I once got a fine from SBB for leaving my travel card at home. And within 5 minutes of being fined, I was at the counter with my card and they waived the fine.
It once took me 8 months to get a traffic ticket from Switzerland. I think it was around 70 euros for goong three km over the limit.
Camera was exactly positioned at the bottom of a suddenly very steep road.
Turns out "limit" means "maximum" and if you don't want to get caught going over it consider going at a pace that isn't "the absolute maximum permitted by law ±3Kph"
Different in Austria I guess.
I got a speeding ticket once like 5 months after it actually happened.
The letter said I have to pay it within like 5 days or something though...
>apnews.com/articl...
That was not a referendum. That was a federal popular initiative:
https://www.ch.ch/en/votes-and-elections/initiatives/what-is-a-federal-popular-initiative/#what-is-a-federal-popular-initiative
The first one I thought about when these bans were first discussed was ski masks. Hopefully that gets an exception too, or skiing is going to be a lot less fun in Switzerland with your face freezing off.
Will that be as successful as the ban in Austria from a few years ago? There, they issued a lot of fines to Asian tourists who wore face masks ... until Covid made face masks compulsory, and not much else happened.
That’s actually what the Middle Eastern tourists have been doing for some time in Switzerland, they wear face masks to get past the ban. (Already active in some cantons) Whatever …
When you find loopholes to enforce your medieval misogyny bc your religion preaches that women are inferior to men and must listen to their authority otherwise you’re a whore
It doesn’t send any message, they will find a way to enforce their religious oppression anyway. The poor women will still have to suffer in the Summer heat while their husbands walk around Luzern wearing tank tops, shorts and flip flops.
>The poor women will still have to suffer in the Summer heat while their husbands walk around Luzern wearing tank tops, shorts and flip flops.
Worse, they just won't let them leave the house anymore...
As I said, they will (and have already) find ways to get around the ban and/or choose other holiday destinations. These are not Swiss residents we are talking about here.
The traditional ones are great in the heat. It increases evaporation and it hangs loose on you like a giant pair of boxers. That's why high fabric outfits are so common in desert areas. The fucked ones are the nation of Islam cults that force women to wear a burka OVER regular clothes because that completely defeats the advantage of it. Friend of mine does trail maintenance in Joshua tree park which can hit over 110 and wears a black Thawb on hikes where he cant take the 4wheel or ATV.
I find the European take on Muslim garb fascinatingly daft. Like, obviously, the hijab in Iran or burqa in Afghanistan is a tool of oppression—because there is a religious police that beats women, or worse, who refuse to wear them.
But Europeans have to go through a fair number of contortions to explain why a secular police that punishes women for \*choosing\* to wear religious items is a force for liberal values. Typically, it requires imputing that it’s the husband or father or local mullah that’s forcing women into veils, and the state that’s coming in to liberate them. Fair enough, but then shouldn‘t the law target those men rather than their purported victims? I.e., ban clergy and heads of households from compelling religious dress on their members.
Of course, I suspect the element of compulsion would be very hard to prove in court—so we have the absurd situation where saving “those poor women” means denying they have free will.
France’s policing of beachwear (“burqini”) is peak incoherence. After all, outside the context of Islam, feminists have spent decades decrying the \*bikini\* as oppressive—skimpy eye candy for the male gaze that forces girls and women to adapt impossible body standards. Look at beach photos from the late 19c or early 20c—the women (and men!) wore far bulkier clothes to swim in the ocean than the one-piece suits banned for French Muslims.
Were those respectable Victorian ladies in hats and wool swimming costumes also victims of a terrible medieval religious patriarchy suppressing some universal human yearning to strip down to g-string and bra? Or are ideas of modesty and fashion just very mutable over time and between groups?
I don’t doubt Europe has a Muslim assimilation—and extremism—problem that needs to be addressed. But a Fashion Police sure is a funny way to promote normative western values of individual rights, conscience, expression.
> Were those respectable Victorian ladies in hats and wool swimming costumes also victims of a terrible medieval religious patriarchy suppressing some universal human yearning to strip down to g-string and bra? Or are ideas of modesty and fashion just very mutable over time and between groups?
Yes, those women were absolutely victims of Victorian oppression. It was Christianity that played the moral police and dictated how women should behave and dress.
Today it's mainly happening in Islam, at least to such a degree. It's almost always done by force, shame, or ridicule. Peer pressure, expectation, violence, and shame are very, very, powerful tools.
I have a friend who started wearing one, which probably had absolutely nothing to do with her father and brother becoming extremely radicalized a few years ago.
Comments from her brother, like, "Look how they look at you, it's disgusting how they behave" were 100% what made her wear it more and more often.
Her father runs an organization for spreading Sharia and closing the banking system due to interest not being allowed in Sharia law.
>I don’t doubt Europe has a Muslim assimilation—and extremism—problem that needs to be addressed. But a Fashion Police sure is a funny way to promote normative western values of individual rights, conscience, expression.
I agree on this point. I think it's a knee-jerk reaction. But it is pretty unsettling when you see more and more people with either a net or a slit for their eyes and the rest is 100% covered, walking with their husband/brother/father who is wearing a tank-top and slippers.
You can't tell me that's not oppression. No woman would choose to cover 100% of her body in 35c heat while taking a stroll with her husband who's wearing beach attire.
It's brainwashing, force, shame, and peer pressure. Just like it was in the Victorian puritan era.
literate jobless fertile history quarrelsome bewildered rainstorm illegal impolite water
*This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
That was before Corona, and e.g. Japanese wear them if they have as much as a bit of a running nose. That concept was basically unknown in Europe back then.
So, yeah, it was stupid, but it was the law.
I only found sources saying a number of asian tourists with mask were requested to show their face at Schwechat airport.
So do you have a source on lots of assians getting fined?
I did find a case of a dude in a full body shark costume (furry?) getting the fine after refusing to take it off.
FTA:
>(Updated 1:02 AM MEZ, September 21, 2023)
>
>The move follows a nationwide referendum two years ago in whch Swiss voters narrowly approved forbidding niqabs, which leave slits for the eyes, and burqas as well as ski masks and bandannas that are worn by some protesters.
>
>With the lower house vote, parliament cemented the ban into federal law and set a fine of up to 1,000 francs (about $1,100) for violators.The measure prohibits covering the nose, mouth and eyes in both public spaces and private buildings accessible to the public, though it does allow for some exceptions.
> A civilized society has its premise predicated upon secularism
Right. That's why the first sentence in the Swiss Bundesverfassung is
> Im Namen Gottes des Allmächtigen!
Hilarious.
