Tag: discrimination

Turkey to expel out gay soldiers

Turkish military is set to adopt a ‘Don’t ask Don’t tell’ policy

10 February 2013 | By Dan Littauer

Turkish military is set to adopt a ‘Don’t as Don’t tell’ policy – which will expel out gay soldiers

The Turkish Armed Forces is set to introduce a new regulation that essentially states to gay soldiers: ‘If you come out – you’ll be expelled, if you stay in the closet – we’ll do nothing’.

The old articles of ‘unnatural intercourse’ and ‘psychosexual disorders’ as reasons to dismiss a soldier from the army, are to be replaced with a new criteria: ‘sexual identity and behavioral patterns should be dominant and apparent in every part of life’.

According to Ali Erol from Turkey’s main LGBT organization, Kaos GL, any soldier who is out in the army will thus be expelled after a military ‘medical report’ is submitted and approved by the Turkish Ministry of National Defence that establishes the criteria above.

Turkish LGBT association have sharply criticized the new regulation, labelling it discriminatory and a violation of human rights.

Erol told the Hürriyet Daily News yesterday: ‘When it is the case of mandatory military service, a gay person is considered sick and held exempt from military service.

‘The military defines homosexuality as a psychosexual disorder. But when a member of the military staff is homosexual, he is considered guilty of a disciplinary crime.

‘This is discrimination on a double scale’.

Erol also said the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) had decided against Turkey’s discriminatory practices previously and if this new regulation was enacted to prevent further lawsuits, it would fail.

‘The ECHR ruling is clear. A person’s sexual orientation cannot be considered nor treated as a crime, and any practice that suggests this would be labeled as sexual orientation discrimination. This term is not referred to in our legal framework, unfortunately; it is acknowledged by the EHCR and any future lawsuit about the practice will be treated as before’, he said.

In Turkey, compulsory military service applies to all male Turkish citizens between the ages of 18 and 41.

LGBT people who wish to be conscientious objectors to military service must instead identify themselves as ‘sick’ – and are forced to undergo what Human Rights Watch calls ‘humiliating and degrading’ examinations to ‘prove’ their homosexuality.

In October 2009 the report of the EU Commission on enlargement stated blasted the Turkish Army’s anti-gay and trans policy.

On 26 April 2012, 22 Members of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe have expressed concern about the degrading treatment applied to gays and trans women by excluding them from service in the Turkish Armed Forces, and called for this practice to be halted.

It seems that the Turkish government has ignored both the letter and the report.

via Turkey to expel out gay soldiers | Gay Star News.

February 16, 2013
ANTI-MUSLIM HATE CRIMES AND INCIDENTS

Background

Specific OSCE commitments to combat intolerance and discrimination against Muslims date to the 2002 Porto Ministerial Council Meeting, which explicitly condemned acts of discrimination and violence against Muslims and firmly rejected the identification of terrorism and extremism with a particular religion or culture.^¹ Moreover, at the 2007 High Level Conference on Combating Intolerance and Discrimination against Muslims, the OSCE Chairmanship issued a declaration encouraging the participating States to follow anti-Muslim hate crimes closely, by collecting, maintaining and improving methods to gather reliable information and statistics on such crimes.^² The 2010 Astana Declaration of the OSCE Chairmanship also underlines that international developments and political issues cannot justify any forms of intolerance and discrimination against Muslims and encourages the participating States to challenge anti-Muslim prejudice and stereotypes.^³

On 28 February-3 March, upon the request of the Grand Mufti of Bulgaria and the Director of the Commission for Protection against Muslims, who were concerned about the rise in anti-Muslim hate incidents in Bulgaria, ODIHR advisers conducted an assessment visit to Sofia in order to design a training activity on hate crimes for non-governmental organizations and law enforcement officers. Based on the findings of this assessment, ODIHR concluded a Memorandum of Understanding with the Ministry of Interior, which aims at the implementation of law enforcement hate crime training (TAHCLE).

On 25-28 April, following to the visit of a delegation of the Organization of Islamic Conference (OIC) to Warsaw, on 4 March, ODIHR’s Director visited the headquarters of OIC in Jeddah. The visit to Jeddah provided the opportunity to continue discussions on possible areas of cooperation, some of which were already identified in Warsaw. These included also a hate crime monitoring training which will be delivered, in 2011, by ODIHR for the staff of the OIC Islamophobia Observatory.

