Well, you can really zoom in on the individual, and decide. But if the person is in the military, or completely on the Russian government’s dime, they are spokespeople for that government. That government is not welcome, by extension the athlestes are not welcome. The olympics should not be a platform for idols of the russian federation to gain a platform.
Nah he don’t look like a drug user. You can survive easy out here if you can stay sober enough to make a few phone calls and show up to appointments. Most of the homeless crisis is really just a drug crisis.
You can survive easy out here if you can stay sober enough to make a few phone calls and show up to appointments. Most of the homeless crisis is really just a drug crisis.
I trust that in order to make such such a generalizing and dismissive statement you have some form of qualification or primary experience?
Yes. I get free healthcare, and I qualify for free food and low income housing. Many of my friends have been homeless and they have had an easy time finding a shelter.
On Thursday, journalist Riham Alkousaa was on a hiking holiday, walking with a group through the mountainous wooded region of Saxon Switzerland, in the eastern German state of Saxony.
A dumb American is about to ask a question about the geography of Europe. Why is there a region of Germany called Saxon Switzerland? Is that the name of the state or province?
The state is Saxony and Saxon Switzerland is a national park within Saxony. It’s a mountainous region that continues across the Czech border, where it is called Bohemian Switzerland.
I guess the logic behind the name is not much deeper than “it looks like Switzerland”.
The German translation of “Switzerland” is “Schweiz”, which is a word like “meadow”. It just describes a particular region, which often happens to be mountainous and with lots of forests, like the actual nation also happens to be.
Good, arrogant and slimy and powerful. He had a lot of support, but I’m glad it wasn’t enough. I’m still shocked how long he was able to drag this all out.
Agreed on all counts … that said, his first “I’m not going to resign” speach got resounding applause, so I’m sure he had a lot of behind-the-scenes support to stay as long as he did.
Hopefully whoever gets his job will be both better and able to cut out more of the rot.
(I live in Spain, I’ve been royally pissed off at how the players have been treated)
Based on some of the footage showing the whole audience, he got less than half the people applauding… they just were the most influential, and cameras focused on them.
There is also the behind-the-scenes hint, that the day before, he was telling people he was going to resign, which seems to have turned out to be a ploy to get enough people into the meeting to have quorum.
Hopefully that means it won’t be that hard to make some overdue changes.
(…unless some-party-I-wont-name gets to form a government and decides that his is the right case for an amnesty /s)
(no, but seriously, how does VOX still defend this guy?)
Thanks for adding some context, I missed out on that!
As for Vox, they’ll keep defending him because they always look for the worst possible opinion to have and then jump on that … because unfortunately there’s enough people out there with the same shitty views who will then want to vote for them even harder.
I’m crossing all my fingers for a not-PP government.
However, a teacher and his class studying the rock have now discovered that since the collision, it has moved in a strange and unexpected way.
By crashing into the smaller asteroid, the Dart mission successfully altered Dimorphos’ orbit by “tens of metres”.
Dart, which stands for Double Asteroid Redirection Test, used a spacecraft around the size of a fridge.
By successfully crashing directly into Dimorphos, Nasa was testing if it could use similar methods to knock an asteroid off course, if one is in danger of hitting the Earth.
After discovering the unusual behaviour of Dimorphos, it’s likely that Nasa will have to factor in the high school’s findings, if they ever launch another asteroid redirection mission in the future.
The European Space Agency is launching a mission called Hera, which will arrive at Dimorphos in 2026 and could reveal more details as to what happened to the asteroid following the impact.
The original article contains 360 words, the summary contains 152 words. Saved 58%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!
France banned basically all religious symbols in public schools. This includes crosses or the Jewish kippah. It's now expanded to include the abaya dresses. Veils and headscarves were already banned.
I think it's stupid since the dress isn't necessarily religious. It's just commonly worn by Muslims. Might as well ban white buttoning down shirts at this point because that's what some christians wear, especially to church.
One one hand, it seems a little extreme, on the other hand, if they have a religious exemption to a school uniform and they are blocking religious items/clothing at school then it kinda makes sense.
French schools in France/French territories don’t have uniforms. But they ban any form of group/gang/religious symbols.
That included my baseball hat with a team logo on it. We actually had uniforms but that was due to the local country imposing it on the French school. France has set up French public schools all around the World.
I’m not saying I fully agree with their approach but they are consistent in their policy and not targeting any single religion/group.
