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.
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.
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)
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?
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?
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.
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.
Ah yes, enlightened lemmy atheist reinvents American Indian Boarding Schools.
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.
Writing vagueness into your law just allows for selective enforcement.
Guess what groups would be targeted?
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.
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
Sexist and racist nonsense targeted to control women and punish minorities.
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 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.
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
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
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?
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.
Ban religions on kids. Best law.
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.
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.
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.
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.
I didn't know PiS and Fidesz were Obama-liberal Christians...
please ban IGM and MGM as well as FGM, yeah
This will only help to marginalize different parts of the society. It is no different to pitting them against each other.
I am not a fan of headscarf on children, the whole philosophy of it is quite sickening to be honest. But I have seen enough to know this won't help girls become independent individuals who can think for themselves and don't submit all their life to other men.
They wanna increase that to 70%
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?
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.
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.
Not sure if you are serious
Holy shit that's a wildly disingenuous framing of the situation here.
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.
why would we call that cultural marxism?
Ideally we shouldn't, but practically we must, only to prevent religious oppression and abuse, and the spread of such things.
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.
Watch the average Liberal agree with far right parties because they are racist again.
Head scarves laws/rules are not "racist", please try again.
Once again, how about banning the Kippah, and uncut locks? Or would banning Jewish religious symbols suddenly be problematic to you? The state doesn't get to pick favorites. Public education must be neutral to all faiths, and provide a secular curriculum. That's the only viable and just path towards a free and fair secular society.
Not necessarily, but in practice, almost always. There is no other motivation. They don't want parents to be able to indoctrinate children into the parent's own culture and instead want the children to be indoctrinated with their own culture. That's not just racism, it's a form of cultural genocide. We know a lot about that here in Canada.
100% of users called Mulligrubs are racist. That is not a personal attack.
I thought girls weren't required by Islam to wear headscarfs until that age anyway?
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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?
Feddit.org
Yep
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.
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.
I get why women who are sexually mature have to cover in islam. But I don't get covering of little girls. I more often see covered mums with their little daughters uncovered which makes sense. But I don't get covering of the little ones.
I mean, their prophet raped a nine year old, whom he married when she was six. If your prophet thinks that kids are sexually attractive it makes sense that people wish to protect their daughters. The irony that they do it for their prophet is usually lost on them though.
So a woman’s body belongs to whom? Islam? Her husband? The local priest? And who gets punished if the body isn’t covered up in this scenario? Surely Islam/husband/priest, right? If temptation is so bad please find your way to Yemen. Tons of like minded individuals there currently having strong feelings about ankles and gasps a female thigh!
My 8 yo niece wants to wear cuz its pink. Heck even my 3 yo nephew wants to wear one. They are children, they don't need a reason.
Today there many crisis in Europe. Housing, joblessness, food insecurity, AI etc. but the leaders want to make this an issue because it serves as a good distraction and triggers a xenophobic/fascistic response from the population. Its easy to redirect anger from structural issues towards minorities especially if they look foreign. That's the reason
You are being insincere. You are describing it as if its just another piece of garment. And that evil european racists want to ban it. No one has problem with any other traditional piece of clothing. Hindus, arabs, africans they can wear whatever because their are just clothes. Hijab is different because it changes how you view/interact the person wearing it. Its like wearing lingerie in public: not appropriate. Grown women can do whatever but for children there are different expectations. And its a widely accepted norm that govs do have an interest in how kids are brought up. Its not to sole discretion of the parents.
Is your nephew allowed to wear one outside the house?
How is this even a debate? Everyone should agree that they should be banned. But for some reason, when it is religiously motivated, it suddenly is fine to force woman to veil themselves? Imagine the utter outrage of the Left when the Right would force women to wear hijabs. Why tf is it okay when one side does it, but not okay when the other does it? It's pure hypocrisy.
Honestly, we should bring back headscarves (and hats, while we're here) as a fashionable accessory.
That'd nip this in the bud.
The absolute slander against traditional hats and scarves has got to stop!
It's not getting cooler and we wore them for a reason.
I'm still pretty flummoxed about what to do with them indoors though. But I can see a hat holster taking off, like those people that wear big ass phones on their belts. Or, the way things are going, just hang hats on your gun holster lol
I actually agree. That might make the girls feel more comfortable with not wearing it if they want. Seeing that you're the only ones doing something sometimes just ingrains the need to set yourself apart. (Ask me how I know.)
