Switzerland: A Banking Paradise Lost

For centuries, Switzerland has been a peaceful haven; its mountains wrapped in majestic mystery and its banking in centuries of secrecy. But for the world's tax cheats, Switzerland is now a paradise lost. Foreign governments are prying open the $2 trillion offshore banking business in the country with tax treaties.

It all started with a former UBS banker who spent two-and-a-half years in prison for helping wealthy Americans avoid paying their taxes. It is a story that would have gone unnoticed had it not been for the fact that the Inland Revenue Service awarded that man $104m for revealing the secrets of the Swiss banking industry. It is believed to be the biggest whistle-blower award ever. And it heralded in a new era - no longer could the Swiss banking industry keep its secrets.

UBS, the Swiss bank at the centre of the whistle-blowing, agreed to pay a $780m fine. But the US is still investigating more Swiss banks. And other nations are now also pursuing the Swiss banks, including the UK, Austria and Germany - all keen on clawing back tax on some of the $2 trillion of wealth that foreign clients have stashed away there.

The deals with the UK, Austria and Germany will allow foreign clients to remain anonymous, but the Swiss banks and government will collect one-off tax on their accounts, averaging 25 per cent, for the foreign governments. In the future, the Swiss will tax foreign accounts' interest and dividends at British, Austrian and German tax rates.

The Austrian and British treaties have already been ratified and will come into effect on January 1. In Germany, however, there is a problem - Socialists do not like the Swiss-German tax treaty and are calling it a gift to rich people.

But how are the Swiss responding to all this? Is their famous neutrality still intact?

Swiss Prepare Army For Euro Zone Fallout

Switzerland launched the military exercise “Stabilo Due” in September to respond to the current instability in Europe and to test the speed at which its army can be dispatched. The country is not a member of the union or among the 17 countries that share the euro.

Swiss newspaper Der Sonntag reported recently that the exercise centered around a risk map created in 2010, where army staff detailed the threat of internal unrest between warring factions as well as the possibility of refugees from Greece, Spain, Italy, France, and Portugal.

The Swiss defense ministry told CNBC that it doesn’t not rule out having to deploy troops in the coming years.

“It's not excluded that the consequences of the financial crisis in Switzerland can lead to protests and violence,” a spokesperson told CNBC.com. “The army must be ready when the police in such cases requests for subsidiary help.”

Some 2,000 troops were part of the drill exercise in eight different towns across the country. 

Infantry soldiers were used as well as the Air Force and special forces personnel in an assignment that took years to organize.

Quoted in a Schweizer Soldat magazine, Defense Minister Ueli Maurer warned of an escalation of violence in Europe.

"I can’t exclude that in the coming years we may need the army," he said.

According to the minister, under pressure to save, some European countries didn’t renew their armies as they could no longer afford the upkeep of modern systems.

He said that the situation could amplify dramatically, with countries that couldn’t defend themselves facing the possibility of “blackmail.” In the paper, he also asked how long the crisis could be calmed with money alone.

Der Sonntag newspaper also reported that army chief André Blattmann is set to submit a proposal in December to utilize four battalions of military police. This will consist of 1,600 soldiers guarding strategic points in the country including the airport, industrial plants, and the international organizations in Geneva.

Via: "CNBC"

Pig Parts Dumped At Swiss Mosque Site

In a 2009 referendum, voters prohibited the construction of new minarets in Switzerland


By Brian Walker, 
CNN Updated 6:46 PM EST, Sat November 12, 2011 
Courtesy Of "CNN"

(CNN) -- Muslims in Switzerland are responding with shock and outrage after a pig carcass and severed swine heads were discovered buried at the site of a proposed mosque.

Police in the town of Grenchen uncovered the pigs Friday after they received an anonymous message claiming that someone had buried the body parts and spilled 120 liters of blood from the animals in an effort to desecrate the ground to halt the construction of the mosque.

Pork and pork byproducts are haram, or forbidden, in Islam.

The unsigned flier, written in German, says "This operation was done (conducted) to protest against the growing expansion of Islam in Switzerland," and says that a similar desecration in Spain earlier halted another mosque construction project.

Thomas Suber, chief of the Solothurn Canton police, told CNN by phone that there were no suspects currently, but that a full investigation is under way.

"We can't say yet it is a hate crime in those words, but it could have been done to stop the mosque," said Suber.

Suber said that whoever is responsible may be brought up on environmental pollution charges.

The police chief says that veterinary health officials have been called in to find if pig's blood has in fact been spilled, and that charges may be filed over illegal dumping of animal parts in addition to other potential criminal charges.

But for Muslims in Switzerland, it's just the latest sign that they are being victimized by some in the far right.