Well that’s a 50/50 on the “not targeting any single religion/group” since they accept crosses that are not too big, meaning necklaces and earrings (at least in my experience). And since christian people tend not to wear specific attire except for cross-shaped jewelry, it’s like a whole exception just for them. I also think that the abaya thing is a sign that they really fight against Muslims, since it is more cultural than religious,. But yeah, you’re kinda right in the sens that they just harass every other religions than cristians in general, and would probably ban a christian with a huge cross on a shirt too.
It’s probably hard to enforce such rules when teachers have their own biases. Ideally it should be all or nothing.
My experience was they were very secular. I had a small crucifix necklace (mother tried and failed to indoctrinate me) that I wore under my t-shirt so it wasn’t visible. Some sad Christian fundamental kid tried bringing his religious books during class break and was laughed into not trying again with his very hard sell of no-wank/no-sex until marriage religion.
yes, i agree with, my experience was close to yours. I think the difference here is people are secular in general while system/dirigeants are less clear about it, and tend to fight harder when it’s a non-christian religion, though it was not the case when Christian religion was still in control
since they accept crosses that are not too big, meaning necklaces and earrings (at least in my experience).
If thats the case, then we should fight for them to be banned. It is a good thing that education is separated from religion.
And since christian people tend not to wear specific attire except for cross-shaped jewelry, it’s like a whole exception just for them.
But they used to, even now the highest priests all cover themselves, they just dont force it to other people like muslims. Thats a good thing. A religion shouldnt force people to be dressed a certain way. A person can be religious without having to cover all but their face. And exactly this ban is helping with that.
Except muslims want to force women to dress in a certain way.
Well it is not that simple. I agree on the point education and religion should be separated, but just on what children learn, not how they just dress.
But i maintain that catholic common folks do not have any specific attire. In christian cultures, people just wore basic attire, like long skirts or dress for women. But it was not specifically religious, it just was a blend of habits, morals and fashion, so cultural things. At some point, religious people, who tend to be conservative on those subjects, did advocate those clothes because they matched some vague ideal of decency of their religion. That’s why now conservative catholics still ask their daugther to were those clothes. And it is exactly the same thing with the abaya : a cultural fact only slightly mixed with religion, and in both case people who tend to wear just long dress to cover their body. It is not proselytism, it’s just cultural .
On a second note, i do not understand how anyone could support such a ban and still think they are doing a favor to these people. Do you think it will really help indoctrinated people to ban them from school and universities ? I mean, either
the person wear it by choice, and then there’s no problem
the person was told to, and then they should be welcomed in schools and universities more than other, to make them see other options exist.
It’s also very weird that religion should not tell people how to dress, but a state can. It’s weird that people say “you can be religious and do whatever you like”, but at the same time they consider that “you cannot be democratic/republican and do whatever you like, there are rules to follow”.
Muslims do not want to force women to dress in a certain way, it’s beyond religion, it’s included in morals, cultures. Some muslims do not give a fuck the way women dress. Some atheist do force the women in their lives to dress in specific ways (and this includes people of the conservative tradition). This is not something you change by hating on a religion which is just a medium for this, and which is already discriminated a lot, this is something you change by including people in a free society and help them make a real choice about it. It’s absurd to ban people of a free society because they’re not free.
Btw it’s a common thing in france to want to control how kids dress. Religious, culturals outfits are banned, but also “indecent” clothes like crop-top. I even remember talks about forcing girls to wear bras, so their nipples are not visible (though i did not remember any political consequence for the bra part, but the crop top was explicitly banned). In some schools, coming disguised on specific days could be banned, and punished. I experienced that, along with critics against outfits like torn pants. It’s just people disliking some clothes, but some of those people become headmaster, and they ban what they dont like. And some of them become minister, and they ban what they dont like in every schools. “Secularism” and “Republican values” are always mentionned then, like they are absolute truth that enable you to prohibit things and still think you’re fighting for liberty.
But yeah sure. Religion bad. Muslim bad. What muslim wear bad. Ban bad. When done, only good.
The existence of a philosophy that makes women willingly want to cover themselves for men to think that they are pure is wrong. It is sexist and retrograde thinking.
You can say a thousand things and decorate it with whatever you want, it is still going to be wrong.
