r/worldnews • u/BezugssystemCH1903 • 15h ago
Swiss canton bans headscarves for female teachers
https://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/various/st-gallen-cantonal-council-decides-to-ban-headscarves-for-female-teachers/91560143?utm_source=multiple&utm_medium=website&utm_campaign=news_en&utm_content=o&utm_term=wpblock_highlighted-compact-news-carousel1.3k
u/According-Citron-390 14h ago
Wow, these comments are a shitshow. People acting like this is targeting Muslims or like the rules regarding Christians are different. In order, for people who don't bother to read or google anything:
- Cantons are basically states with local authority, this is not a federal ruling.
- Switzerland defends freedom of religious expression, including religious symbols.
- Right wingers have tried to introduce a federal ban on headscarves for students but have been denied every time.
- HOWEVER, the law concerning the school itself and, by extension, its representatives are different. Switzerland is a secular country. The school is a neutral, safe space that's above religion.
- Wall crucifixes have been banned for ages in public schools. Some cantons (but not others) have also banned headscarves and/or personal crosses *for teachers*, which is what the article talking about. It's far from ideal, because the country should be more consistent and ban all visible religious symbols from all teachers everywhere. But it's not a targeted attack like some commenters try to imply.
- Again, the laws concerning *students* (individual citizens) and *teachers* (public servants) are different for a good reason. You may think the laws are a bit radical but they're consistent with the logic we use in the rest of Europe.
750
u/bapirey191 13h ago
I'd consider freedom FROM religion way more important tbh.
330
u/According-Citron-390 13h ago
After literal YEARS of hearing my colleagues bitch and moan about how they're not allowed to proselytize to students anymore, I agree with you. But we're centuries away from it, sadly.
→ More replies (4)17
u/11011111110108 8h ago
I can't imagine something like that happening in my country. Where are you from?
33
u/According-Citron-390 8h ago
Italy. Too many old teachers being damn weirdos & half assed education reforms. I feel like it depends on the province, though, some have more conservative population than others.
10
u/11011111110108 8h ago
That's fair. Italy is obviously incredibly regionally diverse, so it would definitely depend on where you live.
I am from The U.K, and maybe I was a bit harsh in my comment. When I was younger we didn't have teachers proselytising or anything, but we were offered to pray in assembly every day. Basically everyone in the hall would do it because we were like 7-11 years old, but my brain was very binary and logical so never did it. (People pray if they are religious. I am not religious. This means I don't pray.) That's not a thing in my old school now though.
101
u/RaginFujin 12h ago
IMO freedom of religion actually depends on freedom from religion.
For example, if you don’t have freedom from religion, what’s stopping one particular religion taking over the government and suppressing other religions and their freedom of religion→ More replies (29)37
93
u/IAmNotABabyElephant 13h ago
I agree, so much more important. I have absolutely no desire to live under someone else's religious rules. Religion has absolutely no place in government, and I don't think it's a coincidence that when you mix religion and government things go downhill.
→ More replies (2)→ More replies (26)6
u/Yaranatzu 8h ago
Taking someone else's freedom away isn't freedom from religion. They're choosing to wear something on their heads, not going around telling others to wear it.
230
u/Ithalan 12h ago
If headscarves are forbidden for everyone (regardless of their personal religion) because it is considered a religious symbol for a particular religion, that seems like a logic that could be troublesome to enforce universally for all such symbols. Sikhism considers beards a symbol of faith. Are the schools going to prohibit male teachers from being unshaven as well? In buddhism, shaving ones head bald is considered a symbol of renouncing worldly attachments. Is being bald going to be banned for teachers?
The idea of religious neutrality is nice, but enforcing it in practice by banning the display of anything with religious meaning inevitably runs into one of two problems: You either cede control of what is permitted in the neutral space to the aggregate of all the religions in the world, or you start relinquishing a bit of the neutrality by allowing some symbols out of convenience.
39
u/HansTeeWurst 10h ago
In Switzerland, they will just make a referendum on whether sich beards count or not, if it ever becomes an issue.
→ More replies (5)22
u/MokudoTaisen 11h ago
lol. unless teachers are buddhist monks their heads can stay unshavéd. The orange robes would stand out more than the baldness.
69
u/Ithalan 11h ago
So now we've got discrimination issue going on, where something is permitted for some teachers, but the exact same thing is not permitted for others on the basis of their religion?
Who's going to be in charge of administering the test to determine which religion someone objectively belongs to, if the subject that this rule gets applied to disputes that basis?
→ More replies (7)19
u/Mobile_Morale 10h ago
Being bald isn't a religious symbol. Not everyone who is bald is part of the same religion. But everyone who wears a cross or a star of David are.
Not that hard to understand
9
u/Dancing_Anatolia 5h ago
They literally explained how being bald is a religious symbol. It's a Buddhist practice that symbolizes your detachment from worldly desires.
