Switzerland’s Minaret Ban

Disregarding the Local in the Swiss Minaret Ban: When a National Referendum is an International Phenomenon

On November 29, 2009 the construction of minarets in Switzerland was banned following a national referendum. The news made the front page of newspapers in Europe and was received as a shock, even more so by many in Switzerland where earlier surveys had indicated that the “Minaret ban initiative” would be defeated. The following will provide a summary of the main points and actors involved, and an analysis of international reactions to date. I will assess three different ways in which the international level has been present throughout the reactions to and analyses of the referendum: the impact on Switzerland’s international relations; the recasting of the minaret ban in different national settings; and the ways in which discourses of difference have been used to confuse local problems with international ones, and ultimately to successfully convince Swiss voters that minarets are, if anything, not Swiss.

Background

The referendum was the culmination of a ‘national initiative’ which had been launched on 1 May 2007 with one goal: modifying article 72 of the Swiss Federal Constitution on Church-State relations so as to include the sentence “The construction of minarets is prohibited.” A national initiative in Switzerland designates a process whereby the Federal Constitution of the country may be amended by a national referendum, while the referendum itself is possible only if 100,000 signatures are assembled in support of the vote. The coordinating group in this case was named the Egerkingen Committee, and brought together politicians from two right-wing political parties, the Swiss People’s Party (SVP – currently the largest political party in the Swiss parliament) and the Federal Democratic Union (EDU – a small socially conservative party).

The initiative was a response to a number of failed attempts to hinder the building of minarets on a more local level, especially with regard to the fourth and last one to be built in Wangen bei Olten in the canton of Solothurn, in the northwest of the country. Switzerland has a Muslim population of about 350,000, constituting approximately 4.25 percent of the total population of 7 million, whose religious needs are met by around 200 mosques and prayer spaces – of which only four have a minaret.

After the minaret ban was rejected by both chambers of the Swiss parliament, as well as by the Federal Council (the Swiss government), the Swiss Business Federation (economiesuisse) and leaders of the Catholic and Protestant churches joined in as well in officially recommending that the initiative be rejected by voters. In the weeks leading up to the referendum, polling conducted by the institute gfs.bern (and commissioned by the Swiss Broadcasting Corporation) had indicated that a majority of voters were opposed to the ban. Only ten days before the vote was held one poll suggested that the degree of support had only risen by three percent to 37 percent since another poll conducted in mid-October and that 53 percent of voters would vote against the initiative, while 10 percent remained undecided.1) The common front promoted by government, civil society organizations and the business community, combined with the predictions from the gfs.bern pollings, heightened even further the general shock and surprise following the victory of the ban’s supporters. The common front promoted by government, civil society organizations and the business community, combined with the predictions from the gfs.bern pollings, heightened even further the general shock and surprise following the victory of the ban’s supporters.

Those supporters, namely members of the Egerkingen Committee, had been hinting that the polls could not be trusted because some voters might not admit that they were going to vote for the minaret ban during a telephone interview. The campaign that they had waged had been aggressive to the point that their iconic poster, portraying minarets as rockets piercing the Swiss national flag, had been refused by some municipalities and criticized by both the Swiss Commission Against Racism and the UN Human Rights Committee. The poster itself, which included the burqa-clad figure of a woman, mixed together a number of different tropes which played on the fear of ‘oppressive Muslim practices.’ The minaret was denounced as a “symbol of political will to take power” and pro-ban activists such as Ulrich Schlüer (SVP Member of Parliament) would go on television speaking of the forced marriages and genital mutilation that it presaged.2 As Tariq Ramadan notes, this debate echoes others elsewhere in Europe where other Muslim symbols have been targeted: “the headscarf and the burqa in France; in Germany, mosques; in Britain, violence; cartoons in Denmark; homosexuality in the Netherlands – and so on.”3)

Results of the Referendum

The referendum finished with the pro-ban side succeeding in securing the double majority necessary for a constitutional amendment: 53.4 percent voter participation with 57.5 percent in favor of the minaret ban, as well as 19½ out of 23 cantons. The vote break-down showed a 10 percent difference between French, German and Italian Swiss communities (48.3 percent, 59.7 percent and 68 percent respectively; the only cantons to reject the initiative were French-speaking), as well as a 10 percent difference between urban and rural voters. The ban was rejected in all major urban centres (Zurich, Berne, Geneva and Basel).4)

