Since 1 September, Austria has banned headscarves for female pupils under 14 at state and private schools. Repeated breaches of the rule could lead to fines of €150 to €800 for parents.
Since the start of the 2026/27 school year on 1 September, female pupils in Austria under the age of 14 have been prohibited from wearing any headscarf at school that “covers the head in line with Islamic traditions.”
Teachers’ representatives say the new rule has generally been implemented calmly and respectfully. At the same time, some schools have reported conflicts and, in some cases, aggressive reactions.
The new law was already controversial before it came into force, with critics questioning whether it was compatible with freedom of religion and the principle of equality.
Every time I see a ban like this, I have to wonder how many families did the math and decided that their girls actually don’t need an education outside the home, or their wife doesn’t need a job or to go grocery shopping herself, and all of them will just have to rely on their male relatives their whole lives to take care of them. Policies that force people to dress outside of their cultural acceptability leads to isolation, not integration.
Except, in Europe it’s usually mandatory to take your kid to school until a certain age and home schooling is usually not an option.
I have quickly checked and unfortunately Austria does allow homeschooling. So the concern of isolation is sadly not entirely unjustified.
The conditions for that to be allowed are incredibly strict, effectively its not allowed
And guess what? This literally just happened last week in Flanders in Belgium.
Girls were rounded up and publically stripped in front of administrators.
Now they can’t go to school but it is illegal to stay home, but the schools are also completely full so they aren’t allowed to enroll I’m another school that doesn’t publically strip them.
It’s fucked. But of course, all other religions can wear whatever they want as long as they are not brown people.
Wait do you have a source for this? I tried looking for one but can only find something about a Muslim teacher who got fired for wearing a headscarf (also despicable, but a different story I think)
Probably less than the number that decided enforcing an oppressive style of dress wasn’t worth the hassle when faced with minimal societal pressure.
But like, if it’s cold out and I wrap my scarf around my head, is that ok? Why not?
The ban is for indoors
That’s fine under this law because it directly targets Muslim religious observance.
Why is the head scarf a religious observance? Like what’s the origin and purpose of it? What percentage of Muslims adhere to that particular observance?
If you’re not Muslim, you can wear what you want.
If you’re wearing hijab to hide alopecia or chemotherapy-induced hair loss, that’s fine, so long as you’re not also brown. Hell, if you’re not Muslim, you can go ahead and wear hijab on a bad hair day.
It’s illegal to not send your children to school so the cops can come and pick you up.
These laws encourage communities to establish their own private schools, so that their kids are no longer targeted by this kind of fascist intrusion by the state.
They can’t and if they do there are standards that the state controls.
This is not a fascist intrusion this is ensuring children a half decent chance to have a secular education with science, chance to get a job etc. What are you even on about?
Good points you raise there. Therefore further measures are required to prevent said isolating consequences.
Should oppressive cultural traditions be tolerated?
Doesn’t that just reinforce that these veils are a form of oppression, if the girls and woman can be banned from leaving the home without them?
The exact wording isn’t clear, but if it really is just Islamic clothing, then it’s a bad law.
If it were more generalized, such as “no one under 14 is allowed to follow religion enforced dress codes, such as…” Which also included dresses, skullcaps, head coverings of all kinds, etc. inside of a school, that would be a lot more reasonable.
But a law targeting one religion, and ignoring others, just reeks of bigotry.
Actually the law you described would suck ass as well.
I’d be for it, religious indoctrination and gas lighting kids is nothing but abuse. i’d raise the age to 18 though.
Ah yes, enlightened lemmy atheist reinvents American Indian Boarding Schools.
Oh wow, you’re so smart and edgy 😮
You support the religious indoctrination of children?
When removing the bigotry makes it a bad law, it’s a bad law.
If you disagree, you should say why you disagree, so that your comment is constructive to the discussion.
It was a destructive comment, a cliche. Feel free to ignore it.
deleted by creator
Writing vagueness into your law just allows for selective enforcement.
Guess what groups would be targeted?
The same ones that are currently being targetted…?
Bingo.
That law would also be terrible not to mention it would be like similar laws like French Laïcité be very discriminatory enforced to target minorities.
Sure. Although I would argue that hijabs are a bit more pronounced in terms of oppressive clothing than, let’s say a simple dress.
Therefore I count this as a win in my book. Leave superstitious habits where they belong: in private, at home.
Then they will wear them at home. And they will never leave the home, because the law prohibits them from leaving home in the garb required of their religion.
You and I can call this clothing oppressive, but in prohibiting her from wearing it, we are also her oppressers.
Agreed.