Of course, we'd have to deal with idiots whining about cultural appropriation again.
I don't think decisions made in this manner have a very simple correct answer. For example, the commandment in Islam for women to cover themselves is intended for after women reach adulthood. But suppose this person has a religion, and this religion requires girls to wear a headscarf from birth. In that case, this situation may be compatible with equality but contrary to freedom. But if persons who are not yet of legal age are under their parents' responsibility while also being under the state's responsibility, then in this case will they be subject to two separate legal systems: the rules in state buildings and the rules at home and in public space? In this situation, it is difficult to choose a side.
Obviously in terms of freedom of religion, no child should be part of religious institutions.
However in terms of public safety there are much easier ways to hide the child your kidnapping.
I love opening these posts to see a wave of garbage europeans who would turn around and claim they have best free speech and nonsecularist nations in the world.
For all of America's insane faults, it is ironic that the first amendment is still something a majority of the EU has failed to match, and is often surpassed by plenty more third world countries and actual warzones.
These same people were defending France's pool swimwear law banning full cover swimwear and water proof headscarves.
Free speech means you are free to debate about decisions, and has nothing to do with the freedom to believe in whatever pleases you.
And speaking of freedom of worship, there are many ways to implement it, from the US where you can do anything in the open - including blatant proselytism - to France where on the contrary, you don't have the right to do anything religious in the public space - arguably not ideal either.
So, because no law is perfect and you are free to express yourself on the subject, you are free to tell us garbage Europeans how you think it should be done 😉
I've been to a few countries, and every one of them have had public dress codes for many decades.
And businesses have their own rules in addition. No masks here. Masks there. No sunglasses. No nudity. Nude beach. No shirt, no shoes, no service. No thongs. Suit jacket required. Collar shirt required. No offensive t-shirts. No jeans.
If they wish to a be a part of a society or use a business, do it; if they don't like the rules there, they can always live/do business somewhere where they find the dress codes appropriate.
If you know of a country with no legal dress codes, please share where that is.
I know a couple countries that tried to change legal dress codes which clearly targeted minorities. It did not end well.
Also
And businesses have their own rules in addition. No masks here. Masks there. No sunglasses. No nudity. Nude beach. No shirt, no shoes, no service. No thongs. Suit jacket required. Collar shirt required. No offensive t-shirts. No jeans.
What kind of a sentence is this are you a chatbot?
So can we ban the Kippah? Is that cool? Or is banning that particular religious symbol offensive to you? Either people have a right to religious expression or they don't. We don't get to pick and choose favorites.
And for that matter, I can tell you of at least one country that does not ban religious garb in schools: America. For all our faults, we still have a freedom of religion.
They ignore other society dress codes citing "religious freedom" as a reason. Essentially becoming a shadow society, wrt this comment thread.
In other words: no social contract for those that ignore the social contract
Many society dress code rules are not codified. There is no law requiring people to not wear hats in professional settings, or inside places, but people naturally don't, because it's polite. Wearing a headscarf in a semi professional setting for a white christian in a semi-professional setting would maybe also be seen as impolite, as you're obscuring who you are. Professional/casual dress code is also sometimes fairly fluid, so doesn't help the conversation.
However, in this case, again, they ignore all these society rules citing religious freedom. Hence, no social contract for those who ignore it. Codification of rules always follows egregious disrespect to social norms and/or misunderstandings.
And, most likely, they are getting fed up with the shadow society that is getting built by immigrants. It is completely allowed to be fed up by that as a society (the country can do whatever rules it wants for its inhabitants, especially democratically agreed to by the general population). You are welcome to move around, but ignoring customs will not make you friends. Just as if a white christian went into a mosque in the middle east wearing shorts and no headscarf. Although probably jail time would follow there.
Dress Codes in general are stupid in most cases. And this law is specifically discriminating against ONE religion, which is why I think it will be ruled unconstitutional by the constitutional court
You sound like an asshole, you know that right?
Maybe you want to expand on how analysing the situation rephrasing from my perspective is being an "asshole". Because you sure like to name-call instead of attacking an allegedly stupid idea.
From 2027-28, they will also tattoo a crescent on the foreheads of students from offending communities. For easier identification, of course.
The following year, they will go to separate schools to learn more about European culture.
After that, they will go to a special work camp to learn useful skills. This solution will be quite final, so no more steps will be required.
