The Choice of Outlawing Face Coverings
On November 6th, the Swiss government announced that the upcoming controversial prohibition on facial coverings in public spaces would take effect on January 1.
Passing by a small margin in a referendum in March 2021 and criticized by Muslim associations worldwide, the “burqa ban” was launched by the same far-right Swiss People’s Party that devised a ban on new minarets in the nation in 2009. The ban did not only target religious face covers like niqabs and burqas, but ski masks and bandannas often worn by protesters as well.
The governing Federal Council has expressed in a statement that they had fixed the start of the ban and informed that anyone who unlawfully goes against it would face a fine of up to 1,000 Swiss francs, which translates to approximately 1,125 US dollars. The government has also clarified that the ban does not apply to planes and diplomatic and consular premises, and it permits individuals to cover their faces in religious centers and other sacred sites.
The statement also informed that facial coverings would remain lawful for reasons relating to health and safety, native customs, or due to harsh weather conditions. They, added that face coverings in the name of artistic intentions, entertainment grounds, and advertising would be accepted.
If such exceptions are necessary for personal protection while exercising proper freedom of expression and assembly, individuals should be permitted to cover their faces accordingly only if the responsible authority has been informed and has approved them, the government clarified.
Switzerland is Yet Another Brick in the Wall
Those in favor of the law justify their choice by stating that the measure taken is necessary to preserve cultural values of anti-extremism and ensure public safety. Switzerland’s national legislation by majority vote against face covers follows a pattern of similar restrictions already enforced in two of its cantons (semi-autonomous regions) Ticino and St. Gallen. Many other countries, such as France, Belgium, Denmark, Austria, Latvia, and Bulgaria, have also been heavily criticized after implementing comparable bans in previous years, sparking debates over the freedom of religion in occidental nations.
Türkiye was once part of these nations as well. When Mustafa Kemal Atatürk implemented the Turkish Republic’s first-ever Civil Code on October 4th, 1926, his ideology strictly defended that the freeing change made conscientious freedom in clothing possible for the first time for all women living in Turkiye. Although with the regime following Atatürk’s time as the president, tension among religious groups began to erupt, and the government found that it was necessary to take certain measures that would ensure public safety and the ingraining of the revolutionary changes deep within the society. And so followed the circular prohibition of burqas, niqabs, and loincloths that completely covered the face by the Ministry of Internal Affairs in 1935, the Inönü period.
In the 60s, forewarnings regarding the ban on hijabs began to surface, which soon materialized after the military coup in 1980. Although even before the official prohibition, women were not allowed to wear hijabs in public institutions, especially in private universities.
Following these discriminatory discussions supported by the government, various hijabi women in higher education institutions who experienced discrimination became symbols of the expression of religious issues in Türkiye, which eventually resulted in socioeconomic background differences and political ideology issues. This context is integral in understanding how the current right-wing government came about.
What Does This All Mean?
Switzerland is a nation long- famous for its neutrality, and it is one of the main principles of the country’s foreign policy, which dictates that Switzerland is not to be involved in armed or diplomatic conflicts between other states. The principle was adopted in the Treaty of Paris in 1985 and makes sure that Switzerland actively maintains a non-aligned position in international conflicts, choosing to mediate rather than taking a side. The self-imposed policy of preserving neutrality is designed to ensure external security and promote peace; it reflects a shared global objective.
So the next question is: What happens when the international beacon of peace adopts a law that is considered discriminatory, Islamophobic, and even a breach of the past few decade’s highly regarded freedom of religious expression?
Edited By: Ömer Gökce, Oya Yamaç