The language of the burqa bans include face masks. They were and remain the law in many European nations. Have been upheld by the European Court of Human Rights - the right to expect and see an uncovered face in public is a human right! Their declaration!
I often cited the burqa bans and rationale behind them in my arguments against mask mandates. A human right that isn't inferior even in a declared emergency.
Yet, even the courts that declared it's a human right to see a free face in public ignored their own rulings when mask mandates were enacted.
It's odd to see them go back to enforcing bans now. Another example of how we do not live under the rule of law and that courts are merely political rubber stamps for the agendas of those in power. There is no enduring, overriding law, jurisprudence philosophy other than the expression of power. Another example of how arbitrary, whimsical and capricious the law is today. In the US and Europe.
Sure, put another ban of facial coverings, burqas masks, etc on the books. But don't think for a moment that it will be enforced the next time those in power find it inconvenient to not enforce the ban. A feature of tyrannical, despotic and corrupt rule by criminals is arbitrary, whimsical and capricious law. Switzerland's ban will similarly be ignored in future "emergencies."
Human rights defined by the WHO- only when it serves their purpose. Switzerland is not acting unilaterally but with pressure no doubt from its masters. Banning the Muslim practice now opens the door to further discrimination ie. no crucifixes can be worn on a persons body in the future. Human rights should allow individual autonomy regarding how one presents themselves in public.
NOT covered faces. Covered faces are NOT a human right. They are devices of terrorism. Pure, unadulterated terrorism. Used to make others fearful.
Numerous psychological studies done to prove it. Still face baby studies. Traumatizing. Studies of the effect of masked faces demonstrate they impact the amygdala fight, fight, freeze instinct trigger exactly the same as seeing a snake for most people. They also make a population more violent, less able to discern intentions, seriousness of a threat that facial expressions communicate to a brain evolved to detect and rely on them for peaceful encounters involving disagreement.
There's a reason that pre-2020 masks were only seen in public on bank robbers and airplane hijackers. Chosen by epidemiologists trained in Behavioral Science psychological manipulation to "amplify fear" in a population that 'suffers' from "optimism bias." Their terms, their justification to scare us away from one another and take their health commands seriously. The 'terror' part of a bioterror attack was masks, facial coverings.
No. Mask wearing in public MUST be banned. The ECHR got it right when it ruled in August 2019 that it's a human right to see uncovered faces in public. Just months before the tyrants required them.
Perhaps banning them will even help the victims of the global psychological attack who will now only go out in public with masks on or only see masked faces in hospitals and nursing homes where they need human connection more than anything else. Break their imposed psychosis.
I think face recognition software was being calibrated using the phases of "social distancing" alternating with phases of regular crowds for iterations of software testing, and masks were for fine-tuning the face recognition software's skill in recognizing upper face segments, plus, extrapolating lower face segment based on upper segment and blurred lower segment.
It is heartening to see Western nations start to defend their cultures against the incursion of other cultures. in those nations, if they choose to allow or require face coverings, that is their choice, but when in Rome, as the saying goes, people need to adhere to to Western norms and rules.
To equate wearing a burqa with terrorism is a gross exaggeration- look at US supporting a known terrorist with a price on his head allowed to capture
Syria a sovereign country and then presenting him as a
legitimate leader - the miracle of propaganda - real terrorists -Biden, Zellensky, NATO, Netanyahu, Erdogan. The burqa wearing immigrant is being demonized while our purported leaders pay terrorists to act as their proxies in dirty wars - the goal is oil and the food supply. Burqa wearing women are easy targets that is why they are demonized - we are powerless to defeat the real terrorist - our government. Real terrorists don’t wear burqas.
Are the women wearing the burqua freely or is it forced on them? That is the difference. It needs to be a personal choice. Not forced due to societal demands, if living in western countries. Assimilation to standards of decency, no abuse of women & children physically or sexually. Adapt to the the country you moved to. There’s a concept.
