• Rivalarrival@lemmy.today
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    I’m not Muslim. I am balding. Can I wear a headscarf to conceal my hair loss? My scarf certainly would not be a religious symbol, but it would be indistinguishable from hijab.

    What if I have extensive scars, to the point that children are frightened, and everyone I meet instantly presents a look of disgust and revulsion? Can I hide my face behind a veil? Again, certainly not a religious symbol, it’s an accessibility device that I have found essential for social interaction among people unaccustomed to such disfigurement. My veil could easily be confused for niqab.

    I am Muslim. Every time I have to conduct any official business with the government, I am reminded that my government supports the suppression of the symbols of my religion. Am I being oppressed?

    No, there are practical considerations in many jobs that justify restrictions on certain types of clothing without regard to religion. But if the only justification for the restriction is “religious people wear that”, that prohibition is unreasonable.

      • Rivalarrival@lemmy.today
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        1 year ago

        It’s not that simple. There has to be a valid purpose for a dress code. “Oppressing Muslims” is not a valid purpose.

        • UnfortunateShort@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          1 year ago

          And I already mentioned a valid reason. I think no religion has a place among a secular state’s officers and I think they are well within their right to ban religious symbols. As long as they don’t do so selectively that is.

          Practice your religion in your freetime or look for a job elsewhere.

          • Rivalarrival@lemmy.today
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            Or, we do the sensible thing, and expect the people in our society to tolerate each other. So long as the “symbol” is not interfering with the performance of their duties, there is no compelling reason to prohibit it.

            If it offends someone that the clerk issuing their driver’s license is wearing a headscarf, or a crucifix, or carrying a kirpan, the problem is not the state, nor the dress code, nor the clerk. The problem is the whiny little bitch offended at the idea that the state would dare to employ someone with a different personal worldview.

            Same goes for non-state employers, which is what the ruling is actually about. If your customer has a problem being served by your employee for wearing a turban or a yarmulke, the real problem is that you’re treating this person as your customer, rather than as a hateful, trespassing bigot.

            The takeaway from this ruling is that the state recognizes, respects, and protects homogeneity over diversity. It supports and promotes sameness over individuality. It caters to the whiniest bigots among its populace, and to hell with any religious minority, or anyone who even looks like they might be a member of a religious minority.

            The reality is that bigotry is a mental health issue. Rather than cater to their disease, Europe should be encouraging bigots to seek professional help. There is a fairly simple treatment option becoming popular in Canada that has achieved startlingly good results for the treatment of bigots. It’s nearly 100% effective, with no significant side effects in the treatment of chronic bigotry.

    • TheEntity@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      There are no practical considerations to not carry around swastikas either. And yet here we are due to some terrible people claiming them as symbols of hatred. I don’t mind the shape of a swastika, I mind the ideas it conveys.

      • Rivalarrival@lemmy.today
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        Is it reasonable to place hijab or niqab in the same category as swastika?

        Is it reasonable to place “Muslim” in the same category as “Nazi”?

        Frankly, I think that idea is extraordinarily offensive.

          • Rivalarrival@lemmy.today
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            I actually do not know your answer. I haven’t figured out of you are supporting a ban on Hijab, or arguing against it. The only thing I know from your comment is that a hijab ban is only reasonable if we consider “Muslim” in the same light as “Nazi”. It is only reasonable if “Muslim” is so despicable of a concept that it is deserving of the same level of contempt and oppression that EU leadership has for the Nazis.

            We can certainly leave it at this. I know I find the idea deeply offensive. I can’t speak for you.

            • TheEntity@kbin.social
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              3
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              1 year ago

              I have nothing against headscarves purely as a clothing, but I have a lot against organized religion they are more often than not a part of. As it stands, it’s a symbol tightly connected with systemic oppression and countless crimes against humanity. In this regard I find the two mentioned groups quite similar. It would be nice to decouple the symbol from its current meaning, but I don’t think we have such a luxury.

                • TheEntity@kbin.social
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  3
                  arrow-down
                  3
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  As I belong to a group outright killing which Islam considers fair game, I don’t find it particularly ironic.

                  • Rivalarrival@lemmy.today
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    arrow-down
                    1
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    He that would make his own liberty secure, must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty, he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself. - Thomas Paine

                    You don’t get to call for systemic oppression and then complain that you are being systematically oppressed. Well, I mean, you can. But I’ll just roll my eyes and quote Paine at you.