Swiss voters approve facial covering ban

[Chessmistress]

Well, in Switzerland's case that's not going to really be an issue.

It's incredibly difficult for someone to become a citizen in Switzerland. In fact, one can be born there and live their entire life in Switzerland and not get citizenship, it's that difficult.

Mostly because the communes themselves have to vote to allow you to become a citizen, another function of Swiss direct democracy. That's difficult for everyone but Muslims especially don't usually make the cut.

In fact, 30% or so of the Swiss population aren't citizens for this reason.

Swiss citizenship laws are biased in favor of the wealthy and privileged.

More correctly: Swiss citizenship laws are biased in favor of the Swiss citizens...

[Esalia]

The amount of strawmen used to attack this ban is absolutely impressive - from ski masks to Halloween masks

When we're talking about a ban on facial coverings, bringing up other facial coverings than the one the ban intends to target (who would be caught up in the ban if not properly written to exempt them) is not strawmanning.

[Chessmistress]

The amount of strawmen used to attack this ban is absolutely impressive - from ski masks to Halloween masks

When we're talking about a ban on facial coverings, bringing up other facial coverings than the one the ban intends to target (who would be caught up in the ban if not properly written to exempt them) is not strawmanning.

Yes, it is.
Because all those kinds of bans always have exceptions for things like:
* Wearing something that is in need for medical or safety or legal reason (an helmet when you're on a motorbike, a facemask during an epidemic, a ski mask when temperatures are very cold)
* Covering the face during particular events - including not just only Halloween but also at religious events.

Those kinds of bans are meant for public safety and they applies just only during all-days life, not during events.

In other words those kinds of bans are useful to prevent a potential thief from walking in the street wearing a motorbike helmet, but they don't apply to the same person when he's riding a motorbike.

[Ifreann]

When we're talking about a ban on facial coverings, bringing up other facial coverings than the one the ban intends to target (who would be caught up in the ban if not properly written to exempt them) is not strawmanning.

Yes, it is.
Because all those kinds of bans always have exceptions for things like:
* Wearing something that is in need for medical or safety or legal reason (an helmet when you're on a motorbike, a facemask during an epidemic, a ski mask when temperatures are very cold)
* Covering the face during particular events - including not just only Halloween but also at religious events.

Those kinds of bans are meant for public safety and they applies just only during all-days life, not during events.

In other words those kinds of bans are useful to prevent a potential thief from walking in the street wearing a motorbike helmet, but they don't apply to the same person when he's riding a motorbike.

Why would a thief obey the rules about not wearing a face covering?

[Purgatio]

The amount of strawmen used to attack this ban is absolutely impressive - from ski masks to Halloween masks

When we're talking about a ban on facial coverings, bringing up other facial coverings than the one the ban intends to target (who would be caught up in the ban if not properly written to exempt them) is not strawmanning.

When some facial coverings are inherently gendered and rooted in patriarchal ideals about the chastity and modesty of women, and specifically women, and the other facial coverings aren't, there's nothing principally inconsistent about banning the first kind of facial covering and leaving the second kind of face covering alone.

[Chessmistress]

Yes, it is.
Because all those kinds of bans always have exceptions for things like:
* Wearing something that is in need for medical or safety or legal reason (an helmet when you're on a motorbike, a facemask during an epidemic, a ski mask when temperatures are very cold)
* Covering the face during particular events - including not just only Halloween but also at religious events.

Those kinds of bans are meant for public safety and they applies just only during all-days life, not during events.

In other words those kinds of bans are useful to prevent a potential thief from walking in the street wearing a motorbike helmet, but they don't apply to the same person when he's riding a motorbike.

Why would a thief obey the rules about not wearing a face covering?

He wouldn't.
But with this law he's more likely to be noted and stopped the street, even before entering the jewellery shop, and no jewellery shop is gonna opening the door to him since he's wearing a motorbike helmet in the street.

[Chessmistress]

Also worth noticing that many Islamic countries that allow the burqa do not allow men to go in the streets with their face covered, for the above public safety reasons.
In example: Turkey.

