Swiss voters approve facial covering ban

[The Derpy Democratic Republic Of Herp]

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.

They don't.

Banning facial masks now of all times is dumb.

[Belshekistan]

It's full face coverings only? As in COVID masks are still permissible?

[Ifreann]

It's full face coverings only? As in COVID masks are still permissible?

There's an exception for coverings used for a medical reason.

[Purgatio]

The extreme hyperbolic dystopian version of radical feminism I have in mind is the one you seem to think is, or ought to be, at work in Switzerland. This law bans the wearing of facial coverings. It is not a restriction on businesses selling niqabs and burqas or on some Muslim textile industry, it is a restriction on an individual's personal liberty to dress in certain specific ways. So the direct comparison is having women arrested for wearing white at their weddings. The individual breaks the law by wearing the forbidden garment, the individual is criminally sanctioned for their law breaking. Explain to me the feminist reasoning for arresting women if they wear white at their wedding. Tell me how it promotes the liberation of women to have their behaviour tightly controlled by the government. I would have thought that liberation for women would entail them being able to wear whatever they want, whether it is in keeping with conservative religious traditions or divergent from them, but apparently real radical feminism is when men on the internet set out for women a narrow set of approved feminist choices.

Liberation for women means liberation against structural oppression. Radical feminism recognises that the oppression of women isn't interpersonal, individual, or idiosyncratic, but rather systemic and structural, in other words, bolstered by sociocultural norms that are both pervasive and embedded within ideologies, institutions, and belief systems that promote that kind of oppression on a systemic basis. So liberation for women means liberation from that systemic and structural oppression, and in turn, liberation from the arbitrary sociocultural institutional norms that bolster and promote such oppression and allow it to persist in society. That's true liberation, because once those norms are gone, men and women alike will all be free to partake in whatever behaviours one wants, autonomously, self-determinedly, free of sociocultural pressures that constrain one's autonomy to make a free choice, without feeling the constant need to perform sexist gender roles or conform to a patriarchal ideal.

Its only someone who thinks women aren't oppressed on a systemic or structural basis who could think women's liberation can be achieved by isolated and individual choices of women, or by ignoring the simple fact that everyone's choices, men and women alike, are capable of reinforcing oppressive ideals that regress the freedoms of all women for generations to come, not just oneself in the here and now. When a mother arranges a marriage for her daughter and emotionally shames and guilts her daughter into marrying that chosen man, calling her out as unfilial and disobedient and 'betraying God' if she refuses to marry that man, I don't see an individual woman making a free, autonomous, self-directed choice to exercise her freedom of speech and expression in a particular way, consonant with her beliefs, with no societal or cultural ramifications. I recognise that her actions are reinforcing the oppression of other women, by promoting and propagating ideological beliefs that justify female oppression and the consignment of women to a particular gendered expectation that is oppressive to women as a class, and to women and girls who will come in future. If a size-zero female model were to go online and encourage fat girls to starve themselves or be anorexic so they can look petite and beautiful, again, I don't see a model empoweringly exercising her bodily sovereignty and freedom of speech to promote a particular body type that she individually wants or desires for herself, but I recognise the unhealthy societal pressures she is actively promoting that consign future women and girls to an inherently-oppressive sexist expectation of behaviour, that constrains true liberty and freedom of choice. Same for a female business owner who discriminates against women and refuses to sell women books or movies because of her own sexist beliefs. Same for a woman who actively recruits young women into a religious cult that oppresses and persecutes its female adherents in rigid gender roles.

The choices of all, men and women, have sociocultural ramifications that impact the lives of other people. True liberation and autonomy means the ability to make your own choices free of gendered expectations or sociocultural pressures to conform to a patriarchal ideal. But that end goal can't happen by magic. It can only happen with systemic and structural change. That necessarily involves the law, and it necessarily means denouncing and condemning the regressive ideologies and belief systems that are directly responsible for reifying and maintaining those same expectations and rigid gendered roles.

[The Derpy Democratic Republic Of Herp]

It's full face coverings only? As in COVID masks are still permissible?

No need to ask such questions, the vote epicly ownd the libs! This will be a great youtube post for the echo chamber cult.

