March 24, 2019

Arab tourist dollars trump public safety in Swiss burqa ban battle

David MenziesMission Specialist

There’s some good news and bad news on the burqa front as the Swiss take another shot at regulating this misogynistic attire.

The bad news is that implementation of a nationwide ban has been rejected, though bans do exist in a couple of Swiss cantons. But, the good news is they’re now considering a new law that would require people to at least show their face when asked by officials.

According to a Daily Mail story, the sticking point for a full ban is how authorities would deal with burka-wearing tourists from Arab nations. So much for the old “when in Rome” adage.

But certainly a law that would require a masked individual to unveil when asked to is a reasonable compromise especially considering that two-thirds of Switzerland’s 8.5M residents identify as Christian whereas the Muslim population is five per cent.

All other points aside, shouldn’t public safety override all other considerations, including religious freedom?

In Western democracies, one of the fundamental reasons we walk freely in the streets without having to deal with checkpoints every few steps is that we can readily identify one another.

And isn’t the burqa and niqab inherently misogynistic? Where-oh-where are the feminists on this file? If the burqa and niqab were being promoted by some Christian sect the feministas would be frothing mad, and going to great lengths to make certain this story remained on the front-burner.

Oh, well. Good luck to the Swiss as they take another shot at this issue. Reasonable accommodation can indeed be a good thing, but it has to work for both sides if it’s to work at all, otherwise, it’s not reasonable.

You must be logged in to comment. Click here to log in.
commented 2019-03-26 13:20:27 -0400
Karan, that is a great family history. That fighting spirit is evident in your battle for truth. I was not questioning your knowledge of your history. I was giving evidence of it for all to see.
commented 2019-03-26 03:00:15 -0400
Al Peterson; re. sikh in Britsh Indian Army:
I am well aware of the fighting spirit & their contribution to British Indian Army.
My family’s connection to the Bengal Presidency Army goes back to June 1857 when one of my ancestors was among the first troopers to join then newly raised ’Hodosn’s Horse’ cavalry, by Major William S R Hodson of 2nd Bengal Fusiliers. Since then we have at least one member of the family from each generation serving with the army. 5 individuals over 4 generations has served in the same regiment, Hodson’s Horse (present day 4th Horse). My great grandfather, still carrying their lances & mounted on chargers, served with the same Hodson’s Horse (then called 10th Bengal Lancers) at Battle of Cambrai during WW 1, and my grandfather, by this time the regiment was mechanized & were mounted on Stuart Tanks, participated in the north African campaign, before they were ordered to surrender. While his 2 brothers (one in Artillery another one with supplies) went fighting Japanese imperial forces in Burma, where one died during the war & another one was taken prisoner.
That being said, there were few other classes of soldiers who fought with the same zeal & valour, viz. gurkhas, jats & rajputs. I can cherry pick some facts & continue to argue but the reality is that while there’s no doubt we the sikhs of British Indian Army have fought with bravery however there are several other equally stellar examples where soldiers belonging to other regiments have shown equal courage.
As an ex-officer & a soldier I can tell you that the overall courage & performance of a fighting unit depends not only on individual courage but also on their immediate officer.
commented 2019-03-26 02:26:06 -0400
RON JOSEPH commented: “I know nothing about Sikh women; Do they have complete freedom even if they are married.
If you were to compare an average Sikh woman to an average woman in a Western country, what Country would that be?”