Abdel Azziz Qaasim Illi, spokesman for Switzerland's Central Islamic Council said the deed "crossed a line" that had already been pushed against Muslims since a popular referendum in 2009 banned the construction of new minarets.

"Since the ban on minarets there's been an increase in Islamophobia and Islamophobic events, so it was not really surprising" said Illi. "But it is an escalation in Switzerland because this is a peaceful country where Christians and Muslims have all been living together... and we are a bit afraid this may increase."

There are an estimated 500,000 Muslims in Switzerland, out of a population of more than 7 million says Illi, who admitted that the population is rising but that most Swiss Muslims were immigrants from Albania and elsewhere in the Balkans, where there is a tradition of moderate Islam.

The property had been purchased by the local Muslim community several years ago from a Swiss far right political activist. The man claimed that he had not been informed that it would be used for a mosque and had fought the sale in court, before ultimately losing his civil case recently allowing construction to go forward.

"We can just wait for the next rain or snowfall to cleanse the ground, so we do not fear from this side anything," said Illi.

"But on the other hand it's an emotional thing, it means that there are actually people in this society who deny the right of Muslims when it comes to a mosque in Switzerland and this is something that hurts us."

Minarets and Democracy

By Dr. Vladislav Marjanović
February 1, 2010
Courtesy of Global Research

The Swiss voted to ban minarets. Photo : Agence France-Presse

It started again! The eternal debate between religion and democracy is on again. It was sparked by a Swiss referendum held on November 29 2009 that bans construction of minareats in Switzerland. The people have spoken, and the decision of the majority (over 57%) must be respected. That’s the first principle of democracy, the sovereignty of the people. This principle is promoted by Western media, and is called upon even in countries beyond the West.

But what is to be done when the public does not vote according to the wishes of the minority that claims to have exclusive access to truth ? Well, then it becomes necessary to oblige the public to ‘correct’ its will. To quote a high functionary from distant past, people are but cattle without tails ; they can be misled by any clever demagogue, so their will has to be kept in line, or else they will end in dire circumstances. And let us not forget that even Hitler rose to power by the decision of the voting public. Doesn’t that prove that they can easily be seduced by dangerous demagogues? But that was not their last ‘sin’. On June 12, 2008 the people of Ireland dared to say ‘no’ to the Eruopean Charter. So they were brought to see reason in a very effective manner. Brussells informed them that their referendum will be repeated as many times as it takes for them to reach the ‘correct’ vote. This message was clearly understood, and under the additional pressure of the economic crisis, the Irish referendum was repeated on October 2 2009, and the result was ‘yes’. So the European Union was saved. And along with it, neoliberalism. Democracy prevailed.

Well, not democracy of the people, but democracy appropriated by professional politicians, who claim to see more clearly from the heights of their ivory towers than those at the bottom of the social ladder. After all, isn’t it said that all power comes from God ? Exactly. Which is precisely why construction of religious establishments is encouraged. The more, the better.

But bell towers and minarets together? Well, why not ? We should not abandon multiculturalism just to keep the landscape intact. In fact, landscapes invariably change over time. Bell towers and minarets replaced antique temples, and then started competing with each other. In some places they took turns, following the dictates of the politics of the day. In other places they managed to coexist, as for example in the Balkans. And the landscape didn’t even suffer for it ; rather, it was embelished by this architectural blend. Clearly, they can coexist just fine side-by-side, as long as the government (secular or religious) does not spur intolerance.

But the ruling class follows another logic. Religion is a perfect tool for spiritual manipulation of the public. It can pacify and help the sheep to accept their destiny without complaint, but it can also turn the sheep into volves. Monotheistic religions have become true masters of spiritual manipulation and continue to prove their skill. They all start from the same point : there is only one true God. But they diverge on the ways of worshiping this one God. That creates competition among religions, since they have to gain not just the love of God, but also the souls of the devout, who conveniently give them material contributions - the contributions that sustain religious institutions and their hierarchy. And the devout identify one another through ritual. So attempts of one religion to gather souls by promoting its cult in the hunting grounds of another religion inevitably provokes a reaction that is anything but peaceful.

In fact, the clash of cultures and their dominant religions is now in full swing. Wouldn’t it only get worse if construction of minarets is allowed in the very heart of Europe? The good people ofSwitzerland, who have not gone to war for almost two centuries, are alarmed. Minarets and bell towers side by side, that can have less than friendly consequences. Religious fundamentalists, albeit in the minority, have stepped up to the front of the stage, and with them the discrimination, not just religious but also sexual. Their draconic medieval punishments, used even against children without hesitation, threaten a spiritual dehumanization of the world. How can we be sure that the minority of militant religious fundamentalists will not be followed by the rest of the devout? The popular instict dictates: better not to let the wolf into the stable. So, no minarets.

