| Results | ||||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||||||||||||||||||||
 The results of the November 2009 referendum by canton. Red indicates opposition to the ban of minarets, green support of the ban. | ||||||||||||||||||||||
Thefederal popular initiative "against the construction of minarets" was a successfulpopular initiative inSwitzerland to prevent the construction ofminarets onmosques. In aNovember 2009 referendum, a constitutional amendment banning the construction of new minarets was approved by 57.5% of the participating voters.[1] Only three of the twenty-sixSwiss cantons and one half canton,[2] mostly in theFrench-speaking part of Switzerland, opposed the initiative.
This referendum originates from action on 1 May 2007, when a group of right of centre politicians, mainly from theSwiss People's Party and theFederal Democratic Union of Switzerland, theEgerkinger Komittee ("Egerkingen Committee") launched a federalpopular initiative that sought a constitutional ban on minarets. The minaret at the mosque of the local Turkish cultural association inWangen bei Olten was the initial motivation for the initiative.
The Swiss government recommended that the proposed amendment be rejected as inconsistent with the basic principles of the constitution.[3] However, after the results were tabulated, the government immediately announced that the ban was in effect.[4]
As of the date of the 2009 vote, there were four minarets in Switzerland, attached to mosques inZürich,Geneva,Winterthur andWangen bei Olten. These existing minarets were not affected by the ban, as they had already been constructed.
The Swiss minaret controversy began in a smallmunicipality in the northern part of Switzerland in 2005. The contention involved theTurkish cultural association inWangen bei Olten, which applied for a construction permit to erect a 6-metre-high minaret on the roof of its Islamic community centre. The project faced opposition from surrounding residents, who had formed a group to prevent the tower's erection. The Turkish association claimed that the building authorities improperly and arbitrarily delayed its building application. They also believed that the members of the local opposition group were motivated by religious bias. The Communal Building and Planning Commission rejected the association's application. The applicants appealed to the Building and Justice Department, which reverted the decision and remanded. As a consequence of that decision, local residents (who were members of the group mentioned) and the commune of Wangen brought the case before the Administrative Court of theCanton of Solothurn, but failed with their claims. On appeal the Federal Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the lower court. The 6-metre (20 ft)-high minaret was erected in July 2009.[5]
From 2006 until 2008, members of theSwiss People's Party and theFederal Democratic Union launched severalcantonal initiatives against the construction of minarets. The initiatives were held to beunconstitutional by cantonalparliaments and thereforevoid, and did not proceed to balloting.[6]
In 2007, in response to the political defeats described above, the Egerkinger committee launched a federalpopular initiative against minarets. The committee's proposed amendment to article 72 of theSwiss Federal Constitution read: "The building of minarets is prohibited."[7]
In Switzerland, federal popular initiatives are not subject to judicial review, as they amend the federal constitution (whereas cantonal initiatives can be challenged in court for violating federal law). Federal initiatives are still bound byinternational law (jus cogens), however.[8] Promoters of popular initiatives have 18 months to collect at least 100,000 signatures.[9] If they succeed, the initiative is put before the Swiss citizenry in a national vote. Both federal and cantonal initiatives are common in Switzerland, resulting in many referendum votes each year.
The Egerkinger committee was made up of members of theSwiss People's Party and theFederal Democratic Union. The committee opined that the interests of residents, who are disturbed by specific kinds of religious land uses, are to be taken seriously. Moreover, it argued that Swiss residents should be able to block unwanted and unusual projects such as the erection of Islamic minarets. The committee alleged,inter alia, that "the construction of a minaret has no religious meaning. Neither in theQur'an, nor in any otherholy scripture ofIslam is the minaret expressly mentioned at any point. The minaret is far more a symbol of a claim of religious-political power [...]."[10] The initiators justified their point of view by quoting parts of a speech in 1997 byRecep Tayyip Erdoğan (later Prime Minister and President of Turkey), which stated: "Mosques are our barracks, domes our helmets, minarets our bayonets, believers our soldiers. This holy army guards my religion."[11]Ulrich Schluer, one of the Egerkinger committee's most prominent spokesmen, stated on that point: "A minaret has nothing to do with religion: It just symbolises a place where Islamic law is established."[12]The members of the Egerkinger committee included, among others,Ulrich Schluer,Christian Waber,Walter Wobmann,Jasmin Hutter,Oskar Freysinger,Eric Bonjour,Sylvia Flückiger,Lukas Reimann, andNatalie Rickli.[7] The mobilisation has been linked to thecounter-jihad movement,[13] and Freysinger who was a leader in the campaign was later lauded as a hero when he attended the 2010 counter-jihad conference in Paris.[14]
The committee's campaign featured posters featuring a drawing of a Muslim woman in anabaya andniqab, next to a number of minarets on a Swiss flag pictured in a way "reminiscent of missiles".[15][16][17][18] TheSwiss People's Party also published a similar poster, with the minarets protruding through a Swiss flag.[19] A few days before the election, campaigners drove a vehicle near Geneva Mosque in the Le Petit-Saconnex imitating theadhan, theIslamic call to ritual prayer (salat) using loudspeakers.[20] Its neighbourhood voted by 1,942 votes to 1,240 to reject the ban.[21]
The British newspaperThe Times cited support of the minaret ban from "radical feminists" who opposed the oppression of women in Islamic societies.[22] Among those named were the notableDutch feminist and former politicianAyaan Hirsi Ali, who in December gave her support to the ban with an article entitled "Swiss ban on minarets was a vote for tolerance and inclusion".[23]The Times further reported that in pre-election polling, Swiss women supported the ban by a greater percentage than Swiss men.