25
u/Weak-Doughnut5502 10h ago
Multiple religions require women (or only married women) to cover their hair.
Some women wear hats, or scarves, as fashion.
Does this make headscarves not a religious symbol? Is it a style thing?
→ More replies (5)11
u/Troker61 10h ago
Everyone who wears a cross is a part of the same religion? You sure about that?
→ More replies (9)→ More replies (1)2
→ More replies (51)6
u/LethalOkra 9h ago
Not to mention this can turn into an arms race between banning symbols and inventing new symbols by some religions. Case in point: the fish symbol for Christians.
6
u/Quixotic_Seal 8h ago
I’m confused. Are you not aware that the fish symbol was actually predominant symbol of the early Christian church?
→ More replies (1)76
u/Jicko1560 12h ago
This sounds a lot like what has been done in Quebec (Canada). This about state neutrality, not religious repression.
→ More replies (1)49
u/cshivers 12h ago
The Quebec law does infringe on religious freedom; the only reason it's still in effect is that the government involved the notwithstanding clause.
39
u/Jicko1560 11h ago
Depends how you define it. But I agree that the law goes against the Canadian charter of rights and freedoms, but I also think the charts makes secularism impossible as it gives way too much rights to people as long as they do what they do in the name of their religion, including things that would be considered hate speech if spoken outside of a religious setting. So to me that is not a proper way to judge the law in Quebec.
→ More replies (1)11
u/Smooth_Is-Fast 10h ago
Not to mention Quebec never signed the constitution and that charter was imposed on them without asking
→ More replies (1)6
u/jce_ 9h ago
Well that's kinda how federal stuff work. If the majority of the country agrees, it doesn't matter if a group within it doesn't.
→ More replies (9)3
u/jerr30 3h ago
Not in this case they wanted unanimous approval by the province and still went ahead without it because it was "only" quebec and you know french canadians right can be trampled all day when you're the anglo majority.
→ More replies (2)→ More replies (7)16
u/P4cific4 10h ago
One's religious freedom vs one's freedom from religion. Which one should prevail?
Why one's need to show their faith should be more protected from one's need to not have to deal with everyone's faith?
Religious people (irrespective of the religion/belief) are quick to state that religious beliefs are a personal choice, only to then showcase their religion in everyone's face and requiring society to adapt to their religious choice.
If a religion is such as personal thing, then religious business should be conducted on a personal level and not a public one. Religious people should not get to pick and chose when religious beliefs are personal and when they become public.
27
u/Cordo_Bowl 10h ago
Someone else wearing religious garb is not infringing on your freedom from religion. Freedom from religion does not mean you never have to see anything that has anything to do with religion.
Religious people (irrespective of the religion/belief) are quick to state that religious beliefs are a personal choice, only to then showcase their religion in everyone's face and requiring society to adapt to their religious choice.
This is the same rhetoric I hear people use about lgbt people. No, people just existing as they are is not shoving anything in your face.
→ More replies (6)5
u/Jicko1560 9h ago
I think the important distinction is when those people are public officials. I completely agree that any private individual should be allowed to appear as they want to the extent of common sense. But when you are dealing with the government, it should be as secular as possible.
→ More replies (3)9
4
u/Prince_Ire 6h ago
You have no right to be protected from a reminder that people think differently from you. You can't handle seeing people wear things that show they believe in a religion when you don't? Feel free to go become a hermit, otherwise get over yourself
→ More replies (3)5
u/Quixotic_Seal 8h ago
Religious rights end at the tip of your own nose.
That very obvious includes how you yourself dresses.
This shouldn’t be hard to understand.
2
u/lakehop 5h ago
It’s religiously discriminatory and highly intolerant to make a law that people cannot follow their religious beliefs. It does not hurt anyone else. It’s disappointing to see this level of religious intolerance. We should be able to accept that in a diverse society, people have different religious beliefs and they should be able to live in accordance with them (as long as it doesn’t impact others). That’s what free speech and feeedom of conscience is about.
→ More replies (137)2
u/Three_Headed_Monkey 9h ago
Is a headscarf comparable to a symbol of the cross? A headscarf isn't a religious symbol it's a piece of clothing. It's more cultural than religious. Not all muslim women wear them. Different cultures have different standards of dress and decency. Asking a woman to dress immodestly in order to teach there is very different to wearing a cross or the symbol of the crescent moon.
If puritan women always wore long dresses and sleeves due to their religious beliefs would you also ban long dresses and sleeves for women?
140
45
1.6k
u/RealRroseSelavy 15h ago edited 11h ago
every sign or behaviour of every cult should be banned from schools and official places.
Edit: All Religions are cults, as political belief systems are cults (of personality, mostly), too.
679
u/antiquemule 15h ago
Including wearing a cross, of course. And Sikhs wearing turbans. And nuns with their heads covered.
