Opinion of the Hijab

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

?

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

In the 1970s, Muslim women protested being forced to wear Islamic veils, in 2017, they protest using them as a sign of progressive feminism. Pretty obvious HC, since the hijab depreciates women by forcing them to cover themselves up.

As someone who voted HC, protests normally come after government coercion either way. It was one of the key flashpoints of the Iranian Revolution - Kashf-e hijab and its horrid, illiberal consequences.

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

Yeah I think the correct solution in France would have been to allow religious expression in schools, but ban religions operating schools or at least banning them from discrimating between children. Segregation is worse than peeling back from some arbitrary standard of secularism (like, do French public schools celebrate Christmas?)

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

Unless you're a student.

I don't think a country should change it's laws to accommodate muslims, when this law existed for decades.

the law was passed in 2004.

A law based upon the principle of lacite from 1905. A country has a right to do this, and this law was supported across the poltical spectrum, including muslim women 49% who support, compared to 43% who oppose.

The French hijab ban represented a tangible shift in existing public policy (which allowed the scarf in most cases). A "principle" isn't a law. You could claim the United States has a lengthy record of caring for the elderly, stretching back to FDR's Social Security in the 1930s. Doesn't make Medicare Part D a "law that existed for decades."

No but the principle behind Medicare Part D, is what made it law. A country has the right to do that, especially if it's in lieu with the principles of the nation.

Just becasue a county has a "right" to make a law doesn't make it a good law.

I never stated it is, to say the law is oppression, is fycking ridiculous though.

In practice it is oppressive.

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

Yeah I think the correct solution in France would have been to allow religious expression in schools, but ban religions operating schools or at least banning them from discrimating between children. Segregation is worse than peeling back from some arbitrary standard of secularism (like, do French public schools celebrate Christmas?)

Well, there's no class on Christmas time, so that's kind of a moot point.

Obviously not on Christmas day, but in my experience in both primary and secondary school in England (both state schools with a broad mix of religions) Decembers were Christmassy: school choirs sung in churches, some years were obliged to fill the pews (there was probably an opt-out, but I can't remember anybody following through), there were Christmas parties in the last week, in primary school there was the obligatory nativity play (I was a sheep fwiw), the schools were decorated for the holiday and of course the break was actually called "the Christmas holiday". Is that allowed in French schools?

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

Unless you're a student.

I don't think a country should change it's laws to accommodate muslims, when this law existed for decades.

the law was passed in 2004.

A law based upon the principle of lacite from 1905. A country has a right to do this, and this law was supported across the poltical spectrum, including muslim women 49% who support, compared to 43% who oppose.

The French hijab ban represented a tangible shift in existing public policy (which allowed the scarf in most cases). A "principle" isn't a law. You could claim the United States has a lengthy record of caring for the elderly, stretching back to FDR's Social Security in the 1930s. Doesn't make Medicare Part D a "law that existed for decades."

No but the principle behind Medicare Part D, is what made it law. A country has the right to do that, especially if it's in lieu with the principles of the nation.

Just becasue a county has a "right" to make a law doesn't make it a good law.

I never stated it is, to say the law is oppression, is fycking ridiculous though.

In practice it is oppressive.

Would it be oppressive if it was a turban, or a preist wearing religious clothing in public, of course it wouldn't be.

...what?

I think it is oppressive (and counterproductive) for the state to effectively order religiously pious groups to segregate.

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

Unless you're a student.

I don't think a country should change it's laws to accommodate muslims, when this law existed for decades.

the law was passed in 2004.

A law based upon the principle of lacite from 1905. A country has a right to do this, and this law was supported across the poltical spectrum, including muslim women 49% who support, compared to 43% who oppose.

The French hijab ban represented a tangible shift in existing public policy (which allowed the scarf in most cases). A "principle" isn't a law. You could claim the United States has a lengthy record of caring for the elderly, stretching back to FDR's Social Security in the 1930s. Doesn't make Medicare Part D a "law that existed for decades."

No but the principle behind Medicare Part D, is what made it law. A country has the right to do that, especially if it's in lieu with the principles of the nation.

Just becasue a county has a "right" to make a law doesn't make it a good law.

I never stated it is, to say the law is oppression, is fycking ridiculous though.

In practice it is oppressive.

Would it be oppressive if it was a turban, or a preist wearing religious clothing in public, of course it wouldn't be.

...what?

I think it is oppressive (and counterproductive) for the state to effectively order religiously pious groups to segregate.

I meant if those things were banned in schools etc.

It would be opressive to ban turbans in schools, yes.