Swiss Peoples Party (Schweizerische Volkspartei, SVP or Union démocratique du centre, UDC):Member, served as the Vice-President of UDC Suisse (2013-2018), The UDC is one of the most popular parties in Switzerland, and it maintains a majority in the National Council of Switzerland
National Council of Switzerland:Councilor (December 1, 2003-November 29, 2015)
Council of States of Valais: Councilor (May 2013-April 2017)
SION (Stop Islamization of Nation): Member of the Board of Directors according to islamophobia.org
Oskar Freysinger is a Swiss politician who served on the National Council of Switzerland and is a member of the Swiss People’s Party (SVP), a conservative, populist political party. Freysinger is known for his nationalistic and extreme-right views. Freysinger has denounced and vilified Islam repeatedly, and was a main supporter of the anti-minaret referendum, which was a successful measure within Switzerland to ban the construction of minarets on mosques.
Freysinger has stressed how Islam threatens the Western world and its values, seeking to subvert the established systems of power. He has also admonished liberal politicians and leaders for being tolerant of Islam and has decried policies of multiculturalism. He has stated that, “Islam is not a religion of peace.” Freysinger has been critical of the Schengen Agreement, which largely abolished border checks between certain European countries. He views such policies as detrimental to the State and national character. Instead, he has pushed for measures to curtail immigration and reform the naturalization process to become more stringent.
Freysinger lost his 2017 bid for reelection to the Valais government in Switzerland, which was hailed as a, “defeat for populism.” The MP Franz Ruppen for the SVP spoke to Freysinger about his defeat saying that, “he [was] disappointed but also liberated. I think that his political career in Valais is finished.”
After resurfacing from a period of silence, Freysinger has emerged not as a politician, but as a writer. He recently published a book, Le côté obscur de la lumière (“The Dark Side of The Light”), which addresses his last months in political office. In an interview posted on “LesObservateurs” from August 20th, 2018, Freysinger discusses his life outside politics. In it he continues to decry the incompatibility of European values and legal systems with those of incoming predominantly Muslim immigrants.
Freysinger has characterized Islam as a threat to the West and to the security of Europe and, more specifically, Switzerland.
“If we are not capable of completely integrating immigrants from Islamic spaces and getting rid of the most militant jihadists, we will have an enormous problem. Once more, competing value systems will oppose each other here at home as in the 30 Years War. But the national coherence and the foundations of our rule of law are also at risk because our judges start by assuming, despite this explosive environment, that religious fanatics’ freedom of expression is more important than the citizens’ right to security.” (Translation)
“Si nous ne sommes pas capables d’intégrer complètement les immigrants provenant de l’espace islamique et de nous débarrasser des djihadistes les plus enragés, nous aurons un énorme problème. À nouveau, des systèmes de valeurs concurrents se combattront chez nous comme durant la Guerre de Trente Ans. Mais la cohérence nationale et les fondements de notre Etat de droit sont aussi en péril parce que nos juges partent du principe, malgré ce contexte explosif, que la liberté d’expression de fanatiques religieux est plus importante que le droit des citoyens à la sécurité.”
“When we recognize a religious movement, we also recognize its basic text. Sharia is a founding text of Islam. That the great majority of Muslims distance themselves from the application to the letter of Sharia, I admit. But it is not about recognizing individuals, but rather organizations, some of which are in the gray zone regarding our rule of law.” (Translation)
“Quand on reconnaît un mouvement religieux, on reconnaît aussi son texte de base. La charia est un texte fondateur de l’islam. Que la grande majorité des musulmans se distancie de l’application à la lettre de la charia, je l’admets. Or il ne s’agit pas de reconnaître des individus, mais des organisations dont certaines sont dans la zone grise par rapport à notre Etat de droit.”
“I don’t agree that in its fundamental texts Islam is a religion of peace and love. The proof is seen across the entire world. It is absolutely contrary to the fundamental doctrine of this religion. That Muslims behave well, I wish to believe. But the doctrine itself is one of conquest. It is, in its essence, violent, given its historical roots.” (Translation)
“Je ne suis pas d’accord de dire que dans ses textes fondamentaux l’islam est une religion de paix et d’amour. La preuve en est donnée dans le monde entier. C’est absolument contraire à la doctrine fondamentale de cette religion. Que des musulmans se comportent bien, je veux bien le croire. Mais la doctrine elle-même est une doctrine de conquête. Elle est, dans son essence même, violente vu ses racines historiques.”
“This dogma is gnawing away at the pillars of our system of laws, whenever it is granted the space to do so. This dogma demands total obedience from its followers. They should never integrate into our system of values. That would be ‘treason’ to them and is even punishable by death. They are supposed to conquer and subdue our western world. Not with tanks, rockets, or riflemen. Something they could never accomplish, anyway. Not through brutal revolt. No, Islam is in no hurry. It has an eternity.”
“The Islamic doctrine is intended to creep into our everyday life bit by bit and make Fortress Europe crumble from within. Just think of how the Serbs lost Kosovo...”
“We think we can soften the power-lusting ‘holy warriors’ with social benefits. We think we can buy our way to peace of mind. What lunacy. The prophet’s beard is not for fondling.”
“We are fighting against a dogma [Islam] that despises all humanity and wants to push us back into barbarity.”
Freysinger was instrumental in pushing for the ban on the construction of minarets in Switzerland.
“We don’t have anything against Muslims. But we don’t want minarets. The minaret is a symbol of a political and aggressive Islam, it’s a symbol of Islamic law. The minute you have minarets in Europe it means Islam will have taken over.”
“We have our civil laws here. Banning minarets would send a clear signal that our European laws, our Swiss laws, have to be accepted. And if you want to live here, you must accept them. If you don’t, then go back.”
Freysinger characterizes Islam, first and foremost, as a legal and civil code, which contradicts with the Swiss rule of law.
“The problem of compatibility between Islam and the West is therefore not one of a theological order, but a legal one, for Sharia precedes the state (Islamic nomocracy), and it cannot tolerate a divergent law on the land of Islam, sacred land, which for the moment extends over six hundred ‘cities of lawlessness’ in France, many numerous cultural ghettos in Germany and France, on Muslim squares, mosques and Quranic schools, and whose minarets are the lighthouses (from ‘el manar,’ which means lighthouse).” (Translation)
“Le problème de compatibilité entre l’Islam et l’occident n’est donc pas d’ordre théologique, mais bien juridique, car la sharia précède l’Etat (Nomocratie islamique) et ne peut tolérer de loi divergente en terre d’Islam, terre sacrée, qui pour le moment s’étend sur six cents «cités de non-droit » en France, de nombreux ghettos culturels en Allemagne et en France, sur les carrés musulmans, les mosquées et écoles coraniques, et dont les minarets sont les phares ( de « el manar », qui veut dire phare).”