In a referendum called by general popular initiative on November 29, the Swiss electorate voted by 57.5 per cent for a constitutional ban on the building of minarets throughout the country. This deeply unsettling result has caused a ripple of tension in this usually tranquil region. The vote went against all expectations and against the wishes of all the major political parties including the referendum’s instigators, the Swiss People’s Party (SVP). This disturbing indication of a prejudice against Islamic symbolism sits oddly with Switzerland’s image as a leader in human rights advocacy and international mediation. The result has also been condemned by ministers in the European Union governments, by the Vatican, and by Islamic authorities around the world, many of whom have also advised calm. The U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights, Navanethem Pillay, whose office is based in Geneva, has called the result discriminatory and divisive. Switzerland may also face action in the European Court of Human Rights; it currently chairs that court’s parent body, the Council of Europe.
The ban will not affect the four minarets already standing in Switzerland, and the vote has no connection with the facts of such Muslim presence as there is in the country. The population of about 7.6 million includes approximately 400,000 Muslims; almost all are Europeans or have strong European cultural connections. The 160 or so mosques in Switzerland are also said to be almost invisible. The ban, however, has nothing to do with forms of Islam or with whether minarets and domes are essential to Islamic devotional architecture; mosques without them exist all over the world. Instead the SVP campaign for the ban focussed on the burkha, on the Sharia law, and on the allegedly widespread oppression of women in Islamic cultures and countries. The main campaign poster showed black minarets standing together like rockets against the background of the Swiss flag. In front of the flag, a woman in a black burkha stared towards the viewer. The clear and inflammatory message was that Switzerland had been or was about to be taken over by Islam. Such a message would almost certainly resonate with other European electorates. A German tabloid says that if given the chance German voters would probably vote the same way as the Swiss. This victory for fear and demagoguery shows clearly the failure of mainstream European politicians to deal decisively with xenophobia, bigotry, and racism among their own populations.
Keywords: minarets, Swiss electorate, Swiss People's Party, Europe, xenophobia, bigotry, racism, European Court of Human Rights, U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights, Islamic symbolism, prejudice, Sharia law, muslims, mosques
The problem with this whole issue is that such a thing has been out to vote. It's like asking the marathis to vote whether or not they wish to let other people stay in their state. What if the majority say no, would it be implemented? It's also disturbing to note that people show their biases in such issues by acknowledging that the Swiss merely exercised their opinions in a frank manner. But these same people will cry foul when Hamas was voted to power in Palestine. Was it not the Palestinians right chose whom ever they want to?
I fully agree with the editorial. I can say one thing after this referendum, that this is the flip side of democracy when people do not have an informed consent. I can now understand why Plato once said about the problem with democracy or any system for that matter. Democracy's major problem is this: people can be easily lead to bigotry or nonsense by using propaganda machines and manufacturing consent. What we really need is a republic, a controlled democracy, where everyone has the right to know the truth, not pseudo-knowledge or illusions of knowledge, a far more dangerous thing and a far bigger enemy of knowledge than ignorance!
This in response to Jugooz Chennai comments "Just think of Islamic countries like Pakistan, Indonesia conducting a refrundum to excecute all the Hindus or Christians. Its not good practice." The Swiss referendum is mainly against this kind of thinking originating from madrasas, muslim learning centers.
I agree with the sentiment expressed in the editorial. The majority support for the ban is more likely the result of the anti-immigrant/racist sentiments, perceived fear of the 'other' and above all ignorance of the population than a dispassionate assessment of the ground reality. There are only four minarets in Switzerland! The ban is clearly discriminatory and divisive and targets Muslims where they are least likely to be assertive, most isolated, and least in a position to defend themselves. This will set an unhealthy precedent, especially in Europe where the anti-immigrant and anti-Islam sentiments are on the rise.
Read all the interesting comments and realised that the onus to "integrate" with the rest of the world is on the Muslims while the others can keep reviling them, without any insight into their culture and the much maligned and "anachronistic" sharia law. Often, examples of Saudi Arabia our taken up for their strongly theocratic state but isn't it a fact as well that it's not even a democracy in the first place? Why doesn't anyone take up the example of Indonesia or Turkey or Syria or even the neighbouring Pakistan where in, despite the so called opression, functioning temples do exist? Has anyone ever visited the UAE or Bahrain, where churches and temples exist in full glory or perhaps Egypt, the seat of the Coptic church? Aren't these countries Muslim enough? It was hilarious to read one comment which said something about the bigotry practiced in "theocratic states from where the immigrants have come". Did the person posting the comment even know that most Swiss Muslims are of Yugoslav and Albanian origins? It'd be great if all these people first realised that reviling some culture and then asking its peoples to "mingle" and "win confidence" won't work at all.
This is one of the shocking editorials I have read in the recent times on TH. The title and the tone sounds like more bigotry than the vote result itself.