On 27-29 May, ODIHR’s Adviser on Combating Intolerance and Discrimination accompanied the Secretary General of OSCE at the Rio Forum of Alliance of Civilizations. In addition to attending several sessions of the Forum as a speaker, the Secretary General delivered a speech on ODIHR’s activities concerning hate crimes against Muslims at the Roundtable Meeting on Islamophobia, co-hosted by OIC and the Council of Europe.

On 23 October, ODIHR co-hosted with the Swiss Federal Commission against Racism a conference on Muslim umbrella organizations in Bern. The aim of the Conference was to support the efforts of Swiss Muslim NGOs to create an umbrella organization, which would empower them to counter stereotypes against Muslims among Swiss society. It was envisaged that such an umbrella organization would increase their capacity, among other issues, to monitor hate crimes against Muslims.

On 8-10 December, ODIHR Adviser attended a Seminar on “Islamophobia” in Central and Easter Europe, which was hosted by OIC. As ODIHR receives little information on hate crimes against Muslims in this region, the event was a good opportunity to establish more contacts with Islamic community organizations in Central and Eastern Europe and explain to them ODIHR’s hate crime related activities.

The personal representative of the OSCE Chairman-in-Office on Combating Intolerance and Discrimination against Muslims, Senator Akhmetov, visited Jeddah, Brussels, Geneva, London, Berlin and Astana. During these activities, he drew attention to the fact that anti-Muslim hate crimes were significantly under-reported and under-recorded, and urged participating States to enhance trust between Muslim communities and law enforcement officers, to create data collection mechanisms and to train the police and judiciary on this specific form of intolerance. He also encouraged participating States to support the efforts of NGOs dealing with hate crimes against Muslims.

Information and data on Anti-Muslim hate crimes and incidents

Currently, 16 participating States^⁴ collect data on anti-Muslim hate crimes. However, no participating States provided data figures. Austria and France each reported only one notable case in their respective countries.

14 NGOs and civil society reported incidents targeting Muslims in ten participating States.^⁵

The country listing below summarizes the information received by ODIHR about each participating State with regard to anti-Muslim crimes. If a participating State is not listed, this indicates that ODIHR did not receive any information concerning such crimes from the government, IGOs or NGOs.

Austria: The NPC reported one case of harassment against a Turkish citizen. The incident was categorizes as an Islamophobic offence and the perpetrator was sentenced.^⁶ No information was provided by NGOs.

Bosnia and Herzegovina: No data on anti-Muslim crimes were reported to ODIHR by officials or NGOs. The OSCE Mission to Bosnia and Herzegovina reported four cases of damage to mosques and one cemetery desecration.^⁷

Bulgaria: No official data on anti-Muslim crimes were reported to ODIHR. Human Rights First reported one arson attack on a mosque.^⁸ The Office of the Grand Mufti reported one arson attack, three cases of damage to property and three cases of graffiti targeting mosques and Muslim cemeteries.^⁹

Canada: No official data on anti-Muslim crimes were reported to ODIHR. The Organisation of the Islamic Conference Observatory (OIC Observatory) reported one arson attack on a mosque.^¹⁰

France: The NPC reported one case of vandalism and graffiti on a mosque. Two perpetrators received prison sentences.^¹¹ The OIC Observatory reported two cases of graffiti on property in reaction to building a new mosque and eight cases of graffiti on mosques.^¹² Human Rights First reported one physical assault and one Muslim cemetery desecration, where 30 graves were damaged.^¹³ COJEP reported a series of hate incidents against property; one arson attack on a mosque, three cases of damage to property (including one cemetery desecration), three cases of graffiti on property and two cases of graffiti on places of worship.^¹⁴ The NGO Collective Against Islamophobia in France reported 152 hate incidents including 12 physical assaults, four arson attacks on mosques, 11 cases of graffiti on mosques and three cases where pigs heads were left outside mosques.^¹⁵

Germany: No official data on anti-Muslim crimes were reported to ODIHR. Human Rights First reported three arson attacks on mosques in Berlin carried out by the same perpetrator.^¹⁶

Greece: No official data on anti-Muslim crimes were reported to ODIHR. The Federation of Western Thrace, the Western Thrace Minority University Graduates Association and the Culture and Solidarity Association of the Turks of Rhodes, Kos and Dodecanese reported one case of damage and graffiti to property where more than 20 gravestones were destroyed.^¹⁷ In addition, the Federation of Western Thrace and the Western Thrace Minority University Graduates Association reported one arson attack on a mosque and one case of damage to property where gravestones were desecrated.^¹⁸ The Western Thrace Minority University Graduates Association and the Culture and Solidarity Association of the Turks of Rhodes, Kos and Dodecanese also reported one arson attack on the Muslims Brotherhood and Cultural Association.^¹⁹ Human Rights First reported one Muslim cemetery desecration^²⁰ and the Western Thrace University Graduates Association reported one additional cemetery desecration^²¹.