I agree that any philosophy that aims to control other’s people life is wrong to me. Based on that, a state philosophy which says “You cannot dress like this or like this” is a wrong one too. I do not like religion, i do not like muslims religion. But i do not hate on muslim people either. I do not support their -generally and imo- fucked up morals, but i support their right to live, their right to dress how they want, even if it is to respect a tradition, their right to access education and knowledge. I also acknowledge that they are historically and currently being repressed by the government and our allegedly secular society, which has just found in muslims what they had found in jews past century. I think the place where muslim people have the most chances to experience liberty and critical thinking is in a free school, not in one which represses their way of life without any further reflection than “Religion bad”. I also think that where non-muslim people have the best chance to undo their prejudices against muslims is in a school where muslim folks can come and dress freely.
Okay, so i 100% percent agree that religion are wrong when they are forced upon anyone, and that religious state, and muslim state first, are worse oppresions than state alone. I also agree that abaya is not banned in universities, mb on this one (though we could argue that if you ban someone from highschool, they most likely wont be able to go to university).
I am against anyone who prohibits women to show their hair, and i’m against anyone who prohibits women to hide them. Both are bad, and both are worse when endorsed by oppressives systems that are states and morals. In Egypt, muslim state is worse than atheists. In France, “atheist” and islamophobic state is worse than muslims. (all of this is strictly my point of view) I strongly believe that it is dumb to think that you can free someone by prohibiting things, like you can free someone from drugs addictions by jailing them, free someone of war by invading them.
You say “Muslim bad because they blame women who do not wear hijab instead of blaming killer”, and i agree. But this argument sounds illogical here, because you would blame women who wear hijab instead of blaming people who force them.
I strongly believe that it is dumb to think that you can free someone by prohibiting things
If you want a free society you cannot allow everything. Tell me of a free society that hasn’t banned slavery. Or are you going to ask me how can it be free society if it’s members aren’t free to do everything? If you want a secular society you cannot allow religious attire in the government places.
Btw, egypt just banned niqab from the schools. The french did it in 2010, and you are basically, parroting the same arguments then used. Even bin laden accused France of preventing “free women from wearing the burqa”. If we want progress someone needs to do it first and this is how we get social progress.
I am against anyone who prohibits women to show their hair,
No you are not. You endorse the behaviour by being permissible of it.
You previously said: Muslims do not want to force women to dress in a certain way, it’s beyond religion.
You seem to conveniently forget that islam is not just spiritual. You cannot dissociate the religion aspect from the culture and the politics, as i shown you with the egyptian president video.
But this argument sounds illogical here
This is just a way of forcing women to wear shit they don’t want. By fear: You put the blame on the victim and it passes the message that you need to wear it otherwise, who knows what it might happen to you.
Okay, my bad, i did not think it would be necessary for me to add “it is dumb to think you can free someone by prohibiting things that they do”. In the case of slavery, you cannot free a slave by prohibiting him from being a slave. He would just be under control of his master AND illegal. That’s dumb. You need to change the mind and the power of the master, that’s where the problem lies. Here it is exactly the same : we need to change the mind of the men that force women to do anything, including wearing specific clothes, including all the “muslim” bullshit. You do not help drug addict by banning them from hospitals, you do not help a bleeding person by opening the wound even more, you do not help any victim of domestic abuse by banning them from school and public administration. You do not fight criminality by fighting the victims, you fight it by fighting the criminals. If you cannot understand that, i dont know what to say anymore.
I maintain that the domestic abuse violence IS beyond religion, even though very very strongly linked with it. Because, very simply, some muslim do not do this hijab bullshit, and leave people free. So it’s not the essence of this religion to control women. Religion is a part of the problem, but it does not mean you can solve it all by erasing religion. Because even if you manage to prevent religious bullshit (which has always meant violence against people from this religion), you did not solve the moral part, which will live onf and still force women to wear some piece of cloth. BUT, if you manage to solve the moral part by changing the mind of people and help everyone make a conscious choice, the religion will continue without this moral rule of “women should cover their hair”. That is why it seems dumb and dangerous to me to fight a religion when you should fight morals.
Egypt and France are also very different examples. In one, almost every girl is concerned by the forced hijab problem, while in France it’s only a minority. More than that, they are subject to hard discriminations and harassment in France, and hateful speech from 2/3 of the political spectrum. So while it may be a correct replacement of true freedom in specific countries, it is still less than true liberty, and still a way of oppressing muslim people in france.
