Switzerland bans face coverings in public

[Vertigo 7]

I can't consider what's happened in the UK for what's happening in Switzerland any more than I could consider what happens in the US for Switzerland. I approach it individually and case by case.

Yes I get that, but I was hoping for some alternative suggestions on how the Swiss, or any other country, for that matter, should deal with this sort of problem, because it is not a problem for Switzerland alone. I seemed to be seeing you suggest the implementation of a strong Social Service, so added in an example of when even that fails. I am genuinely interested in what people think the alternatives are, regardless of where in the Swiss government this referendum comes from.

Well it's a pretty broad question. If you're just talking about someone beating their spouse or children, throw them under the damn jail. But not every situation is that cut and dry.

There's gonna be times where force is needed to resolve a situation, there's gonna be times where a 3rd party is needed to mediate a dispute, and there's gonna be times where on going counseling will be beneficial to one or more parties involved. There's no one-size-fits all solution to this and many other problems, but the effort needs to be made regardless that preserves the dignity of any victims involved.

[greypanther]

Well it's a pretty broad question. If you're just talking about someone beating their spouse or children, throw them under the damn jail. But not every situation is that cut and dry.

There's gonna be times where force is needed to resolve a situation, there's gonna be times where a 3rd party is needed to mediate a dispute, and there's gonna be times where on going counseling will be beneficial to one or more parties involved. There's no one-size-fits all solution to this and many other problems, but the effort needs to be made regardless that preserves the dignity of any victims involved.

A broad question, but sometimes they can be the most interesting.
As fiksal says, there are secretive societies, ( everywhere I suspect. ) Muslim ones in my experience certainly can be, which is not helped that when someone wants to investigate within that community, they may well/actually fear the wail of the righteous, screaming: " RACIST! "

[Vertigo 7]

Well it's a pretty broad question. If you're just talking about someone beating their spouse or children, throw them under the damn jail. But not every situation is that cut and dry.

There's gonna be times where force is needed to resolve a situation, there's gonna be times where a 3rd party is needed to mediate a dispute, and there's gonna be times where on going counseling will be beneficial to one or more parties involved. There's no one-size-fits all solution to this and many other problems, but the effort needs to be made regardless that preserves the dignity of any victims involved.

A broad question, but sometimes they can be the most interesting.
As fiksal says, there are secretive societies, ( everywhere I suspect, ) Muslim ones in my experience certainly can be, which is not helped that when someone wants to investigate within that community, they may well/fear the wail of the righteous, screaming: " Racist!

So recruit social workers or even police from within that society, and I don't mean to act as a spy, but to help bridge that gap. If someone can be their voice, or adequately represent their interests, and also understand the society that wants them to integrate into it, you'll create an opportunity for 2 way communication and a lot of those concerns will begin to evaporate.

[fiksal]

I can guess and expect it. I dont think we agree on much of anything.

Isn't that part of the fun though? Don't know about you, but I'm much prefer companies of varied opinions than sitting inside an echo chamber. Plus despite the record of disagreeing with each others on almost everything, I don't recall we ever had an actual argument. May that day never come

I judge Americans and Swiss based on that same criteria.

And ... there is a flaw in this IMO.

To re-iterate my argument: the most important thing for me is I respect the right of the Swiss to decide how they want their society to look like. If they want to preserve certain trait and believe allowing something new pose a risk or not compatible to that, I support their decision. 100%. Sort of a my house, my rule kind of thing. But let me back up from that a bit.

Where do you draw the line then? At what point someones' protecting themselves from what they see as "new" becomes worthy of critique?

For myself, I see there are peculiarities and laws that differ between countries and cultures, which are fine. But then there are laws and actions that persecute, hurt or make people less free. No matter on what we are talking about, I see it as always wrong.
I consider that trait to be the opposite of a flaw in people.

A flaw to me would be - excusing such behavior, or general apathy.