It wasn’t out of terrorism thought anyway - we voted for it because we respect human rights. Religions practiced actively undermining these are not something we have to accept and respect. We respect everyone and their religious freedom but we expect a moral standard aligned with our culture not someone elses and like other countries decided to finally take action to start protecting what’s left after 30 years of major immigration of people from vastly different cultures since the Yugoslavia conflict, us being a top ranked asylum target. I think the combined Syria+Ukraine situation tipped the balance of no longer acceptable as we have reached a non Swiss origin population percentage of 40% if you measure it by population growth since 2000
Welcome to the melting pot - you cannot legislate religious influenced behavior and call it protecting human rights.A moral standard would show acceptance of the other. Your culture might be enriched by a heterogeneous population bringing in various beliefs and points of view to enrich your lives. These new citizens did not necessarily leave their countries by choice but under duress and you add to their inability to assimilate by banning traditional beliefs and behaviors. Are Jews denied the right to wear yarmulkes? Life as the other in a predominantly white Christian country truly has challenges enough without imposing laws that makes access to the new culture impossible for many. Perhaps your country should review its policies to be more accommodating and see how the new immigrants respond to acceptance of who they are. You can be a good citizen without adhering to antiquated cultural norms especially when the populace of others is now 40 % or more - give these new citizens a chance. What would you do if you were denied your normative practices in a Muslim country? The Muslims had a tradition of tolerance throughout the ages of acceptance of Christians snd Jews and other religions and cultural groups -It is only in the more recent years that fascistic leaders and religious interpretation has demonized the other. See Syria a totally accepting secular culture until now when a terrorist reduced the country to mayhem and imposed harsh sharia influenced laws demonizing the other all paid for by western governments. Using religious differences for political gain solves nothing. Peace and peaceful coexisting is the answer - give it a try- get to know your new neighbors.
1) "legislate religious influenced behavior [wearing? a burqa, the veil] and call it protecting human rights": — It is a human rights issue, because of muslims' culture of Honor-Oppression. In Sweden there are more that 240.000 swedish citizens (about every 4th muslim) that lives more or less under this culture. (I presume that this Ratio is the same in other West-european countries.)
2) "Your culture might be enriched by a heterogeneous [diverse] population": — That might be true: what One finds to be enriching is a personal matter, usually beyond One's control, because it occurs spontaniously. Regardless, everyone knows that One does not have a choice: If One does not like 'Diversity' (cultural, ethnic, religious)... One is declared a 'Racist' and to be shunned and detested by society at-large.
3) "These new citizens did not necessarily leave their countries by choice but under duress": — Regardless of duress or not, it is still a requirement (acc. human nature) that they (immigrants, refugees) respect the (helping) host people's culture.
4) "[Cultural muslims'] inability to assimilate by banning traditional beliefs and behaviors": — It is not "banning" these. It is to restrict how these are expressed... in public. And, if assimilation is not done voluntarily, it is to be enforced by social pressure and/or (new) Laws. Otherwise, it is a form of colonisation.
5) "Are Jews denied the right to wear yarmulkes?" — Jews, hindus, buddhist, sikhs... every-kind else do not demand submission (arb. 'islam') like cultural muslims do.
6) "white Christian country truly has challenges": — Such a country (west-european) is the least worst for newcomers to integrate into, compared to all other kinds of countries.
7) "Perhaps your country [Switzerland?, Sweden?, others?] should review its policies to be more accommodating....": — If there is one kind of country that do more than anyone else to accomodate immigrants: see 6).
8) ".... and see how the new immigrants respond": — In my country (Sweden) and in England, I can see how they (cultural muslims) respond when being welcomed and accommodated: They demand Blasphemy Laws.
9) "You can be a good citizen without adhering to antiquated cultural norms": — I presume 'Karla M LaZier' refers to cultural muslims. Several surveys show she is wrong. Many, if not most/a majority, still carry with them/manitain "antiquated cultural norms" (ie. in comparison with modern european culture).
9A) The swedish largest political party, Social Democrats, have recently (!, 2023-Nov-27) discovered that there are many areas/neighbourhoods/towns that have Unhealthy Norms/Values [ie. un-Swedish culture] and Honor Culture.
9B) 2016-Apr-11 Channel 4/ICM Research: "C4 survey and documentaryreveals What British Muslims Really Think": —23% support the introduction of Sharia Law; —32% refuse to condemn those who take part in violence against those who mock the Prophet; —39% agree that wives should always obey their husbands; —52% do not believe that homosexuality should be legal in Britain.