On the last part, you did not understand me. You say “Muslim put the blame on the victim”, and at the same time, you put the blame on the victim of forced hijab, by saying they should not be able to wear it. I say both islamist and french republican talk the same way. They pretend to fight for women dignity, and then force them to do thing they dont want to (put their hijab on/off). Both are bastards to fight against, because liberty should be in the hand of women on this matter, not of some random male politician pretending to fight for them.
If there is a real problem is some women, forced by his father to wear a hijab, and it is banned in school, she will be twice as much a slave. Slave of his fucker of a father when at home, slave of his fucker of a state when at school. I maintain : this is not how you free people.
By the way, we have only spoke of women that are actually forced by someone to wear it. But there are a lot of women who wear it by choice, and banning it is bad for them. It may be okay in Egypt or any other country where women are not harassed because they wear it in everyday life, but in France it’s just more discrimination against them, and they already get enough.
And an extra thought, if you think that a woman cannot at the same time wear a hijab AND be a free woman, you may have a problem with what “free” means. When we allowed abortion, we did not prohibit giving birth. When we allowed women to have their own bank account, we did not prohibit common bank account in a couple. When we allowed women to wear pants, we did not prohibit dresses and skirts. It should be the same here : true freedom is to choose, not to be forced in any way.
Here we go again with the back pedalling and false equivalences.
In the case of slavery, you cannot free a slave by prohibiting him from being a slave. He would just be under control of his master AND illegal.
Making it illegal the authorities it will free all the slaves that the authorities know about. It won’t free them all immediatly, but it will free a considerable amount. Eventually with time, all (statistically) the slaves will be known and they’ll be free. If we are waiting for the master to change minds, slavery would still be legal and if you don’t know it, traditional slavery ended by guns, when the british forced the last slave traders (the arabs) to stop the practice in the 60s!!!
That’s dumb.
Yes, let’s allow slavery again. It was dumb to forbid it. /s
That is why it seems dumb and dangerous to me to fight a religion when you should fight morals.
Why not both? Shitty ideas need to be fought as well.
So while it may be a correct replacement of true freedom in specific countries, it is still less than true liberty, and still a way of oppressing muslim people in france.
Where is the discrimination when the rules are the same for everybody?
But there are a lot of women who wear it by choice, and banning it is bad for them
First, the ban is about girls (which is the people who attend schools), not adult women and it affects only the school premises. Why is it bad for them? It offends their sky daddy? Why is it bad to look like everybody else around? Why then don’t they use large clothes without the religious connotations? They can use xxxl cloths, hell, they can even use a potato sack.
Egypt and France are also very different examples. In one, almost every girl is concerned by the forced hijab problem, while in France it’s only a minority.
And because it’s a minority it should be ignored? The law exists to protect the most vunerable ones. It doesn’t matter if it’s 1000 or 1000000.
When we allowed women to wear pants, we did not prohibit dresses and skirts. It should be the same here : true freedom is to choose, not to be forced in any way.
Again a false equivalence. This is getting boring. Tell me, can you enter a church in a bikini? Can i enter a mosque with shoes? Can you enter a factory (the production line) with a skirt? The abaya isn’t prohibited from the society. They can use it outside schools.
Parallel with slavery : you did not at all understand my statement. I meant that if you say that its illegal for someone to be a slave, slave will go to prison and wont be free. When we say “slavery is prohibited”, we say that HAVING SLAVES is illegal, not BEING A SLAVE. Same with muslim shit, forcing women to wear stuff should be banned, not women wearing stuff. And we agree, slavery ended up when people used violence against slave tarders, not against slave themselves (which is why the parallel with the hijab/abaya situation is absurd, because here people are taking actions against the women they claim to protect, and not the one who are forcing women).
You just misunderstood me again, please think about what i say before writing anything. Here, “That” does not refer to “abolishing slavery”, but to “make slaves illegal people” (which has never been made, on the opposite, they were given legal rights).
So you concede that the true problem comes from morals, and not religion. That is a good point. You can fight both, but they are to be fought in different ways, this is two different things. Religion is less shitty idea when it does not talk abouth enforcing thing on other people (when it does, well it’s morals or politics). Then, you can say that only-spiritual religion is bad too, but that’s your fight, not mine or everyone’s fight. As I care for everyone to be free, I want everyone to be able to choose what spirituality they want, including dumb believings from thousand of years ago. But sure, you can fight their ideologies with your personal bullshit. And to do so, you need them in public places to discuss with them, so they should go in schools to be able to go to university and all common places where citizens can discuss.