If the ban is intended to stop children from feeling pressured to dress in a way that conforms to their family’s religion, why does it only target islam and not extend to other religious garments or accessories (e.g. kippah, turban, crucifix)?
Because headscarves are the most oppressive, by far. None of the other things cover you up that much and prohibit you from expressing yourself. Also, how many Christan parents force their kids to wear a crucifix? Barely any, so no debate necessary.
so no debate necessary.
People only say stuff like this when they have a weak argument that won’t stand up to scrutiny. What about a trans kid with Christian parents, do you think they’re allowed to dress how they want? Do you think they’re also facing oppression even if it isn’t so readily apparent? Other religions also dictate how you’re supposed to dress, how to cut your hair, and how you can express yourself so they should all be included too.
If this rule change isn’t going to affect that many kids because their parents dont force them to wear religious attire, then it should be a no-brainer to include them too since there would be little pushback.
I will add that other groups, like trans women from middle eastern backgrounds for example, do also wear head covering to feel more feminine and in line with their real gender too.
I myself still wear black covid masks because it hides the 5-o’clock shadow and feels more feminine. This would be illegal in Austria under “Prohibition on the Covering of the Face” (originally targeting niqabs)
Overall governments placing rules on what people can and can’t wear is a red flag. The only exception I understand is nazi tattoos.
Nazi tatoo totally understandable. The ideology responsable of 95% of religious terrorism nan bro that s too far. Have u any idea how you sound to real person ?
Muslim majority countries are targeted by Islamic terrorists overwhelmingly more than any.
And ? Religious terrorism is acceptable when it target Muslim? What are u trying to say
Also source for your number since it s totally fabricated and take into account military conflict that aren’t qualify as terrorism yet the number is 70%.
Wait, I haven’t been 16 for a long time, I can read peoples’ post history and block troll accounts now!
The most oppressive hat. Take a pill.
Yup, I agree.
That said, even if it’s only one religion being targeted now, it’s better that some are free from misogynistic religious oppression rather than none, in my view.
Sexist and racist nonsense targeted to control women and punish minorities.
Exactly. Good thing then that this ban was enacted, since this may help a little to not punish children and loosen control over women.
Loosen control over women by controlling what women are allowed to wear because the clothing she wants to wear comes from a culture that controls what women are allowed to wear. Great job liberating women from having to make their own choices, you’re such a hero.
I wish the government will ban you from wearing a hat, I don’t like it when men wearing hats.
I mean, if my religious parents were forcing me to wear a hat for religious reasons, I’d gladly welcome that law.
That’s obviously because you have no idea how forceful religious parents operate, neither do authors of the law (or they do and it’s their goal from the beginning).
The law wouldn’t stop them from forcing you to wear a hat, the law will add fun and exiting “damn if you do damn if you don’t” part to it.
They tried a similar thing with hiring teachers in Konya for a bit where I lived and result was that the nearby schools just ended up unfairly hiring more men than women.
Right, they should follow up with a kippah ban for boys for the goal “to protect children’s development and their freedom to develop as individuals” /s
They absolutely should. If hats are banned, that includes fezzes and little felt ones.
They should just ban all kinds of hats inside. Even a baseball hat is disrespectful
I would be completely up for that. Also, ban pedocircumcision
The government says the main goal is to protect children’s development and their freedom to develop as individuals, arguing that girls should be protected from potential family or social pressure to wear a headscarf.
If that is really the objective, then make domestic religious coercion liable to incur fines and institute mechanisms for kids to safely report coercion and for protecting and defending the choices of girls. You force your daughter to wear something against her will? She reports it to a safe adult at school and you get a visit from child services. The same mechanisms of course should be in place for protecting kids from bullying, domestic violence, atheist kids, queer and trans kids, kids whose parents are far right extremists, kids who support a different football team than their dads, metalhead kids, etc. Protecting kids is uncontroversial.
Such a great idea. Already in place regarding genital mutilation which is far simpler to rule cause it s de facto illegal and concmsent is impossible at that age and yet this type of precaution does nothing for one simple reason. Theses people are Muslim citizen before being citizen of the place they live. All their social life happen inside Muslim ideology. It s litteraly grooming
If not for religion, banning a scarf would be universally seen as inane.
Update: I somehow misunderstood ‘inane’ as ‘mundane’. So ignore my comment.
IDK… I think banning a regular scarf, without religious meaning is weird. There may be any reasons for wearing them. Cold weather, covering up something that might look bad, or just because it looks cool.Banning shoes indoors or on carpets because of dirt, fine, but otherwise, its like reverse indecency laws…I think that’s the point he’s trying to make
Legally dictating how much of a minor’s body must be exposed to the general public? Are you fucking serious?
