The lower house of Switzerland's parliament has given final legislative approval to a ban on face coverings, such as the burqas worn by some Muslim women.
  • Silverseren@kbin.social
    10715·
    1 year ago

    Like, I get wanting to defend the rights of women under oppressive religions and governments, but how exactly does controlling what women are allowed to wear accomplish that?

  • anlumo@feddit.deEnglish
    643·
    1 year ago

    Austria also has a law like that, and it has been a complete shitshow. There have been fines for someone wearing a scarf while riding a bike and for someone at work dressed up in a body suit in front of the shop for advertisement reasons (like a mascot).

    When the law went into effect, the newspapers reported that there were about ten muslim women currently wearing coverings in the whole country.

    • Linkerbaan@lemmy.worldEnglish
      162·
      1 year ago

      After years of covid where everyone would supposedly die in terror attacks if the face coverings happened I’m surprised this fear mongering still manages to pass.

      Full face covering burqas are not really an Islamic thing. The headscarves are. The burqas are a cultural thing for some. And usually almost nobody actually wears them. But you can get brownie points with the racists for passing these laws and show that your country is well on the way to moral decline.

  • 342345@feddit.deEnglish
    383·
    1 year ago

    YES!

    It’s important how much clothing you wear. Not too much and not too little. It MUST BE the RIGHT amount.

    Humans.

            • electrogamerman@lemmy.worldEnglish
              44·
              1 year ago

              Making women have to cover themselves to be pure is sexist AF, especially because muslim men can dress whatever they want. The whole philosophy that socializes women to willingly do this to themselves is the problem, and a problem that is enforced by muslim religion.

              “no, you are the sexist for not letting us make women dress how we want”. What a joke.

      • alehc@lemmy.worldEnglish
        131·
        1 year ago

        Maybe you are being downvoted because you are not adding anything to the conversation either? What does that suppose to mean?

      • CileTheSane@lemmy.caEnglish
        41·
        1 year ago

        I haven’t even made made any sort or argument for or against yet and am still downvoted

        “I haven’t actually said anything and my post has no value”

        Sounds like downvotes are working as intended.

          • CileTheSane@lemmy.caEnglish
            11·
            1 year ago

            Once again, seeing as OP hasn’t replied to you, there is no reason not to sort this to the bottom/hide it as there’s no value here to anyone else reading the comments.

            This is easily avoided by simply saying “If you live in Europe, {Argument for people living in Europe}. If you don’t live in Europe, {Argument for people not living in Europe}” As both groups of people will be reading your comment.

  • nikscha@feddit.deEnglish
    326·
    1 year ago

    I hate this. What if I wanna cover my face to evade facial detection? That’s illegal now?

    • JokeDeity@lemm.eeEnglish
      29·
      1 year ago

      Yeah, there’s no way I can trust any comment against this. This bullshit needed banned decades ago.

      • nikscha@feddit.deEnglish
        101·
        1 year ago

        I hate religion as much as the next guy. But becoming more authoritarian is definitely not the way to go. Instead we need more education.

        • JokeDeity@lemm.eeEnglish
          36·
          1 year ago

          Nope. And I would ban a hell of a lot more, too. KKK robes? Jail sentence. Religious apparel of any sort in a political role? Absolutely not. Nazi tattoos, jail sentence and forced removal. I’ve got zero tolerance for any of this hot garbage.

          • nikscha@feddit.deEnglish
            3·
            1 year ago

            I share your emotions toward those things, but you’re asking for totalitarian measures. The solution is not to put people who “missbehave” into jail but to educate them better and to create a social environment which promotes compassion.

            • JokeDeity@lemm.eeEnglish
              1·
              1 year ago

              Yeah, been hearing that my whole life and I’m sure leftists were saying it for long before me. It’s done. The world is literally dying and I’m done with half measures.

  • bitwolf@lemmy.oneEnglish
    286·
    1 year ago

    What if I’m cold or want to go skiing? I could wrap a scarf over my face which I have done. Is that not illegal because it’s not the same garment?

    What about COVID? Wouldn’t masks conflict with that also? Of all countries I’d never imagine one with a colder climate to make such a law.

      • Sibbo@sopuli.xyzEnglish
        86·
        1 year ago

        Does getting spanked by my husband if I don’t cover my face count as a health and safety concern?

        • crispy_kilt@feddit.deEnglish
          73·
          1 year ago

          It counts as a crime against your physical integrity and dignity and you should report him to the police

        • JokeDeity@lemm.eeEnglish
          74·
          1 year ago

          I’m sure you’re joking, but this is actually the problem here. No women are wearing them by choice, they are either forced or have been indoctrinated their entire lives to believe it’s their choice, but in a vacuum they would not choose persecution and near enslavement by their own volition. It’s just misogyny on a grand systematic scale.

    • LufyCZ@lemmy.dbzer0.comEnglish
      71·
      1 year ago

      Not sure where you’re getting your masks from but mine sure aren’t covering my whole face.

      Can see the argument for skiing masks and shit though

    • _s10e@feddit.deEnglish
      6·
      1 year ago

      Austria has a similar law. And a website that connects the local whether report with the rules for when wearing a scarf is okay.

      • Meowoem@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
        62·
        1 year ago

        So I have to look at the internet to see if I’m allowed to protect myself from the cold? Oh not officially cold enough even though it’s making my face hurt, guess I’ll just suffer because God forbid I’m allowed to be the one who decides how much of my body I went exposed to the elements.

        You like authoritarian control of the most basic parts of people’s lives, most people don’t want to live in a world like that.

