There are better ways to deal with the Bigots in Bern, the Swiss People’s Party, and even elevate the international profile of regional organizations, like the Arab League. These counterproductive “calls for jihad” against the Bigots in Bern only strengthens THEM and weakens YOU! The Swiss dented their own international standing with this ban – which is illegal and CAN be overturned- but with the RIGHT international actions!

The Bigots in Bern can be weakened with smart actions!

In the tussle between largely Switzerland and Libya, largely over a Swiss criminal businessmen and Gaddafi’s son – has unnecessary brought the European Union into the mix because it involves Swiss involvement in the Schengen area, or the free movement area in the European Union. In the end, however, the EU remains unchanged, unchallenged and still unable to defend is own values – and, in fact, appears to be allied with the Bigots in Bern! The winner appears to be  the Bigots in Bern who are actually strengthened and  given more legitimacy for their Islamophobia and bigotry because of the knee-jerk actions of the Libyans.

What is needed from the Arab League and Muslim nations, like Turkey, is to formulate international strategies that will address the growing threat against European Muslims – and will – at the same time – elevate the regional organizations, like the Arab League and Muslim nations’ status and profile on the international stage.

You Arab and Muslim nations already have ready made international support against the Swiss minaret ban and it is highly suggested by this author that you learn to harness it!

The Council of Europe’s condemnation statement.

Europe unites to deplore Swiss ban on minarets

The Roman Catholic Church condemnation.

Swiss government ‘very concerned’ over minaret ban

Condemnation from the Jewish world:

Jewish groups back Muslims on minaret ban

European rabbis condemn Swiss minaret ban

Statement from the Anti-Defamation League:

On November 29, the Swiss Muslim community fell victim to a populist political campaign of religious intolerance, led by the far-right Swiss People’s Party (SVP).  The Swiss government opposed the initiative during the campaign and underscored its commitment to religious freedom in a statement after the vote.

-

United Nations statement:

It is right to call the European Union into question – not just for the Swiss involvement in the Schengen area, but the EU’s ineptness in dealing with the growing right-wing extremist movements that are actually violently nationalist, anti-European values and seek to end the EU’s existence  altogether. The Swiss People’s Party bigotry is, in no way, a reflection of European values, but the EU’s inability and unwillingness to stand up for its own values.

For example, the day after the Swiss passed the infamous ban on minarets – the Council still went ahead with a ministers’ meeting in Geneva.  This should have been postponed – and moved to another location!!! We should have had a statement, but we got nothing of the sort.  European values and their defense were meaningless – and their defense after the ratification should have been a statement of condemnation directed at the Swiss People’s Party. No statement on this ban demonstrates the utter poverty of European values’ defense on the part of the EU!

What Gaddafi,  Muslims nations and the Arab League policy and actions should be doing other that issue threats! What we see coming out of mainly Tripoli are absolutely counterproductive – and probably serves only to strengthen the position of the Islamophobic bigots running the Government of Switzerland. These calls for “holy war” and “jihad” must stop – now – and the cooler heads of the Arab League and Islamic nations must come together and formulate a rational international strategy that even non-Muslim nations can become a part of perhaps through the UN.

Counter strategy —-

How to start skinning the Swiss People’s Party’s  little golden goose. First of all, we need to question just who (elements of the American right wing) and where (the western side of the Atlantic) the Swiss radicals are getting their funding. The stirring up of radical nationalism and Islamophobia in Europe and among European nations is coming from the Western side of the Atlantic. Some of this ilk, possibly linked to Reagan-Thatcher-American neoconservative elements, with a little racist elements thrown in. Some of these elements could have been behind the funding and other support given to the Irish “no” faction against the Lisbon Treaty. It is right to investigate and expose any funding and other support being given by American conservative elements to the growing Islamophobia and racist European right wing. This Swiss People’s Party appears to be an ideological kin of this ilk.

Towards the European Union. The EU must be reminded that neither xenophobia nor anti-Muslim bigotry are European values — and that if Europe really wants to “have its place in the world” and “defend its values” — it needs to defend them in Bern as will in EU Member States. The problem for the EU is that there is always the lack of political will, as well as fearing a “right-wing backlash.” After the Swiss passed their infamous ban – which should have damaged their international standing more than it did – the Council should have canceled its ministers’ meeting on Swiss soil.

The EU still requires respect for the rights of religious, ethnic, racial minorities as part of a candidate nations’  membership requirements and in its association agreements with international actors. The existence of “respect for human rights” in such EU agreements need to be called into question in light of the oppression and suppression of European Muslims. All concerned nations should re-evaluate their agreements and associations with the European Union and consider adjustments of, say, human rights respect demands, which are usually at the forefront of such agreements.

Remember – also – that European Muslims are citizens of EU Member States, and as such, should enjoy freedom of movement, as well as the equal treatment that is to be afforded to all EU citizens.

At the United Nations. Arab and Muslims nations should come together and place pressure on the United Nations address the growing oppression against European Muslims. The Council on Ministers should have canceled its meeting in Geneva and the United Nations should have had an open debate about continuing to station some of its human rights organizations on Swiss soil. Well placed pressure at the UN can gain advocates to address the issue of grown oppression of European Muslims more than counterproductive jihad threats.