Netherlands: No official data on anti-Muslim crimes were reported to ODIHR. The OIC Observatory reported one mosque desecration.^²² Human Rights First reported one arson attack and graffiti on a mosque and one case of damage to property.^²³ The Turks Forum reported one physical assault, four arson attacks on mosques, two cases of damage to property, four cases of graffiti on property and three cases where pig’s heads were left outside mosques.^²⁴

Russian Federation: No official data on anti-Muslim crimes were reported to ODIHR. Human Rights First reported the desecration of a Muslim cemetery.^²⁵ The SOVA Centre for Information and Analysis reported nine hate incidents targeting Muslim sites including two cases of arson attack.^²⁶

Switzerland: No official data on anti-Muslim crimes were reported to ODIHR. Counseling Network for the Victims of Racism reported 10 incidents, including 5 physical assaults, 2 threats and 3 acts of verbal harassment. One of the physical attacks was reportedly carried out by a police officer.^²⁷

Ukraine: No official data on anti-Muslim crimes were reported to ODIHR. IOM Ukraine and Human Rights first reported an attempted arson attack and graffiti on a mosque in the Crimea.^²⁸ Human Rights First also reported an additional arson attack on the same mosque later in the year.^²⁹

United Kingdom: No official data on anti-Muslim crimes were reported to ODIHR. The OIC Observatory reported a series of attacks against a mosque in Essex resulting in damage to property.^³⁰ Human Rights First reported one serious physical assault of a 13 year girl, the perpetrators have been arrested and face trial in 2011. In addition, two physical assaults and two arson attacks were reported.^³¹ The National Association of Muslim Police reported 15 cases of arson and damage to property targeting mosques and five cases of graffiti on Muslim cemeteries.^³² The Institute of Race Relations reported 12 physical assaults and 20 hate incidents involving graffiti and damage to property, eight of which targeted mosques.^³³ The Muslim Council of Britain reported two physical assaults, two arson attacks on mosques, eight cases of damage to property (four targeting mosques, three targeting Muslim cemeteries and one as part of a series of regular attacks on a Muslim family home).^³⁴ Engage reported one serious physical assault, four physical assaults, two arson attacks on mosques, five cases of damage to mosques, one cemetery desecration, one case of graffiti and fours cases where pig”s heads were left outside mosques.^³⁵

United States: No official data on anti-Muslim crimes were reported to ODIHR. Human Rights First reported one serious physical assault and one case of damage to property.^³⁶

The Human Rights Committee recommended that Belgium should intensify its efforts to prosecute and punish Islamophobic crimes.^³⁷

ECRI noted reports of crimes targeting Muslim places of worship in Poland,^³⁸ and that officials in France have taken a firm stance against Islamaphobia.^³⁹

The European Union Fundamental Rights Agency (FRA) issued a report in 2010 examining the discrimination and violence experienced by Muslim and non-Muslim youths in France, Spain and the U.K., finding a connection between feelings of social marginalization when victim of violence and discrimination.^⁴⁰

Government and NGO responses to crimes and incidents motivated by intolerance and discrimination against Muslims

In the United Kingdom, the National Association of Muslim Police organised the first conference on “Islamophobia” for law enforcement officers and the community. An overview of titled “Key Islamophobia Research” was later compiled.^⁴¹

An “All Party Group on Islamophobia” was established in the United Kingdom, on 24 November 2010.^⁴²

Box 4: Anti Muslim attack

1 “Tenth Meeting of the Ministerial Council”, Porto, 6 and 7 December 2002, <http://osce.org/item/4162.html>.

2 Press release, “Countering intolerance and discrimination against Muslims purpose of OSCE meeting in Cordoba”, OSCE, Cordoba, 9 October 2007, <http://www.osce.org/item/27234.html>.

3 “Astana Declaration on Combating Intolerance and Discrimination,” Astana, 30 June 2010, <http://www.osce.org/cio/68972>.

4 Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Canada, Croatia, Czech Republic, Liechtenstein, Moldova, Netherlands, Poland, Serbia, Sweden, Switzerland, Tajikistan, United Kingdom and the United States.

5 Bulgaria, Canada, France, Germany, Greece, Netherlands, Russian Federation, Ukraine, United Kingdom and the United States.

