- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
cross-posted from: https://lemm.ee/post/46758406
You must log in or register to comment.
I don’t know how I feel about this.
Which is worse, the government telling people that they can’t wear certain clothes (and let’s be real, at least some of the proponents of implementing this are doing it in an Islamophobic way), or allowing a practice that’s clearly intended to cover women up and treat them as second class citizens within their Islamic culture?
Which is right? Which is wrong? I feel so conflicted about this.
I don’t want the state dictating dress code, that’s absolutely ludicrous, but I also don’t want an oppressive sexist religion dictating that women need to cover up otherwise a man might see them.
i’d say that the better way to let women dress freely is working to get rid of the pressures on them in the first place, rather than forcing them to not dress a certain way in an attempt to give them choice in what to wear.
Yeah it’s a lot harder than simply banning face coverings, but that’s because it actually solves the problem rather than swiping it under the rug…
But what about Covid masks? What if another pandemic happen?
That’s called an “exception”. Look it up.
Non-European here. What’s the purpose of bans like these? The obvious cause appears to be racism/Islamophobia, but is there something else?
You got it. Sometimes politicians say its for “security” so when someone is at a protest they can just arrest them just for wearing a mask.
Yep, islamophobia. Our far right party passed it. They also passed a law banning minarets.
Is there also a face mask exception? They aren’t handy for just pandemics.
Yes there is
It is also permitted for artistic and entertainment performances and for advertising purposes.
Ah they learned from the Austrians
Scarfs, costume masks and medical face masks are allowed in Austria too, but only under special circumstances, e.g. costumes are permitted only for “customs events” (Brauchtumsveranstaltungen) and thus are forbidden for everyday use.
However, you can get fined for wearing a scarf if the police officer perceives it to be not cold enough. https://www.sueddeutsche.de/panorama/oesterreich-burkaverbot-trifft-maskottchen-und-radfahrer-1.3700378Medical reasons to my knowledge is defined rather limited. There’s an exception but in doubt you have to show a doctor’s note saying that you need to wear a mask, otherwise you could be forced to unmask. So if you choose to do preventative masking but aren’t ill yourself this isn’t technically allowed - this isn’t widely enforced, but still something that wasn’t thought quite through.
What’s the difference between the woman in the center at the top row vs the bottom row? Skin tone?
a full-face veil.
a full-face veil.
Never seen that on anyone So a transparent veil is prohibited if combined with hair coverings? Or just in general?
I have conflicting feelings about this ban. If it helps women who don’t want to wear it but is forced, great, but if it instead stops women from being part of society because they’re not allowed outside without the coverings, (either by religious choice, or forced by family), not so great.
It’s really mostly symbolic. It’s estimated that there is less then 100 people that actually wear a niqab/burka across all of Switzerland.
Far more common here. You see top center a lot, bottom left often and bottom right sometimes.
What adults do to themselves doesn’t really bother me, but I feel sorry for the little girls I see dressed like this. Why the hell would you dress a 7yo in that? According to the Quran “men and women should dress modestly”, but why force it on small girls?
If anything I’d ban it for kids. Once you turn 18 you can do what you want. Come to think of it I’d put the same condition on not medically necessary circumcisions.
The differene is that the face is visible.
Good move. Some religious practices shouldn’t be legal if they lower public safety. I don’t see why couldn’t Muslim woman just wear simple Hijabs, if they want to preserve their religious freedom.
Find me data tying veils and low public safety before saying that.
I am not 100% sure what does that mean (I am not a native speaker of English), but if you mean just providing sources, I don’t see necessity in doing that.
Yeah, please find any reasonable source for that.
Ok Junge, ich übersetze es dir: Erklär und beweis uns den Zusammenhang zwischen Gesichtsschleier und öffentlicher Sicherheit. Ich übersetz es dann auch gern. Und ja, wenn du Behauptungen aufstellst solltest du sie auch beweisen können.
Sorry for shouting in German. I thought you‘d speak that, because it felt you had skin in the game. Anyway, I also think you should explain how a veil and public safety correlate. If you can‘t do it in your own words, you provide a link.
From their post history, they’re not German, shouting at them in German is not helpful.
ah, hadn‘t checked that. thanks
I don’t think it has anything to do with public saftey. That wasn’t even a major argument during the campaign leading up the vote.
You’re way more likely to be killed by a far-right terrorist than a muslim terrorist. If you want to protect public safety, I feel like a far better way to do it would be to outlaw far-right content on social media and other online platforms.
There are already laws in various places which prohibit hate speech, including on the internet. I don’t see how banning anything, far-right related or not is a good concept, since someone would be responsible of determining what ‘far-right content’ is, and that can only cause political repressions of groups that are against current governing power(s). I don’t understand why would anyone want to see the censorship and repressions that are on par with ones in Russia. We are better than that.
Thanks for your comment, but I’m a little confused - it’s very easy for nuance to get lost in online comments like this.
Are you saying that you are a supporter of absolute free speech, but you also support banning of certain clothing items, such as religious face coverings?
Or are you saying that you support current prohibitions against hate speech, but you wouldn’t support extending those laws, because you’re against censorship and that would be overstepping your personal red lines?
It seems to me that there is something mutually contradictory in there, but it’s very possible that I am misunderstanding you. To be clear, I’m not criticising you and I’m not interested in arguing or debating with you, I’m just trying to understand. I believe you should be entitled to believe what you want, and that you should be allowed to express your opinion. Personally, what I do have a problem with is online media platforms massively amplifying hateful extremist views to generate engagement.
Hope that makes sense! Feel free to ignore this comment if you don’t want to reply, and I wish you a pleasant day!
So in your world it makes sense to ban pieces of cloth because “they’re dangerous” but it doesn’t make sense ban hatespeech and divisive content because they “can’t be defined”?
That’s not what I said at all.
Can you name me a few cases where a Muslim woman threatened public safety in Switzerland, and then she couldn’t be identified because of a burka? I really want to know if there was a problem to solve.
Man you bigots have been emboldened lately.
Daily reminder that religion is a monstrous evil.
I am against all organised religion, but I think that we should all fear the authoritarian oppression of the state far more than any religion.
It’s a bit like the death penalty - I oppose the death penalty not because I think that there aren’t people who we would all be better off if they weren’t alive, but because we cannot trust the state with that power.
I agree with you in principle but organized cults are fucking terrifying. In fact it is exactly when governments form around these cults that they become truly horrific and unstoppable.
I hear you, I just think that comparing religious ideology to other forms of deeply held ideology is a distinction without a difference. Some of the most horrific acts that humanity has ever committed have been done by comparatively secular groups - just look at the 20th century for examples of that.
We’re living through a period where far-right fascism is ascendant and white supremacy is being normalised. Corporations and billionaires have never held more power than they do currently.
I just feel like a lot of anti-religious sentiment is basically a distraction, so that we get so caught up in arguing about it that we don’t recognise the true threat, our real enemy - the rich bastards who are robbing us all blind, murdering countless innocent people, destroying the climate and the environment.
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
Probably there’s some motivation to be able to identify people who protest or people who don’t want to be filmed in public (especially with facial recognition technology becoming a reality).
But just say the law is there to annoy religious people and people will agree to a ban.