9C) 2024-Apr-06 The Telegraph: "Just one in four British Muslims believe Hamas committed murder and rape in Israel": —(52 per cent) "of British Muslims want to make it illegal to show a picture of the Prophet Mohammed"; —(32 per cent) "want to see Shariah law implemented in the UK".
9D) See point 1) above [+240.000 swedish citizens are subjects of Honor Culture].
10) "What would you do if you were denied your normative practices in a Muslim country?" — In which muslim country do minorities (any kind, eg. religious) have if not equal rights, but at the very least are not discriminated?
11) "Peace and peaceful coexisting is the answer - give it a try- get to know your new neighbors." — I agree. But, that can not happen until cultural muslims stop demanding our submission (arb. 'islam').
LASTLY: I appreciate 'Karla M LaZier's good nature and efforts, but they are misguided.
Switzerland is a direct democracy- we don’t have representatives vote for us - all the citizens get to vote on national, regional and local laws.
Not even major budget decisions on any of these 3 levels can be made by politicians without us having the right of referendum to force a vote.
So whatever the WHO wants only impacts us to the degree that the voting population agrees with it.
We are also not part of the EU for this very reason: we rejected EU and Euro twice in the last 29 years (we are and were founding part of the EWR though - the only really working part of what the EU assimilated)
Switzerland should vote to close all societies within its borders that have global domination agendas. Switzerland should stop being the whore of dictators and tyrants around the world who plunder the wealth of the nations they rule over and store their gold in Swiss banks. Switzerland is not neutral. Switzerland is a safe haven for greedy reptilian monsters.
It’s true that most people look for free articles they can read. I read a lot. If I monetarily subscribed to every post I read, I would be broke.
I also understand that we live in perilous times. Many articles, by different authors, tell us about the evil being perpetrated on us by governments around the world. It is totally insane, and for the most part true.
I want to know more, but I can’t afford to pay the cost of this service. My hope is that this information will be readily available in time to come.
The women wearing face coverings in Switzerland will be further marginalized by this ban. So sad that intolerance for others needs to be legitimized in this manner. Who does the face covering harm? Women will no longer be able to be out in society and experience acceptance that might lead them to discard face coverings of their own volition. Switzerland please be more tolerant- if you went to an Islamic country and they enforced face coverings for Christian women since face coverings are the norm for women in this country how would you react? Your loved ones would be disenfranchised and probably denied education and social autonomy and your children would suffer due to restrictions placed on their mothers.
In 2025 can we not just accept the other? Banning face coverings is not an enlightened policy.
It is a necessary for security. Too many terrorist attacks from your friends has made us wary and we cannot risk our innocent people. We have been too tolerant already.
Burqa and mask bans are good, but the refusal to recognize child marriages is better. Now for the real test - will the Swiss remove children from their abusers if they determine an unrecognized child marriage is in place? Regardless, it's a good first step. In America, most states have age limits for marriage, but the federal government, while not encouraging Muslim immigrants to bring their child brides with them when immigrating, has also betrayed a willingness to look the other way if a Muslim declares himself the "guardian" of a non-blood related female child during immigration proceedings. We've also seen various local and state governments shoot down laws protecting young girls from genital mutilation. A doctor was acquitted of performing genital mutilation on girls in Michigan, not because he didn't do it, but because the judge felt it was a "cultural practice" the law shouldn't be involved in. Yes, really. Now, if only the left would see my purchase of firearms, ammunition and love of hunting meat for my family as a "cultural practice," we'd all be set, I guess. 🙄
I very much doubt the Muslim community will listen to this insane law, mandated facemasks absolutely ban but if a woman of the Muslim faith wants to wear a burqa she has the right to do that, anyone who thinks government has the right to ban an item of clothing has a slave mentality
'Michelle' writes: "if a woman of the Muslim faith wants to wear a burqa she has the right to do that".
On Principle (and humanity, ie. being humane), I would agree. But, does she also have the 'right' to be critisised for wearing a burqa, or a veil?
And critisised for disregarding/disrespecting the Swiss' culture of religion/religious practicies (customs), which is a Private matter, not to be flaunted in public?
