Swiss parliamentarians vote for burqa ban

For the record, I am way against all these kinds of bans. As much as I appreciate Geert Wilders and all like him in Europe, they are making a serious error. The answer to Islam is more freedom not less. If women want to wear nothing or wear a burka that is their right. And it also should be my right to not allow naked women into my business (or allow), or women wearing the symbols of the greatest oppressive movement possibly of all time, Islam.

Obviously all laws banning covering your face in banks and on public transport and so on simply need to be applied to burkas. In other words, no new laws please. Just stop making exceptions to the ones we already have for Muslims. It is so damn simple.

Meanwhile, from The Local


Photo credit: Antoine Taveneaux (file)

Swiss parliamentarians vote for burqa ban

Swiss parliamentarians approved on Wednesday a far-right move to impose a ban on the burqa or other face coverings in some public places, including on public transport.

With 101 votes against 77, the lower chamber of the house approved the motion titled “masks off!”.

The draft bill will still have to be examined by the upper chamber.

Put forward by Oskar Freysinger, a politician of the Swiss far-right SVP party, the motion requires “anyone addressing a federal, cantonal or communal authority exercising his or her functions, to present themselves with their faces uncovered.”

Burqas would also be banned on public transport, while “authorities can ban or restrict access to public buildings to such individuals in order to guarantee the security of other users.”

Explaining the motion, Freysinger noted that “at a time when insecurity is growing in our streets, more and more people are hiding their faces behind a balaclava, a mask or a burqa.

“This makes it impossible to identify these people, a fact that is particularly troublesome in case of violence or identity checks,” he noted.

France was the first European Union country to impose a ban on the burqa in public places, while Belgium joined it some months later.

On September 16th, the Dutch government also agreed to a ban on the full Islamic veil under a deal with the far-right party of the anti-immigration MP Geert Wilders.

About Eeyore

Canadian artist and counter-jihad and freedom of speech activist as well as devout Schrödinger's catholic

16 Replies to “Swiss parliamentarians vote for burqa ban”

  1. Hate to disagree with you, but unless its banned Muslims will keep whacking their females until they comply.

    Its the same with FGM, child marriage, polygamy, wife beatings, honor killings and all the rest of it. Even though it is banned, its not enforced, and even though we have laws against jihad terrorism, we are being terrorized.

    When you factor in the encroachment of sharia law in our courts, you find clear evidence of Islamization and since Muslims NEVER back off, it keeps coming around and ’round until we give in, in the hope that there will be some give and take down the line. That’s simply not the case.

    Every time they win, we lose. Once they have the numbers we are toast.

  2. One more thing:

    “The answer to Islam is more freedom not less.”

    I am deeply pessimistic about this.

    Once Mohammedanism is firmly established, the da’awa starts in earnest and you see more and more of our people (yes, there are plenty who feel the need to join a totalitarian cult) join up and make our life hell.

    In all of the western world there is no country, no TV or radio host that openly discusses the fiercely proselytizing soldiers of allah, nowhere in the west is the destructive power of Islam directly challenged and ridiculed, which would be a first step, because the devil hates to be mocked.

    Yes, I also agree with you that we can’t trust our wimpsy bureaucritters and the 3rd rate apparatchiks who call themselves government servants and act like our masters. But in order to defend our freedom, we gotta have laws to back us up.

    Your thoughts?

  3. Eeyore is right, what is required to cleanse the West of the creeping cancer of Islam is not laws that violate man’s rights but the proper enforcement of laws that protect man’s rights. But to see this clearly one must first hold a proper conception of rights. In a proper society based on the moral principle of individual rights and governed properly by a government whose power is constitutionally limited to the protection of individual rights – i.e., in a laissez-faire capitalist society – an evil ideology such as Islam whose fundamental precepts call for the brutal violation of individual rights could not flourish – but much more than this, it could not even survive and would rapidly wither. The only way to establish a proper society based on the recognition of individual rights is by changing enough people’s ideas on what a proper society is and what its requirements are – in other words, a philosophical revolution is required. And to achieve this necessitates the persistent effort of educating or re-educating people, especially politicians and prospective politicians, through whatever means exist.

  4. Freedom can’t be a one way street, we would be arrested for wearing a balaclava, so why then should they be allowed to walk the streets in burkas? Go into a bank in a motorcycle helmet, you will be asked to removed it, will a burka wearer? Sorry, don’t agree either, they are a security issue, check out how many robberies have been committed by “people” wearing these rags. Don’t give them an inch, they will only then demand a mile!

  5. Never mind ban the burka. Ban islam. It is time to make those who defend the right to religion define what constitutes a religion. If it instructs its followers to kill, ban it. If it instructs its follower to hate people, ban it. We cannot tolerate an intolerant cancer. If muslims are unhappy that islam is banned, then let them leave islam, or let them move to a country where islam is legal. If they were true followers of islam, they would follow their “religions” injunctions and move to muslim countries. If they have the option, that is what they are supposed to do. (BTW, if you check the 4 verses in the Koran where it says they cannot eat pork or meat that is not savagely killed, you will find that they have been lying — they CAN eat pork, etc. when necessary. They must not desire it, and must not eat too much of it. They are playing us for chumps – using our tolerance to spread their fascism).

