this post was submitted on 27 Aug 2023
121 points (100.0% liked)

Europe

106 readers
1 users here now

News/Interesting Stories/Beautiful Pictures from Europe 🇪🇺

(Current banner: Thunder mountain, Germany, 🇩🇪 ) Feel free to post submissions for banner pictures

Rules

(This list is obviously incomplete, but it will get expanded when necessary)

  1. Be nice to each other (e.g. No direct insults against each other);
  2. No racism, antisemitism, dehumanisation of minorities or glorification of National Socialism allowed;
  3. No posts linking to mis-information funded by foreign states or billionaires.

Also check out !yurop@lemm.ee

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] frostbiker@lemmy.ca 50 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (9 children)

I'm all for letting people wear whatever they want. What is the harm?

Here in Canada I've seen police officers wearing turbans. Works for me. Nude beaches? Sure thing. I've seen people in my neighborhood wearing Saudi-style niqabs and Afghan-style burqas.

Who am I to tell people what they should or shouldn't wear? How could it be my business?

I'm also for people burning the Qur'an if they so please. Or the bible, or the rainbow flag, or the national flag if that's how they want to protest. Ideas are there to be challenged.

I draw the line at threatening or harming people.

[–] Leax@lemmy.dbzer0.com 28 points 1 year ago (5 children)

France is a secularist Republic. Freedom of religion is guaranteed but every religious sign is banned in the public space.

[–] frostbiker@lemmy.ca 27 points 1 year ago (3 children)

I understand that's how things are, but I don't think that is how they should be. And while I'm an atheist, I also understand many people aren't. Why force my irreligiosity on them?

So while students should not be indoctrinated on any particular religion in school, I don't see the harm in letting both teachers and students wear whatever they like, including religious symbols.

In fact, it would be great if we taught all students the basics of multiple world religions in school and let people of different faiths talk to each other about what is important to them.

[–] squaresinger@feddit.de 10 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I really like this stance. Understanding other people is absolutely important. You don't have to agree with them, but you do have to understand them and see them as people.

[–] frostbiker@lemmy.ca 7 points 1 year ago

Precisely! We have more in common than not. And I sincerely believe that we become more tolerant by talking and trying to understand each other, even if we find areas where we disagree.

Remaining in our own little information bubble is what radicalizes people.

[–] Turun@feddit.de 7 points 1 year ago (2 children)

I can see where you are coming from. How can we forbid clothing if the goal is to not dictate what to wear?

But consider that in a community, be that at school or in the neighborhood, classmates and neighbors can uphold unregulated, religious rules. Is it free choice of clothing if the law doesn't forbid anything, but only girls with (insert appropriate clothing) are allowed to join in the play? And there is plenty precedent of religion that causes precisely such group behavior.

[–] frostbiker@lemmy.ca 5 points 1 year ago (1 children)

There is plenty of precedent of non-religious informal rules around clothing. E.g. men wearing skirts, dresses, or soft "feminine" colors. Do those informal rules bother you as well? Should we change the law accordingly, or are we okay with informal norms of conduct in that case?

[–] Turun@feddit.de 1 points 1 year ago

In general, yes I do think that we should get rid of such informal rules. And I would appreciate a law that e.g. ensures an employer can not discriminate against men wearing dresses or skirts. For what it's worth, there have been protest by bus drivers, who are not allowed to wear shorts in the summer, who showed up in skirts on a hot day.

If we change the garment from abayas to pants it would be "to ban male students from wearing pants in school", meaning they'd be forced to wear skirts or dresses. But two points make this different from the OP:

  1. Since this is not linked to religion it has a slightly different spin. I can't put it into words that well, but a guy choosing to wear a skirt is just that, a clothing choice. But Islam is pretty explicit that women should cover themselves. So if a guy goes against the informal law people would make fun of him. If an Islam woman wears short clothes she is not only made fun of, but can also get in trouble with her entire community.
  2. While dresses/skirts are almost exclusively worn by women, pants are worn by men and women. So a guy wearing pants is not the outlier, he is wearing the gender neutral clothing. If abayas are also worn by a significant fraction of male students in France I would heavily oppose the proposed ban, but I found nothing that would indicate such a practice.
[–] Syndic@feddit.de 2 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Well if that really were the fears of people proposing such bans, then there would be a lot of better ways to achieve this. At the very least they would try to support such bans with flanking policies such as better infrastructure to support such women who are oppressed in a religious ways as for example better integration courses and public information.