6 Questionnaire from the Austrian NPC, op. cit., note Hata: Başvuru kaynağı bulunamadı.

7 Communication from the OSCE Mission to Bosnia and Herzegovina, op. cit., note Hata: Başvuru kaynağı bulunamadı.

8 “Violence against Muslims”, Human Rights First, March 2011, <http://www.humanrightsfirst.org/wp-content/uploads/pdf/3-2010-muslim-factsheet-update.pdf>.

9 Communication from the Office of the Grand Mufti of Bulgaria, op. cit., note Hata: Başvuru kaynağı bulunamadı.

10 “Third OIC Observatory Report on Islamophobia (Intolerance & Discrimination against Muslims)” The Organisation of the Islamic Conference Observatory (OIC Observatory), May 2010, <http://www.oic-oci.org/uploads/file/Islamphobia/2010/en/Islamophobia_rep_May_22_5_2010.pdf.pdf>.

11 Questionnaire from the French NPC, op. cit., note Hata: Başvuru kaynağı bulunamadı.

12 “Third OIC Observatory Report on Islamophobia (Intolerance & Discrimination against Muslims)” The Organisation of the Islamic Conference Observatory (OIC Observatory), op. cit., note Hata: Başvuru kaynağı bulunamadı.

13 “Violence against Muslims”, Human Rights First, op. cit., note Hata: Başvuru kaynağı bulunamadı.

14 Information from COJEP, 8 April 2011.

15 “Rapport sur l’Islamophobie en France 2010”, Collectif Contre l’Islamophobie en France, 15 March 2010, <http://www.islamophobie.net/user-res/fichiers/rapport_ccif_2010_PDF>.

16 “Violence against Muslims”, Human Rights First, op. cit., note Hata: Başvuru kaynağı bulunamadı.

17 Information from the Federation of Western Thrace, op. cit., note Hata: Başvuru kaynağı bulunamadı; Information from the Western Thrace Minority University Graduates Association, op. cit., note Hata: Başvuru kaynağı bulunamadı; Information from the Culture and Solidarity Association of the Turks of Rhodes, Kos and Dodecanese, 27 January 2011.

18 Information from the Federation of Western Thrace, op. cit., note Hata: Başvuru kaynağı bulunamadı, Information from the Western Thrace Minority University Graduates Association, op. cit., note Hata: Başvuru kaynağı bulunamadı.

19 Information from the Western Thrace Minority University Graduates Association, op. cit., note Hata: Başvuru kaynağı bulunamadı; Information from the Culture and Solidarity Association of the Turks of Rhodes, Kos and Dodecanese, op. cit., note Hata: Başvuru kaynağı bulunamadı.

20 “Violence against Muslims”, Human Rights First, op. cit., note Hata: Başvuru kaynağı bulunamadı.

21 Information from the Western Thrace Minority University Graduates Association, op. cit., note Hata: Başvuru kaynağı bulunamadıHata: Başvuru kaynağı bulunamadı.

22 “Third OIC Observatory Report on Islamophobia (Intolerance & Discrimination against Muslims)”, OIC Observatory, op. cit., note Hata: Başvuru kaynağı bulunamadı.

23 “Violence against Muslims”, Human Rights First, op. cit., note Hata: Başvuru kaynağı bulunamadı.

24 Information from Turks Forum Netherlands, 29 March 2011.

25 Ibid.

26 “The Phantom of Manezhnaya Square: Radical Nationalism and Efforts to Counteract It in 2010”, SOVA Centre for Information and Analysis, op. cit., note Hata: Başvuru kaynağı bulunamadıHata: Başvuru kaynağı bulunamadı.

27 Information from Counseling Network for the Victims of Hate Crimes, Bern, 15 April 2011.

28 Communication from IOM Ukraine, op. cit., note Hata: Başvuru kaynağı bulunamadı; “Violence against Muslims”, Human Rights First, op. cit., note Hata: Başvuru kaynağı bulunamadı.

29 “Violence against Muslims”, Human Rights First, op. cit., note Hata: Başvuru kaynağı bulunamadı.

30 “Third OIC Observatory Report on Islamophobia (Intolerance & Discrimination against Muslims)”, OIC Observatory, op. cit., note Hata: Başvuru kaynağı bulunamadı.

31 “Violence against Muslims”, Human Rights First, op. cit., note Hata: Başvuru kaynağı bulunamadı.

