Switzerland bans face coverings in public

[fiksal]

I just want to ask a couple of questions, to satisfy my curiosity.

Why is it only Switzerland that are being accused of being a racist country, when there are several other countries in Europe with a similar ban, some in place for quite a while?

Secondly, seeing that in Denmark, ( for example, ) it was apparently said: the garment is often described as oppressing women and incompatible with Danish values, ( according to Wiki, ) why is no one accusing those who voted against the ban, of being sexist? In Denmark it also was not just the Burqa that was banned, but sexism seems to be part of the consideration.

I would consider the potential charge of sexism, to be possible, considering I have seen one Muslim woman having a panic attack, as an Iman approached, shortly after one Ramadan.

I dont talk about other countries because I am not aware of the bans in other countries. But it's a worthy topic.

So, Denmark, let's briefly see
https://www.thelocal.dk/20190801/one-ye ... -23-fines/

A controversial ban on wearing face-masking garments in public, widely referred to as the ‘burqa ban’, came into effect in Denmark on August 1st last year.

Since then, 23 people have been fined under the law, according to National Police figures reported by Kristeligt Dagblad.

The ban came into effect a year ago on Thursday, imposing a fine of 1,000 kroner (134 euros) for first offences on individuals wearing garments including the burqa, which covers a person's entire face, or the niqab, which only shows the eyes, as well as other accessories that hide the face such as balaclavas.

Hundreds of people protested against the ban in Copenhagen and Aarhus on August 1st last year. The Local attended the demonstration which took place in the Nørrebro neighbourhood in the capital and spoke to niqab-wearing women about the law.

...

Broadly, proponents claimed the ban would prevent suppression of women’s rights. When it proposed the law change, the Ministry of Justice said that the burqa and niqab were not “compatible with the values and sense of community in Danish society”.

Critics said that the ban infringed religious freedom – something Denmark’s constitution guarantees – and Amnesty International in 2018 condemned the law as a “discriminatory violation of women's rights”, especially against Muslim women who choose to wear the full-face veils.

The effectiveness the burqa ban is difficult to measure given the low number of fines issued, according to Margit Warburg, a sociologist specializing in religion at the University of Copenhagen’s Department of Cross-Cultural and Regional Studies.

“You can’t say, based on 23 fines, whether the ban works as it was intended. Maybe the (affected) women don’t go out very much? Maybe no-one calls the police? Or it could be because people actually have removed their niqab. In reality, we don’t know,” Warburg told Kristeligt Dagblad.

The number of people who wear the Islamic veil in Denmark is limited to approximately 150-200 niqab wearers, around half of whom are converts to Islam, Warburg estimates. Very few women – perhaps none at all – wear the burqa, according to the researcher, who led a 2009 report on the prevalence of the Islamic veil in the country.

Looks to me it's the same ban as in Switzerland.

The law that penalizes the victims (specifically 123 EUR each; and I bet followed by forceful / involuntary removal of the said clothing).

The law also comes with no way to check if it has a negative or positive affect on anything. A law that cant be checked or does nothing is a useless law. Penalizing people for nothing - makes it a bad law, even before we talk about it being whether it's bigoted.

Plus the same time in Denmark's case, apparently it's claimed to be also unconstitutional (unlike, as I understand in Switzerland's case, where religious freedom isn't guaranteed... or I've not read anything stating otherwise yet on this matter). Yet that's more than 1 year ago, so I assume Denmark's courts either didn't agree or didn't rule, or something else.

[Vertigo 7]

But claiming something is being done because of oppression without actually addressing said oppression is nothing short of a lie.

So, if you were in charge, how would you deal with that oppression? I ask because I feel very sure that it exists, but is by it's nature in this case, covered up and denied by most.

Surely there are laws in Switzerland that deal with domestic abuse. If there isn't any, I'd start there and start arresting people beating their wives and daughters, if that's happening in Switzerland. As I understand the current situation there, there's maybe a dozen or so women wearing a burqa in the entire country. I can't imagine it being too difficult to find and monitor suspects. And that's if it's even occurring. So far, I've not seen any evidence that it is.

