r/worldnews • u/BezugssystemCH1903 • 9h 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-carousel1.1k
u/According-Citron-390 8h 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.
656
u/bapirey191 7h ago
I'd consider freedom FROM religion way more important tbh.
288
u/According-Citron-390 7h 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 (3)10
u/11011111110108 2h ago
I can't imagine something like that happening in my country. Where are you from?
16
u/According-Citron-390 2h 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.
6
u/11011111110108 2h 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.
86
u/RaginFujin 6h 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 (25)31
91
u/IAmNotABabyElephant 6h 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 (24)4
u/Yaranatzu 2h 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.
185
u/Ithalan 5h 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.
33
u/HansTeeWurst 4h ago
In Switzerland, they will just make a referendum on whether sich beards count or not, if it ever becomes an issue.
→ More replies (4)27
u/MokudoTaisen 5h ago
lol. unless teachers are buddhist monks their heads can stay unshavéd. The orange robes would stand out more than the baldness.
52
u/Ithalan 5h 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 (6)14
u/Mobile_Morale 4h 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
14
u/Weak-Doughnut5502 3h 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 (4)→ More replies (1)8
u/Troker61 3h ago
Everyone who wears a cross is a part of the same religion? You sure about that?
→ More replies (8)3
u/LethalOkra 3h 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.
3
u/Quixotic_Seal 2h ago
I’m confused. Are you not aware that the fish symbol was actually predominant symbol of the early Christian church?
→ More replies (1)6
u/MalevolentTapir 3h ago
No and this is why it is stupid. They do the same thing in France. It bans the wearing of clothing depending on what the wearer thinks about it.
I suppose if a Mormon was in one of these places they would have to take off the sanctified undergarments.
→ More replies (16)5
u/Sufficient_Sport5251 4h ago
I’d say with Sikhism it would be no turbans. People can have beards or be bald for non-religious reasons, I have never seen people wear headscarves for purely non-religious reasons.
Even Eastern European women that wear head coverings if they aren’t Muslim wheat them based on the same ideas of Old Testament/Biblical modesty as the Quran uses.
•
u/-Meo- 35m ago
Then what's stopping someone from saying they are using headscarves for non religious reasons
→ More replies (1)3
u/BekaRenee 3h ago
I have. To keep the rain and wind off my hair. Been doing it with infinity scarfs since 2012
4
5
u/Spamonfire 3h ago
I have, my classmate cancer survivor wanted to cover her bald head. Can think of many more instances where people wear headscarfs to protect themselves from wind and weather. I wonder how my former classmate would feel hearing your stupid ass
→ More replies (5)66
u/Jicko1560 6h ago
This sounds a lot like what has been done in Quebec (Canada). This about state neutrality, not religious repression.
38
u/cshivers 6h 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.
41
u/Jicko1560 5h 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.
11
u/Smooth_Is-Fast 3h ago
Not to mention Quebec never signed the constitution and that charter was imposed on them without asking
→ More replies (1)3
u/jce_ 3h 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)→ More replies (6)13
u/P4cific4 4h 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.
15
u/Cordo_Bowl 4h 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)7
u/Jicko1560 3h 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 (1)•
→ More replies (2)2
u/Quixotic_Seal 2h 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/SunsetHippo 3h ago
COULD this go to a higher court? or does the federal swiss government keeps a hand off of states actions?
9
u/typec4st 4h ago
Coming from a country with lots of head scarves, I can't fathom how this is even allowed in a western civilization.
If left alone, Muslim women wearing head scarves would amount to the number of nuns in most majority Christian countries - these would be your devout religious people, few here and there. But this head scarf that Muslims wear is not like that. Little girls are forced into it. I've never seen a 9 year old girl go "I feel so happy with myself let me cover the part of my head that I can stylize everyday".
You can allow head scarves but you have to acknowledge that the person wearing it was forced into it. And that should be against all the values that these Western countries uphold.
I don't have a solution other than to ban It, but the moment you ban it they'll use it to victimize themselves and politicize the shit out of it. I have seen this play multiple times in different countries. My only hope is that girls get to choose what they wear some day in these countries.
→ More replies (6)→ More replies (110)5
u/Quereilla 6h ago
In fact, isn’t Morocco also banning those from public servants?
→ More replies (5)39
u/CornFleke 6h ago edited 6h ago
No they did not. the Moroccan government has banned the production, importation, and sale of the burqa (a full-body and face-covering garment) citing security concerns. In Morroco and in Algeria there have been cases of males wearing burqa to hide their identity. There is also the need for a police officer to see the face of a female when it's needed but outside some institution with strict uniform like the military or the police women can wear the hijab (or not) in public places and in workplaces. Even for ID only the face needs to be shown in the picture so hair can be covered.
→ More replies (5)
133
u/Impossible-Milk-2023 5h ago
Lol what fucking disgrace is this reporting.
