So Switzerland, I have one question for you - why you such a bigot? Why you gotta be a jerk? No real good reason? Oh. Well, you make me sad either way.
Monday, November 30, 2009
Dear Switzerland
So, for those of you who haven't heard, Switzerland passed a ban on minarets today. Minarets are the towers attached to mosques used to call Muslims to prayer. Oddly enough, these four (yes, four in the whole country) minarets aren't even used for calling people, but for decoration and tradition. There are about 400,000 Muslims in the country, 90% of which are from Turkey or Kosovo - aka they are very liberal on their dress code and do not really wear Muslim specific clothing.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
13 comments:
OK, yes, I would not call the cast of ballots the brightest day of democracy and tolerance. It is shameful and gives a bad reflection about Switzerland and the Swiss.
However, if you do want to comment about this, you might want to look into the context just a bit deeper.
Voting had much to do with rather complex questions of internal policy. Perhaps more than with Islam. This might not be very easy to grasp for an "outsider", but is quite well illustrated by the fact that there is a large correlation between the amount of Muslims living in a certain district and the amount of yes-votes. Those who actually know and live with the Muslims seem not to be afraid of neither Islam nor minarets. The fears of traditionally more conservative villagers, not really affected by the presence of Islam in Switzerland, have been successfully instrumentalized.
In addition, the pressing open confrontation with the (Muslim) clan of Libyan president Kaddafi, who took two Swiss hostages, helped just as little as the comment of Turkish president Erdogan calling minarets the bayonets of Turks abroad.
You might also not want to completely close your eyes from real existing problems of coexistence of Islam and liberal, western values. The Swiss Muslims don't dress in an "Islam specific way"? Really? Well, some don't and some do.
There are schools with 90% Muslim pupils, who don't speak the local language. There is Albanian mothers refusing to learn the language and Turkish fathers forbidding their daughters to go to (compulsory) swimming lessons and school trips. There are unfortunately even forced marriages and female circumcision. There ARE emerging parallel societies.
Please also note that the result of the cast of ballots came as a surprise to everyone, not even the initiating party had ever thought they could possibly win it.
There were spontaneous demonstrations in the aftermath and "resistance" in the form of discussion groups etc. is forming in support of the Muslim community.
The collection of signatures to initiate yet another cast of ballots may very well start soon, requiring to turn around the result of the first cast of ballots.
Why would someone introduce a bill for possible legislation which was not expected to pass? What is the point in doing so? To single out a whole community? If that was the case, then the originators of the ban certainly have done their job. This ban should be repealed on the basis of being unconstitutional.
There is a growing discrimination problem regarding Muslims, which has only grown as a result of terrorist attacks throughout the world linked to extremist groups. It is very unfortunate to see people jumping on the anti-Muslim bandwagon without recognizing all of the good done by Muslims throughout history. Without the Muslim population, we would not have the classical literature which we hold so dear or other important developments.
My understanding, gathered from The Daily Dish (andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com) as well as other news sources, is that the majority of the Muslims living in Switzerland try a little more to conform than they or other groups might in other countries. I'm sure that there are varying degrees of integration, just as there are with groups in the United States and other countries.
You point out that there are those who are at the extreme end of the Islamic spectrum, going so far as to be misogynistic and refusing to 'conform.'
First, I'll address female circumcision. It is a terrible practice undertaken by a small minority of people, most of whom have originated in the African countries - Somalia, Ethiopia, Sudan, and the like. This does not necessarily mean that all those who practice this are Muslim or that it is inherently Islamic in origin or practice.
Secondly, there are plenty of people in the United States who still speak their first language and refuse to learn English, or they do not have the resources in order to learn it. This alone should allow discrimination to take hold against people of foreign origin.
Is it not a testament to the mindset of 58% of the population that they are so afraid based on misconceptions and ignorance that they would vote for this? Even more, that this has been two years in the making (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/6676271.stm).
See the following from the link above from 2007:
_
"But we don't want minarets. The minaret is a symbol of a political and aggressive Islam, it's a symbol of Islamic law. The minute you have minarets in Europe it means Islam will have taken over."
Mr Freysinger's words may sound extreme, even paranoid, but this is a general election year in Switzerland, and the campaign against minarets is playing well with voters.
