The Swiss government has opposed a “grassroots campaign for a nationwide ban on facial coverings in public that will prompt a binding referendum.” As an alternative, the Swiss government has suggested adopting laws that “would prevent people from covering their faces when dealing with officials and punish anyone who forced women to conceal their faces with up to three years in jail.”
Muslim women who wear the burqa wear it publicly at all times. To oppose the anti-burqa campaign and propose such an alternative is illogical and mere political posturing out of fear of appearing “intolerant” and “Islamophobic.” “Officials” exist in multiple spheres of society, so how does one determine which “officials” require faces to be shown? Furthermore, how could anyone determine who is forcing a Muslim woman to wear a burqa? Do Swiss authorities expect a woman covered in a burqa to report her husband and/or members of her community who strictly adhere to sharia?
Swiss proponents of the burqa have asserted that a ban “intrudes on religious freedom,” yet the Swiss government will not openly approve other aspects of sharia, such as FGM, child marriage, forced marriage, polygamy, the triple talaq, and the inferiority of women, Christians, Jews and other religious minorities.
The definition of religious freedom has not been adequately elucidated in Western society. Religious freedom is widely understood to be a right that allows one to worship in any faith tradition freely without persecution. It does not allow for the trampling of another’s rights. One cannot violate Western constitutional protections of human rights in the name of “religious freedom.” There are also norms in the West that facilitate security and a sense of safety. One has a right, for example, to know the face of the school bus driver who is transporting one’s children. One also has a right to be able to identify a driver who may have caused an accident and fled the scene. One also has a right to see the face of a person arrested and appearing for questioning in a courtroom.
“Swiss government rejects proposed burqa ban,” by Michael Shields, Reuters, July 27, 2018:
ZURICH (Reuters) – The Swiss government opposed on Wednesday a grassroots campaign for a nationwide ban on facial coverings in public that will prompt a binding referendum, the latest twist in a Europe-wide crackdown on burqas championed by anti-Muslim activists.
The Swiss cabinet said individual cantons should decide on the matter, which nevertheless will go to a nationwide vote under Switzerland’s system of direct democracy after activists last year gathered enough public support.
Measures against the wearing of Islamic veils have already been taken in Belgium, France, Denmark and Spain, among others, with the Netherlands passing its own ban this week.
The Swiss government suggested instead adopting laws that would prevent people from covering their faces when dealing with officials and punish anyone who forced women to conceal their faces with up to three years in jail.
“The government is aware that facial coverings can lead to problems. With its proposals it suggests targeted and specific legal measures in areas in which it has authority,” the cabinet said after a meeting.
“The initiative would make it impossible to take into account the individual cantons’ differing sensitivities, in particular removing their ability to determine for themselves how they wish to treat tourists from Arab states who wear facial coverings,” it added.
The face veil ban will come to a binding referendum after activists last year collected the more than 100,000 signatures required to put the proposal to a national vote.
The group, called “Yes to a Mask Ban”, includes some leaders who also spearheaded the 2009 Swiss ban on constructing new minarets.
Full-face coverings such as niqabs and burqas are a polarising issue across Europe, with some arguing that they symbolise discrimination against women and should be outlawed. The clothing has already been banned in France.
“Facial coverings are a symbol of radical Islam that have nothing to do with religious freedom but are rather an expression of the oppression of women,” Anian Liebrand, a Swiss campaign leader, said when presenting the collected signatures.
“In Switzerland, we show our faces when we talk to each other.
Others contend that bans unnecessarily intrude on religious freedom……