Swiss Region Votes to Ban Muslim Full Face Veils..[W:48]

[MMC]

Southern Swiss voters back ban on full-face veils.....

People in the southern Swiss canton of Ticino voted to impose the country's first ban on face-covering veils on Sunday, following in the footsteps of French and Belgian restrictions that rights groups say discriminate against Muslims.

Almost two thirds of voters in the Italian-speaking district backed the ban that still needs to be approved by the federal parliament in Bern before coming into effect.

Campaigner Giorgio Ghiringhelli, who drew up the proposal, said the result would send a message to "Islamist fundamentalists" he said were in Ticino and across Switzerland.

"Those who want to integrate are welcome irrespective of their religion," he said in a statement on the website ilguastafeste.ch.
"But those who rebuff our values and aim to build a parallel society based on religious laws, and want to place it over our society, are not welcome," he added.

Amnesty International said the vote was a "black day for human rights in Ticino".

There are roughly 400,000 Muslims in Switzerland, about 5 percent of the population
France was the first country in Europe to pass a law banning full-face veils in public, in 2010, and Belgium later followed suit......snip~

Southern Swiss voters back ban on full-face veils | Reuters


Well, I think this guy has it Right with what he is saying. Why should any accept this full face veil issue brought on by opposition groups that are Arab or Arab backed. Isn't it time to roll with the changes? Why should they get to be covered in todays society where all are afraid or scared of crime dropping down into their little worlds? I have no problem with any that want to do this. If others aren't allowed to do so or we haven't had to pass laws over such. Due to some common sense. Then why should Arabs and others like them be given any special treatment. Thoughts upon the matter?

 

[rocket88]

Southern Swiss voters back ban on full-face veils.....

People in the southern Swiss canton of Ticino voted to impose the country's first ban on face-covering veils on Sunday, following in the footsteps of French and Belgian restrictions that rights groups say discriminate against Muslims.

Almost two thirds of voters in the Italian-speaking district backed the ban that still needs to be approved by the federal parliament in Bern before coming into effect.

Campaigner Giorgio Ghiringhelli, who drew up the proposal, said the result would send a message to "Islamist fundamentalists" he said were in Ticino and across Switzerland.

"Those who want to integrate are welcome irrespective of their religion," he said in a statement on the website ilguastafeste.ch.
"But those who rebuff our values and aim to build a parallel society based on religious laws, and want to place it over our society, are not welcome," he added.

Amnesty International said the vote was a "black day for human rights in Ticino".

There are roughly 400,000 Muslims in Switzerland, about 5 percent of the population
France was the first country in Europe to pass a law banning full-face veils in public, in 2010, and Belgium later followed suit......snip~

Southern Swiss voters back ban on full-face veils | Reuters


Well, I think this guy has it Right with what he is saying. Why should any accept this full face veil issue brought on by opposition groups that are Arab or Arab backed. Isn't it time to roll with the changes? Why should they get to be covered in todays society where all are afraid or scared of crime dropping down into their little worlds? I have no problem with any that want to do this. If others aren't allowed to do so or we haven't had to pass laws over such. Due to some common sense. Then why should Arabs and others like them be given any special treatment. Thoughts upon the matter?

This specific case deals with Switzerland, but our Constitution guarantees "free exercise thereof" when it comes to religion. If their religion requires them to cover their faces, it falls under that.

 

[MMC]

This specific case deals with Switzerland, but our Constitution guarantees "free exercise thereof" when it comes to religion. If their religion requires them to cover their faces, it falls under that.

Heya Rocket. :2wave: Well with us.....there is the habit of taking away those abilities of Free Exercise.....all in the alleged Best Interests of all. To keep the surrounding environment safe for all.

Moreover as the Piece says France was the First as a Country to do so and then Belgium.

 

[MaggieD]

Southern Swiss voters back ban on full-face veils.....

People in the southern Swiss canton of Ticino voted to impose the country's first ban on face-covering veils on Sunday, following in the footsteps of French and Belgian restrictions that rights groups say discriminate against Muslims.

Almost two thirds of voters in the Italian-speaking district backed the ban that still needs to be approved by the federal parliament in Bern before coming into effect.

Campaigner Giorgio Ghiringhelli, who drew up the proposal, said the result would send a message to "Islamist fundamentalists" he said were in Ticino and across Switzerland.

"Those who want to integrate are welcome irrespective of their religion," he said in a statement on the website ilguastafeste.ch.
"But those who rebuff our values and aim to build a parallel society based on religious laws, and want to place it over our society, are not welcome," he added.

Amnesty International said the vote was a "black day for human rights in Ticino".

