Opinion of the Hijab

[Intell]

I dislike it's usage, so HC, I guess. Though not the worst, and as it does not create a custom of segregation, women should be allowed to wear it.

[Intell]

HC wherever women wear it because of oppression

FC wherever women wear it despite oppression

No such place exists.

Uh, what oppression of hijabs exists in France? It's still completely legal to wear one there, unlike niqabs and burkahs.

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.

[Intell]

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.

[Intell]

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.

[Intell]

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.

[Intell]

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.

[Intell]

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.