Markus Spillmann's argument in the "SonntagsZeitung" (article not available online) is flawed when he uses questionable arguments to oppose the burka ban. Spillmann compares the veil ban initiative with the fighting dog campaign. There may be fewer fighting dogs today, but there are more dog bites. Spillmann believes that no one has ever died japan rcs data as a result of the burka. In addition, there are only a few female tourists who are veiled. The ban is purely symbolic politics.
Markus Spillmann is thus negating the public's desire that we should show our faces. This does not only apply at the counter or on public transport to identify a person. It also applies at work or in everyday life. As a communications consultant, eye contact and open communication are important to me. Anyone who is not allowed to show their face comes across as having something to hide and playing with false cards.
It is less about religious freedom or the burka, a symbol of oppression for women. Showing one's face is a matter of course in our culture. Covering one's face is a no-go except at carnival. I quote SRF: In a survey, 71 percent of eligible voters voted in favor of a Switzerland-wide ban on covering one's face. Ten government councilors also support a burka ban, as the "SonntagsZeitung" and "Le Matin Dimanche" reported.
If the majority of the population rejects the veil, this at least makes it clear: we do not want the face to be covered because we are generally bothered by the game of hide-and-seek. Be it for women or troublemakers.