Are you seriously asking why arabic and muslim people are oppressed in France ? There litteraly were slaughter by the police, they kill more arabic people than anyone else, they are insulted in the streets, they are criticized for their clothes, there are victims of terrorist attacks from right wing. Plus the same rule for everybody does not mean no oppression. You can say : “No homosexual behavior, no communist action”, and it still is discrimination, even if you add “it’s not forbidden to be homosexual, but it is to act like one, so everyone is equal”. Refusing to see that this kind of shit targets a specific community is just bad faith or dumbness, you choose.
Some girls in highschool are adults (majority is 18 in France, you may reach it while highschool if born before june or if you repeat a year). The rule about clothes also applies to every people who works in the school : teachers, watchers, cooks, etc. Also you may be a kiddo and still make choices, especially in highscool. At that time i joined political and musical cultures, and was not told by my parents to do so. It was my choice and i was proud of it. I have friends who converted to islam when they were at highschool. Your religion may be your choice, and then it’s fine. The big problem is when it’s not. Why is it bad to look like everybody else around ? I dont know about you but at highschool i tried as hard as i could to come out from the mass. It’s okay not to be a sheep you know ? And it’s okay to be. What matters is that truly want to do what you do. Btw, common clothes are also banned if they are used for religious purpose. A girl switched her hijab for a bandana, and still got banned. It was confirmed by the highest juridical institution in the country, making it a case-law. They just want muslim to stop living how they want, that’s just it.
I did not say it should be ignored because it is a minority. I said the way of resolving the problem are not the same, and that the clothes ban was not a solution in France. In Egypt, the massive problem may require temporary massive solution, because helping each victim individually would be very long, and it is even harder to help them when being a victim is “normal” way of life. In France, the problem is very precise, so we could manage each case individually, and the fact that there is another “normal” way of life makes it easier to leave the one where you are forced to wear something.
Why a false equivalence ? My argument is “giving someone freedom to do X does not mean banning them from doing nonX”. You can replace X with aborting, wearing pants, showing your hairs, it’s always the same. If you missed this, well you missed a basic logical inference. All the rules you mentionned seems dumb to me, but they are made for specific places, run by specific people. It’s why they are ok, as long as their consequences are not serious. You can avoid entering in a church, in a mosque, in a factory, you can do pretty much the same in other places. But being banned from entering a school is a serious disadvantage, and that is precisely why we made a public school for everyone to come in. “But not if you’re a muslim girl (or arabic, we do not make a difference), because then you are of course indoctrinated by some man in your family, so we should have revenge on you instead of him” (at least that is still the only reason i can see to ban abaya which is still not a religious clothe but a cultural one, worn by non-muslims and not worn by all muslims).
You just make claim of back pedalling and false equivalence, without pointing to any of them appart from a basic and concrete logical equivalence, and then misunderstand half of my points, except the one you end up agreeing to. And then you are the one saying that it is boring. Come on, i dont ask you to start caring for muslims, i just want you to show you this is not protection but oppresion, it is not hard to conceive.
I stopped reading here. The last data that i have from 2021 says that there were 37 kills by law enforcement in France alone. Compare that with the 57 from canada (same year, 2021, and with a way smaller population).
I won’t be wasting more of my time with a muslim shill.
You are a wonder of pure bad faith. One argument of one part of one point amongst 7 seems off to you, and you stop reading, and you do not even answer what you have already read ? Like “Oh, 7 words of your answer are abusive, so i dont care about the 1000 others”.
And it’s not abusive. Everyone now admits there were slaughters by the police against arabic populations in france. Not in 2021 you are right, but i think you know there are multiple years in history. France committed series of historical slaughters against arabic people, mostly algerians, both in their countries and on the french ground. The most known about is the paris massacre of 1961. Nowadays, police still kills more people with arabic names than with any else culture. (Source here, at the end of the page, french only)
Now if you want to be taken seriously, you probably should stop avoiding every point i make by misinterpreting it or by just ignoring it. There is no muslim shill anywhere in this discussion, just some who cares for everyone’s liberty and some who hates on muslim because it is the last thing that make them think they still defend liberty when they just prefer the comfort of an oppressive state over the one of partly oppressive religion.
Ill try to make it clear one last time, not for you but for anyone passing by, my comments are always too long but i’ll try to make what i believe and defend concise.
