Wednesday
Nov252009
We vote on Sunday. On minarets. Or rockets.
Wed, November 25, 2009 at 18:25
Here is an Englishman’s take on the current state of the fragile Swiss psyche I can largely agree with - with the exception of the rather poor, platitude and cliché-ridden intro. (I'm convinced a sizeable minority of the commentariat has never been within yodelling distance of the Swiss border.)
This is where I get my knickers in a bit of a twist about a political issue, maybe not to everyone’s delight. Switzerland is a country I'm proud to live in purely on the basis of its system of political participation that gives me a regular say on matters I wouldn't be entitled to in any other country. Of course this requires a politically literate populace. Our politics are issue-centric rather than personality-centric. Some of the issues we vote on are quite complex. If you want to be adequately informed, you have to do your homework. Voter turnout is low; 40% is considered good.
The Swiss are, in general, moderates, and most initiatives and referenda are decided on with pragmatism and a cool head. This one however has whipped up all sorts of ugly associations and emotions. This is the price we pay for being the most direct kind of democracy. There are no taboo topics. There is no political correctness. Please cross your fingers that this one fails (like most of the SVP-induced referenda do). The right wing of the SVP or Swiss People’s Party (the centrists have been largely eradicated or have jumped ship) are populists and agitators who appeal to voters’ basest fears and blow them out of proportion to pursue their often unsavoury agenda and, in this instance, are trotting out the Islam-denies-women-rights argument. I’m sure interpretations of Muslim doctrines do (ditto interpretations of Christian doctrines, but in a less in-your-face, newsworthy way). Nevertheless, this argument is rich coming from a party that laments the sinking ‘indigenous’ birth rate yet does its best to keep mothers with young children away from the workplace by voting consistently against public funding for daycare facilities.
I'm very worried that this initiative will pass. I don't share the majority opinion that it will fail.
If it passes, the minaret ban will have to be written into the constitution, a thought that makes me feel sick to the stomach. I’m worried there are too many voters out there like my father, who is convinced not banning the Muslim equivalent of a church spire is the first step towards Sharia law.
I'd like to encourage you to read an excellent post on the issue by Mark, an Englishman who lives in Switzerland, here.
This is where I get my knickers in a bit of a twist about a political issue, maybe not to everyone’s delight. Switzerland is a country I'm proud to live in purely on the basis of its system of political participation that gives me a regular say on matters I wouldn't be entitled to in any other country. Of course this requires a politically literate populace. Our politics are issue-centric rather than personality-centric. Some of the issues we vote on are quite complex. If you want to be adequately informed, you have to do your homework. Voter turnout is low; 40% is considered good.
The Swiss are, in general, moderates, and most initiatives and referenda are decided on with pragmatism and a cool head. This one however has whipped up all sorts of ugly associations and emotions. This is the price we pay for being the most direct kind of democracy. There are no taboo topics. There is no political correctness. Please cross your fingers that this one fails (like most of the SVP-induced referenda do). The right wing of the SVP or Swiss People’s Party (the centrists have been largely eradicated or have jumped ship) are populists and agitators who appeal to voters’ basest fears and blow them out of proportion to pursue their often unsavoury agenda and, in this instance, are trotting out the Islam-denies-women-rights argument. I’m sure interpretations of Muslim doctrines do (ditto interpretations of Christian doctrines, but in a less in-your-face, newsworthy way). Nevertheless, this argument is rich coming from a party that laments the sinking ‘indigenous’ birth rate yet does its best to keep mothers with young children away from the workplace by voting consistently against public funding for daycare facilities.
I'm very worried that this initiative will pass. I don't share the majority opinion that it will fail.
If it passes, the minaret ban will have to be written into the constitution, a thought that makes me feel sick to the stomach. I’m worried there are too many voters out there like my father, who is convinced not banning the Muslim equivalent of a church spire is the first step towards Sharia law.
I'd like to encourage you to read an excellent post on the issue by Mark, an Englishman who lives in Switzerland, here.
Reader Comments (10)
Fingers duly crossed. Even sleepy old Ambridge has a mosque now. It's still being built five years plus after they started, and the minaret is yet to arrive. There was a minor outbreak of NIMBYism when they were looking for a plot to build it on, but nowadays nobody minds.
Typical; I want to write about a political topic for the first time in living memory, and you beat me to it :-) Here are my feelings on the subject: http://permanenttourist.ch/articles/2009/11/minarets-and-missiles/
The LDR asked me yesterday whether I'd want to live next door to a mosque. I had to reply with an unequivocal No! I understand, if not on an intellectual then certainly on a visceral level, the defensiveness. When I walk through Interlaken in summer and see women wearing the burqa trailing behind their male relatives or spouses (clad in western attire, of course), it's like a punch to the gut. I perceive it as a symbol of oppression, and in my mind very un-Swiss. But... and here's the kicker: we as a nation choose to adhere to the principles of tolerance and freedom of religion. They are cornerstones of democracy.
Our culture and identity are rooted in Judeo-Christianity and I believe this is worth preserving. I also believe in respect and dialogue. All this popular initiative aims to achieve is to provoke and stir up resentment, fear and hatred. This isn't the way. The fact that those 100,000 signatures came together is also the fault of the other mainstream parties, who have hitherto refused to address in any constructive way the hot topics of immigration and integration.