Does she have the 'right' to condemn —ie. accusing the 'critisiser' for being a 'Racist'/'islamophob' (this is not applicable in a democracy), so 'taught' by the 'Establishment'/Media, making her a Criminal according to the Defamation Law— anyone who does/Dare critisise her?...
... bringing them to Court, charged with slander/desecration (defamation)?
·
This new Swiss law (ban of face-coverings) should be viewed as an Integration measure/act, which teaches the immigrant what is right or wrong to wear (when and how?)... according to the Swiss people's Culture.
The reason for this Law is that the Swiss faild to do the 'work' of integration. Did they think that their government/'Establishment' should do it for them? (Have the forgotten that they live in a democracy?)
Now it (the government) has done the 'work', which might give the swiss Courage to continue (this 'work') and Speak Truthfully to and about cultural muslims (forcing the "Muslim community [to] listen"):
Suella BRAVERMAN (ex-Home Secretary, UK) 2024-Feb-22, The Telegraph: "Islamists are bullying Britain into submission [Arb. 'islam']":
– "This isn't just about my colleagues in Parliament. Our values and freedoms are under attack in ALL WALKS OF LIFE."
–"We need to overcome the FEAR of being labelled Islamophobic [and 'RACIST'] and Speak Truthfully."
·
WHEN this kind of muslims have listened (ie. respecting the Swiss' culture) and eventually are integrated —
(unless their culture becomes dominant in Switzerland)
— then the 'ban'/Law can be lifted... because it is indeed a kind of (Ref. 'Michelle') "slave mentality": the government ordering people what (not) to wear. — It is, on Principle, inhumane and undemocratic.
The biggest takeaway here is the democracy in Switzerland where people can actually vote for new laws.
Would love to see this in the US
Me too, we are all equal.
I am Swiss and voted YES for this ban.
😊 Thank you
The language of the burqa bans include face masks. They were and remain the law in many European nations. Have been upheld by the European Court of Human Rights - the right to expect and see an uncovered face in public is a human right! Their declaration!
I often cited the burqa bans and rationale behind them in my arguments against mask mandates. A human right that isn't inferior even in a declared emergency.
Yet, even the courts that declared it's a human right to see a free face in public ignored their own rulings when mask mandates were enacted.
It's odd to see them go back to enforcing bans now. Another example of how we do not live under the rule of law and that courts are merely political rubber stamps for the agendas of those in power. There is no enduring, overriding law, jurisprudence philosophy other than the expression of power. Another example of how arbitrary, whimsical and capricious the law is today. In the US and Europe.
Sure, put another ban of facial coverings, burqas masks, etc on the books. But don't think for a moment that it will be enforced the next time those in power find it inconvenient to not enforce the ban. A feature of tyrannical, despotic and corrupt rule by criminals is arbitrary, whimsical and capricious law. Switzerland's ban will similarly be ignored in future "emergencies."
Human rights defined by the WHO- only when it serves their purpose. Switzerland is not acting unilaterally but with pressure no doubt from its masters. Banning the Muslim practice now opens the door to further discrimination ie. no crucifixes can be worn on a persons body in the future. Human rights should allow individual autonomy regarding how one presents themselves in public.
NOT covered faces. Covered faces are NOT a human right. They are devices of terrorism. Pure, unadulterated terrorism. Used to make others fearful.
Numerous psychological studies done to prove it. Still face baby studies. Traumatizing. Studies of the effect of masked faces demonstrate they impact the amygdala fight, fight, freeze instinct trigger exactly the same as seeing a snake for most people. They also make a population more violent, less able to discern intentions, seriousness of a threat that facial expressions communicate to a brain evolved to detect and rely on them for peaceful encounters involving disagreement.
There's a reason that pre-2020 masks were only seen in public on bank robbers and airplane hijackers. Chosen by epidemiologists trained in Behavioral Science psychological manipulation to "amplify fear" in a population that 'suffers' from "optimism bias." Their terms, their justification to scare us away from one another and take their health commands seriously. The 'terror' part of a bioterror attack was masks, facial coverings.