Should women be free to show their hair ? YES. Should we fight against anyone who wants to force them otherwise ? YES. Should women be free to hide their hair ? YES. Should we fight against anyone who wants to force them otherwise ? YES.
Anyone who goes against their liberty is a bastard. Conservatives muslims are bastards. Conservative republicans are bastards.
That's the thing, an abaya doesn't cover your head. There might be some designs that do but in general it's just a maxi-dress with long sleeves. So that's why I think this is stupid. I can understand banning wearing it with an Hijab or other types of headscarves. But as it stand they are sending children home because their dress is too long.
Except that this is supposedly don’t because it’s seen as a religious thing. Don’t get me wrong, I’m against Islamic people forcing women to wear certain things. It is oppressive. But that’s not what this is. They are seeing it as a religious piece of clothing, and banning it for being a religious piece of clothing. And it’s not even strictly a religious piece of clothing.
It’s also just the dress. We aren’t talking about any sort of head or face covering. But the dress.
There’s a few layers to this, but none of it is “France is fighting against Islamic misogyny”
That’s the dumbest thing I’ve seen in these entire comments
Edit: Since I’ve got almost nothing going on at work, let me try and explain my point of view. It might be hard to follow an adult conversation, but maybe try.
They are not banning this for any moral reason about misogyny. To champion it for that reason is dumb because that’s not what’s happening. I’m personally a fan of talking about things happening as they are happening. We are not seeing France fight Islam and the way they oppress women. It’s them saying people can’t wear religious things. This includes things like a cross necklace, or a yamaka. Personally, I am agaisnt this. I don’t think it should be the schools decision on things like that. Secularism in a system doesn’t have to be against these things. It just means the rules are written without influence from them. I don’t think religious clothes hurt peope simply for being religious. I don’t get offended if someone wears a cross necklace or something like that.
But this also means it’s not them fighting for women. It’s just them being against religious articles of clothing over all
“So you’re pro women being forced to wear it?!”
No. I’m actually pretty anti-theistic. More so with the Abraham’s religions. I was actually raised Mormon, and while not as extreme as Islam, they do have very similar views on modesty with women that they don’t extent anywhere near to the same extent with men. So I have seen the harm things like this cause. And I agree that it is a choice, but also not really since they are taught this is the way to live and to not do so makes you a terrible person. That if they don’t cover their porn shoulders they’re gonna get pregnant and have STDs. Shit like that fucks with women.
However, I don’t think it’s the schools job to do that. I can understand and agree with head coverings. But if it’s just the dress, then no.
There’s also the aspect that, as others have pointed out, it’s not just religious. It’s also cultural. If you grow up in those regions, even if you’re not Islamic, you would likely still wear one. Because it’s just a part of their culture. Just like how jeans and t-shirts are fairly common in the US. I lived in Florida, and flip flops were fairly common. Moved up north, and not so much. Different cultures have certain types of clothing that are fairly common. It doesn’t have to be religious. So in that aspect I think it’s also a oversight in that some might not be wearing it for cultural reasons so much as it’s just what they wear.
None of this means I support misogyny. I just don’t beleive in an oppressive government doing things like this. If they don’t like it, then they should implement a law where students wear a uniform.
Where in the article is it mentioning that they covered their head? Do you mean the picture? They aren't even showacsing an abaya in the picture. Some of the girls are wearing sweaters and long sleeved shirts. And the head is covered by a headscarf. Yes, it will be very difficult to find any depiction of people wearing an abaya without a headscarf because it's mostly worn by muslims and they will cover their head with an additional headscarf. Just as it will be very rare to find any clothing displayed by muslim women without them covering their head.
At the end of August, the education minister announced that pupils would be banned from wearing the loose-fitting full-length robes
That is how they defined the abaya. A loose-fitting full-length robe. There is no mentioning of covering the head. The abaya is no more a religious clothing than any "church clothes" are. It's like black ties that are worn at funerals, like white button down shirts worn by certain missionaries. These items see use outside of their religious areas and so to abayas. They are worn to many occasions and not explictly religious.
No I am not assuming it literally says so. They banned the Abaya starting this year. The headscarf ban and stricter enforcing of religious symbols was back in 2004.
The French education minister has said that nearly 300 pupils arrived at school on Monday wearing the abaya, the long Muslim robe which was banned in schools last week.
Yes, it is very hard to differentiate between cultural and religious clothings in the Arabic world. And that's why banning the hardscarf while controversial is still supported by most. But things are starting to get ridiculous and is closer to "banning what is different".
