The current political climate would suggest far right groups are actually pretty good at organizing and it's the left who needs to get their shit together and mobilize.
Germany has outlawed Hammerskins, a neo-Nazi group known for its role in organising far-right concerts and selling racist music.
The German authorities described the ban as “a hard blow against organised right-wing extremism” and said it was putting an end to “the inhumane actions of an internationally active neo-Nazi association”.
The group has, for example, been linked to a venue called Hate Bar in the western German state of Saarland, where police made arrests for the showcasing of banned symbols during far-right concerts as recently as April this year.
The German domestic intelligence agency previously said the group had also set up Germany’s biggest far-right martial arts event, called Fight of the Nibelungs, which has been banned since 2019.
Blood and Honour had close contacts to members of a neo-Nazi group that carried out 10 racially motivated murders in Germany.
Germany’s domestic intelligence agency estimates there are 38,800 people in the country’s right-wing extremist scene, with more than a third of them considered “potentially violent”.
The original article contains 529 words, the summary contains 165 words. Saved 69%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!
So, anybody else expecting that if this guy gets power with a controlled house and senate, too, the first thing they’ll do is a national ban on abortion… and he’ll sign it like the dumb mook that he is?
It will be the third or fourth thing. Donny is going to consolidate power first and gut the government of anyone who is not directly loyal to him. This includes the military (why do you think they have a single Senator with a filibuster on approving appointments and we have 3 of joint Chiefs positions unfilled.)
Once he does that he’ll come for abortion rights or any other right he doesn’t agree with. Not to mention tax breaks for corporations and the 1% will be on the menu.
MAGA masses of course will eat it up as owning the libs.
He brought it up with Modi in private in India before he left. Explains why the mood of the public meeting was so grumpy
Mr Trudeau said in parliament on Monday that he had raised the issue of Mr Najjar’s killing with Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi at the recent G20 summit in Delhi.
Let people wear what they want. If they want to wear religious clothing, let them. It’s not hurting anyone. This law, while technically applying equally to all religions is very clearly targeted at a single group that has been persecuted for this before
Giving religion safe spaces in society normalizes it. Normalizing religion does hurt people. It hurts the mind’s ability to think rationally, not to mention all the intolerance that seems to come from it.
I disagree. I’m an atheist, and we shouldn’t restrict anyone’s ability to practice their religion unless it actually harms others. This isn’t a safe space, it’s simply persecuting a single religion because the population dislikes Muslims.
Religion is not an exclusively bad thing. It has done harm, but it also does have good effects.
Well, you are wrong that religion is a good thing when people do good in spite of religion rather than because of it. If someone’s belief system is aligned with a particular religion, they can just adopt the practices of that religion without professing faith in it.
Whatever makes them less susceptible to manipulation from religious leaders is a win in my book.
Agree to disagree I guess. I think we’re better off without sky fairies, regardless of whether they’re named Zeus, Jesus, Allah, whatever. The society that I’d want to live in would discourage public practices of religion.
Another point I should have made above. As Dawkins says, normalizing religion gives the especially nutty and violent ones room to breathe. They don’t stick out so badly when their neighbor believes and practices 90% of what they do.
As you are a minority population member who supports democratically limiting the religious beliefs of members of the population, I have to ask if you’ve ever considered that such beliefs may backfire spectacularly against you?
Absolutely. And that behaviour should be condemned. But punishing people for their choices of clothing is not the way to go. Target the harmful ideas, not people’s personal expression.
Ok but how does a school do that? You have young women being raised in a harmful faith where they are taught harmful things. The school can’t stop that. They can prohibit wearing harmful clothing in school.
I support encouraging kids to express themselves, but schools can set limits to what is appropriate and what is prohibited expression. And the abaya is the opposite of freedom to express themselves. It represents shame, conformity, and the subjucation of women, backed by a faith that tells them they are less than men.
First off, the abaya is not a burka. It’s a fairly standard clothing item. The idea that an abaya in itself is harmful is absurd.
The harm comes from limiting the freedom of self expression. And that’s what France is doing now. Most Muslim girls in the west are fairly progressive, they don’t feel that they’re being forced to wear what they wear. So what happens then when the government actually infringes on their self expression? It’s not gonna make them look kindly on the institutions that will teach them western values, they will gravitate more to the institutions that will teach them Muslim values.
If you want rid people of their conservative ideals, you do that through education. If you try to force people to conform, you’ll get blowback and people only get more radical.
An abaya is a long outer gown or robe, covering the legs to the ankles, the arms to the wrists, to be worn over clothing. It can be worn by men or women, but women are required to dress modestly and cover their skin. It’s not commonly worn in France except by muslim women conforming to the modest dress code.
Kids aren’t allowed to wear any religious adornments in French schools. No caps, crosses, or satanic tee shirts. That ban has been in place for almost 20 years, along witb burquas, niqab, and other ostentatious displays of religious expression.
It sucks, I beleave this was the wrong move because its a government acting as a parent to school kids, trying to hevy handedly disrupt that child’s religion. Wanna get these kids “free from their opressive religion”? Talk to them as a peer. Social movements are there to do that, even ones that work mainly in the school system.
Couldn’t they’ve picked a less extreme way of handling this situation than “we are your parents, we think you shouldnt have to dress like that so now you wont”.
It is very efficient at having people talk about it, and temporarily forget all the places missing teachers, the sad state of a lot of school buildings, the lack of recognition (and decent salary) that’s been the norm for decades at this point, and actual issues regarding kids.
The law is there to remind that no religious sign or clothe are accepted into the public system. People who disagree with it can go to the private school.