No. Mask wearing in public MUST be banned. The ECHR got it right when it ruled in August 2019 that it's a human right to see uncovered faces in public. Just months before the tyrants required them.
Perhaps banning them will even help the victims of the global psychological attack who will now only go out in public with masks on or only see masked faces in hospitals and nursing homes where they need human connection more than anything else. Break their imposed psychosis.
The rest of what you say is true.
Agree. 👍
Isn't this so face recognition can work properly?
I think face recognition software was being calibrated using the phases of "social distancing" alternating with phases of regular crowds for iterations of software testing, and masks were for fine-tuning the face recognition software's skill in recognizing upper face segments, plus, extrapolating lower face segment based on upper segment and blurred lower segment.
Always the experimental lab animal….
It is heartening to see Western nations start to defend their cultures against the incursion of other cultures. in those nations, if they choose to allow or require face coverings, that is their choice, but when in Rome, as the saying goes, people need to adhere to to Western norms and rules.
Face masks?
To equate wearing a burqa with terrorism is a gross exaggeration- look at US supporting a known terrorist with a price on his head allowed to capture
Syria a sovereign country and then presenting him as a
legitimate leader - the miracle of propaganda - real terrorists -Biden, Zellensky, NATO, Netanyahu, Erdogan. The burqa wearing immigrant is being demonized while our purported leaders pay terrorists to act as their proxies in dirty wars - the goal is oil and the food supply. Burqa wearing women are easy targets that is why they are demonized - we are powerless to defeat the real terrorist - our government. Real terrorists don’t wear burqas.
The culture that asks women to hide themselves and lest we forget, to undergo genital mutilation, should be demonised.
Are the women wearing the burqua freely or is it forced on them? That is the difference. It needs to be a personal choice. Not forced due to societal demands, if living in western countries. Assimilation to standards of decency, no abuse of women & children physically or sexually. Adapt to the the country you moved to. There’s a concept.
It wasn’t out of terrorism thought anyway - we voted for it because we respect human rights. Religions practiced actively undermining these are not something we have to accept and respect. We respect everyone and their religious freedom but we expect a moral standard aligned with our culture not someone elses and like other countries decided to finally take action to start protecting what’s left after 30 years of major immigration of people from vastly different cultures since the Yugoslavia conflict, us being a top ranked asylum target. I think the combined Syria+Ukraine situation tipped the balance of no longer acceptable as we have reached a non Swiss origin population percentage of 40% if you measure it by population growth since 2000
Welcome to the melting pot - you cannot legislate religious influenced behavior and call it protecting human rights.A moral standard would show acceptance of the other. Your culture might be enriched by a heterogeneous population bringing in various beliefs and points of view to enrich your lives. These new citizens did not necessarily leave their countries by choice but under duress and you add to their inability to assimilate by banning traditional beliefs and behaviors. Are Jews denied the right to wear yarmulkes? Life as the other in a predominantly white Christian country truly has challenges enough without imposing laws that makes access to the new culture impossible for many. Perhaps your country should review its policies to be more accommodating and see how the new immigrants respond to acceptance of who they are. You can be a good citizen without adhering to antiquated cultural norms especially when the populace of others is now 40 % or more - give these new citizens a chance. What would you do if you were denied your normative practices in a Muslim country? The Muslims had a tradition of tolerance throughout the ages of acceptance of Christians snd Jews and other religions and cultural groups -It is only in the more recent years that fascistic leaders and religious interpretation has demonized the other. See Syria a totally accepting secular culture until now when a terrorist reduced the country to mayhem and imposed harsh sharia influenced laws demonizing the other all paid for by western governments. Using religious differences for political gain solves nothing. Peace and peaceful coexisting is the answer - give it a try- get to know your new neighbors.
'Karla M LaZier' is wrong on several points.
1) "legislate religious influenced behavior [wearing? a burqa, the veil] and call it protecting human rights": — It is a human rights issue, because of muslims' culture of Honor-Oppression. In Sweden there are more that 240.000 swedish citizens (about every 4th muslim) that lives more or less under this culture. (I presume that this Ratio is the same in other West-european countries.)
