Swiss voters approve facial covering ban

[Kilobugya]

So how does banning facial coverings prevent terrorism?

It weakens the cultural influence of Islam and reinforces indigenous culture.

No, actually, by stigmatizing muslims, making them feel rejected, it makes it much easier for the recruiters of ISIS or any other radical islamic groups to get recruits.

[A-Series-Of-Tubes]

"Labour" is a broad category that there are many reasons to like or dislike.

Something I'm otherwise indifferent to, does become bad if the only people I meet who support it, do so for bad reasons.

Just so with burqa banning. I don't actually like it when people cover their eyes, but there's no chance of banning that so I would just leave it there. Wearing a burqa is dumb but it's not my problem. I wouldn't really care if the most extreme version is banned, because such expectation of privacy as to be anonymous in public, does feel a bit antisocial to me.

But I'm pushed out to strong opposition to burqa bans, by the evident motives of people who support them. And not just those who hate the burqa as an intrusive sign of religious devotion. Those who hate the burqa because it denies them the enjoyment of female beauty, are similarly failing to mind their own business. I've only seen a few of these, but those who oppose it for the good of the woman who evidently chooses to wear it, have a paternalistic take on feminism that makes me feel ill.

[Vassenor]

So how does banning facial coverings prevent terrorism?

It weakens the cultural influence of Islam and reinforces indigenous culture. By weakening Islam and its separate cultural practices, Switzerland is better assimilating future generations of Muslims in Switzerland. Islam has been the primary cause of terrorism in Europe as far as I am aware.

Because as we know, Switzerland is a hotbed of Islamic terrorist activity.

Place is damn near unlivable with all the car bombs going off.

I didn’t say it was. From what I read, the burqa is rarely if ever worn, but a niqab is worn but that isn’t necessarily widespread. It’s simply reinforcing Swiss culture in Switzerland from a foreign religion.

Apparently reinforcing the extremists' oppression narrative will make them give up on extremism?

Also, if Islam is the primary cause of terrorism in Europe, how do you explain the prevalence of groups like the IRA and ETA?

[Great Brytain and Ireland]

It weakens the cultural influence of Islam and reinforces indigenous culture.

No, actually, by stigmatizing muslims, making them feel rejected, it makes it much easier for the recruiters of ISIS or any other radical islamic groups to get recruits.

There is an issue with this ban potentially fuelling a greater divide between Swiss and Muslims (not implying you can’t be Swiss and Muslim, but you get what I mean - they’re two different cultures), that I acknowledge. That’s why you need to approach this problem from multiple angles, which I do not know the full extent of Switzerland’s anti-terrorism strategy. I am not an expert, but I agree with the idea that Swiss customs in their entirety must come first, and if the people of Switzerland want the ban, they’re entitled to put it in place.

[Ainland]

"Labour" is a broad category that there are many reasons to like or dislike.

Something I'm otherwise indifferent to, does become bad if the only people I meet who support it, do so for bad reasons.

Just so with burqa banning. I don't actually like it when people cover their eyes, but there's no chance of banning that so I would just leave it there. Wearing a burqa is dumb but it's not my problem. I wouldn't really care if the most extreme version is banned, because such expectation of privacy as to be anonymous in public, does feel a bit antisocial to me.

But I'm pushed out to strong opposition to burqa bans, by the evident motives of people who support them. And not just those who hate the burqa as an intrusive sign of religious devotion. Those who hate the burqa because it denies them the enjoyment of female beauty, are similarly failing to mind their own business. I've only seen a few of these, but those who oppose it for the good of the woman who evidently chooses to wear it, have a paternalistic take on feminism that makes me feel ill.

But I've just spent some time explaining to you, why many people have taken the decision to oppose it. You might not agree, but are you really going to say those motives are bad, or just lump them in with racists?

And I maintain that it is terrible logic to oppose something because you've met or experienced someone who supports it for bad reasons. I think this is totally flawed logic. And I've seen no evidence whatsoever that the majority of support for this measure is based on racism or hate, and not the sensible reasoning that I detailed.

Labour was just one analogy to demonstrate my point. Some people are against gun control for bad reasons. If I applied your logic there, I'd have to assume based solely on that, that opposing gun control is just evil and so I must support it. There are other analogies, if you like, but the point ought to be pretty clear.

[Drongonia]

Good.

[Ainland]

Always better to make a sensible argument for why you oppose something, than to just say that some people who support it are bad, thereby covering your ears and dismissing all sensible honest arguments and just taking opposition as the clear 'non-bad' option.

This is a difficult topic and one that clearly there is room for sensible discussion on. I am inclined to believe there are clear good faith and sensible arguments on both sides, and plenty to think about.

[Great Pacific Switzerland]

Good.

So true!

[Great Brytain and Ireland]

It weakens the cultural influence of Islam and reinforces indigenous culture. By weakening Islam and its separate cultural practices, Switzerland is better assimilating future generations of Muslims in Switzerland. Islam has been the primary cause of terrorism in Europe as far as I am aware.