The traditionalistSociety of St Pius X, which has its headquarters at Ecône in Switzerland, supported the ban on minarets, denouncing opposition to the ban by some Catholic bishops:
the confusion maintained by certain Vatican II Council authorities between tolerating a person, whatever his religion and tolerating an ideology that is incompatible with Christian tradition.[24]
and explaining its support of the ban:
The Islamic doctrine cannot be accepted when you know what it is all about. How can one expect to condone the propagation of an ideology that encourages husbands to beat their wives, the "believer" to murder the "infidel", a justice that uses body mutilation as punishment, and pushes to reject Jews and Christians?[24]
On 28 August 2008 theSwiss Federal Council opposed a building ban on minarets. It said that the popular initiative against their construction had been submitted in accordance with the applicable regulations, but infringed guaranteed international human rights and contradicted the core values of the Swiss Federal Constitution. It believed a ban would endanger peace between religions and would not help to prevent the spread of fundamentalist Islamic beliefs. In its opinion, the Federal Council therefore recommended the Swiss people to reject the initiative.[25] On 24 October 2008 the Federal Commission against Racism criticised the people's initiative, claiming that it defamed Muslims and violated religious freedom, which was protected by fundamental human rights and the ban on discrimination.[26]
TheFederal Assembly recommended (by 132 to 51 votes and 11 abstentions) in spring of 2009 that the Swiss people reject the minaret ban initiative.[27]
TheSociety for Minorities in Switzerland called for freedom and equality and started an internet-based campaign in order to gather as many symbolicsignatures as possible against a possible minaret ban.[28]Amnesty International warned the minaret ban aimed to exploit fears of Muslims and encouragexenophobia for political gains. "This initiative claims to be a defense against rampantIslamification of Switzerland,"Daniel Bolomey, the head of Amnesty's Swiss office, said in a statement cited byAgence France-Presse. "But it seeks to discredit Muslims anddefames them, pure and simple."[29]Economiesuisse considered that an absolute construction ban would hit Swiss foreign interests negatively, claiming that merely the launch of the initiative had caused turmoil in theIslamic world.[citation needed] The Swiss-based "Unser Recht" ("Our Law") association published a number of articles against the minaret ban.[30]In autumn 2009, the Swiss Journal of Religious Freedom launched a public campaign for religious harmony, security, and justice in Switzerland, and distributed several thousand stickers in the streets of Zürich in support of the right to religious freedom.[31]
TheCatholic Church in Switzerland opposed a minaret ban. A statement from theSwiss Bishops' Conference said that a ban would hinder interreligious dialogue and that the construction and operation of minarets were already regulated by Swissbuilding codes. The statement added that "Our request for the initiative to be rejected is based on our Christian values and the democratic principles in our country."[32] The official journal of the Catholic Church in Switzerland published a series of articles on the minaret controversy.[33] TheFederation of Swiss Protestant Churches held that thefederal popular initiative was not about minarets, but was rather an expression of the initiators' concern and fear of Islam. It viewed a minaret ban as a wrong approach to express such objections.[34]TheSwiss Federation of Jewish Communities was also against any ban on building minarets. Dr Herbert Winter, the president of the Federation, said in 2009: "As Jews we have our own experience. For centuries we were excluded: we were not allowed to construct synagogues or cupola roofs. We do not want that kind of exclusion repeated."[35] Other religious organisations described the idea of a complete minaret ban as lamentable;[36] theAssociation of Evangelical Free Churches; theSwiss Evangelical Alliance; theChristian Catholic Church of Switzerland; the Covenant of Swiss Baptists; theSalvation Army; theFederation of Evangelical Lutheran Churches in Switzerland; the Orthodox Diocese of theEcumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople; theSerbian Orthodox Church in Switzerland; and theAnglican Church in Switzerland.[36]
Marcel Stüssi argued that any ban would be incompatible with articles ofinternational law, to which Switzerland was asignatory. In any case, cantonalzoning laws already prohibited the construction of buildings that did not match their surroundings. "Right-wing initiatives like the minaret one can misuse the system," said Stüssi.[37] He called the initiative "obsolete and unnecessary", but added that the public discourse on the issue could put Switzerland in a positive light, at least for the majority who at that point opposed a ban. In July 2008, before the popular initiative, he argued that "crisis always creates an opportunity. A popular vote against a proposed ban would be the highest declaration for the recognition of the Swiss Muslim community."[38] "It would also be an expressed statement that anybody is equally subject to the law and to the political process," Stüssi said in an interview withWorld Radio Switzerland.[39]Heinrich Koller stated that "Switzerland must abide by international law because both systems together form a unity."[40]Giusep Nay states that from an objective viewpointjus cogens is to be read and given effect in association with fundamental norms of international law. According to Nay, this interpretation meant that any state action must be in accordance with fundamental material justice, and applied not only to interpretations of applicable law but also to new law.[40]Erwin Tanner saw the initiative as breaching not only the constitutionally entrenched right to religious freedom, but also the rights to freedom of expression, enjoyment of property, and equality.[33] The editorial board of theRevue de Droit Suisse called for invalidation of the initiative as "it appears that the material content of popular initiatives is subject to ill-considered draftsmanship because the drafters are affected by particular emotions that merely last for snatches."[40]
