Religion is fast replacing other ideologies such as communism and anti-colonialism as the biggest determining factor for social and political relations in our post-modern, post-9-11 world.
One result of this has been the demonisation of Islam and the ‘politics of fear’ that envelops the discourse over Islamic fundamentalism. This is ignorant to the fact that fundamentalism – that potent ‘f word’ – is originally a Protestant idea which sprang up in the US in the early 20th century.
I do not need to repeat here the consequences of the racial profiling of Muslims in the wake of 9/11 and the attacks in Madrid and London, which have resulted in a so-called ‘clash of civilizations’ and what has been named the ‘war on terror’ – though it’s waged mostly against Muslims.
One interesting consequence of this demonisation is the Swiss referendum put forward last November by the Swiss People’s Party proposing to ban the construction of minarets in Switzerland.
There are 400,000 Muslims in Switzerland – a small minority in a population of 6.4m, of which 1.96m have an ‘immigrant background’ – and only four minarets. So surely they’re not a huge problem. Yet according to the SVP, they are ‘a sign of Islamisation’.
There are unofficial Muslim prayer rooms in Switzerland, and planning applications for new minarets are almost always refused. However, supporters of the ban claimed that allowing minarets would represent the growth of an ideology and a legal system (Sharia law) which are incompatible with Swiss democracy.
More than 57.5 per cent of Swiss voters in 22 out of 26 cantons voted in favour of the ban, which was condemned by most world and religious leaders across boundaries of politics and faith. But it remains surprisingly unmentioned.
In the face of the success of the minaret ban, it is startling to think of another Swiss referendum, put to voters in March, proposing to adopt legal representation for the rights for animals.
The proposal is based on an existing system in Zurich, according to which pets and livestock – budgies and canaries, cats and dogs, pigs, goldfish and other creatures – should have legally enshrined rights, including the right to be regularly exercised and cared for. This proposal was rejected by nearly 80 per cent, but the implications are interesting.
On the one hand, the people of Switzerland voted to outlaw the right of its Muslim citizens and residents to exercise their religious rights by praying and congregating in a publicly sited mosque, complete with a minaret. On the other, the Swiss seriously considered extending legal rights to animals – symbolically placing them above people of the Muslim faith.
According to NUI Maynooth media scholar Gavan Titley, the minaret ban – which means Muslims in Switzerland have to continue to pray in private facilities and thus keep their religion in the private domain – is part of a perceived “crisis of European multiculturalism”.
This, he argues, has promoted an “unapologetic demand for disintegrated migrants and Muslim populations to display loyalty, adopt ‘our’ national/liberal/universal values, and prove the legitimacy of their presence and belonging”.
It’s an important issue that needs much more attention.
Dr Ronit Lentin is head of the MPhil in Ethnic and Racial Studies at the Department of Sociology at Trinity College Dublin. Her column appears fortnightly in Metro Éireann
