Swiss new minaret ban

[vimothy]

One way to look at the hijab is as a cultural and not religious artefact. I think that in France women were only allowed to write checks in the 1980s. Is this a Catholic thing, a French thing or a European thing? It is not easy to say. Equally, the Parisian Muslim rioters that had everyone so exercised--were they Muslim rioters, French rioters, Parisian teenagers just doing what Parisian teenagers have always done...?

I mean, it seems undeniably the case that there is something backwards and unpleasant about the hijab (for example) from the perspective of a liberal polity and society, but not necessarily something foreign, and not necessarily something Muslim (although those things might be there too).

 

[nomadthethird]

I think that in France women were only allowed to write checks in the 1980s.

Snort.

 

[Mr. Tea]

It's a really negative thing IMO, to say that 'Islam is a culture which disrespects women' for example, because in some parts of the community a hijab is worn...

(Well for a start, as you obviously know, Islam is not 'a' culture at all: Saudi is not Morocco is not Iran is not Turkey is not Pakistan is not Burnley. As to the charge of misogyny, the Qu'ran, Bible and Torah all contain passages that explicitly and unambiguously put women in a subordinate position to men. I think it's fair to say that all three Ambrahamic religions are inherently patriarchic, and that traditionalist strains of all of them do tend to be pretty chauvinistic. But that's a discussion for another thread.)

You're dead right, of course, that 'we' (whoever 'we' are) have by no means got everything worked out and there is still all manner of inequality and dysfunction, even just concentrating for the moment on sex/gender. (And men have 'ideals' to conform to, as well: look at how much aggression - from low-grade chucking-out-time aggro to full-on urban gang violence - comes from men's and adolescent boys' ideas of how they are supposed to behave to be 'real' men). At the same time though, we should avoid the relativism that renders any kind of critique meaningless by making everyone just as good/bad as everyone else.

Then there's the point about who is a Muslim and who is a 'Muslim'. Vim mentioned the Paris riots of a few years back; I remember at the time reading a very good piece explaining that, as far as the mainstream French media were concerned, an 18-year-old from some shitty bainlieu who's rioting because of chronic unemployment, discrimination and all manner of social exclusion becomes a 'Muslim' because his parents came from Algeria, whereas in fact he's no more a Muslim (or even less, perhaps) than the average 18-year-old white Parisian is a devout Catholic. Which brings us back again to the issue of misogyny; your Stella-swilling wifebeater (in Britain, in 2009) is probably not a conscientious church-going Christian, but he has a set of attitudes towards women that have a centuries-old religious mandate. The same can be said of the Asian rudeboy on the street corner yelling sexist abuse at any white woman who walks past. It's not that either of them practises the religion traditionally associated with their culture, but those cutlures' values are strongly linked to their respective religions.

 

[nomadthethird]

Demented:

Are they banning mosques or just minarets?

Islam is the new punk, everyone knows it, this just confirms what we already knew.

Gotta love how bans always reinforce and amplify whatever it is they pretend they want to stamp out.

Makes Islamic aesthetics just that much cooler. Within 10-15 years every middle class white kid in America is going to convert to islam sort of like the black militants in the 60s. Just wait and see.

 

[Gavin]

Islam is the new punk, everyone knows it, this just confirms what we already knew.

Gotta love how bans always reinforce and amplify whatever it is they pretend they want to stamp out.

Makes Islamic aesthetics just that much cooler. Within 10-15 years every middle class white kid in America is going to convert to islam sort of like the black militants in the 60s. Just wait and see.

 

[scottdisco]

 

[Mr. Tea]

Islam is the new punk, everyone knows it, this just confirms what we already knew.

Gotta love how bans always reinforce and amplify whatever it is they pretend they want to stamp out.

Makes Islamic aesthetics just that much cooler. Within 10-15 years every middle class white kid in America is going to convert to islam sort of like the black militants in the 60s. Just wait and see.

What with the proscription of booze and pre-marital sex, I can see Islam breathing new life into the HC/sXe scene...I-slam-dancing, anyone?

Edit: ha! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hardline_(subculture)#Islamist_influences

 

[grizzleb]

(Well for a start, as you obviously know, Islam is not 'a' culture at all: Saudi is not Morocco is not Iran is not Turkey is not Pakistan is not Burnley. As to the charge of misogyny, the Qu'ran, Bible and Torah all contain passages that explicitly and unambiguously put women in a subordinate position to men. I think it's fair to say that all three Ambrahamic religions are inherently patriarchic, and that traditionalist strains of all of them do tend to be pretty chauvinistic. But that's a discussion for another thread.)

You're dead right, of course, that 'we' (whoever 'we' are) have by no means got everything worked out and there is still all manner of inequality and dysfunction, even just concentrating for the moment on sex/gender. (And men have 'ideals' to conform to, as well: look at how much aggression - from low-grade chucking-out-time aggro to full-on urban gang violence - comes from men's and adolescent boys' ideas of how they are supposed to behave to be 'real' men). At the same time though, we should avoid the relativism that renders any kind of critique meaningless by making everyone just as good/bad as everyone else.