I didn’t say it was. From what I read, the burqa is rarely if ever worn, but a niqab is worn but that isn’t necessarily widespread. It’s simply reinforcing Swiss culture in Switzerland from a foreign religion.

Apparently reinforcing the extremists' oppression narrative will make them give up on extremism?

Also, if Islam is the primary cause of terrorism in Europe, how do you explain the prevalence of groups like the IRA and ETA?

It might take a generation or two, but the less the niqab or burqa are worn, the more ‘Swiss’ a Muslim might be because they might not identify those garments as part of their identities as Swiss Muslims.

I should’ve clarified I meant recent terrorism. Regardless of my forgetfulness, the IRA and ETA more operate on a nationalist rather than religious platform. The fact Irish and Basque culture are indigenous is something to note, which isn’t the case with Islam in Europe outside of a few Balkan regions. However I am not certain what would be equivalent to a face covering ban for those cultures.

[Drongonia]

Also, if Islam is the primary cause of terrorism in Europe, how do you explain the prevalence of groups like the IRA and ETA?

This 2014-tier argument is so sad. These days, the IRA barely even exists beyond a few local groups calling themselves "The Real IRA" and not getting up to much. Yes, extremist deaths come from all parts of the political, religious and ethnic spectrum but the vast majority of deaths in Europe's terrorist attacks since 2000 have been at the hands of Islamist terrorists.

[A-Series-Of-Tubes]

Remember, dictating what women can and cannot wear is freeing them from oppression.

Exactly, and it seems like that is what is the concern for many people. That women are subversed, with the use of religion, into covering their faces as if they are lesser in society. And I think many Swiss people are saying that, whilst they support freedom of religion, such oppression is not acceptable in their society, whether religiously motivated or otherwise. So I can see that argument, and I would hope a similar view would be taken if the 'religious freedom' argument is used in relation to any other protected characteristic, such as homosexuality, race, disability.

The only motive you consider for a woman to wear a burqa is they are "subversed, with the use of religion, into covering their faces as if they are lesser in society"

Might a woman have other reasons? Isn't the assumption that she's only doing it, and against her own interests, because she is oppressed ... basically forced to by someone else ... opening up a wide field of speculation about the motives of ANYONE to wear ANYTHING?

That you, or a government, would undertake to "liberate" women from what you should assume (for lack of any evidence of other motive) is their own choice in clothing, shows an extremely paternalistic and -- if you don't mind -- patriarchal infringement of rights. And what's worse, the rights specifically of women.

[Ainland]

Exactly, and it seems like that is what is the concern for many people. That women are subversed, with the use of religion, into covering their faces as if they are lesser in society. And I think many Swiss people are saying that, whilst they support freedom of religion, such oppression is not acceptable in their society, whether religiously motivated or otherwise. So I can see that argument, and I would hope a similar view would be taken if the 'religious freedom' argument is used in relation to any other protected characteristic, such as homosexuality, race, disability.

The only motive you consider for a woman to wear a burqa is they are "subversed, with the use of religion, into covering their faces as if they are lesser in society"

Might a woman have other reasons? Isn't the assumption that she's only doing it, and against her own interests, because she is oppressed ... basically forced to by someone else ... opening up a wide field of speculation about the motives of ANYONE to wear ANYTHING?

That you, or a government, would undertake to "liberate" women from what you should assume (for lack of any evidence of other motive) is their own choice in clothing, shows an extremely paternalistic and -- if you don't mind -- patriarchal infringement of rights. And what's worse, the rights specifically of women.

I understand your argument and I addressed this earlier on. Similar objections have been raised by a minority of Christians when gay conversion therapy has been outlawed. It is the individual's free choice to engage in it, it breaches freedom of religion, it's not for the government to decide what's best for someone when they've decided themselves, etc. I understand these arguments in theory, however I think in practice actually sometimes we do need laws which prevent certain groups of people being opressed. Yes, we should maintain freedom of choice and freedom of religion, as far as possible. However religion is powerful, and can be used as a tool in negative ways. This is about saying we won't accept women being oppressed this way in our society.

Like I said, I think there is a sensible discussion to be had here, and some honest and legitimate views on both sides. I totally reject the idea of just dismissing one side as racist/hateful, because you believe that some who agree with them are, or assume they just must be. This isn't a good way to determine the best view on something.

[Inner System]

People here really think we banned medicinial masks here smh

[Vassenor]

Also, if Islam is the primary cause of terrorism in Europe, how do you explain the prevalence of groups like the IRA and ETA?

This 2014-tier argument is so sad. These days, the IRA barely even exists beyond a few local groups calling themselves "The Real IRA" and not getting up to much. Yes, extremist deaths come from all parts of the political, religious and ethnic spectrum but the vast majority of deaths in Europe's terrorist attacks since 2000 have been at the hands of Islamist terrorists.

