Switzerland narrowly approved the proposal to ban facial coverings in public, including burqas and niqabs, after official reports revealed the referendum had gained the support of 51.21% of voters. The Swiss authorities now have the upcoming two years to enact a detailed legislation of the ban, which will criminalise any wearing of face coverings in restaurants, sport stadiums, and public transport- with the exception for places of worship, and health and safety reasons.
“THE BURQA BAN”
The anti-burqa vote comes after years of continuous debate in Switzerland, following the implementation of bans in countries such as France, which prohibited the full-face veil in public back in 2011. Belgium, Denmark, the Netherlands, Bulgaria, and Austria have also implemented similar bans which prohibit face coverings outside religious institutions. As a consequence, this has sparked the debate: is the burqa ban a xenophobic and discriminatory infringement on freedom of religion or a justifiable restriction concerned with women’s liberation and the protection of the public?
On one side, voters in favour of the ban argue it is focused on preventing street protestors and football hooligans wearing face masks, who exploit their use to prevent themselves being identified by authorities. However, the exclusion of protective face masks for COVID or health purposes has led to suggestions that Muslim women are the real targets, subsequently coining the term “the burqa ban”. In addition, the campaign of the right-wing Swiss People’s Party uses the image of a woman wearing a niqab and sunglasses with the slogan: “Stop extremism!”.
A SYMBOL OF REPRESSION
The Swiss People’s Party argue that the ban aims to develop the freedom and dignity of Muslim women. They believe the burqa symbolises repression, which does not respect the Swiss traditions of showing your face as a “basic freedom”. Walter Wobmann, chairman of the referendum committee and a member of the Swiss People’s Party, later gave a statement on behalf of the campaign that facial coverings are deemed as symbolic for the “extreme, political Islam which has become increasingly prominent in Europe”.
To many, the veil represents an oppressive instrument that reflects women’s second-class regard in Islam: Celine Amaudruz, a national council representative, stated that “being free is to be able to show our face, respect women’s dignity, have our own identity, and therefore I do not understand the discourse of people who want to imprison women behind this veil”. Therefore, this regulation may be viewed as offering protection for women who would otherwise be forced to wear veils, addressing concerns that the veil represents sexism, as it serves as a reminder that the role of these women are confined to domestic activities. A Muslim feminist, Fatima Mernissi, views the veil as a means to “relegate women to the domestic sphere” and “to highlight their illegal position on male territory by means of a mask”.
GROWING XENOPHOBIA
Worryingly, the results have confirmed a growing xenophobia in Western Europe. For a democratic society such as Switzerland, expected to enshrine article 9 of the European Convention of Human Rights which protects religious freedom, this comes as a shock. The left-wing counter-proposal campaigners exposed the true nature of the ban with their large banners that reads: “Absurd. Useless. Islamaophobic”.
Andreas Tunger-Zanetti, a researcher for Religious Studies at the University of Lucerne, highlighted the futility of the legislation as his recent study revealed the number of women in Switzerland who wear a niqab at 21 to 37. The root of the issue is rather about Switzerland’s perception of religion and their inability to “cope with diversity”. As such, the legislation appears excessive, as full face coverings are a marginal phenomenon. Furthermore, the harm it will have on Switzerland’s tourism is inevitable, as numerous tourism professionals from the Geneva and Berne regions confirm that it will significantly reduce the number of women visiting from Arabic countries who have their own religious rules in terms of face coverings, amongst of whom the affluent Swiss lakeside cities were a common holiday destination.
The voting results have shocked the Central Council of Muslims, a leading Swiss Islamic group, expressing it as a “dark day” for Muslims. They fear that the illiberal development to civil society will undoubtedly promote the segregation of one’s own cultural traditions and “the other” making religious minorities feel “unwelcome, unsafe, and unwanted”. Their fears are accentuated by the possibility that this ban marks the start of progressing xenophobia.
Muslim nationals have openly criticised the ban, perceiving it is the manifestation of Swiss internalised islamophobia. Ines Al Shikh, a member of Les Foulards Violets (a Muslim feminist collective), agrees that the aim of the ban is to “stigmatise and marginalise Muslims even more”. It implies that it is up to the State to infringe a woman’s choices over how she expresses her religion through her physical appearance, yet counterproductively results in undermining their ability to choose how they present themselves in public.
At first glance the burqa ban may appear as a neutral legislation; it avoids direct inference with a specific religion, primarily aiming to promote gender equality and women’s emancipation, as well as the protection of national security. However, in order to address the oppression of woman we should shift our focus from the external clothing to tackling the root cause of the oppression in Switzerland and abroad: unequal economic opportunities, discrimination, and lack of access to services. Muslim women must have the freedom of choice over their lives and religion, irrespective of whether others choose to understand.
Beatrice is a second-year Law student at the University of Manchester hoping to qualify as a solicitor. She is currently working as a Legal Pharmaceutical Affairs Associate, with her main interests being in international and medical law.