1.3k
u/Young_Lochinvar 15h ago
Crosses have been banned in Swiss classrooms since 1990 and some canton governments have banned any government workers from wearing crosses
→ More replies (74)266
u/Sometimes-funny 14h ago
Kind of ironic Swiss banning crosses, considering their flag
608
→ More replies (1)•
85
u/ItsReemAlBlahBlahDee 12h ago
And Sikhs getting religious exemptions for carrying literal knives.
→ More replies (3)90
u/theSkareqro 11h ago
Sikhs also have exception to wearing a helmet while riding the motorcycle. It's insane imo
→ More replies (23)41
u/evilregis 9h ago
It is insane. You don't have a right to ride a motorcycle. If for any reason, you can't abide by all of the laws required to ride a motorcycle then you get to strike that off your list of shit you can do.
→ More replies (2)115
u/PoolRamen 14h ago
Ah, the classic everything equivalant argument
→ More replies (73)231
u/Nukes-For-Nimbys 14h ago edited 12h ago
In Switzerland (and also France) that's supposed to be the principle. No overt display of religion from state employees.
→ More replies (16)85
11
23
7
→ More replies (9)4
35
u/zipzak 11h ago
i think the problem with this is that we get stuck in the mud of defining what constitutes “cult” belief or behavior. I agree with you about religion, but it could also be a reasonable critique of any fashion or cultural expression that rises to the level of habitual expression and conditioned behavior. Religious clothing is not substantially different from “regular” fashion choices, and it is hypocritical to point at one head scarf and say thats cult behavior when clothing is always already gendered and considerably caught up in the idea of modesty. Fashion is a cult in this sense as much as any religion, and the two are often intertwined more deeply than we realize.
Liberalizing personal expression in public and institutional settings is a better path forward imo. Valuing the expression of personal beliefs in a cultural economy where all are considered equally valid as *personal* beliefs, while safely regarding all beliefs as bring open to consideration and rejection. I.e. wear the headscarf, the cross necklace, the maga hat, a bikini, $400 shoes, an apple watch, makeup, (maybe all at once) but on the condition that your personal expression is not enforced on those around you. We would have a multiculturalism where cult beliefs are challenged, embraced, and evolved, instead of being martyred by political sentiment.
→ More replies (1)6
u/Unusual_Aspect1427 11h ago
It appears the Swiss prefer the French model instead
4
u/zipzak 10h ago
It seems to be generally true in europe that a certain kind of national semi-secular identities take precedent. It makes sense in a way, being that if you are living in France the historical material of your environment is always everywhere around you, new things stand out, feel aberrant. I haven’t been everywhere in Europe but i feel like France has this powerful cult of national identity, even the international cultural imports get frenchified into the hegemony. Culinary traditions seem to be the most obvious area where the French say “we will allow this, but in our own way”.
The USA was supposed to be good for this, and maybe still is, almost nothing of our modern civilization is old or literally set in stone. Our national identity is almost this idea that we don’t or shouldn’t have one, or not *just* one. The material of our civilization is a construct of many unique cultural influences built in a pretty rapid time frame (after the indigenous society was essentially erased). The right wing here is dead set on ending this, and have chosen the white mid-century christian nuclear family as the model which they want to assimilate to, which of course is a total farce compared to a cultural identity like most of the world experiences. For better or for worse, the French don’t really have to fight to stay french or even to define what that means.
3
173
u/TheGrandCannoli 13h ago
Bro sounds like he's from 2015 and just watched an amazing atheist video. Get a life lmao
→ More replies (46)87
u/United-Alarm4400 11h ago
Reddit atheists always are a special group. Why say "religion should be kept out of schools" when you can instead try and sound like a 13 year old edge lord?
→ More replies (13)→ More replies (144)33
200
26
48
u/Opening-Raccoon-2811 9h ago
I would not care if my kid’s teacher wears a hijab, a yarmulka, a turban, a nun habit, or a cross necklace.
I do care if my kid’s teacher starts telling kids “my religion is the only correct one”
29
u/williamtbash 7h ago
Exactly. It’s covering hair. They’re not handing out Qurans to kids. This is stupid.
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (6)9
u/NastyStreetRat 3h ago
Well, you should be concerned because a teacher should be a neutral figure, and if they have any kind of religious symbol, they're already influencing someone who's still learning.
Of course, you can hire a private tutor who can come to your house with whatever religious symbols you want, but for everyone else, you should let the teachers be completely neutral.
→ More replies (15)
37
u/DirkChungus 12h ago
I'm just not convinced that hat laws ever really help anyone.
→ More replies (2)
41
u/AwarenessExact7302 10h ago
Won't this just promote the societal exclusion of religious groups and a isolation mentality in them ?
→ More replies (3)19
u/Background-Owl-9628 10h ago
That's what it reads as. The wearing of certain clothing is rather important to some people of some religions.