The people have spoken, and their will should be respected. This is what all democratic constitutions say. But the times have changed. It’s no longer up to the public vote to decide matters ; now local and foreign powers rise above the will of the people and have the final say.

They claim that the principle of religious tolerance, as an international law, overrides the will of the public. To refute this reasoning is asking for trouble, because we no longer live in isolated alpine villages, but in a golbal village where everything is being traded: ideas, goods and even people. So never mind that in some Middle-Eastern countries there may still be no religious tolerance, that human rights may be abused, or that foreigners are held as hostages (even if they are Swiss). We should still be forgiving. Because who knows what will happen if minaret construction does get banned in the name of Swiss dedication to democracy ? The petrodolars may end up in places other than the Swiss banks. Or, worse, those already here may be taken away, or the oil supplies to Switzerland may get cut. The Libian chief Mouammar el Kadhafi is already working on that. One does not punish a child of the king of kings, of the sheiks and traditional african sultans, merely because some abused servants dare to make a complaint. So if public vote starts questioning the use of religious symbols, that may encourage bans across the globe on the expansion of christian religious denominations that have US headquarters, and are considered a religious sect in other countries. Indeed, some of these denominations preach the value of personal enrichment as pleasing to God. One must believe - in progress, particularly in Africa, where only two things are progressing: the pillage of raw materials, and poverty.

Surely the world, or rather the international community, must not allow to be ridiculed by this referendum orchestrated by the Swiss extreme right-wing party. That would mean legalizing xenophobia and countering the principles of globalization. So, wouldn’t it be better to permit the construction of minarets? After all, if ever a religious strife escalates to the point that it threatens to destabilize the country, there will always be troops (the peace-keeping troops, of course) ready to intervene – as a preventive measure, of course.

But wouldn’t it be better to prevent such « preventive » intervention ? Through open dialogue, for example? This good old idea is always discussed at all sorts of round tables. Because it is easy to come to an agreement at a conference table. But there it remains. Beyond the conference room, it’s another story. Which means that the issue has to be debated all over again. This is done with dogged persistence, but the results remain the same. The issue is debated in conferences, campaigns, seminars, workshops, papers, books, studies, journals, lectures (very nicely presented), even sermons ; but where in all this is actual communication ?

Clearly, it was short-circruited. It is impossible to have a dialogue among different religions when they are reduced to dogmatic adherence to rituals and traditions. And while rituals are a tool for manipulating the populace by the high pontiffs of these religions (and they know very well how to modify them to suit contemporary circumstances and politics of the day) for the rest of the people religious rituals will always remain a source of collective identification, a symbol of an idylic past when the world seemed to be in order. But all religions, including polytheistic ones, are in essence a compilation of metaphoric messages, stories that need to be decoded in order to understand their true spiritual meaning. If an effort was made to approach religion in this way all over the world, the external manifestations of religions would fall into their place - that of traditions that unite people without force, that enlighten without a threat of punishment, and that permit communication with outsiders and free exchange of ideas. This would then enable religions to evolve spiritually and rise above the trappings of cult symbols and rituals. At this stage, the issue of bell towers and minarets would be a very different matter – complementing instead of competing, instilling mutual trust instead of fear. Had this approach already been taken, the Swiss referendum on minarets would have had a very different result. But since that did not happen, rather than despair, we should set to work to liberate religious teachings from institutionalized dogmas and sanctions, to open the minds and spirit of the devout in all cultures and religions. Because without an open mind there is no dialogue, no communication, no mutual understanding, no awareness of the common plight in the struggle against a common enemy that is destabilizing society, and no true democracy in which public vote benefits the public.

Vladislav Marjanović is a doctor of history and a journalist in Vienna, Austria.

Global Research Articles by Vladislav Marjanović

Of Bells and Minarets

It is difficult to fathom how Switzerland, a country that prides itself in its centuries-old neutrality, could feel that its existence and culture are threatened by the construction of minarets

By René Guitton
First Published 2009-12-17
Courtesy Of Middle-East-Online

PARIS - When Jerusalem was conquered in 635 AD, the second caliph Omar Ibn Al-Kattab refused to pray in the Church of the Holy Sepulchre, despite an invitation from the Christian patriarch Sophronius, for fear that his men invoke the precedent to turn the place of worship into a mosque and thus deprive the Christians of their right to freely practice their religion.

Although 1,400 years have passed, people were sometimes more civilised and more tolerant then than in our modern world, where passions and tensions seem to have translated into a return of fanaticism and religious intolerance.

