Understanding the Swiss Minarets Ban

Interview with Swiss Ambassador to the USA

Interviewed By Dr. Ahmed Ghanim

Following the results of the recent referendum to ban building minarets attached to new mosques in Switzerland, a heated debate continues on the meaning and implications of this referendum for Muslims in Switzerland, and in Europe in general.
In order to present a balanced view on this topic, IslamOnline.net presents in this interview with Mr. Urs Ziswiler, Switzerland's Ambassador to the US, the Swiss side of this matter in order to help reach a better and objective understanding of the background to the referendum and its context. The interview was held by Dr. Ahmed Ghanim, an Egyptian American poet and writer.

Dr. A. Ghanim: Mr. Ambassador, thank you for taking the time out of your busy schedule to answer my questions. To start, I have a few general questions about your country.

What is the estimated number of Swiss Muslims living in Switzerland?

Ambassador Urs Ziswiler: According to the last national census (year 2000), approximately 311,000 persons with Islamic religious affiliation live in Switzerland, many of them as a result of recent immigration from Turkey, Bosnia and Kosovo. Estimates based on various academic sources point to 350,000-400,000 Muslim residents in 2009.

Ghanim: What is the method used by the Swiss government to determine the number of Muslims living in Switzerland? Is reporting your religion to the authorities a requirement by the Swiss government?

Ziswiler: Every resident has to register with the city or local government and can declare their religious affiliation. The data of local communities is collected by the federal states (Cantons) and finally by the central federal government (Federal Office of Statistics).

Ghanim: In general, are Swiss Muslims looked at as citizens that are a benefit to society?

Ziswiler: They are an integral part of Swiss society, economically as well as socially. The Swiss economy was doing very well, especially between 1960 – 1980. Many companies couldn’t hire enough Swiss employees, so migrant workers—first from Italy and Portugal, then later from Turkey and the former Yugoslavia—were hired and contributed to the economic growth of the Swiss economy.

Ghanim: Mr. Ambassador, let me gather some facts about the threat that Swiss Muslims pose to Swiss society. How many terror attacks were carried out by Swiss Muslims?

Ziswiler: None

Ghanim: So no actual terror attacks happened. So let me ask you this, how many terror plots have the Swiss Intelligence stopped that were to be carried out by Swiss Muslims?

Ziswiler: Swiss intelligence is following the situation closely. No explicit calls for violence have been registered so far.

Ghanim: Great! So no terror attacks were carried by any Muslim citizen; Swiss or foreign, against Switzerland and no explicit calls for violence have been registered by the Swiss intelligence, so how big is the threat posed by Swiss Muslims to Switzerland that would call for a constitutional amendment?

Ziswiler: The Swiss government never held nor supported the idea that Muslims living in Switzerland posed a threat to the country. It is a fact that the vast majority of Swiss Muslims are well integrated and fully respect the laws and values of Switzerland.

Ghanim: Mr. Ambassador, this then leaves me a bit confused. I am now hearing from you, a top Swiss official, that the Swiss government does not consider Muslims a threat. Instead they are considered an integrated part of the Swiss society that fully respects the law. So how do you explain the concept of voting on the minaret ban?

Ziswiler: Switzerland has a unique political system called “direct democracy.” It is based on the idea that the people—not the government or a court—have the last say. There are several means by which people can participate directly in the decision-making process, but the most important one—and the relevant one here—is the general popular initiative. In this process, a minimum of 100,000 voters may request a vote on the adoption of a constitutional amendment. An ad hoc committee composed of religious and right-wing politicians proposed the idea of voting to ban new minaret construction, because they held that these structures do not conform with the traditional cultural heritage of Switzerland. They collected the necessary 100,000 signatures, so the government had to submit to a general referendum on this idea. At the same time, both the government and the parliament issued statements explaining that they did not support the proposed amendment and recommending a “no” vote on the initiative.

Ghanim: That explains how the calls for the referendum started. However, with more than 57% of Swiss people taking the day off to vote to strip Muslims of their rights, how can these negative feelings toward Muslims be explained?

Ziswiler: We are talking about 57% of the people who actually voted. Referendums are organized on weekends, or you can vote by letter. You don’t need to take the day off. The outcome of this particular popular vote is undeniably a reflection of the fears and uncertainties that exist among the population in times of economic crises, globalization and big changes; also concerns that Islamic-fundamentalist ideas could lead to the establishment of parallel societies that cut themselves off from the rest of society, that reject the traditions of our state and society, and that disregard our laws. These concerns must be taken seriously. The Federal Council has always done so and will continue to do so. However, the Federal Council and the majority of parliament held the view that a ban on the construction of minarets was not an appropriate measure to counter extremist tendencies.

