- cross-posted to:
- world@lemmy.world
- cross-posted to:
- world@lemmy.world
A draft law sparks debate with locals calling it excessive and questioning how it would be enforced.
A draft law sparks debate with locals calling it excessive and questioning how it would be enforced.
What is the difference between this and what the french do?
The french have banned all religious iconography from educational institutions. Simple separation of church and state. This is different, and it’s kind of obvious.
Isn’t it kind of strange that French schools didn’t have a problem with religious iconography until recently?
It was introduced in 2004, so you may be right. This may be a case of “brown people bad”.
I’m from France so I can step in here. He’s actually talking about the recent ban on the abaya, a long dress that’s trending in the middle east and that some women recently started wearing here. Nothing to do with religions.
Also, the ban concerns school students, not government employees such as teachers. So even if the dress was religious, the ban wouldn’t be because of “laïcité” (separation of church and state).
Actually, it would be a breach of the principle of “laïcité”, because the state shouldn’t be able to decide how the citizens can practice their religion. You can’t have a separation of church and state, and at the same time a state that mandates which religions are good and which aren’t.
One is enforced countrywide under a vague law open for interpretation.
Other is for school children on school premises, clearly stating the articles of clothing not allowed.
There isn’t, both are plain old systemic oppression (generally mostly misogyny and/or queerphobia) disguised as “concern for the population”, there to control and further marginalise.
(though, of course, fans of both China and France and/or haters of women, queers, and/or Muslims, would die on this hill trying to convince themselves otherwise)