The example set by Omar, the inventor of dhimmitude, the code governing the life of non-Muslims under Islamic law, is symbolic of the covenant bearing his name, which granted the "People of the Book" (a term which refers to Jews and Christians) the right to live on Muslim-majority or Muslim-ruled lands and possess their own places of worship. Is it possible to imagine Jerusalem, Aleppo, Cairo, Baghdad, Damascus, Tunis, Algiers, Casablanca, without their lace-like filigree of church towers, minarets and sometimes synagogue cupolas soaring up to the sky like so many ladders guiding the prayers of the faithful up to their God?

The complicated Middle East of bygone eras provides a simple lesson for today, one that it sometimes finds hard to follow because it finds itself riddled by deep contradictions and attempts toward religious uniformity.

This situation, which has been exemplified by Switzerland on November 29 with the adoption of a law prohibiting the construction of minarets on its soil, risks promoting a rejection of the "other" and the unconditional right to pray as one chooses.

The incident would be trivial if it were not, in a sense, tragic. It is difficult to fathom how Switzerland, a country that prides itself in its centuries-old neutrality, could feel that its existence and culture are threatened by the construction of minarets.

Regardless of the factors inspiring the bill, many feel its results primarily expressed a rejection of Islam and the right of Muslims to practice their rites freely wherever they live.

However, the Swiss referendum results do not only affect Muslims, although they are its main victims. It also risks institutionalising the so-called "clash of civilisations", leaving it up to citizens, or their elected representatives, to decree lifestyles and mindsets as a function of demographic majorities.

With this type of reasoning, a ban on the construction of minarets in countries where non-Muslims constitute the majority could also apply to the construction of churches or synagogues in Muslim-majority countries. In this regard, ethno-religious uniformity and viewing religion as a monolith risks reviving the post-Reformation concept of one people, one country, one religion, in which the ruler's religion determined that of a country's.

The absurd application of this principle is responsible for the disappearance of the time when Spain was known for its three religions, when the Jews and Moriscos (Muslims forced to convert to Christianity and suspected of doing so in name only) were expelled at the time of the Renaissance, a move that resulted in the spiritual and material impoverishment of the Iberian Peninsula. The same principle inspired many a totalitarian regime in the modern era, in an effort to remove any spiritual element that might threaten their rule. The same principle is again at work today in many regions of the planet where being a member of a minority is synonymous with inequality.

Those who reject the construction of minarets in Switzerland do not realise that they could be viewed in the future like those who burnt synagogues or destroyed churches in what was known as the Fertile Crescent, or elsewhere. It is worth recalling that whenever a community is threatened, be it Jewish, Christian, Muslim, agnostic or atheist, others could be threatened too.

The spiral is now set in motion and could wreak its horrendous effects unless we stand up to reaffirm that the pre-eminent dignity of every human being, and the right for every person of faith to pray to his or her God as he or she sees fit, are not subject to a building permit.

The minarets of Geneva are worth as much as the bells of Basel. Now is the time for one and all to remember this.

René Guitton, a writer and essayist, is a member of the Alliance of Civilizations and has recently been awarded the 2009 Human Rights Prize. This article was written for the Common Ground News Service (GCNews).

European Identity Politics In Play

Switzerland’s vote has exposed long-festering uneasiness within Europe toward immigration and members of ethnic communities, particularly those that are Muslim

By Ariel Kastner
First Published 2009-12-15
Courtesy Of Middle-East-Online

WASHINGTON - With almost 58 per cent of Swiss voters recently delivering an electoral surprise by casting ballots in favour of a referendum to ban construction of new minarets in their country, it remains to be seen whether the result of the referendum will be good for Switzerland, or even for Europe as a whole.

This may seem odd to consider since the result is not only embarrassing for the Swiss government, but may also cause international legal and economic repercussions for the country. However, the referendum’s outcome could mark the start of a beneficial process for Switzerland and Europe in coming to terms with the need to change the way they have addressed notions of culture, state identity and individual rights.

Switzerland’s vote has exposed long-festering uneasiness within Europe toward immigration and members of ethnic communities, particularly those that are Muslim. This European apprehension has not only been expressed through violence and civil unrest, including protests in Cologne, Germany against a mosque that would have overshadowed the city’s cathedral, but also through national-level legislation in some countries. The 2004 French law banning the wearing of overtly religious symbols, notably Muslim headscarves, in public schools is perhaps the most salient example of state-sanctioned restrictions on religious freedoms.

While the Swiss vote stands in contrast to the French legislation, in its grassroots rather than legislative origin, it is an extension of the same sentiment to a more pronounced and offensive end, as it specifically targets one religious group. Some have noted the vote thus speaks to the fear many Europeans, and in this case the Swiss, have of the “Islamisation” of Europe. But to view what occurred in Switzerland solely through the prism of a battle between Europe and Islam would be to overlook the deeper issue plaguing the continent.