A recent opinion poll for one Swiss newspaper found that 43% of those surveyed were in favour of a ban on minarets.
"We have our civil laws here," insisted Mr Freysinger. "Banning minarets would send a clear signal that our European laws, our Swiss laws, have to be accepted. And if you want to live here, you must accept them. If you don't, then go back."
_
In essence, what is being said here is that followers of Islam moving to other countries should expect to have their religious freedoms trumped by "traditional European" laws. Perhaps it is because I am an American who believes in tolerance for all peoples of all backgrounds - religious, nationality-related, socioeconomic, etc - or maybe because of the education I have taken part in - but this is not a healthy way to encourage people to move to or even visit your country.
I can appreciate the contextual aspect that you suggested I look into. However, I believe that, regardless of context, bigotry and ignorance are not justified. Perhaps I am a little too idealistic for the real world, but there you go.
"Why would someone introduce a bill for possible legislation which was not expected to pass?"
Are you actually joking?
Why???
-Because you get almost free, large scale media coverage.
-Because it's an A+ way to move out of responsibility when you don't really have an answer (next time there is any given problem with Islam / migration: "...hey, we wanted to do something about it, but you guys refused to see the problem. It's all your fault.")
- Because it's a really populist topic, that can very easily be "boiled up" and used to have the "small people" vote for you in the next elections, and thereafter comfortably hide your more complicated agenda actually working against "the small people" beneath all the emotions.
"which has only grown as a result of terrorist attacks"
this is simply wrong. there is hardly a notion of fear from terrorist attacks in switzerland. due to neutrality, the worldwide meaning in business and maybe even the strong army, the swiss are not concerned about attacks, except when traveling.
in fact, the ban on minarets introducing a cause for terrorist attacks was perceived clearly and never the less was luckily yet too small to influence the voters in their decision making.
center of attention of the debate was definitely the question of "misfits" between "ordinary" muslims and "ordinary" non-muslims, not radicals. discrimination results (in this case) largely from non-integration, not terrorism.
"that the majority of the Muslims living in Switzerland try a little more to conform than they or other groups might in other countries"
well, the question is not how "they" act relative to others, but rather if it is in a way that is acceptable and compatible with the values present. that a problem may be worse elsewhere doesn't eliminate it.
i would like to throw in, more as a suggestion than a statement, that this could possibly be a result of swiss society actually being less tolerant towards non-integration (or harsher against islam and migrants in general, as you probably perceive it) than others. it is a system we call "demand and assist".
"just as there are with groups in the United States and other countries"
yes, except the idea of society is different in the US and europe. while in the USA, people are generally ready to opt for the "next to each other", for europeans the "with each other" is a fundamental idea. this is like a whole new huge discussion and maybe we can just leave it at this point and agree that when it comes to minorities and integration, comparing the US and europe is not helpful.
"Secondly, there are plenty of people in the United States who still speak their first language..."
i am not sure i understand you correctly, but what i think you are saying is that it's ok not to learn the language. but it's not. don't get me wrong, nobody is against people speaking their own language, visiting their cafes and being engaged in their "cultural clubs" etc. nobody is asking for assimilation. but if you refuse to learn the language, it causes heaps of practical problems, it 100% and fully makes impossible any form of integration or communication and it raises serious doubts about why exactly a person with absolutely zero interest in his host country should actually be in his host country.
"what is being said here is that followers of Islam moving to other countries should expect to have their religious freedoms trumped by "traditional European" laws".
followers of islam moving into switzerland should expect to be able to exercise their tradition only to the degree where it is conform with "traditional european" laws.
you can't be asking for the kanun or shariah to be accepted in the west, in order to hold tolerance high, can you? you can not deny that SOME practices implemented by SOME muslims, culturally or religiously induced, are intolerant. i say: better not tolerate intolerance.
"but this is not a healthy way to encourage people to move to or even visit your country."
yeah, and why is it that the swiss should be wanting to do that? who ever is unwilling or unable to move within the boundaries of a liberal, rather secular, tolerant, western society is not supposed to be welcome, full stop. leave alone encouraged to come here?!
"believe that, regardless of context, bigotry and ignorance are not justified."
tolerance towards intolerance, aka turning your head when it gets hot, is as dangerous as it is cowardly.