I’m curious as to how they even define and abaya. Like… Other than being a loose fitting dress made of a square piece of cloth, theres not much to define it. Dresses that fit the description are also worn by “westerners.”
essentially a robe-like dress, worn by some women in parts of the Muslim world
It is common that the abaya is worn on special occasions, such as Mosque visits, Islamic Holiday celebrations for Eid al-Fitr and Eid al-Adha and also during the Islamic Holy month of Ramadan
I also wear a kippa on my head and a cross around my meck. But it’s not necessarily religious. I just like the design. /s
France is a secular country. It’s probably hard to understand for you free people of freedomland, but ALL signs of religion are banned from public institutions.
So let's ban underwear and shoes because those are also worn in the Muslim world. And anyone who is wearing a baseball cap or hat isn't allowed to take it off because taking off a hat inside has christian influence.
The abaya is just like a suit or a dress worn by people to church. And neither are banned in public schools. If a french girls wears an abaya few would even know it's an abaya. And ton of western style maxi-dresses are similar in style to an abaya.
I hate how they always seem to promote joints in any cannabis article. Maybe start promoting healthier options…
Ideally I wouldnt put any cannabis in my lungs… But I’ve switched to concentrates to be a little healthier. Bowls, Js and blunts are for special occasions and I definitely feel it in my lungs after.
I’ve owned like 10 different dry herb vapes. Cost me a lot of money.
My favorite all around vape is the solo 2.
Pax for more public use.
Dynavap has a special use for me. Reminds me of a j. I also have some induction heaters.
Divine tribes v 4 and 5 right now are my daily drivers. Ones on a pico for portability and the v5 is connected to a bottomless banger.
Flowerpot is great but I feel like I over consumer with it.
Elevator is niche… I don’t like using a torch. I have it filled with sapphire beads and it’s wrapped with an email coil. It’s alright… Good for taste but the flowerpot is better for vapor.
Had a digital volcano for a month but returned it. I was disappointed with it and it also had me consuming more than I should.
Hmm… I wonder why consumption went up? I noticed mine go up when I switched but that was probably more of a fascination with the new “toy” than anything else.
I think because it vapes better when the bowl is filled up to a certain amount. Like the volcano was like a gram sized bowl. The flower pot is probably half a gram. If I didn’t finish a full bowl ide end up dumping the half vapes into my abv jar.
Yeah I have a bunch of vapes. I listed them in another comment.
Yeah the edibles are somewhat different. But with legalization it’s different from the old days. There nano emulsified, distillate edibles, rso edibles, tinctures, and straight rso in a capsule.
Personally I make tincture and add drops to canned seltzer. I just put like 5mg in a can and drink them kinda like I would beer. Sometimes I add it to my cocktails.
Edibles do seem to lose out on the variety of strain effects though imo.
Back in the day we would just add as much weed to brownies that we could and get blasted. Now it’s kinda nice to just catch a light buzz and reup when needed. …before bed is different though I love a high dose before bed.
It sucks that it costs so much more. I skirt the gummy and tincture prices, I buy rso grams and 190 proof alcohol to make my own tinctures. This way I can also change the dropper dose and add CBD/cbn/cbg.
Even the rso price is high… When I look at medical menus it’s like 20$ cheaper and the med users get a better selection.
Anti-LGBT protests in the US rose 30-fold last year compared with 2017, while legal moves to restrict LGBT rights are on the rise.
The term 2SLGBTQI+ is widely used in Canada for people who consider themselves two-spirit, lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, questioning or intersex.
“Since the beginning of 2023, certain states in the US have passed laws banning drag shows and restricting the transgender community from access to gender-affirming care and from participation in sporting events,” they told CBC News.
In March, Tennessee’s governor signed laws banning drag performances in front of children and restricting medical treatment for transgender youth.
Two months later, Florida Governor Ron DeSantis signed bills banning children from undergoing transgender medical treatments or going to drag shows, and restricting pronoun use in classrooms.
On Monday, a mural in Florida dedicated to Irish journalist Lyra McKee, who was shot dead in 2019, was defaced with a swastika and anti-LGBT graffiti.
The original article contains 349 words, the summary contains 154 words. Saved 56%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!
I support diversity and Im happy to let anyone be whoever they want to be, as long as they are not hurting anyone, but we need to stop adding letters to the LGBTQ community.
bbc.co.uk
Top