While the United Nation’s Universal Declaration of Human Rights—a document that articulates inherent rights of the individual—was adopted in France, and Geneva hosted the convention that forged protocols for protecting individual rights during times of war, there seems to be a prevailing attitude in Europe that individual rights end at the doorstep of state identity. What this means is that a citizen is welcome to be Muslim or Jewish or Buddhist in Europe, as long as this identity, or practicing this identity, does not conflict with a definition of what it means to be Swiss or French or European.

This situation has raised troubling and uncomfortable questions: What does it really mean to be Swiss or French? Is it social mores—to dress, talk or eat a certain way—or is it to hold specific values and ideals? Recent events seem to indicate that many Europeans feel more comfortable embracing the former, rather than the latter, making European identity akin to an unwritten code, where ill-defined norms are held in the highest regard.

The Swiss vote has forced Europe to consider which is more important, protecting the perceived identity of one’s state, or protecting the rights of the individuals, regardless of ethnicity or religion, who live in one’s state.

Thus far, many have felt comfortable with a murky answer to this question, but as the Swiss vote showed, more clarity is necessary as Europe continues to grow, and to the dismay of some, to change.

What is needed, then, is not only a reconciliation with and embrace of Europe’s Muslim citizens but a broader attitudinal shift that holds the ideals of enlightenment, tolerance and respect as the proud identity of Europe. Indeed, the irony of the current situation is that many inside and outside of Europe view enlightenment and liberalism as an integral part of Europe’s core identity.

If the vote makes Switzerland, and all of Europe, take pause to consider whether it wants to embrace this virtuous identity and see that allowing individuals to practice diverse religions and embrace diverse cultures bolsters this identity, it will have been for the good.

Ariel Kastner is the Publications Manager and a Research Analyst at the Saban Center for Middle East Policy at Brookings. This article was written for the Common Ground News Service (GCNews).

The Hypocrisy Of Al-Demoqratia

By Ramzy Baroud
December 8, 2009
Courtesy Of Asia Times Online

So this is how democracy works?

In 2004, France banned headscarves and school principals chased after young "defiant" Muslim girls who continued to cover their heads in school. Now, following a national referendum, Switzerland has banned the construction of minarets, because minarets also somehow symbolize oppression. Thanks to the dedicated action of the far-right Swiss People's Party, the Alpine skies will be free from the snaking menace, which would spread intolerance and taint the splendor of Swiss architecture.

In between these two peculiar events, the targeting of Muslims in Western countries and the subjugation of entire Muslim nations all over the world has never ceased. Not for a day.

Moreover, the collective targeting of small or large Muslim communities in Western countries, and the deliberate abuse and degradation of Muslim individuals and Islamic symbols (from the Holy Koran to the Prophet Mohammed) has also never ceased.

Bizarrely, most of these actions have been done through "democratic" channels and justified in the name of democracy, on the basis of upholding the principles of secularism and Western values.

Many thoughts come to mind here; all unreservedly angry.

I remember when the word "democracy" used to resonate so loudly among Arabs and Muslims around the world. The more they were denied it, the more they yearned for it. University campuses in Cairo, Gaza and Karachi took their student union elections so very seriously. Innocent blood was spilled in clashes around campuses as students desperately tried to express their right to vote, to speak out and to assemble.

Those were the days, when al-demoqratia, Arabic for democracy, was the buzzword in the Middle East and beyond. Even Palestinian political prisoners held their elections, ever so faithfully, surrounded by highly fortified towers and under the deriding gaze of armed men in the unforgiving heat of the Naqab desert.

Arab and Muslim masses were keen on democracy to the extent that there was a near consensus that democracy, although a Western conception, could be distinguished from the many ills invited by Western interventions, imperialism and wars that scarred and continued to impair the collective Muslim psyche.

An entire school of Muslim thought was in fact established around the concept that democracy and Islam are very much compatible. Such a notion goes back to Egypt's Azharite scholar Rifa'a al-Tahtawi, who argued in the first half of the 19th century that the principles of European modernity were compatible with Islam.

"Al-Tahtawi's work influenced the philosopher Muhammad Abduh [1849-1905], another Azharite who is often described as the founder of Islamic modernism, which is captured in his statement that in Europe he found Islam without Muslims, while in Egypt he found Muslims without Islam," wrote German anthropologist, Frank Fanselow.

If one sets his prejudices aside to ponder this for a moment, one would realize the intellectual valor it takes to consider and even embrace commonalities with the very powers that have instilled so much harm and fear.

Even in their darkest, least proud moments, Muslim intellectuals and nations displayed impressive open-mindedness. They are hardly ever credited for that.

More recently, in Egypt, people tried hard to vote, in the face of beatings, public humiliation and imprisonment. In Palestine in 2006 the price was even higher - starvation. Gaza continues to endure under a medieval Israeli siege, ultimately because of an election.