What right-wing fascists are promoting this law?
Legally dictating that children are slightly less forced into superstitious habits?
Seems perfectly fine to me.
Where do I get the right to tell you anything about how much clothing you must remove from your children?
That’s what you’re doing. You’re giving me that power. You’re telling me that my decision on what your children must wear supersedes both your judgment, and theirs. They don’t get to wear what they want, because I have decided that they need to show me some skin.
You think I should have that power because your beliefs are superstitious nonsense and you can’t be trusted to exercise those beliefs?
Seems perfectly fine to me.
^ This is fascism. This is what fascism looks like. It slips in quietly, and polishes away those minor nonconformities that have been so offending our delicate sensibilities It establishes and promotes the idea that we’re all better off with just a touch more authoritarianism. One more edict, one more imposition of state against an individual we don’t really like. That’s “perfectly fine”.
Fuck that. Democracy says power flows from the people. The state serves the people, collectively and individually. And the state has no legitimate interest in dictating what may and may not be worn by children.
This law is bigoted nonsense.
„This is fascism. This is what fascism looks like. It slips in quietly, and polishes away those minor nonconformities that have been so offending our delicate sensibilities It establishes and promotes the idea that we’re all better off with just a touch more authoritarianism. One more edict, one more imposition of state against an individual we don’t really like.“
Are you talking about arabic islam?
Yes.
But mostly, I am talking about the authoritarian mindset that gave us this fascist law.
This asshole law oppresses the victims of religious oppression to teach these oppressed victims that oppressing people is wrong.
It paints these women and girls into a corner. It sets them up with a scenario where the only viable solution is for them to stay at home, locked away with the religious fascists who won’t let them out without hijab. Locked away from the prying eyes of a public that criminalizes instead of empowering. Liberal society could be attacking their oppressors by supporting and promoting the personal agency of women and girls. Instead, we have adopted this fascist mindset that has us specifically targeting victims of religious oppression for additional state-sponsored oppression.
Fascism. This is what the larval stage of fascism looks like. Fuck. This. Shit.
Forcing kids to wear specific item of clothing, or forcing kids to not wear specific item of clothing is the same superstitious habit, just with a different superstition behind it.
Exactly.
10-year-old girl with alopecia shows up with a head scarf. Are you (indefinite “you”… not yelling at you in particular) making her remove her scarf? How about if she’s also Muslim?
You gonna fuck with a Muslim cancer patient for wearing a headscarf? Gonna make her prove she has cancer before you tolerate it?
Or are you going to mind your business and leave her to mind hers?
These laws are a train wreck.
This law made to hurt Muslim people, women, and Muslim women. There is no other purpose to it.
I don’t like tgis supersticious habit, so i support the racist superstitious habit.
Not sure if you are serious
Holy shit that’s a wildly disingenuous framing of the situation here.
Just let women decide what the fuck they want to wear. These laws do the opposite of that, and they are fully aware, because it has never been about women’s rights to begin with. It has always been racism.
Read the article. It only applies to under 14 year olds so they are old enough to decide and not forced by they’re patents superstition.
Yeah, I get OP’s point, but here in the Midwest we have our own “headscarf” wearing people, we call them Amish. There ain’t no way in hell those kids wear those tight bonnets in the summer by choice.
I would hope these are more comfortable to wear since they come from hotter climates, but I don’t think asking people to put off forcing religious clothing onto their kids is too much to ask.
It is so much better to be forced what to wear or not wear by the fucking government. Do you hear yourself?
Because wearing these hurts… checks notes… Oh right, no one.
Nope.
If hijabs are worn for the purpose of “hiding women/girls so they do not get raped” this does several things that hurt:First of all, it oppresses women in their freedom of expression. They learn that it is bad to show themselves and accept their bodies as they are: a natural and normal thing. Furthermore it makes women responsible for the actions of sexual offenders.
Following from the latter, it eases the responsibility on the education of young men, who should absolutely have to learn how to deal with their urges in a healthy manner and that it absolutely not acceptable to rape or molest women.
This also leads to a subordination of women below men. Which, as we should know nowadays, is backwards and detrimental
Then, this can also worsen the independence and confidence of women and lead to several mental health problems due to suppression of their natural physiological development. This does not need to be just the demonization of sexuality itself, but also loads their self image and body with shame, which is absolutely backwards, since… well human bodies are a natural and normal thing and it is totally okay to have one… obviously.
It is already bad enough how we, as a society, judge people by their appearance. No need to worsen this by also feeding into severe complexes by letting girls getting forced into having to hide themselves.
So yes: this does hurt on several levels.
First of all, it oppresses women in their freedom of expression.