Don't think about religious rights of le ebil Muslims or the consequences of banning facial masks during a pandemic, think of only the epic owning of da libs! XDXDXXD

DIDN'T WE MAKE A GOOD YOUTUBE VIDEO? NEVER MIND WE ARE DOING THE SAME THING AS CHINA DID IN HONG KONG, WE OWNED THE LIBS! ISN'T THAT FUNNY? ISN'T THAT GREAT? LOOK AT THE SAD LIBS! USE THE FUNNY SJW FACE IN THE THUMB NAIL

PUT MONEY IN TIM CAST AND DADDY DENUS PRAGUER PATRION ACCOUNT

BOW BEFORE THE POWER OF BEN SHAPEIO

OWN THE LIBS

ITS THE ONLY THING THAT MATTERS

BURN THE WORLD, RELEACE THE CARBON, GLOBAL WARMING IS REAL BUT WE DON'T CARE, OIL MONEY FUNDS US

This is what anti sjw's think. This is what populists party's run by anti sjws think.

[Purgatio]

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.

They don't.

Banning facial masks now of all times is dumb.

There's an exception for health purposes. Its in the article that OP posted.

[Belshekistan]

It's full face coverings only? As in COVID masks are still permissible?

There's an exception for coverings used for a medical reason.

Then I'm with purgatio. Regardless of how much the party that proposed it sucks, I won't be sad to see the back of such a regressive, misogynist tradition.

[The Derpy Democratic Republic Of Herp]

They don't.

Banning facial masks now of all times is dumb.

There's an exception for health purposes. Its in the article that OP posted.

And you think those retards in facebook anti mask groups would mention that?

This will spread bullshit around the world and reinforce there dog shit way of "thinking".

Even with that exception, do you think they will just not remove it when the pandemic is over just to 'own the libs' harder?

As if that where not enough, it's still a restriction on religious rights being put on beacuse "muslems bad"

[Purgatio]

There's an exception for health purposes. Its in the article that OP posted.

And you think those retards in facebook anti mask groups would mention that?

This will spread bullshit around the world and reinforce there dog shit way of "thinking".

Even with that exception, do you think they will just not remove it when the pandemic is over just to 'own the libs' harder?

As if that where not enough, it's still a restriction on religious rights being put on beacuse "muslems bad"

....what? Right-wingers around the world don't all think the same, you know? Trump's fanatics might hate masks for whatever dumb reason they have for doing so, but as far as I can tell, this far-right Swiss party has no problems with masks and hasn't engaged in the downplayings of the severeity of COVID that we've seen in the US under Trump. They drafted the referendum proposal and specifically put in exceptions for health and security reasons, precisely because of COVID. This is really just conspiratorial speculation that "oh in some undefined future they'll remove the health exception and ban masks" because....reasons?

Anyway, its a referendum. The legislature's required to enact the law as voted on by the public, inclusive of the health exception. They can't just unilaterally erase that part because, again, it's a referendum.

[The Derpy Democratic Republic Of Herp]

And you think those retards in facebook anti mask groups would mention that?

This will spread bullshit around the world and reinforce there dog shit way of "thinking".

Even with that exception, do you think they will just not remove it when the pandemic is over just to 'own the libs' harder?

As if that where not enough, it's still a restriction on religious rights being put on beacuse "muslems bad"

....what? Right-wingers around the world don't all think the same, you know? Trump's fanatics might hate masks for whatever dumb reason they have for doing so, but as far as I can tell, this far-right Swiss party has no problems with masks and hasn't engaged in the downplayings of the severeity of COVID that we've seen in the US under Trump. They drafted the referendum proposal and specifically put in exceptions for health and security reasons, precisely because of COVID. This is really just conspiratorial speculation that "oh in some undefined future they'll remove the health exception and ban masks" because....reasons?

Anyway, its a referendum. The legislature's required to enact the law as voted on by the public, inclusive of the health exception. They can't just unilaterally erase that part because, again, it's a referendum.

You sure about that?

People around the world are bowing to the same anti mask garbage started by Trump and the Trump cult. There is no escape from world wide political echo chambers.