Muslim communities in the West have long been considered the luckiest; after all, they live in the abodes of democracy. They drink from the fountain of rights and freedoms that never runs dry.

However, these idealized assumptions missed the fact that Western democracy was conditional. And unconditional democracy can only be a farce.

Much has been said to explain the West's faltering on its own commitment to democracy. No, the tragedy of September 11, 2001, is hardly the defining moment that created the growing chasm that made the West fearful of Islam. Despite all that has taken place since then - the constant spewing out of right-wing hatred, evangelical fanatic preaching and all the rest - America is still more tolerant than Europe. Nor was the growing anti-Muslim sentiment in Europe a response in solidarity to America's woes.

Honestly, the French are not fond of Americans, nor are the Germans necessarily that passionate about the Swiss. But this didn't stop a German Christian Democratic state interior minister, Volker Bouffier, from making a "recommendation" to Muslim communities in his own country: "Naturally the Muslims in Germany have a right to build mosques. But they should make sure not to overwhelm the German population with them."

How do you overwhelm people with minarets? Is this a post-post-post-modernistic logic that we are yet to be informed of?

There are only four minarets in the entire country of Switzerland, a country with a population of approximately 7.6 million people. How overwhelming can that be? And aren't religious freedom and the freedom of collective and individual expression basic rights guaranteed by democratic values?

But this is hardly about a 4.8-meter tall minaret in the northern Swiss town of Langenthal. It's about the fact that the one who suggested the structure is a Muslim furniture salesman by the name of Mutalip Karaademi. He didn't know, of course, that his modest idea of adding a minaret to the community's mosque would generate a nationwide referendum, and an international "controversy".

Karaademi was not trying to "Islamificate" the Swiss. He just wanted his community to have a place for worship (as opposed to the unused paint factory it currently uses for prayer), to be able to express its collective identity without fear. Ironically enough, the Muslim community in Langenthal is mostly Albanians, refugees who fled Kosovo seeking escape and deliverance.

What a strange paradox: Muslims escaping to the West, physically and figuratively, only to find double standards, self-negation and, at times, pure hypocrisy.

For now, however, a new consensus is forming: democracy can be invoked and used against Muslims only, and not for Muslims. It can be manipulated to deny them their identity in Europe and their freedom in Palestine, to ensure their subjugation in Iraq and in Afghanistan, and to meddle in their internal affairs everywhere else.

Al-Demoqratia, indeed.

Ramzy Baroud (www.ramzybaroud.net) is an author and editor of PalestineChronicle.com. His work has been published in many newspapers, journals and anthologies around the world. His latest book is The Second Palestinian Intifada: A Chronicle of a People's Struggle (Pluto Press, London), and his forthcoming book is My Father Was a Freedom Fighter: Gaza's Untold Story. (Pluto Press, London), now available for pre-orders on Amazon.com.

(Copyright 2009 Ramzy Baroud.)

In Fear Of 'Eurabia'?

By Mark Levine
UPDATED ON: Thursday, December 03, 2009 14:47
Mecca time, 11:47 GMT
Courtesy Of Al Jazeera

The images were clearly intended to get out the vote, and judging by the 57 per cent "yes" vote to ban the construction of minarets in Switzerland on Sunday, they worked all too well.

They included the depiction of minarets piercing through the Swiss flag; minarets on top of the flag, with a menacing, niqab-wearing Muslim woman in the foreground.

One could be forgiven for imagining that the Muslims were at the gates of Vienna, or even Lucerne, threatening to overrun Christian Europe. And of course, for the proponents of the ban, that is precisely the situation Europe faces today.

For centuries, the peoples of Europe have defined their continental identity against the threat of Islam. So much so that it is hard to imagine a European identity that does not have Islam as its foil.

There are, of course, good historical reasons for this.

From the eighth century Europe was in fact surrounded by Muslims to the East and South, who ruled much of the Eastern continent for the next millennium.

Of course, except in the wildest dreams of jihadists, Europe will not be taken down by Muslim swords today. But for right-wing fear mongers, the contemporary Muslim threat is just as nefarious, only the weapon is different.

The Ultimate 'Other'

That Muslim woman in the now infamous poster is not just the ultimate 'other' - totally impenetrable to the Western gaze in a social space where topless women are de rigeur on billboards, magazines, TV commercials and the beach - but, the niqab or burka-wearing Muslim woman is believed to stand for all Muslim women, who, it is assumed, possess little or no control over their own bodies.

And because of this, she is as dangerous as the H1N1 virus currently scaring people across the continent. Underneath her niqab lies a human bomb - not a suicide vest, but a baby; lots of babies, if you believe the hype.