The break-down of the vote clearly indicates a difference between linguistic communities, but perhaps even more significantly between rural and urban Swiss. In other words, some of the most concentrated opposition to the building of minarets comes from those people who have the least contact with Muslims in their daily lives, as in the case of Ticino in the district of Riviera, where 1.82 percent of the population is Muslim while 75.5 percent voted for the ban. The less contact people have with Muslims, the more it seems to have been easy to spread the fear of Muslims, as demonstrated as well by some of the reasons given by supporters of the ban in a rural part of the canton of Bern.5)

Following the referendum the Swiss government posted a message on its website the same day stating that it would respect and enforce the result, while the four existing minarets, the construction of new mosques and the practicing of Islam in general in Switzerland would not be affected.6) Nonetheless, the legality of the minaret ban itself has now become a cause for concern, as even the Swiss Justice Minister, Eveline Widmer-Schlumpf has said that “the ban contradicts the European Convention on Human Rights.”7) The Green party in Switzerland has already stated that they intend to take the case to the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR), while the Islamic community of Langenthal has also said that it is prepared to take its case for a minaret to the Swiss Federal Supreme Court and even the ECHR if need be.8) As of mid-December 2009, the ECHR had received half a dozen appeals, including that of Hafid Ouardiri, former spokesperson for the mosque of Geneva.9) Mr. Ouardiri, expressing the sadness and shock of the Swiss Muslim community, had said following the referendum: “My heart is broken. I have been made to understand that I am a danger. What will I say to my children?”10

The legal ramifications of this issue are significant, as they pertain directly to questions of popular will versus protection of minority rights, and the extent to which religious freedoms may be curtailed in democratic societies.11 Moreover, if the results of the referendum are annulled by referring to legally-binding human rights conventions the political consequences will be significant. Already the Swiss German Association of Writers (PEN-Zentrum) have expressed their support for such an outcome, while the Egerkingen Committee has stated on their website that such “professorial ideas” are “unacceptable,” and that bureaucrats in the justice department who resist the implementation of the ban ought to be laid off.12)

Nonetheless, legally speaking the minaret ban has now become part of Swiss law, and while it is possible that the Swiss government might be forced to pay some kind of reparations as a result of a ruling by the ECHR, it is difficult to ascertain the exact legal consequences of such a ruling for Swiss law without referring to a specific case. Already the structural definition of a minaret itself has raised questions in the case of a “ten centimetre minaret” at an Albanian prayer room in Frauenfeld.13 The Langenthal minaret project is now being pursued with the argument that it is not a minaret at all, but rather a tower, as there is “no legally clear and comprehensible definition of a minaret.”14)

International reactions and their implications

The international level has been an important factor well beyond the question of possible infractions of international human rights law. Some initial reactions in Europe have been direct and critical, such as the French Foreign Minister, Bernard Kouchner, who described the ban as a “show of intolerance,” or the Swedish Foreign Minister Carl Bildt, who called it a “display of prejudice and perhaps even of fear.”15) The Vatican, the UN High Commission for Human Rights and the Council of Europe Parliamentary Assembly have also expressed concern and disappointment. However, other political leaders in Europe have indirectly defended the vote, such as German Foreign Minister Guido Westerwelle, noting that this referendum is in keeping with Switzerland’s status as one of the world’s oldest democracies, and French President Nicolas Sarkozy (in the midst of a debate on national identity), stating that “instead of vilifying the Swiss because we do not like their answer, we should rather ask ourselves what it reveals.”16) The only unambiguous support of the ban has come from far-right parties and political leaders, such as leader of the Dutch Party for Freedom (PVV), Geert Wilders, who has called for a similar referendum in the Netherlands, and the Lega Nord in Italy, which responded enthusiastically to the vote by proposing to “put a cross in the [Italian] tricolour.”17