And for some reason it's always only about Muslim women! Other religions which can also coerce or force family members to follow a certain dress code, not a single word about them.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] Syndic@feddit.de 4 points 1 year ago

I understand that’s how things are, but I don’t think that is how they should be.

Don't take that guy just at his word. France does force secularism on their government buildings and workers, including teachers. But public wearing of religious symbols or garnment is perfectly fine. They recently banned face covering, with the obvious target of Muslim women wearing burqa or niqabs, but everything else is perfectly legal to wear in public.

[–] tryptaminev@feddit.de 18 points 1 year ago

Every sign being banned in public? So what about all the crosses on the churches, or the ringing of their bells? What about people wearing crosses and nunns wearing the traditional dress? What about the easter processions in some places?

Sorry, but claiming that this would be in line with a secular policy doesnt work. It is target against muslims and muslims specifically without any actual bearing on secularism

[–] Syndic@feddit.de 10 points 1 year ago

Freedom of religion is guaranteed but every religious sign is banned in the public space.

No it's not! Thousands of people walk around with religious symbols and garnments in public all the time in France.

Secularism is enforced in government offices and employed people.

[–] Franzia@lemmy.blahaj.zone 5 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

As an American this is difficult to comprehend. I'm feeling culture shock. Maybe the first xenophobia I've experienced in years.

[–] tal@kbin.social 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

France doesn't have the First Amendment. I mean, I don't much think that this is a good idea either, but different country, different system of government.

[–] Turun@feddit.de 14 points 1 year ago (1 children)

For what it's worth, As a German I don' t particularly like the right to free speech as it exists in the US. It allows way too much, including harmful things. E.g. in Germany it is not allowed to glorify the Holocaust. I'm pretty sure such a thing would be allowed as free speech in the US.

[–] idiomaddict@feddit.de 3 points 1 year ago (4 children)

I’m an American living in Germany. It’s not honestly much different in effect. In the US I could insult a police officer as much as I want (but you know… if I choose the wrong one they’ll fucking kill me), whereas it’s illegal in Germany. There’s a lot of things like that, where there’s technically the freedom to do something but it doesn’t really mean freedom

[–] anlumo@feddit.de 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

There are entire YouTube channels dedicated to people who film themselves screaming profanities at police officers in the US to get them to do something illegal.

This group of people calls themselves First Amendment Auditors.

[–] idiomaddict@feddit.de 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

A camera provides a lot of insurance in this case.

[–] anlumo@feddit.de 1 points 1 year ago

Never ever do something like that without having a camera or cellphone recording.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] DiachronicShear 3 points 1 year ago

So racist haha. Very on-brand for France honestly.

[–] BestBouclettes@jlai.lu 18 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (3 children)

It's a smoke screen to get right wing voters on their side once again. Public services in France are in shambles, our education is getting noticeably worse by the decade and this is what these fucks focus on.

[–] frostbiker@lemmy.ca 8 points 1 year ago (1 children)

That makes sense. Here in Canada they use similar tactics to distract people from stuff like the astronomical cost of housing, crumbling health care, underfunded education, etc.

[–] alex@jlai.lu 1 points 1 year ago

Yeah, last year the conversation was about banning crop tops and this year it's long dresses, every September there's something to talk about in french schools.

[–] Zorque@kbin.social 8 points 1 year ago (1 children)

They've been doing this shit for years, though...

[–] BestBouclettes@jlai.lu 3 points 1 year ago

Absolutely, they are way more open about it nowadays though

[–] DessertStorms@kbin.social 5 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Exactly this, and it's the perfect example of how "progressives" (that aren't really that) enable fascism.

[–] Deceptichum@kbin.social 5 points 1 year ago

No one is calling Frances government "progressive" so why are you attaching that label to this?

This is an example how right wing capitalists enable fascism.

[–] BestBouclettes@jlai.lu 2 points 1 year ago

Our government hides it less and less. They are basically proto fascists that would do anything to help their rich friends keep their power.

[–] DessertStorms@kbin.social 9 points 1 year ago (3 children)

I draw the line at threatening or harming people.

Except these bans are harming people.
Anyone dictating what others can or cannot wear is harming people.

All this "enlightened" centrism bullshit does is enable oppressors.

[–] squaresinger@feddit.de 10 points 1 year ago

The guy you answered was argueing the opposite of what you understood. He said, there should be no prohibition of practices unless they harm people.