2) "Your culture might be enriched by a heterogeneous [diverse] population": — That might be true: what One finds to be enriching is a personal matter, usually beyond One's control, because it occurs spontaniously. Regardless, everyone knows that One does not have a choice: If One does not like 'Diversity' (cultural, ethnic, religious)... One is declared a 'Racist' and to be shunned and detested by society at-large.
3) "These new citizens did not necessarily leave their countries by choice but under duress": — Regardless of duress or not, it is still a requirement (acc. human nature) that they (immigrants, refugees) respect the (helping) host people's culture.
4) "[Cultural muslims'] inability to assimilate by banning traditional beliefs and behaviors": — It is not "banning" these. It is to restrict how these are expressed... in public. And, if assimilation is not done voluntarily, it is to be enforced by social pressure and/or (new) Laws. Otherwise, it is a form of colonisation.
5) "Are Jews denied the right to wear yarmulkes?" — Jews, hindus, buddhist, sikhs... every-kind else do not demand submission (arb. 'islam') like cultural muslims do.
6) "white Christian country truly has challenges": — Such a country (west-european) is the least worst for newcomers to integrate into, compared to all other kinds of countries.
7) "Perhaps your country [Switzerland?, Sweden?, others?] should review its policies to be more accommodating....": — If there is one kind of country that do more than anyone else to accomodate immigrants: see 6).
8) ".... and see how the new immigrants respond": — In my country (Sweden) and in England, I can see how they (cultural muslims) respond when being welcomed and accommodated: They demand Blasphemy Laws.
9) "You can be a good citizen without adhering to antiquated cultural norms": — I presume 'Karla M LaZier' refers to cultural muslims. Several surveys show she is wrong. Many, if not most/a majority, still carry with them/manitain "antiquated cultural norms" (ie. in comparison with modern european culture).
9A) The swedish largest political party, Social Democrats, have recently (!, 2023-Nov-27) discovered that there are many areas/neighbourhoods/towns that have Unhealthy Norms/Values [ie. un-Swedish culture] and Honor Culture.
9B) 2016-Apr-11 Channel 4/ICM Research: "C4 survey and documentaryreveals What British Muslims Really Think": —23% support the introduction of Sharia Law; —32% refuse to condemn those who take part in violence against those who mock the Prophet; —39% agree that wives should always obey their husbands; —52% do not believe that homosexuality should be legal in Britain.
9C) 2024-Apr-06 The Telegraph: "Just one in four British Muslims believe Hamas committed murder and rape in Israel": —(52 per cent) "of British Muslims want to make it illegal to show a picture of the Prophet Mohammed"; —(32 per cent) "want to see Shariah law implemented in the UK".
9D) See point 1) above [+240.000 swedish citizens are subjects of Honor Culture].
10) "What would you do if you were denied your normative practices in a Muslim country?" — In which muslim country do minorities (any kind, eg. religious) have if not equal rights, but at the very least are not discriminated?
11) "Peace and peaceful coexisting is the answer - give it a try- get to know your new neighbors." — I agree. But, that can not happen until cultural muslims stop demanding our submission (arb. 'islam').
LASTLY: I appreciate 'Karla M LaZier's good nature and efforts, but they are misguided.
Excellent law
Isn’t WHO in Switzerland? Are they going to force us all to where stupid covid masks? Won’t work. Fuck Switzerland.
Switzerland is a direct democracy- we don’t have representatives vote for us - all the citizens get to vote on national, regional and local laws.
Not even major budget decisions on any of these 3 levels can be made by politicians without us having the right of referendum to force a vote.
So whatever the WHO wants only impacts us to the degree that the voting population agrees with it.
We are also not part of the EU for this very reason: we rejected EU and Euro twice in the last 29 years (we are and were founding part of the EWR though - the only really working part of what the EU assimilated)
Switzerland should vote to close all societies within its borders that have global domination agendas. Switzerland should stop being the whore of dictators and tyrants around the world who plunder the wealth of the nations they rule over and store their gold in Swiss banks. Switzerland is not neutral. Switzerland is a safe haven for greedy reptilian monsters.
Great move. Get rid of medieval sharia and wannabe surgeons in one move.
It’s true that most people look for free articles they can read. I read a lot. If I monetarily subscribed to every post I read, I would be broke.
