|
Swiss decision to ban minarets is a step towards clash of civilization
By: Amjad Malik, MA, LLM
Article 9 of the European Convention On Human Rights is quite clear on religious freedom, it says, “1) Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief, in worship, teaching, practice and observance”. If we see the religious freedom guaranteed as above in the light of the recent Swiss referendum, backed by country’s rightwing, nationalist parties , we find an argument that the minaret ban in Switzerland is a radical, alarmist and deplorable act of Islamophobia, of course widely perceived by the Muslim community here and abroad. It is ironic that Switzerland is party to both the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and to the European Convention on Human Rights (Art.9 in particular as above) and in the eyes of many critics, the Minaret Ban is a blatant breach of the civil liberties enshrined in those conventions and has placed Switzerland on a collision course with its international human rights obligations as well as a clash with the visible Muslim minority in Switzerland and West and majority in the gulf and most part of Asia.
The Muslim community of Switzerland cannot be denied the rights and facilities to practice their faith free of any subjugation; nor should the ban be used to pursue the Swiss government’s frustration with any of the Arab legacies and or the Libyan crisis. The West and the European Court on human rights must not allow those 300,000 ordinary, law abiding, practicing Muslims of Switzerland to be made victims of the political point scoring. The Swiss government claims that the ban improves integration and helps fight extremism is nothing but fiction as wiping visible presence of Muslims will not eliminate Muslims if that’s the mind set to ease the sufferings of the neighborhood that there is no Muslim around. However, the mere idea of a minaret leading to extremism reveals the clearly discriminatory bias and instead of posing a security threat, religious monuments enrich society’s diversity, tolerance and it promotes a collective identity. In other words, the minaret ban shows the Swiss Government is being played into the hands of a visible minority in the current climate utilizing fear and playing the ‘Muslim card’ in political point scoring. This fans the fires of hatred and initiates a needless clash of civilizations which the saner voices whishes to curb or at least delay as it will end up in bloodshed. Several organizations have expressed dismay at the blatant disregard shown to the 2 million Muslims sensitivities in the UK, millions in the Europe and over 1.5 billion around the globe whilst caving in meagerly at the hands of far right groups at a time when Muslims are on the edge to bridge the gap between two communities after the events of September 11th in USA and July 7 in UK.
Muslims of Britain as well as the Western World are already subject to victimization via various heavy handed laws and at this junction ‘minaret ban’ will contribute to widen the gulf between two cultures and will alienate the main stream Muslim community. Muslims are on the back foot since Danish Cartoon incident, and later on the knighthood of Salman Rushdie which stirred the community relations. Pakistan Penal Code (PPC) of 1860 dates from the British colonial period makes an offence against whoever defiles the sacred name of the holy Prophet Muhammad (PBUH). However, in practice, it is quite common and acceptable in majority of the west, unchecked and no effort is discouraged and or denounce to such liberty which stir community relations. Tthese offences have a little value to the West who takes freedom of expression as a superior force to all other political and religious compulsions. Their Blasphemy law though covers Christianity but does not cover Islam, and reason for not doing so is given the protection under Article 10 of ECHR 1950, a bit similar to that of Article 19 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 which guarantees that, ‘Every one has the right to freedom of expression’. During the Salman Rushdie affair in 80’s who wrote a ‘Satanic Verses’, despite a popular Muslim demand Britain could never prosecute Salman Rushdie under Blasphemy Laws of Britain for defiling the Prophet of Islam as British laws only covers Christianity, and in the case of Ex Parte Choudhary [1991] 1 All ER 306, private prosecution was not allowed either, instead, in 2008, British Raj fueled the fire by Knighting the most hatred in the Muslim World. Britain since has introduced the Race and Religious Hatred Act 2006 which intends to curb preaching religious violence, however it still does not address the core issue and causes of igniting the religious hatred albeit blasphemy.