How long until they just go along with the same bullshit?

[Vikanias]

Is it me or everyone just hates Switzerland

[Purgatio]

....what? Right-wingers around the world don't all think the same, you know? Trump's fanatics might hate masks for whatever dumb reason they have for doing so, but as far as I can tell, this far-right Swiss party has no problems with masks and hasn't engaged in the downplayings of the severeity of COVID that we've seen in the US under Trump. They drafted the referendum proposal and specifically put in exceptions for health and security reasons, precisely because of COVID. This is really just conspiratorial speculation that "oh in some undefined future they'll remove the health exception and ban masks" because....reasons?

Anyway, its a referendum. The legislature's required to enact the law as voted on by the public, inclusive of the health exception. They can't just unilaterally erase that part because, again, it's a referendum.

You sure about that?

People around the world are bowing to the same anti mask garbage started by Trump and the Trump cult. There is no escape from world wide political echo chambers.

How long until they just go along with the same bullshit?

Ahem. I clicked your link. Switzerland isn't listed under "Europe". Your own source kinda contradicts your claim that the Swiss far-right is anti-mask.

[The Derpy Democratic Republic Of Herp]

Is kt me or just everyone hates Switzerland

I don't hate Switzerland, I hate the utter garbage that echo chambers spew out.

Anti mask retards and the large group of science deniers are getting other gullible people to do shit like this.

[The Derpy Democratic Republic Of Herp]

You sure about that?

People around the world are bowing to the same anti mask garbage started by Trump and the Trump cult. There is no escape from world wide political echo chambers.

How long until they just go along with the same bullshit?

Ahem. I clicked your link. Switzerland isn't listed under "Europe". Your own source kinda contradicts your claim that the Swiss far-right is anti-mask.

Ideas are spreading farther then any border via the internet. Besides that, really no idea from other nation that border Switzerland can get ideas across the border?

Also Germany is a bordering nation, and morons of the anti mask variety are there.

[Picairn]

Banning it, as numerous Muslim-majority countries have done, either in whole or in part, reduces the outward expression of religious radicalism, allows ease of recognition for criminals, and has made carrying out suicide bombings more difficult.

If the goal is to allow ease of criminal recognition and prevention of suicide bombings, then why didn't they ban all masks? I can wear medical masks, costume masks, or even gas masks and still commit suicide bombings all the same, or escape CCTV recognition.

You don't stop suicide bombings by banning masks. What an idiotic idea. You stop it by boosting intelligence efforts, monitoring potential terrorists, and cooperate with local mosques and clerics to expressly denounce suicide bombings.

[Salus Maior]

There's an exception for coverings used for a medical reason.

Then I'm with purgatio. Regardless of how much the party that proposed it sucks, I won't be sad to see the back of such a regressive, misogynist tradition.

It was a popular initiative, not a party proposing something to the government.

[Fahran]

If the goal is to allow ease of criminal recognition and prevention of suicide bombings, then why didn't they ban all masks? I can wear medical masks, costume masks, or even gas masks and still commit suicide bombings all the same, or escape CCTV recognition.

The burqa, which obscures even the eyes, is distinct in form from medical masks. As for costume masks and gas masks, outside of a very limited context, those might well lead to law enforcement viewing you with suspicion. I imagine the ban on facial coverings encompasses them as well based on how it's been reported on.

With regard to suicide bombings, I will simply point out that burqas and niqabs extend across a good portion of the body. This has often made it exceedingly easy for Islamist terrorists, either women or men disguised as women, to strap explosives to their bodies and go into public spaces without attracting attention. This is actually a significant reason why several West African nations banned the garments, including countries and regions with Muslim majorities. The notion that the reason is silly isn't born out by actual reality.

You don't stop suicide bombings by banning masks. What an idiotic idea. You stop it by boosting intelligence efforts, monitoring potential terrorists, and cooperate with local mosques and clerics to expressly denounce suicide bombings.

And it's easier to monitor people when they have a harder time stashing bombs in their garments and when you can read the expressions and features of their faces in a consistent way. Never mind the part I mentioned about deliberately suppressing Salafis because a lot of people don't actually want them to continue gaining influence in their multicultural, vaguely secular societies.