Many other Muslim organizations elsewhere in Europe have condemned the minaret ban since the referendum. Mohamed Moussaoui, president of the French Council of the Muslim Faith (CFCM) has stated that the ban is a violation of the Swiss constitution, while Aiman Mazyek of the Central Council of Muslims in Germany has spoken of a “Europe-wide anti-Islamic movement,” and that a “similar calamitous result” would occur in Germany were a vote to be held, primarily as a result of the many “hysterical debates on foreigners.”18) The secretary general of the Muslim Council of Britain likewise called the vote “tragic and deplorable,” while commenting that the result demonstrated the “the extent to which far-right racist groups were winning the battle of ideas on the future of Europe.”19) It is interesting to note that outside of comments by Swiss Muslims, reactions from Muslim organisations in other Western European countries has received more attention in English-language media in Muslim countries than in the mainstream European news sources.

Immediate reactions from leaders in Muslim countries ranged from disappointment to outright condemnation. Egypt’s Grand Mutfi Ali Gomaa was initially widely quoted in many newspapers as having denounced the referendum as an “insult” to Muslims worldwide; however, he has been especially active in calling for peaceful dialogue: along with the Anglican Bishop of London, Richard Chartres, he has proposed an international conference of clerics on religion and immigrant integration in Sarajevo in response to the Swiss minaret ban.20)

He has also received the support of Mustafa Ceric, Grand Mufti of Bosnia, who had responded quite critically with regard to the ban. While speaking on behalf of the “indigenous Muslims of Europe” (namely Bosnians and Albanians), he made a link between the Swiss vote and another decision taken the same day, which continued the existing visa regime for Bosnians and Albanians for travel in the Schengen zone, while lifting the same requirement for citizens of Montenegro, Macedonia and Serbia; this was a sign that “Europe is undergoing… a profound moral crisis.”21 Many other Muslim religious leaders have similarly denounced the results, as well as many Arab newspapers, as discovered after a “week’s immersion in the Muslim world” by the Swiss newspaper l’Hebdo in a piece entitled “Switzerland, the new target.”22)

Reactions from political leaders have been fewer in number, though some have stood out. Iranian foreign minister Manouchehr Mottaki said that the referendum “damaged Switzerland’s image” and warned of “consequences” of the vote, an opinion that was echoed by Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi, who called it an invitation to al-Qaida.23) However the most vocal criticism has come from Turkey, where the Prime Minister Tayyip Erdoğan stated that the ban was a “sign of fascism,” and that islamophobia has become the new form of anti-Semitism.24)

Assessing the weight of the international in the reactions to the minaret ban

Analyzes of and reactions to the referendum in most media sources have taken three approaches: the first attempts to evaluate the impact more generally with regard to Switzerland’s international image. The second recasts the Swiss minaret ban on a different national level, essentially asking the question, “what if we had such a referendum here?” The third generalities the debate to awkward opaque tropes such as “Europe” versus the “Islam,” or even more generally the “Occident” and the “Orient.” The first approach has interested politicians, diplomats and actors of international commerce, while the second approach has been the most popular, both with Muslim associations as well as with politicians, journalists and social commentators in Western Europe, all of whom attempt to reconcile the reality of local Islam within a national setting. The third approach has been typically the discourse of far-right wing political groups in the past, though increasingly has been entering more mainstream discourse by successfully spreading the idea that questions dealing with Islam, purportedly the religion of ‘foreigners,’ are inherently of an international (or ‘inter-civilizational’) nature.

The first approach is obviously of immediate concern to the Swiss government. The economic repercussions of the vote have been at the forefront of this line of thinking, given the importance of investment and tourism from Muslim countries, especially the Gulf states.25 On a political front, Switzerland’s status as a neutral mediator in international negotiations may also be perceived as compromised as well. The most immediate fear for many Swiss politicians was a backlash similar to that which spread through Muslim countries during the Danish cartoon controversy, which not only led to attacks on Danish diplomatic missions abroad, but to a widespread boycott on Danish exports. However, this appears not to have materialized, raising further questions as what may explain the difference. While the hypocrisy of criticizing the Swiss minaret ban in certain Muslim countries where the religious freedoms of other religions are curtailed may play a role, more importantly has most likely been the general calls for restraint and calm from many religious Muslim leaders around the world, including Babacar Ba, ambassador to Geneva of the Organisation of Islamic Countries (OIC).26) The lasting effects of the Danish cartoon controversy are perhaps most visible in these latter reactions, as was equally the case following the release of the Dutch-made film Fitna in 2008.

