5 ms·

Actually at the same votation, Switzerland accepted a law which forbid women to wear Burka. Which is not exactly let live.

jeofken 6y ago
What they don’t do though is tell people in Muslim countries that they must live like a European. The Swiss rule their house, and let others rule theirs, and this is what I mean with living and letting live.
DocTomoe 6y ago
We need to be precise here. Firstly "accepting a law" implies - in western liberal democracies - a legislative process in which a law is proposed and accepted by some kind of parliament. This is not what happened here - in Switzerland, laws can be given to the population directly by non-parliamentary, non-governmental organisations in referenda, which then become binding. The law you are referring to was accepted by the general Swiss population with about 51% of the votes yesterday. 2. The law is not specifically forbidding women particularly forbidding to wear burkas. It forbids anyone to hide their faces when in public (with the exceptions of traditional customs, e.g. during carnival season). The basic idea behind this is that in a free society, we meet each others face to face. This generally good idea was abused by right-wingers to point out that this prevents visible Islamisation of an ultimately christian-conservative country, and by left-wingers to imply it was sexist and islamophobic. 3. Men and women can still wear whatever they like ... in private. In public, all societies have acceptable clothing standards. Try going out wearing nothing but three straps of leather and a gimp mask in front of a school, anywhere in the world, and see what happens.
- cies 6y ago
  Exactly. Genital mutilation of minors is next (Scandinavia is front running here). Nothing judeo-islamophobic, just the protection of what is dear to all of us (in this case bodily autonomy of children), and in no means against circumcision: you may still do it when you are 18, just parents should not be allowed to do it to you. A little tyranny of the majority is not always a bad thing.
  - kodah 6y ago
    > you may still do it when you are 18, just parents should not be allowed to do it to you You can read this in a positive light or a negative light. I know a guy who had that surgery done as an adult and it was incredibly painful and took a while to fully heal. I want to say it was almost a month. You could certainly argue that it's a lifetime of pain if it's done and you don't like it but that's likely a slippery slope in some regard. I can agree that we should probably be doing a better job of explaining to parents the pros and cons of each so they make more informed, realistic choices but some of the outrage rhetoric around circumcision is a bit much.
    - jeofken 6y ago
      Don’t you think it hurts a child to cut their genitals? I’m ashamed it’s allowed in my country, and due to socialised health care I must fund it. It’s child abuse.
      - cies 6y ago
        Exactly my sentiment. Tax paid child abuse. We should implore how this ever got this far, and fix the system to ensure this never happens again. As a result I've come to believe that religious freedom should have well enough protection by freedom of expression and freedom of association; and hence should be removed from constitutions and put into the regular code of law. Freedom of religion may not constitutionally compete with bodily integrity (nor with freedom of expression (blasphemy)).
    - cies 6y ago
      Your friend had medical indication I guess? That's a whole other story, that's not "mutilation" but "the best in the given situation according to medical science". Medical science is very clear about both male and female genital mutilation: lots of risk and potential harm, not real benefits. And this does not grow back like nails and hair. It's not a fashion. It's literally putting a knife in your baby because some old culture prescribes it. No problem with that: just do it when the kid reaches the age of consent.
- h0nd 6y ago
  The second part of the law in question disallows anyone to order someone else to wear this or that. Imho that was the deciding part.
  - Talanes 6y ago
    Which is exactly what the first part of the law does.
- mda 6y ago
  Hey, "But only in public!" Are you really defending imprisoning Woman to their homes by maybe robbing them of their few privileges? I am utterly disgusted how they frame this bs.
  - DocTomoe 6y ago
    Does the anti-masking law imprison these women, or are they being held captive (against Swiss law) by their husbands/fathers/brothers? If it's the latter, that's a reason for them to seek help from the authorities.
  - herbst 6y ago
    You realize this is a cultural and not political issue?
- vinay427 6y ago
  > Firstly "accepting a law" implies - in western liberal democracies - a legislative process in which a law is proposed and accepted by some kind of parliament. This is not what happened here - in Switzerland, laws can be given to the population directly by non-parliamentary, non-governmental organisations in referenda, which then become binding. This is more of a tangent, but I would contest the idea that "accepting a law" implies that it is passed by a parliamentary body. This was maybe true in the 1800s, but not today when plenty of western liberal democracies have some form of direct democracy with electoral referendums on important issues. Some (e.g. California) have a system roughly comparable to Switzerland, although it's obviously at the state level in the case of CA.

jeofken 6y ago

What they don’t do though is tell people in Muslim countries that they must live like a European. The Swiss rule their house, and let others rule theirs, and this is what I mean with living and letting live.

