Oh dear mercy. America: Get Real.

Let me preface this discussion with the fact that I didn't even know who Adam Lambert was until last Monday when the internet erupted in all this VMA controversy stuff. I don't listen to pop music, I don't like pop music, and I generally don't give a shit about pop-music, its stars or its controversies. However, this one really got my goat. 

 I was listening to the Adam Lambert interview on CBC's Q my way to school this morning.  I  have been following the controversy since reading about it on the Monday morning blogosphere following the VMAs (I don't have a TV so am staunchly dedicated to internet blogs for my info). Many things about this “controversy” have rattled me, but I will only comment on one in particular here. 

Q's host, Jian Gomeshi, asked him about an article posted on the Huffington Post which indicted Lambert for doing more to harm gay rights and the gay community with this performance than help it.  I found this extremely troubling.

The author of the article said Lambert's flashy-glam brand of homosexuality was too overt and in-your-face to be accepted by everyday America;  that it undermined those homosexuals who go to work in suits everyday and work to support their families and are traditional and conservative and want the same rights as their heterosexual counterparts. 

Is the author saying that only homosexuals who mimic heterosexuality by having a family, living in suburbia and going to work everyday deserve to be sheltered from discrimination based on orientation? Doesn’t this exact mimicry do nothing for gay rights but reinforce the heteronormative standard we as a society perpetually uphold when we discriminate against certain brands of speech based solely on orientation? To say Lambert’s expression of his sexuality is “too gay” to be respected and protected does more harm to the international discourse on gay rights than his performance ever could have. 

This Huffington article, and more generally, arguments rooted in this same way of thinking, further muffle the homosexual voice as a means of sexual expression.  This narrow view of homosexuality does nothing but buttress the further discrimination of homosexuals everywhere, whether they are teachers, lawyers, electricians, children of NHL coaches or artists. We either protect speech or we don't... we can't start picking and choosing which gay expressions we are going to allow and which we aren't.  Especially when that decision is based solely on the idea that those expressions which make us most uncomfortable --  by challenging our heteronormative world view --  will be cast out of the protected sphere whereas those expressions that manifest simply in a nice pair of loafers or well tailored suit will be allowed. 

Highway to the Danger Zone

Switzerland’s recent referendum to potentially ban the construction of minarets on mosques elicited a deep response from me; but I am unsure what that response is. The campaign, led by The Swiss People’s Party and the Federal Democratic Movement, was rooted in a desire to quell the divisiveness the parties perceived the minarets as posing to the peaceful character of Swiss society.  The margin, 57.5% to 42.5%, is not underwhelming in what it says regarding the Swiss electorate’s opinion on this specific issue. [1]

 The international media have been abuzz since Sunday’s results indicting the Swiss as racist, intolerant and having deviated from their traditionally neutral, liberal roots.  However, I am not sure whether these results are indicative of the above noted fears, or of a socio-political climate that is simply trying to recalibrate its socio-political values. 

What is remarkable, though, is that the referendum is to pave the way for a constitutional amendment that would ban the further construction of minarets, which have been a major symbol of Islam for over a thousand years. What this says about the current state of Switzerland’s constitutional guarantees is unclear.  Ironically encouraging, however, is the way by which the Swiss have dealt with this issue.  Staunchly adhering to their traditional values as a liberal democratic state, the Swiss engaged the most direct form of democracy we have: referenda.

The Swiss have been unfalteringly neutral for the last 100 years. However, perhaps this democratic shift is an attempt at national self-preservation against the type of Islam that promotes violence in order to further Islam.  In instituting constitutional change, the Swiss are democratically taking steps to hedge against this form of zealotry (vis-à-vis a ban on new symbols of Islam within their country).  What is troubling, though, is how the Swiss have begun to see minarets as a political symbol, rather than a religious icon.  These terms, to me, are not interchangeable.

The posters used by the Swiss could easily qualify as socialist-style propaganda.  The image is of a woman in a Birka, standing in front of minarets emulating missiles piercing the red and white cross of the Swiss flag. Obvious in its connotations, advocates for this ban are setting up a false dichotomy for their compatriots: vote for this ban and help preserve Swiss neutrality, or vote against it and watch Switzerland fall prey to the terror tactics of militant Islam. It doesn’t seem this clear cut to me; I don’t know if I understand the two to be inextricably linked.

Having just returned from Germany and Denmark, I can’t help but note that perhaps Europe is not really as concerned with the freedom of religion and conscience we Canadians (and Americans) are.  European states seem to be more concerned with protecting atheism than religious expression. France is officially secular and other European countries seem similarly driven.  European constituents give the impression that they will faithfully immunize their societies against anything that threatens to create social or political tensions or controversies: peace at the cost of anything, including religious expression.

That being said, are Swiss voters unjustified in focusing on a group that may pose a threat to their society?  This is the unpopular question no one wants to pose because it may be misconstrued as suggesting intolerance. Swiss voters are obviously worried about their safety, the protection of their social values, and preservation of the Swiss way of life, whatever that may be.  Ultimately, this show of democratic solidarity says that the Swiss will not hesitate to do something about these fears, real or perceived.  

Nevertheless, this referendum feels like a feeble attempt to quell anxiety around the domestic growth of militant Islam, but may be more likely to increase tension within Switzerland than diminish it. So, good for the Swiss, I suppose.  Good for their citizenry for using the tools of democracy to effect constitutional change and voice their collective discomfort with the further permeation of Islamic mores into their social fabric.

Shouldn’t they be mindful, though, of the gradual erosion these types of political red herrings will have on the constitutional right to freedom of religion? Chipping away at any constitutional guarantee, even those masqueraded as an attempt to quell "the rise of political Islam", are unsettling as history continually repeats. It is never a good thing when one particular minority group is being targeted by the anxieties of the majority.  Perhaps there is something to be said for neutrality after all.

---

[1] I take these figures from cbc.com, consulted November 30, 2009 and December 1, 2009, http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2009/12/01/swizterland-minaret-un-turkey-ban.html.