The lower house of Switzerland's parliament has given final legislative approval to a ban on face coverings, such as the burqas worn by some Muslim women.
But not the eyes. Besides it’s easy to include an exception for legitimate medical purposes - even considering the law was written by a bunch of quasi-fascists I would be surprised if that’s not covered in the law, especially since the article mentions there are exceptions.
What I find curious is that this seems to be no mere law but a change to the constitution.
That’s how the Swiss do it: Change the constitution via referendum, let the government figure out the details which it has to because it’s bound to the constitution.
Do those other things cover the eyes? How do they see? Isn’t something that covers the eyes essentially a blind fold. This makes em wonder further. I have never been to switzerland but I am under the impression it can be cold. I am from a place where it is cold. In extreme cold I have scarf, baclava, etc combined with goggles. Is that not allowed? Is skiing at all popular there??? (yeah that last one is a bit satirical rhetorical)
1 No person may cover his or her face in public places and in places that are accessible to the public or where services that can be used by anyone are offered; this prohibition does not apply to places of worship.
2 No one may force a person to cover his or her face on account of his or her gender.
3 The law shall provide for exceptions. These include exclusively reasons of health, safety, climatic conditions and local customs.
Art. 197 para. 122
12 Transitional provision to Art. 10a (prohibition of covering one’s own face)
The implementing legislation for Article 10a shall be drafted within two years of its adoption by the people and the cantons.
1 SR 101
2 The final number of this transitional provision will be determined by the Chancellor’s Office after the referendum.
These do seem inconsistant. What about 95 masks? that covers the face and nose.
But not the eyes. Besides it’s easy to include an exception for legitimate medical purposes - even considering the law was written by a bunch of quasi-fascists I would be surprised if that’s not covered in the law, especially since the article mentions there are exceptions.
Seems like this is the initiative they passed.
The English language selection in the top right doesn’t seem to work but (3) states:
It’s a bit vague but they seem to have thought of it.
What I find curious is that this seems to be no mere law but a change to the constitution.
That’s how the Swiss do it: Change the constitution via referendum, let the government figure out the details which it has to because it’s bound to the constitution.
Do those other things cover the eyes? How do they see? Isn’t something that covers the eyes essentially a blind fold. This makes em wonder further. I have never been to switzerland but I am under the impression it can be cold. I am from a place where it is cold. In extreme cold I have scarf, baclava, etc combined with goggles. Is that not allowed? Is skiing at all popular there??? (yeah that last one is a bit satirical rhetorical)
I translated the law on Deepl (emphasis mine):
ok. its sounding more reasonable.