There are roughly 400,000 Muslims in Switzerland, about 5 percent of the population
France was the first country in Europe to pass a law banning full-face veils in public, in 2010, and Belgium later followed suit......snip~

Southern Swiss voters back ban on full-face veils | Reuters


Well, I think this guy has it Right with what he is saying. Why should any accept this full face veil issue brought on by opposition groups that are Arab or Arab backed. Isn't it time to roll with the changes? Why should they get to be covered in todays society where all are afraid or scared of crime dropping down into their little worlds? I have no problem with any that want to do this. If others aren't allowed to do so or we haven't had to pass laws over such. Due to some common sense. Then why should Arabs and others like them be given any special treatment. Thoughts upon the matter?

I wouldn't support a law that made it illegal to wear a face covering in this country. I would, however, support businesses (banks, credit unions, currency exchanges, stores, etc., etc.) and government buildings/services, airports, etc., who said "No Face No Service."

 

[RabidAlpaca]

This specific case deals with Switzerland, but our Constitution guarantees "free exercise thereof" when it comes to religion. If their religion requires them to cover their faces, it falls under that.

Except it's not really a part of their religion, rather an addition after the fact. Regardless of what it is, are there no limits to religious freedom? If I made up a religion saying that I have to wear a ski mask and a samurai sword while in public, should I be able to?

 

[Infinite Chaos]

-- If their religion requires them to cover their faces --

Trouble is their religion doesn't call for facial covering - otherwise all muslim women would cover their faces. Equally, the niqab is actually banned in some muslim countries too.

Anyhow - reading the article further, the ban (like the French one) bans facial covering regardless of religion, race and gender. Considering the alpine skiing holidays that Switzerland sometimes is known for - I wonder when the first winter skier will be hauled into a police station for covering their face from the freezing weather out on the slopes.

Echoing bans in France and Belgium, the measure does not single out Muslims directly.

It states that "no-one may mask or hide their face on the public highway, nor in places open to the public, except places of worship, nor those offering a public service"

 

[MMC]

I wouldn't support a law that made it illegal to wear a face covering in this country. I would, however, support businesses (banks, credit unions, currency exchanges, stores, etc., etc.) and government buildings/services, airports, etc., who said "No Face No Service."

Heya Maggie. :2wave: Yeah.....that's not to say they can't use that with their religion. Still how many are comfortable with talking with one that keeps their face covered. No one is saying they can't keep their head covered nor their rest of their body. There should be nothing wrong for them to show their face when dealing with the Public. If they say they are part of the community. Then they should have nothing to hide that fact.

 

[MMC]

Trouble is their religion doesn't call for facial covering - otherwise all muslim women would cover their faces. Equally, the niqab is actually banned in some muslim countries too.

Anyhow - reading the article further, the ban (like the French one) bans facial covering regardless of religion, race and gender. Considering the alpine skiing holidays that Switzerland sometimes is known for - I wonder when the first winter skier will be hauled into a police station for covering their face from the freezing weather out on the slopes.

Heya IC. :2wave: Most that ski.....once indoors. Remove the scarves that cover their faces. Especially when engaging into a conversation with others.

 

[SBu]

This specific case deals with Switzerland, but our Constitution guarantees "free exercise thereof" when it comes to religion. If their religion requires them to cover their faces, it falls under that.

It doesn't. It's mostly a cultural phenomenon although some sects of Islam have argued that it's mandatory in some situations. Since there is division among Muslims about whether it's mandatory or not, it must be regarded as a cultural assimilation into Islam and not derived from Islam. So, our constitution would not guarantee the niqab.

Several good reasons to ban it, and several good arguments against it. For ban: People don't have a right to anonymity in public. Having your face covered thereby concealing your identity has many draw backs to society mostly related to identification. If you give in to letting people wear such things, then where is the limit?
Against ban: So what, we're going to ban Halloween masks in public? This is over step of government. Best answer: Since our constitution doesn't protect this particular cultural adaptation nor does it ban it, perhaps the best people to make the decision are the local populations in cities and towns. (caveat: I don't think anyone is talking about what you do in the privacy of your own home/property)

Niq

 

[longview]

This specific case deals with Switzerland, but our Constitution guarantees "free exercise thereof" when it comes to religion. If their religion requires them to cover their faces, it falls under that.

We clearly requested the Mormons stop having plural marriages,
So there is some precedent to limiting the total scope of how one practices one's religion.
I realize times have changed, but the concept is not unheard of.

 

[rocket88]

Trouble is their religion doesn't call for facial covering - otherwise all muslim women would cover their faces. Equally, the niqab is actually banned in some muslim countries too.

Wearing a cross necklace is also not a requirement of the Christian religion, but we say that it falls under "free exercise" under our laws. The more exacting forms of Islam do say "cover your face." We have had no problem with various religious dictates about what a person wears with other religions - we don't force the Amish to adopt a more modern style of dress, but if you asked them it's part of their religion (though it isn't in other forms of Christianity). Same with Mormon underwear or Sikh turbans.

 

[Infinite Chaos]

Wearing a cross necklace is also not a requirement of the Christian religion, but we say that it falls under "free exercise" under our laws. The more exacting forms of Islam do say "cover your face." We have had no problem with various religious dictates about what a person wears with other religions - we don't force the Amish to adopt a more modern style of dress, but if you asked them it's part of their religion (though it isn't in other forms of Christianity). Same with Mormon underwear or Sikh turbans.