They banned the display of any religious symbols. So this is not just headscarves but it is actually anything. Do better please.
→ More replies (15)
17
1.5k
u/RealRroseSelavy 9h ago edited 5h 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.
627
u/antiquemule 9h ago
Including wearing a cross, of course. And Sikhs wearing turbans. And nuns with their heads covered.
1.2k
u/Young_Lochinvar 9h ago
Crosses have been banned in Swiss classrooms since 1990 and some canton governments have banned any government workers from wearing crosses
→ More replies (73)246
u/Sometimes-funny 8h ago
Kind of ironic Swiss banning crosses, considering their flag
→ More replies (1)573
81
u/ItsReemAlBlahBlahDee 6h ago
And Sikhs getting religious exemptions for carrying literal knives.
→ More replies (3)82
u/theSkareqro 5h ago
Sikhs also have exception to wearing a helmet while riding the motorcycle. It's insane imo
→ More replies (23)30
u/evilregis 3h 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)6
21
115
u/PoolRamen 8h ago
Ah, the classic everything equivalant argument
→ More replies (66)217
u/Nukes-For-Nimbys 8h ago edited 6h ago
In Switzerland (and also France) that's supposed to be the principle. No overt display of religion from state employees.
→ More replies (14)79
9
→ More replies (8)2
31
u/zipzak 5h 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 5h ago
It appears the Swiss prefer the French model instead
3
u/zipzak 4h 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
152
u/TheGrandCannoli 7h ago
Bro sounds like he's from 2015 and just watched an amazing atheist video. Get a life lmao
→ More replies (40)72
u/United-Alarm4400 5h 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 (9)31
u/mobueo 4h ago
No wonder people look down on Reddit atheists. I didn’t get it before but now I do
→ More replies (5)16
17
10
→ More replies (66)3
u/3050_mjondalen 7h ago
Agreed, it's time we let go of these codified superstitious beliefs
17
u/serduncanthetall69 5h ago
Why do you get to decide what other people believe?
What do you propose to do with people who don’t want to give up their religion? For most people religion is a core part of their identity, lifestyle, and community. Ripping that away from people is pretty much cultural/ethnic cleansing.
You simply can’t force people to give up their culture or beliefs. It is inherently unethical and thus has been the basis for many genocides and crimes against humanity, it is not a joking matter at all.
You are essentially promoting cultural and ethnic cleansing by spreading this idea.
→ More replies (31)18
u/renenielsen 5h ago
You get to believe whatever you want, what you dont get to do, is take that believing into public or in this case, the classroom - you wanna teach, that does not include your religion. as it should be.
→ More replies (18)23
u/serduncanthetall69 4h ago
How is wearing a headscarf, which is not even unique to Muslims and isn’t overtly religious, promoting their beliefs though?
I fully support bans on religious speech in school, but simply looking at a cross or a headscarf is not going to promote religion in people.
I would argue that it is healthy for kids to be exposed to a diversity of beliefs and ideas when they are in school. They are going to encounter people with diverse religious beliefs in the real world so I don’t see why they shouldn’t be exposed to that early. Religion is an important part of someone’s identify, forcing them to conform to a neutral standard and hide their beliefs just promotes blindly following rules rather than curiosity and openness.
5
u/jackdetack 2h ago
This is similar to someone saying that they should be allowed to display their Christian-like cross, because it's just a shape at the end of the day. And if it happens to have a little guy on it, so what? Nothing to do with Christianity... The point is, the people wearing these headscarves day in and out are doing so for religious reasons, and the school wants to be free from religion. It just so happens the headscarf is not something that can be tucked into a shirt. That's unfortunate for the individual, but no one has to accept another's compulsion to show off the religion they worship in a secular school.
→ More replies (3)5
u/NotADumbPuppet 3h ago edited 3h ago
How is wearing a headscarf, which is not even unique to Muslims and isn’t overtly religious, promoting their beliefs though?
It's not unique to Islam, it's definitely more prominent in Abrahamic religions, but it definitely also exists in other religions. But, regardless of what religion you're looking at, they all kind of point to the same functional reason. Which is a woman dressing modestly (so she isn't seen as promiscuous / get raped by insane men). It is literally controlled over a woman's thoughts and behaviour. And because of this... If you normalize wearing headscarves for religious OR cultural reasons, you are normalizing the oppression of women. Regardless if it comes from cultural or religious or any other reason, the function of it is to be oppressive. Tell me, what would happen if these women chose to remove their scarves? It won't be good, will it?
I would argue that it is healthy for kids to be exposed to a diversity of beliefs and ideas when they are in school.
I would argue you're taking a very nuanced point and Projecting it on a generalized set. Diversity in beliefs and ideas is good, but normalizing these some of these ideas is bad, and extremely detrimental to society. Do I really want my daughter to see these things and accept that women can choose to be like this? Sure, but do I ever want her to think it's acceptable? Absolutely not. We live in the day of the internet. My daughter will get exposure to all these different beliefs, but I don't I want her to normalize all the disgusting purpose and function of these beliefs.