32 Information from the National Association of Muslim Police, London, 31 March 2011.

33 Information from the Institute of Race Relations, 25 March 2011.

34 Information from the Muslim Council of Britain, 1 April 2011.

35 Information from Engage, 31 March 2011.

36 Information from Human Rights First, op. cit., note Hata: Başvuru kaynağı bulunamadı.

37 “Draft concluding observations of the Human Rights Committee: Belgium” CCPR/C/BEL/CO/5, op. cit., note Hata: Başvuru kaynağı bulunamadı.

38 “ECRI Report on Poland (fourth monitoring cycle)”, European Commission against Racism and Intolerance, op. cit., note Hata: Başvuru kaynağı bulunamadı.

39 “ECRI Report on France (fourth monitoring cycle)”, European Commission against Racism and Intolerance, op. cit., note Hata: Başvuru kaynağı bulunamadı.

40 “Experience of discrimination, social marginalization and violence:A comparative study of Muslim and non-Muslim youth in three EU Member States” European Union Fundamental Rights Agency, (Vienna:2010),<>.

41 Information from the National Association of Muslim Police, op. cit., note Hata: Başvuru kaynağı bulunamadıHata: Başvuru kaynağı bulunamadı; “An Overview of Key Islamophobia Research”, Dr Chris Allen, National Association of Muslim Police, April 2010, <http://www.namp-uk.com/images/stories/an_overview_of_key_is.pdf>.

42 Information from Engage, op. cit., note Hata: Başvuru kaynağı bulunamadı; “Launch of All Party Parliamentary Group on Islamophobia”, Engage, 24 November, <http://www.iengage.org.uk/images/stories/appgpr241110.pdf>.

June 13, 2011
Turkish teachers look to eradicate discrimination from schools

ISTANBUL – Radikal

A new project organized by Istanbul Bilgi University is aiming to abolish prejudice and discrimination in the education system by training teachers in new approaches and by making use of updated learning materials.

The project, called the Sociology and Education Works Branch, focuses on creating new education materials for teachers working in primary and middle schools.

The 13 teachers on the project are developing modules and education materials to eradicate the discriminatory issues they face in the classrooms, including topics such as identity, bilingual education discrimination, democratization, citizenship, poverty and gender.

Those involved in the project, who are also in touch with the Education Ministry, want to increase awareness by organizing seminars and training workshops. The project’s coordinator, Kenan Çayır, said Turkey had started to face its history and even discuss sensitive subjects such as the Dersim Operation, during which the military launched a campaign in the eastern province of Tunceli in the 1930s, killing thousands.

Teachers have started to think about what resources they need for these topics, Çayır said.

“There is discrimination against Kurds and Alevis in novels and two literature teachers have been working on how to handle this in the classroom. Teachers of sociology and social sciences are carrying out works in the Ottoman Empire and Turkey related to discrimination,” said Çayır. “Others are working on resources to combat discrimination toward people with disabilities.”

The resources produced will be put on the branch’s Internet site, which all teachers can access, said the coordinator. Another part of the project is to turn the materials into workshops with a certificate program subsequent for teachers, said Çayır.

“The modules we have improved will be completed in June. For instance, I will apply the works I developed on people with disabilities with the teachers at my own school. If we can educate the teachers, we can make a difference,” said Erhan Ağbaba, a guidance counselor at a state school taking part in the project.

“We are increasing our outreach and heading to other cities. We can either apply the resources we have or change them and provide education to more teachers by forming new groups,” said Ayşe Alan Öz, a history and social sciences teacher.

via Turkish teachers look to eradicate discrimination from schools – Hurriyet Daily News and Economic Review.

April 26, 2011
Swiss architects challenge Islamophobia

By Liz Fekete

1 December 2010, 4:00pm

The IRR News Service met up with three members of Foreign Architects Switzerland (FAS) who are challenging the Swiss ban on minarets.[1]

LIZ Fekete: You are in London, at the invitation of the Architecture Foundation, to speak at a forum on architecture’s political and social role in the context of the Swiss ban on minarets and the hysteria in the US over plans to site a new Islamic cultural centre in downtown New York City.[2] First, could you tell us a little bit about FAS?

Charlotte: We are a collective of architects from different backgrounds living in Switzerland fed up with the general passivity within the architecture profession who steer away from any controversy or political debate and adopt a low profile. Switzerland is often portrayed as a paradise, but from where we were standing there is a lack of innovation. So the whole purpose of FAS is to provide, often in a playful way, a platform for alternative ideas and projects that would never be considered in the brain-dead, incestuous architectural media of Switzerland. Oh, yes, and we are also friends. The Collective is a way for us to come together – we are only a few individuals and FAS is not our main occupation.