[Socialist States of Ludistan]

So this is not just a burka ban, like in Denmark, but an all out mask ban?
Interesting time to do that, but I’m sure the Swiss have their neutral reasons.

[Chessmistress]

When we're talking about a ban on facial coverings, bringing up other facial coverings than the one the ban intends to target (who would be caught up in the ban if not properly written to exempt them) is not strawmanning.

When some facial coverings are inherently gendered and rooted in patriarchal ideals about the chastity and modesty of women, and specifically women, and the other facial coverings aren't, there's nothing principally inconsistent about banning the first kind of facial covering and leaving the second kind of face covering alone.

Also that.
In Turkey it's the opposite. the burqa is allowed, while facial coverings for men aren't (with exceptions for safety/legal/medical reasons) due public safety issues.

[Ifreann]

Why would a thief obey the rules about not wearing a face covering?

He wouldn't.
But with this law he's more likely to be noted and stopped the street, even before entering the jewellery shop, and no jewellery shop is gonna opening the door to him since he's wearing a motorbike helmet in the street.

Ah, so what you want is for women to be stopped in the street by police and arrested for dressing in a way that you don't approve of. Very feminist of you.

[Chessmistress]

So this is not just a burka ban, like in Denmark, but an all out mask ban?
Interesting time to do that, but I’m sure the Swiss have their neutral reasons.

It's very likely that a good portion of the public voted with the burqa in mind, but the question didn't refer to the burqa and by so the resulting law will extend well beyond the burqa, it's a gender neutral issue and also neutral about religion.

[Apostate]

We dont want people walking around in clown masks scaring the children! Or protesting.

[Esalia]

When we're talking about a ban on facial coverings, bringing up other facial coverings than the one the ban intends to target (who would be caught up in the ban if not properly written to exempt them) is not strawmanning.

Yes, it is.
Because all those kinds of bans always have exceptions for things like:
* Wearing something that is in need for medical or safety or legal reason (an helmet when you're on a motorbike, a facemask during an epidemic, a ski mask when temperatures are very cold)
* Covering the face during particular events - including not just only Halloween but also at religious events.

Those kinds of bans are meant for public safety and they applies just only during all-days life, not during events.

In other words those kinds of bans are useful to prevent a potential thief from walking in the street wearing a motorbike helmet, but they don't apply to the same person when he's riding a motorbike.

Does the ban, as currently proposed and voted on, provide exemptions for those things?

If not, it's perfectly fair to criticise it for not currently having those exemptions, or bring up the various examples of where it currently does not exempt something but probably should.

When we're talking about a ban on facial coverings, bringing up other facial coverings than the one the ban intends to target (who would be caught up in the ban if not properly written to exempt them) is not strawmanning.

When some facial coverings are inherently gendered and rooted in patriarchal ideals about the chastity and modesty of women, and specifically women, and the other facial coverings aren't, there's nothing principally inconsistent about banning the first kind of facial covering and leaving the second kind of face covering alone.

Principally, perhaps not.

But depending on how exactly you word your ban, you could end up banning the first kind and the second kind together. Hence why I said it's not strawmanning to bring up the second kind of facial coverings when the ban seems like it would ban both if not properly worded to ban only the first kind (or provide enough exemptions for the second kind).

[A-Series-Of-Tubes]

Motorcycle helmets are incredibly noticeable (large and high, visible from a distance) and burqa's rather noticeable too.

Why would a jewellery shop robber wear either? They'd wear a skin-tight silicone mask that looks like a real face from a distance, and can only be definitely picked close and in-front by looking at the eyes.

Just don't use the Donald Trump or Ronald Reagan mask, and it's slicker than dark sunglasses and a bandana.

[A-Series-Of-Tubes]

So this is not just a burka ban, like in Denmark, but an all out mask ban?
Interesting time to do that, but I’m sure the Swiss have their neutral reasons.

