Without Ramadan and without Lamb

In 1502, the Catholic Monarchs decreed the forced conversion of Muslims living in the Crown of Castile. The Kingdom of Navarre and the Crown of Aragon followed years later. The converts, whether forced or sincere but always viewed with suspicion, became known as New Christians or Moriscos. They were expelled between 1609 and 1613 by King Philip III.

Centuries later, in today's democratic Spain, there are those who, if they could, would gladly sign similar decrees. We have written this before: the problems of citizen security and the deterioration of public services are related to massive and uncontrolled immigration. But anyone who limits the accelerated radicalization of much of Spanish public opinion regarding the immigration phenomenon to these causes is mistaken. What galvanizes this reaction has a deeper motivation that is difficult to accept, even for many of those who experience it. It is above all the perceived threat to the survival of one's own identity and the changes in the human, aesthetic, and cultural landscape of the host society. Any reader has heard it in this simpler format at a bar: "Let your house never cease to be your house."

What happened in Jumilla is a rebellion against individual rights to protect the landscape.

The decision by the Murcia city council of Jumilla—governed by the People's Party (PP) and Vox—to change municipal ordinances to prohibit the holding of large Muslim festivals in municipally owned buildings and land is proof that the debate is now entering the murky realm of denying constitutional rights based on origin or religion. Beyond the issues surrounding the legality of the provision, the objective of the measure is none other than to render Muslim practitioners invisible by expelling them from the only spaces that, for reasons of capacity and safety, offer sufficient guarantees to host their most important collective festivities: the Feast of the Lamb and the collective prayer at the end of Ramadan. The argument is that these traditions are not part of Spanish culture and traditions. Therefore, to the extent that they are "not our own," they should have no place in the collective imagination. They must be eliminated from view.

Beware of hypocrisy! What's happening in Jumilla is nothing new; it's just that until now it's been done behind the scenes and with dissimulation. That is, the city councils of many cities have denied the necessary permits for these types of events, citing mainly security, order, mobility, or any other excuse that would maintain the appearance of neutrality of the public authorities. Jumilla has decided to act openly. For Abascal's party, abandoning euphemisms adds value, not subtracts.

What the Jumilla City Council is saying is enough with its decision is the Islamization of its urban landscape. It's worth taking note of this to realize how quickly the debate on the consequences of immigration is moving forward in Spain. What is explicitly inaugurated is the debate on the extent to which it should be accepted that the human and cultural environment of origin can be "contaminated" by individuals and customs from "outside." In other words: pray facing Mecca and eat lamb at home because that is not at all something that can be considered Spanish and must be erased from public spaces.

Jumilla inaugurates the formal ban on mass Islamic celebrations, and its government is proud of it. Other municipalities across Spain will follow suit in the future, whose leaders will make similar decisions driven by their voters. Underlying this is a rebellion against multiculturalism and individual rights to protect the human, cultural, and religious landscape that is considered its own and therefore the only one worthy of display. The same thing happened four or five centuries ago. But if you really want a provocation, here it is: the ladder of racial laws always begins with a first step.