I value personal freedoms, which are what a civil society protects.
This is an issue that is trailed by unspoken questions. I imagine we are on the slippery slope of " what if", so let's slide on down now. In truth, many are concerned that all these little enclaves of Muslim Arabs are gonna pop up. And that they will have loud minority who wants to no assimilate, as the Dutch and French are wrestling with now.
However, we must be clear on how far religious practices can go. I do not condone how SVP whips everyone into a furor, as they have an agenda, too. I will say that as long as people prefer to put voluntary religious practices ahead of human rights, it is a problem. That goes for those who prefer too pray to Jesus over a sick child for healing, instead of seeking medical attention. It is not limited to one particular belief system--it goes for all.
( Freedom of religion means freedom from it, too. Can I get an "Amen'?)
Back to the present issue:
If the structures were essential to carrying on their religious worship obligations, I could see the dilemma. But since people are steadily praying and worshiping, these structures must not be a necessary element of worship. So, can this be settled that way, instead of as a dislike of their religion? Dunno. We will see.
As we have just dragged ourselves tooth-n-nail out of our own Xian Dark Ages, I will not advocate putting the the rights of a religious minority of the Commonwealth of CH. What people do in their own homelands is one thing, as they visit others, they need to adapt to a degree.
It is unfortunate that the CH Constitution is being tampered with. Why can't this be a regional vote with a charter? That way, it can be voted on again, as circumstances may dictate.
I personally do not know why we must all adapt to what humans say a particular Deity wants. But I am a stubborn American who strongly advocates for our so-called "wall of separation", after all.
I hope this works out peacefully.
What do you think will happen if the answer is 'no'? Anything? Something? Nothing?
I see where Liras is coming from.
I also ask myself, what does a little spire hurt?
I hate seeing those women who follow all covered up.
I work very closely with a Muslim woman. I like to think she is the norm and the covered women are the extreme fringe.
I just don't know, and it makes me sad.
Ellie, I often ask myself what does a little spire hurt? I cannot answer but I will say that any group that comes to a country, wants to change the landscape and not fully integrate...will face hardship towards their plans.
Supposedly, there is no compulsion in religion but try to push that story in a society that has laws about dress and social interaction.
I think it is up to the women to demand to live as they please.
Sad but true.
Liras and Ellie: thank you for commenting (and everyone else). I've been out and about most of the day but wanted to let you know - not that you won't have heard already because it even made the New York Times: it passed. I'm not as devastated as I thought I'd be, because, well, the people have spoken and the people are the sovereign, as we say here. And damn, if I'm not a little proud of my compatriots for speaking their mind plainly and clearly and not caring a shit about political correctness. There are four (4!) minarets in CH and that's the way it's going to stay. Bear in mind... this is a small country. ;-)
( Freedom of religion means freedom from it, too. Can I get an “Amen’?)
Indeed, Liras, but you aren't going to get that anywhere in CH, where the church bells peal on a Sunday for the first time at 7am - or at least in our commune - and continue at hourly intervals until the Sunday service starts. (I don't mind this; it's 'tradition'). Minarets clearly aren't 'tradition'. Fair enough. From a feminist perspective (am I a feminist? I am now) I'm pretty happy. Gov't red-faced.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/8385069.stm
Oh, and I wish the BBC would bloody get it right for a change: it wasn't a referendum. A referendum contests existing legislation. It was a popular initiative. A technicality, maybe, but I've got my pedantic hat on.
Your pedantic hat is fetching. x, e
Sweet SR, I do know of those pealing church bells, as they woke me up when I was there, as well as the US counterparts still tickling my consciousness here at crack of dawn.
However, unlike the bad old days, nobody is going to punish me for not going to church, I do not get social stigma for not being first on the door and it is no big deal that I go to the park instead of services. My neighbors do not pelt my door with rotten fruit not snub my in the bakery aisle, because I was not with them singing those hymns from 1640.
That is my kind of freedom. We have shed blood to get it and I for one, to do wish to see those efforts go to waste.
Things will be just fine, as everyone is still doing as they please, worship-wise
(I like the bells, as they mark off time. That way, I can leave my leash called a cell phone at home and still be on time. No, I don't wear a watch, lol.)
Liras and Ellie: thank you for commenting (and everyone else). I've been out and about most of the day but wanted to let you know - not that you won't have heard already because it even made the New York Times: it passed. I'm not as devastated as I thought I'd be, because, well, the people have spoken and the people are the sovereign, as we say here. And damn, if I'm not a little proud of my compatriots for speaking their mind plainly and clearly and not caring a shit about political correctness. There are four (4!) minarets in CH and that's the way it's going to stay. Bear in mind... this is a small country. ;-)
( Freedom of religion means freedom from it, too. Can I get an “Amen’?)
Indeed, Liras, but you aren't going to get that anywhere in CH, where the church bells peal on a Sunday for the first time at 7am - or at least in our commune - and continue at hourly intervals until the Sunday service starts. (I don't mind this; it's 'tradition'). Minarets clearly aren't 'tradition'. Fair enough. From a feminist perspective (am I a feminist? I am now) I'm pretty happy. Gov't red-faced.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/8385069.stm
Oh, and I wish the BBC would bloody get it right for a change: it wasn't a referendum. A referendum contests existing legislation. It was a popular initiative. A technicality, maybe, but I've got my pedantic hat on.