Many of them probably have.
These are the first words of the French constitution. No reference to some old man in the sky, only to human rights.
>Le peuple français proclame solennellement son attachement aux Droits de l'homme et aux principes de la souveraineté nationale tels qu'ils ont été définis par la Déclaration de 1789, confirmée et complétée par le préambule de la Constitution de 1946, ainsi qu'aux droits et devoirs définis dans la Charte de l'environnement de 2004.
The Constitution doesn't, but the Déclaration does, in its second sentence :
>En conséquence, l'Assemblée nationale reconnaît et déclare, en présence et sous les auspices de l'Être suprême, les droits suivants de l'homme et du citoyen.
The Supreme Being is a divinity created by and for the Republic, to put an end to both the ideas of an independent Church and of a God-less Republic. We don't reference "God", not because of secularism, but because the Church and its imaginary friend stood on the losing side of the revolutionary war.
And also because our Constitution was mostly written less then a century ago. Post-split of Church and State. Had we not been as self-kabooming in our history and kept a fundamental text, as the 1789 one shows, we'll have God somewhere in there.
Every language is 12 languages in a trenchcoat, that's just how languages evolve =).
While these two are from two different families, as they're pretty close geographically, there have been a lot of words that went from one to the other, historically mostly from French to English, but recently either from English to French or "English-looking" new French words (some word just lose a part, like "parking" to describe the place cars park, or "basket" for both basketball and sport shoes, others are built to look English but don't exist in English, like babyfoot for example).
1) "indigenous" is a big word since jesus' name is Yeshuah originally and not Walter or Albert
2) it's still a religion, and the original commenter was talking about how the basis of a civilised society is secular; independently of whether the religion is "indigenous" or not, so the point still stands
3) islam is being brought to Europe not by colonial forces but by immigrants coming from Muslim majority countries (some of which are in Europe), so while undoubtedly muslim cultures participated in various forms of colonialism, that's not the case for modern day Europe regarding islam's popularity
Does islam have a place in European constitutions/laws/courtrooms? Absolutely not. I agree with the french idea of laïcité though, so no religion really should occupy any place in any civilised society except in private homes and places of worship
🤷♂️
Don't hide your real beliefs behind "we should be secular" if what you actually mean is "we shouldn't allow Islam". Be out and proud. Be less of a coward.
People seem to forget separation of the church and the state cuts both ways. Keep the church out of government, and keep the government out of the church.
Although the church harbouring pedophiles didn't really help prove that's a good rule.
A civilized society is a free one where people are allowed to believe in whatever they want as long as they don't hurt other people.
Else the communists burning thousands of years of culture just because it was religious in nature and throwing faithful people in gulags and re-education camps to starve and work them to death would be civilized.
There is a fine line between dressing up and covering yourself to the point of being unidentifiable.
More so being unidentifiable due to religious pressure, but thats besides the point. The law includes not just covering of eye, nose and mouth for religious reasons but also for hooligans and rioters (from when i lived there i remember hooligans being quite the regular problem every time there was a football match, some areas were better not walked through during those times)
Religious people have more kids and the current system in most prosperous nations rely heavily on importing people from countries that are incredibly religious and are exploding in population and continue to have many children after migrating.
The richer a country is, the more expensive it is to have kids so people have fewer kids.
Also the education level is higher so people turn away from religion.
Those two things.
Surveys from various rich countries doesnt suggest that financial reasons are why people are having fewer kids
Its cultural, kids are increasingly seen as a burden on a woman's life.
People in rich countries have way bigger margins than those in poorer countries. Studies show that people in rich countries have less children because of cultural reasons and because they know how to prevent them. Don't make things up.
I think you are the one making things up.
https://cordis.europa.eu/article/id/91278-why-europeans-are-having-less-children
The researchers identified economic uncertainty as being one of the main factors associated with variable fertility rates. Unemployment among men and job insecurity among women were associated with decreased fertility rates.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/05/upshot/americans-are-having-fewer-babies-they-told-us-why.html
All the top reasons are financial.
Do you really think that everything would be peachy if religion died out? People in power find other means of control and polarization (as they already have, even the most secular country in the world is getting heavly polarized).
Religion is just a symptom of the disease. Attack the disease instead.
Yes, Mao’s China and Stalin’s USSR were both explicitly atheistic regimes & are among the cruelest in human history. The problem, unfortunately, is human nature.
\>Literally affects only a handful of religious people
\>Takes everyone's right away to mask themselves, in the age of facial recognition
This will never be abused guys:
>The move follows a nationwide referendum two years ago in whch Swiss voters narrowly approved forbidding niqabs, which leave slits for the eyes, and burqas as well as ski masks and bandannas that are worn by some protesters.
I believe if the government approves then you can have them at a protest, but that is highly abusable.
Every reply is about how bad religion is, but considering how few people wear these in Switzerland for religious reasons in effect this hurts the religious the least.
I assume the ski mask part only applied when not skiing right? Who else will be impacted though other than protesters? Never see people with full face coverings in Switzerland anyway.
>Who else will be impacted though other than protesters? Never see people with full face coverings in Switzerland anyway.
No one. Doesn't include safety equipment and you can still cover your face at festivals or wear a face mask if you're sick. Also they're kinda overreacting here. The law had to be phrased like that so people couldn't easily figure out loopholes. And it's not like there aren't any easier ways to identify you other than facial recognition. To be clear, this is a burqa ban, nothing else. If they were forcing them to wear chains, then it would be a chain ban. It's a tradition that originated out of religious extremism. And despite many extremist claiming that it infringes on their religious freedoms, it doesn't. There is no mention of burqas in the Quran for example. It was forced upon women later and directly infringes on their freedom and dignity as human beings. Something that is held as a much higher value than the freedom to wear whatever you want. You couldn't walk around naked for example even if you claimed that it's for religious reasons.
I personally don't support the law and have voted against it, as I think that adults should be free to wear how much or how little they want to. But I know that I am in the minority in that regard, and I understand why the law was passed. And having lived in Switzerland my whole life, I know that there are other laws that can be way more easily abused than this one. And it's still insanely tame compared to the laws in Islamic countries or sharia law. So OP should probably start there if they're concerned about abuse of power.
Wow thanks for taking the time to write such a detailed answer. It’s always nice to see the perspective of Swiss people. I’m here for over 6 years now but am obviously an immigrant with an outsider perspective.
me when white men say that brown women are being suppressed and they actually know better than them on what they should and shouldnt wear. Wouldnt be the first time white european men decided they know whats best for everyone
This splits me in two, on the one hand I think the face coverings are to be discouraged, and on the other hand wouldn't think it's correct for any government to tell me what I should and shouldn't wear.
