French authorities double down on ‘discriminatory’ hijab ban in sport
French authorities double down on ‘discriminatory’ hijab ban in sport
French authorities double down on ‘discriminatory’ hijab ban in sport
Amnesty International has urged French lawmakers to reject a proposed bill that would ban headscarves in sporting competitions.
The bill, supported by right-wing senators, is set for debate in the French parliament's upper house this week. It aims to prohibit all "ostensibly religious" clothing and symbols during competitive events.
Amnesty International has condemned the proposed legislation as discriminatory, arguing that it infringes upon religious freedom. The vote is expected to reignite the ongoing debate surrounding secularism in France, a principle enshrined in the 1905 law separating church and state.
This is (probably not intended) bullshit when it says it revives a debate around secularism, enshrined since 1905. 1905 french secularism meant to protect religion freedom, rather than having religion enforced by state, it is quite recent to use the secularism argument in the sense "no one should show their religion in public" rather than "everyone is free to follow the religion they want and the state will not support any". Conservatives shitheads have an interest in maintaining this unclear, so that their otherwise obvious targetting of minorities can be hidden behind old republican principles, which never supported this kind of bullshit.
To start off, you could write entire essays delving into this topic. Everything I've written in my reply is very condensed, so if you feel something lacks nuance, it's probably to keep it brief rather than because I thought it is "THE ONE AND ONLY ANSWER". Here goes.
Religious freedom has two key parts: freedom of religion and freedom from religion.
Which of these holds prominence is different depending on the secular country you're in, and usually has a lot to do with the historic path that the nation and dominant culture took to become secular.
In France organized religion had an authoritarian position in society, dominating it for more than a millenium. It took literal centuries of bloodshed and more than one revolution to put an end to that dominance. That is the origin of those laws. The lessons behind their making were learned at the cost of many lives, and personally I don't think that such laws should be ripped up without proper consideration.
Religion, particularly the organized kind is designed to spread and exert power over people and societies. Furthermore, unlike many other things such as ethnicity, sex or disabilities, it is a strongly held personal belief, which is a choice. Yes, there is some nuance there, but it is mostly based on convictions and antiquated traditions, much like the old republican laws themselves perhaps.
A question follows, should a person based on an arbitrary strong personal conviction be granted special treatment?
If yes... then I argue that this should not be limited to "religious" beliefs. The only thing that makes those particular sets of beliefs special, after all, is tradition and mass adoption, much like our own cultures. So, lets consider some other minority beliefs. Should a furry who "needs" to wear wolf ears be allowed to wear that? A sikh their turban? A pastafarian their mandated colander? What if someone strongly believes that they can't go outside without wearing a CocaCola branded cap (mmm delicious ad revenue)?
I mostly agree with you, especially on the "really dangerous religion is organized religion exerting power beyond spiritual matters". And 1905 lawmakers were on that point to, the main goal was to stop catholic church from exerting power, especially in schools.
I personally think that freedom of religion and freedom from religion are the same thing. If your religion cannot be 'none', then you have no freedom 'of' religion.
I assume otherwise we fully agree and our positions are the same / compatible ? Your last paragraph leaves me uncertain, but I think that there is only one correct answer which is yes, all those people should have their right to wear what they want as long as it does not support or provoke harm to other peoples, which is not the case in any of the examples.
The reason for France's secularism and specifically their Islamophobia is their colonialist past in North-Africa. This was their way to enfore French culture on their colonies under the guise of "equality". Of course this equality was never given to their colonies. It was used to take away the rights of the people they oppressed without granting them the same rights as the French colonists.
The French rules are not about religion but an excuse to discriminate against non-whites.
It’s definitely bullshit when the response to the problem of women potentially being forced into dressing how they don’t want to dress is to definitely force them into dressing a particular way potentially against how they want to dress.