.

Well, the major part of the Muslim community in Switzerland is European, originating from the Kosovo (Ex-Yougoslavia) or - at least legally - from France. So, nothing but in this sense, Islam is a European religion. There are not many converts in Switzerland, to the best of my knowledge. But Islam is a European religion, not by conversion but by birth in many parts of Ex-Yougoslavia and in France, mostly by French with origins from the ancien colonies, but just as French as others.

I would say the Muslim community here is integrated: there has not been a single case of violence (like an honor crime) in Switzerland. As was said in my favourite news-paper the other day: Not a single Swiss has died because of Islam (but in 1997 36 Swiss were killed in an attentat with islamic background in Luxor, Egypt) or been harmed for islamic reasons - not even the hostages in Lybia, as Khadafi does not claim himself an islamic leader and clearly keeps those poor guys for personal vengeance reasons.
This changes nothing about the Swiss Muslim community, though.

Yet, they are feared- They are not feared because of what is happening in Switzerland, but because of what is happening in other parts of the world, including Europe.

[Túrin Turambar]

Well I, for one, would love to see more discussion of events in Europe and would happily participate. I commented in my original post that the EU Elections had gone unnoticed here.

[Inanna]

Nin, that's a wonderful post. Thanks so much for bothering to copy-paste.

When you say, Geneva did not accept this referendum, what do you mean? It will be overruled?

[Voronwë the Faithful]

I think that she means that Geneva was one area that voted against the referendum, even though the people of Geneva have more experience dealing with living with Muslims (and even with a Minaret!) than people in other parts of the country. But I hope that Nin will clarify as to whether that is correct or not.

I would love it if there were more discussion here of Europe, and other parts of the world other than America. Sadly, most of our most active posters are American and people do tend to talk about what they know best. This is, after all, quite a small community, compared to some place like TORC.

[Nin]

Three canton in Switzerland refused the initiative: Geneva, Vaud and Neuchâtel. But the federal majority accepted it, so it is a refuse "for the glory".

Sorry, very tired tonight.

[Frelga]

I bet it matters to Muslims in Geneva and the other two that their neighbors did not turn against them.

[Lalaith]

I agree, and I'm sorry I don't have anything to really contribute. I am reading along with interest, though.

[Túrin Turambar]

Now for the practical issues with enforcing this law:

Chimney pot minaret defies Swiss voters

A Swiss shoe-shop owner has built a mock minaret on the top of his warehouse in defiance of a ban on the Muslim architecture.

Guillaume Morand extended a chimney, gave it the form of a minaret and sprayed it in gold paint to protest against a constitutional amendment approved in a nationwide referendum last month.

“It was scandalous that the Swiss voted for the ban,” said Mr Morand, 46, who owns the Pomp It Up chain of shoe stores.

“Now we [the Swiss] have the support of all the far-right parties across Europe. This is shameful.”

The tower, made of plastic and wood above his warehouse near Lausanne, is a “message of peace and tolerance” designed to last for two years before it rots, he said — but there are no plans for it to be used to summon Muslims to prayer.

“Our minaret is pretty,” he said. “You could say I’m proud of it and I’m happy that people are talking about it.” His neighbours are less enthusiastic and have showered him with racist insults since the minaret appeared this week, he said. One telephoned a threat to demolish the structure.

The far-right Swiss People’s Party, which initiated the referendum, accused the businessman of using the tower for self-publicity.

“That’s the only argument they have against me,” said Mr Morand, who is not a Muslim.

Police arrived within 20 minutes of the end of the building work, he said. They took photographs and said that they would file a report. It is possible that the construction could lead to the first legal wrangle over the ban.

Mr Morand is not worried. “I think I’ll just get a letter from a judge,” he said. “If they give me a fine, I will contest it. There’s no justification for a punishment over this.”

Lawyers have described the ban as contrary to international law.

Mr Morand says that he will appeal any penalty to the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg, where he is confident of victory. His optimism is shared by Eveline Widmer-Schlumpf, Switzerland’s Justice Minister, who says the amendment is certain to be invalidated by European judges.

The Swiss People’s Party shows no sign of backing down and is organising a referendum to order the automatic expulsion of foreigners guilty of criminal offences such as murder, rape, robbery or drug trafficking.

It has already gathered 210,000 signatures, more than enough to force a referendum under Swiss law.

link

[Frelga]

Way to go, Mr Morand. The man is my hero.

How, exactly, does the new law define a minaret? By appearance or utility? Does it apply to a structure that looks like one but isn't, or to a use of any non-traditional looking structure as one?