I don't belong to any particular religion, but this does feel off to me. Banning evangelism/proselytising in schools is common sense of course, but this isn't proselytising.
My view toward things in general which I generally approach religious topics through is that freedom of choice is very important.
To give a metaphor for this, some religions demand 'modesty' in their clothing (I've seen examples of this most with American evangelicals, but others exist too). Now, I'm not the biggest fan of this piece of dogma in that I feel that 'modesty' of clothing is a pretty value neutral concept, and that the form of encouragement/demands typically a to promote shame in one's own body, which is often quite harmful. But that all being said, I'm not going to support a law that says nobody is allowed to dress 'modestly'. That would be nonsense, people have the right to dress the way they want.
→ More replies (7)
55
u/RobotSpaceBear 10h ago
Public servants in secular countries should not display any religious affiliation. If my muslim ass goes to the DMV I do not want to second guess if i'm being treated fairly because the clerk is wearing a red "Jesus, fuck yeah!" cap ... it applies to cops, teachers, politicians, etc
7
u/wcspaz 6h ago
Sorry, I'm confused. Whether they treat someone fairly doesn't depend on what clothes they are wearing, does it? That's just on whether they're a shitty person or not.
→ More replies (2)15
u/eronanke 10h ago
In Canada they can. We have yet to have any kind of civil-war over it. Instead, it allows us to talk about and try to remove intolerance/prejudice (both personal and systemic) without gaslighting people into thinking it doesn't exist.
14
u/DeathsingerQc 9h ago edited 9h ago
Kinda funny to use Canada as the example when Québec exist with the exact same ban as this Swiss canton.
16
u/eronanke 9h ago
Quebec had to explicitly violate rights of Canadians under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms to do so.
To me (and according to the Charter), they are invalidating the Canadian right to free expression every day that they do so. Use of the Nonwithstanding clause to allow exemptions of this type should be illegal imo.
You can have objections to that stance as a Quebecois, and that's fair, but there is no getting around the fact that the Nonwithstanding was invoked.
→ More replies (4)6
u/BouBouLeBourgeois 9h ago
Just a reminder that we never signed the constitution sibce it was done without us. So we dont feel that obligated to follow it
→ More replies (3)→ More replies (5)10
u/kaisadilla_0x1 9h ago
Nobody is pretending they don't exist. You can see people with hijabs on the street in Europe and that's not going to be illegal - nor should be. It's about a public servant not showing a religious identity while attending you in the name of the government. The fact that our kids can go to school without seeing a crucifix on the wall and an obviously Catholic teacher is a victory it took centuries to win. We can't just throw it all off so some Muslim women can wear their sacred headscarf no matter what. They are free to work one of the many jobs where your presentation is irrelevant. Hell, they can even get a job in a private school that does not have any rules about religious symbolism at work.
7
u/eronanke 9h ago
It's about a public servant not showing a religious identity while attending you in the name of the government.
The government is made of, and operates by the will of the people it serves. This should include Muslim women. Muslim women who choose to wear hijab are a part of your society, and should be allowed to participate in government.
The fact that our kids can go to school without seeing a crucifix on the wall and an obviously Catholic teacher is a victory it took centuries to win. We can't just throw it all off so some Muslim women can wear their sacred headscarf no matter what.
You see this as a battle. Why? You were angry at the Catholic teacher? Why? Because he/she was enforcing bad laws which restricted your freedom.
But to defend your freedom, you are willing to restrict the freedoms of others. Why? Are yours superior? That always is where it comes down to for me. Individual rights and freedoms should expand under pressure, not contract.
An adult female, who is certified to teach, should be allowed to teach, without the government telling her she is wearing too much clothing and should take some off in order to keep her job.
7
u/juliasct 9h ago
It's not the same though. There is no way for a muslim woman to follow her religious rules and not show it. A catholic person can very easily hide a cross.
I'm extremely pro forbidding any sort of religious indoctrination in schools, but people wearing things that they have to wear due to their religion (be it hijabs, yammukahs, wigs, beard, etc.) is completely fine by me. They're literally not imposing anything on you, you're just proyecting.
→ More replies (9)7
u/Independent-Bell-201 7h ago
That's not true. We had also some nuns teaching us in Germany (catholic school) they would also not allowed to teach in their Habit anymore, if we had this in my state.
→ More replies (2)→ More replies (11)4
12
u/miyakohouou 9h ago
I’m not religious at all, and I don’t think religious beliefs should ever be given any special treatment or deference. I would not, for example, argue that a religious belief should ever exempt anyone from a law or policy that applies otherwise.
That said, I don’t really see why this was a problem. If a garment isn’t hurting anyone I don’t see why it should be banned, and I have a hard time seeing how signaling affiliation with a particular religious or cultural group harms others.