The intolerance is not one sided either, in the west denial of holocaust as to whether or not Jews were oppressed by Hitler’s Nazi regime is a criminal offence in most part of Europe. Holocaust denial is illegal in a number of European countries: In Austria (article 3h Verbotsgesetz 1947) punishable from 6 months to 20 years, Belgium (Belgian Holocaust denial law) punishable from Fine to 1 year, the Czech Republic under section 261 punishable from 6 months to 3 years, France (Loi Gayssot) punishable from Fine or 1 month to 2 years, Germany (§ 130 (3) of the penal code) also the Auschwitzlüge law section 185 punishable from Fine or 1 month to 5 years, Lithuania, The Netherlands under articles 137c and 137e punishable from Fine or 2 years to 10 years, Poland, Romania, Slovakia,and Switzerland (article 261bis of the Penal Code) punishable from 6 months to 3-5 years. In addition, under Law 5710-1950 it is also illegal in Israel and punishable from 1 year to 5 years. Italy enacted a law against racial and sexual discrimination on January 25, 2007 punishable from 3 years to 4 years. However, we witness too that no Islamic countries in this list which outlaw holocaust denial as if you wish to enact the law in those countries you are called to scratch their back too and amend your home blasphemy laws to include the respect for Islam and its Prophet.
There is no point that blasphemy law in Pakistan, Iran and Saudi is punishable to death and writers of such books walked free in British run India for writing ‘Colourful Prophet’ around 100 years ago, and now for writing ‘Satanic Verses’ and publishing ‘Danish Cartoons’ ridiculing the Prophet. Similarly denying holocaust, that Nazis did or did not oppress the Jews, is a criminal offence in the West but in the Islamic world if not penalized then it does not carry international validity and criminals of one society will keep seeking refuge in other’s protection indefinitely and may cause a mayhem one day. I see a big movement developing out of this lack of respect for each other, and feel the time has come for two ancient civilization to sit together and try to form a group of countries to have a joint ‘Memorandum of Understanding’ to identify and not to allow harbouring each other’s common criminals who defile each others religious faith. Prophet Muhammad(PBUH) did something similar 1400 years ago and made a pact with his opponents known as ‘Hudabiya Pact’ and here too the Western world must have a dialogue to secure interfaith harmony in order to bring two extremes to the middle to avoid future conflict.
If a joint attempt to ‘give and take’ policy is not adopted, I am afraid a chain of uncalled events may emerge from within these intolerant events which will be regrettable but will be disastrous to the efforts of bringing the unity in this global village. When law does not address public anxiety and no forum on which a complaint can be lodged is available then those who mutilate public feelings on the name of freedom and wider security will deepen the gulf further and clash of civilization begins as was quoted by the US president wrongly or rightly at the time of 9/11 referring to crusades. Now looking at this tendency the way the West is showing insensitivity to the Muslim World’s feelings, and now attempting to curb its freedom to practice and preach, It will be quite illogical if Islamic countries in a fit start ‘tit for tat’ actions either to curb religious freedom in their ranks and or ‘use economic boycott, as a tool to convince their counterparts towards greater flexibility towards minority groups. However, sentiments towards ‘economic embargo’ and ‘withdrawal of money from Swiss banks’ though exist which call for serious consideration by OIC and West to sit together and find a solution to this hugely charged issue as common man of each society calls for peace and harmony between ancient civilizations.
We must all discourage any attempt to use or stir violence on religious basis, however realizing the nature of situation OIC and Western World including European Union, US, Russia, China, and India must consider setting up a forum to adjudicate such matters and give serious thought to the calls of Muslim countries & West for interfaith harmony. Islamic countries jointly must come up with a unanimous unstinted resolution as to where no negotiation is possible and where there is a compromise possible on the name of freedom of religious practice, thought and expression and or to include protection to Western belief. Little late and there was no dearth of individuals or groups then and or even now the likes of BNP and English Defence league or Muslim radical groups who are willing to take law into their own hands on the name of love for their religion and or country. The decision is simple for Switzerland either to succumb to one man or group’s freedom & demands to ban Muslim visibility against the 1.5 billion Muslims sensitivities across the globe.
Amjad Malik is a Solicitor-Advocate of the Supreme Court (England), an expert of human rights law and Chair of Association of Pakistani Lawyers:
9 December 2009
|