Do you think it’s possible that some women actually choose to wear the Hijab? I’m Muslim and most women in my family don’t wear Hijab, but the ones that do really strongly believe in it. There’s zero men in my family that have asked any of their daughters or wives to wear Hijab.
This also leads to a subordination of women below men.
Tell me you’ve never hung out with Hijabis in the West without telling me you’ve never hung out with Hijabis.
It seems like you’re a Western Chauvinist who hasn’t really done any of the work to understand the nuances of the Hijab from a woman’s perspective. Not all women are forced into wearing the Hijab. By forcing young women to not wear it, you’re limiting their self expression. I don’t understand why the government should be involved in this decision which is very personal.
My brother had to call CPS just this Friday on his neighbor because he thought it’s okay to beat her 17yo daughter in the street for forgetting to wear a hijab. The neighbor was even born in US, him/his wife has hung out with us in the past. She used to speak a very similar tune about hijab like it’s my choice and I believe in it and it gives me strength and all the indoctrinated crap that few years ago, I too thought was women empowerment of some kind.
Where was she protecting her daughter? Nowhere, instead she left a bag of shit at my brother’s front door last night in front of the doorbell camera.
While I also have independent women that have chosen to wear hijab in theirs 30s in my life, I’m leaning towards this whole concept is fucked. I don’t see where you draw the line between, it’s my choice that’s why I do it vs I might get murdered by my brother if I don’t do it. How many women live in this fear. I also worked in immigration law clinic in UK for a few months. I have also met a woman, who was refugee and that had no male relatives with her, be scared of removing hijab on the fear of retaliation from community she will desperately need support from before she can be legal.
Both of your stories are interesting but are only anecdotes at the end of the day. What’s important is that this is banning a religious practice because you dislike or don’t agree with it. That’s a road we shouldn’t go down. We have countless examples throughout history and in our present day of heavy handed approaches to enforcing cultural and religious unity, and most people who are not authoritarians agree that this is a bad thing to do.
I dont have a solution my friend, I’m just giving counter examples of freedoms being trampled on the conservative Muslim side. And saying situation is fucked for muslim women, if they want to wear or not want to wear. Because one one side it’s islmaphobes trampling their freedom to wear a hijab and on the otherside Islam conservatives trampling their freedom to not wear one.
I bet a ban on hijab will do wonders for that abused women you’re talking about. I bet their lives will fundamentally improve for now having to fear both their abusive relatives and the law, having to chose to get abuse from parents or from law enforcers should be fucking swell experience.
I am not un favor of the ban, but I also don’t know what works. I’m just saying the situation is fucked and religious indoctrination is fucked. Individual freedoms should be individual, freedom of people to wear hijab should be protected. Also freedom not to wear hijab should be protected, but seems to me there are people willing to violate freedoms on both sides of the lines.
I have pretty good idea what works, we have generations of data about it. Empowering women, giving them opportunities to live independently, giving them resources to escape abusive household. Same with men, children, and everyone else.
And we definitely, 100% know what doesn’t work. Adding more rules policing what women are allowed and not allowed to wear. This will, without any doubt, lead to more abuse. Some kids will have to live double lives, escaping abuse from home and abuse from cops that will no doubt use this opportunity to be cops about it. Some kids will not be allowed to go outside, which as you can imagine, will do wonders to their ability to actually live in society. Some kids will be shunned by families. Some kids will be harassed by police.
This shit has only one purpose, for racists to remove Muslim women from public existence. They don’t care what will happen to them as the result. Some of people who happy about this know what they’re doing, and it’s their plan. Some are just idiots who don’t care.
I bet welcoming the systemic demeaning of women will work even better to improve their safety. Just legalize killing them if they don’t wear the scarf then.
If you really care about demeaning of women, this is what you need to focus on. Adding the “you will be punished if you obey your abuser” rule is exactly, specifically the opposite of helping.
My brother had to call CPS just this Friday on his neighbor because he thought it’s okay to beat her 17yo daughter in the street for forgetting to wear a hijab.
I do want to point out that this behavior isn’t exclusive to Muslim culture. Just recently there was a MAGA guy who murdered his daughter for arguing about Trump.
I’m not going to say that there aren’t dangerous men out there, but a government shouldn’t be getting involved in what is a complicated personal nuanced issue. Punishing women for making a choice isn’t the answer.
Do you think it’s possible that some women actually choose to wear the Hijab?
Exactly. People should not be forced to wear religious clothing but people should not be forced to not wear religious clothing either.
Its only for under 14 year olds.
As a man, I’ve seen other men going around without shirts this summer. I wouldn’t appreciate a law that insisted I had to go around without my shirt too.