If the policy banned, say, hate symbols then I can at least see an argument that religious garb should count given current historic behavior by any number of religions, although even then I’d be somewhat reluctant in many cases since religious beliefs tend to be fairly non-uniform even within a particular sect.
17
u/Phlegmbrandt 9h ago
There is a big difference between clothing/accessories that express one’s religion (cross necklace, etc.) and clothing that is itself part of a religion like headscarves, turbans, and yarmulkes. To prohibit the latter is to plainly prohibit people from those religions from being a teacher.
→ More replies (8)
42
52
u/hextree 11h ago
The irony of somehow supporting a woman's freedom to choose what she wears by... banning clothing lol.
6
u/auroralemonboi8 5h ago
I love what Marjane Satrapi, the author of Persepolis said about this. Years before, journalists asked to interview her about her opinion on France’s headscarf ban, and she refused all of them.
She later stated that to her forcing a woman to wear a headscarf is the same as forcing a woman to take her headscarf off.
And she knew that journalists would just twist her words to fit their own narrative so she just refused any media coverage.
→ More replies (7)25
u/juliasct 9h ago
And making it more difficult for muslim women, who already have on avg less (cultural/religious) choice of paid work, to get paid work!
14
u/bicyclefortwo 6h ago
FR this is just de facto employment discrimination. This school now doesn't hire Muslim women. And people in the comments see this as a win??
→ More replies (1)
146
u/Strong-Search-2301 15h ago
Excellent. Just remember that during the first waves of feminism, many women who didn't know better were opposed to it, sometimes even more aggressively than men.
8
u/MissMarchpane 6h ago
What I don't like is the idea of governments being arbiters of what constitutes empowerment versus oppression.
France has laws basically saying women have to show a certain amount of skin in swimsuits. These are intended to unfairly target Muslim women specifically, even though they claim they aren't, but of course it applies to everyone. Do we want people to be able to say "women have to be this naked for their own good and liberation?"
Who gets to decide what personal expressions are empowering and liberated, and which ones are evil and repressive? What if a woman came to school wearing the exact same type of head scarf and said it was because she was into vintage fashion or that it was a secular cultural garment, not a religious thing?
124
u/boersc 15h ago
Many still are, swinging back and forth between 'own choice' and 'sign of oppression'.
31
u/C0rona 11h ago
Because context is important. Someone choosing to wear something and being forced to wear something are not equivalent. Feminism is for the former and against the latter.
→ More replies (1)15
u/boersc 10h ago
Sure, but when is it voluntarily and when is it forced, physically or through social pressure? That's a very fuzzy distinction, which is exactly the issue here.
→ More replies (1)14
10
35
47
u/Awkward_Research1573 14h ago
Just for clarification are you saying that women of non-Muslim origin were against it because “they didn’t know better”. Or the women that would have been affected by these changes?
Should it be okay if it’s not religiously motivated? If you look at any cabriolet ad from the 60s - 70s you will be hard pressed to find them without women wearing scarfs around their heads (or headscarves) or if you look at Eastern European countries it’s extremely normalised for women over a certain age to wear headscarves.
I will just put that I’m against any law that unfairly targets one specific demographic or identity.
For gods sake, wear whatever you want. Who cares…
→ More replies (27)20
u/Interesting-Ice-8387 10h ago
As someone from Eastern Europe - it's not for women over a certain age. It's that before the urbanisation/industrialisation rural communities were pretty much stuck in the middle ages, including religion and strict gender roles. All women, even little girls, wore headscarves, for the same reason Muslim women wear them - because hair is just too sexy.
The reason you only see it in old women now is because they're the last survivors of that era, and old people tend to get stuck with the fashion of their youth.
The new generation of grannies that grew up in modern civilization don't start wearing headscarves when they turn a certain age. It's pretty rare now, and the remaining stragglers are stereotyped as uneducated rural peasants.
→ More replies (37)18
u/MageLocusta 14h ago
Except that people in fundamentalist/traditionalist families take a long time to step away from culture like hijab head coverings (even 20, 30, or 40 years). Not simply because they 'didn't know better', but because:
a) they're taught and raised to see other people as more judgemental and prejudiced against them (so any criticism or comments are 100% invalid or designed to be hurtful than helpful),
b) they're taught to believe that any changes in society would hurt their whole family (and they're expected to run and circle the wagon if their parents squawked about their family being under attack).
and c) they're told that outsiders are hypocritical or don't even know how to live functionally (like first wave feminists. Even today's mainstream politicians swear up-and-down that every feminist then were hateful, vicious harpies who 'hate men' and want to forcefully split other families apart).
Consider the Duggars: they were part of the IBLP cult where people were instructed to never show their bare legs (even the menfolk were banned from wearing swimwear if they wanted to swim), to never dance (even to gospel music), to never listen to secular music or watch TV--and only two out of the family's 19 kids had walked out of the cult. Both of those kids have confirmed that the deconstruction took a long time and was difficult, and they were met with severe reactions from their parents for doing things like getting caught wearing jeans.