- Let's look at what happening at China and the Uighurs suppression. One would think if I support the Swiss decision, than that means I must support China's action as well 'cause it's the same thing. But it's not the samething, and by that I don't mean due to the brutality. The Uighurs have always been there, that piece of land had changed hand under different administrative government, but the people and culture have always been there. Basically the Uighurs are as entitled to their culture as Chinese Han, because they didn't came to China. They are part of China or dominated by China now is simply due to "the winner writes the rule".

So that's your line?

That's why I don't think it's correct to apply the same standard to judge every scenario the same way. You think you're being fair, you are not, equality and equity is not the same. To be frank, the reason why the Swiss does it doesn't seem to matter much to me. If they decide Integration = assimilation, it's their right. I don't have to like it, but I don't think it's right to criticize them for that either.

Honestly "fair" or "equal" doesnt even come into play for me. People should be free.


A day ago, I got a message from a co-worker of mine who turns out had grew up in Switzerland. He explained to me at length how Swiss are conservative, set in their ways, and experience a culture shock from population explosion. As the result, they have targetted Muslims as the next / priority threat.

There we have it, an explanation concerning xenophobic laws and bigotry from an actual Swiss.

I can't consider what's happened in the UK for what's happening in Switzerland any more than I could consider what happens in the US for Switzerland. I approach it individually and case by case.

Yes I get that, but I was hoping for some alternative suggestions on how the Swiss, or any other country, for that matter, should deal with this sort of problem, because it is not a problem for Switzerland alone. I seemed to be seeing you suggest the implementation of a strong Social Service, so added in an example of when even that fails. I am genuinely interested in what people think the alternatives are, regardless of where in the Swiss government this referendum comes from.

In my mind, there's one simple thought experiment. Social Service know and train for various encounters and problems. They know how abuse goes. Police in US neither knows or trains for it, nor it wants to train for it - they'll never really help like that.
How to give more tools to Social Services and what those tools would be - that I dont know.

[BrasatoAlBarolo]

In my mind, there's one simple thought experiment. Social Service know and train for various encounters and problems. They know how abuse goes. Police in US neither knows or trains for it, nor it wants to train for it - they'll never really help like that.
How to give more tools to Social Services and what those tools would be - that I dont know.

That tool, in the US, usually has a name: guns.

Social Service should have some sort of "special unit" for domestic abuse, for example. Trained to know the evidence, the small little hints, report them and evaluate if it's the case to act and watch "closer" the specific situation, one by one. In the case of burqa, the numbers are so small checking them one by one would be acceptable. In general, instead, that may not be possible (too many abuses, too few "special social agents").

[Vertigo 7]

In my mind, there's one simple thought experiment. Social Service know and train for various encounters and problems. They know how abuse goes. Police in US neither knows or trains for it, nor it wants to train for it - they'll never really help like that.
How to give more tools to Social Services and what those tools would be - that I dont know.

That tool, in the US, usually has a name: guns.

Social Service should have some sort of "special unit" for domestic abuse, for example. Trained to know the evidence, the small little hints, report them and evaluate if it's the case to act and watch "closer" the specific situation, one by one. In the case of burqa, the numbers are so small checking them one by one would be acceptable. In general, instead, that may not be possible (too many abuses, too few "special social agents").

Here's an interesting research article:
https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2 ... o-secular/

Seems like abuse is coming from those opposed to women wearing the burqa, with the highest number of instances being from Europe. Kind of takes the wind out of the whole preventing abuse argument.

[Ketraar]

Seems like abuse is coming from those opposed to women wearing the burqa, with the highest number of instances being from Europe. Kind of takes the wind out of the whole preventing abuse argument.

Its no surprise you would come to this conclusion, it seems to reinforce your stance, but I don't think you read the study at all, maybe not even the article and just glossed over the details to try and validate your point.

Women in 56 countries experienced social hostilities – that is, harassment from individuals or groups – due to clothing that was deemed to violate religious or secular dress norms, according to the sources analysed for a recent Pew Research Center study of 198 nations. Social harassment can range from verbal abuse to physical violence or killings motivated at least in part by the target’s religious identity; incidents for this measure took place between 2016 and 2018.