Sami Aldeeb positioned himself for ban on the erection of minarets in Switzerland, since in his opinion the constitution allows prayer, but not shouting.[41]
In a referendum on 29 November 2009, the amendment, which needed adouble majority to pass, was approved by 57.5% (1 534 054 citizens[42]) of the voters and by 19½cantons out of 23.Geneva,Vaud andNeuchâtel, all of which areFrench-speaking cantons, voted against the ban (59.7%, 53.1% and 50.9% respectively). The canton ofBasel-City, which hashalf a cantonal vote and the largestMuslim community of Switzerland, also rejected the ban by 51.6%. The voter turnout was 53.4%.[1]
At thedistrict level, not including Basel-City and Geneva (which are not divided into districts), the initiative gained a majority of the vote in 132 of the 148 districts. The sixteen districts with a majority negative vote were:
The cities ofZürich andBern, along withGeneva andBasel, also showed a slight majority opposed to the ban. Thecanton of Zürich as a whole, however, voted 52% in support of it. The highest percentage of votes in favour of the ban were counted inAppenzell Innerrhoden (71%) followed byGlarus (69%),Ticino (68%) andThurgau (68%).
An independent study carried out by the political scientistsMarkus Freitag (University of Konstanz),Thomas Milic andAdrian Vatter (University of Bern) noted a good level of knowledge among voters.[44] Contrary to what had been previously thought, the surveys before the referendum did not influence voters, as it is hard to do so with people who are accustomed to them.[44] Those who voted did so according to their political convictions, and by taking into account the different arguments.[44] The study also attributed the result to the fact that supporters of the ban overwhelmingly turned out to vote in the referendum.[44]
There was a claim that the ban on new minarets might be put to the test in the case of a pending project to build a minaret for a mosque inLangenthal, canton of Bern. The Muslim community of Langenthal announced its intention to take its case to theFederal Supreme Court of Switzerland, and, if necessary, to theEuropean Court of Human Rights inStrasbourg. The community's attorney also expressed doubts as to whether the ban could be considered to affect the Langenthal project, because an application for planning permission had been made to the local planning authority in 2006, prior to the referendum result; thus, it was arguable that the ban should not be taken to apply to this projectex post facto.[citation needed] However, a professor of law atSt. Gallen University expressed the opinion that the ban rendered the Langenthal project obsolete.[46]
Whether the Langenthal mosque would be affected would depend on the details of the eventual implementation. According to Alexander Ruch, professor of building law atETH Zurich, there was, at that point, no official definition of the term "minaret", leaving open the handling of hypothetical cases, such as the chimney of a factory building that is converted into a mosque.[47] In the case of the Langenthal minaret, it was even argued that the planned structure was a minaret-like tower and not a minaret. Calls to prayer had been a frequent argument against permitting new minarets, and the planned tower in Langenthal could not be used for that purpose.[48]In the case of the Islamic center inFrauenfeld,canton of Thurgau, an existing ventilation shaft had been adorned with a sheet metal cone topped with a crescent moon. In October 2009, the Frauenfeld city council declined to treat the structure as a "minaret", saying that it had been officially declared a ventilation shaft, and that the additional crescent moon had not provided cause for comment during the six years since its installation.[49][50][51]
TheGreen Party of Switzerland declared that in their opinion, the ban introduced a contradiction into the Swiss constitution, which also contains a paragraph guaranteeingfreedom of religion, and in November 2009, the party announced its intention to appeal to theEuropean Court on Human Rights on the matter.[52]
Several applications to the European Court of Human Rights were rejected in 2011 on the grounds that the applicants were not affected parties, as they did not intend to build minarets.[53]
The ban sparked reactions from governments and political parties throughout of the world.[54]
The Swiss referendum was welcomed by several Europeanfar right parties:[64]
On 30 January 2010, Pakistani newspaperThe Nation carried a fabricated story, according to which "the first man who had launched a drive for imposition of ban on mosques minarets", had seen the error of his "evil ways" and had converted to Islam, which had supposedly "created furore in Swiss politics", claiming that Streich "is ashamed of his doings now and desires to construct the most beautiful mosque of Europe in Switzerland." On 5 February,Tikkun debunkedThe Nation's story as a distorted version of a report aboutDaniel Streich, a Swiss Muslim who had left the Swiss People's Party because he was outraged with their campaign.[74]
{{cite journal}}:Cite journal requires|journal= (help)