Then there's the point about who is a Muslim and who is a 'Muslim'. Vim mentioned the Paris riots of a few years back; I remember at the time reading a very good piece explaining that, as far as the mainstream French media were concerned, an 18-year-old from some shitty bainlieu who's rioting because of chronic unemployment, discrimination and all manner of social exclusion becomes a 'Muslim' because his parents came from Algeria, whereas in fact he's no more a Muslim (or even less, perhaps) than the average 18-year-old white Parisian is a devout Catholic. Which brings us back again to the issue of misogyny; your Stella-swilling wifebeater (in Britain, in 2009) is probably not a conscientious church-going Christian, but he has a set of attitudes towards women that have a centuries-old religious mandate. The same can be said of the Asian rudeboy on the street corner yelling sexist abuse at any white woman who walks past. It's not that either of them practises the religion traditionally associated with their culture, but those cutlures' values are strongly linked to their respective religions.

I agree with the first point about who is or is not of a specific culture. Btw I should have said 'Islam is a religion which', as I was quoting some of the journalistic or political slogans that get chucked about to that regard. About your second point - I'm not sure about the idea that misogyny for example is something which has a religious mandate for these people, that in any way these guys are basing their attitudes on something which has a religious basis - if they have nothing to do with that history then how can it be?

And haha, yeah you are totally right nomad.

 

[Mr. Tea]

I'm not sure about the idea that misogyny for example is something which has a religious mandate for these people, that in any way these guys are basing their attitudes on something which has a religious basis - if they have nothing to do with that history then how can it be?

What? How can can any culture "have nothing to do with" history? That's ludicrous! I think maybe you've misunderstood me and some wires have got crossed along the way: what I meant was, you don't have to be a practising Christian (or Muslim) to have certain values, attitudes, prejudices and so on that are historically associated with that faith - instead they can be ingrained very deeply in a culture or in a certain social group or class within a culture, to the extent that they still have a big effect on someone from that culture even though they don't actually practise that religion, or at best adhere to it in a half-hearted and largely cultural way. Like the way my atheist Arab friend doesn't eat pork. Like the way the canteen at the office where I work serves fish'n'chips every Friday. Celebrating Christmas, saying "bless you" when someone sneezes, blah blah blah...

And it's undeniable that all the Abrahamic religions are very clear about the place of women in society. That's what I mean by a "religious mandate" - it doesn't exist any more for a post-Christian country like Britain but it still exerts a huge effect on attitudes and expectations. And the fact that women in many parts (the majority?) of the Islamic world have to cover their hair at the very least when they're out of the house is not some purely 'cultural' artefact that has nothing to do with Islam per se, which some people seem to think is the case.

 

[grizzleb]

Yeah, what I meant was more that, for example in modern Britain, many non practicising 'muslim' youths will have grown up in an environment which was very similar to, for example, a non practising 'christian' youths environment might be. So to make a distinction on that level and say 'oh the reason he hates women is cause of islam' is dodgy, as someone doesn't grow up in isolation...That's what I was angling at, but I accept your point.

 

[Mr. Tea]

Yeah, what I meant was more that, for example in modern Britain, many non practicising 'muslim' youths will have grown up in an environment which was very similar to, for example, a non practising 'christian' youths environment might be. So to make a distinction on that level and say 'oh the reason he hates women is cause of islam' is dodgy, as someone doesn't grow up in isolation...That's what I was angling at, but I accept your point.

True - but most people grow up in their parents' house, nonetheless.




(And let's not forget that Christianity and Islam ultimately come from common stock, viz. Old Testament Judaism!)

 

[scottdisco]

even right-wing Tory poster boy and all round general anti-NHS loon Daniel Hannan is capable of calling this one like he sees it (if you do decide to wade through the comments thread, you may wish to pack a clothes peg)

The decision by Swiss voters to outlaw the construction of minarets strikes me as regrettable on three grounds.

First, it is at odds with that other guiding Swiss principle, localism: issues of this kind ought surely to be settled town by town, or at least canton by canton, not by a national ban.

Second, it is disproportionate. There may be arguments against the erection of a particular minaret by a particular mosque – but to drag a constitutional amendment into the field of planning law is using a pneumatic drill to crack a nut.

Third, it suggests that Western democracies have a problem, not with jihadi fruitcakes, but with Muslims per se – which is, of course, precisely the argument of the jihadi fruitcakes.