So consider this; If it was that difficult for a group of white, American kids to break out of their ultra-religious upbringing--how hard would it be for kids growing up in a cultural enclave where there's a language and cultural barrier between them and everyone else?
Banning headscarves will definitely enable strict families to cut their daughters off from teaching or even studying in non-religious schools. Thus cutting off the daughters from interacting or meeting people who could help them deconstruct. It does nothing for the woman who still has to live with and deal with the pressures of her own family.
43
u/Strong-Search-2301 14h ago
Banning headscarves will definitely enable strict families to cut their daughters off from teaching or even studying in non-religious schools. Thus cutting off the daughters from interacting or meeting people who could help them deconstruct. It does nothing for the woman who still has to live with and deal with the pressures of her own family.
What you are describing has a name: it is called Blackmail. We should really not accept blackmail from religious fundamentalists. Instead, we should increase the bet. That may be banning islamic schools, the headscarves altogether, cracking down on people who may be forcing their family members to be at home, whatever. The rights of women are non-negotiable, and they must learn that, may that be through goodwill or not.
12
u/MageLocusta 10h ago
We should really not accept blackmail from religious fundamentalists.
Sure, and if the family members threaten physical punishments, ostracisation, homelessness or being cut off from your entire community--where's the social support system to catch those girls?
Look at how we've already banned things like domestic and child abuse in countries like Switzerland, and how ludicrously long it takes for any police force or social worker to do anything (if they didn't drop the ball).
I'm pretty much biased because I have a Swiss MIL (whose own mother was...diabolical and tried to lock away one of her sisters for servitude in Luzern during the 80s. Police did nothing) and I also have Spanish cousins living in Zurich--and those cousins are ruled by a high-control Catholic father and despite ONE cousin spending 20 years trying to reach out for help, not one person did a damn thing. My female cousin (who looks Swiss-German as hell) used to go to school sporting bruises, and even though some teachers raised alarm--the senior staff constantly tamped it down and refused to escalate. We'll never know why--but we wonder if it's because of old-fashioned Swiss 'politeness' (ie. being avoidant) and not wanting to spend months opening investigations against parents who would absolutely pretend to be innocent as lambs.
So. If the Swiss system were avoidant as fuck towards my cousin (despite her looking and dressing just like the locals there), imagine how hard it is for a Muslim woman.
This one canton made this law to just put Muslims out of sight and out of mind. Nothing more.
→ More replies (1)16
u/bigdave41 12h ago
The point is that you don't actually improve or defend the rights of women by doing this - are the police going to attend every incident where a family member pressures a woman to cover their head? Because if not, the real world consequences of this will be that Muslim women go out less, receive less education and interact less with the outside world.
There could be a whole range of pressures from outright threats of violence to just mild disapproval which make Muslim women feel like they have to wear them, or they might just choose to wear them because they feel comfortable and have been brought up with them. If someone told you that you could no longer cover a part of your body that you'd been used to covering all your life, you might feel uneasy about going out too.
→ More replies (1)2
u/justalittlestupid 10h ago
I just finished Jill’s book. What a crazy family. I think other daughters have also deconstructed less publicly tbh.
2
u/MageLocusta 10h ago
Oh, I hope so. It was heart-breaking seeing how the girls felt isolated and made to think that they're 'broken' for seeing the cracks in their family and culture.
It also still irks me seeing the boys that were raised by Jill and still defending Josh (while also criticizing and liking public criticisms against Jill on Facebook). They don't even know how badly they've been let down by their parents and Bill Gothard.
21
u/frozengreengrapess 6h ago
People saying this applies to everyone equally are missing the point . There’s an implied statement of what “neutral” attire is, and, surprise surprise, that’s aligned with the Christian standard of what’s acceptable to wear. IMO, there’s a difference between promoting your religion and just practicing your religion. They’re essentially making a religious practice illegal. Plus, there’s only some religions the have rules on what you can wear, so they will be penalized more harshly by this law.
To me, it’s like saying “nobody can promote their political beliefs,” but using it to ban gay teachers talking about their spouses. Is that promoting a stance, or just having one?
8
u/BezugssystemCH1903 6h ago
Which religions are excluded from this, and please provide a source?
→ More replies (3)
85
u/Dwarfinator1 11h ago
A lot of really anti-religious idiots here thinking that a Christian wearing or not wearing a cross (that isn't even required by their religion) is somehow the same as a Muslim woman wearing a hijab or a Sikh man wearing a turban.
I'm not the most religious person, I do think many religions have a lot of issues, but come the fuck on, this kinda shit obviously targets certain religions and people more than others.
→ More replies (45)17
u/Krobbleygoop 11h ago
I think everyone is just fed up with religion period. Americas trump mania was just the final nail in the coffin for most people.
We are realizing that it has no benefit in modern society and should be done away with.