On the international stage. Any nation, in Europe or not, that brings about policies that are based on discrimination and intended to limit the  freedom of others should have its relationship with the international community altered. It should not have been “business as usual” with Switzerland after the coming into force of this minaret ban.

• The first pressure point is questioning why the UN continues to maintain some of its organizations on Swiss soil and raise calls to at least temporally remove them from Switzerland. Arab nations can also offer space for UN organizations to get them to move out of Switzerland.
• The second pressure point should be on Europe;s human rights institutions, like the Council of Europe, to advance justice and move cases that violate the rights of European Muslims in a much quicker fashion than now. National courts in EU Member States need to step up to protect European Muslims’ rights according to national constitutions. The Council of Europe should have canceled the Swiss Presidency!
• The third pressure point should be applied against EU institutions to address the growing threat of right-wing extremism and better conceptualization of EU citizenship rights that protect all EU citizens. The European Commission must get the backbone and file infringement proceedings against Member States that are violating the citizens’ rights of European Muslims! The growing right wing threat should be under investigation be Interpol and Europol for its possible connections with transatlantic neo-Nazis and violent racist groups.
• Fourth pressure point should be on individual EU Member States. The minaret ban was condemned in all quarters of the world, except the Euro-American, right wing troublemakers – and French President Nicolas Sarkozy – who asked the world to “understand it.” (Understand IT? Sarko you filthy political animal!) This demonstrates how European nations are being pressured by the right-wing menace pounding at their doors. European nations must stand firm against this growing menace – and the international community must help give European nations a strong spine against this onslaught. EU Member states that choose far right policies should – at the very least – have their voting rights suspended.

If we are to stem the advance of right wing extremist policies in Europe and advance human rights – there needs to be serious repercussions for countries like Switzerland that bring about policies based on bigotry.  The Swiss needed to be made an example of – and this can still be done with well targeted international actions against the Bigots of Bern.  So far, this has largely failed to happen, which emboldens the radical right in Europe and sends the wrong message on our seriousness of protecting human rights.

Lastly – Expose the myth of the “islamification” of Europe:

It is a good illustration of the scapegoat mechanism. The smaller the minority, the easier it is to whip up hatred against it. Muslims make up about 6% of Switzerland’s 7.5 million people, many of them refugees from the Yugoslav wars of the 1990s, and fewer than 13% practise their faith. It’s not as if there was a backlash against muezzins either — Swiss mosques do not broadcast the call to prayer outside their buildings. Switzerland has about as much chance of being ‘Islamified’ as being flat.

The freedom of religion and expression for European Muslims are under vigorous attack these days – and this is most evident in the attack on the headscarf. There is hope that cooler and more rational heads are prevailing in at least in Germany.

Thomas de Maiziere, Germany’s interior minister, has rightfully pointed out that attacks on the religious symbol of the headscarf could be used to attack Christian symbols. Maiziere stated that he would have no problem with a female worker wearing such a headscarf and that individual judgments need to be made as to the appropriateness of the dress “as they would be with  Hawaiian shirts and flip-flops.”

German minister says headscarf ban could fire back – DW

Also – Human Rights Watch has condemned the ban of headscarves for German teachers as discriminatory and a violation of human rights. These laws and rules against  headscarves are aimed exclusively at Muslim women and are popping up across Europe should be taken as violating the freedom of expression, freedom of choice, and discriminates against gender. They also violate Europe’s basic values that emphasize a multicultural and tolerant society that are based on human dignity and human rights. According to HRW’s study of the German headscarf ban from last year:

Policies of forced veiling and other obligations on women’s attire violate international human rights standards, and have repeatedly been criticized by Human Rights Watch.[194] But policies of excluding women who wear the headscarf from employment also run foul of these international norms, such as article 11 of the Convention for the Elimination of Discrimination against Women and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. A ban on the headscarf in employment undercuts individual autonomy and choice, a fundamental aspect of women’s rights that is also violated in countries where women are forced to wear the headscarf. Muslim women concerned risk not being employed in the first place, and when they do have jobs, risk reprimands, suspension, and dismissal directly connected to the wearing of the headscarf. In fact, a blanket exclusion of women with headscarves from public schools amounts to a life-time employment ban in this specific career.

The feminists claim that they are “protecting women from oppression,” but HRW’s study reveals that Muslim women chose to wear the headscarf  and had made a free choice to wear the headscarf. The ban had a profound effect on their lives – even forcing them out of teaching and making them feel out of place in their own country – and even forcing them out of their own country althgether:

Some of the teachers affected told Human Rights Watch that they had offered to wear alternatives to the headscarf, such as large hats, or to tie the scarves in atypical styles, but that these offers were rejected. As a result of the bans, some of the women left their home states or Germany altogether, while others felt compelled to remove their headscarf to keep their jobs, after years of studies and investment in developing their skills. They complained of feeling alienated and excluded, even though many have lived in Germany all their lives.