    Non-muslims are banned from entering Mecca and Medina. We need to demand reciprocity. Non-muslim found in those cities face execution.

  6. ‘Freedom can’t be a one way street, we would be arrested for wearing a balaclava, so why then should they be allowed to walk the streets in burkas?’

    What you are saying here is that if some people are unfree, the remedy is to make all people unfree. This is absurd and leads us inexorably down the road to serfdom (the road we are currently traveling).

    ‘Go into a bank in a motorcycle helmet, you will be asked to removed it, will a burka wearer? Sorry, don’t agree either, they are a security issue, check out how many robberies have been committed by “people” wearing these rags. Don’t give them an inch, they will only then demand a mile!’

    If a masked person walks into a private bank, it is the right of the owners of the bank to allow the mask on their premises or to insist upon its removal. Upon rational consideration of all the possible adverse consequences to the bank, its owners and its customers of allowing the mask, the bank owners would not hesitate in insisting upon its removal; to do otherwise could prove suicidal, so to speak. And it would be in the rational interest of the bank owners to make their bank safe and secure for their customers in all respects. But in order to do this they must be free to act in accordance with their rational judgment, and this would require the proper enforcement of objective laws that protect their right to act in this way. Unfortunately, the current structure and character of government in all Western countries does not and cannot fully enable this requirement. This needs to change.

  7. Soo:

    I’m sorry, I didn’t make myself clear. I was saying that we need the right restored to us, to refuse service or entry to burka wearers. My point is, the law at this time makes special exceptions for women in burkas so Muslims get to break laws the rest of us have to obey. You gave examples of this. I am saying we need the freedom to discriminate for our own interests, something our governments have been taking away quietly for decades now. For example, in Canada it is actually ILLEGAL to label GM foods as such. While I am pro GM tech, I still feel people have a right to chose against it should they desire. Same with Islam. I have the right to refuse to deal with Muslims the same as I demand the right to discriminate against Nazis or communists. Dangerous, hate filled ideologies that seek to destroy us, our histories and way of life.

    Give us the freedom to discriminate and stop making exceptions to laws for Muslims and the problem fixes itself.

  8. It is the ideology behind the burka which is the problem, but in any event; it should be banned from the public arena without further ado. It is not an item of clothing, like a mini-skirt, hoodie or helmet but a very aggressive, rude, in your face flag of political islam and the lowly, battery hen status of women thereunder. Already there are parts of London, where the menace is such it may in the forseeable, near future become punishable NOT to wear one or at least be safer to wear one.

  9. I agree with you Eeyore, enforce the current laws against hiding your identity rather then pass new laws, the default setting of the left is to pass a new law and they have gotten a lot of people convinced that that is the only way to combat a problem.

  10. Ban the burka. Ban all the building of mosque. Ban all Muslim immigration. Deport Muslim criminals. Stop Muslim welfare handout. Stop Muslim visitors visa. Stereotype all Muslims. Report any suspicious Muslim activities . Delay Muslim travel and do Muslim surveillance in airports. Do not vote any Muslim politician. Do not make Muslim as friends. Be suspicious with any Muslim. Treat them all as terrorists . Stop being politically correct. Do what Israel is doing when it comes to Muslims. Do not trust Muslims, never…

  11. Very clearly stated, Eeyore. For completeness and further clarity, I should just like to add the following:

    Private discrimination, whether rational or irrational, is not a legal matter. No man has a claim on the life or property of another man, and therefore a man’s rights are not infringed if a private individual refuses to trade or deal with him. If a white shop owner bars black people from entering his shop for no other reason than that they are black, he has every right to do so. His action would be irrational and repulsive and objectively immoral, but would violate no one’s rights. Such irrational and objectively immoral private discrimination is not a legal issue, but a moral issue, and can be combated only by private means, such as economic boycott and social condemnation.

  12. I agree George, which is why I am so against all the smoking bans we have seen world wide recently It is a barn door for totalitarianism and selective enforcement. We have already seen in Canada, exceptions made for Muslim or Arab shops where one can smoke but all Canadian cigar bars or clubs have been closed with no regard to our desires or culture whatsoever. We must demand the right to discriminate for or against what is in our own interests. After all, that is the very essence of freedom.

  13. We started replacing morality with laws about the time the left started their war on religion, they are seeking to destroy the foundation of all cultures and replace it with their religion of Marxism.

    Yes the bans on smoking and drinking are stupid, they are doomed to fail, during prohibition people drank more because they couldn’t by a single drink, or buy a bottle and keep it in the house. They had to buy a bottle and drink it before they were caught with it and prosecuted.

  14. The problem is two fold. Firtly these burka wearers are simply the victims of Islam. Usually, in the case of the UK the Bangladeshi immigrants who are the poorest section of the UK after the Somalis are the keen full burka wearers. The Bangladeshis love this gear but back home in Bangladesh they are not keen on it at all and wear saris! Go on google images and type in Bangladeshi women. So this is a kind of western islamic oppression that they suffer in the UK! You will not see a bangla woman wearing a full burka on google images. I have confirmed this also by talking to good Bangladeshis that I know.The second problem is the problem of security. I believe if the laws were enforced it would remove the western islamic oppression and make them able to enjoy the sun and help the police with law enforcement. These poor woman have suffered enough. I really feel sorry for them but hate their horrible islamic religion that oppresses them so.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*