[–] ChrisLicht@lemm.ee 6 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I agree, but there is a somewhat thorny question here: Where does the dictation start?

Many of these students and their families are being dictated to by Sunni wahabbist imams trained and funded by Saudi oil money, and they actually come from cultures and religious traditions that didn’t give a shit about the abaya in the ‘60s and ‘70s.

[–] Syndic@feddit.de 3 points 1 year ago

Well how about they tackle the foreign financial support of such extremist religious subgroups then? How about they provide more public information about the personal rights of women to choose themself what they wear? How about providing better infrastructure with properly trained social workers to better help such women to flee from such oppressive households?

Any of these examples would be several times better at actually improving the lives of such women. Definitely more than them being forced to not wear something. Women who are forced to wear such stuff should be helped to understand that it isn't right for them to be forced to wear something they don't want. Guess what certainly doesn't help in that task, the state also dictating what they can't wear.

[–] frostbiker@lemmy.ca 3 points 1 year ago (3 children)

I draw the line at threatening or harming people

Except these bans are harming people

Sorry for not being clear in my statement. I mean harming as in: beheading, stoning, bombing, shooting, etc. Not as in hurting their feelings.

But we agree: nobody should impose on other people what they can or cannot wear, whether it is religious symbols or pirate regalia.

All this “enlightened” centrism bullshit does is enable oppressors

Could you please elaborate?

[–] sour@kbin.social 6 points 1 year ago (1 children)

burning rainbow flags doesn't only hurt feelings

[–] frostbiker@lemmy.ca 3 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Can you elaborate? What else does it do? I'm queer, and while I don't like seeing the rainbow flag being burnt, it doesn't compare with receiving a beating.

[–] tryptaminev@feddit.de 8 points 1 year ago

it is a precursor to beating. Attack the symbols first and if it is socially accepted you can escalate to violence against the people. The Nazis didnt start by gassing the jews. they started with making it okay fo be hostile to them in public, denouncing them in every way and slowly ramping up the violence. Same story for any discrimination of minorities escalated into violence and murder.

[–] sour@kbin.social 1 points 1 year ago

it represents a hate crime

[–] Franzia@lemmy.blahaj.zone 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

these bans harm people because they

  • encourage shitty men in the lives of these women to limit their education
  • encourage these hardcore religious communities to form and utilize their own school systems, which will indoctrinate their youth
  • encourage these families to leave France and potentially return to repressive theocratic states.
[–] DessertStorms@kbin.social 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

The fact that you think this is about "hurt feelings" rather than what it is - actual oppression that leads to real life marginalisation, violence, and death, you're either not paying attention or are being wilfully ignorant and obtuse.

All this “enlightened” centrism bullshit does is enable oppressors
Could you please elaborate?

You could open your eyes, or simply take the idea of dictating what people do and don't wear to it's only conclusion (it is literally oppression in its own right, no matter your personal feelings on the matter), but here, I'll save you having to do any hard work:

specifically:

https://socialistworker.co.uk/what-we-think/stop-islamophobic-attacks-on-the-veil/

https://stockholmcf.org/intl-human-rights-bodies-warn-ecj-ruling-over-headscarf-ban-panders-to-prejudice/

https://daily.jstor.org/muslim-women-and-the-politics-of-the-headscarf/

generally:

https://www.counterpunch.org/2020/10/14/liberalism-and-fascism-partners-in-crime/

https://blacklikemao.medium.com/how-liberalism-helps-fascism-d4dbdcb199d9

https://truthout.org/articles/fascism-is-possible-not-in-spite-of-liberal-capitalism-but-because-of-it/

https://nyanarchist.wordpress.com/2019/01/23/scratch-a-liberal-a-fascist-bleeds-how-the-so-called-middle-class-has-enabled-oppression-for-centuries/

[–] frostbiker@lemmy.ca 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Sorry, I truly have trouble understanding your sentences. I gather that you are upset, but I'm not sure about what, exactly. I hope things turn out okay for you.

[–] DessertStorms@kbin.social 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Lmfao, go fuck yourself you condescending wilfully ignorant fascism enabling prick. Was that clear enough for you?

[–] frostbiker@lemmy.ca 4 points 1 year ago

go fuck yourself you condescending wilfully ignorant fascism enabling prick

I will do so thinking of you 😘

[–] kernelPanic@lemmy.ml 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)
[–] frostbiker@lemmy.ca 2 points 1 year ago

I love you too 😁

load more comments (5 replies)