Observers say that Switzerland is suffering a loss of image in Muslim countries as a result of the anti-minaret initiative. Do you share that view?
I have not seen any sign that we have suffered as a result of discussions on this issue. There has been no real threat either.
On the contrary: thanks to our embassies, who have done excellent work in communicating, we have been able to show that direct democracy and open discussion are part of our [democratic] rights.
I believe that people abroad have understood this. And I also think that people respect the fact that we in Switzerland discuss issues that would not be discussed abroad. This is an important quality.
I also note – and I really appreciate this – that the Muslim population of Switzerland are not allowing themselves to be provoked by what is to some extent a very emotional campaign, but are trying to explain objectively what Islam is and what it is not.
I think it's a good thing that we can now talk not only about attitudes and the common ground there is between religions, but also about the limits of individual freedoms and the role of the state in our society.
Veils, bans on using swimming pools, forced marriages and genital mutilation are not Swiss values nor do they promote emancipation. How do you see this?
I am in favour of a liberal society and of equal rights for women and men. It not permissible for women and girls to be treated differently, but that's not the question being raised by this initiative.
The minaret initiative is a kind of "proxy war". Its supporters say they are against minarets. But they want to fight [what they consider] increasing Islamicisation and sharia law and mention these also as reasons for their initiative.
But banning minarets is quite the wrong way. We already have means to combat such things in our legal system. Our legislation does not allow genital mutilation or sharia law.
Opponents of minarets argue that religious freedom is trampled underfoot in Muslim countries in particular. So why don't you demand a quid pro quo from these countries?
Violation of the freedom of religion – and, indeed, also of opinion – occurs not only in Muslim countries but in others as well, including Christian ones.
We are repeatedly having to speak out against this. As a humanitarian country, Switzerland has the role of ensuring that there is a lobby for the observation of these basic freedoms. We do this to the extent of our capabilities. But the fact that injustice occurs in some other country does not give us the right to be unjust too.
The federal government says a ban on minarets would not square with some of Switzerland's core values. In what way?
The Constitution guarantees freedom of religion. That means not only private freedom of religion – the freedom to have one's own belief – but also public religious freedom, the freedom for people to show, through symbols, dress or through a building, which religious community they belong to.
One major aspect of the constitution is also that it forbids discrimination. If only one religious community is forbidden to build a symbol of their faith, that is discrimination.
You also reject the initiative on the grounds that it violates international agreements. Has Switzerland abandoned its sovereignty?
We have signed the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. If we commit ourselves to certain treaty obligations – which we did several years ago – we have to stick to them.
So what would happen if the initiative were adopted?
Actually, I assume that it will be turned down. If we demonstrate what it can and can't do, the majority of the Swiss population would see that it is not the right way to solve any problems that might arise.
If the initiative were to be passed, then it would indeed be possible for a member of the Muslim community to file a case at the European Court of Human Rights.
The chances are high that the case would be successful, since the initiative clearly runs foul of the ECHR.
Last modification 17.10.2009