Is it really that incredulous to believe that someone who expects a bill to fail doesn't need to spend taxpayer money and time trying to convince them to pass said bill? I don't know where you are from, but in the America I've experienced people would be upset with that.
Clearly it was an over-generalization to say that the stigma has grown only because of terrorist attacks. It seems as though the stigma surrounding Muslims and the Islamic religion stems mainly from the extremist groups and terrorist attacks. However, this comment was not directed to specifically Switzerland but to the Western world in general.
I fail to see how non-integration is so threatening to people. I have no doubt that the Swiss are less tolerant to outsiders. I have several friends who have been to Switzerland and all have made a similar comment to me.
Obviously a problem being worse other places does not eliminate it. I don't believe that one could deduce the opposite from the comment that I made, but perhaps I'm wrong.
If the rest of the world seems to be changing to be more inclusive, isn't it about time for Europe to do the same? Also, I can't help but point out that the discussion of headdresses and Islam in France is happening at the same time as this ban on minarets. The exclusion of Islamic traditions within Europe is unsettling to someone who has grown up in a very inclusive melting pot society. It is even more unsettling when one examines how the Islamic culture did save education about the ancient and classical world once Rome had fallen. The world as we know it would not exist today without the efforts of the Muslim translators during the crusades. Perhaps the real problem I have with this ban and the comments being made about it stems from the lack of respect and remembrance of these facts.
Comparing the US with Europe is helpful in my opinion. Comparative politics, one of the fields I study, teaches us exactly that. There is a lot to be learned on both sides of the Atlantic Ocean. Clearly the health care situation in the US can be improved upon by examining those of Western Europe. Western Europe, however, has a lot to be learned when it comes to being a melting pot of new ideas as well as keeping traditions.
And, no, you're not understanding me correctly. I do believe that it is important to learn the language of a country to which you plan to move. I speak Spanish as a second language and have had to deal with translating during the different jobs I've had. However, it is necessary for people to understand the problems people face in learning new languages and how the new society can help fresh immigrants to learn it. Sometimes people flee from situations and they do not have a choice of where they move or what they learn about the country. I do find your comments about cafes and cultural clubs patronizing and it bothers me to see such an exclusive mindset, regardless of where you live.
Again, you have misunderstood the comments I've made. I hardly think that minarets - the towers traditionally used to call others to prayer but not even used for this purpose in Switzerland - can be compared with allowing Sharia in western countries and it's incredulous that you would even make this analogy. Yes, some practices by some Muslims are unacceptable, just like some practices by some Christians, Jews, atheists, Buddhists, Taoists, and other groups can be. To completely discount the whole religion or race because of the acts of some is irrational and downright ignorant.
Secular does not mean abandoning your religion, but not letting it affect policies and laws put forth. People should have the freedom to express their religious beliefs, including the decorations on their places of worship. Catholic and other Christian churches are allowed to have stained glass windows and other decorations. Why deny Muslims the ability to have minarets, which are important to some of them? A true liberal, secular, and tolerant society would be welcoming of the differences which accompany other viewpoints.
If Switzerland doesn't want more people coming into the country and doesn't care how it comes off to others, maybe it should care about what this and other rulings are doing for the country's reputation. The country may have been "neutral" in most of the wars, but when it wages a war on another religion/people, it defeats the purpose of staying neutral.
I honestly do not understand the basis of your last comment. My argument is that being intolerant to others is not justified. What does tolerance to intolerance have to do with that?
At this point, I'm beginning to think that it's futile to continue a conversation with you. While I welcome your viewpoint, I cannot believe the impunity with which you discuss being intolerant towards another ethnic/religious group. I can hardly believe that the banning of stained glass windows or other Christian images would sit well with a Christian or those sympathetic to Christians. As someone who is sympathetic to the plights faced today by all groups, but especially by the highly misunderstood Muslim group, this ban bothers me. It scares me to think that this could further the persecution of religious traditions different than Christianity and Judaism throughout the world.
"but in the America I've experienced people would be upset with that."
if you refuse to open your eyes on beyond-american-realities, which you can, if you choose to, i guess you should not be making, or at least not publishing, judgments on beyond-american topics.