 

[Client Eastwood]

Well I guess it was just a matter of time before these lot piped up on this issue . . .

http://www.metro.co.uk/news/802609-bnp-backs-call-for-vote-on-minarets

 

[Mr. Tea]

Well I guess it was just a matter of time before these lot piped up on this issue . . .

http://www.metro.co.uk/news/802609-bnp-backs-call-for-vote-on-minarets

The comment currently at the top:

A spokesman for the Islamic Human Rights Commission said calls in more countries for referendums 'could give more voice to anti-Muslim sentiment'.
So the Islamic Human Rights Commission is going to decide if the British Nation should get referendum are they?
The referendum is democracy in its purest form. At least the Swiss seem to have some semblance of Democracy left.
Sadly in Britain we have no such thing, but in its stead we have what is effectively a Fascist regime! New Labour have completely suppressed free speech,turned Britain into a totalitarian State and are in the process of downgrading Christianity.
The only Political party to highlight these issues in the UK is the BNP.
When I have the chance to vote for them I certainly shall!

Apparently the fact that we don't have legislation banning religious expression by teh Islams means we are living in a "Fascist regime". Genius. You couldn't make it up!!!

God, I shudder to think what's going down on HYS about this...

 

[mixed_biscuits]

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/guest_contributors/article6938161.ece

Switzerland’s referendum vote to ban minarets is needlessly xenophobic but it does not infringe the religious liberty of Swiss Muslims. Minarets remain emblematic of mosques in the Muslim heartlands but there is no theological reason why houses of worship in the West have to incorporate such towers.

Their original purpose was to relay the prayer call with the unamplified voice. Today this is done by modern technology, so minarets are not integral to contemporary mosque design. European mosques should stop mindlessly mimicking Eastern design and create prayer halls that blend into the landscape.

Dr Taj Hargey is the chairman of the Muslim Educational Centre of Oxford and the imam of the Summertown Islamic Congregation in Oxford

 

[scottdisco]

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/guest_contributors/article6938161.ece

indeed.

though unfortunately the most urgent - and therefore important - part of his analysis is

Switzerland’s referendum vote to ban minarets is needlessly xenophobic

(clearly, the idea of a new hybrid of mosque design is exciting from architectural and progressive, cross-cultural pollination view-points)

 

[padraig (u.s.)]

there's a good article in the most recent New Yorker on Dutch Muslims in Amsterdam & the struggle to reach common ground on both sides. here's the abstract; unfortunately you need a subscription (my school has one to the paper edition) to read the full article.

this identity crisis is about european (swiss in this case) 'identity', which immigrants are excluded from to a greater or lesser extent depending how it is defined by the majority

but surely there is a European (and a Swiss) identity*, which Europeans have a right to express in the same way Muslim immigrants have a right to express theirs. and Islam may not be a part of it for many people. tho, tbc, I have very little sympathy for European societies who have brought this almost entirely on themselves - let people in to use (exploit) as cheap labor, you have to live with the results. the practical issue is really co-existence - including equal treatment under the law etc. and at least proportional access to aforementioned power structures. even in the U.S. I think the "melting pot" concept is overrated; a Muslim student in Amsterdam mentions a "salad bowl", where all the ingredients still maintain their separate identities.

anyway, I think that as Vimothy says it's a dynamic situation - I think we should in general be less concerned with what's "right" and more concerned with the concrete outcomes of policies and public attitudes. of course, even in those narrow terms the minaret ban is still a terrible, indefensible idea.

*a composite of overlapping identities really; ethnic, cultural, religious, etc. - there is likely a neat scholarly term that summarizes this but I'm not well-versed enough in sociology (or whatever field is appropriate) to know what it is

 

[padraig (u.s.)]

'Failure of countries to deal with immigrant population' and 'failure of immigrant population to integrate' sounds much more vague and to me expressed a more general malaise, mistrust and suspicion about 'their' culture in general

a general malaise, is it?

 

[scottdisco]

even in the U.S. I think the "melting pot" concept is overrated; a Muslim student in Amsterdam mentions a "salad bowl", where all the ingredients still maintain their separate identities.

the Canadians often refer to their salad bowl, don't they? (compared w the American melting pot.)

though tbh i don't know what real differences there are in 'integrating' immigrants between the two neighbours, it may just be a case of boosterism/deliberate Canuck line-drawing from those above the 49th

especially given the current Tory govt in Ottawa, to judge from the rhetoric of some of them, seem only a few steps away from nativism on occasion- kindred spirits perhaps to GOP elements (and i dare say more than a few Dems).

a chief source (and ever ongoing, always thus, of course) of mass immigration into the USA is various people from various countries to her south, obv; this brings different issues to all those Hong Kong Chinese etc that came in to BC just prior to the handover (to mention one obv source of recent mass immigration to Canada), etc etc. anyway, a bit OT, just thought on this when P mentioned the salad bowl.
(Toronto is the most ethnically diverse city on earth, after all.)

P.S.
apologies re my True North playfulness: i know pretty much FA about Canadian social policy, either now or four decades ago, but to judge from their superior health-care model (superior to the States, that is) i am assuming consecutive govts in Ottawa have perhaps gone about things in this area a bit differently than DC? ?

 

[grizzleb]

a general malaise, is it?

What do you mean?