Ghanim: I appreciate you explaining the real reasons for the vote and ban. In an earlier discussion with a Swiss official, I was told the main reason for the referendum is of architectural nature. This left me in bewilderment. I wondered how minarets pose a concern yet church steeples don’t.

Ziswiler: Christianity is deep-rooted in Switzerland, existing there for over 1,300 years. Churches are considered by many Swiss residents to be a traditional part of the landscape. Muslims residents arrived recently, most of them only in the last 25 years. Many of them found shelter in Switzerland during the conflict in former Yugoslavia.

Ghanim: Some Muslims are concerned that this issue is deeper than the ban on minarets. The posters that covered the streets of Switzerland were shocking. So let me ask you, would it be considered a hate crime if a Swiss political party that is authorized by law to practice politics in Switzerland, were to cover the streets of the city with anti-Semitics signs?

Ziswiler: Let’s not forget one thing: Close to 400,000 Muslims will continue to be able to practice their belief freely in over 200 mosques in Switzerland and prayer rooms throughout the whole country. They can continue to build new mosques if they like. Switzerland continues to be an open society. And the Swiss government will not allow the Muslim community to be isolated or threatened in Switzerland. So there is no reason to speak of hate crimes! The notion of “hate crime” is not well established in Switzerland simply because, luckily, we confront this phenomena only very rarely. Switzerland has adopted legislation – which was also accepted by a general public referendum – that censures racists acts. The law makes no distinction between the different minorities. Everyone is protected under it.

Ghanim: If you believe that the Swiss government will not allow the Muslim community to be isolated or threatened, explain how your government allowed a political party that is supposed to practice politics according to the Swiss Law, to cover Switzerland, known for being a neutral country, with outrageous hate discriminatory posters (one displaying a famous symbol of Muslims “Minaret” as a missile, another playing on color and race issues by displaying a white sheep kicking the colored sheep out of what the poster made it look like a restricted whites only zone). Isn’t that considered threatening to a minority? Aren’t these offensive posters a sign of hate?

Ziswiler: These posters are rather an expression of certain fears — fears of a political extremist Islam as you can see regularly in international media — not of hate. As explained earlier, Switzerland’s system of direct democracy gives the last say to the people, who vote on specific topics. Before the vote, the different political groups engage in a public debate to influence the outcome. The government is reluctant to interfere because democracy only works when the freedom of expression is guaranteed. In the case of the minaret poster, there was a robust debate about its appropriateness in Switzerland. Some cities did ban it from appearing in their jurisdiction. Others allowed it as an expression of free speech.

Ghanim: What was your personal reaction as a Swiss citizen not as a top diplomatic official, to the referendum results?

Ziswiler: I personally was surprised by the result. The Swiss government and the vast majority of political and social organizations were against the ban. 42,5 % of the Swiss voters shared the view of the government and the parliament that the proposed amendment of the constitution was not helpful to fight religious intolerance and fundamentalism.

Ghanim: The majority of Swiss voters don’t share the same official opinion of their government? I wonder if the freely elected Swiss government is saying what I heard from you as some sort of political correctness but its real position is a carbon copy of the voters who elected them since it’s a democratic government. What do you think?

Ziswiler: Your assumption is wrong. Not only the government, but also the majority of the leading political parties, representing more than two thirds of the Swiss electorate, rejected the popular initiative and recommended to vote "no". Because Switzerland’s system of direct democracy places the individual citizen in a very strong position, this often leads to opposing positions expressed by the government /parliament/leading political parties and the people. This is nothing unusual and cannot be interpreted in any way.

Ghanim: How can these strong feelings against Muslims be explained to the average Muslim individual?

Ziswiler: First, I wouldn’t agree that there are strong feelings against Muslims. The close to 400,000 Muslims in Switzerland will continue to be able to practice their belief freely in over 200 mosques and prayer rooms throughout the whole country. They can continue to build new mosques if they like. Switzerland continues to be an open society. The Swiss government will not allow the Muslim community to be isolated in Switzerland. The decision taken by the Swiss voters doesn’t impact freedom of religion: Muslims still can build Mosques and are, of course, free to worship. The large majority of Muslims who have immigrated to Switzerland enjoy a good quality of life and Switzerland’s stable economic and social structure. They don’t feel threatened in any way. Their children integrate well, and are able to go to excellent public schools.

When we want to try to understand the what I would call cautiousness of the Swiss voters, it might be well to look at the opinion expressed by Anne Applebaum in the Washington Post (issue of Dec. 8th) where she suggests that the Swiss voters were perhaps influenced by what they saw as the growth of separatist, politically extreme forms of Islam in neighboring countries:

“There is very little evidence that separatist, politically extreme Islam is growing rapidly in Switzerland. The Swiss however read newspapers and watch television. And in recent years separatist and politically extreme forms of Islam have emerged in every European country with a large Muslim population: Britain, France, Germany, the Netherlands, Spain, Denmark, Sweden. In all these countries there have been court cases and scandals concerning forced marriage, female circumcision and honor killings. There have been terror incidents too (…). I have no doubt that the Swiss voted in favor [of the ban] primarily because they don’t have much Islamic extremism – and they don’t want any.”

Ghanim: What does the future hold for mosques in Switzerland?

Ziswiler: Let me first repeat that the ban is limited to the construction of minarets, whereas the construction of mosques is unaffected. Then, I certainly wouldn’t talk of hate. The large majority of Muslims who have immigrated to Switzerland enjoy a good quality of life and Switzerland’s stable economic and social structure. They don’t feel threatened in any way. Their children integrate well and are able to go to excellent public schools. Most of them share the view expressed by the Egyptian writer Alaa Al-Aswani in a Swiss TV interview, where he stated that Muslims should not complain but try to reflect a positive image of Islam. “News on violent actions by fanatic Muslims have a very negative impact on the reputation of our religion” He also said that Muslims should not comment on the decision taken by the Swiss voters “because in our own government we don’t know the word “tolerance.”” He refers to a recent legal action by an Egyptian court that declared the construction of new Copt churches as a “sin.”

Ghanim: Would you consider this ban is an end for an era when Switzerland was well known as a neutral country? Are the Swiss people, who were even “neutral” toward the most evil regime "Hitler" , ready to stop their neutrality when it came to its own Muslim citizens?
Ziswiler: Neutrality is a concept that applies to Foreign Policy. It is typically used by small countries to regulate relationships with powerful neighbors. I don’t see a connection with the recent decision taken by a majority of the Swiss voters. When you know the history of the Second World War, then you know that Switzerland – as landlocked country without any natural resources and therefore dependent on imports - was circled by the Nazi regime. Neutrality was the best political tool to defend the territorial integrity of Switzerland during this difficult period. That does not mean that the Swiss were not against Hitler. Swiss soldiers defended their country against the threat of Nazi-Germany. Many people found shelter in Switzerland during World War II—be it refugees, wounded soldiers of the allied troupes or starving children.

Ghanim: Is the Swiss government going to honor the results of this poll?

Ziswiler: The Swiss direct democratic system lays the state sovereignty in the hands of the people. The government is considered to be the servant of the people and has to respect the compulsory decisions taken by a general public referendum.

Ghanim: Since the bill of rights explicitly declares religious freedom of all groups, can’t it be said that allowing the poll to transpire in the first place, is an unconstitutional move?

Ziswiler: As a popular initiative suggests a modification of the constitution itself, both mentioned articles have the same value.

Ghanim: How can the Swiss government respect the democratic nature of this poll without compromising the constitution of the bill of rights that preserves the rights of all religious practices?

Ziswiler: The fundamental freedom of religion and conscience that is guaranteed under Article 15 of the Federal Constitution applies to all religions. The ban on the construction of new minarets restricts the freedom to display the Muslim faith by erecting a minaret. However, it does not affect the freedom to profess one’s faith in Islam, nor to practice the religion alone or in community with others in any way.

Ghanim: Millions of European Muslims fear that their religious freedoms are being systematically eroded. What steps is the Swiss government taking to eliminate this fear?

Ziswiler: We must intensify the dialogue with the Muslim community. There is important work to be done to improve mutual understanding. The Swiss government is willing to engage in this dialogue. As a reaction to the referendum, the Minister of Justice clearly stated that the vast majority of Muslims in Switzerland fully accept our legal system. “The popular decision against the construction of minarets must not be allowed to lead to mutual distrust. Marginalization and exclusion on the basis of religious and cultural differences would be devastating for an open country such as Switzerland, which is dependent on effective foreign relations, and which is also home to a diverse range of minorities within its small territory. Freedom of religion was and is a key element of Switzerland’s successful approach. Ensuring this is a dynamic and demanding process which constantly requires fresh efforts on the part of the State as well as on the part of various religious communities and individual citizens.”

