280
Egypt bans niqab in schools
(www.middleeasteye.net)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 13 Sep 2023
280 points (100.0% liked)
World News
39023 readers
2032 users here now
A community for discussing events around the World
Rules:
-
Rule 1: posts have the following requirements:
- Post news articles only
- Video links are NOT articles and will be removed.
- Title must match the article headline
- Not United States Internal News
- Recent (Past 30 Days)
- Screenshots/links to other social media sites (Twitter/X/Facebook/Youtube/reddit, etc.) are explicitly forbidden, as are link shorteners.
-
Rule 2: Do not copy the entire article into your post. The key points in 1-2 paragraphs is allowed (even encouraged!), but large segments of articles posted in the body will result in the post being removed. If you have to stop and think "Is this fair use?", it probably isn't. Archive links, especially the ones created on link submission, are absolutely allowed but those that avoid paywalls are not.
-
Rule 3: Opinions articles, or Articles based on misinformation/propaganda may be removed. Sources that have a Low or Very Low factual reporting rating or MBFC Credibility Rating may be removed.
-
Rule 4: Posts or comments that are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, anti-religious, or ableist will be removed. “Ironic” prejudice is just prejudiced.
-
Posts and comments must abide by the lemmy.world terms of service UPDATED AS OF 10/19
-
Rule 5: Keep it civil. It's OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It's NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
-
Rule 6: Memes, spam, other low effort posting, reposts, misinformation, advocating violence, off-topic, trolling, offensive, regarding the moderators or meta in content may be removed at any time.
-
Rule 7: We didn't USED to need a rule about how many posts one could make in a day, then someone posted NINETEEN articles in a single day. Not comments, FULL ARTICLES. If you're posting more than say, 10 or so, consider going outside and touching grass. We reserve the right to limit over-posting so a single user does not dominate the front page.
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
Lemmy World Partners
News !news@lemmy.world
Politics !politics@lemmy.world
World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world
Recommendations
For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/
- Consider including the article’s mediabiasfactcheck.com/ link
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Agreed. I don't understand why this is so difficult a concept for people who claim to be trying to help women. Banning certain head garments because they're "symbolic of women's oppression" is just another way of restricting women's choices and doesn't promote their independence at all. Just let women choose how to dress themselves, same as men, it's really not that complicated.
Problem is while other hijabs might be voluntary I don’t think anyone voluntarily wears a niqab
That completely misses the point. The issue is that women should be allowed to wear whatever they want, same as men do. Banning a garment, even when no woman elects to wear it, serves no purpose except to restrict women's choices.
not trying to shit stir, but can men really wear balaclavas anywhere they want?
I've seen plenty of delivery people wearing them during the colder months in my city. Since they aren't worn for religious reasons, I suspect most men don't wear them indoors, but I'm unaware of any law that prohibits them from doing so. Sure, maybe there are some high-security places where you wouldn't be allowed to wear anything that covers your face, but that applies equally to men and women.
Covering your face in public space is banned in France.
I'm not sure what your point is, as the bans in question were clearly sprung from concerns about Islamic face coverings in particular. They may have used generalized language in the laws to mask that focus, but it's clearly there. Am I missing something here?
I know several women who wear the niqab by choice, and in the face (pun not intended) of social pressure.
My understanding is that feminists themselves are split on this, sad as that is. At least with respect to the ban in France, I know some feminists have argued in favor of a ban on the hijab, exactly using the "symbol of oppression" argument. I don't pretend to know what the divide in opinion is among feminists, percentage-wise, but clearly a significant contingent of them are supportive of this bullshit.
Again, I don't understand why this is such a difficult concept, but it apparently is. That, or my standards for human intelligence are just too high. Probably the latter.
I'm talking about women, not their guardian. I don't think parents should be able to force their children to wear restrictive clothing, unless there's some sort of medical reason for it. Certainly not for religious reasons.
The statement seemed to me to say it should be their choice and not a "guardian". How are you confused by the response above?
This is the beauty of the French system, it’s all religious paraphernalia banned in schools.
That’s like saying slavery is a normal part of human existence because we’ve been doing it for thousands of years.
Why would you want children indoctrinated into a system of beliefs that reject reality? Only a jerk would want that.
The problem isn't any spiritual or religious connection the children form. The problem is that most monotheistic religions are very rigid in their exclusive prerogative of interpretation concerning all things fundamental and truth-related.
Having more than one exclusively-dominant religion represented in any one space must lead to unsolvable conflict. Contradicting absolutes cannot tolerate each other.
Given that a functioning state must necessarily assume the role of a sovereign, banning religion from public spaces is pretty much the only solution for preventing religious conflicts.
It's not about preventing religious conflicts. It's about not giving those conflicts a forum at school, the place where children learn to be tolerant from people who aren't their potentially fundamentally religious parents.
My previous sentence sets the principle, your answer rejects the principle on an all-or-nothing basis, my following comment clarifies the application of said principle within the comparatively narrow setting of schools.
I'm not sure what's left unclear.