DocTomoe 6y ago

We need to be precise here. Firstly "accepting a law" implies - in western liberal democracies - a legislative process in which a law is proposed and accepted by some kind of parliament. This is not what happened here - in Switzerland, laws can be given to the population directly by non-parliamentary, non-governmental organisations in referenda, which then become binding. The law you are referring to was accepted by the general Swiss population with about 51% of the votes yesterday. 2. The law is not specifically forbidding women particularly forbidding to wear burkas. It forbids anyone to hide their faces when in public (with the exceptions of traditional customs, e.g. during carnival season). The basic idea behind this is that in a free society, we meet each others face to face. This generally good idea was abused by right-wingers to point out that this prevents visible Islamisation of an ultimately christian-conservative country, and by left-wingers to imply it was sexist and islamophobic. 3. Men and women can still wear whatever they like ... in private. In public, all societies have acceptable clothing standards. Try going out wearing nothing but three straps of leather and a gimp mask in front of a school, anywhere in the world, and see what happens.

cies 6y ago
Exactly. Genital mutilation of minors is next (Scandinavia is front running here). Nothing judeo-islamophobic, just the protection of what is dear to all of us (in this case bodily autonomy of children), and in no means against circumcision: you may still do it when you are 18, just parents should not be allowed to do it to you. A little tyranny of the majority is not always a bad thing.
- kodah 6y ago
  > you may still do it when you are 18, just parents should not be allowed to do it to you You can read this in a positive light or a negative light. I know a guy who had that surgery done as an adult and it was incredibly painful and took a while to fully heal. I want to say it was almost a month. You could certainly argue that it's a lifetime of pain if it's done and you don't like it but that's likely a slippery slope in some regard. I can agree that we should probably be doing a better job of explaining to parents the pros and cons of each so they make more informed, realistic choices but some of the outrage rhetoric around circumcision is a bit much.
  - jeofken 6y ago
    Don’t you think it hurts a child to cut their genitals? I’m ashamed it’s allowed in my country, and due to socialised health care I must fund it. It’s child abuse.
    - cies 6y ago
      Exactly my sentiment. Tax paid child abuse. We should implore how this ever got this far, and fix the system to ensure this never happens again. As a result I've come to believe that religious freedom should have well enough protection by freedom of expression and freedom of association; and hence should be removed from constitutions and put into the regular code of law. Freedom of religion may not constitutionally compete with bodily integrity (nor with freedom of expression (blasphemy)).
  - cies 6y ago
    Your friend had medical indication I guess? That's a whole other story, that's not "mutilation" but "the best in the given situation according to medical science". Medical science is very clear about both male and female genital mutilation: lots of risk and potential harm, not real benefits. And this does not grow back like nails and hair. It's not a fashion. It's literally putting a knife in your baby because some old culture prescribes it. No problem with that: just do it when the kid reaches the age of consent.
h0nd 6y ago
The second part of the law in question disallows anyone to order someone else to wear this or that. Imho that was the deciding part.
- Talanes 6y ago
  Which is exactly what the first part of the law does.
mda 6y ago
Hey, "But only in public!" Are you really defending imprisoning Woman to their homes by maybe robbing them of their few privileges? I am utterly disgusted how they frame this bs.
- DocTomoe 6y ago
  Does the anti-masking law imprison these women, or are they being held captive (against Swiss law) by their husbands/fathers/brothers? If it's the latter, that's a reason for them to seek help from the authorities.
- herbst 6y ago
  You realize this is a cultural and not political issue?
vinay427 6y ago
> Firstly "accepting a law" implies - in western liberal democracies - a legislative process in which a law is proposed and accepted by some kind of parliament. This is not what happened here - in Switzerland, laws can be given to the population directly by non-parliamentary, non-governmental organisations in referenda, which then become binding. This is more of a tangent, but I would contest the idea that "accepting a law" implies that it is passed by a parliamentary body. This was maybe true in the 1800s, but not today when plenty of western liberal democracies have some form of direct democracy with electoral referendums on important issues. Some (e.g. California) have a system roughly comparable to Switzerland, although it's obviously at the state level in the case of CA.