On 7 March 2021, Switzerland voted in a referendum framed as the “Burqa Ban,” which bans face coverings from being worn in public. The measure was put forward by the right-wing Swiss People’s Party, narrowly passing by 51.2% to just 48.8%. While there was no mention of Islam directly, the entire campaign was framed as The “Burqa Ban” signalling a surreptitious stigmatisation of Muslims. This ostensible portrayal of a crackdown on violent protestors disproportionately affects Muslim women and is symptomatic of the increasing intolerance that religious repression breeds worldwide.
THE “BURQA BAN”
Religious face coverings such as the burqa and niqab are used by many Muslim women to convey part of their identity and demonstrate their conviction of faith. However, more states are dictating what Muslim women wear on account of face coverings not being “suitable for our society”. Arguments for the ban have included statements such as “face coverings are not normal clothes” and “free people show their faces”. The recent Switzerland referendum comes off the back of a 2009 initiative that sought to ban minarets on the grounds that they are a symbol of political Islam. This measure was approved by 57.5% in a country whereby approximately 5% of the population is Muslim. As such, right-wing parties have politicised the burqa in Switzerland, exploiting cultural insecurities by way of stigmatisation.
The deeply ironic timing of Switzerland’s Burqa Ban, amidst the pandemic, proves that security concerns did not underpin this decision. The Covid-19 pandemic entirely disproves the argument that face coverings pose a threat to society or to a national identity as they are mandatory in the public spaces of many countries including France and Switzerland. The Washington Post noted that “if an observant Muslim woman wants to get on the Paris Metro, she would be required to remove her burka and replace it with a mask”. As such, Amnesty International designates the face veil ban as a dangerous policy that violates women’s rights, including freedom of expression and religion. Ironically, a prominent justification for the ban, used by Switzerland and France alike, is that face coverings symbolise the repression of Muslim women.
RELIGIOUS REPRESSION WORLDWIDE
A trend of religious repression is evident across the world. Pew Research Centre found a significant increase in infringements of religious liberty over the decade from 2007 to 2017 and the above evidence suggests that this continues to be the case. The “Burqa Ban” is a rejection of diversity and a prejudice against religious freedom rooted in ignorance. Globally, countries should condemn this worrying trend and denounce any attempt to marginalise or demonise religious minorities.
In Sri Lanka, progress is being made to pass similar legislation. This comes after the 2019 Easter Sunday bomb attacks that killed more than 260 people, which the Islamic State (ISIS) took responsibility for. In response to this, the Sri Lankan government is considering a “burqa ban” to curb religious extremism. Associating all Muslims with ISIS is a problematic reaction, and some would argue that this is simply bigotry masked as national security. Muslims are also a minority in Sri Lanka and there is a history of human rights abuses against Muslims in the country. Thus, it is difficult not to see the proposed “burqa ban” as just another mode of religious repression.
According to the Council of Foreign Relations, the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) seeks to Sinicize religion with new 2020 regulations requiring religious groups to accept and spread CCP ideology and values. The officially atheist CCP sees religion as a challenge to its legitimacy and thus views it as a threat. For years, Tibetan Buddhist monks and nuns have been imprisoned and tortured for refusing to denounce the Dalai Lama.
Furthermore, the CCP has arbitrarily detained millions of Uyghur Muslims in the Xinjiang region. There, Uyghurs are forced into “re-education camps” to study CCP ideology through psychological indoctrination programs. Again, the rationale of clamping down on terrorism and extremism was used to justify these actions.
Often it is non-Muslim government officials, in countries in which Muslims are a minority, dictating to Muslim women how to dress appropriately under a guise of freedom and dignity. The rationale behind such laws then becomes questionable. Is it really to protect women or is it a state refusing to incorporate visible Muslims into their national identity? Is it providing Muslim women freedom or outright Islamophobia?
Leah is a Master's student at University College Dublin, studying International Relations. She has a background in human rights advocacy in the Middle East and North Africa and hopes to pursue a career as a journalist focusing on international human rights issues.