Not had the time to go deep into this data, but am interested to know if includes countries where there is no way to report abuse and other metrics. But I'm sure you are right, as you seem to be by default.

MFG

Ketraar

[Vertigo 7]

Seems like abuse is coming from those opposed to women wearing the burqa, with the highest number of instances being from Europe. Kind of takes the wind out of the whole preventing abuse argument.

Its no surprise you would come to this conclusion, it seems to reinforce your stance, but I don't think you read the study at all, maybe not even the article and just glossed over the details to try and validate your point.

Women in 56 countries experienced social hostilities – that is, harassment from individuals or groups – due to clothing that was deemed to violate religious or secular dress norms, according to the sources analysed for a recent Pew Research Center study of 198 nations. Social harassment can range from verbal abuse to physical violence or killings motivated at least in part by the target’s religious identity; incidents for this measure took place between 2016 and 2018.

Not had the time to go deep into this data, but am interested to know if includes countries where there is no way to report abuse and other metrics. But I'm sure you are right, as you seem to be by default.

MFG

Ketraar

So, what you're saying is that the Swiss passed a law in their country to prevent abuse in another country? I still can't find any proof that any abuse is occurring in Switzerland, as has been alleged. So, if the abuse isn't happening in Switzerland, and that's the "reason" for this law, then what good is the law?

btw:

...but I don't think you read the study at all, maybe not even the article and just glossed over the details to try and validate your point....
Not had the time to go deep into this data...

seriously?

[fiksal]

In my mind, there's one simple thought experiment. Social Service know and train for various encounters and problems. They know how abuse goes. Police in US neither knows or trains for it, nor it wants to train for it - they'll never really help like that.
How to give more tools to Social Services and what those tools would be - that I dont know.

That tool, in the US, usually has a name: guns.

Social Service should have some sort of "special unit" for domestic abuse, for example. Trained to know the evidence, the small little hints, report them and evaluate if it's the case to act and watch "closer" the specific situation, one by one. In the case of burqa, the numbers are so small checking them one by one would be acceptable. In general, instead, that may not be possible (too many abuses, too few "special social agents").

Are you saying Social Services should be armed? I guess it's up to them to determine, but in their hands the gun probably is safer. If they are not already they should be armed with less than lethal options as well.

To me it's an issue the other way around. As people call 911 (emergency number), social services need to be on equal footing with the other emergency responses, and whatever that entails.

Seems like abuse is coming from those opposed to women wearing the burqa, with the highest number of instances being from Europe. Kind of takes the wind out of the whole preventing abuse argument.

Its no surprise you would come to this conclusion, it seems to reinforce your stance, but I don't think you read the study at all, maybe not even the article and just glossed over the details to try and validate your point.

I've read it as well. Have you read something different from this article?

There's more in there
https://www.pewforum.org/2020/11/10/in- ... -a-decade/

The five countries categorized as full democracies with high levels of social hostilities are all in Europe – Denmark, Germany, the Netherlands, Switzerland and the United Kingdom – and all had reports of anti-Muslim and anti-Semitic incidents. In Switzerland, for instance, Muslim groups reported growing anti-Muslim sentiments due to negative coverage by the media and hostile discourse on Islam by right-leaning political parties. During the year, for instance, a journalist who had initiated a local ban on face coverings handed out a “Swiss Stop Islam Award” of about $2,000 USD to three recipient

[BrasatoAlBarolo]

Here's an interesting research article:
https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2 ... o-secular/

Seems like abuse is coming from those opposed to women wearing the burqa, with the highest number of instances being from Europe. Kind of takes the wind out of the whole preventing abuse argument.

Your data is biased, in the way a lot of countries hide their data. On top of that, the countries that don't hide their data, have a number of burqas very small.
If you make this stat in Switzerland, you'll see that most of the abusers are white catholic males.
And I'm not saying you're wrong, but your data is invalid, for me.

