Very good. If you want to live in a European society, finally integrate and don’t separate from it actively. We don’t need a divided society with unrest. Look at Sweden rn.
It’s a loose dress. How is a generic loose dress preventing people from integrating? My american grandma has dresses like this
I think its the headscarf thingy most people have a problem with. Nobody cares about the dress part. But you likely knew that already.
I dont care either way about the subject at hand (Not Canadian) but it would be nice if we could leave these bad faith arguments on Reddit so nobody wastes their time arguing about nonsense if its a dress or a burka.
They already banned the head scarf years ago. The abaya is just a dress. Please don’t accuse me of bad faith arguments without even googling what an abaya is.
Before this made the news, barely anyone knew what it was. The most prominent people in favor of this could not distinguish an actual fashion dress from an abaya on a picture. Stop pretending it is to help integration; it’s just harassing a very, very small minority of people, because it’s easier than address issues.
Consider that the kids that got trouble there were actually going to a public school, and were turned away. Please tell me how that helps them integrate.
This one? It would likely have numerous faults in its physical makeup and very probably live a brief, miserable existence. Perfected? It would be a genetic clone.
Enough about me. I want to know if this will be considered the same as Impossible Burger and we can start eating people meat without feeling guilty. Indulge in a taboo! Eat a forearm! I mean, not a real forearm. Actually, sort of.
These ‘humans’ would be literal properly like a dog…goodbye humanity as the ceos would starve us to death like they currently are, and will replace us with slaves they can legally put down (kill) when they feel like it.
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.
A Florida man was arrested after trying to “run to London” across the Atlantic Ocean in a homemade vessel resembling a hamster wheel.
The US Coast Guard intercepted Reza Baluchi about 70 miles (110km) off Tybee Island, Georgia on 26 August.
“Based on the condition of the vessel - which was afloat as a result of wiring and buoys - [US Coast Guard] officers determined Baluchi was conducting a manifestly unsafe voyage,” the criminal complaint says.
On 1 September, he eventually surrendered and abandoned his vessel after being brought to a Coast Guard base in Miami.
In 2021, he was arrested after being rescued while trying to ride from Florida to New York after drifting 30 miles south of his departure point.
According to previous interviews, Mr Baluchi said he was attempting the voyages to raise money for a variety of causes, including for the homeless and the Coast Guard.
The original article contains 398 words, the summary contains 150 words. Saved 62%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!
He should come to the UK and then cross from England to France. That would actually be a reasonable crossing and he’d probably be allowed to do it provided he got prior permission, but the Atlantic, nah.
It’s surely sturdy, but it also looks like a death trap in a storm. But mostly it looks like he never came up with a solution to his drifting-backwards-faster-than-he-can-paddle-forwards problem that plagued his previous attempts. It’s got so much sail area and so little control surface that even a little wind will blow him around.
Everyone’s entitled to a rescue mission should they need it, even if they do put themselves in danger. That’s the agreement, that’s what the coast guard are for. Of course you’ll probably get arrested at the end of it for wasting everyone’s time but you’ll live.
In fairness to them they didn’t know they were putting themselves in danger they just didn’t do their due diligence, and anyway one of them was a kid.
I saw the headline and wondered if this was a repost. Nope. If I had a nickel for every time this guy has been arrested for ocean hamster wheel shenanigans, I’d have two nickels. Which isn’t much, but it’s weird that it happened twice.
I don’t think he actually expects to get very far in any of his tries. The attention from his eventual arrest and following news articles are his actual goals. Kinda like that flat earth rocket guy. And they’ll both probably end the same way, dead by hubris.
This guy has a long history of doing things to completion. Ran the perimeter of USA, ran from LA to NYC after 9/11. Big cycling stuff. He is an actual world class athlete. I think he really wants to do this but lacks the finances and connections to have the support needed for such an expedition.
Probably for operating an unregistered watercraft or not having a transponder. The kind of things maritime law requires for stuff like not getting shot be some idiot, not being IDed as a naval mine by the Navy, search & rescue, not hitting other ships, customs and border enforcement, etc, compelling border compliance, etc. There’s a surprising amount of rules for doing stuff in the ocean.
Biden has truly turned this country into a communist dictatorship, even people trying to escape by homemade boats get scooped up by the coast guard and brought back. We’re living in 1984 and animal farm put together.
So does he just hand the check directly to the Guardsman in the Coast Guard vessel when they’re forced to drag his yoga ball wheel out of the ocean for a 4th time?
Like with other branches of the armed services, there are charities for vets and their families.
But if you want to give to the guard more directly, the US government has a program that collects once a year before April 15th. HR Block will happily help you give.
bbc.co.uk
Oldest