Except it’s been extended beyond religious clothing. An abaya is not specifically a religious clothing or something mandated by a religion, it is something worn in some places where people happens to be of that religion. No religious texts calls for it, where other things like burka and headscarfs where more directly linked to islam. Here, it’s a dress, that people in arabic countries wear. It’s literally fashion police.
France is the country of human rights, it protects by the right of asylum any person who is the victim of persecution in his country. The School of the Republic allows any dress, as long as it is not proselytising.
This prohibition is not compatible with private life, freedom of religion, the right to education and the principle of non-discrimination. This dress is part of a logic of religious affirmation. It is compulsory for women in Qatar. There is no evidence that a student in France is forced or not to wear the abaya.
This story of the abaya illustrates a question that runs through the whole of society: the question of boundaries. It seems increasingly difficult to impose rules, to apply them, without running the risk of being accused of authoritarianism.
I’m saying France’s institutions either can handle religious garb, in which case they are needlessly persecuting people, which is objectively evil, or they can’t, in which case the French are focusing on the wrong things and should fix their institutions.
67 women did refused took off their abaya.There is about 3 millions students in France. They still can join religious private schools if they don’t want to go to the public school.
Does it need to be? Like if they want everyone to wear something very specific and French, then they should do uniforms. Until then, no one is required to wear something of “French culture.” Like I’m a huge fan of punk and metal. I’m 34 years old and still wear band shirts. It’s arguably not the typical culture of my country, but should that matter? Would kids be kicked out of school for that?
I have never seen a student excluded for wearing a group T-shirt in France into the public school. Secularism is a pillar of any modern society, which should not be a source of division but a link between all sensitivities and communities. Abdelali Mamoun, an imam at the Paris mosque, mentions that in Islam there is no religious dress, but that the abaya is an outfit advocated by fundamentalists.
So if the problem is people excluding others because that person practices a different religion, then the problem isn’t the person practicing the religion, it’s the fuck sticks excluding them.
Don’t get me wrong, I’m not a fan of religion. I’m fairly anti-theistic. Especially for the Abraham’s religion. And out of the three, especially Islam. I am also against the religion telling women how to dress for the reasons they do.
But I don’t think this should be the schools decision. I don’t think they should tell kids they can’t dress a certain way based on the fact that it’s religious. If a kid wants to wear a cross necklace or a shirt that says something about Jesus, cool. A Yamaha? That’s fine. I might not personally be for it, and think it’d weird for kids, but also I don’t think that’s for me or the school to decide.
Just as I’m against the authoritarian religion telling these girls what to wear
I’m also against an authoritarian government doing the same.
“But secularism!”
Secularism doesn’t necesarily mean keeping religion out of everyone’s life. Just out of the government and school. Teachers shouldn’t preach it. Laws shouldn’t be mandated around it. But that doesn’t mean no one gets to practice it in anyway shape or form. It just means they don’t have any say I no the system based on their religion.
And banning something because it’s also worn by fundamentalist makes it sound even dumber. I was raised Mormon. They wear a lot of things people wear on a lot of occasions. I wouldn’t say to ban those types of clothing because the Mormons wear them. That’s fucking stupid. No more long sleeve shirts? How about blouses? If a woman happens to like those, too bad apperantly. Fundamentalists also wear them, so now they’re no longer allowed.
“We are banning all religious clothing, but also all clothing worn by religious people.”
Oh I see, you’re actually just a blatant racist. That explains why you expect others to give a shit about your opinions on certain jokes too I suppose.
I’m definitely a weirdo, I’ll give you that. But you’re a genuine scumbag so I’ll take weirdo all day long :) x
You know who are really the fucking worst? Racists.
Racism is not just for a person’s nationality or whatever your twisted definition is anyway, but when it comes to religion and race there is a blurring.
Judaism is a religion too, but you think anti semitic people aren’t racist?
Racism is attributing negative traits to people based on their perceived belonging to cultural, biological, religious, national origin, and to allow this to legitimate their subordination.
Racism is not just for a person’s nationality or whatever your twisted definition is anyway, but when it comes to religion and race there is a blurring.
…No there isn’t?
Judaism is a religion too, but you think anti semitic people aren’t racist?
Nope! not unless they hate jews for their race, if they are like me and just hate jews for their religion they are good.
“And if he really committed crimes as heinous as those he is accused of, I wonder how he can continue to be a priest with that weight on his conscience,” - that’s what people have to get: it’s not that they’re in organized religion despite they did horrible things, they are in it BECAUSE they did it. They feel protected and righteous, all the time. We have to end this. The real monsters are always right behind the so-called prophets to organize everything.
If not already clear, this comment was absolutely meant as a complement to you. I plan to teach this phrase to my continental coworkers when they visit us in the US next week. They're always seeking ways to expand their English language skills.
And since they continue to challenge me about the acceptability (in US english) over the phrase "Ulrike washes her coffee cup in the toilet every day," I think this is fair. We would accept: washroom, restroom, or bathroom without thinking twice. We might even pass over "in the shitter" and although it would be considered much less polite it would be excusable in a non-native speaker and probably not even noticeable in some of the more salty regions of the US.
Hes not sorry for what he said. Hes sorry that it went viral and people called him out.
Fuck this guy.
Seasick Steve has a lyric in the song “Last Po’ Man” where he says “Never met a rich man that I liked” and the more I read about billionaires, the more it seems he was right lol.
I blame the help, they feed this man, they protect this man while he sleeps, they raise his offspring, theirs is the corruption the keeps this system in place.
bbc.co.uk
Active