The second approach has been an interesting development. Disregarding differences in political system and social context, many newspapers and polling institutes in Europe and North America have carried out surveys in an attempt to see ‘what if’ the referendum had taken place in their country. Thus we find that: only 26 percent of Swedes would support a ban on minarets, as would 38% of Germans, 31 percent of Austrians, 37 percent of Britons, 27 percent of Canadians and 21 percent of Americans.27) In countries in which such a referendum would never be conceivable, the Swiss vote has managed to endow the idea with a degree of possibility – at least enough to ensure that it may become a subject of national debate.

At the base of this endeavor is an increased fetishization of public opinion, which receives even greater legitimacy due to the comparison with the Swiss people’s ability to amend their constitution through a direct national referendum, in spite of all government opposition. It is precisely this split between government on the one hand, and the ‘people’ on the other, to which Nicolas Sarkozy refers in his letter to Le Monde, in which he compares the Swiss minaret ban to the French and Dutch rejections of the EU constitutional treaty in 2005.28 The Swiss case is thus inscribed in a larger pan-European context, whereby government élites have grown out of touch with the ‘people,’ who no longer identify with a growing number of states policies.

This analysis would seem to fit with the idea that Europe has recently experienced a rise of ‘populist right-wing political parties,’ who are supposed to be a response to the identity crisis caused by the gap between government élites and the general public. This idea would furthermore seem to exemplify the third, Orientalist approach of resorting to useful and traditional images of the Other (both Muslim and immigrant) in order to better shore up those ideas and values which are intended to define the nation. However, this interpretation itself is overly simplistic and needs to be nuanced by at least two final points.

The first is that the ideological basis of these ‘populist right-wing political parties’ is not that of the traditional, ethnocentric and xenophobic right-wing nationalist parties such as the French Front National or the German NPD. The parties in question mobilize the discourse of tolerance and progressiveness precisely in order to curtail the liberties of those who would supposedly threaten those values, as in the example of Pim Fortuyn in the Netherlands, who attacked Islam in order to promote gay rights. Jean-Yves Camus calls this movement “neo-populism,” and sees it as a more appropriate characterization of the Swiss SVP.29 However this use of discourse is not restricted to political parties such as that founded by Fortuyn – the same phenomenon is found among large sections of mainstream political parties such as the German CDU or the French UMP. In his letter to Le Monde, Nicolas Sarkozy manages to present the “peoples of Europe” as culturally and naturally “welcoming [and] tolerant,” while quickly warning after that “they do not wish their lifestyle, their way of thinking and their social relations to be distorted.”30 Sarkozy’s argument demonstrates well how the tolerant nature of the Europeans is contingent on the passive acceptance by newcomers of their lifestyle, their way of thinking and their social relations, all of which are implicitly understood as similar when confronted with the difference represented by, most especially, immigrants with a Muslim background. Thus we see how the discourse employed in some recent mainstream arguments emphasizing conformity to a national norm, and consequently opposing certain symbolic displays of difference (such as burqas or minarets), is paradoxically couched in terms of openness and tolerance.

The second point is that when this issue is projected onto a national or even international screen, what began as a local question rapidly loses all sense of perspective, and becomes a catch-all for a Huntington-esque clash of civilizations. Even when this gives rise to nominally positive developments, such as the conference proposed by Ali Gomaa and Richard Chartres promoting interreligious dialogue on the issue, it entirely misses the point. In fact, it replicates the same logic which motivated many Swiss voters who supported the ban. The question of reciprocity was fundamental for many of these voters, who when asked why they voted to ban minarets in Switzerland, stated that they would not have been permitted to build churches in Muslims countries (often citing out Saudi Arabia or Iran).