And this does not prevent any government from collaborating with leaders within the Muslim community, though I doubt that will happen directly in Switzerland's case given who is in power there.

[Picairn]

The burqa, which obscures even the eyes, is distinct in form from medical masks.

How distinct is it in preventing people from suicide bombings?

As for costume masks and gas masks, outside of a very limited context, those might well lead to law enforcement viewing you with suspicion. I imagine the ban on facial coverings encompasses them as well based on how it's been reported on.

"Suspicion" isn't a very concrete barometer to measure law enforcement's response to different kinds of masks. How do you know that law enforcement agencies doubt people with costume masks and gas masks more than people with burqas? The former can simply turn out to be innocent cosplayers, or doctors (often wearing an additional face shield).

With regard to suicide bombings, I will simply point out that burqas and niqabs extend across a good portion of the body. This has often made it exceedingly easy for Islamist terrorists, either women or men disguised as women, to strap explosives to their bodies and go into public spaces without attracting attention. This is actually a significant reason why several West African nations banned the garments, including countries and regions with Muslim majorities. The notion that the reason is silly isn't born out by actual reality.

You can also stash bombs inside jackets or long trench coats. The burqa isn't the only garment to cover your body. So this solution is a band aid that does nothing. Perhaps we should address the root cause than trying to ban specific garments arbitrarily.

Never mind the part I mentioned about deliberately suppressing Salafis because a lot of people don't actually want them to continue gaining influence in their multicultural, vaguely secular societies.

That doesn't address anything. The best solution is to empower moderate, reformist Islamic clerics to revise and reject extremist ideas.

And this does not prevent any government from collaborating with leaders within the Muslim community, though I doubt that will happen directly in Switzerland's case given who is in power there.

Which is why this solution does nothing.

[Miku the Based]

Is it me or everyone just hates Switzerland

It might be you. I like Switzerland.

[Fahran]

How distinct is it in preventing people from suicide bombings?

Given multiple people have used the burqa/niqab to facilitate terrorist attacks, quite distinct. This isn't idle conjecture either. Boko Haram has done this multiple times. It's one measure among many in most cases.

"Suspicion" isn't a very concrete barometer to measure law enforcement's response to different kinds of masks. How do you know that law enforcement agencies doubt people with costume masks and gas masks more than people with burqas? The former can simply turn out to be innocent cosplayers, or doctors (often wearing an additional face shield).

Given all of these facial coverings are potentially going to be illegal in public spaces, I don't really see the point you're making here, especially given that, as I pointed out earlier, another point of the law is the deliberate suppression of outward expressions of Islamist extremism. And, to reinforce what I said earlier, the burqa and niqab are strongly associated with Islamist extremism and have grown in popularity as Salafism has. An average Muslim woman doesn't wear a burqa or niqab. She wears a hijab or chador. Often, in Europe, she wears none of these things. If a woman is wearing a burqa, you can safely bet that she has extremist attitudes or is being pressured into wearing it by people who do have extremist attitudes, especially if her family immigrated from the Balkans - where it is not a traditional garment and is not seen as an appropriate garment for women by people who aren't Salafists. The only real exception to this in Switzerland is among the Afghan community, where the burqa is commonplace as a direct result of the Taliban making it mandatory in urban areas for around a decade.

You can also stash bombs inside jackets or long trench coats. The burqa isn't the only garment to cover your body. So this solution is a band aid that does nothing. Perhaps we should address the root cause than trying to ban specific garments arbitrarily.

It's not really arbitrary when the garment is rightly associated with extremism and has been used for this purpose multiple times in the past decade. If people begin using trench coats or hoodies to blow themselves up in Nigeria, Chad, or Cameroon, we can revisit the subject perhaps.

That doesn't address anything. The best solution is to empower moderate, reformist Islamic clerics to revise and reject extremist ideas.