Different people have different ideas of what modesty means. It isn’t, or at least shouldn’t be, the law’s job to force us all to be the same.
Iran has imprisoned women for NOT wearing headscarves. This is the same thing, just enforcing different cultural norms. Neither is very free.
Do you seriously believe women getting murdered by religious zealots, or best case, only sentenced to lashes 74 hits because she didn’t hide her face, is morally equivalent to forbidding parents from forcing their child to participate in this practice?
forbidding parents from forcing their child to participate in this practice?
If that’s what the law was, it probably wouldn’t be as much of a problem. But that’s not what the law specifies, though, is it?
If the law is created to protect individual human rights, children’s rights, to protect them even from the religious beliefs of their parents, then they should make circumcision illegal as well.
If they don’t, then this isn’t their motivation at all, and they are simply bigots.
(They won’t)
Yeah… that’s not how any laws work. Lawmakers make compromises all the time and introduce some rules gradually. They made non-smoking rooms mandatory first, then they banned smoking in public workplaces and businesses open to the public, then they banned smoking near to bus stops and so on and so on. You don’t go “if the law was created to protect non-smokers they would ban smoking everywhere where non-smokers are. If they don’t, then this isn’t their motivation at all”.
The idea that banning head scarves is incrementalism towards banning genital mutilation strains credulity. Besides, we all know that Austria of all places would never ban circumcision. This is not about the human rights of children.
The idea that banning head scarves is incrementalism towards banning genital mutilation strains credulity
I didn’t suggest that, you did. You said both things could protect children’s rights. I just pointed out that the fact that some law doesn’t address entirety of a problem doesn’t prove anything about motivations behind it. Many different things influence the scope of laws. Not just the intent of the legislators but also things like popular support, how much would the enforcement cost, is the enforcement possible in practical terms or some undesired consequences of such enforcement.
I question the logic if banning head scarves is higher priority than forced genital mutilation
In this case priority is a matter of perspective, not logic. Banning circumcision may be more important for you and me but it doesn’t mean it’s the priority for Austrian voters and legislators.
This law also oppresses freedom of expression and it will only make muslims more resentful and resistant to integration.
Nobody forces them to migrate to Austria. Also its only for under 14 year olds.
It’s still their home, or do you want to kick them out as well?
What if a woman chooses to wear a hijab?
Are you not then hindering their freedom of expression?
Should turbans and yamakas be banned too?
Should circumcision, a permanent elective surgery, also be banned because it infringes on (often an infant’s) bodily autonomy?
You speak as if these is an irrefutable moral basis to this when the reality is it’s based almost entirely on cultural biases.
Freedom of expression means that you don’t get to choose for others, especially when it comes to their bodily autonomy.
Ironically, this is patriarchal, authoritarian and ultimately antithetical to Western values.
What if a woman chooses to wear a hijab?
How many women do you know that are age 14 and under?
Are you suggesting that a 14 year old can’t make that choice?
If they want to ban all headwear that’s their choice but religious considerations are consitutionally protected in most Western liberal democracies and if, arbitrarily, turbans, yamakas etc. are allowed but not hijabs specifically, then this is a lawsuit waiting to happen.
Nope. That’s young enough that it’s far too easy for abusive religious parents to indoctrinate the child.
So I presume you’re in support of an authoritarian ban on all religious headwear since that’s the only logically consistent stance. I presume you’re also against circumcision since it’s a religiously/culturally rooted practice that imparts a permanent surgical alteration to an infant’s body long before they are of age to consent, a choice made on behalf of the child due to their parent’s religous/cultural indoctrination.
Only if you’re in support of each potential iteration is your position internally consistent. It’s a bit authoritarian and incompatible with Western values for my tastes but to each their own.
Yep
I was referring to whom ELSE does it hurt.
Regarding the other, you may be completely right but that is one culture trying to legislate another. It sounds like your opinion is that banning certain head wear, is helping them. It’s for their own benefit. Is it? Or is it just so that Austrians don’t have to feel uncomfortable around foreigners?
Ban religions on kids. Best law.
Well, they are the ones who carry the religion forward.
Honestly. I feel like most people speaking against this law haven’t been in those kids’ shoes. It should not be a parents right to force religion onto their child.
You know theres also the solution of just making sure theyre not forced to wear it. The problem is not a fucking piece of clothing but systematic oppression. The west happily does systematic oppression so long as it doesnt look bad. The only difference in other places is that it looks bad from the outside. You shouldnt change the looks of it but what actually happens. And on top of that, if you have a child in a school that is visibly distressed because theyre forced to wear something thats a sign of something not being right. If the government bans it youre removing a sign of abuse. Its like making having bruses illegal in public, youre not solving abuse just making everybodys life randomly a bit worse and hiding the signs of some abuse. Stupid ass law
“You know theres also the solution of just making sure theyre not forced to wear it.” Just honest curiosity, but how? This sounds really difficult in any case, let alone with young children.