Thus for these voters, the determining factor for whether the Muslim community in a small local municipality in Switzerland can build a minaret or not, is of an international reciprocal nature, and not one best left to a local community decision. Critiques of Muslim reactions to the ban by scholars such as Khaled Hroub or Mehmet Altan are equally interesting,31 but equally do not explain why second or third-generation Muslims in Switzerland who wish to construct a minaret should be responsible for the state policies of countries in which they have never lived. In fact, the facility with which this issue has ‘become’ international might do with the fact that many voters in Switzerland, as well as foreign commentators, were convinced that it was an international question from the start. If this is the case, it echoes the Swiss Muslim scholar Tariq Ramadan’s claim that there has been a fundamental failure to recognise that Islam is now both a European religion and a Swiss religion.32 However this failure of recognition is not only that of many Swiss voters who supported the ban. It is also a failure on the part of political and religious leaders around the world who see this issue as something which can be addressed by international (and/or interreligious) dialogue. Local issues of this sort are magnets for international attention, and are easily remodelled into ‘national debates’ – however most often only serving the political interests of those who take control of the debate. If there is a level at which dialogue is necessary, it is precisely at the local level within Swiss society itself.

Conclusion

The Swiss minaret ban is an example of how a local issue can become seized upon by political actors and turned into a national debate, precisely by using the international level to create a discourse which alienates one segment of the population from another. Swiss Muslims may be accepted as neighbors in their local communities; however, a large number of fellow citizens do not seem to accept important elements of their social lives as part of the Swiss “national imaginary.” As theorized by Benedict Anderson, the national imaginary is what enables an individual reading a national newspaper to feel a kind of empathy with his or her fellow citizens, though their lives may never intersect, due to a belief that they share something in common.33 The recent minaret ban in Switzerland shows that it will take quite some time until the Swiss national imaginary accepts Muslim symbols into its multilinguistic and multiconfessional landscape.

It also shows how a local issue can rapidly become a global one – including both the European level, in the case of a probable ruling by the ECHR, as well as questions of international commerce and more generally international relations. Nonetheless national governments remain central in the management of these issues, and the Swiss government’s position on the minaret ban has played an important role in calming potential backlash in Muslim countries.

Finally, the minaret ban demonstrates the pervasiveness of certain elements of Orientalist discourse among European élites, as well as an evolution in their discourse towards ‘Islam.’ Within this evolution, the concepts of tolerance and progressiveness have now come to justify, somewhat paradoxically, increased calls for conformity with regard to those perceived of as different.

Share Button

  1. “Le ‘non’ à l’initiative anti-minarets toujours en tête,” 24heures.ch (Lausanne), November 18, 2009, http://www.24heures.ch/actu/suisse/initiative-anti-minarets-tete-2009-11-18, (accessed December 23, 2009 ↩

  2. Nick Cumming-Bruce, “Swiss Vote to ban new minarets in a surprise victory for rightists,” International Herald Tribune (New York), November 30, 2009, p. 3. ↩

  3. Tariq Ramadan, “Islam is a European Religion,” Qantara.de (Bonn), http://en.qantara.de/webcom/show_article.php/_c-476/_nr-1266/i.html, (accessed January 2, 2010 ↩

  4. Abstimmungen – Indikatoren, “Eidgenössische Volksabstimmung vom 29. November 2009,” Statistik Schweiz, http://www.bfs.admin.ch/bfs/portal/de/index/themen/17/03/blank/key/2009/05.html, (accessed December 23, 2009 ↩

  5. Sabine Pirolt, “Pourquoi ils ont dit oui,” L’Hebdo.ch (Lausanne), December 2, 2009, http://www.hebdo.ch/pourquoi_ils_ont_dit_oui_41348_.html, (accessed January 2, 2009 ↩

  6. Media Information, “ ‘Yes’ to popular initiative against the construction of minarets,” Swiss Federal Chancellery, November 29, 2009, http://www.bk.admin.ch/aktuell/media/03238/index.html?lang=en&msg-id=30430, (accessed January 2, 2010 ↩

  7. Frank Jordans, “Swiss official hints at reversal of minaret ban,” Independent (London), December 1, 2009, http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/swiss-official-hints-at-reversal-of-minaret-ban-1831659.html, (accessed December 24, 2009 ↩

