Swiss to vote on banning face veils in ‘Islamophobic’ referendum

Swiss citizens will vote on a proposal to ban full-face coverings such as Muslim veils and masks worn by protesters this weekend.

Opinion polls suggest most voters will back the move in a binding national referendum to be held on Sunday, though the lead has narrowed in recent weeks. While the proposal itself does not mention Islam, it has been dubbed the ‘burqa ban’ by MPs, campaigners and the media.

The campaign against face coverings has been led by the far-right Swiss People’s Party (SVP), who argue the measures are needed against protesters who cover their faces and to combat terrorism. The SVP previously led a campaign which saw Swiss citizens vote to ban the building of new minarets in 2009.

Some argue the proposed ban is primarily intended to target Muslim women who wear face coverings, and say it will reinforce divisions present in Switzerland’s attitude towards its Muslim minority.

“It is a populist initiative by its content,” Dr Stefan Schlegel, an academic in law at the University of Berne, tells The Independent. “The initiative is clearly designed to create a narrative of ‘there is an us and there is a them’.”

Dr Schlegel, who helped create Operation Libero, the main campaigning organisation against the ban, says it is “very clear” that the referendum could be considered Islamophobic.

He said groups in favour of the ban have “a very clear agenda”and have already set their sights on banning Muslim headscarves in schools. “So clearly this is written into a larger agenda that works on the idea that ‘there is a threat out there, it is a group of Muslims, they are undermining our way of life and we have to fight them,’” he says.

Those in favour of the ban argue it is intended not to be against Muslims but instead against political Islam. Part of the campaign features red posters showing a frowning woman wearing a black face covering along with the words: “Stop extremism!”

“In Switzerland our tradition is that you show your face. That is a sign of our basic freedoms,” Walter Wobmann, an SVP MP and chair of the referendum committee, told Reuters. He added that “the facial covering is a symbol for this extreme, political Islam which has become increasingly prominent in Europe and which has no place in Switzerland”.

Two Swiss cantons already ban face coverings, and several European countries have laws against them. France banned the wearing of full face veils in public in 2011, while Austria, Bulgaria, Denmark and the Netherlands have full or partial bans on face coverings in public.

Calls for a referendum on banning face coverings throughout Switzerland crossed a threshold three years ago, before the world was confronted by the coronavirus pandemic, which has seen the widespread adoption of face masks to prevent the spread of the disease.

Around 380,000 Muslims live in Switzerland, according to official statistics, representing around five per cent of the population. But research from Lucerne University suggests no one in the country wears the burqa (which covers the whole of the body, the face and the eyes) and only around 30 women wear the niqab (which leaves the area around the eyes visible).

Dr Andreas Tunger-Zanetti, manager of Lucerne University’s Centre for Research on Religion, tells The Independent that his research, which surveyed key figures in Switzerland’s Muslim community, found between 21 and 37 women wear the niqab.

Dr Tunger-Zanetti says the debate “is not really about the niqab but is about how to cope with cultural and religious diversity, and what is the place of religion in society in general. There is a big feeling of unease… people do not feel sure about these questions”....

He also highlighted that a majority of cantons already ban people wearing disguises at sporting events or demonstrations. He went on to say that Switzerland already has laws to punish coercion, which would make it illegal for someone to put pressure on a woman to wear the niqab.

“What is happening now is the result of years and years of Islamophobic and anti-migrant advocacy by the far right,” Ines El-Shikh, cofounder of Les Foulards Violets, a feminist group of Swiss Muslims, tells The Independent. “The stigmatisation and aiming at Muslim minorities in Switzerland has been getting stronger and stronger in the last 10 years, it goes back to the minaret ban in 2009.”

Ms El-Shikh, who is Muslim but does not wear a face covering, adds: “We believe in freedom of choice for all women and that is why we think that banning any garment is sexist and paternalistic. We want women to be totally free to choose how they want to present themselves in the public space, whether it’s a mini skirt or a burqa. For us it’s a matter of women’s agency.”

Similarly, Cyrielle Huguenot, head of women’s rights at Amnesty International Switzerland, says the ban “cannot be viewed as a measure to liberate women”. “It is a dangerous policy that violates women’s rights, including freedom of expression and religion,” she said in a statement.

“This ban would have a negative impact on Muslim women who choose to wear the niqab or burqa. If we really want to respect women’s rights, we should let women decide what they want to wear.”

Switzerland’s government has also urged its populace to vote against the ban, arguing “very few people in Switzerland wear a full facial covering”. In a statement in January, it said: “A nationwide ban would undermine the sovereignty of the cantons, damage tourism and be unhelpful for certain groups of women.” The statement went on to say that most women who wear full face coverings are tourists and only spend a brief amount of time in the country.

If the ban does not pass the referendum, the government has said a mandate will come into force where people would be required to show their faces at the request of the authorities.

As with other recent referenda, there are concerns about the effect the nature of the debate itself could have on society.

“I’m most concerned by the much larger impact it has on the ability to disagree without being seen as disloyal,” says Dr Schlegel. “There is a very concerning development of ‘you are either with us or you are with the terrorists’ and all shading between the two positions is negated. This impoverishment of allowed positions in a democratic deliberation is the most concerning impact this debate has had so far.”

Similarly, Dr Tunger-Zanetti argues the debate is “inevitably deepening demarcation lines between ‘us and them,’ between those who consider themselves the natives or the majority and the Muslim minority … In the end this is hampering the participation of minorities in general.”