Sikh turbans and or knives are actually part of the religious attire and recognised as such. On Mormon underwear, I'll take your direction as I've never heard of any specific requirement however women in full face veils are more of a cultural thing than a religious one I'm afraid.

Heya IC. Most that ski.....once indoors. Remove the scarves that cover their faces. Especially when engaging into a conversation with others.

Hi MMC - the ban as I understand it is outdoors and in public spaces. I think skiers will be affected.

 

[DDD]

Well two good news right before I go to bed! Got any more MMC?

You are not going to say that Assad resigned are you?

 

[MMC]

Sikh turbans and or knives are actually part of the religious attire and recognised as such. On Mormon underwear, I'll take your direction as I've never heard of any specific requirement however women in full face veils are more of a cultural thing than a religious one I'm afraid.



Hi MMC - the ban as I understand it is outdoors and in public spaces. I think skiers will be affected.

Wouldn't that be a Resort.....so that they have some way to work around the necessity for safety for any Human being. Also I thought about how some states here have Motorcycle helmet laws while others do not. Wherein you see today wearing such could mask completely ones face. Also On those Federal and State Hwys. Hell we have seen Robberies committed with them just to hide ones face.

 

[Jredbaron96]

If I made up a religion saying that I have to wear a ski mask and a samurai sword while in public, should I be able to?

Sounds like a pretty bad ass religion. Where do I sign?

 

[Canell]

Clever people, those Swiss.

 

[Dr. Chuckles]

Except it's not really a part of their religion, rather an addition after the fact.

There are lots of aspects of any religion that are 'additions after the fact" or reinterpretations. Neither makes them any less a part of someone's religion.

 

[RabidAlpaca]

Sounds like a pretty bad ass religion. Where do I sign?

Just give me, I mean god, 10% of your income, become my disciple and do whatever I tell you and you're in.

 

[Dr. Chuckles]

Trouble is their religion doesn't call for facial covering - otherwise all muslim women would cover their faces.

you're over looking the fact that various interpretations of the same religion can exist side by side. Also, one can easily go find numerous Islamic scholars who disagree with you, who clearly carry more weight with the followers of Islam than some random guy on DP, a judge, a western scholar, or a govt body

 

[RabidAlpaca]

There are lots of aspects of any religion that are 'additions after the fact" or reinterpretations. Neither makes them any less a part of someone's religion.

I like how you cut out the rest of my post instead of addressing my actual point. Is there no limit to religious freedom?

Why cant I wear a ski mask and a samurai sword while I run errands?

 

[Dr. Chuckles]

Wearing a cross necklace is also not a requirement of the Christian religion, but we say that it falls under "free exercise" under our laws. The more exacting forms of Islam do say "cover your face." We have had no problem with various religious dictates about what a person wears with other religions - we don't force the Amish to adopt a more modern style of dress, but if you asked them it's part of their religion (though it isn't in other forms of Christianity). Same with Mormon underwear or Sikh turbans.

covering the face has more of a social implication than wearing a cross. You're essentially hiding your identity with the former

 

[Dr. Chuckles]

I like how you cut out the rest of my post instead of addressing my actual point.

The rest of your post didn't have anything to do with my comment, so why would I bother to quote it?

Ia there no limit to religious freedom?

What does that have to do with the above point? Which is that religions evolve and change, so a bunch of non-islamic westerners saying something isn't part of islam doesn't carry much currency with the people who do view their religion in such terms.

It's like the dumb-asses that argue the 40 virgin thing is actually a reference to raisans

Why cant I wear a ski mask and a samurai sword while I run errands?

Is that part of some fetish, or something?

 

[RabidAlpaca]

The rest of your post didn't have anything to do with my comment, so why would I bother to quote it?



What does that have to do with the above point? Which is that religions evolve and change, so a bunch of non-islamic westerners saying something isn't part of islam doesn't carry much currency with the people who do view their religion in such terms.

It's like the dumb-asses that argue the 40 virgin thing is actually a reference to raisans



Is that part of some fetish, or something?

Oh so this is just some of that dumbass chuckles ****? I even stated in my post that it doesn't matter if its part of their religion or not, which you cut out, along with my actual point you refuse to address. The topic is limits to religious freedom not what is part of the muslim faith.

Stop trying to derail the conversation like you always do.

 

[Canell]

....however women in full face veils are more of a cultural thing than a religious one I'm afraid.

Yeah, probably some old fart wanted to save his people from the blazing desert sun, so he told women to cover all over their bodies. Ignorance done the rest - instituting veils as religious attribute.
There is no logical reason to put a veil in a cold climate country... unless you a bank robber or something.
Just my guess. eace

 

[MMC]

Just give me, I mean god, 10% of your income, become my disciple and do whatever I tell you and you're in.

.....:2razz: