The Swiss general public recently voted in a referendum to prevent the construction of new minarets in their country.
This, of course, follows hot on the heels of a European Court of Human Rights ruling which has banned the display of crucifixes in Italian classrooms.
Both measures have outraged religious leaders with the Pope (and Italian leaders) calling for people to protest against the crucifix ban and has also spoken out against the Swiss vote.
Meanwhile, Imam El Sadi issued a statement this week, saying that the decision to ban the building of new minarets was one which will “fuel Islamophobia”. The Vatican and many others have expressed disagreement at the decision. Archbishop Paul Cremona echoed the Imam’s sentiments and said that the decision “went against religious freedom and the freedom to express religious belief.
Oh, but it’s very complicated. Before one can draw any parallels between the two cases, it must be pointed out that one was decided by a court, whereas the other was decided by the people’s vote.
The truth is that Europe is becoming more and more secular. The problems though, arise because the Crucifix case was forced secularisation, whereas the minaret case is a case of voluntary secularisation.
Of course, we know all about referendums in Malta and we had a classic case when we voted on whether or not the join the European Union. The point of just how important a referendum is, actually dawned on us. Nearly the whole population turned out to decide on their future and we had a situation where a former PL leader decided to perversely manipulate a loss into a ‘victory’. The outrage was immense. The point we are getting at is that in a democratic society, the vote of the people in a referendum is – pardon the pun – sacred.
We really must distinguish between matters of state and matters of morality. If we had to look at it from the Swiss point of view, who on earth has the right to challenge their decision?
They did not vote to tear down minarets (not mosques), they voted not to allow the construction of new ones. In other words, the existing Muslim population will still have a place of worship. While one may not be in agreement with their decision, one certainly cannot challenge it. They are their own people, they have made their decision and who has the right to interfere?
The Swiss will rightly say, if you don’t like it here, you know what you can do. This newspaper is not taking the side of the Swiss, far from it, but one must understand the complexities behind this decision.
Like the Crucifix case, we believe that people should have the right to worship and a country’s cultures and traditions should never be trifled with. But this will again lead to the question – Is Islam part of Swiss tradition and culture? One would have to say that it is not.
What is worrying, however, is that while the Swiss vote was one taken by the people, right wing parties across Europe are contemplating the same. The Dutch Freedom Party is one such organisation – and this is worrying. This is not in the same league, it is not people expressing a sentiment about their country’s future, it is simple manipulation by right wing parties to further their own ambitions in fuelling Islamophobia, xenophobia and racism.