In sikh religion women has no special status, out of 10 sikh gurus (spiritual leaders) not even one was woman. Historically the actual status of sikh women has been no better than any other hindu woman of the time, although not as subservient as muslims. All the evils of the society prevalent at the time were present in any average sikh family. All the talks of equality & whatever else to sikh woman are of modern origin. Maharaja Ranjit Singh, the first & only sikh emperor, had his own mother killed for the crime of having relations with some other man. (Ranjit Singh’s father had died at an early age and his mother was a widow at the time). As an infant the same woman was buried alive because her parents didn’t want a girl child but was saved by the timely intervention of some benevolent sikh saint. Almost 300 women committed ‘Sati’ at the death of Maharaja Ranjit Singh (all were his concubines). Female infanticide is still common among sikh families.
In modern times the status of sikh woman largely depends on the family, if their family is moderate the women will have more freedom and if the family are devout or too fanatic they tend to control their women. The traditional or fanatic sikh woman will wear a turban (much in the shape of hijab, only bigger) and a kirpan like men. Luckily there are more moderate families than traditional or radicals.
However, there’s a tendency among many sikh families who has migrated to the west (contrary to the popular belief; most people from third world countries migrate to the western countries not for freedom or equality or human rights but for easy money & lax laws) to become more radicalize over the time. I personally know of many families who were nominal to moderate sikh while in India but turned to fundamental to extremist view of the religion after settling down in Canada, U.K., or USA.
Sikh religion does not specifies any special or inferior status for a woman, whatever we see it’s punjabi/indian tradition & cultural, which at large were influenced by islam. Prior to islamic invasion of Indian sub-continent the hindu woman (sikhism dates back to 500 years, whereas khalsa is 300 years old) had full freedom (more than what we have in the west in 21st century) and played a prominent role in the society.
commented 2019-03-26 00:54:09 -0400
My point is that the Sikhs wore turbans in their military service in the Britishservice in whatever regiment, which was exemplary. There is a tradition and valued contribution to be considered. Not so with the burkha.

“More than 83,000 turbaned Sikh soldiers sacrificed their lives and more than 100,000 were injured during the two world wars.
Sikh warriors at that time fought in Europe, Africa and the Middle East, and made insurmountable contributions on the Western Front and at Gallipoli, alongside their British, Indian and Commonwealth counterparts.

Historical evidence indicates that the turbaned cavalrymen were regarded as fearsome warriors whose loyalty and fighting tenacity was highly regarded within the British Army so much so that they won 10 of the 22 Military Crosses for showcasing bravery in the battlefield."

British Army.
You are correct, the Sikhs served in the British Indian Army but they were effectively in several regiments of the British Army for all intents and purposes. But the technicality stands.

“By the end of World War I, just over one million Indians volunteered to fight for the British Indian Army. Many of them were Sikhs, an estimated 100,000. There were six battalions of the Sikh Regiment in the British Indian Army.”

“Years after the Battle of Gallipoli, the 2nd Royal Fusiliers, a regiment of the British Army payed a great amount of gratitude to the 14th Sikhs because of their valiant effort to relieve Turkish pressure on them when in battle. According to Gautam Sharma in their book, Valour and Sacrifice: Famous Regiments of the Indian Army, They presented the Sikhs with a silver grenade inscribed: “In memory of Gallipoli 1915 and the Khyber Pass 1921”, now a prized possession. This really shows how much effort the Sikhs put into battling and looking out for their allies.”

“Battle of Malaya (1941)
Malaya was rich in natural resources, namely 40% of the world’s rubber and 60% of the world’s tin, most being exported to the United States. This made Malaya a prime target for the Empire of Japan in 1941. The Battle of Malaya was the first major battle of the Pacific War, just slightly before the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor on the same day, beginning at midnight. The Allied army in Malaya totaled around 86,000 troops, two thirds Indian and Sikhs 60% of that Indian force. This battle involved the Empire of Japan invading Malaya in a massive ground force war with the British Indian Army.”

Religion by force.Point of the Sword.
As you state, there have been examples of Sikhs being influenced by evil men. The same is true for “Christians” of which I am one. But, unless I am incorrect (again) the religion is not, like islam, a call to world domination as its essence. “All have sinned and come short of the glory of God.”
And, yes, as a Sikh, you know far more about the religion and its history than I do. Like most Westerners I don’t know a lot and would like to remedy that.

commented 2019-03-26 00:25:50 -0400
Karan Singh, thanks for the information. I will have to look deeper into this. Your insights are always clear and we value them.
commented 2019-03-25 23:45:15 -0400
Karan Singh……Good Job, Al doesn’t get shut out too often.

I know nothing about Sikh women; Do they have complete freedom even if they are married.
If you were to compare an average Sikh woman to an average woman in a Western country, what Country would that be?
commented 2019-03-25 20:15:42 -0400
AL PETERSON commented: “Janie, I feel differently about the Sikh turban. The Sikh’s fought in many regiments of the British army for hundreds of years. They are not a religion set up to rule the world by force nor do they do conversions at the point of the sword.”