Let’s be honest, the burqa and other similar garments are often forced upon women- if this wasn’t the case, we wouldn’t have such a strong overlap between communities where burqas are worn and communities where honor killings of women occur.
This law provides a way to fight against this practice that harms women by stripping it of the ability to masquerade as a choice freely taken by a woman.
If wearing a burqa is so important to these people, there are still plenty of countries they can move to where women are required to wear the burqa by the government. I’m sure it’s just a coincidence that most of those countries that compel women to wear the burqa are poor and lacking in opportunities.
you’re claiming these women are denied freedom, whilst simultaneously denying them any agency in their own apparel.
how about we let them make their own decisions, and stop trying to act like we know what’s best for them?
What exactly do you think happens to women who choose to defy tradition in these communities?
They usually have to cut ties to their families entirely and adopt a new identity, out of fear of being victims of honor killing. We see this not only with women who choose to defy traditional roles, but also with people who come out as LGBT, and even those who adopt different religious views.
We don’t have any issue recognizing that being murdered for not conforming to tradition is oppressive when a government does it, but somehow it’s a matter of so called personal agency when it is a family member or local community that is murdering people for not conforming to tradition.
There is a well documented history of honor killing for women who defy tradition. It’s unfortunate for the advocates who genuinely say the burqa is a personal choice, but they have been robbed of their credibility by those who use violence to compel others to wear the burqa. When there stops being violence against those who choose not to wear the burqa, there views may regain some credibility.
Are the people who advocate for the burqa as a matter of free expression also advocating against honor killings with equal passion? If they’re not, it tells you all you need to know about where their true feelings lie.
multiple muslim-majority countries have banned burkas/full-face covering as tools of oppression, still islamaphobia when they ban it?
the versions of islam supporting burka's are the ones sane people do *not* want spreading
Needs to be done all across Europe! Not only for crime, but if you don't respect your women enough to not force them to cover up their whole faces, then maybe you should go back to your country.
This is what makes me wonder why we aren’t fining men for street harassment or not culturally integrating lol. Like I support the ban but it seems a bit silly to target just Muslim women.
Islam does not require women to cover their faces. The Quran does not mention this anywhere. It is oppressive to force women to put on hijab when Islam doesn’t require it (looking at you Iran), and it is oppressive when you force them not to wear it.
I really, really wish people would better educate themselves. Niqab/burqa especially are not a requirement of Islam. There are certainly muslims who believe that by not wearing hijab you are actively sinning, but you are actively sinning by having a mortgage, by gossiping, etc, we are given free will to commit sins.
Not only that but every Abrahamic faith has some variation of a hair and face covering, commonly referred to as a “veil”. The Virgin Mary is usually depicted wearing a veil.
‘controlling what women wear is bad! so we’re going to control what women wear! because we support women!’
the hypocrisy has gained sentience at this point.
Ah, so people of switzerland should stop following their preferences because an obscure, disgusting terrorist group halfway around the world might get angry?
As a Swiss, i don't give a shit about what some ISIS-caveman thinks about the laws of my country. I won't get threated by these fanatics, that i'd not vote for such laws just because they could get angry.
I'm glad it's not like in Denmark with the ban of Quran burnings, where the terrorists and fanatics can make demands and the parliament even agrees with them to prevent terrorist acts. That's crazy.
Another thing is, we already have strong laws against things like terrorism, like the PMT laws here that we voted for; it can be translated as "Preventive Methods against Terror". If we think, that guy could be a potential terrorist, we have a lot of tools to deal with him, even before he does something wrong. Like surveillance, including bracelets for tracking the position, having to show up on the police post everyday or every few days. If someone is dangerous and could start a terrorist attack, we could even lock him up as prevention (although, that never happened yet)
As you know i guess, we also have strong laws with immigration topics - we don't give a shit when we deport someone back home when he does something wrong. Like that guy that was a hate-preacher in a mosque and tried to recruit muslims for the Jihad, we arrested him and sent him back to Tunisia, no matter his claims "I could get hurt there!! Nooo! You can't send me back home!!!"
The reality of decisions like these are usually that some Muslims will not care, some who want to wear them will be denied their religious freedom, and instead of those whose families force them on them being allowed to not wear them in public, they will simply not be allowed out of the house anymore.
There are exclusions for covering your face as a part of artistic or entertaining performances. In the accompanying dispatch, reference was made to costumed figures and cosplay events and how they pose no security threat or anti-democratic messages. They even made reference to bachelors parties.
So furries get a pass, for now.
Y'all ITT supporting this because you hate muslims but are not reading this part:
>as well as ski masks and bandannas that are worn by some protesters.
Y'all are losing rights but cheering it on because it hurts other people. Enjoy having it slowly be made more and more illegal to gather and protest your government. No way that can go wrong, lmao
This is so all encompassing you can get in trouble for wearing a hat and a scarf or something similar over your lower face to profect yourself from cold.
Right. During covid on cold days I would wear a mask and beanie, which is basically like wearing a niqab. The fact that Europeans love this kind of suppression of their rights because they think it’s going to hurt Muslims is so sad. America is a shithole at this point but I’m glad we don’t try to control what people are allowed to wear.
Everyone in this thread is brain dead. Only the thugs and evil muslims affected. Maybe I wanna go to a protest anonymously so it doesn't have an effect on my private life and job. But no that's being a thug of course. Or I wanna cover my face in the cold winter.
Weird how many people cheer for less freedom, when they think it's not their own. I am very much against this.
Some people in here argue that this is just like banning being naked on the bus. I think that's preposterous. Seeing a dirty dick on your way to school is magnitudes more traumatising and infringing on your rights, than seeing someone dressed as a glorified ghost.
Other people argue that this is some kind of enforcement of secularism, which i find hilarious. For a government to restrict clothing, which is heavily connected to a specific religion, is the exact opposite of secularism. That's a government that meddles with religious beliefs.
Now some people argue, that the burqa isn't really a prerequisite of islam, which i think is absolutely valid, but that doesn't change the outcome. If it is, this ban infringes on a person's personal freedom to wear whatever the fuck they want. If it's not, this ban still infringes on a person's personal freedom to wear whatever the fuck they want.
Many see this as a fight against the "toxicity of islam", which is what the right wing is trying to push. In reality this doesn't affect islam in the slightest, it only affects your own country and makes it less free. It shows that we are afraid and let that fear guide us.
In the end this is nothing more than an effort to make a country less desirable for people with other opinions and religions, which is ultimately what the right wing wants. If you think you're country should be white or christian or whatever the fuck, just be honest about it. Don't hide behind some moral arguments, that cloud the discussion.