  8. Serge Enderlin, “Les Suisses sonnent le glas des minarets,” Libération (Paris), November 30, 2009, p. 4 ; “Das letzte Wort is noch längst nicht gesprochen,” NZZ Online (Zurich), November 30, 2009, http://www.nzz.ch/nachrichten/schweiz/das_letzte_wort_ist_noch_laengst_nicht_gesprochen_1.4083683.html (accessed December 24, 2009 ↩

  9. “Minarets: la Cour européenne reçoit plusieurs recours contre la Suisse,” LeMatin.ch (Lausanne), December 17, 2009, http://www.lematin.ch/actu/suisse/minarets-cour-europeenne-recoit-plusieurs-recours-contre-suisse-205918, (accessed January 2, 2010 ↩

  10. Marie Maurisse, “Les Suisses ne veulent plus voir de nouveaux minarets,” Figaro, November 30, 2009, p. 7. ↩

  11. For more on the legal validity of the ban, see Marcel Stüssi, “Banning of Minarets: Addressing the Validity of a Controversial Swiss Popular Initiative,” Religion and Human Rights, 3, no. 2 (2008): 135-153 ↩

  12. “Schrifsteller und Publizisten reagieren auf Minarett-Verbot,” NZZ Online (Zurich), December 21, 2009, http://www.nzz.ch/nachrichten/schweiz/minarett-verbot_pen_1.4287184.html, (accessed December 26, 2009) ; Walter Wobmann and Ulrich Schlüer, “Freiheitsrechte gestärkt,” Eidgenössische Volkinitiative: Für ein Bauverbot von Minaretten, http://www.minarette.ch/, (accessed December 26, 2009 ↩

  13. Pascal Hollenstein, “Zehn Zentimeter Minarett-Initiative,” NZZ Online (Zurich), November 14, 2009, http://www.nzz.ch/hintergrund/dossiers/eidgenoessische_abstimmung_vom_29_november_dossier/volksinitiative_fuer_den_verbot_von_minaretten/zehn_zentimeter_minarett-initiative_1.4016960.html, (accessed January 2, 2010). ↩

  14. Roman Neumann, “Langenthaler Muslime: Das ist gar kein Minarett!,” Blick.ch (Zurich), December 1, 2009, http://www.blick.ch/news/schweiz/das-ist-gar-kein-minarett-134719, (accessed January 2, 2010 ↩

  15. Jessica Dacey, “Swiss minaret ban sends ripples worldwide,” swissinfo.ch (Berne), November 30, 2009, http://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/index/Swiss_minaret_ban_sends_ripples_worldwide.html?cid=7793976, (accessed December 27, 2009 ↩

  16. “Westerwelle verteidigt die Schweiz,” Focus (Munich), December 4, 2009, http://www.focus.de/politik/deutschland/minarett-verbot-westerwelle-verteidigt-die-schweiz_aid_460265.html (accessed December 28, 2009) ; Nicolas Sarkozy, “Respecter ceux qui arrivent, respecter ceux qui accueillent,” Monde (Paris), December 8, 2009, http://www.lemonde.fr/opinions/article/2009/12/08/m-sarkozy-respecter-ceux-qui-arrivent-respecter-ceux-qui-accueillent_1277422_3232.html, (accessed December 28, 2009 ↩

  17. Merlijn Schoonenboom, “Zwitsers: vier minaretten is genoeg,” Volkskrant (Amsterdam), November 30, 2009, p.1;Franco Zantonelli, “Islam, il muro svizzero il referendum dice no ai nuovi minareti,” Repubblica (Rome), November 30, 2009, p. 8 ↩

  18. Ahmed Elmidaoui, “L’interdiction des minarets viole la Constitution suisse,” Maroc Hebdo International (Casablanca), no. 864, December 4-10, 2009, p. 28-29; Martin Heidelberger and Christian Walz, “Minarett-Verbot in Deutschland ‘nicht denkbar,’” DW-World.de (Berlin), November 30, 2009, http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,,4952569,00.html, (accessed January 2, 2010 ↩

  19. “British Muslims see Swiss vote as sign of far right rise,” Gulf Times (Doha), December 1, 2009, http://www.gulf-times.com/site/topics/printArticle.asp?cu_no=2&item_no=329366&version=1&template_id=38&parent_id=20, (accessed January 2, 2009 ↩