1. “Sikh turban”:
Sikh turban is NOT a part of khalsa (the pure one) religion. Turban has been a part of indian culture, a tradition, for centuries before the birth of sikh religion (khalsa). The five articles of faith, as mandated for khalsa (not every sikh is khalsa): 1) ‘Kuchh’ Boxer type underwear, 2) ‘Kada’, steel bracelet, 3) ‘Kirpan’ a dagger, 4) ‘Kangha’ wooden comb, 5) ‘Kesh’ unshorn hairs. Apart for the tradition another reason for khalsa to adorn turban was it protected the wearer from the blows of swords. A big turban provides a better protection from the blows of any sharp edged or blunt weapon than a steel helmet of the period. It was the shortsightedness on the part of our politicians to allow turban & kirpan in RCMP, Armed Forces & the Parliament. In haste of gaining some ethnic votes & without going deeper into the issue they forgo Canadian culture.
2. “ Sikh’s fought in many regiments of the British army for hundreds of years”:
The Sikhs DID NOT fought in any regiments of the British Army BUT in British Indian Army (erstwhile: Bengal Presidency Army) from about 1852 till 1947. After the final defeat of sikh forces in 1849 when the British authorities took over the rule of Punjab they also assumed the khalsa army which comprised not only sikh/khalsa soldiers but a greater proportion of them were Punjabi mohammedans and some hindu Dogras, Rajputs & Jats from different part of Indian sub-continent. (Incidentally, there were several hundred Europeans among their cadre, of which a dozen held very prominent positions in the khalsa army). Along with the personnel came their attire & traditions. The British Indian Army allowed not only sikh/khalsa soldiers to continue with their attire & tradition but individuals from all three major religions of the region were allowed to follow their belief system; hence the regiments based solely on caste & class system of the Indian Army. Contrary to the modern day twisted view of history British Indian Army (Bengal Presidency Army) did not introduced the class system in the army, they merely followed what the Indians (hindus, sikhs, mohammedans) has been practicing for eons.
3) ” They are not a religion set up to rule the world by force”:
It’s true at the moment Sikhs/khalsa are not a force to be afraid of by any means; NOT yet. However, this does not mean that as a group they are not of any threatening concern to a sovereign nation. Even in its short history of 300 years from time to time there have been periods when sikhs came under the influence of some wicked religious leader & wrecked havoc on their own neighbours & country. There are few verses in sikh sacred texts which can be misconstrued & abused by any wayward religious leader. One verse for instance which is repeated every morning & evening is: “Raj Karega Khalsa, Akki Rahey Na Koi, which means: one day the khalsa will reign supreme, nobody should be in any doubt of it. We’ve already seen in Canada with the bombing of Air India Flight & killing of 330 innocent souls, how vicious the sikh militants can be and what the sikh militants did in Punjab/India is a subject for a complete 10 volume book.
4. ” nor do they do conversions at the point of the sword”:
During the Sikh Raj (1801-1849) majority of conversions in Punjab were done not by any mutual understanding but by coercion.

P.S. I am a practicing sikh, so one may not think that I am some kind of intolerant zealot but because I belong to the sect (& ethnicity) and have thoroughly read sikh religious scriptures & am well aware of its history I believe I know about my religion & its followers better than any of other guys over here.
commented 2019-03-25 09:37:33 -0400
JAK KELLY: A burqa is not a head covering. It is a garment that covers from head to toe with only the eyes visible. It’s basically a mobile prison. Try wearing one for a week or two and let’s see if you still believe anyone in their right mind would voluntarily live their lives in one of these restrictive garments. What if you had a sister or daughter that decided to start wearing one? Would you be ok with that? Everyone living in a free society should be offended and disgusted by these symbols of oppression, ownership, and misogyny.
commented 2019-03-25 05:47:38 -0400
Is this about what a woman wears on her head? Over the past several months were I live men and women have been covering their heads and even their faces with scarves and toques. But of course I live in Canada.

David Menzies is critical of the clothing in Switzerland as though there is some Muslim threat shown by women’s headdress. I seem to recall that he entered a Canadian voting booth a couple of years ago dressed in a long black evening gown. He was trying to make a point.

