In other words, not all Swiss condoned the act. After all, the referendum will be taken to higher courts both in Switzerland and Europe, and it could be overturned. But the decision to restrict religious freedom in a provocative manner by one of the most liberal societies of Europe is fraught with prospects beyond the minaret issue.The repercussions of the Swiss vote will be felt at three levels, and all three are vital for the future. The first is the prospect that the racist elements within European politics will be invigorated. The vote has already mobilized right-wing political parties which have an aversion to foreigners and minorities in Europe. Dutch politician Geert Wilders, who is fast becoming Europe’s most visible Islamophobe and an advocate of blatantly racist policies, has already called for a similar ban in the Netherlands. The Swiss vote could set a precedent for such extreme views to be seen as part of the mainstream when in reality they are no less discriminatory and inflammatory than anti-Semitism and racism. I will not be surprised if the extremists in the UK, Austria, Germany, France and other European countries will start similar campaigns.
Secondly, the Swiss vote will have far-reaching repercussions for the future of Muslims in Europe. If European Muslims in Switzerland, a supposed bastion of liberalism and tolerance at least legally if not socially, can be singled out as potential threats, what can we expect in other countries where failed government policies and exclusivist legislation have already alienated disempowered Muslim communities?
The Swiss Muslim community, which numbers around 400,000, is probably the most peaceful and well-integrated group in Europe. We have hardly seen any individuals or groups causing political or social trouble in the country. If they are seen as suspect and their religious rights severely undermined, what kind of a message would this send to other Muslims of Europe? Even perfect integration will not suffiace to give a space for civility toward Muslims in the middle of Europe?
The logic of the anti-minaret campaign is flawed because it confuses integration with assimilation and discrimination. The Swiss MP Ulrich Schlüer, one of the architects of the referendum and the campaign, told the Los Angeles Times that the minaret is “a political symbol against integration; a symbol more of segregation, and first of all, a symbol to try to introduce Sharia law parallel to Swiss rights.” How and when has the minaret, an integral part of mosque architecture for centuries and across the Muslim world, become a symbol of “political Islam”? From now on, are we supposed to treat the cross a symbol of fundamentalist Christianity?
Thirdly, the Swiss vote will affect the fate of pluralism in Europe and the future relations between Muslim and Western societies. The Canadian philosopher Charles Taylor wrote in the Guardian in 2007 that multiculturalism has become suspect and inextricably linked with Islam because “almost every reason for toleration’s apparent fall into disrepute concerns Islam.” The rising tide of Islamophobia, a concern for all human and civil rights groups, is directly related to the larger debate about the future of pluralism and multiculturalism in Europe.
In an alarming way, “Islam” as an ideological category has become part of a public debate in certain European corners to determine how far pluralism and multiculturalism will go. We had a trial case of this in the 2004 French decision, this time by the government, to ban headscarves in public schools. Like the Swiss vote, the attempts by the French to justify the ban went beyond girls covering their heads in public schools. The debate became fixated upon the “soul” of France and Europe. Not surprisingly, “Islam” and “Muslims,” again as abstract ideological categories, were presented as the eternal other of Europe.
When in 2007 Louise Arbour, the then United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, said bigotry and prejudice, especially in regard to Muslims, were common in Europe, many dismissed her remarks as an overstatement. But she insisted that Europeans “are shocked at times when it is pointed out that bigotry, prejudice and stereotyping is still sometimes very present in their attitude to others.” The myopic view that the civilized nations of the world have left all traces of racism and discrimination in the past is not only arrogance but also deadly ignorance. The Swiss vote is a painful reminder that no one can take freedom and rights for granted, even in Europe.
What is encouraging is that many conscientious Swiss and Europeans have reacted against to the ban and will take action together with Swiss Muslims. Navi Pillay, the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, said the ban was “discriminatory, deeply divisive and a thoroughly unfortunate step for Switzerland to take and risks putting the country on a collision course with its international human rights obligations.” The Swedish Foreign Minister Carl Bildt suggested that the UN reconsider its presence in Geneva, home to its second largest office, if the Swiss high courts did not overturn the vote.
The Swiss vote is disturbing. But it is also an excellent opportunity for Swiss Muslims and others to rally behind the principle of human rights and civil liberties. This is a golden opportunity for everyone from the Catholics and Protestants to the secular to demonstrate that the future of multiculturalism in Europe will not be dictated by fear and mistrust.
