Lawmakers Are Pushing To Place Ban On Wearing Head Coverings In Public. Do You Support This?

AWM| Because more and more Muslims refugees are looking to start a new life in Europe, officials and lawmakers are faced with a choice. They can either adapt their society to fit these new people’s culture or they can demand that these new people who are seeking refuge in their country to adopt European culture. Switzerland is leaning closer to the latter.

Now Swiss lawmakers are inching toward imposing a nation-wide ban on face veils. This is a pointed gesture against the woman who wear burqas as part of the country’s small minority. But the country is afraid that people might be hiding behind these religious customs in order to inflict terror or crime on innocent citizens of Switzerland…




A ban on the Islamic veils was passed in the lower house of Swiss parliament on September 27 by a tight vote of 88 to 87. Since it passed in that part of the government, it now has to go to the higher chambers of the government in order to actually be enacted into law. Many people expect that it will be a controversial issue and will probably be put to a national vote.

The ban on veils was originally proposed by Walter Wobmann, a member of the Swiss People’s Party (SVP).

Wobmann is not a fan of immigration and was successful in 2009 when he pushed for a ban on the construction of mosque minarets in Switzerland. Now he thinks veils are the next thing that need to go if Muslims want to live in Switzerland.

“Veils are an attack on integration in a free society,” Wobmann said, according to The Independent. “The ban of religiously motivated coverings in public is proportionate and violates neither freedom of religion nor expression. It does not constitute discrimination.”

If the law was enacted, face veils would be banned in all public places except for religious site and a few other exceptions.




In order to speed up this ban, supporters need to get 100,000 signatures to force a referendum. According to an August poll, a shocking majority of 71 percent of Swiss citizens support the face veil ban.

Because it is a hot button issue, the Swiss parliament is expected to stall on it. This will leave the decision to a public vote.

Switzerland has about 8.3 million people in the country and only 5 percent of those are Muslim. Out of the country’s 350,000 Muslims, just a few actually wear burqas.

This controversy has grown because recent Muslim immigrants and refugees have struggled to integrate into socially liberal European society.

For example, some Muslim boys refused to shake the hands of their female teachers. They were issued fines for their disrespectful and sexist behavior.

Two Muslim girls refused to take a swimming lesson with male peers. They were denied citizenship because of their obvious refusal to adapt to the new society they just moved to.

Belgium and France already enforce a ban on burqas. Switzerland is behind on the times and is just trying to catch up.

“It is unacceptable that you can wear a hijab in a photo but not a cap,” Wobmann said, according to CNN. “This is not a question of religious freedom but of equal treatment.”

HERE IS A LIST OF EVERY SINGLE TIME OBAMA COMMITTED AN IMPEACHABLE OFFENSE THAT DEMS & MEDIA COVERED UP “Impeach!” It’s been more than eight years since Democrats uttered that word – long enough for anyone to wonder if it was still in their vocabulary, considering the deafening silence through the dozens of serious scandals during President Obama’s administration – but now that President Trump is the man in the White House, it’s back with a vengeance. . . Democrats everywhere are wildly slinging the “I” word, hoping to nail Trump for high crimes and misdemeanors after the New York Times claimed a memo written by former FBI Director James Comey said the president urged him to end the federal investigation into former national security adviser Michael Flynn. . . Some members of Congress are getting in on the action. They include Reps. Maxine Water, D-Calif., and Al Green, D-Texas. Even a Republican, Rep. Justin Amash, claimed Wednesday there are grounds to impeach President Trump. House Oversign Committee Chair Rep. Jason Chaffetz, R-Utah, asked for the alleged Comey memo and other documents. Chaffetz tweeted that he is prepared to subpoena the information. And Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., invoked “Watergate.” . . Now the Democratic Party is reportedly poll testing impeachment as a 2018 election issue. More than 1 million people signed a petition calling on Congress to impeach Trump. . . Wasting no time Wednesday, the mainstream media sprang into action, enthusiastically echoing the left’s impeachment calls. MSNBC launched a Watergate ad implying Trump is America’s new Richard Nixon. . . “Watergate. We know its name because there were reporters who never stopped asking questions,” says MSNBC host Chris Hayes, who hinted that Trump is next on the impeachment chopping block. “Now, who knows where the questions will take us. But I know this: I’m not going to stop asking them.” . . Meanwhile, some overzealous members of the left plastered fliers around Washington, D.C., demanding all White House staffers resign Wednesday. . . The posters read: “If you work for this White House you are complicit in hate-mongering, lies, corrupt taking of Americans’ tax money via self-dealing and emoluments, and quite possibly federal crimes and treason. Also, any wars will be on your soul. … Resign now.” . . But constitutional scholar Jonathan Turley, who voted for President Obama, warned “impeachment” enthusiasts not to get ahead of themselves with President Trump. Why? . . At this time, there’s no evidence Trump actually committed a crime. . . “The criminal code demands more than what Comey reportedly describes in his memo,” Turley wrote in a May 17 opinion piece posted at the Hill. Turley explained: . . For the first time, the Comey memo pushes the litany of controversies surrounding Trump into the scope of the United States criminal code. . . However, if this is food for obstruction of justice, it is still an awfully thin soup. Some commentators seem to be alleging criminal conduct in office or calling for impeachment before Trump completed the words of his inaugural oath of office. Not surprising, within minutes of the New York Times report, the response was a chorus of breathless “gotcha” announcements. But this memo is neither the Pentagon Papers nor the Watergate tapes. Indeed, it raises as many questions for Comey as it does Trump in terms of the alleged underlying conduct. . . A good place to start would be with the federal law, specifically 18 U.S.C. 1503. The criminal code demands more than what Comey reportedly describes in his memo. There are dozens of different variations of obstruction charges ranging from threatening witnesses to influencing jurors. None would fit this case. That leaves the omnibus provision on attempts to interfere with the “due administration of justice.” . . However, that still leaves the need to show that the effort was to influence “corruptly” when Trump could say that he did little but express concern for a longtime associate. The term “corruptly” is actually defined differently under the various obstruction provisions, but it often involves a showing that someone acted “with the intent to secure an unlawful benefit for oneself or another.” Encouraging leniency or advocating for an associate is improper but not necessarily seeking an unlawful benefit for him. . . -Obama’s Iran nuke deal -Obama knew about Hillary’s private email server -Obama IRS targets conservatives -Obama’s DOJ spies on AP reporters -Obamacare & Obama’s false promises -Illegal-alien amnesty by executive order -Benghazi-gate -Operation Fast & Furious -5 Taliban leaders for Bergdahl -Extortion 17 -‘Recess ‘ appointments – when Senate was in session -Appointment of ‘czars’ without Senate approval -Suing Arizona for enforcing federal law -Refusal to defend Defense of Marriage Act -Illegally conducting war against Libya -NSA: Spying on Americans -Muslim Brotherhood ties -Miriam Carey -Birth certificate -Executive orders -Solyndra and the lost $535 million -Egypt -Cap & Trade: When in doubt, bypass Congress -Refusal to prosecute New Black Panthers -Obama’s U.S. citizen ‘hit list’