Swiss Ban on Minaret Building
On November 29, 2009, over 57 percent of Swiss voters passed a proposed ban on the construction of new minarets in Switzerland. Though “far-right leaders across Europe have praised the Swiss vote and seized the opportunity to call for similar bans in their own countries,” as Forbes.com writes, many people around the world—from Muslims in Cairo to ultra-orthodox rabbis at the Conference of European Rabbis have opposed the ban, viewing it as racist. As stated in a New York Times article, “the ban has propelled the country to the forefront of a European debate on how far countries should go to assimilate Muslim immigrants and Islamic culture.” Switzerland’s justice minister, Eveline Widmer-Schlumpf, conceded that the vote was “ ‘undeniably a reflection of the fears and uncertainties that exist among the population—concerns that Islamic fundamentalist ideas could lead to the establishment of parallel societies.’ ” Award-winning journalist Melik Kaylan offers another side to the argument, pointing out that rather than denoting fascism or racism, the Swiss vote has architectural implications. Kaylan states in his Forbes.com article that “minarets even when silent tend to dominate a skyline. The Swiss are surely allowed to determine the aesthetics of their cityscapes visually as well as aurally.” Regardless of the motivations, the NY Daily News writes that the Swiss ban on minarets has been met with global condemnation, and concern that the Swiss reputation for tolerance has been harmed irreparably.
- As stated in an article by Forbes.com, all major parties aside from the far-right Swiss People’s Party (SVP) were opposed to the ban, and “argued that it violates the constitutional right to freedom of religion and incites hostility toward Muslims.” In what way does the ban incite hostility toward Muslims? Do you think the ban violates freedom of religion? The article points out that “the verdict raises concerns about direct democracy,” and “the Council of Europe has questioned whether fundamental rights of individuals, protected by international treaties, should be subject to popular votes.” What do you make of this concern? What are the dangers of allowing fundamental rights to be subject to popular votes? What are some fundamental rights that you would not want to be subject to popular votes?
- Telegraph.co.uk. quotes Imam Sheikh Mohammed Saleh Shedeed as saying: “My message to the Swiss government is that if it’s about banning minarets and not other places of worship, then it’s unfair.” Do you think the ban on minarets singles out Muslims? The New York Times notes popular anxieties among Swiss about “the impact of what right-wing parties have portrayed as ‘creeping Islamization.’ ” Why might people fear that building more minarets would lead to a more Islamic society? Is this the same as saying that building more churches would lead to a more Christian society?
- According to NY Daily News: “Ostensibly sold to voters as a weapon against Islamism, an all-too-real political phenomenon in Europe, this new law in fact makes no distinction between religion and ideology, instead choosing to alienate the primary victims of Islamic fundamentalism and the best allies of Western liberals—modern Muslims.” What do you make of this argument?
- The NY Daily News describes posters used to lobby for the ban: “In one, a veiled woman stands athwart a Swiss flag dotted with missile-shaped minarets, as if Katyusha rockets were being launched from call-to-prayer towers in Montreux.” What message does this poster give? What is its purpose? Why do you think it may have been effective in encouraging support for the minaret ban?
- The NY Daily News also notes that “the Swiss minaret proscription has been likened to the French government’s decision to ‘oppose’ the burka.” What do you make of this analogy?
- Haaretz reports that the head of the Conference of European Rabbis “issued a statement criticizing the proposed ban, saying that Europe won’t defeat extreme Islam by battling freedom of religion and knocking down mosque minarets in Switzerland.” Rabbi Aba Dunner asserted that “ ‘only through unrelenting support of moderates within the Muslim community and promoting interfaith dialogue can European governments defeat the fundamentalist extreme Islam.” Do you agree with Rabbi Dunner? Why or why not?
- New York Times op-ed columnist Ross Douthat notes that across Europe, far-right groups have used legislation, appeals to concerns about increased immigration, and increased visibility of religious minorities as a wedge issue to gain popularity. Why do you think they’ve been successful? As quoted in Haaretz, International relations director Philip Carmel said after the Conference of European Rabbis that “ ‘the growth of the far right legitimizes xenophobic opinion.’ ” and the Conference in general was “concerned that Jews might be the next targets of a rise in right-wing sentiment aroused by the minaret ban.” Why do you think the conference members have this concern? What is the concern based on?
- Some Swiss political leaders did not take the minaret referendum seriously when it was first proposed; “So certain were the politicians of prevailing that hardly any publicity was fielded against the initiative,” Peter Stamm writes in an op-ed for the New York Times. Thus, the streets were dominated by proponents and their posters. Why do you think the Swiss political leaders did not take the minaret referendum seriously? What is the danger when people see something they feel is wrong, but choose not to speak out against it? What could the political leaders have done differently?
- As co-founder of Architecture for Humanity Cameron Sinclair points out in an article for The Huffington Post, “architecture is a political act.” What does she mean by this? In what way is architecture a political act?
- Journalist Melik Kaylan writes in his Forbes.com article that European countries “have a right to calibrate the precise amount of change they wish for outsiders to introduce in their midst.” What do you make of Kaylan’s argument? Do countries have the right to “calibrate the precise amount of change they wish for outsiders to introduce”? Why or why not?