So how did you react when news came through that the Swiss People’s Party (SVP)[3] had been successful in its referendum to prohibit the construction of minarets?

Charlotte: When we heard about the minaret ban we felt very angry. We were angry because it was clearly discriminatory. The whole talk of Islamicisation was just crazy (there are only four mosques with minarets in the whole of Switzerland). And all that the referendum proved was the level of ignorance and fear that exists in Switzerland about a different culture, Islam. But we were also angry as architects. We felt this as an attack on us as architects, on our field. And despite this, the architectural scene was not responding. This also made us very angry. The only opposition came from civil society in the form of demonstrations, as well as a few individual acts, such as that of Guillaume Morand, the owner of a shoe company, who defied the referendum by extending the chimney on the top of his warehouse near Lausanne to give it the shape of a minaret.

So what did you decide to do?

Charlotte: We decided that if we were to address the situation we needed to take architecture and turn it into a weapon. We launched a counter- competition – to design an Islamic Centre. And for this competition we adopted the slogan ‘Save the Honor of Architecture, Save the Honour of Switzerland’.

Lorenz: We chose a site which has a traditionally Swiss landscape. It’s a visitor’s centre up on a hill, with lots of churches and a leisure lake. You have to visualise this. In the middle of a residential area, directly adjacent to a Greek Orthodox church, swimming facilities and an active bar scene. It would be impossible to camouflage a mosque on such a site. The counter-competition asked entrants to come up with a design that would, in the words of the competition tender, ‘promote interaction and dialogue in the community’. You also have to understand that the site, the Kronenwiese along the Limmat River was already controversial. Homeless people and a soup-kitchen had been evicted from the area to make way for a new housing development. So the counter-competition was in itself a political statement, asking the profession to re-evaluate its priorities and raising pertinent questions about multiculturalism in Switzerland.

Jesse: We invited architects to submit a design which would not only give Muslims a place to pray and meet, but provide an open meeting point between cultures. The design would include a mosque, a hamam, an Aula, space for lectures, exhibitions and a theatre, multipurpose rooms for men and women, offices, library, coffee shop and restaurant, as well as a public park and playground.

And what was the reaction?

Jesse: Well, in terms of the general public the reaction was small. But the most important thing was that we actually got entries. Architecture if rather non-political and this is one of the reasons we founded FAZ. And we got so many really thoughtful entries which helped us achieve our aim – to catalyse a much needed discussion within the architectural community about cultural differences.

Charlotte: Some of the entrants challenged stylistic norms, others went so far as to suggest that religion, as well as architectural style, is bound to evolve in a changing cultural climate. From these entries we picked out three which addressed different issues of design. The first was very open, the second quite aggressive, challenging codes on mosques and the third rather tongue-in-cheek, with a minaret. And through this we really did achieve our aim to catalyse discussion, which we also did via our facebook page and our fanzine that we sent to about 250 architects, university chairs, architecture organisations and publications in and outside Switzerland.

Did you get much reaction from the Muslim community?

Jesse: The Muslim community are very under-represented in Swiss society and were very scared. They were placed in a difficult position; they found it difficult to come out. Ours was an act of solidarity.

Charlotte: You have to understand that we are representative of what we are – middle-class architects with a few Muslim friends. I had an intern from Kuwait at that time and she was very shocked by all this. The only way she could understand it was to explain it as some kind of misunderstanding. You find often in discussions people like to minimise the issue, talk about it in rational terms and suggest it must be the result of a misunderstanding.

You clearly feel that architecture has the power to convey positive messages about cultural interaction and it saddened you to see how it was being manipulated.

Jesse: Yes. The architecture of cities are where ideas come together. We tried to get the architecture profession to react, but largely because architects are apolitical, we were disappointed. It seemed to us an obvious thing that you can’t outlaw the mosque, or indeed the right to practice one’s religion. The minaret ban was all about pushing things to their limits. It’s a symbolic thing. And what the minaret ban did was to set forth a symbolic war, one that has been fabricated. It is a fictional narrative. Look at the imagery – minarets are bayonets attacking the land – this is a fictional narrative. They are making use of architecture to make a political statement against Islam. In this way, they conceal their racism. Racism does not have a face. The landscape – architecture – buildings give it a face. And this is precisely why we feel architects had a duty to speak out against the ban. Architecture is a manifestation of social relationships. Architects are responsible for the form of the city, for the urban landscape which organises social relationships. Architects could promote constructive, creative dialogue – if they dare to speak up.