→ More replies (23)
10
u/aikidharm 7h ago
What problem are they solving here?
Also, this is a quote from someone featured in the article:
“And I would go even further: each of us has the right not to be served by a veiled person if it makes us uncomfortable.”
So, again… What problem are they solving? Are they struggling with religious violence and extremism? Is there a problematic pattern being observed? Because this seems motivated more by personal distaste than as a solution to any current issue.
I know many people hate religion and the religious, particularly in the US, and there is good reason for this. But making laws governing the mere appearance of someone religious who has done nothing except wear a veil, that’s just an obvious example of becoming the thing you hate.
I was raised in and abused by a religious cult. I ran away as a teenager. I am not pro-indoctrination or religion where it doesn’t belong. But I have witnessed things like this before, and they are always motivated by intolerance and fear, it’s just the secular population doing it in this example.
33
6
u/Django_McFly 7h ago
Switzerland closed its door to Jews fleeing the Nazi's and Jews bare a lot more in common culturally and visually to the Swiss than your average Muslim. I'm not sure what people were expecting to happen here.
3
u/TwoColdBeers 5h ago
Some countries enforce headscarves whilst some ban them…
7
u/sernameistakentry 4h ago
Both are oppressive, but Redditors will ignore the latter.
→ More replies (1)
17
u/Big_Watercress_6210 10h ago
Reddit is allllll about individual freedom until people make a different choice.
→ More replies (1)
6
u/VariousEducation6207 5h ago
What's with Europe and its inability to accept freedom of expression? A teacher who wears a hijab isn't indoctrinating anyone, just as a teacher wearing a suit isn't
2
u/Tuepflischiiser 3h ago
A teacher is a role model. And freedom of expression is not limitless, but applies to your personal time.
With your argument, a teacher would actually be allowed to proseletyze in class, because, you know, freedom of expression.
What the teacher does in her free time is mostly up to her, but during teaching, I expect a laicistic approach.
9
u/Midgetcookies 4h ago
The only reason the Swiss make chocolate is to distract us from all the blood diamonds and Nazi gold. - Sean Locke
7
u/UltimateRembo 4h ago
Good. Everyone whining about this, and making dishonest comparisons to defend misogynistic religious clothing in schools, can cope and seethe.
14
u/SmallPromiseQueen 11h ago
Is this not just free rein to discriminate against women who wear scarves? No one is going to change their religion or stop wearing a head scarf that they feel is culturally or religiously important to them for a job offer. It just means those women won’t be employed.
If you feel that encouraging women to cover their hair is sexist you’re just kind of doubling down on sexism by denying them job opportunities.
I don’t see why someone wearing a head scarf or not affects their ability to teach whatsoever.
5
u/doomerunicorn 4h ago
Wouldn't it be great if people would stop dictating what women may or may not wear? Burkas are one thing, because they obscure a person's face, and teachers should be easily identified by students and colleagues. But a headscarf? That's not negatively affecting anyone, and they can actually be practical at times, not just religious. What will they do if a non-hijabi Muslim teacher gets cancer and starts wearing a headscarf to cover hair loss? This seems discriminatory af, in multiple ways.
→ More replies (2)
10
u/TheFifthPhoenix 10h ago
There's a difference between discrimination in language and discrimination in practice. You can look to a classic example from the US with Jim Crow laws after slavery ended that only allowed you to vote if you could read. This applied equally to ALL people, but effectively discriminated against former slaves who were previously forbidden to learn how to read. Similarly, while this regulation about religious wear applies equally to ALL religions, it will effectively discriminate against those whose religions have some requirement for clothing.
I wouldn't, but you can argue that the discrimination is a worthwhile cost to prevent school children from having a teacher wearing a turban or a headscarf.
→ More replies (1)
4
u/here_iam_or_ami 6h ago
I love that sentence: “school is a neutral safe space that’s above religion.”
Oh how i wish that ideal for where I live.
8
u/EvenLettuce6638 10h ago
The Canton we're talking about here is literally called Saint Gallen. "No overt religious symbols" my ass.
18
u/ohhellperhaps 10h ago
I'm all for a strict separation of Church and State, but if you really believe this was about that and not targeting a specific religious group I have a bridge to sell you. It's just a convenient excuse. "Both rich and poor people are not allowed to sleep under bridges".
→ More replies (2)
38
8
u/Live-Ad-1620 12h ago
Ok, just to be clear, we have this argument of HIJAB in France since 2002. And guess what, nothing change !!!
24 years of hate and bullshit everyday in TV.
→ More replies (2)
12
u/tupiao 10h ago
you see, the fact that this law primarily prevents black and brown people from working is a coincidence! it's not by design! that would be racist!
→ More replies (3)3
u/shrimp_sticks 2h ago edited 2h ago
What's interesting is that this thinking of "them wearing that religious item is forcing it on others and indoctrination" that people in these comments are expressing is the EXACT SAME process of reasoning used by the right wing towards LGBTQ+ symbols.