However, this vote clearly had little, if anything to do with that. The campaigning was almost entirely about ending Muslim extremism and was fraught with imagery of violent Muslim women. The kind of thing that's typical of right wing politicians anywhere in the world.

[fiksal]

So, if you were in charge, how would you deal with that oppression? I ask because I feel very sure that it exists, but is by it's nature in this case, covered up and denied by most.

Surely there are laws in Switzerland that deal with domestic abuse. If there isn't any, I'd start there and start arresting people beating their wives and daughters, if that's happening in Switzerland. As I understand the current situation there, there's maybe a dozen or so women wearing a burqa in the entire country. I can't imagine it being too difficult to find and monitor suspects. And that's if it's even occurring. So far, I've not seen any evidence that it is.

On the page 13 we get finally a great question! How do you indeed.

I myself am not versed in social services even in US..., - so the question is how does Switzerland (or US, or Denmark, etc) deal with abuse and violence within families, married couples, communities, among religious communities? In US we have secretive communities where such crime is potentially hard to track - among Mormons, Amish, maybe Evangelicals?

Possibly more googling is needed, understanding what services are available to women(and men) in abusive households. A default question would be - are those services funded sufficiently?

[greypanther]

I can't imagine it being too difficult to find and monitor suspects.

You wouldn't think so would you? However there have been several cases of child abuse in the UK for instance, where abuse by men of Asian decent was ignored, because the Social Worker was afraid of being accused of being a racist. Then there is the case where a Judge accused one of the victims of being all but a prostitute, if I am remembering things correctly...

I would say there is a very fine line here, even though we all wish it were not so, I am sure.

@fiksal: there are several to go on the list, some surprising with large Muslim communities. Such as France and the Netherlands.

[Vertigo 7]

On the page 13 we get finally a great question! How do you indeed.

I myself am not versed in social services even in US..., - so the question is how does Switzerland (or US, or Denmark, etc) deal with abuse and violence within families, married couples, communities, among religious communities? In US we have secretive communities where such crime is potentially hard to track - among Mormons, Amish, maybe Evangelicals?

Possibly more googling is needed, understanding what services are available to women(and men) in abusive households. A default question would be - are those services funded sufficiently?

That's been the whole reasoning of the "defund the police" thing in the US. We don't really have any social services of that nature any longer and all domestic issues are being handled by the police instead of people trained to deal with those specific issues. I have no idea what it looks like in Switzerland but whatever standard they use for non-Muslims could and should be used for any Muslims in the country.

[greypanther]

We don't really have any social services of that nature any longer

I am not sure stopping the Police doing the work, restarting a Social Service would help. Here in the UK we have an active Social Service, but it failed quite a lot of girls, because of a fear of being accused of being racist. Perhaps I am misremembering.

Edit: Ah, here you go: Real or imagined: Racism 'fear' over Rotherham child abuse

A "taboo" subject, "ignoring a politically inconvenient truth", threatening "community cohesion", "fear of being thought racist".

The report which revealed the abuse of more than 1,400 children in Rotherham - mainly by men of Pakistani heritage - found many reasons why the shocking scale of child sexual exploitation in the South Yorkshire town remained hidden.

[Vertigo 7]

I can't imagine it being too difficult to find and monitor suspects.

You wouldn't think so would you? However there have been several cases of child abuse in the UK for instance, where abuse by men of Asian decent was ignored, because the Social Worker was afraid of being accused of being a racist. Then there is the case where a Judge accused one of the victims of being all but a prostitute, if I am remembering things correctly...

I would say there is a very fine line here, even though we all wish it were not so, I am sure.

The thing is though, you can't use that as reasoning for not taking appropriate action. The only appropriate way to deal with people is impartially and case by case. Yeah, it takes more effort to do that than just making your country more unappealing to certain types of people, but the end result is you will earn their respect and trust and wouldn't that be more useful to everyone in the long run?

[Vertigo 7]

We don't really have any social services of that nature any longer

I am not sure stopping the Police doing the work, restarting a Social Service would help. Here in the UK we have an active Social Service, but it failed quite a lot of girls, because of a fear of being accused of being racist. Perhaps I am misremembering.