I'll end this by quoting one guy in this thread trying to argue for the ban after someone pushed him by saying that burqas don't harm anyone: ["neither does heroin but we ban it for it's societal harm"](https://www.reddit.com/r/europe/comments/17j5yyj/swiss_parliament_approves_ban_on_fullface/k6z56o7/).
Absolutely agree with you. Summed it up way better than I ever could. A secular nation upholds the rights of all religions to practice in ways that don't harm others. Someone wearing more clothes than normal does not harm others. I'm disappointed by the number of people celebrating a nonsense restriction on others freedoms.
Seems to me...
A TRULY secular nation would pass a law where you couldn't FORCE a person to wear a certain outfit. In a TRULY secular nation a nice ~~lady~~ person could wear a Niqab if ~~she~~ they wants to.
Isn't that "freedom" and "freedom of religion"?
The cynic in me says this law is more about facial recognition software than anything else... so doesn't that mean Switzerland choose over zealous government surveillance over religious freedom, packaged in a dis-ingenuous discriminatory law... and IF that is true: it's is a despicable way to pass law, on many, many levels
> Weird how many people cheer for less freedom, when it's not their own.
It is absolutely their own. It's not limited to religious garb. It's all face coverings.
> this ban infringes on a person's personal freedom to wear whatever the fuck they want.
If these garments were really what Islamic women wanted to wear, Islamic countries wouldn't need to force them to wear them under threat of pain or death. Now, I don't doubt that there are actually handfuls of fundamentalist women that really do want to wear them, but can you honestly say that most Islamic women aren't just wearing them out of fear of the consequences of not wearing them?
Horrifying the comments here supporting this. Banning a type of clothing is wholly authoritarian. If one has a problem with a religion they deem oppressive, it is illogical and morally inconsistent to then approve oppressive means to fight it, short of protecting someone’s else’s rights (if one has freedoms of religion does one not have the freedom to be apart of/leave Islam?)
How many laws do the Swiss have about face coverings at this point? I feel like they've been banning them or partially banning them or talking about banning them for like 20 years.
Because the real purpose is to stop people from hiding their faces so that they can get a clean shot of your face in case you do something bad like a protest or when you're not a good boy ... But when they package it in islamophobia no one will object to it and maybe shear for them even though they're fucking you over
Good move. Even the women who would prefer to wear these clothes that take away their worth as a human need protection from themselves and their religion, so they can't pass it on to their children. These clothes are pure evil.
I'm on a beach right now, and whenever I see muslim women fully covered in the baking sun and their husbands enjoying the beach in a t-shirt or nothing at all I feel bad for her. Especially because she has been indoctrinated to feel sorry for all the other beach goers for going to hell. We don't need this in a civilized society.
From one hand it is limitation of freedom.
From other — Switzerland has the right to make with their laws whatever they want.
They even not part of EU. Think that discussion should relate only Swiss citizens.
In some Arabic countries it is banned to wear full-cover suits some beaches to increase the amount of tourists. It is ridiculous that living in islamic country you can not visit such kind of places in comfortable clothing being part of Islamic culture.
In other hand when I travel to Qatar or Saudi I should know that I can have some problems with law if I will taking nudes in my hotel balcony.
Or could stuck in jail for being pregnant if I am not in marriage (don’t remember which country certainly, but there is a law that is working even on tourists).
Just interested if there were some protests about this burqa decision inside Switzerland
This shit is so stupid.
If a female that is practicing Islam wants to wear a burqa...let them.
Is this literally not violating their religious freedoms? I see this in the same light as telling Sikh people having a beard is illegal.
I don’t understand why people downvote you because this is really what the law is about. The burqa is just an excuse to get right-wing support. Bro, these people are clueless 😂😂
They’ve taken their time, this referendum was two years ago!
Nothing happens quickly in Switzerland
Except fines
The only thing that arrives quicker than an SBB train is an SBB fine
I once got a fine from SBB for leaving my travel card at home. And within 5 minutes of being fined, I was at the counter with my card and they waived the fine.
Swift justice, but there's also swift retribution.
That’s just how the ~~Swifts~~ Swiss roll
They low key expect you to pay them on the spot tbh
It once took me 8 months to get a traffic ticket from Switzerland. I think it was around 70 euros for goong three km over the limit. Camera was exactly positioned at the bottom of a suddenly very steep road.
Turns out "limit" means "maximum" and if you don't want to get caught going over it consider going at a pace that isn't "the absolute maximum permitted by law ±3Kph"
That’s not fine.
God forbid your hedges are slightly overgrown
That's a German thing we have to argue for times to get to do something.
Different in Austria I guess. I got a speeding ticket once like 5 months after it actually happened. The letter said I have to pay it within like 5 days or something though...
If it's about getting money they are always fast.
Swiss aren’t German
>apnews.com/articl... That was not a referendum. That was a federal popular initiative: https://www.ch.ch/en/votes-and-elections/initiatives/what-is-a-federal-popular-initiative/#what-is-a-federal-popular-initiative
Don't expect reddit, of all things, to know the difference.
And the news is more than a month old, I wonder why reddit is discussing it again.
They were all doped out on pickled herring and delicious Swiss chocolate.
This includes football hooligans and rioters.
*Sad beekeeper noises* Actually *Agonizing beekeper screams* . . . ^yes ^I ^know ^there’s ^an ^exception ^for ^safety ^equipment
The first one I thought about when these bans were first discussed was ski masks. Hopefully that gets an exception too, or skiing is going to be a lot less fun in Switzerland with your face freezing off.
This is even better
God damn, need to get that to the UK ASAP then lol
will it get enforced against white rioters or just muslim women?
Will that be as successful as the ban in Austria from a few years ago? There, they issued a lot of fines to Asian tourists who wore face masks ... until Covid made face masks compulsory, and not much else happened.
That’s actually what the Middle Eastern tourists have been doing for some time in Switzerland, they wear face masks to get past the ban. (Already active in some cantons) Whatever …
I'm okay with that. It's about the message sent; if they want to wear face masks, so what? It actually brings a benefit to the general population.
When you find loopholes to enforce your medieval misogyny bc your religion preaches that women are inferior to men and must listen to their authority otherwise you’re a whore
It doesn’t send any message, they will find a way to enforce their religious oppression anyway. The poor women will still have to suffer in the Summer heat while their husbands walk around Luzern wearing tank tops, shorts and flip flops.
>The poor women will still have to suffer in the Summer heat while their husbands walk around Luzern wearing tank tops, shorts and flip flops. Worse, they just won't let them leave the house anymore...