[Vertigo 7]

Are you saying Social Services should be armed? I guess it's up to them to determine, but in their hands the gun probably is safer. If they are not already they should be armed with less than lethal options as well.

To me it's an issue the other way around. As people call 911 (emergency number), social services need to be on equal footing with the other emergency responses, and whatever that entails.

I hope that social service workers are not armed individuals, where ever they may be. If they're going into potentially dangerous situations, then let the police serve as a backup function to them but the interests from social services has to be in healing.

[Vertigo 7]

Here's an interesting research article:
https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2 ... o-secular/

Seems like abuse is coming from those opposed to women wearing the burqa, with the highest number of instances being from Europe. Kind of takes the wind out of the whole preventing abuse argument.

Your data is biased, in the way a lot of countries hide their data. On top of that, the countries that don't hide their data, have a number of burqas very small.
If you make this stat in Switzerland, you'll see that most of the abusers are white catholic males.
And I'm not saying you're wrong, but your data is invalid, for me.

It's not my data, I didn't do the research =p But why does white catholic males abusing people invalidate data?

[fiksal]

Here's an interesting research article:
https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2 ... o-secular/

Seems like abuse is coming from those opposed to women wearing the burqa, with the highest number of instances being from Europe. Kind of takes the wind out of the whole preventing abuse argument.

Your data is biased, in the way a lot of countries hide their data. On top of that, the countries that don't hide their data, have a number of burqas very small.
If you make this stat in Switzerland, you'll see that most of the abusers are white catholic males.
And I'm not saying you're wrong, but your data is invalid, for me.

It seems to me the discussion is about religious clothing and head coverings. Do Catholic fall into that statistic? They dont appear to dress any differently in US.

Are you saying Social Services should be armed? I guess it's up to them to determine, but in their hands the gun probably is safer. If they are not already they should be armed with less than lethal options as well.

To me it's an issue the other way around. As people call 911 (emergency number), social services need to be on equal footing with the other emergency responses, and whatever that entails.

I hope that social service workers are not armed individuals, where ever they may be. If they're going into potentially dangerous situations, then let the police serve as a backup function to them but the interests from social services has to be in healing.

I guess. I dont really know which way it's better - to be armed, or not armed.

[BrasatoAlBarolo]

Are you saying Social Services should be armed? I guess it's up to them to determine, but in their hands the gun probably is safer. If they are not already they should be armed with less than lethal options as well.

To me it's an issue the other way around. As people call 911 (emergency number), social services need to be on equal footing with the other emergency responses, and whatever that entails.

It was a joke, but the fact you thought I might have been serious makes you a true American!

[Vertigo 7]

I guess. I dont really know which way it's better - to be armed, or not armed.

I can tell you from first hand experience that being armed changes your mental state. Like you're expecting conflict. Could probably be even some mild symptoms of paranoia, especially when walking into an unknown situation. And that's just for you. If the person(s) you're trying to reach out to see it, their anxiety will go up. It's just a recipe for disaster.

If the goal is to lower tension levels, a gun ain't gonna do it.

[Mightysword]

Where do you draw the line then? At what point someones' protecting themselves from what they see as "new" becomes worthy of critique?

If I have to draw a line, that line wouldn't be straight. To apply the same standard across the board irregardless of local consideration ... isn't that what people hate about things like American Exceptionalism and the like? There is something call "Live and Let's live". You have your house, and I have mine, we don't run the same way but we also don't interfere. But at the sametime, you can't come into my house, bending my rule and tell me just "live and let live". Doesn't work like that. (The you and me here are just general pronounces). It's a totally different matter if the Swiss goes to the countries where these people originate from and tell them they should ban face covering, I'll tell them stfu and gtfo, but this is their house.

And why does it have to become worthy of critique? As in ... you just feel the need to criticize something?

A flaw to me would be - excusing such behavior, or general apathy.

