Swiss Voters Ban Face Coverings

[Shadow Wolf]

And you think it is correct and rational for governments to force dress codes on people.

To an extent, yes. Like no lose clothing or jewelry around moving machinery (such as in a factory). I wouldn't mind that as a federal law.

 

[Left Coast]

I think the crux of the issue is that the constitution doesn't actually protect the minorities. It is the people in power that do it. Why? Because their hands are not tied to literal nor historical interpretations of the constitution. As a simple example, the Supreme Court can, essentially at any moment, decide that abortions can be banned. I prefer this power to be at hands of the people.

While that's true in the abstract, that has not actually been what's happened in reality. What's actually happened is that the Constitution has been interpreted, and even amended, in such a way that minority rights have in fact been protected. (Not to say this has been perfect - far from it. Only that the tendency has been toward improved outcomes).

Again, this is why nearly all modern democracies are constitutional. If it didn't work, no one would do it. Yet they do. There's a reason for that.

The problem is getting people to agree on what counts as jus cogens...

Of course. The point is that even within the Swiss model of a more direct democracy, certain ideas and laws are considered out of bounds, because they violate human rights.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

We are not talking about Iran. We are talking about Switzerland. Can you please stick to the topic at hand at least this one time?

The topic includes is an article of that comes from places of extreme ideology like Iran. The Burqa is strongly related to the Taliban. The topic is the Swiss voted to ban symbols of repression and misogyny that are rooted in and born of extremism. When people ask about women choosing to wear these, places like Iran serve as a great example to tell us, women do not normally or naturally choose to wear such a thing.

 

[Kooky]

To an extent, yes. Like no lose clothing or jewelry around moving machinery (such as in a factory). I wouldn't mind that as a federal law.

To what extent, exactly?

 

[Kooky]

The topic includes is an article of that comes from places of extreme ideology like Iran. The Burqa is strongly related to the Taliban. The topic is the Swiss voted to ban symbols of repression and misogyny that are rooted in and born of extremism. When people ask about women choosing to wear these, places like Iran serve as a great example to tell us, women do not normally or naturally choose to wear such a thing.

The Swiss didn't vote to ban "symbols of repression and misogyny" however.
They voted to ban face coverings.

It is still perfectly legal for people in Switzerland to sport symbols of repression and misogyny as long as they are not covering their faces.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

To what extent, exactly?

Like when it's a matter of safety. In this case, something like loose sleeves or a necklace can get caught in something like a lathe and cause a very nasty scene.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

The Swiss didn't vote to ban "symbols of repression and misogyny" however.
They voted to ban face coverings.

It is still perfectly legal for people in Switzerland to sport symbols of repression and misogyny as long as they are not covering their faces.

I didn't say they banned them all. But things like the burqa are a symbol of extreme and total control over women. There is no way around this. From repression they were sown and born, and in oppression they were made mandatory.

 

[Kooky]

Like when it's a matter of safety. In this case, something like loose sleeves or a necklace can get caught in something like a lathe and cause a very nasty scene.

So would you say that covering your face in public is a matter of safety?

 

[Kooky]

I didn't say they banned them all. But things like the burqa are a symbol of extreme and total control over women. There is no way around this. From repression they were sown and born, and in oppression they were made mandatory.

They were not made mandatory in Switzerland. No woman in Switzerland was ever forced by law to wear a burqa.
And not a single woman who was forced by law to wear one will be affected by this.

The only Swiss people who will be affected by this law are leftist protesters.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

So would you say that covering your face in public is a matter of safety?

It definitely can be.

They were not made mandatory in Switzerland. No woman in Switzerland was ever forced by law to wear a burqa.
And not a single woman who was forced by law to wear one will be affected by this.

Legally isn't the only way to force someone to do something. Social pressure does much. And no Swiss official or cultural thing taught women to wear those. It comes from a culture that does legally require it, and the social elements do not magically vanish or change when they go to somewhere like Sweden. She has still learned its proper for a woman tk be like that. She has already learned it's normal. She has already had it instilled she doesn't have a choice.

 

[Kooky]

It definitely can be.

Are you okay with banning masked protests based on that reasoning?

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Are you okay with banning masked protests based on that reasoning?

For the time being with an ongoing global pandemic, face masks should be required, but not full face coverings.

 

[Kooky]

For the time being with an ongoing global pandemic, face masks should be required, but not full face coverings.

So we should cover our faces, but not too much, because that would be dangerous to... Western civilization, I suppose.

 

[viole]

For the 10th time: the metric is whether a law infringes on people's rights or harms them. I've explained this now repeatedly.

And it does not follow. As I showed you with the example of walking round town naked, or having sex in public.

Can you mention me a right that we infringe when you have sex in a public space? Why is that verboten? Why can we eat, but not have sex in public? And why not many complain about that ban?

We know why. Because that hurts people sensitivity. It does not infringe any right. It it is considered obscene. It is culturally driven. It disturbs.

But if you ask me, carrying around symbols of oppression, de-facto equivalent to carrying around a little cage with a woman inside, is much more obscene.

Ciao

- viole

 

[Left Coast]

And it does not follow. As I showed you with the example of walking round town naked, or having sex in public.

Can you mention me a right that we infringe when you have sex in a public space? Why is that verboten? Why can we eat, but not have sex in public? And why not many complain about that ban?

We know why. Because that hurts people sensitivity. It does not infringe any right. It it is considered obscene. It is culturally driven. It disturbs.

You didn't read what I wrote. I agree with you about public nudity and sex. They should be legal.