It's very likely that a good portion of the public voted with the burqa in mind, but the question didn't refer to the burqa and by so the resulting law will extend well beyond the burqa, it's a gender neutral issue and also neutral about religion.

Only women are expected by their husbands or fathers to wear the burqa. So a law banning the burqa in public is "gender neutral". That's pretty bad reasoning.

What is the impact of the law on women?
1. They will get hassled on the street by cops. Swiss cops, half women do you think?
2. Their husbands and fathers may forbid them from leaving the house exposed. They will stay in more.
3. They will be less likely to get jobs, drive cars, or in any way become more independent.

I think your hatred of Islam exceeds your concern for women. But I understand that trying to dictate to other women what you think is best for them, is what sets a radical feminist apart from a feminist.

[Purgatio]

When some facial coverings are inherently gendered and rooted in patriarchal ideals about the chastity and modesty of women, and specifically women, and the other facial coverings aren't, there's nothing principally inconsistent about banning the first kind of facial covering and leaving the second kind of face covering alone.

Also that.
In Turkey it's the opposite. the burqa is allowed, while facial coverings for men aren't (with exceptions for safety/legal/medical reasons) due public safety issues.

Wow....just wow. I mean, to call that "regressively sexist" feels like an understatement....

[Purgatio]

Principally, perhaps not.

But depending on how exactly you word your ban, you could end up banning the first kind and the second kind together. Hence why I said it's not strawmanning to bring up the second kind of facial coverings when the ban seems like it would ban both if not properly worded to ban only the first kind (or provide enough exemptions for the second kind).

Sure, I agree with that. Instead of this badly-worded referendum, Switzerland should have had a clearer referendum along the lines of adopting the burqa bans or niqab bans in other European countries, rather than a broadly or vaguely-worded ban that targets irrelevant stuff like ski masks. If its about criticising the way this referendum was worded specifically, then yeah, its not strawmanning, its legitimate criticism. Preferably they should have had a clearer referendum at the start on banning the burqa and niqab and left it at that.

[Ifreann]

Principally, perhaps not.

But depending on how exactly you word your ban, you could end up banning the first kind and the second kind together. Hence why I said it's not strawmanning to bring up the second kind of facial coverings when the ban seems like it would ban both if not properly worded to ban only the first kind (or provide enough exemptions for the second kind).

Sure, I agree with that. Instead of this badly-worded referendum, Switzerland should have had a clearer referendum along the lines of adopting the burqa bans or niqab bans in other European countries, rather than a broadly or vaguely-worded ban that targets irrelevant stuff like ski masks. If its about criticising the way this referendum was worded specifically, then yeah, its not strawmanning, its legitimate criticism. Preferably they should have had a clearer referendum at the start on banning the burqa and niqab and left it at that.

Specifically trying to ban Muslim clothes might have run afoul of anti-discrimination laws.

[Purgatio]

Sure, I agree with that. Instead of this badly-worded referendum, Switzerland should have had a clearer referendum along the lines of adopting the burqa bans or niqab bans in other European countries, rather than a broadly or vaguely-worded ban that targets irrelevant stuff like ski masks. If its about criticising the way this referendum was worded specifically, then yeah, its not strawmanning, its legitimate criticism. Preferably they should have had a clearer referendum at the start on banning the burqa and niqab and left it at that.

Specifically trying to ban Muslim clothes might have run afoul of anti-discrimination laws.

The ECHR recognises the doctrine of proportionality, meaning you can strike a balance between Convention rights and legitimate state objectives. Most nation's constitutional laws recognise similar concepts of proportionality or balancing acts between constitutional rights and public policy objectives. As do most anti-discrimination law's like the UK's Equality Act 2010 which statutorily incorporates a similar notion of proportionality.