All these Muslims babies threaten to transform the fundamental identity of Europe as a "Western," "modern," "secular-yet-Christian" space - the very antithesis of what most Europeans imagine Muslims to be.

In some sense, of course, the return of a robust Muslim presence in Europe would be a return to history, to a time when a good share of Europe was Muslim. But that is a history few Europeans hearken to. In fact, Europe's first post-Cold War conflict, in the Balkans, was driven in good measure by just this fear.

Beneath the fear, however, lies that undeniable reality that the combination in Europe of very low indigenous (meaning white and Christian) birth rates and increasing immigration of Muslims with higher birth rates means that the percentage of Muslims will continue to grow.

They will not, however, become a majority in Europe under any conceivable scenario in the coming decades.

In fact, the actual demographic trends show a decline in birth rates by Muslim women as they become settled into Europe, which corresponds to the declining birth rates across the Muslim world (many of whose governments have initiated aggressive family planning programmes).

Indeed, as Muslim women live in Europe, learn the languages, get educated and join the workforce, they become more "European" - or more accurately, like women globally, who, if they have the resources and freedom to control their reproduction, choose to have smaller families.

Of course, if they are marginalised and, along with their male counterparts, not given sufficient chance to become a functioning part of their new societies, this process will happen more slowly, if at all, creating a self-fulfilling cycle of recrimination and disintegration.

From Europe To 'Eurabia'?

Either way, it is clear that Europe is going to become more Muslim in the coming decades. The question is whether in the process it will become more Islamic - that is, publicly religious and impacted by Muslim religious symbols and practices - and which version of Islam will define the emerging European Islam.

Will it be a "Euro-Islam" that respects core liberal values of tolerance, openness and respect for the rule of law, or a "Ghetto Islam" that produces subcultures that are largely isolated and hostile to the European self-image (one which, it must be remembered, largely excludes Muslims in the first place)?

The fear mongers behind the rising tide of Islamophobia in Europe argue that the continent is on the way to becoming "Eurabia" - that is, taken over by a Muslim tide and losing its core Europeanness in the process.

It is hard to know how many Europeans buy into this argument. But, while it is rarely a good idea to generalise, the majority would likely prefer Muslims to assimilate into their host societies, to shed the outward appearances of difference, and not integrate - a process that inevitably changes the host culture as well, as it takes on elements of the newer arrival and, inevitably, loses some of its traditions in the process.

Picture-Postcard Europe

It is not surprising that in Switzerland the focus would be on minarets.

More than most countries, Switzerland defines itself by its visual aesthetic. It is the picture postcard of Europe, with nothing out of place, the quintessential European destination.

Never mind that Swiss Muslims are among the least conservative in Europe and that the call to prayer is already banned in Switzerland; the presence of more minarets would call out to the Swiss, saying: "We are here and we're not going anywhere. And we're not just going to assimilate to your culture. We intend to keep core parts of ours as well."

Thus the referendum slogans calling for a halt to the "Islamisation of Switzerland". The minaret, as a highly visible sign of Islam's presence, becomes a "spearhead" of that Islamisation, "the symbol of political-societal power claim of Islam" as the website of the Swiss People's Party (SVP), the party behind the vote, describes it.

Never mind that most of the claims by the minaret ban's backers about Islam and the demographic threat are inaccurate. Islam, in their view, cannot exist without asserting unique claims to social and ultimately political power, which is why it is an existential threat by its very presence.

Muslims cannot just be; they have to convert others, and the voice of the muezzin "proclaiming down from the minaret" is the most powerful manifestation of this. Or so the backers of the minaret ban imagine.

Even Eveline Widmer-Schlumpf, Switzerland's justice minister, admitted that the result "reflects fears among the population of Islamic fundamentalist tendencies," as if one cannot be Islamic without being fundamentalist.

This is the underlying problem in the debate over minarets, hijabs, or yet more troubling, attempts by European Muslims to establish separate courts and laws aligned with their interpretation of sharia to cover personal status issues.

At best, it says Muslims are willing to integrate, not assimilate into European society.

Comparisons To Anti-Semitism

In the aftermath of Sunday's vote, many commentators, Muslims and non-Muslims alike, are comparing Islamophobia in Europe today to the anti-Semitism that plagued the continent in the first half of the 20th century.

While understandable, such comparisons miss the fundamental difference between the position of Jews in Europe then and Muslims in Europe today.

Jews had lived in Europe for centuries and, despite anti-Jewish sentiments among huge swaths of Europe's population, were very much a part of their societies' cultures, economies, and increasingly politics.

Indeed, in Germany it was precisely the increasing full participation of Jews in so many parts of national life that made them such an existential threat.