Yea NOT wearing a accessory specific to your religion and ensuing that you are old enough to deside how you won't to engage with you're religion will do wonders for public identification. Genius logic there.
Context for the historically illiterate
I'm German I know exactly what you were implying. You are aware that calling me historically illiterate and just posting a link to to that wikipedia article misses my point entirely? It was that it is obviously not comparable to the Judenstern, the opposite if anything.
Harassing one minority group is the opposite of harassing another?
Saying islamist is bad is litteral nazi Germany now.... Ubm serve only one goal doing so. Normalize a religon that impose the veil to women cause they are inferior and shouldn't take part in society as equal to men. Wich is religious law cause a pedophile who make religious law the right to rape the vainquish and put them in slavery wanted to isolate women. So stop it with your bs
@lemmy.world
A community for discussing events around the World
Rules:
Rule 1: posts have the following requirements:
- Post news articles only
- Video links are NOT articles and will be removed.
- Title must match the article headline
- Not United States Internal News
- Recent (Past 30 Days)
- Screenshots/links to other social media sites (Twitter/X/Facebook/Youtube/reddit, etc.) are explicitly forbidden, as are link shorteners.
Rule 2: Do not copy the entire article into your post. The key points in 1-2 paragraphs is allowed (even encouraged!), but large segments of articles posted in the body will result in the post being removed. If you have to stop and think "Is this fair use?", it probably isn't. Archive links, especially the ones created on link submission, are absolutely allowed but those that avoid paywalls are not.
Rule 3: Opinions articles, or Articles based on misinformation/propaganda may be removed.
Rule 4: Posts or comments that are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, anti-religious, or ableist will be removed. “Ironic” prejudice is just prejudiced.
Posts and comments must abide by the lemmy.world terms of service UPDATED AS OF OCTOBER 19 2025
Rule 5: Keep it civil. It's OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It's NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
Rule 6: Memes, spam, other low effort posting, reposts, misinformation, advocating violence, off-topic, trolling, offensive, regarding the moderators or meta in content may be removed at any time.
Rule 7: We didn't USED to need a rule about how many posts one could make in a day, then someone posted NINETEEN articles in a single day. Not comments, FULL ARTICLES. If you're posting more than say, 10 or so, consider going outside and touching grass. We reserve the right to limit over-posting so a single user does not dominate the front page.
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
Lemmy World Partners
News !news@lemmy.world
Politics !politics@lemmy.world
World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world
Ask Historians !askhistorians@lemmy.world
Recommendations
For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.
https://addons.mozilla.org/...
- Consider including the article’s mediabiasfactcheck.com/ link
go to feed...
@lemmy.world
A community for discussing events around the World
Rules:
Rule 1: posts have the following requirements:
- Post news articles only
- Video links are NOT articles and will be removed.
- Title must match the article headline
- Not United States Internal News
- Recent (Past 30 Days)
- Screenshots/links to other social media sites (Twitter/X/Facebook/Youtube/reddit, etc.) are explicitly forbidden, as are link shorteners.
Rule 2: Do not copy the entire article into your post. The key points in 1-2 paragraphs is allowed (even encouraged!), but large segments of articles posted in the body will result in the post being removed. If you have to stop and think "Is this fair use?", it probably isn't. Archive links, especially the ones created on link submission, are absolutely allowed but those that avoid paywalls are not.
Rule 3: Opinions articles, or Articles based on misinformation/propaganda may be removed.
Rule 4: Posts or comments that are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, anti-religious, or ableist will be removed. “Ironic” prejudice is just prejudiced.
Posts and comments must abide by the lemmy.world terms of service UPDATED AS OF OCTOBER 19 2025
Rule 5: Keep it civil. It's OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It's NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
Rule 6: Memes, spam, other low effort posting, reposts, misinformation, advocating violence, off-topic, trolling, offensive, regarding the moderators or meta in content may be removed at any time.
Rule 7: We didn't USED to need a rule about how many posts one could make in a day, then someone posted NINETEEN articles in a single day. Not comments, FULL ARTICLES. If you're posting more than say, 10 or so, consider going outside and touching grass. We reserve the right to limit over-posting so a single user does not dominate the front page.
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
Lemmy World Partners
News !news@lemmy.world
Politics !politics@lemmy.world
World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world
Ask Historians !askhistorians@lemmy.world
Recommendations
For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.
https://addons.mozilla.org/...
- Consider including the article’s mediabiasfactcheck.com/ link
go to feed...
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.
save