The swiss have a referendum for everything..from the proposals to increase taxes to building of expressways or the incentives to farmers..The referendum they had on this is one among the thousands.
They have imposed a ban on 'Minarets' and not on the right to practise Islam or have mosques anywhere. This is strictly related to architecture.I dont understand why the "mainstream media"is working overtime to derive meanings.
In our eagerness to be politically-correct, even at the cost of truth we have already caused much damage. Does Tolerance means also tolerating the intolerant?
I guess in this sense, the Swiss had a backbone to say enough is enough.
The Swiss have voted in exercise of their franchise. Just because it is not along expected lines one cannot term it as bigotry or xenophobia. Another way of looking at the result is probably the Muslim population has not done enough to win the confidence of the majority.
In India we see other forms of the same mentality. Whether it is MNS in Mahrashtra or BJP in Gujrat. And the democracy makes them do that. Democracy is not a perfect concept. This shows why democracy ought not to be used for such issues! Public opinion can be on the wrong side in tense times. This does not mean that you infringe upon someone else basic rights because majority does not approve them. One may like to consider the point raised in a fiction masterpiece 'Snow' by Orhan Pamuk. India has been handling these kinds for issues for long time and that might serve as some wonderful case studies for not-so-diverse nations who are confronting confronting diversity these days.
--
Dilawar
The Swiss democracy has demonstrated its ability to capture popular public opinion accurately and scrupulously. Whether this is a wise decision will be decided in the long run, but I disagree with the sentiment that this is hypocritical. So, Muslims' call for assassinating Salman Rushdie and Geert Wilders is not hypocritical? So, the Saudi ban on religious practices other than Islam and their use of Shariah law is not narrow minded? Why bash a democracy trying to take a stance and protect their culture? I wish all democracies had the formidable power that Swiss democracy does. In particular, I am worried that Indian democracy doesn't accurately capture the public's viewpoints on different matters.
Events like these are not going to help the cause of humanity at all.These things will only fuel the fire of religious extremism which already has taken a heavy toll on our lives. Official referendum on these issues are frivilous and reflect the narrow mindedness of the political leadership. The process may be boasted as a democratic one but one must keep in mind that democracy also needs systems of checks and balances to fuction properly.Overzealous responses of the majority like these , should also be tested at the value system of the humanity as a whole.
The Swiss electorate decided democratically and the result must be respected.
Switzerland is an example for a full working democracy and the people expressed their desires and wishes.
The result has caused tensions but we have to appreciate that The Swiss are able to influence the politics of Switerland.
It shows how democracy works.
Best
Kurt
The main issue is not the minaret ban, but can fundamental rights like freedom of voice, equality, right to vote etc, can be put to vote? Just think of Islamic countries like Pakistan, Indonesia conducting a refrundum to excecute all the Hindus or Christians. Its not good practice. This has been the issue for centuries, with Catholics burning members of other churches (inquisition. God has given each person the free will to choose what he want to believe, let us respect it. It's his/her freedom to mess it up or make it right. The govt should make sure, it doesn't affect others, thats it.
Sir
Your editorial Bigotry in Switzerland is not really fair. The Swiss are merely trying to preserve their way of life; and this a very innocuous step in that direction. Are churches permitted in the theocratic regimes from where most of the migrants come?
It cannot be denied sponsors of the proposed ban were were factually correct in saying that "Muslims dont just practice religion. They increasingly make political and legal demands." This holds true of all host countries where migrations from basically illiberal nations have created minorities which aggressively assert their separate identities. Denmark is just one example. Juridically they may be citizens of the host country, but emotionally they remain tied to the countries they have left for greener pastures. And often they despise the values of the societies they have joined. The treatment of religious minorities under the theocratic regimes from which most of these migrants come is shocking. If the secularism and social harmony of the host countries is to be maintained, such steps will just have to be taken. The rest of Europe should follow the Swiss example. Roger Scruton's book: 'the West and the Rest' is worth reading in this connection.
ok
It is not understandable as to why the vote for the ban is viewed in a narrow partisan way as bigotry.In the changing and progressive world of today,the practice of foisting burkha on women, insistence on observance of Sharia Law and such other symbolisms of Islam are but anachronistic.In any case, all this swearing by Islamists in the name of secularism is all the more religionistic than secularistic and hence hypocritical,to say the least.
This is an odd editorial.
I guess, lack of solidarity from Muslim population against the religious terrorism is the reason for these kind of votes. I wouldn't blame the Swiss. Given a chance most western courtiers will vote the same.
Swiss citizens acted within their rights. Terming it as bigotry shows lack of sensitiveness. Per editorial "This disturbing indication of a prejudice against Islamic symbolism sits oddly with Switzerland’s image as a leader in human rights advocacy and international mediation", this shows on the other side, there is a urgent need for Muslims and Islamic countries to takes steps to win confidence of majority non-Muslims countries by their actions and not with words.
Please Email the Editor