I mean our whole social system is based on that. Teachers, doctors, coaches, etc already have the job of being the substitute parents or friends of children so this is just the extension of that existing job. The actual role of school, especially middle and high school, isnt really about shoving a shit ton of bullshit down the throats of kids but to expand their worldview, train their social skills, and yes, notice and report abuse when necessary. Forcing a child to wear a certian religious garment is abuse. But the child participating in it willingly shouldnt be illegal, i think thats ridiculous. I know there are a lot of reddit atheists here on lemmy but the same way any other choice is someones, religion should be too. Of course organized religion used to spread hate is different but as someone who lives in a city in sweden where religion is something that helps organize community rather than something that is used to spread hate, makes me think theres a world where everyone can believe in whataver they believe.
Your entire block of text there just mostly skips everything. Children are very easily manipulated, and if you’d ask a teacher to figure out if a child is doing something voluntarily, or is being put up to it by an adult… I’m sure they’ll tell you that that is really hard to figure out. And it also raises the question of how voluntary something can be if you hear older family members talking about people without a hijab being terrible people because of that. I’m sure the child will then “voluntarily” wear one…
That’s of course the big issue with religuous upbringing, if you look at it from the outside, it all seems very predatory and problematic…
They are also told that girls and women who “choose” not to wear hijab can go to hell, which they strongly believe in. There are also some cases in many countries of girls being abused or even killed for taking off the hijab despite it theoretically being a choice. So you’re spot on, a child can be easily convinced to voluntarily participate in their own oppression, you just need to paint the alternative in a bad enough light.
So u live in the country where political figure make Ads in Arabic language for their elections and u think u will have a say on can u remove ilsmaic veil from a child even if the child is strong enough to go against anything he was raise into and claim it was impose against his will ? U delusional.
What about other traditions? Why single out Islam?
Continued singling out of Islam will lead to Christofascism, as Christianity will seem like an exceptional religion, incapable of anything bad.
Yes the traditional headdress of Christians should be banned as well.
You’re joking, but an equivalent ban would be on wearing crosses, or removing distinct Christian architectural features like church and cathedral towers/bells.
Not really. The original intention of the head scarf isn’t religious expression like wearing a cross is. It would be more like banning religious dress that forbids any exposed skin beneath the neck besides the hands like some christian cults do. The original reasoning for wearing a cross was to signal to other christians that you were a christian. What is the original reasoning for girls to cover their hair?
If you’re looking at original reasoning for allowing or banning religious practices, you’d have to ban it all because there’s no logic to any of it. This is about religious freedom.
If you are concerned that religious communities are controlling or oppressive, the thing to do is to provide access to education and wealth opportunities, not try to force them to change their behaviors with laws that will only make them more insular and resistant to liberal cultures. Let them be free to practice their religion how they see fit, but also expose them to different ideas so they can actually have a choice.
Religious freedom doesn’t include the freedom to oppress. I’m perfectly fine banning all oppressive religious practices.
How would you ban religious architecture only for under-14 year olds?
Idk have u ever thought Austria isn’t a Muslim country ? Or that islam isn’t on par on human value with other religions. I ask a christian if rape is bad he will agree A Muslim can simply said my religion comme before your law. Still havent saw one Muslim condamn Mohamed cause he raped a 9yo. Won’t even start on his military conquest and his religious law that allow you to out the vainquish in slavery and sexual exploitation. Which happened quite a lot. 60% of french Muslim said their religious law prevail on country law.
The Christian extremists in the White House are much worse, thanks to the aforementioned Christian exceptionalism.
Many Christian fundamentalists might say “Rape is bad”, but then define rape as something done by perverted men in dark back alleys, in masks, everything else is not real rape and the woman deserves it. This conveniently gives them a free pass, but can be used against immigrants.
Muslim fundamentalists are the same. It’s the same fucking religion. The Abrahamic religions are all terrible. Islam deserves the same criticism as Christianity. Yes Muslims shouldn’t be discriminated but that doesn’t mean you have to defend Islam by calling Christianity a worse religion, they both suck.
It isn’t. Islam is the worst and by far. Your statement simply tell anybody that you dont know anything on the subject
They both suck. Fuck all Abrahamists.
Which one tell u to rape and enslave the non believer ?
