“Anyone staying or moving about in a public place must have their face uncovered to the extent that their facial features can be identified.” That is what the proposed amendment to the Public Order and Peace Act, prepared by the government, says. And if burqas were the first thing that came to mind, you have probably bought into the story being sold to the public in recent weeks.
- French protests have always been violent
- Fact check / check the story about the French left-wing activist before sharing it
- Slovenia needs its own ocisti.net to expose inciting trolls, following Serbia’s lead
I do not, personally, see women in burqas on the streets of Slovenia. Perhaps someone else encounters them at every turn, but I do not. So I wonder why a ban on face coverings has suddenly become important enough to require new legislation and fairly hefty fines. Between €200 and €600 for covering your face, and between €1,500 and €5,000 if someone has their face covered while behaving violently.
This is where the story becomes interesting. Minister Matoz has admitted that the proposal was also drawn up in light of violent protests in European cities. Protesters often cover their faces, making them harder to identify on CCTV footage. Right. So it is not just about burqas.
Do you remember Covid? Do you remember the fines for people who did not wear protective masks? Back then, masks were compulsory. Today, we are discussing fines for covering your face. Of course, the proposal provides exemptions for health reasons, but the irony is still fairly obvious.
If you have ever followed protests in France, you have probably noticed that people often cover their faces. Not necessarily because they want to smash shop windows or attack police officers. Some use masks, scarves and other coverings to protect themselves from tear gas. What would happen in Slovenia? Would a mask worn because of tear gas count as a health reason or an offence? Would a police officer decide that on the spot?
For now, the proposed legal amendment does not provide sufficiently clear answers to those questions. That bothers me. Not the fact that police want to identify those responsible for violent acts. I have no problem with that. Violence is violence, regardless of who commits it. What bothers me is that a general ban on face coverings is being presented mainly as a question of burqas, even though it could affect a far wider group of people.
The government speaks of safety. Critics warn of the potential intimidation of protesters. Both need to be taken seriously, but above all it needs to be clearly defined where maintaining public order ends and a disproportionate intrusion on individual rights begins. Because the right to protest is not reserved only for those willing to put their face in front of every camera.
So what I would most like to see are answers. How many cases of face covering actually cause security problems in Slovenia? Why are existing police powers not enough? Why do we need a general ban rather than more precisely defined measures against violent behaviour?
Until those answers arrive, I have far more questions about the purpose of this amendment than about burqas. Because the burqa is clearly the most visible part of this story. The far more important question is who will be allowed to cover their face, and who will decide.