You said that you knew it was enforced on bikers. What you cited was hearsay by one cyclist that didn’t tell us why he was supposedly stopped and he was just “told” something. That cyclist never claimed anything was enforced. It’s nothing new for cops to say shit to see how you react if they’re suspicious of you for whatever reason.
I don’t think banning hijabs should be allowed on public property. Private property - should be up to the owner. “No shirt, no shoes - no service” kind of thing, you know.
Does that satisfy your inquiring mind?
What was your point with post 10 btw? What did citing that law have to do with the portion of the post from elbows that you quoted?
Just pointing out that U.S. also has laws banning certain kinds of concealing wear.
First, let me point out that I was making an analogy. Not perfect, but a way of thinking about it. Yes, you can choose not to emigrate and many of the head scarf wearing women are not refugees; many were even born here and their parents weren’t refugees either. Second, I just said head scarves, not face coverings. Third, although the original proposal went down in flames, the current Liberal government keeps talking about bringing back a modified version that would still ban religious displays (except crosses) by public servants.
Finally, imagine that for one reason or other, there were refugees from the US and the only place that would take them was this South America country.
My point was that one person’s perceived religious obligation might appear odd to another person, but if it does no harm, why should it be banned? And I say this as an atheist who thinks all religion is pretty absurd. But mostly (although not entirely) harmless.
The EU is currently discussing whether laws forbidding “overtly religious displays in public places” in EU countries are allowed (several instances of teachers with scarves in Germany not being allowed to become public servants, the latest was struck down).
Experts pointed out that despite the on the surface neutral wording, the only overtly religious display is the head scarf. Crosses on necklaces can be tucked inside the clothes, and there are not a lot of jewish men with kippas looking for work in that area. But the Muslims are the biggest minority, and the most hated one right now (esp. with the overlap of being visible foreign-looking, no matter how many generations they have lived here).
So the argument is that a law that disadvantages a specific minority, that already faces unreasnable discrimination in daily life from right-wing lowlifes, is not neutral, and against the spirit of the Human rights convention/ EU constitituion. I hope it doesn’t get through therefore.
I’m still a firm believer that if, instead of black shawls, they all wore Hermes scarves, somehow France would be cool with it!
Is this law enforced in Virginia?
Unfortunately, it confirms what I concluded from your first post (#2 in the thread).
Fortunately, in my country, such bigotry based on religious intolerance is prohibited under human rights legislation.
It’s sad how some people come up with utterly ridiculous justifications for shitting on other people who are different from them.
Parizeau tried that in the 1995 sovereignty referendum, and Harper tried that in the 2015 Federal election. Fortunately, Quebec and Canada did not proportionately have as many Muslim hating bigots in those votes as the USA did in it’s recent presidential election.
It is truly sad watching bigotry parade about under the guise of freedom. Free to discriminate against others simply out of bigotry? That’s not freedom. That’s oppression under a false flag.
And the notion that women must be covered from head to toe, with only their faces and the tips of the fingers showing, produced such beauties as mermaid, faralaes or chulapa dresses. Very modest! There’s no skin showing, specially if you look at pictures from, say, mid-20th century Spain or at current ones from parties in Saudi Arabia, but there is also no doubt about the exact measurements of the body inside. There is no rule about modesty that can’t be turned upside-down and inside-out.
True. And it Shows that most “modesty” rules are about power or Tradition, because the context in Paul’s letter, and the NT as a whole, is not that women should be modestly covered because their bodies are sinful, leading men astray etc. No, women should not wear jewelry, Gold and pearls because Christians should sell all their possesions and give the Money to the poor! Strange how that aspect never Comes up when fundies (Christian or otherwise) talk about women being modestly covered…
Well, yes. The French proscriptions on headdress following the French Revolution were specifically targeted at Catholic nuns.
Dunno about the Turkish bans introduced by Mustafa Kemal Atatürk in Turkey in the 1920’s. They were targeted as differentiation between religions as well as between state and religion, and womens head-coverings may not have been an issue?
The reasonning over here was :
-From the right : we’re invaded by muslims who don’t respect our values
-From the left : the headscarf is a symbol of women oppression
-Everybody : voters don’t like headscarves, so we better support the ban
But we were speaking of Quebec, not France during the revolution, where no, they have no intention of including Catholic nuns in this idea. Or the Amish.
And noone has yet addressed what they will do should all the non Muslim women, in solidarity with their sisters, ALL take to wearing headscarves? As fashion, not religious statement. Will they throw them all in jail? How will the state decide who’s making a religious statement and who’s just expressing their fashion sense?
Like the silly bathroom gender rules, it’s entirely unworkable when it actually comes to enforcement. And as so, an utter waste of everyone’s time.
During the French Revolution, there were far more Catholic nuns than Muslimas around, and Catholicsm was part of the restrictive old state that the revolutionaries wanted to get rid of in favour of a more egalitarian and secular, rational Society.
That’s not comparable to today.
And while there is a law that, because the modern French Republic is a secular state, and therefore all Kinds of religious Displays are banned in Schools and other govt. places, French Society isn’t as secular as that, because when politicans discusses a law for gay marriage, 50% of the Population was opposed, with lots of Demonstration in the street.
From what I’ve heard, Atatürk wanted both a secular state - Kemalism is the Name for that ideology - and to drag the Turkish Population (kicking and screaming into the cenutry of the fruitbat) into modernity. Therefore, he forbade men to wear the fez - so the really religious adapted to a knit cap that reminds me of jewish kippas - and he forbade women to wear the full veil, that is, Niquab. Headscarves - at the turn of the century - were modern and European compared to the old, cultural-traditional Dress. (Today in Europe they are associated with being backwards, old-fashioned, stuck in religious Tradition - how quickly fashions and perceptions Change.)
It’s also forbidden (until recently Erdogan and his Islamist AKP changed it) in Modern Turkey to wear headscarves in public buildings and Schools as sign of religious extremism. Some fundies send their Young Girls deliberatly to a western Country (not France) because there they can go to Uni in full veil if they want to.
Perhaps simply ban all clothing what so ever.
Then it’s an even playing field for everyone.
Because most People learn their own cultural norms and don’t see how it’s done in other cultures, or think about it, it’s an automatic Reflex to think of one’s own Norms as “normal” and everybody else who does it differently as “weird” (or foreigner).
I have a book at home with >2 dozen ways to Twist, drape and knot scarves and kerchiefs as cool and chic accessory to clothes. Scarf draped around the neck = modern. Scarf twisted bandana-style over the hair = still cool. But headscarf tied the muslim way = terrible, are you a foreigner?
There’s no logic or reason there at all.
I can understand why face coverings should be prohibited or discouraged in some situations. But headscarves? I’ve yet to hear of a good reason for banning them that wasn’t based in bigoted dickery.
Europe’s too cold for that in many Areas during the Major part of the year. And in hot Areas, you’d get sunburn = Skin cancer.