The best solution is a multifaceted one that suppresses sects that you do not want to have social influence and that empowers those that you don't mind having social influence. Again, I'm not in favor of this, but that has more to do with my principles than this being impractical or ill-conceived. Crushing Salafism in Europe and forcing Salafis to assimilate or leave absolutely makes sense if you don't want Salafism to continue to grow in prominence. That's why a lot of Muslim countries that want to keep the radicals from gaining traction have done it. And, by and large, it's been nominally effective, especially in Turkey, Syria, and Egypt.

Which is why this solution does nothing.

It stops outward expressions of Salafi beliefs, attitudes, and practices. That's beneficial on its own merit if you want to disrupt a religious movement that has been growing in influence globally for the past fifty years and that does not support values you want to see in your society.

[Kilobugya]

Is it me or everyone just hates Switzerland

I like Switzerland. It has nice mountains and nice trains. But I don't like their politics, be it when they are so cozy with banks and the ultrarich, or when they stigmatize and demonize immigrants.

[Fahran]

No need to ask such questions, the vote epicly ownd the libs! This will be a great youtube post for the echo chamber cult.

Don't think about religious rights of le ebil Muslims or the consequences of banning facial masks during a pandemic, think of only the epic owning of da libs! XDXDXXD

The, um, "libs" in Morocco, Tunisia, Turkey, Egypt, Algeria, etc. have all outright banned or discouraged these garments due to their association with religious extremism, patriarchal gender norms, and generally regressive attitudes. Social support for these garments only really remains high among the most extreme countries of the Dar as-Salaam, such as Saudi Arabia, where the niqab rather than the burqa is favored, and Afghanistan, where the Taliban mandated burqa-like garments in urban areas where they had largely disappeared under the monarchy, nationalist dictatorship, and communist dictatorship. Outside of these countries and small pockets, such as parts of Northern India where men decide their wives should wear the burqa to protect their modesty, the burqa and niqab are associated with extremism and reaction.

[Picairn]

Given all of these facial coverings are potentially going to be illegal in public spaces, I don't really see the point you're making here, especially given that, as I pointed out earlier, another point of the law is the deliberate suppression of outward expressions of Islamist extremism. And, to reinforce what I said earlier, the burqa and niqab are strongly associated with Islamist extremism and have grown in popularity as Salafism has. An average Muslim woman doesn't wear a burqa or niqab. She wears a hijab or chador. Often, in Europe, she wears none of these things. If a woman is wearing a burqa, you can safely bet that she has extremist attitudes or is being pressured into wearing it by people who do have extremist attitudes, especially if her family immigrated from the Balkans - where it is not a traditional garment and is not seen as an appropriate garment for women by people who aren't Salafists. The only real exception to this in Switzerland is among the Afghan community, where the burqa is commonplace as a direct result of the Taliban making it mandatory in urban areas for around a decade.

Banning all masks in public places are dumb and solves nothing. It is more of an infringement on freedom of expression than a concrete proposal to curb extremism. Banning "the outward expression of Islamic extremism" solves nothing, as Islamic extremism can continue to fester in thoughts and indoctrination. Instead of Islamic extremists suicide-bombing themselves with burqas, now we have Islamic extremists suicide-bombing themselves with face masks, costume masks, or gas masks. Such progress!

It's not really arbitrary when the garment is rightly associated with extremism and has been used for this purpose multiple times in the past decade. If people begin using trench coats or hoodies to blow themselves up in Nigeria, Chad, or Cameroon, we can revisit the subject perhaps.

Guilt by association is not a valid argument to ban them. If people suicide-bomb with medical masks, are the governments going to associate them with terrorism and ban them as well? In the middle of a pandemic? Banning face coverings in public is a lazy deflection from the real problem: the prevention of such attacks from happening. If you have to ban face coverings to prevent terrorism then your intelligence agencies are really incompetent.

The best solution is a multifaceted one that suppresses sects that you do not want to have social influence and that empowers those that you don't mind having social influence. Again, I'm not in favor of this, but that has more to do with my principles than this being impractical or ill-conceived. Crushing Salafism in Europe and forcing Salafis to assimilate or leave absolutely makes sense if you don't want Salafism to continue to grow in prominence. That's why a lot of Muslim countries that want to keep the radicals from gaining traction have done it. And, by and large, it's been nominally effective, especially in Turkey, Syria, and Egypt.

