4 ms·
I promise you that I reread that article before I commented about it, and we can all plainly see that 1% of the discussion is about balaclavas and 99% of it is
by oconnor663 8y ago
I promise you that I reread that article before I commented about it, and we can all plainly see that 1% of the discussion is about balaclavas and 99% of it is about the effect of the law on Muslims. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_law_on_secularity_and_conspicuous_religious_symbols_in_schools https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_law_on_secularity_and_c... is also relevant.
To be fair, maybe the article is that way because it was written by non-Frenchmen with non-French sensibilities. I understand that French attitudes about religion and assimilation are different from American ones, and that I'm missing all sorts of other context besides. My "oh deary me how troubling" reaction probably isn't worth very much, and in any case my broader point is that I'm not advocating jumping to conclusions or boycotting France or whatever else.
But at the same time, if you want to call it "misinformed" to worry about the law's effect on religious minorities, that comes across as pretty one-sided in its own right.
- belorn 8y agoAlmost all countries has categories of clothing which is considered decent and proper based on culture and norms. The French law want extend which specific items should be excluded, while those opposing it want to include specific items. However it is not politically right to saying you want to exclude or include specific items in the set of decent and proper clothing, so what we get is one group making general laws that forbids "types" of clothing while having a disproportional effect that focus specific clothes, while the other side argues for general rights (religious or otherwise) but which never will be implemented in ways that actually removes the distinction between decent and proper, and indecent and improper clothing.