If women in Switzerland want to were a scarf do they not have that right? There are Christians and Muslims, but there are also a lot of secularists. Should we leave them alone?
commented 2019-03-24 23:59:58 -0400
Jan G. I have listened to Steve Turley for over a year and have donated as he makes me feel good. He is a great speaker. However, he could do a story on Obama and tell us that he is turning to the Right.
commented 2019-03-24 22:57:47 -0400
“Observing the modern scene, it is difficult to avoid the conclusion that Western Man has decided to abolish himself. He eliminates his progeny before they are born, drinks and drugs himself into stupefaction and often educates himself into imbecility. Having attained status and the requisite number of toys and pleasures, he often departs this life through an upper story window. Able to blow the earth into protons, he finds himself ever more insecure and impotent. What is worse, he has been known to praise his genocidal enemies likeStalin and loathe his friends- a classic death-wishing stance. A future historian will marvel at it all and perhaps shake his head in wonder…

…The heart or the matter is that modern man, as Hoffer said, is going about his own soul-saving. Like the prophets of Baal, his quest for deliverance leads him to abuse himself. This is Self-Help taken to the extremity.

An adequate saviour is what man needs.”

Religion’s Rebel Son
Fanaticism in Our Time

Lloyd Billingsley
commented 2019-03-24 22:43:38 -0400
“The love of money is the root of all sorts of evil.”
commented 2019-03-24 22:43:12 -0400
Janie, I feel differently about the Sikh turban. The Sikh’s fought in many regiments of the British army for hundreds of years. They are not a religion set up to rule the world by force nor do they do conversions at the point of the sword. Nor do they demand that everyone else around them submit to their beliefs and dress codes. What this demands of us in the West, which we refuse to do, is to exercise discernment. The refusal to exercise discernment is the foundational pillar of Leftiedom.
commented 2019-03-24 21:58:45 -0400
Another example of Islamocreep on the West
commented 2019-03-24 21:32:25 -0400
It all began with the RCMP allowing the sikh turban. Its their fault.
commented 2019-03-24 21:09:57 -0400
If you insist on wearing a burka, you don’t belong in the west in the first place.
Is that or is that not a sign of one’s refusal to integrate? Burkas just do not work in the west. By western standards its oppression and the antithesis of what we want for our women, and since its our country and you were invited /or walked in, it should be incumbent on you to respect OUR customs, NOT the other way around.
Anything else is just stupid.
commented 2019-03-24 21:04:11 -0400
well it worked after all?
commented 2019-03-24 21:03:37 -0400
link won’t post. Its a youtube link. what gives?
An Iranian Woman’s J’ACCUSE

Yasmine Mohammed, ex-Muslima who posted this video on twitter writes:
‏"It will be difficult for Western women who wore hijab on Hijab Day, at the Women’s March, or in NZ to watch this and not feel shame.

Respect for a culture or an insult to a nation?
commented 2019-03-24 20:20:41 -0400
I’ve been in Switzerland twice – in 1983 and 1991 – and never saw a single burka or niqab in those days. It sounds like things are changing there, just as they are here – and not in a good way.
commented 2019-03-24 20:12:38 -0400
Vulgar attire is an appropriate way to describe it Menzies. I concur.
commented 2019-03-24 20:11:49 -0400
Never accept nonsense. Accommodating burkas in the west is stupid. If you insist on wearing a burka, you don’t belong in the west in the first place.
commented 2019-03-24 19:24:56 -0400
Jan G, somehow I doubt that, elections there are mostly a farce where the indoctrinated voters still think there is such a thing as democracy. I am counting they get it wrong like they have for over 50 years.
commented 2019-03-24 19:08:36 -0400
All civilised nations should ban the Burqa, they should ban all the wing nuts who ware them also.
commented 2019-03-24 18:13:27 -0400
funny how reporters go to muslim countries wearing a scarf for politeness. they come here wearing their monkey suits get away with it. are traditions mean nothing to them and our brain dead politicians don’t care. racist no, just a common courtesy they get and we do NOT.
commented 2019-03-24 16:45:48 -0400
Since 9/11 – IN THE NAME OF ISLAM (SATAN): 36,952 Attacks, 238,770 Killed, 317,792 Injured…. that we know of

No new attacks reported since yesterday.
commented 2019-03-24 13:21:09 -0400
Just like the collapse of Roman Empire, during its final days; avarice, greed & corruption will be the main cause of demise of once great western civilization.