The goal here is completely religiously-neutral, to work towards a society where gender roles are weeded out of the nation's sociocultural sphere and men and women, particularly women, are liberated from regressive gender norms and sex-segregated roles and responsibilities. That goal doesn't have to be targeted at Islam. There's sexism and sex discrimination promoted by many other religions, particularly conservative sects of the other Abrahamic religions. That needs to be resolved as well. But on top of that, Islamic traditions doesn't get a free pass just because they are Islamic traditions. The fact is that the burqa and niqab is inherently patriarchal. Men don't generally wear the burqa or the niqab. Conservative Muslim men don't go around donning these face coverings even though the supposed justification for these facial coverings is about chastity and modesty and showcasing your devotion to your religion - concepts which, strangely, only the women seem to be expected to adhere and conform to by wearing these facial coverings in society, and not men.

It isn't Islamophobic or religious discrimination to fight against sexist and patriarchal practices wherever they exist. In all cultures and all religions. Not only Islam alone, obviously.

[Ifreann]

Specifically trying to ban Muslim clothes might have run afoul of anti-discrimination laws.

The ECHR recognises the doctrine of proportionality, meaning you can strike a balance between Convention rights and legitimate state objectives. Most nation's constitutional laws recognise similar concepts of proportionality or balancing acts between constitutional rights and public policy objectives. As do most anti-discrimination law's like the UK's Equality Act 2010 which statutorily incorporates a similar notion of proportionality.

The goal here is completely religiously-neutral, to work towards a society where gender roles are weeded out of the nation's sociocultural sphere and men and women, particularly women, are liberated from regressive gender norms and sex-segregated roles and responsibilities. That goal doesn't have to be targeted at Islam. There's sexism and sex discrimination promoted by many other religions, particularly conservative sects of the other Abrahamic religions. That needs to be resolved as well. But on top of that, Islamic traditions doesn't get a free pass just because they are Islamic traditions. The fact is that the burqa and niqab is inherently patriarchal. Men don't generally wear the burqa or the niqab. Conservative Muslim men don't go around donning these face coverings even though the supposed justification for these facial coverings is about chastity and modesty and showcasing your devotion to your religion - concepts which, strangely, only the women seem to be expected to adhere and conform to by wearing these facial coverings in society, and not men.

It isn't Islamophobic or religious discrimination to fight against sexist and patriarchal practices wherever they exist. In all cultures and all religions. Not only Islam alone, obviously.

The goal here is to making living in Switzerland so unpleasant for Muslims that they all leave. Obviously not a goal that's going to fly in any remotely fair court. So instead they pretend that the problem is people covering their faces in public in general. And they pretend that instead of pretending that they're trying to fight patriarchy because they also hate feminism and don't want women to be liberated from regressive gender norms or sex-segregated roles.

[Purgatio]

The ECHR recognises the doctrine of proportionality, meaning you can strike a balance between Convention rights and legitimate state objectives. Most nation's constitutional laws recognise similar concepts of proportionality or balancing acts between constitutional rights and public policy objectives. As do most anti-discrimination law's like the UK's Equality Act 2010 which statutorily incorporates a similar notion of proportionality.

The goal here is completely religiously-neutral, to work towards a society where gender roles are weeded out of the nation's sociocultural sphere and men and women, particularly women, are liberated from regressive gender norms and sex-segregated roles and responsibilities. That goal doesn't have to be targeted at Islam. There's sexism and sex discrimination promoted by many other religions, particularly conservative sects of the other Abrahamic religions. That needs to be resolved as well. But on top of that, Islamic traditions doesn't get a free pass just because they are Islamic traditions. The fact is that the burqa and niqab is inherently patriarchal. Men don't generally wear the burqa or the niqab. Conservative Muslim men don't go around donning these face coverings even though the supposed justification for these facial coverings is about chastity and modesty and showcasing your devotion to your religion - concepts which, strangely, only the women seem to be expected to adhere and conform to by wearing these facial coverings in society, and not men.

It isn't Islamophobic or religious discrimination to fight against sexist and patriarchal practices wherever they exist. In all cultures and all religions. Not only Islam alone, obviously.

The goal here is to making living in Switzerland so unpleasant for Muslims that they all leave. Obviously not a goal that's going to fly in any remotely fair court. So instead they pretend that the problem is people covering their faces in public in general. And they pretend that instead of pretending that they're trying to fight patriarchy because they also hate feminism and don't want women to be liberated from regressive gender norms or sex-segregated roles.

