Muslims in Europe A Shared Citizenship Transcending the Imposition of Cultural Homogeneity
“LePen-isation”: Competing with Far-right Populism
Along with Muslims inducing the West to consider something they would rather have out of sight, out of mind is the social impact of the growing “immigrant” population. This coupled with a low birthrate among native Europeans has led Europeans to question such populations enjoying the benefits of living in their countries, sometimes perceived at being at their expense. The reality however is one of mutual benefit. Europe has allowed such immigrants because it has needed them. This is why among EU member states there is recognition that severely restricting immigration is not an option, due to Europe’s aging population and declining birth rates as well as the need for skilled workers for economic recovery.
The presence of many non-Europeans i.e. immigrants exacerbates such issues and provides ammunition for extreme right-wing elements. This anti-immigrant sentiment is said to have intensified since the 2008-2009 recession. A key feature therefore has been the resurgence of far-right politics in Europe driven by a rejection of “multiculturalism,” as well as insecurity about the European Union and globalization. Regarding cultural conflict, probably the most explicit case was in the Netherlands over homosexuality, where Pim Fortuyn described immigrants as being a threat to traditionally liberal Dutch culture especially their un-Dutch intolerance of homosexuality.
Alongside this, and following the murder of Theo Van Gogh in 2004, the Dutch tradition of accommodating different identities in the public realm has increasingly been criticized for undermining social cohesion by being too tolerant, in particular in regard to the ‘religious’ culture of Muslim immigrants. Similarly the anti-immigrant Freedom Party’s Geert Wilders emphasizes the idea that intolerant and illiberal Muslim immigrants have to be considered incompatible with the preservation of a tolerant and liberal Dutch society.
It is therefore in this context that the focus on Muslim women’s clothing and its relationship to gender dynamics and female sexuality is to be viewed. As the Islamic dress code is regarded as a symbol of patriarchy, suppression, or extremism, it is consequently seen as a sign of lacking integration of the whole Muslim community within European society. In the same vein, the discourse on this lack of integration has impacted immigration policies, where we see that over the last few years European governments have greatly restricted immigration. In fact, with regard to integration tests as a norm in immigration law, the measures employed by certain member states have been accused of an implicit (and in some cases explicit) targeting of Muslim applicants.
Therefore, immigration policies also tend to reveal the limits and prejudices of secular tolerance, as well as an insistence on cultural homogeneity as a requisite of citizenship. For example the Dutch Ministry of Aliens Affairs and Integration produced a film intended to help screen ‘inappropriate’ immigrants by showing them the extremes of Dutch gender relations and sexuality, as well as nude sunbathing. Immigrants have to take an exam to test their compatibility with Dutch liberal values. Today tolerance no longer seems to be fashionable, toughness is. It is also trying to oblige those already here to embrace Dutch culture. But what kind of European culture, which facets, and to what extent is it expected to be embraced?
In Denmark the immigration laws introduced in May 2002 have turned Denmark’s immigration regime into one of Europe’s tightest, where the Danish citizen has to be judged to have stronger links with Denmark than any other country and accept its basic values and norms. As liberal immigration laws might cause higher rates of import marriages in which the culture of the home country is retained, the above policies are seen as a way to mitigate this. The policies not only seem to reflect how European countries are beginning to restrict immigration or citizenship only to people it sees as culturally or economically desirable, but also requiring that migrants show signs of integration even ‘before’ entering the EU.
The fear of terrorism and the resultant security policies have also impacted immigration laws. New laws and policies on immigration have taken effect in most European countries since the 9/11 attacks. Thus as a threat to security, political and socio-economic stability, one also sees the securitization of immigration. Recently in July 2011, Norway’s horrific massacre traced to a man who fears Muslims are taking over Europe represents an Islamophobia channeled by extreme right groups that may be a graver threat than many had estimated.
The fact that far-right parties such as Le Pen’s National Front have become more moderate and thus appealing to a broader spectrum of voters has aided the rise of anti-immigrant thought in the European political mainstream. This at the same time is said to have isolated and antagonized their most extreme members. Furthermore the dynamics show that across Europe as the far right is becoming an acceptable electoral choice for European citizens, the established political parties especially the center-right parties most afraid of losing votes to the far right have sought to adopt anti-multiculturalism rhetoric as their own.
This can be seen as the scapegoating of anti-immigrant rhetoric to distract Europe’s populations from necessary budget/spending and job cuts under the euphemism of austerity measures. The far-right has thus become adept at focusing their narrative on economic issues and defense of Europe’s liberal values against illiberal immigrants. Though mainstream political parties cannot ignore genuine public concern over the immigration issue, however it also needs to be seen if the soul-searching within mainstream parties leads to a change in the anti-immigration tone that has increasingly been adopted as part of political expediency to compete with far-right populism.
Alongside this discourse, issues related to freedom of speech where they have caused resentment and pain, do little for social cohesion. It is the balance between human dignity and freedom which ensures justice and peace, where freedom of speech is treated as a responsibility, not just a right, of living in a free, liberal society. Yet the perception of the culture of self-censorship on Islam is seen as appeasement of Islam and another indicator of Islam and the West’s conflicting cultural values. Whereby, the cultural marker for the West is to accept that the demands of a ‘democratic society’ also include information and ideas that offend shock or disturb.
Yet why it always seems to be Muslims from whom this demand is made, is a question that begs to be asked, as well as the liberal utopia of “nothing is sacred” being such an ideal to be aspired for? It can also be observed that in EU law on citizenship and fundamental rights, the protection of the freedom of religion is not absolute, but is to be put in relation to other fundamental rights, including the right to freedom from religion and the right to freedom of expression. Additionally a point specifically raised is that it should be understood that freedom of religion means respecting one’s right to practice the religion of one’s choice but is not about respecting a person’s religion.
The hijabs and niqaabs, and tall minarets are therefore seen to represent anomalies in the cultural landscape of the West and preventing their further proliferation the means to safeguard this European landscape. Specifically mosques with their imposing minarets seem to imply a disturbing enduring legacy and presence of Islam, as reflected in the 2009 referendum vote in Switzerland. The issue of mosques is to be seen within the framework of analyzing the consequences of the visibility of Islam within urban space in terms of public policy, as well as the redefinition of public space to incorporate Islamic elements. This fear of a visible Islam was given further credence when in September 2011 a Paris ban on Muslim street prayers came into effect. The ban which could later be extended to the rest of France aims to keep the French capital’s public spaces secular, and was seen as “hurting the sensitivities of many fellow citizens.”
Yet the overall perception seems to be that “Muslims are making politically exceptional, culturally unreasonable or theologically alien demands upon European states.” However as Ramadan observes Europeanization of Islam means not only “taking” from the European culture what is in accordance with our principles but also “contributing” to European culture as Muslims; a natural consequence of the progressive social integration of Muslims in Europe. Whereby living in a culturally pluralistic society requires a deeper perception of the complexity upon which other people’s references and lives are organized.