Its unreal that u try to say the two are equivalent
Dont care didn’t ask. We r talking about Austria, America isn’t the center of the world. Also american christian aren’t european christian. So you can keep your whataboutism
I didn’t know PiS and Fidesz were Obama-liberal Christians…
Looking at your original comment IR seem u gonna be mad for a long time. So let’s do do this quickly
Human value
Christian > islam
Respect of ppl that doesn’t believe in the same faith
Christian > Islam
Not my fault if the pedophile of the desert that invented a religion to justify having a harem and slave wasn’t as altruist as other. Cope
“Obama said «Love thy neighbor» meant «freedom of religion», so that means the NSDAP 2.0 claiming to be Christian is pro freedom of religion, when they say they’ll force Christianity into schools it means they’ll put more freedom of religion there! Obama was a Christian, therefore every Christian is a liberal! If they’re not, then they’re fake Christians! We don’t need secularism, we need Super Obama, who is even more liberal and more Christian (therefore supporting more freedom of religion), I am a very politically literate person!”
Jokes aside I know just as many Christians who interpret the “turn the other cheek” part as a call to nonaggression, as those who think it means the people below them (this line came from the context of slavery) have to immediately surrender the moment they’re attacking them.
How many Muslim do u know that condamn the fact that their prophet was a pedophile? Or that it s litteraly written that u must submit non believer by force. That u can take all they have rape them and put them in slavery?
I’m not arguing Christianity is perfect but fucking hell how can u refute that islam is worse by every metrics ?
Seriously, just blanket ban all religious symbols and references—crosses, yarmulkes, star and crescent, head coverings, etc.—and call it a day. You go to school to learn, not to indoctrinate.
But genital mutilation is still ok, I hope?
please ban IGM and MGM as well as FGM, yeah
As a non Muslim who was born and lived in a Muslim majority country, I 100% agree with this ban. Children shouldn’t be forced or indoctrinated into that oppressive way of life. When they grow up, they can wear it if they want.
There are millions, possibly hundreds of millions of women and girls around the world that are forced to wear that (or even more extreme versions of it) against their will. Just because we have some anecdotes of women wanting to wear it (after being brainwashed their whole lives with it) doesn’t mean that banning it would infringe on anyone’s rights.
Believe me there are entire countries where if you as a woman went there you would be forced to cover up 😢.
Then again should we be policing how women dress in an open and free society? Because, you know, that’s what Muslim countries do, so maybe if you don’t like Muslims then don’t emulate them?
Or are you in favor of this sort of let’s call it Cultural Marxism, where the state dictates couture? Coutoural Marxism, as it were.
Ideally we shouldn’t, but practically we must, only to prevent religious oppression and abuse, and the spread of such things.
Oh calm down. You’re preventing the wearing of hats.
why would we call that cultural marxism?
That s paradoxe of tolerance. Why should we tolerate a tradition that isn’t even considered a religious practice by the majority of Muslim that directly put women under man in every way concevable at the first glance. Have you ever thought why it s only women who had te put it ? It s because they are dirty and could be tentation for other men. Like litteraly the argument of saying what where you wearing at a women that report an agression or worse. Also litteraly what a terrorist who make the attack on “promenade des anglais” said in tribunal regarding the fact he killed other Muslim. Only time in the trial he show any emotion. We dont have to tolerate the intolerable
Denying girls basic education is surely the best way to encourage them to be independent and think for themselves. Because that is what will happen, people won’t relocate, they will just try not to send their girls to school or try to find other ways around it.
Why not instead make sure these people get courses on basic sociology, philosophy, international culture and humanities so that when they are of age they are in a better place to think for themselves and refuse this culture if they find it abusive? Oh right, forgot. It is because people who pass such laws generally come from far-right and they are not too keen on independent thinking either. For them marginalization works better.
Who deny girl basic education ? The gouvernement that want every pre 14 child to be on the same lvl or islamist capture parent that want to force their belief on their children ? Nice inversion
Your whole next paragraphe is just a profound naive view of humanity. Why can t we just be all friend ? Kinda same level. But to be short, cause it doesn’t work. If it work that issue would have never arrived in the first place right ? Also they can refuse the culture if they find it abusive… U have no idea how family is far stronger powerful societal cercle on individual than any other. The opportunity to refuse isn’t something than most can obtain.
The goverment that knows that if you pass a law like this, there will be parents who will first try to cut their kids from education rather than to try comply with it. Worse the kids will grow up to think that the state is their enemy not their ally. It has been like this in every country that had tried this approach. You have no idea how dynamics work with in these families. Like most children, when small, they look up to their parents and they want to emulate their style, culture behaviour. It may be their dad/mother that are telling them to cover their head, but at that age they don’t resent this. So they don’t view a state banning them this right as the saviour, they see it as opression and they shy away from education. That is why the correct approach to this is through education not laws.