A lot of the original arguments in favour of the ban seemed to rest on the idea of protecting the traditional landscape from foreign cultures. Why was this such a powerful factor in Switzerland?

Jesse: You have to understand that Switzerland is a country where an unusual emphasis is placed on the power of the built environment. This is a country which regulates everything from cast shadows and noise pollution to where you can and can’t hang out your laundry – this is the level to which the Swiss are concerned about their neighbourhoods. It just seems that this is one of the main ways in which xenophobia expresses itself in Switzerland. For me, it seems something very specific to the Swiss. It seems to me that here in the UK xenophobia is much more linked to the fear of terrorism, whereas in Switzerland xenophobia manifests itself around issues of the built environment.

Charlotte: Yes. In Switzerland, the argument is that the landscape is attached to our identity as a nation, and the identity-building aspects of that landscape were depicted as threatened by Islam.

And is this what the SVP exploit?

Lorenz: Yes, but the SVP is adept at exploiting any insecurity. They generate a fear of people and they use that fear to gain votes. In fact, at the moment they have issued another referendum to expel foreign nationals who commit crimes.[4] The one thing we all agree on is that the people who are racist and manipulate these fears are not stupid.

But that’s what’s so fascinating about you three. You describe yourself as middle-class people with limited interaction with Muslims. Other people in your social position were falling over themselves to support the ban. Why did you see things differently?

Charlotte: Maybe it’s a question of sensibility. For me I was always uncomfortable with the post 9/11 anti-Muslim drive. I just can’t understand how people don’t link the minaret ban to other forms of discrimination, particularly what happened to the Jews. It freaks me out.

Jesse: I think it comes down to contact and proximity with other people. In our professional life, certainly as architects, we come into contact with people from different cultures all the time. It is the nature of the job that we travel. We have worked in Vienna, in India, all over the place, and we have lived alongside people from the former-Yugoslavia. In many ways I just don’t get it. I can’t understand why people have difficulties with Islamic cultures – after all Islam and Christianity both have Abrahmic roots. I mean the differences are minute.

Charlotte: You must remember, that in the run-up to the minaret ban, people didn’t really mobilise. The opinion polls were all saying that the ban would have no chance. I have many international friends and I wanted to make a sign.

Lorenz: I agree that it’s a question of sensibility – towards fairness, justice. The ones who want to kick people out just don’t see the injustice of it all.

[1] On 29 November 2009, Switzerland became the first country in Europe to vote to curb the religious practices of Muslims when a referendum banning the construction of minarets on mosques was backed by a strong majority. As a result, Article 72 of the Swiss Federal Constitution regulating relations between the state and religion was amended to include the statement: ‘the construction of minarets will be forbidden’. For more information see IRR Briefing Paper No 1, February 2010, ‘The Swiss referendum on minarets: background and aftermath’. [2] Faith in the City: the mosque in the contemporary Urban West was a two-day event organised by the Architecture Foundation in partnership with Openvizor and Arts Council England’s Arts & Islam programme. More information from www.architecturefoundation.org.uk [3] The ‘People’s Initiative Against the Construction of Mosques’ was launched by the SVP and the small ultra-conservative Federal Democratic Union. An SVP poster in favour of the ban depicted a woman wearing a burqa against a background of a Swiss flag upon which several minarets resembling missiles were erected. [4] On 29 November, Swiss voters approved a plan for automatic deportation of foreigners who commit serious crimes or benefit fraud, despite warnings that people who had lived all their life in Switzerland, married Swiss citizens and had children but never obtained Swiss passports, would be unusually hard hit by expulsion. Some 52.9 per cent of voters backed the SVP proposal. 47.1 per cent of voters were opposed.

The Institute of Race Relations is precluded from expressing a corporate view: any opinions expressed are therefore those of the authors.

RELATED LINKS

The image above, used in FAS’ presentation, was inspired by a video campaignby the Federal Democratic Union (EDU).

The Architecture Foundation

Foreign Architects Switzerland

Arts and Islam

IRR is not responsible for the content of external websites. Inclusion of a link does not constitute an endorsement. Please contact us if you come across a broken link.

, 1 December 2010

December 4, 2010
IQ Test for immigrants

Union Party leaders insist more immigration oversight to Germany and provoke a new Proposal: The domestic policy spokesman for the CDU in Berlin, Peter Trapp, told the Bild newspaper: “We must reach the immigration criteria that define our state in a really useful manner. Criteria must be beyond a good vocational training, competence and the intelligence. I am in favor of intelligence tests for immigrants. This question should not be taboo anymore.