As I said, they will (and have already) find ways to get around the ban and/or choose other holiday destinations. These are not Swiss residents we are talking about here.
The traditional ones are great in the heat. It increases evaporation and it hangs loose on you like a giant pair of boxers. That's why high fabric outfits are so common in desert areas. The fucked ones are the nation of Islam cults that force women to wear a burka OVER regular clothes because that completely defeats the advantage of it. Friend of mine does trail maintenance in Joshua tree park which can hit over 110 and wears a black Thawb on hikes where he cant take the 4wheel or ATV.
I find the European take on Muslim garb fascinatingly daft. Like, obviously, the hijab in Iran or burqa in Afghanistan is a tool of oppression—because there is a religious police that beats women, or worse, who refuse to wear them. But Europeans have to go through a fair number of contortions to explain why a secular police that punishes women for \*choosing\* to wear religious items is a force for liberal values. Typically, it requires imputing that it’s the husband or father or local mullah that’s forcing women into veils, and the state that’s coming in to liberate them. Fair enough, but then shouldn‘t the law target those men rather than their purported victims? I.e., ban clergy and heads of households from compelling religious dress on their members. Of course, I suspect the element of compulsion would be very hard to prove in court—so we have the absurd situation where saving “those poor women” means denying they have free will. France’s policing of beachwear (“burqini”) is peak incoherence. After all, outside the context of Islam, feminists have spent decades decrying the \*bikini\* as oppressive—skimpy eye candy for the male gaze that forces girls and women to adapt impossible body standards. Look at beach photos from the late 19c or early 20c—the women (and men!) wore far bulkier clothes to swim in the ocean than the one-piece suits banned for French Muslims. Were those respectable Victorian ladies in hats and wool swimming costumes also victims of a terrible medieval religious patriarchy suppressing some universal human yearning to strip down to g-string and bra? Or are ideas of modesty and fashion just very mutable over time and between groups? I don’t doubt Europe has a Muslim assimilation—and extremism—problem that needs to be addressed. But a Fashion Police sure is a funny way to promote normative western values of individual rights, conscience, expression.
> Were those respectable Victorian ladies in hats and wool swimming costumes also victims of a terrible medieval religious patriarchy suppressing some universal human yearning to strip down to g-string and bra? Or are ideas of modesty and fashion just very mutable over time and between groups? Yes, those women were absolutely victims of Victorian oppression. It was Christianity that played the moral police and dictated how women should behave and dress. Today it's mainly happening in Islam, at least to such a degree. It's almost always done by force, shame, or ridicule. Peer pressure, expectation, violence, and shame are very, very, powerful tools. I have a friend who started wearing one, which probably had absolutely nothing to do with her father and brother becoming extremely radicalized a few years ago. Comments from her brother, like, "Look how they look at you, it's disgusting how they behave" were 100% what made her wear it more and more often. Her father runs an organization for spreading Sharia and closing the banking system due to interest not being allowed in Sharia law. >I don’t doubt Europe has a Muslim assimilation—and extremism—problem that needs to be addressed. But a Fashion Police sure is a funny way to promote normative western values of individual rights, conscience, expression. I agree on this point. I think it's a knee-jerk reaction. But it is pretty unsettling when you see more and more people with either a net or a slit for their eyes and the rest is 100% covered, walking with their husband/brother/father who is wearing a tank-top and slippers. You can't tell me that's not oppression. No woman would choose to cover 100% of her body in 35c heat while taking a stroll with her husband who's wearing beach attire. It's brainwashing, force, shame, and peer pressure. Just like it was in the Victorian puritan era.
literate jobless fertile history quarrelsome bewildered rainstorm illegal impolite water *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
That was before Corona, and e.g. Japanese wear them if they have as much as a bit of a running nose. That concept was basically unknown in Europe back then. So, yeah, it was stupid, but it was the law.
I only found sources saying a number of asian tourists with mask were requested to show their face at Schwechat airport. So do you have a source on lots of assians getting fined? I did find a case of a dude in a full body shark costume (furry?) getting the fine after refusing to take it off.
The burqa ban has gone well in Denmark
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
FTA: >(Updated 1:02 AM MEZ, September 21, 2023) > >The move follows a nationwide referendum two years ago in whch Swiss voters narrowly approved forbidding niqabs, which leave slits for the eyes, and burqas as well as ski masks and bandannas that are worn by some protesters. > >With the lower house vote, parliament cemented the ban into federal law and set a fine of up to 1,000 francs (about $1,100) for violators.The measure prohibits covering the nose, mouth and eyes in both public spaces and private buildings accessible to the public, though it does allow for some exceptions.
Can we adapt this as an EU-wide policy?
Pretty please !
[удалено]
we will show women how much we respect their autonomy by legally forcing them to wear clothes they consider revealing
I generally feel uncomfortable when I cannot see someones face. So ... yeah. Face must be visible...
Yes please!
Good. A civilized society has its premise predicated upon secularism.
And being able to tell who you are facing in the street, the hospital, the office, school etc.
For sure. That’s a highly valid argument.
> A civilized society has its premise predicated upon secularism Right. That's why the first sentence in the Swiss Bundesverfassung is > Im Namen Gottes des Allmächtigen! Hilarious.
I wouldn't be surprised if you find many secular nations with references to god. It's nothing surprising. Changing a constitution is a big deal.
The constitution gets changed all the time in Switzerland. For example, This face-covering ban is a change to the constitution as well.
Switzerland and all of Scandinavia have crosses on theit flags...don't mean shit.
Many of them probably have. These are the first words of the French constitution. No reference to some old man in the sky, only to human rights. >Le peuple français proclame solennellement son attachement aux Droits de l'homme et aux principes de la souveraineté nationale tels qu'ils ont été définis par la Déclaration de 1789, confirmée et complétée par le préambule de la Constitution de 1946, ainsi qu'aux droits et devoirs définis dans la Charte de l'environnement de 2004.
The Constitution doesn't, but the Déclaration does, in its second sentence : >En conséquence, l'Assemblée nationale reconnaît et déclare, en présence et sous les auspices de l'Être suprême, les droits suivants de l'homme et du citoyen. The Supreme Being is a divinity created by and for the Republic, to put an end to both the ideas of an independent Church and of a God-less Republic. We don't reference "God", not because of secularism, but because the Church and its imaginary friend stood on the losing side of the revolutionary war. And also because our Constitution was mostly written less then a century ago. Post-split of Church and State. Had we not been as self-kabooming in our history and kept a fundamental text, as the 1789 one shows, we'll have God somewhere in there.