Banning face coverings actually breeds more extremism in Europe.

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10. ... 19.1681494

Even if you don't accept the data, this proposal doesn't in any way improve Muslim women's standing in Western societies. By instituting the burqa ban, Western nations have not helped the women who wear the veil, regardless of whether women wear the veil out of choice or oppression. Prohibiting face-covering veils in the public sphere does not get to the root of gender inequality in Islam.

https://law.emory.edu/eilr/content/volu ... ction.html

It stops outward expressions of Salafi beliefs, attitudes, and practices. That's beneficial on its own merit if you want to disrupt a religious movement that has been growing in influence globally for the past fifty years and that does not support values you want to see in your society.

Appearance is more important than addressing the root cause. Got it.

[Kubra]

Is it me or everyone just hates Switzerland

It might be you. I like Switzerland.

I don't. 6 francs for a big mac? Highway robbery.

[Vassenor]

Given all of these facial coverings are potentially going to be illegal in public spaces, I don't really see the point you're making here, especially given that, as I pointed out earlier, another point of the law is the deliberate suppression of outward expressions of Islamist extremism. And, to reinforce what I said earlier, the burqa and niqab are strongly associated with Islamist extremism and have grown in popularity as Salafism has. An average Muslim woman doesn't wear a burqa or niqab. She wears a hijab or chador. Often, in Europe, she wears none of these things. If a woman is wearing a burqa, you can safely bet that she has extremist attitudes or is being pressured into wearing it by people who do have extremist attitudes, especially if her family immigrated from the Balkans - where it is not a traditional garment and is not seen as an appropriate garment for women by people who aren't Salafists. The only real exception to this in Switzerland is among the Afghan community, where the burqa is commonplace as a direct result of the Taliban making it mandatory in urban areas for around a decade.

Banning all masks in public places are dumb and solves nothing. It is more of an infringement on freedom of expression than a concrete proposal to curb extremism. Banning "the outward expression of Islamic extremism" solves nothing, as Islamic extremism can continue to fester in thoughts and indoctrination. Instead of Islamic extremists suicide-bombing themselves with burqas, now we have Islamic extremists suicide-bombing themselves with face masks, costume masks, or gas masks. Such progress!

It's not really arbitrary when the garment is rightly associated with extremism and has been used for this purpose multiple times in the past decade. If people begin using trench coats or hoodies to blow themselves up in Nigeria, Chad, or Cameroon, we can revisit the subject perhaps.

Guilt by association is not a valid argument to ban them. If people suicide-bomb with medical masks, are the governments going to associate them with terrorism and ban them as well? In the middle of a pandemic? Banning face coverings in public is a lazy deflection from the real problem: the prevention of such attacks from happening. If you have to ban face coverings to prevent terrorism then your intelligence agencies are really incompetent.

The best solution is a multifaceted one that suppresses sects that you do not want to have social influence and that empowers those that you don't mind having social influence. Again, I'm not in favor of this, but that has more to do with my principles than this being impractical or ill-conceived. Crushing Salafism in Europe and forcing Salafis to assimilate or leave absolutely makes sense if you don't want Salafism to continue to grow in prominence. That's why a lot of Muslim countries that want to keep the radicals from gaining traction have done it. And, by and large, it's been nominally effective, especially in Turkey, Syria, and Egypt.

Banning face coverings actually breeds more extremism in Europe.

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10. ... 19.1681494

Even if you don't accept the data, this proposal doesn't in any way improve Muslim women's standing in Western societies. By instituting the burqa ban, Western nations have not helped the women who wear the veil, regardless of whether women wear the veil out of choice or oppression. Prohibiting face-covering veils in the public sphere does not get to the root of gender inequality in Islam.

https://law.emory.edu/eilr/content/volu ... ction.html

It stops outward expressions of Salafi beliefs, attitudes, and practices. That's beneficial on its own merit if you want to disrupt a religious movement that has been growing in influence globally for the past fifty years and that does not support values you want to see in your society.

Appearance is more important than addressing the root cause. Got it.

It's almost like the intent is not to solve the problems with Islam but instead make it so they're not constantly reminded that people who are different to them exist.