For the second part, there have been countries that tried this route in the past. It cost them decades of internal conflict that is still going on today. It is naive to think that banning something will magically fix problems associated to it. No, it will make it worse, it will marginalize and isolate those kids from the society. They will grow up resenting the state and cling even harder to their cultural norms.
Have u any source regarding what u advance? Causrnin my research on how Muslim country fight extremism they dont employ only one type of solution. It s a pix of solution where u always find one wich is kinda everything they can. But mostly they enforce the study of their version of islam. Which they can cause they it s culturally implemented in their country from a long time.
So do u prefer the state enforce law on believer or on the religion itself ?
Also it s part of the Islamic brotherhood propaganda that in any circonstance Muslim are persecuted for any and all reason. And it s always give hand got the arm eaten. So no we dont have to be tolerant toward thoses.
Societal isolation of extremism is a good strategy and it will give result in the long run.
But yeah alone this decision won’t fix all issue. But I dont see how a liberal western society can rule what islam is practice. But yeah going to mosque, religious gathering and event having a 0 tolerance policy toward extremism is also necessary.
Tldr the veil ban alone isn’t enough. It isn’t a perfect policy like most are but its definetly better than doing nothing.
I like how you first downvote and then ask for references. Shouldn’t it go the other way, ask for references and downvote if not provided? I really don’t think you are here for the discussion aspect but anyway in case someone wonders to this corner of the topic here is a useful summary:
For effect of headscarf/religious symbols ban on various aspects of life from work to education, you can look at couple of prototypical examples: Turkey (education, public service), France,Belgium,Netherlands (education), Canada (public service). I don’t know all of them to the same depth but know that they have been the topic of numerous studies related to this. Some that I can refer to:
A general article but focusing on the law in France:
We find that the law reduces the secondary educational attainment of Muslim girls and affects their trajectory in the labor market and family composition in the long run. We provide evidence that the ban operates through increased perceptions of discrimination and that it strengthens both national and religious identities.
Per the findings in the report, Muslim women are experiencing heightened levels of stress and discriminatory treatment from colleagues due to the legislation, in ways that leave many facing a difficult decision between their religious beliefs and their professional careers.
Germany This is not religion based, it is language based (right wing government also love language banning as an assimilation technique, so it relates to the topic)
Do forced assimilation policies always succeed in integrating immigrant groups? This article examines how a specific assimilation policy—language restrictions in elementary school—affects integration and identification with the host country later in life. After World War I, several U.S. states barred the German language from their schools. Affected individuals were less likely to volunteer in World War II and more likely to marry within their ethnic group and to choose decidedly German names for their offspring. Rather than facilitating the assimilation of immigrant children, the policy instigated a backlash, heightening the sense of cultural identity among the minority.
Turkey This is a page from hrw presenting multiple links. It is too long to give a summary, but the headline is discriminatory effects of head scarf ban on societal level. And in Turkey, headscarf ban has never erased that identity. It in fact strengthened it and was likely a contributing factor in AKP’s (the current religious oppressive goverment of Turkey) rise to power (this is my interpretation, not written here).
Societal isolation of extremism is a good strategy and it will give result in the long run.
These bans are coming from a place of extremism. So even if one were to assume they were banning extremism in all cases (and they are not always banning extremism in all cases), you are trading individual level extremism with state sponsored extremism. Ofcourse if you have right wing tendencies you won’t view this as extremism the same way someone who wants their four year old daughter to view a headscarf won’t view that as extremism. However state sponsored extremism is often much more dangerous. But it is funny that for all this talk about assimilation, right wing even really fails at this because all their techniques of assimilation end up strengthening the identities they want to suppress. Guess why? Because they don’t actually want these people to be invisible. They want them to be more visible then before, but they want this in a way which creates societal tension so that they can leverage this tension. It is the right wing government supporters who think these policies propagate their national identity and world-view to their country where as it is quite literally doing the opposite. Even more funny is that in countries where religious parties and right wing parties co-exist, both of the groups actually benefit from this polarization. I can only laugh at how nicely they are being deceived in this regard. And in effect a state which bans religious symbols from schools is the same as one that forces it.
Tldr the veil ban alone isn’t enough
You got this wrong, veil ban isn’t just not enough. It does not achieve any of the intended effects, It is just a tool to the right-wing politics for driving a wedge between communities. A state deciding what people should do with their religious identities is there only for one reason, create political tension in a country and then use that tension as potential to strengthen their grip.
Have u any source regarding what u advance?
Ok your turn, do you have references for any of the things you advance?
