- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
cross-posted from: https://lemm.ee/post/46758406
You must log in or # to comment.
As a muslim, the book mentions covering up hair only. Face covering is never mentioned anywhere, and people using it are misinterpreting Quran.
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 (ghasp!) a man might see their skin.
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…
That would be great, but how exactly? Banning religions that encourage/forces it?
The only reason I could see is to highly educate everyone but that’s way easier said than done.
Yeah but… how?
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-1.3700378What if your identity as a furry? Obviously it covers your face, but it’s sort is like a costume. There are also furry conventions, so maybe that’s the sort of event/festival that would count as an exception.
It’s about covering your face in public, i.e. on the festival venue it would be O.K., in public transport possibly not.
Medical 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.
Oh,it was thought through very much by some… Some parts of the SVP are very happy about it…
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Ok Junge,
This is amazing (I don’t speak Germany don’t shout at me pls).
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.
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.
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.
It did sound that way to me. Feel free to correct the words from my previous comment.
Is there also a face mask exception? They aren’t handy for just pandemics.
But what about Covid masks? What if another pandemic happen?
That’s called an “exception”. Look it up.
I’m not exceptional enough to look it up, but I take exception to you telling me to look it up without so much as a “please”. I hope this kind of behaviour is just an exception, and not the exception that proves the rule.
I’m just making a stupid comment because of your stupid comment. No need to make it personal.
What? I thought we were having pleasant banter
Non-European here. What’s the purpose of bans like these? The obvious cause appears to be racism/Islamophobia, but is there something else?
Making video surveillance more effective is one.
You call it islamophobia, some call it an effort to curb radicalisation
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.
that was covered by already existing laws afaik
