www.izrs.ch

Bern, 28th Jamada al-Uula 1431 / 10th May 2010

Comment by Abdel Azziz Qaasim Illi on the interview of the newspaper "Sonntag" with Federal Councillor Eveline Widmer-Schlumpf

Those who today opened the newspaper "Sunday" on page six and read the short interview with the Justice Minister Eveline Widmer-Schlumpf, had the opportunity to inform themselves about her understanding of freedom and integration. I took the liberty to comment on some statements of the Federal Councillor below:

In her plea against the "burqa" she speaks in particular about the "visual recognition", the "sense of security" and "accountability" as positive arguments for a ban. However, it is not entirely clear to me how she wants to transfer these purely subjective categories, especially emotions and assumptions, into a rational legislative form. If you use the "predictability" of a person in connection with the "sense of security" of its potential counterpart as the basis for a ban, one would consequently have to restrict or forbid alcohol consumption, or the moving publicly in drunken condition.

The reasoning appears, with reference to a heterogeneous society like ours, very thin and not very conclusive, especially as one has come to terms with essentially more grotesque forms of public appearances without a debate on a ban.

When asked whether at schools the veil or the headscarf was to be allowed the Minister of Justice replied evasively. She missed it, to distinguish between the face veil and the Hijab and she fails to clearly confess to the freedom of worship, i.e. to the right of a girl to the Hijab. Moreover: The very question is based on the twisted believe that a Hijab would have to be approved first at school, so in principle was prohibited. This is of course for students not yet the case. Nevertheless, Mrs. Widmer-Schlumpf answered to it: "That must now be discussed with the cantons."

Also the following question, whether for her it was about the consistent religious neutrality in school, will make any non-Christian citizen listen attentively: The cross in the classroom belonged, according to Widmer-Schlumpf, to the "major cultural identity" and obviously didn’t disturb unlike the Islamic Hijab. Also a cross because of its cultural roots did not have influencing factors. Whether this is from a Jewish, Muslim or other faiths point of view seen in the same way, has to be doubted about.

The question for her opinion on whether the Burkini middleway was a viable solution in the mixed swimming lessons, she left unanswered, but she made immediately clear that "a small child who has not been influenced" could not have the desire to be different the other children in school. It may well be sufficiently clear that each child is under the influence of its family of the one or the other kind. Depending on faith, ideology or profession of the parents, the child develops a different identity. Ergo, it should not surprise if Muslim children grow into moral categories of Islam.

It can really not be that the exclusion of "others" in a society that cherishes the claim to be pluralist, is assessed by its public representatives as a normal, given measure. Not the demand to renounce the Hijab, but the promotion of its tolerance should be on the political program of the Justice Minister.

Further the Federal Councillor criticized that always only girls are affected in connection with special regulations and dispensing. This is not correct. Especially the famous swimming lessons case of the canton Schaffhausen, which had ultimately led to the no less prominent federal court ruling on forced-swimming lessons, it was about boy.

And finally this: When Muslims are not allowed because of the normative texts of source to have body contact with the other sex, this also applies when Muslims interact with government representatives. The attitude here complained of is merely that of normative Islam, which in the frame of the law - as far as I am aware - still falls in the decision-making sphere of the individual. We could of course also open the debate on the compulsion to shake hands. For sure one could prepare a criminal code, and if necessary, a constitutional article for the case of refusal.

Read here the interview with FC Eveline Widmer-Schlumpf in the newspaper "Sonntag" from 9th May 2010.