  • UndercoverUlrikHD@programming.devEnglish
    205·
    1 year ago

    I can understand the reasoning for government officials and kids at school, but what are they smoking to straight up ban it in their country?

      • Lols [they/them]@lemm.eeEnglish
        143·
        1 year ago

        i am glad that we are fighting these terrible regimes that enforce what women can and cannot wear by letting the regime enforce what women can and cannot wear

        high five gang

          • sergih@feddit.deEnglish
            5·
            1 year ago

            I’m sorry, why is the ability of choice, an inclusion of force to you?

            Don’t u see the 3 “shades”?

            -Force women to wear smt -Let women choose what to wear -Force women not to wear something

            I know the problem is that you don’t wanna sre it, but hopefully somebody sees this before going the wrong path.

          • Lols [they/them]@lemm.eeEnglish
            61·
            1 year ago

            …so as i was saying, i am glad we are fighting women being forced to dress themselves a certain way by forcing them to dress themselves a certain way

          • Ð Greıt Þu̇mpkin@lemm.eeEnglish
            41·
            1 year ago

            Ok let’s look at your alternative.

            What do you ACTUALLY think women who are being forced by their families or communities to wear the veil are going to do with this kind of ban in place?

            If you guessed anything other than “become a domestic prisoner”, you’re wrong and have no place spouting off about this shit.

            This is the hostile architecture of multicultural feminism. You’re not helping shit, you’re just pushing the problem into the corners where it isn’t going to be seen by anyone who could raise the issue.

    • jmcs@discuss.tchncs.deEnglish
      12·
      1 year ago

      But not the eyes. Besides it’s easy to include an exception for legitimate medical purposes - even considering the law was written by a bunch of quasi-fascists I would be surprised if that’s not covered in the law, especially since the article mentions there are exceptions.

      • HubertManne@kbin.social
        41·
        1 year ago

        Do those other things cover the eyes? How do they see? Isn’t something that covers the eyes essentially a blind fold. This makes em wonder further. I have never been to switzerland but I am under the impression it can be cold. I am from a place where it is cold. In extreme cold I have scarf, baclava, etc combined with goggles. Is that not allowed? Is skiing at all popular there??? (yeah that last one is a bit satirical rhetorical)

        • jmcs@discuss.tchncs.deEnglish
          2·
          1 year ago

          I translated the law on Deepl (emphasis mine):

          Art. 10a Prohibition of covering one’s own face

          1 No person may cover his or her face in public places and in places that are accessible to the public or where services that can be used by anyone are offered; this prohibition does not apply to places of worship.

          2 No one may force a person to cover his or her face on account of his or her gender.

          3 The law shall provide for exceptions. These include exclusively reasons of health, safety, climatic conditions and local customs.

          Art. 197 para. 122 12 Transitional provision to Art. 10a (prohibition of covering one’s own face)

          The implementing legislation for Article 10a shall be drafted within two years of its adoption by the people and the cantons.

          1 SR 101 2 The final number of this transitional provision will be determined by the Chancellor’s Office after the referendum.

      • geissi@feddit.deEnglish
        3·
        1 year ago

        Seems like this is the initiative they passed.
        The English language selection in the top right doesn’t seem to work but (3) states:

        The law provides for exceptions. These include exclusively reasons of health, safety, climatic conditions and local customs.

        It’s a bit vague but they seem to have thought of it.

        What I find curious is that this seems to be no mere law but a change to the constitution.

        • barsoap@lemm.eeEnglish
          1·
          1 year ago

          What I find curious is that this seems to be no mere law but a change to the constitution.

          That’s how the Swiss do it: Change the constitution via referendum, let the government figure out the details which it has to because it’s bound to the constitution.

  • electrogamerman@lemmy.worldEnglish
    218·
    1 year ago

    I wonder if all the Muslims here saying “women should be dressing whatever they want”, also protest the same in muslims countries where women are killed for not covering their hair.

  • JokeDeity@lemm.eeEnglish
    219·
    1 year ago

    I can’t even take half of you seriously. Every religion is a cult, but this one is an extremely misogynistic cult and you don’t get anything for being their unpaid defenders online beyond the knowledge that you protected extreme womanizers.

    • sergih@feddit.deEnglish
      62·
      1 year ago

      so u punish the act, you dont do a blanket statrment that mostly affects the followets of one religion, u make it illegal to: -force someone to wear something not make it illegal to: -wear smt

      Dont you rralize that thosecountries that are fucked up, have sharia law etc, are doing the same thing? One thing in common: Controlling how people dress.

      In one you are controlling by telling people they have to wear x, in the other by telling people they cannot wear x, at the end of the day the affected are those who want to be able to choose, not some fucking terrorist.

      • Redrum714@lemm.eeEnglish
        85·
        1 year ago

        Ah yes not being able to oppress people is bullying.

        I guess bullying can sometimes be a good thing.

        • Lols [they/them]@lemm.eeEnglish
          22·
          1 year ago

          i think youre commenting on the wrong post, ‘not being able to oppress people’ isnt featured in this one

          this one actually specifically features religious oppression getting approved as law

          luckily for those dipshit cultists whoops sorry, ‘muslim women whose safety we care about very much’, getting forced to go against their fundamentalist families or bite continuous fines is very safe, and will turn out very well for them

  • sergih@feddit.deEnglish
    176·
    1 year ago

    A country telling women what to wear will be on the same page in my book as the country telling women what not to wear.

  • I Cast Fist@programming.devEnglish
    11·
    1 year ago

    I’d rather see swiss banks having to spill the beans about their many criminal enterprises and criminal customers. Tax evasion is a crime, for those unaware