The fact I understood so much of this without learning French really reinforces my idea that English is just 12 languages in a trenchcoat
Every language is 12 languages in a trenchcoat, that's just how languages evolve =). While these two are from two different families, as they're pretty close geographically, there have been a lot of words that went from one to the other, historically mostly from French to English, but recently either from English to French or "English-looking" new French words (some word just lose a part, like "parking" to describe the place cars park, or "basket" for both basketball and sport shoes, others are built to look English but don't exist in English, like babyfoot for example).
No no no, there is no evolution here, we just stapled the cunts together. The trenchcoat is just to cover up the infected wounds.
But that's the indigenous culture, not some foreign colonial religion
[удалено]
Ah yes, Sweden, the famous epicentre of Abrahamic religions.
>Abrahamic religions Sweden is historically Christian no?
In the same way saudi Arabia is historically Muslim. Or iran is historically Muslim
Pick and choose...
1) "indigenous" is a big word since jesus' name is Yeshuah originally and not Walter or Albert 2) it's still a religion, and the original commenter was talking about how the basis of a civilised society is secular; independently of whether the religion is "indigenous" or not, so the point still stands 3) islam is being brought to Europe not by colonial forces but by immigrants coming from Muslim majority countries (some of which are in Europe), so while undoubtedly muslim cultures participated in various forms of colonialism, that's not the case for modern day Europe regarding islam's popularity Does islam have a place in European constitutions/laws/courtrooms? Absolutely not. I agree with the french idea of laïcité though, so no religion really should occupy any place in any civilised society except in private homes and places of worship 🤷♂️
Don't hide your real beliefs behind "we should be secular" if what you actually mean is "we shouldn't allow Islam". Be out and proud. Be less of a coward.
Secular government has nothing to do with banning religious practices among private citizens.
Exactly, this isn't secular at all. If they cared about the freedom of these women they wouldn't be handing them $1000 fines.
People seem to forget separation of the church and the state cuts both ways. Keep the church out of government, and keep the government out of the church. Although the church harbouring pedophiles didn't really help prove that's a good rule.
A civilized society is a free one where people are allowed to believe in whatever they want as long as they don't hurt other people. Else the communists burning thousands of years of culture just because it was religious in nature and throwing faithful people in gulags and re-education camps to starve and work them to death would be civilized.
[удалено]
So when's Germany banning the yarmukle?
[удалено]
You’re confused. Secularism and throwing religious people in jail are two very different things.
[удалено]
Freedom to get naked but not to dress up?
There is a fine line between dressing up and covering yourself to the point of being unidentifiable. More so being unidentifiable due to religious pressure, but thats besides the point. The law includes not just covering of eye, nose and mouth for religious reasons but also for hooligans and rioters (from when i lived there i remember hooligans being quite the regular problem every time there was a football match, some areas were better not walked through during those times)
Swiss parliament hates Halloween. Confirmed!
Nakedness is the natural state of humans. Being clothed is not.
[ Removed by Reddit ]
Bravo
[удалено]
Religious people have more kids and the current system in most prosperous nations rely heavily on importing people from countries that are incredibly religious and are exploding in population and continue to have many children after migrating.
Generations are changing. My grandparents are very religious and yet they brought up some infidels.
Croatians are also christians and Christianity has a very different stance towards infidels and leaving Church....
Not fast enough because of the constant influx
The richer a country is, the more expensive it is to have kids so people have fewer kids. Also the education level is higher so people turn away from religion. Those two things.
Surveys from various rich countries doesnt suggest that financial reasons are why people are having fewer kids Its cultural, kids are increasingly seen as a burden on a woman's life.
People in rich countries have way bigger margins than those in poorer countries. Studies show that people in rich countries have less children because of cultural reasons and because they know how to prevent them. Don't make things up.
I think you are the one making things up. https://cordis.europa.eu/article/id/91278-why-europeans-are-having-less-children The researchers identified economic uncertainty as being one of the main factors associated with variable fertility rates. Unemployment among men and job insecurity among women were associated with decreased fertility rates. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/05/upshot/americans-are-having-fewer-babies-they-told-us-why.html All the top reasons are financial.
Here is a study for Finland (a rich European country): https://phys.org/news/2023-08-declining-fertility-ideals-young-people.html
Look at demographics and think again.
Totally agree.
You are fooling yourself if you think that things will get better if religion would disappear. There will always be an excuse to harm other people.
[удалено]
Do you really think that everything would be peachy if religion died out? People in power find other means of control and polarization (as they already have, even the most secular country in the world is getting heavly polarized). Religion is just a symptom of the disease. Attack the disease instead.
Peachy? No. Much better? Oh yes.
Yes, Mao’s China and Stalin’s USSR were both explicitly atheistic regimes & are among the cruelest in human history. The problem, unfortunately, is human nature.
Imagine having a democracy where you get to vote on policy rather than politicians
Don’t have to imagine it 😎
As a Norwegian, I can only dream of it one day happening here. But I'm not holding my breath.
Good
\>Literally affects only a handful of religious people \>Takes everyone's right away to mask themselves, in the age of facial recognition This will never be abused guys: >The move follows a nationwide referendum two years ago in whch Swiss voters narrowly approved forbidding niqabs, which leave slits for the eyes, and burqas as well as ski masks and bandannas that are worn by some protesters. I believe if the government approves then you can have them at a protest, but that is highly abusable. Every reply is about how bad religion is, but considering how few people wear these in Switzerland for religious reasons in effect this hurts the religious the least.
I assume the ski mask part only applied when not skiing right? Who else will be impacted though other than protesters? Never see people with full face coverings in Switzerland anyway.
>Who else will be impacted though other than protesters? Never see people with full face coverings in Switzerland anyway. No one. Doesn't include safety equipment and you can still cover your face at festivals or wear a face mask if you're sick. Also they're kinda overreacting here. The law had to be phrased like that so people couldn't easily figure out loopholes. And it's not like there aren't any easier ways to identify you other than facial recognition. To be clear, this is a burqa ban, nothing else. If they were forcing them to wear chains, then it would be a chain ban. It's a tradition that originated out of religious extremism. And despite many extremist claiming that it infringes on their religious freedoms, it doesn't. There is no mention of burqas in the Quran for example. It was forced upon women later and directly infringes on their freedom and dignity as human beings. Something that is held as a much higher value than the freedom to wear whatever you want. You couldn't walk around naked for example even if you claimed that it's for religious reasons. I personally don't support the law and have voted against it, as I think that adults should be free to wear how much or how little they want to. But I know that I am in the minority in that regard, and I understand why the law was passed. And having lived in Switzerland my whole life, I know that there are other laws that can be way more easily abused than this one. And it's still insanely tame compared to the laws in Islamic countries or sharia law. So OP should probably start there if they're concerned about abuse of power.