Wearing burqas should be as well, if we're consistent.

 

[viole]

You didn't read what I wrote. I agree with you about public nudity and sex. They should be legal.

Wearing burqas should be as well, if we're consistent.

If YOU are consistent according to your theory that we should not ban anything that does not infringe somebody’s right. Not WE. A claim of yours that could be challenged. Starting with who has the authority to define those rights. Some wise men that are wise axiomatically, some magical source of objective morality, God. The people, or who? And I did not say I agree to allow sex in public spaces.

so, I guess you will have to come back to me when free nudity and sex on our streets is not banned anymore. Among all other things we ban without infringing any apparent right and nobody complains. And then I might reconsider. Up to that point, I will make the assumption We the people can democratically ban in our country whatever we want. Because, well, it is our right.

And again. Rights are human constructs, whose value depends on the current Zeitgeist. They are not engraved in the spacetime continuum, or written by God, and therefore they are all subject to review. At any time.

ciao

- viole

 

[Left Coast]

If YOU are consistent according to your theory that we should not ban anything that does not infringe somebody’s right. Not WE. A claim of yours that could be challenged. Starting with who has the authority to define those rights. Some wise men that are wise axiomatically, some magical source of objective morality, God. The people, or who? And I did not say I agree to allow sex in public spaces.

"The people," although "the people" is defined differently depending which system we're talking about. It could be direct democracy, or representative democracy.

Why don't you think sex in public should be legal? What about nudity?

so, I guess you will have to come back to me when free nudity and sex on our streets is not banned anymore. Among all other things we ban without infringing any apparent right and nobody complains. And then I might reconsider. Up to that point, I will make the assumption We the people can democratically ban in our country whatever we want. Because, well, it is our right.

I didn't claim you "can't" ban what you like. Of course you can. You did. The question is whether you should, on what basis or rationale.

So no, I don't need to "come back back you" only when my ideal laws are passed. I can rationally criticize your ideas without my perfect utopia being in place. Just as you can.

And again. Rights are human constructs, whose value depends on the current Zeitgeist. They are not engraved in the spacetime continuum, or written by God, and therefore they are all subject to review. At any time.

Of course they are. None of my criticism of your view was based on rights being written in the stars. My criticism was based on the observation that legal system that define and respect certain human rights, like bodily autonomy, are places where most people are happier and prefer to live. If you disagree then again - you're happy to be my slave, yes?

Similarly, laws, like banning what people wear, are also human constructs and subject to review. At any time. Which is what we're doing here.

It's like you're straining to not comprehend what I'm saying.

 

[Koldo]

While that's true in the abstract, that has not actually been what's happened in reality. What's actually happened is that the Constitution has been interpreted, and even amended, in such a way that minority rights have in fact been protected. (Not to say this has been perfect - far from it. Only that the tendency has been toward improved outcomes).

That's like saying our kings have been kind so far though. I do rather not be ruled by a king. If the kings can freely interpret the constitution to their liking, what is the point? What difference does it make if we have a constitution?

Again, this is why nearly all modern democracies are constitutional. If it didn't work, no one would do it. Yet they do. There's a reason for that.

The reason is simple but not what you think: It preserves the power at the hands of a few. As a matter of fact, Brazil had a constitution back at 1824 when we still had a fully fledged monarchy.

Of course. The point is that even within the Swiss model of a more direct democracy, certain ideas and laws are considered out of bounds, because they violate human rights.

Sure. But that doesn't mean anything unless people agree on what counts as a human right. And if and when they do agree, it would be logically contradictory to act against a human right.

 

[Kooky]

so, I guess you will have to come back to me when free nudity and sex on our streets is not banned anymore. Among all other things we ban without infringing any apparent right and nobody complains. And then I might reconsider. Up to that point, I will make the assumption We the people can democratically ban in our country whatever we want. Because, well, it is our right.

That's pretty rich, considering that Switzerland has the most restrictive naturalization laws on this planet, with nearly a fourth of its population being permament residents without citizenship. It's a true democracy in the Athenian style indeed.

 

[Left Coast]

That's like saying our kings have been kind so far though. I do rather not be ruled by a king. If the kings can freely interpret the constitution to their liking, what is the point? What difference does it make if we have a constitution?

Is your goal just to poke holes in what I'm saying? Or do you have some other alternative you're proposing? Do you think we'd be better off without Constitutions? It's like you're making your comments in a completely decontextualized historical vacuum.

The whole reason we have constitutional governments is specifically to prevent kings and other government leaders from doing "whatever they want." Constitutions put constraints on their power dictating what they may or may not do. And it sort of spits in the face of the entire history of Western jurisprudence and people in legal professions who spend their entire lives dedicated to how to properly interpret and enact law to make this sort of facile claim that leaders will just interpret constitutions "however they want." That just flies in the face of what actually happens when Constitutions are written and why people argue so vociferously about what they say. Here in the US, if you file a lawsuit premised on some completely random, off-the-wall interpretation of the Constitution that has no connection to precedent or what the text actually says, you will be laughed out of the room and your case quickly dismissed.

The reason is simple but not what you think: It preserves the power at the hands of a few. As a matter of fact, Brazil had a constitution back at 1824 when we still had a fully fledged monarchy.

if you think modern constitutional governments preserve power in the hands of a few, do some research on what life was life in a pre-Magna Carta monarchy. Regular citizens in Western democracies indisputably are freer and have greater influence over what their governments do than they were before. The reason for this is because of democratic reforms in government such as Constitutions that enshrine human rights and limits on government in law.