"I fail to see how non-integration is so threatening to people."
you see, this is what it all boils down to. the european and the US system of integrating minorities and immigrants is set under different paradigms. to put what has filled shelves in a few lines makes me attackable and i guess you are going to jump in on that, but here we go anyway: while the US basic philosophy opts for the "as long as you don't bother us and don't ask for anything, you can be here" (although paint is chipping off even from this as, say, greencards are allocated in lotteries). the key in what i will call the european system is actually living together. for avoiding parallel societies, the first and unavoidable step is agreeing on a common set of values and is integration. this is also benefits (and is asked for by) those immigrants willing to be a part of society. it does not mean ending individualism, culture or religion. it simply restrains those to the limits of common values, while diversity within the limits can be handled. both sets of policies are a viable option, but if you "fail to see", as you say, the european option while discussing this european vote, and if you keep wanting to induce the US system over something you do not understand, that puts tight limits over your claims of tolerance and barely advances the discussion. it's perfectly fine for you to go for and praise the system you are familiar with, but then limit your judgments. it's symptomatic that what you think was banned in france was "islamic headdresses", while in reality it was religious symbols in public buildings, including kippas, visible crosses and others. you may or may not know that laicism has had a very distinctive role in french history. again, it has as much to do with france as it does with islam. reasonable effort has been put into communicating this to those muslims open to dialogue. the choice to acknowledge these things or not is yours, with according consequences.
"If the rest of the world seems to be changing to be more inclusive,"
not that it affects the point under discussion but: really? where?
"isn't it about time for Europe to do the same? (be inclusive)"
what the peoples of western european countries are trying to achieve is to be inclusive only to those who want to be included. rates of (accepted and welcomed) immigration and naturalizations are high.
"The world as we know it would not exist today without the efforts of the Muslim translators during the crusades. Perhaps the real problem I have with this ban and the comments being made about it stems from the lack of respect and remembrance of these facts."
a touching and valid philosophical thought.
for one, it unfortunately lacks any practical implications for that 3rd grade teacher struggling to get the turkish father for the swimming lessons of his daughter.
also, if you finish the thought, do you mean that host countries should only "be nice" to those type of people that bring them / brought them benefits? as in: "those inuits never did that much for us, lets get ride of them"?
and finally, since islamic culture and religion offers so much insights and benefits for both sides, a hard effort should be made to put them in contact and dialogue to reap the fruit of those benefits. that's hardly possible when, say, the albanians live and spend fully their everyday life in ghettos. a nice point for integration.
"Comparing the US with Europe is helpful in my opinion."
sure it is, it just is an other topic. we CAN if you want to, debate about which system is the more adequate one, but for now this is a european vote and a question of how europeans and european immigrants should live together. discussing this under US preliminaries does not advance this particular discussion. and if you want to compare, it means you need to know both basic ideas, not only one.
"However, it is necessary for people to understand the problems people face in learning new languages and how the new society can help fresh immigrants to learn it."
do you know which kind of efforts are being made in that respect in the respective country switzerland? language courses are created to be as suitable as possible for the main immigrants groups, this ranges from organizational questions to adopting method and content in cooperation with the according "cultural clubs". the "cultural clubs" get some tax money. integration courses, aimed at making understandable mentalities, questions of everyday life, traditions, history, politics etc. as much as they are at allowing the individual immigrant to create a network are free. 1-on-1 or small group language classes for school children are free. language classes for their mothers are free. programs offer to establish contact between immigrant children and people in retirement homes for free conversation lessons and some personal background infos. non-profit clubs run by free labor for sports, music, scouts etc. do an incredible job in this area. do you see how it is difficult for some citizens to understand why still many (we are not speaking about the few odd exceptions) don't understand the language after 25 years and although they have children in school?
"Sometimes people flee from situations "
those immigrants that have come in as refugees of war are usually more willing to integrate than the average.
now, lets take, say a young albanian seeking asylum in switzerland and fleeing from a threatening kanun-murder. the kanun is an ancient, but still practiced, albanian traditional system of vendetta-murders capable of erasing entire families on the basis of events four generations back. this young albanian needs to be protected from the kanun. therefore, those practices that are within what is acceptable (like practicing your religion) should be allowed and those that are beyond (like kanun) should not. on which side of the line you put the minaret is a question we can debate, but please accept the fact of life that closing your eyes to existing problems and realities is capable of harming the ones you mean to be tolerant against.