There is probably why I have a different perspective as you: I normally categorize human behavior into 3 states: bad, neutral, good. Let me use charity as an example:

- Bad: you're a greedy person, not only you don't help others, you actually deprive other of what they need to enrich yourself. This is where I find criticism is deserved.
- neutral: you keep to yourself, you take what you need, and you don't deprive other. Basically you don't deep into other bubble as long as they don't enter yours. This is to me, live and let's live.
- Good: you do charity. Which is consider going beyond normal obligation. This is where I gonna "praise" you.

In fact, I dislike people who find the need to criticize others for not doing charity more than the people who doesn't do charity themselves. (Again, just a figure of speaking, not saying I'm disliking YOU here specifically )

So that's your line?

For China, yes, as you can see it's not the same line I use elsewhere. If you can only tolerate one set of standard, that's the definition of intolerance. Of course there is a minimum somewhere, I don't care what culture it is but something like chopping off people head is definitely wrong, but this is not something like that. If you want to classify every culture difference as discrimination, I'm sorry this is just one to add to the list because we already did ton, I'll give you another example:

Couple years ago I watched a documentary of a Germany's integration class where they explained to a middle east man: his wife has the right to go to a disco, and he can't not have more than one wife. So on both counts, this is a violation of another culture, but you can also see a contradiction. The former is an extension of freedom, but the latter is a restriction on existing freedom. . They are justified one over another simply due to what acceptable to the local culture, ironically this is exactly what you would say in the later quote: fair and equal don't matter, what matter is what the local find acceptable.


Reason I remember it because it reminded me when I first came, we were refugee too so we did spent a few month in a refugee class. We noticed a middle east couple with an middle age man and a very young wife. In our discussion, we found out she's the youngest of his 5 wives. So when the embassy told him "our law only recognize one wife, you have to pick one to bring with you." He picked the youngest, and as a result, now there were 4 estranged women left behind in a male dominated society ... which I hope you would agree probably a much worse situation than a face covering ban.

Will you label that discrimination against Mulism culture (with a very bad consequence in this case)? Should we accommodate him and allow him to have all 5 wives? Because if you insist on drawing one line for everything, you are obligated to say yes to both of those.

Honestly "fair" or "equal" doesnt even come into play for me. People should be free.

And here I thought COVID-19 had taught people of the West why that's ... not a really good principal. So by that, you mean all the people who don't follow protocol have been right all long?

[BrasatoAlBarolo]

I mean, if his wives all agree to share a single husband, why not? Who cares? Whose freedom is attacked by this? Beaurocracy looks the only problem here.

The key is "if nobody's harmed, who cares?". That's the same reasoning I use for burqa.

[fiksal]

And why does it have to become worthy of critique? As in ... you just feel the need to criticize something?

I'll turn it around - it seems like you feel that one must be careful and quiet about other nations and cultures, why?

You asked two different questions though,
- It's worthy because it's punishing people who are not guilty. It goes against "live and let live" principle.
- I dont feel the need to criticize, it's just appropriate in this situation.

So that's your line?

his wife has the right to go to a disco, and he can't not have more than one wife. So on both counts, this is a violation of another culture, but you can also see a contradiction. The former is an extension of freedom, but the latter is a restriction on existing freedom. . They are justified one over another simply due to what acceptable to the local culture, ironically this is exactly what you would say in the later quote: fair and equal don't matter, what matter is what the local find acceptable.

The marriage example is closer but not that close. Still the man or the women are not penalized for choices about themselves. But Western countries do disallow multiple marriages like this. Some marriage laws do target specific groups in the west, like prohibiting gay marriage, as another example. Is this one targeting specifically middle east? - I dont know, since these laws has been in the books for a long time.

But something you keep glancing over in my post - is the same question - who is the victim, when we have to make marriage a crime?

Will you label that discrimination against Mulism culture (with a very bad consequence in this case)? Should we accommodate him and allow him to have all 5 wives? Because if you insist on drawing one line for everything, you are obligated to say yes to both of those.

