• TheGrandNagus@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    13
    ·
    edit-2
    2 months ago

    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.

  • geissi@feddit.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    13
    ·
    2 months ago

    It is also permitted for artistic and entertainment performances and for advertising purposes.

    Ah they learned from the Austrians

    • Successful_Try543@feddit.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      18
      ·
      edit-2
      2 months ago

      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. Verschleierungsverbot Österreich
      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-1.3700378

      • schlecknits@feddit.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        9
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        2 months ago

        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.

        • philpo@feddit.org
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          2 months ago

          Oh,it was thought through very much by some… Some parts of the SVP are very happy about it…

      • CAVOK@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        5
        ·
        2 months ago

        What’s the difference between the woman in the center at the top row vs the bottom row? Skin tone?

  • LANIK2000@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    14
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    edit-2
    2 months ago

    Is there also a face mask exception? They aren’t handy for just pandemics.

  • CaptainBasculin@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    2 months ago

    As a muslim, the book mentions covering up hair only. Face covering is never mentioned anywhere, and people using it are misinterpreting Quran.

      • SplashJackson@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        2 months ago

        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.

  • Matriks404@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    11
    arrow-down
    13
    ·
    2 months ago

    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.

        • drake@lemmy.sdf.org
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          2 months ago

          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.

          • yeahiknow3@lemmings.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            2 months ago

            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.

            • drake@lemmy.sdf.org
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              2 months ago

              I hear you, I just think that comparing religious ideology to other forms of deeply held ideology is a distinction without a difference. Some of the most horrific acts that humanity has ever committed have been done by comparatively secular groups - just look at the 20th century for examples of that.

              We’re living through a period where far-right fascism is ascendant and white supremacy is being normalised. Corporations and billionaires have never held more power than they do currently.

              I just feel like a lot of anti-religious sentiment is basically a distraction, so that we get so caught up in arguing about it that we don’t recognise the true threat, our real enemy - the rich bastards who are robbing us all blind, murdering countless innocent people, destroying the climate and the environment.

    • drake@lemmy.sdf.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      2 months ago

      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.

      • Matriks404@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        2 months ago

        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.

        • federal reverse@feddit.orgM
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          2 months ago

          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”?

        • drake@lemmy.sdf.org
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          2 months ago

          Thanks for your comment, but I’m a little confused - it’s very easy for nuance to get lost in online comments like this.

          Are you saying that you are a supporter of absolute free speech, but you also support banning of certain clothing items, such as religious face coverings?

          Or are you saying that you support current prohibitions against hate speech, but you wouldn’t support extending those laws, because you’re against censorship and that would be overstepping your personal red lines?

          It seems to me that there is something mutually contradictory in there, but it’s very possible that I am misunderstanding you. To be clear, I’m not criticising you and I’m not interested in arguing or debating with you, I’m just trying to understand. I believe you should be entitled to believe what you want, and that you should be allowed to express your opinion. Personally, what I do have a problem with is online media platforms massively amplifying hateful extremist views to generate engagement.

          Hope that makes sense! Feel free to ignore this comment if you don’t want to reply, and I wish you a pleasant day!