Swiss voters approve facial covering ban

[Drongonia]

-snip-

Sorry but your graph only has 2018 data on it so it's invalid.

[Vassenor]

-snip-

Sorry but your graph only has 2018 data on it so it's invalid.

I'm using the document you linked to. If you want to invalidate your own sources that's your problem.

[Kilobugya]

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.

Not always "individuals acting alone", for the Charlie Hebdo attack for example it was two brothers, and they had a couple of accomplice. But the rest is true, it's often very small groups, that operate mostly on their, very diffusive links to more organized groups, and nearly always with mental health or personal issues. For example, Amedy Coulibaly, one of the accomplice of the Charlie Hebdo attack, was a small-scale thief in his youth, who witnessed his best friend being killed by the police during a failed robbery attempt, and developed from that day a vengeful hatred for the police and the state.

[Digilinia]

Correct.

[Great Pacific Switzerland]

More countries should do this.

Dictate what women can and cannot wear?

Just like Islamic nations after their revolution? e.g Iran?

[Drongonia]

Sorry but your graph only has 2018 data on it so it's invalid.

I'm using the document you linked to. If you want to invalidate your own sources that's your problem.

That was mostly a joke, but the data can be interpreted a million ways from Sunday. The fact remains that Islamic extremism is a massive threat towards the stability of Europe, and if you want to look victims of horrific attacks like the Ariana Grande concert and the 7/7 bombings in the eyes and tell them that - you do you.

[My Political Fantasy]

Ah, I see that the Swiss are adopting Laicite too.

[Nation of Hanguk]

This is quite surprising in my opinion. It shouldn't unsettle people when they see a woman wearing a burka or hijab. This is clearly an attack on freedom of expression and religion Switzerland has held on to for hundreds of years.

I, therefore, conclude that it looks like Switzerland isn't that perfect as it supposedly seems.

[Vassenor]

Ah, I see that the Swiss are adopting Laicite too.

Complete with the whole "seeing that religion exists is a threat to security" bit, it seems.

[The New California Republic]

Damn. I guess the cosplayers and furries etc of Switzerland are not going to like this.

[Kilobugya]

Ah, I see that the Swiss are adopting Laicite too.

That has nothing to do with laicité, in fact it's the opposite of it. The principle of laïcité, as the French Republicans have been defending it since the Revolution and especially during the 19st century and the law of 1905 is the neutrality of state towards religion. The state doesn't recognize or finance any religion in particular, the institutions of the state and the ones representing the authority cannot display any religious affiliations. The state cannot forbid nor allow things for religious reasons. That's it. It doesn't say private individuals can't have religious clothing or show their religion in public. A police officer or a teacher, being imbued with the authority of the state, can't display their religion while in service, but that doesn't apply to private citizens. And prohibiting clothes because they are religious is violation of that principle of neutrality.

[Vassenor]

Ah, I see that the Swiss are adopting Laicite too.

That has nothing to do with laicité, in fact it's the opposite of it. The principle of laïcité, as the French Republicans have been defending it since the Revolution and especially during the 19st century and the law of 1905 is the neutrality of state towards religion. The state doesn't recognize or finance any religion in particular, the institutions of the state and the ones representing the authority cannot display any religious affiliations. The state cannot forbid nor allow things for religious reasons. That's it. It doesn't say private individuals can't have religious clothing or show their religion in public. A police officer or a teacher, being imbued with the authority of the state, can't display their religion while in service, but that doesn't apply to private citizens. And prohibiting clothes because they are religious is violation of that principle of neutrality.

And if the Swiss were serious about laicité then they'd be disbanding the Pontifical Swiss Guard too.

[My Political Fantasy]

That has nothing to do with laicité, in fact it's the opposite of it. The principle of laïcité, as the French Republicans have been defending it since the Revolution and especially during the 19st century and the law of 1905 is the neutrality of state towards religion. The state doesn't recognize or finance any religion in particular, the institutions of the state and the ones representing the authority cannot display any religious affiliations. The state cannot forbid nor allow things for religious reasons. That's it. It doesn't say private individuals can't have religious clothing or show their religion in public. A police officer or a teacher, being imbued with the authority of the state, can't display their religion while in service, but that doesn't apply to private citizens. And prohibiting clothes because they are religious is violation of that principle of neutrality.

And if the Swiss were serious about laicité then they'd be disbanding the Pontifical Swiss Guard too.

Maybe the Swiss flag too

[Great Pacific Switzerland]

Damn. I guess the cosplayers and furries etc of Switzerland are not going to like this.

At least they got guns, clean streets, money, freedom and security

[Drongonia]

Damn. I guess the cosplayers and furries etc of Switzerland are not going to like this.

At least they got guns, clean streets, money, freedom and security

Better off than most in Europe.

[A-Series-Of-Tubes]

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.

Has it though? The controversy was parents "choosing" it for their kids. I think that was what was banned.

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.

The most oppressed group in any Western society is children. It's hard to recognize this, because they are also extremely privileged in other ways. I don't need to tell you that public schooling does not succeed in equalizing oppression, among all children of a generation, even when they're in the school. Some children "need" more oppression than others to function in a society of their peers, and it probably comes mostly from their very different home lives and family.

What's the relevance? Well however sparse or even hostile the relationships within a family (or close group cohabiting) are, they're really important to affirming or rejecting a person's character: shaping it when they're a child, but still as adults, generally very important to them and in keeping their character in a shape they may not be comfortable with. Even the most mindful and loving family, I believe, has elements of oppression going every way within it, and it's the exception rather than the rule that the oppression is obvious to strangers on the street ... for example an oppressive clothing choice.