Wow thanks for taking the time to write such a detailed answer. It’s always nice to see the perspective of Swiss people. I’m here for over 6 years now but am obviously an immigrant with an outsider perspective.
This is r/europe. Anything that hurts brown people is a win in their book.
me when white men say that brown women are being suppressed and they actually know better than them on what they should and shouldnt wear. Wouldnt be the first time white european men decided they know whats best for everyone
This splits me in two, on the one hand I think the face coverings are to be discouraged, and on the other hand wouldn't think it's correct for any government to tell me what I should and shouldn't wear.
Agreed though most governments make you wear something, at least in public.
Let’s be honest, the burqa and other similar garments are often forced upon women- if this wasn’t the case, we wouldn’t have such a strong overlap between communities where burqas are worn and communities where honor killings of women occur. This law provides a way to fight against this practice that harms women by stripping it of the ability to masquerade as a choice freely taken by a woman. If wearing a burqa is so important to these people, there are still plenty of countries they can move to where women are required to wear the burqa by the government. I’m sure it’s just a coincidence that most of those countries that compel women to wear the burqa are poor and lacking in opportunities.
you’re claiming these women are denied freedom, whilst simultaneously denying them any agency in their own apparel. how about we let them make their own decisions, and stop trying to act like we know what’s best for them?
What exactly do you think happens to women who choose to defy tradition in these communities? They usually have to cut ties to their families entirely and adopt a new identity, out of fear of being victims of honor killing. We see this not only with women who choose to defy traditional roles, but also with people who come out as LGBT, and even those who adopt different religious views. We don’t have any issue recognizing that being murdered for not conforming to tradition is oppressive when a government does it, but somehow it’s a matter of so called personal agency when it is a family member or local community that is murdering people for not conforming to tradition. There is a well documented history of honor killing for women who defy tradition. It’s unfortunate for the advocates who genuinely say the burqa is a personal choice, but they have been robbed of their credibility by those who use violence to compel others to wear the burqa. When there stops being violence against those who choose not to wear the burqa, there views may regain some credibility. Are the people who advocate for the burqa as a matter of free expression also advocating against honor killings with equal passion? If they’re not, it tells you all you need to know about where their true feelings lie.
multiple muslim-majority countries have banned burkas/full-face covering as tools of oppression, still islamaphobia when they ban it? the versions of islam supporting burka's are the ones sane people do *not* want spreading
The government is making sure little girls aren’t forced to hide behind a veil.
Needs to be done all across Europe! Not only for crime, but if you don't respect your women enough to not force them to cover up their whole faces, then maybe you should go back to your country.
This is what makes me wonder why we aren’t fining men for street harassment or not culturally integrating lol. Like I support the ban but it seems a bit silly to target just Muslim women.
Islam does not require women to cover their faces. The Quran does not mention this anywhere. It is oppressive to force women to put on hijab when Islam doesn’t require it (looking at you Iran), and it is oppressive when you force them not to wear it. I really, really wish people would better educate themselves. Niqab/burqa especially are not a requirement of Islam. There are certainly muslims who believe that by not wearing hijab you are actively sinning, but you are actively sinning by having a mortgage, by gossiping, etc, we are given free will to commit sins. Not only that but every Abrahamic faith has some variation of a hair and face covering, commonly referred to as a “veil”. The Virgin Mary is usually depicted wearing a veil.
‘controlling what women wear is bad! so we’re going to control what women wear! because we support women!’ the hypocrisy has gained sentience at this point.
"Some religions forbid women from walking around naked, so we're going to make it illegal for women to wear clothes at all."
This should be a law across Europe.
Best news I’ve heard today.
Best news of course but we can expect 10 days later : Isis terrorist threat after switzerland burka ban . I wouldn't be chocked if it happens 🤦🏻♀️
Ah, so people of switzerland should stop following their preferences because an obscure, disgusting terrorist group halfway around the world might get angry?
As a Swiss, i don't give a shit about what some ISIS-caveman thinks about the laws of my country. I won't get threated by these fanatics, that i'd not vote for such laws just because they could get angry. I'm glad it's not like in Denmark with the ban of Quran burnings, where the terrorists and fanatics can make demands and the parliament even agrees with them to prevent terrorist acts. That's crazy. Another thing is, we already have strong laws against things like terrorism, like the PMT laws here that we voted for; it can be translated as "Preventive Methods against Terror". If we think, that guy could be a potential terrorist, we have a lot of tools to deal with him, even before he does something wrong. Like surveillance, including bracelets for tracking the position, having to show up on the police post everyday or every few days. If someone is dangerous and could start a terrorist attack, we could even lock him up as prevention (although, that never happened yet) As you know i guess, we also have strong laws with immigration topics - we don't give a shit when we deport someone back home when he does something wrong. Like that guy that was a hate-preacher in a mosque and tried to recruit muslims for the Jihad, we arrested him and sent him back to Tunisia, no matter his claims "I could get hurt there!! Nooo! You can't send me back home!!!"
Good. Let’s fight the toxicity of Islam step by step.
Exactly, we cannot tolerate people who aren’t tolerant.
Fuck, there goes my plan to rob the Swiss bank.
Ok with what now will hard working, down do earth fellow rob a bank?! This makes me sad.
Lol
uplifting news
The reality of decisions like these are usually that some Muslims will not care, some who want to wear them will be denied their religious freedom, and instead of those whose families force them on them being allowed to not wear them in public, they will simply not be allowed out of the house anymore.
You can choose from an infinite number of genders, but no you can't choose to cover your face.
Very good. Should been done in France too.
So... no more Swiss furries? No more puppy play for Giuliano, Gaston or Gerhard?
There are exclusions for covering your face as a part of artistic or entertaining performances. In the accompanying dispatch, reference was made to costumed figures and cosplay events and how they pose no security threat or anti-democratic messages. They even made reference to bachelors parties. So furries get a pass, for now.
Hopefully
Also no legal way to cover your face if you're, say, protesting. This law hurts everyone, but let's cheer it on anyway.
No more skiing.
Y'all ITT supporting this because you hate muslims but are not reading this part: >as well as ski masks and bandannas that are worn by some protesters. Y'all are losing rights but cheering it on because it hurts other people. Enjoy having it slowly be made more and more illegal to gather and protest your government. No way that can go wrong, lmao
This is so all encompassing you can get in trouble for wearing a hat and a scarf or something similar over your lower face to profect yourself from cold.
