RSS

The referendum and its consequences are a clear example of the tyranny of the majority, an expression popularized by liberal thinker John Stuart Mill who believed that the interest of the majority can sometimes encroach on the freedom of a minority. That is exactly what has happened in Switzerland. The decision to ban minarets is not only a demonstration of intolerance and prejudice, but also infringes on the right to religious freedom of those affected. And fundamental human rights, protected by international treaties, should not be subject to popular votes.

There is also a problem of definition that displays the absurdity of the ban: minarets can look very different, some being very similar to the bell towers of churches. In fact, the bell tower of one of Europe's most famous churches, The Cathedral of Seville, is a minaret from the mosque that previously resided on the site.

But, perhaps the Swiss forgot that the world cannot be seen in black and white (after all the Swiss People's Party has previously used white and black sheep in campaign posters). Maybe they also forgot those words by Mill that "the despotism of custom is everywhere the standing hindrance to human advancement" and that a liberal, democratic society thrives on a plurality of political, religious, and cultural beliefs and that it is in society's best interest to protect, or even foment, their existence.

Yet, Switzerland is not the only European country where xenophobic parties are on the rise. The results of this referendum are part of a growing anti-Islamic trend in Europe. France, Belgium, Holland, and Denmark are only some examples of countries where extreme right-wing parties have gained vote in the last few years by leveraging on people's fear of the unknown and prejudices towards Islam. Many of these parties were the first to congratulate the Swiss People's Party on their victory and express their desire for implementing similar policies in their respective countries.

The results of the referendum should not be taken lightly. Although we are not yet sure what the outcome will be, the result itself faces us with important questions about how we should deal with a constantly changing Europe. It is clear that xenophobia has increased with the inability to deal properly with immigration. On the positive side, however, the rise of xenophobic right-wing parties has forced politicians who used to evade topics like integration to start discussing these problems.

Last month in a television debate between Swedish minister Maud Olofsson and Jimmie Åkesson, leader of the Sweden democrats (Swiss People's Party's Swedish counterpart), Olofsson asked a very important question that perhaps all Europeans, especially politicians, should be asking themselves. In response to Åkesson saying that he wanted Swedish Muslims to adjust to Swedish culture, she countered, "What is the starting point for Swedish culture? Where does it begin? What is it?" pointing out the hollowness of arguing that a pure unchanging national culture or identity exists. Can we really draw a line between us and them? Can we draw a line between when someone stops being Algerian and starts being French, when a Turk becomes German, between a bell tower and a minaret? The only thing we know is that Europe is constantly changing and that it has always been that way. The future Europe will not have the same breakdown of religions, ethnic groups, or political parties as it does today, just as they now are different from the past. The idea of freezing a country's traditions as they are in the present or even striving backwards towards an idealized and imagined pure past is neither plausible nor compatible with history. Instead we should draw from our diversity to construct the future.

With this in mind, it is now especially important that Europe take a stance to protect the rights of its citizens and defend the existence of cultural and religious plurality. The results of the referendum pose a vital question about democracy and whether we can always rely on the opinion of the majority, something which history has perhaps already disproved. This is where international institutions must prove their usefulness.

The decision to ban the construction of minarets encroaches on the freedom of Swiss Muslims and is incongruent with the Swiss constitution, which guarantees them freedom of religion. Therefore the ban should be submitted to and rejected by the European Court of Human Rights.

Caroline Hammargren holds a BA in English Literature and Linguistics and a minor in European Studies. She works as an editor and translator with base in Barcelona.

Related Material on Atlantic Community:

• Daniel Möckli: Think Tank Analysis: Switzerland's Controversial Middle East Policy
• Basak Yavcan Ural: The EU's Imaginary Clash of Civilizations
• Crystal Oswald-Herold: Paul M. Barrett: American Islam