The head of the CSU-Europe Group, Markus Ferber mentioned a single European revision of immigration policy, and referred in this context to the example of Canada: “Canada isas much further and requires a higher immigrant children’s Intelligence quotient than in native children. Humane reasons, such as Family members unification may in time not be the only criterion for immigration. ”

Quick Translation of “Unionspolitiker wollen IQ-Tests für Zuwanderer”
by Erju Ackman

June 28, 2010
Chinese Authorities Blame Internet for Fanning Uighur Anger

Chinese authorities blame foreign activists for inciting violent protests this week in Xinjiang, and say the Internet enabled them to do it. Uighur groups have used the Internet to rapidly get out images from what they say was a provocative government crackdown on a peaceful demonstration.

Following Sunday’s violence in Xinjiang region, Chinese authorities were hasty to point fingers.

At a news conference Monday, Xinjiang’s police chief Liu Yaohua blamed the World Uighur Congress, an international Uighur rights group.

Liu accused the organization of distorting China’s ethnic and religious policy to stir up conflict. But he especially singled out the Internet, describing it as the main medium that foreign forces use to communicate with Uighurs in China.

Uighur activists say a peaceful demonstration Sunday in Xinjiang’s capital, Urumqi, turned violent after police began cracking down. Chinese authorities accuse groups like the World Uighur Congress of masterminding a riot from afar, in an effort ultimately aimed at creating an independent Xinjiang.

Twitter disabled

The government has acted quickly to block access to information. Authorities acknowledge that Internet service in Urumqi has been interrupted, but they do not say how long it will be out. They say the interruption was done legally, and is necessary to maintain social stability.
In Beijing, the Twitter messaging system, which protesters in Iran recently used to report on police crackdowns there, has been disabled. And while cell phone connections in the Xinjiang capital, Urumqi, still operate, getting a call to the city, or making an international call from there, is proving difficult.

Xiao Qiang teaches journalism at the University of California at Berkeley. He also edits China Digital Times, a round-up of Chinese-language content on the Internet.
Internet is playing a bigger role this year,” Xiao noted. “Partially because what happened in Urumqi was immediately exposed by lots of cell-phone cameras, digital cameras, videos – there’s a lot of witness(es), people [who] immediately wrote and sent out video images on the Internet.”

Internet gains importance

Xiao compares what happened in Urumqi to the events last year in the capital of Tibet, Lhasa, when scores of Tibetans clashed with security forces there. He says Internet use in Urumqi is much more than in Lhasa.

He says Chinese authorities immediately began removing all Internet references to the Urumqi protest, and blocking social networking sites.

There are ways of getting around Web restrictions. Xiao says Chinese Internet users have been engaging in a tactic called “tomb digging.” Users on a bulletin board forum post an up-to-date response to an older post that mentions Xinjiang and has not yet been deleted.

“It’s basically a covered-up way to discuss those banned issues, under the nose of the editors of those forums, and it could be very effective,” Xiao said.

What caused violence?

Xiao says the opinions on Internet forums are much more varied than those in official Chinese media. Some support the government and the use of force to crack down on chaos. But other users are mistrustful of the government’s handling of the situation and are more reflective about the cause of the violence.

The Uighurs are a mostly Muslim ethnic group with cultural and linguistic ties to Central Asia. For years, many have complained that country’s ethnic majority, the Han, are taking over their traditional home, Xinjiang, in western China, and that they face government discrimination.

University of Washington Chinese studies Professor David Bachman says the images of the crackdown he has seen show the use of force has been “extensive” and “in some ways merciless.” Despite the government’s criticism of the Internet, the wide dissemination of pictures like those also helps spread Beijing’s stern warning.

“Clearly, the Chinese government is saying to Uighurs and to others in Xinjiang and to Tibetans and other minority groups, or for domestic protesters in the heart of China, that protests will be met with strict and harsh measures. Don’t even think about it,” Bachman said.

Possible solution

Bachman says cracking down – on both a restive minority and on public access to information – may solve short-term problems, but will only breed more resentment and opposition in the long run.

He says there is no quick fix to the long-standing tensions between Han Chinese and Uighurs. He says any efforts to make the problem better, though, should first focus on deeper issues, such as trying to alleviate perceived imbalances, discrimination and inequality.

Voa News

July 8, 2009