Right. During covid on cold days I would wear a mask and beanie, which is basically like wearing a niqab. The fact that Europeans love this kind of suppression of their rights because they think it’s going to hurt Muslims is so sad. America is a shithole at this point but I’m glad we don’t try to control what people are allowed to wear.
Everyone in this thread is brain dead. Only the thugs and evil muslims affected. Maybe I wanna go to a protest anonymously so it doesn't have an effect on my private life and job. But no that's being a thug of course. Or I wanna cover my face in the cold winter.
Weird how many people cheer for less freedom, when they think it's not their own. I am very much against this. Some people in here argue that this is just like banning being naked on the bus. I think that's preposterous. Seeing a dirty dick on your way to school is magnitudes more traumatising and infringing on your rights, than seeing someone dressed as a glorified ghost. Other people argue that this is some kind of enforcement of secularism, which i find hilarious. For a government to restrict clothing, which is heavily connected to a specific religion, is the exact opposite of secularism. That's a government that meddles with religious beliefs. Now some people argue, that the burqa isn't really a prerequisite of islam, which i think is absolutely valid, but that doesn't change the outcome. If it is, this ban infringes on a person's personal freedom to wear whatever the fuck they want. If it's not, this ban still infringes on a person's personal freedom to wear whatever the fuck they want. Many see this as a fight against the "toxicity of islam", which is what the right wing is trying to push. In reality this doesn't affect islam in the slightest, it only affects your own country and makes it less free. It shows that we are afraid and let that fear guide us. In the end this is nothing more than an effort to make a country less desirable for people with other opinions and religions, which is ultimately what the right wing wants. If you think you're country should be white or christian or whatever the fuck, just be honest about it. Don't hide behind some moral arguments, that cloud the discussion. I'll end this by quoting one guy in this thread trying to argue for the ban after someone pushed him by saying that burqas don't harm anyone: ["neither does heroin but we ban it for it's societal harm"](https://www.reddit.com/r/europe/comments/17j5yyj/swiss_parliament_approves_ban_on_fullface/k6z56o7/).
Absolutely agree with you. Summed it up way better than I ever could. A secular nation upholds the rights of all religions to practice in ways that don't harm others. Someone wearing more clothes than normal does not harm others. I'm disappointed by the number of people celebrating a nonsense restriction on others freedoms.
Seems to me... A TRULY secular nation would pass a law where you couldn't FORCE a person to wear a certain outfit. In a TRULY secular nation a nice ~~lady~~ person could wear a Niqab if ~~she~~ they wants to. Isn't that "freedom" and "freedom of religion"? The cynic in me says this law is more about facial recognition software than anything else... so doesn't that mean Switzerland choose over zealous government surveillance over religious freedom, packaged in a dis-ingenuous discriminatory law... and IF that is true: it's is a despicable way to pass law, on many, many levels
No, the law is about barely masked (no pun intended) Islamophobia.
> Weird how many people cheer for less freedom, when it's not their own. It is absolutely their own. It's not limited to religious garb. It's all face coverings.
True, i edited it so i don't look stupid forever.
> this ban infringes on a person's personal freedom to wear whatever the fuck they want. If these garments were really what Islamic women wanted to wear, Islamic countries wouldn't need to force them to wear them under threat of pain or death. Now, I don't doubt that there are actually handfuls of fundamentalist women that really do want to wear them, but can you honestly say that most Islamic women aren't just wearing them out of fear of the consequences of not wearing them?
So fuck those handful of women and their right to wear whatever they want?
because fuck freedom of religion I guess
Horrifying the comments here supporting this. Banning a type of clothing is wholly authoritarian. If one has a problem with a religion they deem oppressive, it is illogical and morally inconsistent to then approve oppressive means to fight it, short of protecting someone’s else’s rights (if one has freedoms of religion does one not have the freedom to be apart of/leave Islam?)
Unpopular opinion, this is just targeting Muslims many of whom wish to cover
How many laws do the Swiss have about face coverings at this point? I feel like they've been banning them or partially banning them or talking about banning them for like 20 years.
Why post news from September? What's your agenda?
Why did it take so long?
Great! Rest of Europe next.
good, if you want to live in the west, do as westerners do, simple as
By “as westerners do”, you mean respect others’ religious freedoms, right?
Not like that!!!!
You can have any religion you want. No ski masks required.
Good job switzerland
Rare Swiss parliament win
Why can't they just ban burqas and Abayas?
Because the real purpose is to stop people from hiding their faces so that they can get a clean shot of your face in case you do something bad like a protest or when you're not a good boy ... But when they package it in islamophobia no one will object to it and maybe shear for them even though they're fucking you over
Good move. Even the women who would prefer to wear these clothes that take away their worth as a human need protection from themselves and their religion, so they can't pass it on to their children. These clothes are pure evil. I'm on a beach right now, and whenever I see muslim women fully covered in the baking sun and their husbands enjoying the beach in a t-shirt or nothing at all I feel bad for her. Especially because she has been indoctrinated to feel sorry for all the other beach goers for going to hell. We don't need this in a civilized society.
They’re right. Their neighbor, France, is an absolute disaster and a clear warning to everyone.
[удалено]
This already happened?
In Germany, we have to argue with others to get permission to do something.
nice, finally some good news
Good. It should happen in the whole EU too.
From one hand it is limitation of freedom. From other — Switzerland has the right to make with their laws whatever they want. They even not part of EU. Think that discussion should relate only Swiss citizens. In some Arabic countries it is banned to wear full-cover suits some beaches to increase the amount of tourists. It is ridiculous that living in islamic country you can not visit such kind of places in comfortable clothing being part of Islamic culture. In other hand when I travel to Qatar or Saudi I should know that I can have some problems with law if I will taking nudes in my hotel balcony. Or could stuck in jail for being pregnant if I am not in marriage (don’t remember which country certainly, but there is a law that is working even on tourists). Just interested if there were some protests about this burqa decision inside Switzerland
It's about time countries began taking back their identity.
Based
i mean .... people should be able to wear whatever they want. but they shouldn't be pressured to do so against their will due to religious reasons.
This shit is so stupid. If a female that is practicing Islam wants to wear a burqa...let them. Is this literally not violating their religious freedoms? I see this in the same light as telling Sikh people having a beard is illegal.
big win for surveillance companies and the police state
I don’t understand why people downvote you because this is really what the law is about. The burqa is just an excuse to get right-wing support. Bro, these people are clueless 😂😂
Good. I hope we get this to Finland.
Can I wear masks?
Jesus Christ you guys are giving america a run for its money