"I do find your comments about cafes and cultural clubs patronizing"
hm, really? because i see your problem to understand the concept of requiring not assimilation but indeed integration. that you find the illustration of the idea offending is hard for me to belief, but i don't insist on any illustrations, we can stop them if you like.
"it bothers me to see such an exclusive mindset, regardless of where you live."
i don't understand, can you elaborate?
"I hardly think that minarets (...) can be compared with allowing Sharia in western countries"
are you saying that minarets are ok and shariah is not? so do you have the final knowledge about where to draw the line between what is ok and what is not? because me, i think in a democracy, this should be a question of ongoing debate and compromises between different positions, under inclusion of the momentary realities and of the opinions within the muslim community. now even if i draw the line at a deliberately different point than the majority, i would not really call everyone who has a different view than i do "irrational and downright ignorant". it would be neither true nor helpful. actually, i would go so far as to say that doing so would be rather "irrational and downright ignorant".
since we have now established the fact that, in the interest of those whose families have been citizens for generations and in the interest of those immigrants wanting to integrate, a line has to be drawn somewhere, maybe you could open your eyes to the shades of grey. assume actually making use of the minarets would be under discussion. should a five-times-a-day call for prayer of up to an hour be allowed? no? but is it not a part of tradition and religion as well? what about extended breaks at work to pray? what about those swimming lessons?
do you really want to carry on labeling everyone who draws the line one step away from where you do irrational, racist and exclusive? do you think that's very tolerant?
"If Switzerland doesn't want more people coming into the country (...)
(...) but when it wages a war on another religion/people, it defeats the purpose of staying neutral."
let me answer this one with a direct quote from my earlier post: "who ever is unwilling or unable to move within the boundaries of a liberal, rather secular, tolerant, western society is not supposed to be welcome, full stop." you are now calling not welcoming people willing to break the boundaries of liberalism, secularism, tolerance and western values a war on other religion/people. this is a point where i think a reply is not needed.
"My argument is that being intolerant to others is not justified. What does tolerance to intolerance have to do with that?"
"drawing a line" as i have called it above aims at protecting any type of person from intolerant practices ranging from non-integration to limiting women's rights to kanun. these practices are intolerant and do not deserve any tolerance. they are not welcome in, in this case, switzerland and how to handle according questions on a bi- or multilateral scale is an other question.
"At this point, I'm beginning to think that it's futile to continue a conversation with you."
i don't mean to insult you, but as long as you refuse to give up inducing US preliminaries, you will understand neither me, nor any of the debate, not the voices of muslim immigrants into western europe and the discussion can not be advanced.
I don't think that I'm failing to open my eyes to "beyond-American-realities" as you so put it. Is it so hard to imagine that I'm a hippie who wants to include all peoples? And, honestly, while I can appreciate your frustration with my "judgments" on European countries, this is my personal blog - not a legitimate news source, but a source for me to rant about the wrongs I see in the world around me. Perhaps if you took a look at my other blog, in the links section, you might better understand my anger with intolerance towards people who are different, since I have numerous physical problems and have been subject to intolerance and rude comments my entire life.
I understand that there are different mindsets in these countries. I don't think that is the problem between you and myself. I tend to favor the US system, not only because it has been the one I've grown up with, but also because I think, with a little tweaking, that it is the best system. This has nothing to do with being patriotic or anything of the like - trust me, I wrote an extended research essay (30-40 pages) on ways in which Europe is superior to the United States in public health and education programs. Your assessment of the US basic philosophy may be correct for some, but for myself it fails to grasp my ideology. Again, I am a big proponent of accepting people for who they are and embracing the differences that make us unique.
When I was talking about "Islamic headdresses" in France, I was referring to the current discussion on banning the burqa, not the religious symbols discussion. There are a very few number of women who actually wear the burqa in France, so this seems like a targeted attack against an already discriminated against group in France and elsewhere throughout Europe.
Maybe I'm a naive college senior who thinks that the world is changing for the better. Maybe it's just among the students and other people I associate with that the world seems to be growing more inclusive. And if I am correct in my assumption, it does affect this conversation. If other countries are being more accepting of outside peoples and it seems to be working better, then why can't other countries follow suit?