And then a year after that graph stops:

MI5 says terror threat in Ireland is greatest in Europe

[A m e n r i a]

I may not like the burka, but you know what I like less? The suppression of freedom of expression.

[Drongonia]

This 2014-tier argument is so sad. These days, the IRA barely even exists beyond a few local groups calling themselves "The Real IRA" and not getting up to much. Yes, extremist deaths come from all parts of the political, religious and ethnic spectrum but the vast majority of deaths in Europe's terrorist attacks since 2000 have been at the hands of Islamist terrorists.

(Image)

And then a year after that graph stops:

MI5 says terror threat in Ireland is greatest in Europe

tfw the Europol has acknowledged that Islamic terrorism has constituted at least half of all arrests in terrorism since 2015 (with the exception of 2018), Despite what MI5 thinks. I trust Europol to have a better understanding Europe-wide anyway. You can read about it here (bet you won't though).

The report also contains a timeline of Jihadist attacks within Europe.

[Great Pacific Switzerland]

This 2014-tier argument is so sad. These days, the IRA barely even exists beyond a few local groups calling themselves "The Real IRA" and not getting up to much. Yes, extremist deaths come from all parts of the political, religious and ethnic spectrum but the vast majority of deaths in Europe's terrorist attacks since 2000 have been at the hands of Islamist terrorists.

And then a year after that graph stops:

MI5 says terror threat in Ireland is greatest in Europe

Yeah, maybe if you live in Norf Ireland during the Torubles

[A m e n r i a]

And then a year after that graph stops:

MI5 says terror threat in Ireland is greatest in Europe

tfw the Europol has acknowledged that Islamic terrorism has constituted at least half of all arrests in terrorism since 2015 (with the exception of 2018), Despite what MI5 thinks. I trust Europol to have a better understanding Europe-wide anyway. You can read about it here (bet you won't though).

The report also contains a timeline of Jihadist attacks within Europe.

They're not real Jihadists. They're """"""""Islamic"""""""""" terrorists.

[Vassenor]

And then a year after that graph stops:

MI5 says terror threat in Ireland is greatest in Europe

tfw the Europol has acknowledged that Islamic terrorism has constituted at least half of all arrests in terrorism since 2015 (with the exception of 2018), Despite what MI5 thinks. I trust Europol to have a better understanding Europe-wide anyway. You can read about it here (bet you won't though).

The report also contains a timeline of Jihadist attacks within Europe.

All this because you don't want to accept that islamism isn't the only threat to Europe because then you can't use that spectre to push shit like this.

As in previous years, ethnonationalist and separatist terrorist attacks in the EU greatly outnumbered other types of terrorist attacks in 2018. The number of left-wing and right-wing attacks and arrests remained relatively low and was
limited to a small number of countries. However, the number of arrests linked to right-wing terrorism, while remaining relatively low, continued to increase strongly, effectively doubling for the second year in a row. Right-wing extremists
exploit fears of perceived attempts to Islamicise society and grievances linked to an alleged loss of national identity. The violent right-wing extremist scene is very heterogeneous on the national level and among EU Member States.

Wait I thought this document was supposed to show that Islamism was the biggest threat to Europe.

[Drongonia]

All this because you don't want to accept that islamism isn't the only threat to Europe because then you can't use that spectre to push shit like this.

This 2014-tier argument is so sad. These days, the IRA barely even exists beyond a few local groups calling themselves "The Real IRA" and not getting up to much. Yes, extremist deaths come from all parts of the political, religious and ethnic spectrum but the vast majority of deaths in Europe's terrorist attacks since 2000 have been at the hands of Islamist terrorists.

ok lol

[Drongonia]

Wait I thought this document was supposed to show that Islamism was the biggest threat to Europe.

Islamist attacks are more commonly plotted, leading to more arrests because of more foiled attacks.

[Kilobugya]

All this because you don't want to accept that islamism isn't the only threat to Europe because then you can't use that spectre to push shit like this.

In this topic, there is also the fact that when it's a fanatical muslim who kills in the same of religion it's immediately considered "terrorism", but when it's a fascist who kills someone because of sexual orientation or skin color, it's just a "crime", but not "terrorism".

But it doesn't really matter what makes the "majority" of terror attacks. Fact is that terrorism is multiform and not specific to islamists. Fact is that most Muslims are actually victims of islamists, not responsible of terrorism done in the name of their religion. And fact is that stigmatization and oppression of Muslims makes it easier for the islamiss to make recruits. Those are the facts we should work from.

[Vassenor]

Wait I thought this document was supposed to show that Islamism was the biggest threat to Europe.

Islamist attacks are more commonly plotted, leading to more arrests because of more foiled attacks.

All jihadist terrorist attacks were committed by individuals acting alone and targeted civilians and symbols of authority. Often the motivation of the perpetrator and the links to other radicalised individuals or terrorist groups remained unclear. Mental health issues contributed to the complexity of the phenomenon.

[Digilinia]

More countries should do this.

[Vassenor]

More countries should do this.

Dictate what women can and cannot wear?