  20. “Egypt mufti says Swiss minaret ban insults Muslims,” AFP (Paris), November 29, 2009, http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5geRfhlTwImkMsEipD-A2sZYSO7og, (accessed December 28, 2009); Ali Gomaa and Richard Chartres, “An opportunity to understand,” Guardian (London), December 11, 2009, http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/belief/2009/dec/11/minarets-islam-christianity-chartres-gomaa, (accessed December 28, 2009 ↩

  21. “Vu de Bosnie-Herzégovine ‘Nous, musulmans autochtones d’Europe’… ” Courrier international (Paris), no. 997, December 10-16, 2009, p. 43 ↩

  22. Patrick Vallélian, “La Suisse, nouvelle cible,” L’Hebdo (Lausanne), December 21, 2009, http://www.hebdo.ch/suisse-cible-monde-arabe_41757_.html, (accessed December 28, 2009 ↩

  23. “Iran urges Bern not to enforce minaret ban,” AFP (Paris), December 6, 2009, http://www.nation.com.pk/pakistan-news-newspaper-daily-english-online/International/06-Dec-2009/Iran-urges-Bern-not-to-enforce-minaret-ban, (accessed December 29, 2009); “Swiss minaret ban an invite to al-Qaeda: Gadhafi,” Presstv.ir (Tehran), http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=113020&sectionid=351020506, (accessed December 29, 2009 ↩

  24. “Erdoğan’ın minare çıkışı dünya basında,” Hürriyet (Istanbul), December 2, 2009, http://www.hurriyet.com.tr/dunya/13083622.asp, (accessed December 29, 2009 ↩

  25. “Gerold Bührer, president of the Swiss Business Federation, has recorded that Switzerland receives around 10,000 euros per year from Muslim countries and Geneva alone received 174,500 visits from the Gulf states during 2008,” Charles Bremner, “Los suizos derrumban los minaretes,” Mundo (Madrid), November 30, 2009, p. 36 ↩

  26. “Swiss Minaret Ban Stirs World Muslim Outcry,” IslamOnline.net (Cairo), November 30, 2009, http://www.islamonline.net/servlet/Satellite?c=Article_C&cid=1258880610457&pagename=Zone-English-News%2FNWELayout, (accessed January 2, 2009 ↩

  27. “Minaret ban favoured by one in four Swedes: poll,” Local (Stockholm), December 3, 2009, http://www.thelocal.se/23636/20091203/, (accessed December 29, 2009); “In Österreich klare Mehrheit gegen Minarett-Verbot,” Standard (Vienna), December 5, 2009, http://derstandard.at/1259281284970/In-Oesterreich-klare-Mehrheit-gegen-Minarett-Verbot, (accessed December 29, 2009); “Westerwelle verteidigt die Schweiz,”Focus; Angus Reid Public Opinion, “Following Swiss Referendum, Britons Would Vote to Ban Minarets,”Vision Critical (London), December 21, 2009, http://www.visioncritical.com/category/public-opinion/, (accessed December 29, 2009 ↩

  28. Sarkozy, “Respecter ceux qui arrivent, respecter ceux qui accueillent.” ↩

  29. See Marc Semo, “Le néopopulisme: un virus européen,” Libération (Paris), November 30, 2009, p. 3 ↩

  30. Sarkozy, “Respecter ceux qui arrivent, respecter ceux qui accueillent.” ↩

  31. Khaled Hroub, “The Hypocrisy of Islam’s Indignation,” Qantara.de (Bonn), http://www.qantara.de/webcom/show_article.php/_c-476/_nr-1269/i.html, (accessed December 29, 2009); Mehmet Altan, “Les Turcs aussi bornés que les Suisses,” Courrier international (Paris), no. 997, December 10-16, 2009, p. 44. ↩

  32. Ramadan, “Islam is a European Religion.” ↩

  33. Benedict Anderson, Imaginary Communities: Reflections on the Origin and Spread of Nationalism (London: Verso, 1983). ↩

Tweet
Share
Pin
Share
0 Shares