• Lux@lemmy.blahaj.zone
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    4 hours ago

    Non-European here. What’s the purpose of bans like these? The obvious cause appears to be racism/Islamophobia, but is there something else?

  • LANIK2000@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    20
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    11 hours ago

    Is there also a face mask exception? They aren’t handy for just pandemics.

  • geissi@feddit.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    13
    ·
    11 hours ago

    It is also permitted for artistic and entertainment performances and for advertising purposes.

    Ah they learned from the Austrians

    • Successful_Try543@feddit.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      19
      ·
      edit-2
      10 hours ago

      Scarfs, costume masks and medical face masks are allowed in Austria too, but only under special circumstances, e.g. costumes are permitted only for “customs events” (Brauchtumsveranstaltungen) and thus are forbidden for everyday use. Verschleierungsverbot Österreich
      However, you can get fined for wearing a scarf if the police officer perceives it to be not cold enough. https://www.sueddeutsche.de/panorama/oesterreich-burkaverbot-trifft-maskottchen-und-radfahrer-1.3700378

      • schlecknits@feddit.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        12
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        10 hours ago

        Medical reasons to my knowledge is defined rather limited. There’s an exception but in doubt you have to show a doctor’s note saying that you need to wear a mask, otherwise you could be forced to unmask. So if you choose to do preventative masking but aren’t ill yourself this isn’t technically allowed - this isn’t widely enforced, but still something that wasn’t thought quite through.

      • CAVOK@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        5
        ·
        9 hours ago

        What’s the difference between the woman in the center at the top row vs the bottom row? Skin tone?

          • CAVOK@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            5
            ·
            6 hours ago

            a full-face veil.

            Never seen that on anyone So a transparent veil is prohibited if combined with hair coverings? Or just in general?

            I have conflicting feelings about this ban. If it helps women who don’t want to wear it but is forced, great, but if it instead stops women from being part of society because they’re not allowed outside without the coverings, (either by religious choice, or forced by family), not so great.

            • tobogganablaze
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              4
              ·
              5 hours ago

              It’s really mostly symbolic. It’s estimated that there is less then 100 people that actually wear a niqab/burka across all of Switzerland.

              • CAVOK@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                5 hours ago

                Far more common here. You see top center a lot, bottom left often and bottom right sometimes.

                What adults do to themselves doesn’t really bother me, but I feel sorry for the little girls I see dressed like this. Why the hell would you dress a 7yo in that? According to the Quran “men and women should dress modestly”, but why force it on small girls?

                If anything I’d ban it for kids. Once you turn 18 you can do what you want. Come to think of it I’d put the same condition on not medically necessary circumcisions.

  • Matriks404@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    12
    arrow-down
    18
    ·
    10 hours ago

    Good move. Some religious practices shouldn’t be legal if they lower public safety. I don’t see why couldn’t Muslim woman just wear simple Hijabs, if they want to preserve their religious freedom.

    • babybus@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      3 hours ago

      Can you name me a few cases where a Muslim woman threatened public safety in Switzerland, and then she couldn’t be identified because of a burka? I really want to know if there was a problem to solve.

    • tobogganablaze
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      6 hours ago

      I don’t think it has anything to do with public saftey. That wasn’t even a major argument during the campaign leading up the vote.

      • Matriks404@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        7
        ·
        7 hours ago

        I am not 100% sure what does that mean (I am not a native speaker of English), but if you mean just providing sources, I don’t see necessity in doing that.

        • bungalowtill@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          6 hours ago

          Ok Junge, ich übersetze es dir: Erklär und beweis uns den Zusammenhang zwischen Gesichtsschleier und öffentlicher Sicherheit. Ich übersetz es dann auch gern. Und ja, wenn du Behauptungen aufstellst solltest du sie auch beweisen können.

          Sorry for shouting in German. I thought you‘d speak that, because it felt you had skin in the game. Anyway, I also think you should explain how a veil and public safety correlate. If you can‘t do it in your own words, you provide a link.

    • drake@lemmy.sdf.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      12
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      9 hours ago

      You’re way more likely to be killed by a far-right terrorist than a muslim terrorist. If you want to protect public safety, I feel like a far better way to do it would be to outlaw far-right content on social media and other online platforms.

      • Matriks404@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        6 hours ago

        There are already laws in various places which prohibit hate speech, including on the internet. I don’t see how banning anything, far-right related or not is a good concept, since someone would be responsible of determining what ‘far-right content’ is, and that can only cause political repressions of groups that are against current governing power(s). I don’t understand why would anyone want to see the censorship and repressions that are on par with ones in Russia. We are better than that.

        • federal reverse@feddit.orgM
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          6 hours ago

          So in your world it makes sense to ban pieces of cloth because “they’re dangerous” but it doesn’t make sense ban hatespeech and divisive content because they “can’t be defined”?

    • Fleppensteyn@feddit.nl
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      6 hours ago

      Probably there’s some motivation to be able to identify people who protest or people who don’t want to be filmed in public (especially with facial recognition technology becoming a reality).

      But just say the law is there to annoy religious people and people will agree to a ban.

        • drake@lemmy.sdf.org
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          7
          ·
          7 hours ago

          I am against all organised religion, but I think that we should all fear the authoritarian oppression of the state far more than any religion.

          It’s a bit like the death penalty - I oppose the death penalty not because I think that there aren’t people who we would all be better off if they weren’t alive, but because we cannot trust the state with that power.