Edit: Ah, here you go: Real or imagined: Racism 'fear' over Rotherham child abuse

A "taboo" subject, "ignoring a politically inconvenient truth", threatening "community cohesion", "fear of being thought racist".

The report which revealed the abuse of more than 1,400 children in Rotherham - mainly by men of Pakistani heritage - found many reasons why the shocking scale of child sexual exploitation in the South Yorkshire town remained hidden.

Yeah, but your police aren't armed with a loaded gun and won't just shoot someone instead of trying to resolve a situation rationally.

[greypanther]

Yeah, but your police aren't armed with a loaded gun and won't just shoot someone instead of trying to resolve a situation rationally.

Not armed with a gun, but: Police use Taser on blind man after stick mistaken for sword

I suspect it happens where ever some have power over others, even legitimate power...

[Vertigo 7]

Yeah, but your police aren't armed with a loaded gun and won't just shoot someone instead of trying to resolve a situation rationally.

Not armed with a gun, but: Police use Taser on blind man after stick mistaken for sword

I suspect it happens where ever some have power over others, even legitimate power...

True, but the deadly force puts an ! on the whole thing, paired with the training US police receive to kill and their license to do so via "qualified immunity". Anyway, this is a digression from the topic at hand.

[Mightysword]

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.

- 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".

- Let's look at the US: if there is one country that must accommodate and integrate new cultures into it, it's the US. Part of it because that was the foundation of how this country were formed and expanded. The other part is simply ... obligation. No matter what anyone think about Black people, we have to remind ourselves the only reason they are here now is because centuries ago we chain their ancestors to a ship and drag them here as slave, full integration is not even a question about the right or wrong thing we should or should not do, but an inescapable moral obligation for the US.

- But when it comes to the Swiss, I don't think they have that same moral obligation. Again I am ignorant of the Swiss history, but AFAIK they are living on their ancestral home, maybe they have dominated some local tribes in the past or not, idk but hey, that's literally everyone. The first king of Vietnam form the country after uniting something like 18 different tribes over 4000 years ago. I assume unlike the Uighurs who have always been part of the land, and unlike the black descendant who was brought here as slave against their will, the Mulism in question are someone who coming into someone else house very recently. According to wikipidea (bleh) it's mostly a late 20th century thing.


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.

Why is it only Switzerland that are being accused of being a racist country, when there are several other countries in Europe with a similar ban, some in place for quite a while?

Well, near the beginning of the thread I saw someone listed a bunch of unrelated bulletin point to show how the Swiss is historical a-double-s as a way to ... explain this decision I guess? So confirmation bias may have something to do with it.

[Vertigo 7]

I don't have to like it, but I don't think it's right to criticize them for that either.

So if we don't think it's right for you to criticize something, does that mean you stop offering up your opinions? Or do you have free will and the right to voice your opinion?

[greypanther]

Anyway, this is a digression from the topic at hand.

Indeed, but you started that little digression!

So back to topic, how should the Swiss do as you suggest, especially considering what has happened here in the UK especially, which has a very strong Social Service?

Many of the European countries do not just focus on the Burqa either, but many face coverings, which only muddies the water I suspect.

[Vertigo 7]

Anyway, this is a digression from the topic at hand.

Indeed, but you started that little digression!

So back to topic, how should the Swiss do as you suggest, especially considering what has happened here in the UK especially, which has a very strong Social Service?

Many of the European countries do not just focus on the Burqa either, but many face coverings, which only muddies the water I suspect.

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.

And it's the same way I would approach victims of abuse and oppression. We can't pretend this law was passed for the sake of that. And, I'll point out again, the Swiss government said it went against their own constitution and urged their people to vote against it. Make of that what you will.

Honestly, where I see the oppression coming from is from the right-wing element of Swiss politics. I'd be more worried about those types proposing and passing even more laws that discriminate even more than this one does, and that's where my efforts would be focused on combatting issues of oppression in Switzerland if I were in charge.

[greypanther]

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.

[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").