"This rainbow crosswalk is indoctrinating my kids!!!" or "teachers wearing pride pins are forcing it down our kids' throats!!!" The EXACT same thought process used by the right wing is being used in these comments right now.
No, simply displaying a symbol of religion or a symbol of the LGBTQ+ movement on YOUR own body is NOT forcing it on anyone or indoctrinating other people who happen to see you wearing it. This isn't solving a problem, it's just perpetuating a culture of intolerance and pulls straight from the far right playbook. Good job guys, we really showed them 🙄.
I am 100% pro banning religious symbols in classrooms, schools, and government buildings, as they have no place in being displayed in/on environments meant to be neutral and inclusive (and I mean on walls, doors, furniture, windows, desks, etc). However, I am 100% against policing what people wear on their OWN bodies (with the exception of swear words and genuine hate symbols, obviously). Banning people from wearing those symbols or articles of clothing on their OWN bodies is a huge step in the completely WRONG direction and will only create a society of intolerance to anyone different from others. The focus should be in teaching acceptance of others and not expecting others to be like you. This stupid policy/law changes nothing.
We all know, even those who want to pretend like it wouldn't, that these policies would absolutely disproportionately affect people of certain ethnicities, and crosses the line into enforced racism territory. I admit, I am Christian, but I make it no one's business and I am pro LGBTQ+, anti-racism, pro-choice, left leaning, etc.
I will always fight for people's freedom to express themselves through what they wear without discrimination. I will always fight for a teacher's right to wear things in support of pride, be it the pride flag, trans flag, rainbows, etc. I will always fight for a Muslim's right to wear their hijab, for a Sikh to wear their Turban, for a Christian to wear their cross.
I will also always recognize and point out the fact that laws like these would not affect someone like me if brought in where I live, as I already don't wear a cross and my religion doesn't require me to, but other religions may require you wear a certain item. It would not affect me, but it would affect others, and I don't stand for that.
It begs the question, what will they police next? What if you wanted to wear a headscarf because it's a hot, sunny day? What if you wear crosses simply because you have a Gothic type style or just like the look despite being atheist? How does one enforce this without severe infringement of people's freedom of expression? It's a slippery slope, but people just don't want to think about that because they'd rather practice the same methods used by their opposition (the right wing), since it conveniently applies to others and not themselves this time. The hypocrisy is astounding.
2
2
10
u/Szeharazade 12h ago
Separate religion and state please, also no more religieus schools.
Religion is something you do in your own time or weekend.
6
u/justabofh 5h ago
Sunday as a holiday is a Christian thing. Move the weekend to Monday and Tuesday.
Of course, separating religion and state would require Switzerland to change their flag.
2
u/Szeharazade 3h ago
It used to resemble christianity now it is just a big plus and for most people christmas is not about baby Jezus anymore or the virgin Mary, but just a nice winter holiday celebrated by a nice tree.
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (1)2
u/bluejay_feather 2h ago
You do understand that this is a value entirely informed by Christian norms right? Christians go to church on weekends, Christians wear "secular" clothing, and do not cover their hair.
You need to evaluate how your beliefs are informed by religious history before you make claims that religion is being excluded. This idea that religion should be private, personal and kept out of the work week means a christian is totally unaffected while a Muslim faces discrimination. Is that fair?
A country with a Muslim history that moves away from the religion could still maintain headscarves as an expectation for women- because "normal" beliefs exist within a wider social context.
11
u/Gossip_Guy20 10h ago
Only Swiss citizens should decide whats good for Switzerland and if thats their decision, get on with it
→ More replies (2)20
u/Wickedstank 9h ago
This mindset can be used to justify anything. You can have principles about how countries laws should be despite what the majority thinks.
6
u/volvavirago 9h ago
Exactly. People have voted for and enacted plenty of horrible things before, it’s valid to object to a decision even if it’s popular. I personally have mixed feelings about this ruling, but this reasoning for dismissing criticism is total bullshit.
7
u/Gossip_Guy20 9h ago edited 9h ago
It is not about the mindset it is about democracy and the existence of nation state itself. When a democracy decides something for the nation state, it should be followed by it's citizen. No one can complain about what people wear in countries where it is acceptable to wear certain type of clothing because that is what the people of that country wants and similarly we can't complain if some other country choose to ban it, because that is what their citizen want. Criticism should not override nation's law.
There are certain decisions in which some sort of global law should be followed(Diplomatic purposes, international trade,etc..) but what people wear or not wear is not in that category
6
u/BekaRenee 9h ago
I’m fairly certain history has revealed that men who worship money are more dangerous than women in headscarves
Edit: spelling
1.9k
u/BrahesElk 11h ago
The headline only mentions headscarves but the story states
which seems a lot more fair.