Ghanim: After 9/11, to address the roots of terror, the US government and other western governments demanded immediate changes in the school curriculum for kids to teach tolerance. Muslims are demanding immediate changes in the Swiss schools' curriculum to teach the Islamic culture and history as part of the school curriculum. What do you think?

Ziswiler: In Switzerland, the school curriculum is not defined by the central government but by each Canton (federal state). Many of them already have integrated programs on intercultural tolerance and anti-racism projects. Switzerland has always been a multicultural country and has proved throughout the years that the peaceful cohabitation of different groups is possible! The Swiss integration policy for immigrants which was developed and implemented by the Federal authorities, the Cantons and the municipalities, has proved to be very successful in the past decades. Contrary to other Western countries, we have avoided massive violence or the formation of ethnic ghettos in our towns.

Ghanim: What measures is the Swiss government taking to ensure that any future discriminatory referendum will not be sugar coated with democracy again?

Ziswiler: Our constitution gives the people the right to propose an amendment to the constitution by a general popular initiative. This instrument guarantees the active participation of Swiss voters in the political life of our country. We do not consider this decision by the Swiss people to be an act of hatred but a political decision with regard to legislation. I can only repeat: Muslims are free to go to mosques and to worship.

Ghanim: What programs is the Swiss government currently running to implement tolerance among the Swiss citizens?

Ziswiler: Who knows Switzerland also knows that Switzerland is a tolerant country. Many cultures, religious and ethnical groups live peacefully together. And don’t forget: we have one of the highest rates of foreign citizens in the world. More than 20% of Swiss residents are foreigners. They feel comfortable living in Switzerland, enjoy a good quality of life and the consequent rule of law that guarantees individual freedom. Many of these foreigners – including those from Muslim countries like Turkey, Bosnia or Kosovo - integrate extremely well and strive to become Swiss citizens.

Ghanim: Some Muslims are concerned that the rising of the hate and fear mongers tactics among Europe will deepen the marginalization and the isolation of the already semi-isolated Muslim community. What do you think?

Ziswiler: As I stated before: the Swiss do not hate Muslims. The outcome of this vote reflects the concern among the population that our national and social order could be eroded by yielding to fundamentalist Islamic tendencies. Conversely, there are concerns among well-integrated Muslims in our country that they could be segregated from society and debased. In the recent past, Switzerland has been rather successful in defusing religiously motivated tensions and in finding pragmatic solutions to specific problems. If we continue to do so with a sense of balance and foresight, and by not labeling people with different religious or ideological backgrounds as threatening, but potentially enriching, we will be able to maintain religious peace in the future. The Swiss Government will make every effort to achieve this.

Ghanim: Many groups in the US, including Jewish groups and other faith based groups, have publicly condemned this poll and its results. Do you think there is this great discrepancy between the treatment of religious minorities in the US and Europe?

Ziswiler: First, I like to remember that important religious groups in Switzerland, among them the Jewish community, the Protestant Church and the Roman-Catholic Church — all represented in the Swiss Council of Religions — rejected the popular initiative and recommended to vote "no." To your second point: Most of the people living in the US have a foreign background. From the beginning, the US has been what is often called a melting pot. This is very different in Europe where peoples and cultures have deep roots and long histories. In the past, many European cultures have been threatened by wars and aggressions. This might explain the more defensive stance of many European countries who try to defend their own specific values by asking immigrants to integrate into their societies.

Ghanim: What would be the reaction of the Swiss government if the 1 billion Muslims (1/4 of the earth population) boycott Swiss products?

Ziswiler: This would be unfortunate, not the least because it would indicate a real misunderstanding. The Swiss government is convinced that the decision taken by Swiss voters does not infringe religious freedom. Muslims living in Switzerland are free to build mosques and to worship. There are several other countries in the world where this fundamental right for religious minorities is not guaranteed as it still is in Switzerland!

Ghanim: Thank you Mr. Ambassador!

http://www.islamonline.net/servlet/Satellite?c=Article_C&cid=1260258137703&pagename=Zone-English-Living_Shariah/LSELayout