Immigration laws are largely arbitrary. They are not based on any specific principles and just function whichever way a wind blows that political decade or a year. If I were to type my response on it, it might get long

But in summary - specifically bringing the other wives - I'd not describe as discriminatory, since immigration usually sets harsh limits on what dependents you can bring.

Honestly "fair" or "equal" doesnt even come into play for me. People should be free.

And here I thought COVID-19 had taught people of the West why that's ... not a really good principal. So by that, you mean all the people who don't follow protocol have been right all long?

And that's a different question

[Mightysword]

- It's worthy because it's punishing people who are not guilty. It goes against "live and let live" principle.
- But something you keep glancing over in my post - is the same question - who is the victim, when we have to make marriage a crime?
- Immigration laws are largely arbitrary.
- And that's a different question

- Because I don't use sentimental concept like "punishing", I set a house rule for anyone to come in and follow. If you come into my house and don't follow there will be consequence, you calling it punishing is just you trying to be sensational.

- In case you missed the obvious, the 4 women who left behind? In fact, using your logic of "people should be free" you can also say even the man in question is victim, because the law takes away his right of having multiple spouse. It also take away the ability of any person to have more than one spouse, so to those who want and unable, they should all considered "victims" per your logic. But then, victim is a sensational word, something I don't use in these scenarios, and I believe it lends no weight to the argument.

- Is the word "arbitrary" the new hip these days? Seeing it getting thrown around a lot. No, most of these originated from some set of value/custom/reasons. Just because you don't agree/appreciate/recognize those values, it does not make them arbitrary. Otherwise, literally every culture are arbitrary.

- And why? Not that I don't agree it's not the same question. But just to show you that making a broadstroke is not wise. So you DO draw different lines depending on situations, I just want to make you aware of that. In fact, the statement "people should be free" is the most arbitrary in all of what you're saying.

[Mightysword]

I mean, if his wives all agree to share a single husband, why not? Who cares? Whose freedom is attacked by this? Beaurocracy looks the only problem here.

The key is "if nobody's harmed, who cares?". That's the same reasoning I use for burqa.

Oh I totally agree - on a personal level that is. Where the heck that rule even come from the first place? In the West I'm guessing it rooted from religion, but in the East we used to have it, tell you what, if I can find a bunch of women who love me, I would want to marry them all But that's only in a perfect world.

"if nobody's harmed, who cares". Question is ... what if someone is harmed? What if someone care? In classical literature, we (Vietnamese) have story "legendary feast of jealousy". Even in modern time I won't say it's common, but in Vietnam if you read something like "people spill acid onto each other, or using knife to scar each others face" on the newspaper, you won't even flinch. At some point we decide "ok, that's too disruptive to social harmony, it gotta stop". So the law is in place to both stop and discourage people. What if 2 people first married based on the assumption they will not have another? What if a few years later one decided "changed my mind I want another" while the other don't? Not sure how divorce law work in other nation, but in Vietnam it's 50/50 wealth split under normal circumstance, however if the divorce is result of a person cheating ... it won't be a 50/50 split.

And I can sit here and give you a few dozens more examples: you heard about Asia eat their pets right, like cat and dog? In the US, some states outright banned it (as in you get punished to eat those), some doesn't outright ban it but have law to literally preventing it from circulating. What about legal age of consent? Some people may have a very young spouse and of course have sex where the people involved are not considered minor, but if the come to the US and people caught wind of that ... it's a felony with a permanent black record.


I don't know about you but ... being told what to eat and what not to eat, being told how many spouse you can marry, being told when and with whom you can have sex with or face jail time seem to be much worse infringement of freedom than a face covering, and again I can give you a few dozen more if you want. So anyone here want to pick up the pitchfork and scream cultural discrimination for those cases as well? Fiskal asked me where to draw a line, my reverse question is where do you draw YOUR line where you gonna have to accept cultural difference is a thing and people need to adapt to the place they moved to? Because if you insist people "should be free" and rubber stamping every differences ... then almost everything can be called a "discrimination."