This is what I meant about Swiss men. I doubt their families are any better or worse than French families or Australian families. I'm sure some of them don't just impose oppressive clothing choices on their wives or daughters, they beat them or rape them. The state can't stop this, and the best it can do is provide refuge for those adults or children who still have the willpower to get out.

OK, so women in burqas may well be oppressed by their families and/or ethnic community. More than most Swiss women, maybe, but not the most oppressed of all. It's a great public display of what might be at home, really not much oppression at all.

By banning the display of what they don't even think of as oppression, you would do nothing about the oppression. In fact you might make it worse. Suppose a woman is so accustomed to wearing a burqa among strangers, that she would be too painfully self-conscious to go out with just a head-scarf. So she doesn't go out. Her teenage daughter will have to go shopping for her. If she's sick, her husband will drive her to the doctor's, and lurk a while to be sure no-one sees his wife in her illegal head-covering. Banning the burqa would limit the social opportunities, work opportunities, and everyday public rituals of belonging, and tangibly oppress the women who now wear burqas (etc).

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.

No, it's saying we can't bear to see women being oppressed in our society. It offends our high opinion of our society. Well tough! We just have to wait until those women, or their daughters, learn that there is nothing to hide from and no more risk to them than to a man, going among strangers.

Hiding what we think is a symbol and tool of oppression from ourselves, may liberate some of those women, but it will oppress others even worse. And I return to the theme of family: the choice of the woman, it being her habit and her style, cannot be called oppression lest we get into why neither you nor I are all we could be; it's a fruitless line of argument. The only oppressors you can point to, are the woman's family, friends from her old country, and an ethnic community (which may not exist in all cases). Prime suspect is of course her husband, or her mother and father if she is young.

It creeps me out, and it should creep you out, to have the state interfere in particular families, on the 'probable cause' that the womenfolk dress a certain way. The Swiss aren't going to do that for every family according the actual problems in it ... particularly the Swiss, from what I gather ... so it would be wrong to profile families by clothing choice. Banning that clothing choice would oppress some women even worse.

The state can't do ANYTHING about the oppression of burqa wearing women, other than giving them equal employment opportunities in the civil service, which should be a given anyway. It can't, without tackling the familial oppression of all Swiss women, which it won't. The state can't do anything, without making the problem worse, and so the state should do nothing.

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.

When the state wants to allow or enable anything, I say "why not?"
When the state wants to ban or discourage anything, I say "why?"

You have made your point about oppression clearly enough, but you haven't given me a good reason why oppression of women would be relieved by a new law which oppresses those women differently.

[Vassenor]

Damn. I guess the cosplayers and furries etc of Switzerland are not going to like this.

At least they got guns, clean streets, money, freedom and security

Apparently everywhere else in Europe is stuck in the Middle Ages or something.

[Zehntes Reich]

Switzerland is a neutral country, they can do whatever they want. And really, who cares about Hijabs anyway?

[Vassenor]

Switzerland is a neutral country, they can do whatever they want. And really, who cares about Hijabs anyway?

Apparently the Swiss government given that they decided an otherwise harmless piece of cloth needed banning.

[Great Pacific Switzerland]

At least they got guns, clean streets, money, freedom and security

Apparently everywhere else in Europe is stuck in the Middle Ages or something.

Yeah of course they are. It's just Swizterland is better than everyone else in Europe, every other country is just cucked especially north and west. God bless Toblerone's

[The Huskar Social Union]

Given that Switzerland has a very very small muslim population this seems like its going to be more focused on protestors and stuff even if the official reasons by the party that pushed for it was against Islamic head dresses.

[Great Pacific Switzerland]

Switzerland is a neutral country, they can do whatever they want. And really, who cares about Hijabs anyway?

Apparently the Swiss government given that they decided an otherwise harmless piece of cloth needed banning.

Harmless till a regular 'arabian lady' causes a suicide bombing in Bern. If you think about it, if the Swiss have a terror attack they will NOT fuck around compared to other european nations

[Wink Wonk We Like Stonks]

There’s nothing wrong with the Swiss people cementing their customs into law, especially given the recent history of Islamic involvement in terrorism and murder within Europe. From what I’ve read (the Reuters article), the only problems I can see with this is the fact no one wears burqas, but a rare few people do wear niqab (which I understand is outlawed under this new law); this may play a role in further dividing a seemingly integrated society but we shall see.

Reiterating my thoughts simply, I am not against the ban but it’s possible it may cause some local issues from time to time until the idea of wearing niqab or burqa become distant memories.

So how does banning facial coverings prevent terrorism?

yeah i don't think suicide bombers are particularly worried about having their faces recognized

[Zehntes Reich]

Switzerland is a neutral country, they can do whatever they want. And really, who cares about Hijabs anyway?

Apparently the Swiss government given that they decided an otherwise harmless piece of cloth needed banning.

Sure, it's harmless alright. But it's in their decision to do it. In many Islamic countries all women including non-citizens have to wear a
facial covering. So the Swiss government should be able to ban it too.

[Great Pacific Switzerland]

Apparently the Swiss government given that they decided an otherwise harmless piece of cloth needed banning.

Sure, it's harmless alright. But it's in their decision to do it. In many Islamic countries all women including non-citizens have to wear a
facial covering. So the Swiss government should be able to ban it too.

Funny thing is in most of these nations. A bhurka wasn't necessary, till Islamic revolutions happened