Okay but that clearly isn't the goal. This isn't a Trump-style "Muslim ban" on immigration. Its banning a deeply-regressive and patriarchal religious practice thats reprehensible, spreads repugnant ideas about the role of women and female sexuality/chastity, to move towards a more equal society between the sexes. All Muslims in Switzerland need to do is just cease the practice of this sexist and demeaning ritual. No one's asking them to leave. They can stay and obey the law, like everyone else. That's not unreasonable.

[Ifreann]

The goal here is to making living in Switzerland so unpleasant for Muslims that they all leave. Obviously not a goal that's going to fly in any remotely fair court. So instead they pretend that the problem is people covering their faces in public in general. And they pretend that instead of pretending that they're trying to fight patriarchy because they also hate feminism and don't want women to be liberated from regressive gender norms or sex-segregated roles.

Okay but that clearly isn't the goal. This isn't a Trump-style "Muslim ban" on immigration. Its banning a deeply-regressive and patriarchal religious practice thats reprehensible, spreads repugnant ideas about the role of women and female sexuality/chastity, to move towards a more equal society between the sexes. All Muslims in Switzerland need to do is just cease the practice of this sexist and demeaning ritual. No one's asking them to leave. They can stay and obey the law, like everyone else. That's not unreasonable.

I don't think that the right wing, conservative, anti-immigrant Schweizerische Volkspartei is very concerned about liberating women from patriarchal religious practices.

[Purgatio]

Okay but that clearly isn't the goal. This isn't a Trump-style "Muslim ban" on immigration. Its banning a deeply-regressive and patriarchal religious practice thats reprehensible, spreads repugnant ideas about the role of women and female sexuality/chastity, to move towards a more equal society between the sexes. All Muslims in Switzerland need to do is just cease the practice of this sexist and demeaning ritual. No one's asking them to leave. They can stay and obey the law, like everyone else. That's not unreasonable.

I don't think that the right wing, conservative, anti-immigrant Schweizerische Volkspartei is very concerned about liberating women from patriarchal religious practices.

They might be hypocrites, doesn't change the fact that on this one issue they have the right idea. A broken clock is still right twice a day. And even if they aren't banning the burqa or niqab for feminist reasons, it doesn't change the fact that its a regressive and patriarchal practice and I'm certainly not shedding any tears about the fact that that ritual will soon be illegal in Switzerland. Its the policy end-result that matters, after all.

[Ifreann]

I don't think that the right wing, conservative, anti-immigrant Schweizerische Volkspartei is very concerned about liberating women from patriarchal religious practices.

They might be hypocrites, doesn't change the fact that on this one issue they have the right idea.

The idea they have is kicking foreigners out of Switzerland in the name of security.

A broken clock is still right twice a day. And even if they aren't banning the burqa or niqab for feminist reasons, it doesn't change the fact that its a regressive and patriarchal practice and I'm certainly not shedding any tears about the fact that that ritual will soon be illegal in Switzerland. Its the policy end-result that matters, after all.

Women are not made more free by the banning of cultural or religious practices that in and of themselves do no harm. The practice of a father escorting his daughter down the aisle at her wedding, for example, has its roots in the patriarchal and regressive traditions of women being possessions of their father until traded to their husband. The practice of the bride wearing white symbolises the purity of her virginity. Very sex negative. But I don't think that it would be a feminist move to have the police raiding weddings and arresting women for wearing white and walking down the aisle with her father.

[Kilobugya]

I don't think that the right wing, conservative, anti-immigrant Schweizerische Volkspartei is very concerned about liberating women from patriarchal religious practices.

That's very typical of reactionaries - they don't want to openly say they hate Muslims, so they disguise an anti-Muslim law as something to help women, even if the rest of the time they don't care bout women. They do the same with "we want to protect the children" when they oppose LGBT rights, while the rest of the time they don't care if children drink water poisoned with lead or don't have enough food to eat.