In essence, the way you're coming off is that you don't think the majority of Muslims want to be included in Swiss culture. Obviously, my vision is flawed because I haven't been to Europe and I'm one-sided on this issue, as I'm sure you will always be quick to point out. I can't imagine that this problem is any less prevalent in other groups though, and the way you're putting it makes it seem like only Muslims have this problem.
Clearly the thought that countries should only be kind to those that have brought them benefits is an idiotic assumption and it bothers me that you're continually putting words in my mouth.
Yes, a hard effort should be made to understand the complexities and beauties in each religion and each culture around the world. Only through this can we eliminate discrimination. My issue is that the majority of the Swiss and other Europeans seem to disagree, through the passing of certain laws.
Are you honestly accusing me of thinking I'm intelligent and deserving enough to decide what stays and what goes? I don't understand the harm in having minarets in a country. It's not like having them is going to completely change Swiss society. Again, if Christian churches can have their stained glass windows and statues and elaborate design, minarets should exist. The minarets, as I have pointed out, aren't even used to call people to prayer. It's not like there could be any 'public nuisance' associated with these beautiful works of art.
Yet again, you are missing any point I'm trying to make by demanding that I view this from a more European standpoint. I've never been outside the country because I'm too poor to do so. It doesn't look like my chances are going to get any better with time.
Again, this is my own personal blog. A place where I can rant about the wrongs I see in the world and possibly brainstorm ideas to fix them. If you don't like what I am saying, you're free to not read my blog and to stop commenting on things we're obviously going to disagree on.
As a final note, I would like to know more about where you are from and what your background is. I am a firm believer that the way someone was raised is integral to understanding the basis of their arguments and, seeing as I know very little about you and do not have the luxury of being able to read anything you've written as you do with myself, I think it's only fair if you wish to continue this debate.
i didn't read any of your stuff except for the post on minarets.
well, i strongly believe that for a good argument, the person making it should not matter. if you want to have a rational argumentation, that is. and frankly, i don't care for any other type. for one, the signpost does not need to go to where it points and secondly, a good argument can be enjoyed even from a person that one does not like or share opinions with.
if my convictions come from reading, listening, own or others' experience does not alter the quality of my arguments. therefore i would never say such as thing as that you are not entitled to have an opinion on european topics. all i am saying is that you should either a.) know about them, which can very well be through reading or b.) not make judgments. yes, this is your personal site and yes you can say what ever you want but it is still a public "place" and you were the one enabling the comment function. if you, however, would like me to leave your blog, i will of course.
however, as it is your deer personal condition:
i have lived in switzerland most of my life. the part of my knowledge and opinion on the US that does not come from listening and reading is from living there six years. the own experience part on migrants and muslims from growing up in a city with overproportional migration rates and growing up with (and i mean with, not next to) some of them. the part on muslims from living in saudi arabia for around a year and in indonesia for an other one. i studied, i took care of my family and i worked. my shoe size is 37, but this is german sizes.
my statement of the basic philosophic approach of the US to immigration was not made to claim that your personal opinion is the same. it was made to show the system under implementation and the differences between the european and the US way.
i would really not say that the US system is in any way inclusive. letting somebody into your country and then not giving a sh"*%/ is not my ideal. i would greatly challenge the claim of the melting pot. or where did the chinese in the china towns and the hispanics in the spanish harlems melt into? to be inclusive and have dialogue, you need integration, as i believe, which the european system is far more focused on. but integration also means asking for some things ("demand and assist"), like learning the language. excluding those that make themselves "unincludable" on purposely makes including the others easier for both sides or actually is even a condition.
me, personally, no i don't think that giving up minarets is one of the things that should be demanded, but it is understandable that others do. the idea, as the debate went, was not to stigmatize the evil muslim terrorist people, it was to remind those moving within the emerging parallel societies of what is demanded from them: integration. the ban on minarets is not trying to phase out dialogue, it is trying to enforce it, even if the chosen means are debatable.
i can understand your wish to see problems the easy way. the trouble with this is that they're not and by covering them up and sticking with your demands, you are making the lot of those you intended to be nice to harder. i tell you it's hard to embrace the guy that works only with people from his original country, lives in a ghetto surrounded by the same people, shops, eats and spends his leisure time there. i surely never claimed that this is true only for muslims. it is for any group of immigrants.
Post a Comment