I also understand that we live in perilous times. Many articles, by different authors, tell us about the evil being perpetrated on us by governments around the world. It is totally insane, and for the most part true.
I want to know more, but I can’t afford to pay the cost of this service. My hope is that this information will be readily available in time to come.
Thank you for your efforts.
The women wearing face coverings in Switzerland will be further marginalized by this ban. So sad that intolerance for others needs to be legitimized in this manner. Who does the face covering harm? Women will no longer be able to be out in society and experience acceptance that might lead them to discard face coverings of their own volition. Switzerland please be more tolerant- if you went to an Islamic country and they enforced face coverings for Christian women since face coverings are the norm for women in this country how would you react? Your loved ones would be disenfranchised and probably denied education and social autonomy and your children would suffer due to restrictions placed on their mothers.
In 2025 can we not just accept the other? Banning face coverings is not an enlightened policy.
It is a necessary for security. Too many terrorist attacks from your friends has made us wary and we cannot risk our innocent people. We have been too tolerant already.
I have mixed feelings, but generally I don't think there should be ANY face coverings in public, not even for law enforcement.
Burqa and mask bans are good, but the refusal to recognize child marriages is better. Now for the real test - will the Swiss remove children from their abusers if they determine an unrecognized child marriage is in place? Regardless, it's a good first step. In America, most states have age limits for marriage, but the federal government, while not encouraging Muslim immigrants to bring their child brides with them when immigrating, has also betrayed a willingness to look the other way if a Muslim declares himself the "guardian" of a non-blood related female child during immigration proceedings. We've also seen various local and state governments shoot down laws protecting young girls from genital mutilation. A doctor was acquitted of performing genital mutilation on girls in Michigan, not because he didn't do it, but because the judge felt it was a "cultural practice" the law shouldn't be involved in. Yes, really. Now, if only the left would see my purchase of firearms, ammunition and love of hunting meat for my family as a "cultural practice," we'd all be set, I guess. 🙄
I very much doubt the Muslim community will listen to this insane law, mandated facemasks absolutely ban but if a woman of the Muslim faith wants to wear a burqa she has the right to do that, anyone who thinks government has the right to ban an item of clothing has a slave mentality
'Michelle' writes: "if a woman of the Muslim faith wants to wear a burqa she has the right to do that".
On Principle (and humanity, ie. being humane), I would agree. But, does she also have the 'right' to be critisised for wearing a burqa, or a veil?
And critisised for disregarding/disrespecting the Swiss' culture of religion/religious practicies (customs), which is a Private matter, not to be flaunted in public?
Does she have the 'right' to condemn —ie. accusing the 'critisiser' for being a 'Racist'/'islamophob' (this is not applicable in a democracy), so 'taught' by the 'Establishment'/Media, making her a Criminal according to the Defamation Law— anyone who does/Dare critisise her?...
... bringing them to Court, charged with slander/desecration (defamation)?
·
This new Swiss law (ban of face-coverings) should be viewed as an Integration measure/act, which teaches the immigrant what is right or wrong to wear (when and how?)... according to the Swiss people's Culture.
The reason for this Law is that the Swiss faild to do the 'work' of integration. Did they think that their government/'Establishment' should do it for them? (Have the forgotten that they live in a democracy?)
Now it (the government) has done the 'work', which might give the swiss Courage to continue (this 'work') and Speak Truthfully to and about cultural muslims (forcing the "Muslim community [to] listen"):
Suella BRAVERMAN (ex-Home Secretary, UK) 2024-Feb-22, The Telegraph: "Islamists are bullying Britain into submission [Arb. 'islam']":
– "This isn't just about my colleagues in Parliament. Our values and freedoms are under attack in ALL WALKS OF LIFE."
–"We need to overcome the FEAR of being labelled Islamophobic [and 'RACIST'] and Speak Truthfully."
·
WHEN this kind of muslims have listened (ie. respecting the Swiss' culture) and eventually are integrated —
(unless their culture becomes dominant in Switzerland)
— then the 'ban'/Law can be lifted... because it is indeed a kind of (Ref. 'Michelle') "slave mentality": the government ordering people what (not) to wear. — It is, on Principle, inhumane and undemocratic.