Intolerance exploited in Canada, Switzerland
That practice of political parties exploiting voters’ feelings on sensitive issues was very much in evidence in recent days in Canada and Switzerland during their elections.
The practices and roles of foreignborn members of society, particularly those belonging to the Muslim faith, became controversial election issues in both countries.
In both countries, political parties on the right made concerted efforts to question the commitment of members of their societies to the traditional practices and values of Canadian and Swiss societies. Such so-called concern was directed primarily at Muslims, particularly those who drew attention to themselves because of their attire, especially females covering their faces.
In Canada, the reluctance of a new Canadian woman to remove her religious face-covering during a citizenship ceremony became a major issue during the run-up to Canada’s election. This was exacerbated when the Conservative party and its leader, Stephen Harper, turned the issue into a cause célèbre after surveys indicated the Conservatives would likely lose to the resurgent Liberal party under Justin Trudeau.
Harper’s transparent attempt to regain voters’ support by exploiting opposition to certain religious practices apparently did not have a significant impact on how voters ultimately cast their vote. A large segment of Canadian society was so determined to see Harper defeated that few were swayed by the face-cover controversy.
Many Canadians might have breathed a sigh of relief over the outcome of the election. But the widespread unhappiness over the controversy arising from the citizenship ceremony makes it clear that religious practices not considered acceptable in present-day Canada could have the potential to influence elections under certain circumstances.
That unfortunate reality was seen in Switzerland during its Oct. 18 election.
Although 11 parties participated in Switzerland’s election, the Swiss People’s Party (SVP), a conservative party, won 29.4 per cent of the vote, an increase of 2.8 percentage points over the 2011 national elections. By Swiss standards, this increase is considered important because no Swiss party has had such a large proportion for almost a century — since the 1919 election.
A post-election survey indicated that two factors played major roles in the SVP’s electoral success: mobilizing many first-time voters, and emphasizing the SVP’s strong positions on stricter controls on immigration and asylum-seekers, especially arising from the chaotic flood of the latter arriving en masse in Europe from the Middle East and elsewhere.
There already was considerable concern in Switzerland over the absorption of immigrants and asylumseekers in recent years. Prodemocracy and human-rights groups in Switzerland have been disturbed by increased support given to political parties supposedly promoting policies that increase anti-Muslim sentiment.
Following an increase in antiMuslim violence in 2010, humanrights activists blamed politicians for the rise in anti-Muslim sentiment. However, in 2011, despite the opposition of the Swiss government, all but four of Switzerland’s 26 cantons voted in a referendum to ban the construction of new minarets on mosques.
Following the Charlie Hebdo killings in Paris, Walter Wobmann, an SVP lawmaker who led the minaret-construction ban, said it was also time for Switzerland to ban Muslim refugees from Iraq and Syria.
Martine Brunschwig, head of the national committee against racism, condemned Wobmann’s position as “discriminatory” and said it “resolves nothing and contributes to an atmosphere of hate and witch-hunting.”
The ominous increase in intolerance toward Muslims in Switzerland and elsewhere in Europe is a timely warning for open-minded Canadians. It reminds us that this country’s recent controversy over what is considered appropriate for a woman to wear is not exclusively about religious practices.
It is about tolerance and respect for others in a democratic society.
And tolerance is always a two-way street.