They were Europe's most intimate 'other', inside the very fabric of European identity and increasingly, impossible to tell from "real" Europeans.

As such they became a lethal virus that, in the Nazi logic, had to be eradicated to restore the purity of the race.

The situation for Muslims today is very different.

Muslims are still relatively new to most European societies; at most a couple of generations old. As one Fox news report put it after a riot in Muslim neighbourhoods of the Swedish town of Malmö, they are "outsiders who are already inside" European societies.

What is worrying is that as a new generation of European Muslims come of age and move deeper inside European culture, economies and politics, the fears and prejudices against them will surely grow, especially if, as in Germany of the 1930s, the economic situation continues to deteriorate.

Mass violence against Muslims comparable to that visited against Jews is unimaginable. But as Muslims become, welcomed or not, part of the European fabric, the prejudices against them could begin to take on some of the form of the anti-Semitism that plagued pre-war Europe.

The Larger Picture

Ultimately, the vote to ban minarets, like other anti-Islamic legislation, is a symptom of a larger problem within contemporary European societies.

It is not just that Europeans are increasingly inhospitable to Muslims and other immigrants. These sentiments reflect the fraying of the social fabric of Europe more broadly, particularly of countries that have had strong recent traditions of social solidarity and welfare.

The larger implications have not been touched on in most of the commentary and reporting in the multi-lingual Swiss media, or the European press more broadly.

Instead, papers such as the German language Neue Zürcher Zeitung, described the vote as a revolt of "the people over the elites" and emphasised the need for rulers to "listen to the people" (a terminology which, in German at least, has alarming historical connotations).

The French language Le Temps questioned: "How can you dialogue when you're crushed by the weight of stereotypes?"

The answer is that people are increasingly scared that their social safety nets are fraying and that life is inexorably going to become harder. And they want quick solutions, not long and complicated dialogues.

And herein lies the real problem underlying the vote. It is not merely about Islam. It is also about the solidification of neo-liberalism economically and conservatism politically across the continent, and ultimately, about globalisation more broadly.


Those in favour of the ban argued minarets represented the Islamification of Europe [AFP]
Together, the political, economic and social dynamics are creating a situation in which governments are less able to deliver the high level of services that post-war Europeans have gotten used to, at the moment that ideologically, people are increasingly unwilling to look out for their fellow citizens' welfare as they did previously - when, of course, they also happened to look, speak and act much more like them.

Sweden, where I'm currently living, has long had one of Europe's most generous welfare states, which is coming under severe strain just as the Muslim population is growing rapidly.

But as a priest who works with immigrants pointed out to me, the unwillingness of Swedes in the wealthy town of Vellinge (to cite one example), to allow a home for child war refugees from Muslim countries in their town owes not merely to a fear or loathing against Muslims.

In the "new" and increasingly inegalitarian Sweden, the emerging wealthy class living comfortably in low tax areas like Vellinge are equally unwilling to pay high taxes to support their fellow Swedes.

Of course, it is much easier to blame it on the Muslims and to continue to push them away even as they find their way inside Europe.

But if history is any guide, Europeans will start out blaming the 'inside other' for their problems, but it will not be too long before their anger, and violence, turns on each other.

Mark LeVine is currently visiting professor at the Centre for Middle Eastern Studies at Lund University, Sweden. His most recent books include Impossible Peace: Israel/Palestine Since 1989 (Zed Books, 2009) and Reapproaching Borders: New Perspectives on the Study of Israel-Palestine (Rowman Littlefield, 2008).

The views expressed in this article are the author's own and do not necessarily reflect Al Jazeera's editorial policy.

Source: Al Jazeera

Swiss Call For Jewish, Muslim Cemetery Ban

December 3, 2009
Courtesy Of The Jewish Telegraph Agency

BERLIN (JTA) -- A mainstream Swiss political leader is calling for a ban on separate Muslim and Jewish cemeteries.

Christophe Darbellay, president of the Christian Democratic People's Party of Switzerland, made the statement in a television interview Tuesday, two days after Swiss voters passed an initiative to ban minarets.

The anti-minaret initiative came from the opposition ultra-conservative Swiss People's Party and other right-wing political organizations. Critics say Darbellay is starting a "crusade" to attract voters by proposing similarly xenophobic measures.

Mainstream politicians and religious leaders across Europe have reacted with dismay to the anti-minaret vote.

According to the Swiss online daily Tagesanzeiger, Darbellay also wants to ban the wearing of burkas, head-to-toe veils worn by some fundamentalist Muslim women.

Darbellay reportedly said that existing cemeteries would not be affected by a ban, but that there should be no separate cemeteries in the future.

The Swiss People's Party called for crackdowns on expressions of Muslim fundamentalism in 2006. Observers said the demand for separate cemeteries is an escalation.