The German minister is right to be concerned for the targeting and exclusion of Muslim headscarves. These measure to restrict the freedom of Muslims can foster a backlash against Christians’ symbols in public. HRW also tells us that these restrictions do not apply to Christian dress. The attacks on the freedom of expression and religion for European Muslims are also justified by as “preventing radicalization,” but these measures, according to HRW, alienate and exclude, which can actually lead radicalization! It is time to end these attacks of the religious freedoms of Muslims and end the religious bigotry and intolerance and return to REAL European values!

HRW’s – Discrimination in the Name of Neutrality February 26, 2009

Prohibition of the burqa and the niqab would not liberate oppressed women, but might instead lead to their further alienation in European societies. A general ban on such attires would constitute an ill-advised invasion of individual privacy. Depending on its precise terms, a prohibition also raises serious questions about whether such legislation would be compatible with the European Convention on Human Rights.

“Rulings anywhere that women must wear the burqa should be condemned – but banning such dresses here would be wrong” says Commissioner Hammarberg

While the so-called “gains” made by Geert Wilders so-called “Freedom Party” (de Partij voor de Vrijheid [tegen vrijheid!]) in the March 3 elections were acutally mininal, these advances made by the radical right in European elections is a grave and growing threat for European security.

This author is currently working on a paper regarding the radical right and their advances in Europe – which will focus on Geert Wilders. There are some authors that blame the fragmentation of national identities in the era of globalization and European integration.  Some authors blame bad economic times. There is evidence that what is called “Euro-American” radicals and their communications through the Internet are a major source of the problem. What ever the source (probably all of the above) - the growing  radical right is a threat to freedom and democracy in Europe like no other since Adolf Hitler.

Geert Wilders is himself a proud Thatcherite and, like most of the radical right, vigourously opposed to the European Union – so it is no surprise that Wilders praten (Wilders talk) is laced with American conservative language (ex. “less taxes, less Islam”). It is no wonder that his film Fitna has been shown to largely Euro-American radical right audiences and the House of Lords. We should also become concerned with just who is funding the so-called “Freedom Party” as we questioned who funded Declan Ganley and the Irish, Lisbon Treaty “no” vote. We need to be concerned of the prospect of funding for Geert Wilders’ one man show coming from the Western side of the Atlantic, where he is most popular among American conservatives.

If the Dutch are stupid enough to actually vote this party in and Wilders gets to be PM, you can best bet that the Koran will be banned and Dutch Muslims’ freedom of religion will be oppressed. The Dutch intelligence and police services will be turned against innocent Dutch Muslims and those that oppose Willders. Terrorist acts that occur (rightfully) – will be a self fulfilling prosperity and blamed on “radicalized Muslims.” Those that will struggle for freedom in the Netherlands will be branded as a “threat” and “dangerous.” This will be celebrated as a “great victory” among the American radical right as darkness descends in the Netherlands.

To oppose Geert Wilders no matter how far he gets in politics is a great and worthy struggle - as it is a struggle for freedom for both the Netherlands and for Europe.  We must be prepared for being labeled “threatening” and “dangerous” – as those that want to “Stop Wilder Nu” are being labeled as “threatening.” All those that oppose Wilders will be described as “threatening” – even as it is actually Wilders that poses the greatest danger.  I also intend to join the great and coming struggle against Wilders and the Muslim-hating, Euro-American radical right.

To the Wilders-Thatcher-Reagen -American conservative ilk – “freedom of speech” applies only to their speech. Those that oppose the Wilders ilk and like-minded travelers – well their speech are “threats” and must be suppressed.

For the claims that those of us that oppose Wilders are elitists – please note that Wilders himself is an elitist – just as Wilders is actually anti-freedom!  You can’t join this party or influence its policies and is, therefore anti-democratic!

According to DutchNews:

The reasons why the Freedom Party are only standing in these two municipalities are in themselves worth highlighting. The Freedom Party is difficult to define. It is not a ‘party’ in the conventional sense of the term. You can donate to it, but cannot join it, nor influence its policy forming. It has no internal democracy. Its sole purpose is to serve as a platform for the ambitions of Geert Wilders and his brand of anti-Islamic populist nationalism; accurately described in a recent New York Times editorial as ‘hate spewing’ and ‘xenophobic ’.

Now – why was Wilders’ criminal trial postponed? One explanation was to “not upset the electorate before the March 3 elections. Well – what should be noted is that the Dutch government and its prosecutors offices appear to be giving more “freedom of speech” to Wilders that to the rapper Mo$heb – who was punished for a song that was taken as “threatening to Wilders” for saying “bam bam.”   My, my – so – a song that “threatens Wilders” is “more dangerous” that the prospect of Wilders becoming the next Dutch PM and taking away the freedoms of a religious minority and  damaging the international relations of a country that has a proud  human rights and rule of law tradition?

The prosecution (persecution) of Mo$heb and not Geert Wilders  indicates that the Netherlands has already lost its rule of law orientation.  Just who is being defined as a “threat” in the Netherlands has been turned on its head … this, and any connections to the Reagen-Thatcher – American conservative ilk will be exposed to the disinfection of sunlight.