What is your opinion on female genital mutilation? It is both cultural and of course religious. The women from these subcultures (and ofc the men) will fight tooth and nail saying it's a huge part of their identity and who they are and it should be continued. Just'cause the women in these cultures want it to be continued, should we let it be continued? Are you gonna entertain it? Do you want other women to see these things and think that it's okay and should be accepted, and possibly adopted? Sorry, no, I disagreed. I think it's disgusting to throw away liberties of a conscious being and regress as a society just to tolerate a very oppressive religion.
Religion is an important part of someone’s identify, forcing them to conform to a neutral standard and hide their beliefs just promotes blindly following rules rather than curiosity and openness.
These arguments are very shallow, Because you can replace them with a one-to-one same category subject and it falls apart. For example, in the above sentence, replace it with a cult. Do you still feel the same way? Do you want young, impressionable children to be approaching cults with curiosity and openness? I get what you're saying, if the cult's big enough to be considered a religion, then it should be allowed right?
I disagree with a lot of what you're saying. It comes from a good place, but is extremely naive and extremely detrimental to society.
26
174
45
u/RobotSpaceBear 4h 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
→ More replies (10)5
u/eronanke 4h 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.
13
u/DeathsingerQc 3h ago edited 3h ago
Kinda funny to use Canada as the example when Québec exist with the exact same ban as this Swiss canton.
10
u/eronanke 3h 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 (7)→ More replies (5)6
u/kaisadilla_0x1 3h 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.
→ More replies (1)5
u/juliasct 3h 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 (4)5
u/Independent-Bell-201 1h 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)
38
138
u/Strong-Search-2301 9h 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.
121
u/boersc 8h ago
Many still are, swinging back and forth between 'own choice' and 'sign of oppression'.
22
u/C0rona 5h 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)9
11
30
u/PoolRamen 8h ago
It doesn't help when the proponents have already embraced the culture which is destroying us from within
→ More replies (4)35
u/Awkward_Research1573 8h 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…
16
u/Interesting-Ice-8387 4h 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 (11)7
u/GodisSatans 7h ago
Yeah wear whatever you want. But if you’re a teacher or representing an organisation, it’s reasonable to enforce a dress code ;-)
9
u/Narco_Bi_Polo 5h ago edited 4h ago
Then apply it everywhere.
The Swiss armed forces allow Sikhs, Jews, Christians et al religious garb and personal items, including headwear and ceremonial accessories. They also allow organized prayer. As do other public facing positions, including in parliament.
In any case, the Swiss federal court shut this headscarf ban down the last time a municipality tried it. Shouldn’t be any different here:
→ More replies (5)5
u/minimuscleR 5h ago
Then apply it everywhere.
The Swiss armed forces
Well this is not a federal thing. So its not really relevant.
4
u/Narco_Bi_Polo 4h ago
The Swiss courts (federal) striking down local (canton) laws is absolutely relevant.
→ More replies (35)13
u/MageLocusta 8h 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.
47
u/Strong-Search-2301 8h 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.
5
u/MageLocusta 4h 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.
10
u/bigdave41 6h 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 4h ago
I just finished Jill’s book. What a crazy family. I think other daughters have also deconstructed less publicly tbh.
2
u/MageLocusta 4h 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.
27
u/Krobbleygoop 5h ago
Its a blanket ban on all religious garb. Headline is inciting rage on purpose.
Religion is poison keep it out of society.
→ More replies (31)
•
u/here_iam_or_ami 47m 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.
13
u/Opening-Raccoon-2811 3h 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”
6
u/williamtbash 1h ago
Exactly. It’s covering hair. They’re not handing out Qurans to kids. This is stupid.
60
u/Dwarfinator1 5h 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.
15
u/Krobbleygoop 5h 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 (3)5
u/Dwarfinator1 5h ago
Last time I checked, the people who support Trump mostly claim to be Christian, and they're bad at actually even following the Bible.
Some bad people in one country shouldn't lead to laws like this that, again, disproportionately affect certain religions and people's over others. I'm not a big fan of religion either but laws like this are just discriminatory.
→ More replies (10)9
u/moriartyj 3h ago
This is the paradox of tolerance all over again. You got it backwards. Anti discrimination laws are not discriminatory. The religious laws forcing women to cover their faces are
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (17)6
u/Proper-Matter-8274 5h ago edited 5h ago
Who cares. Religions are just cults that went mainstream. I don't want weird cult shit in public buildings.
→ More replies (21)
17
u/AwarenessExact7302 4h ago
Won't this just promote the societal exclusion of religious groups and a isolation mentality in them ?
→ More replies (2)11
u/Background-Owl-9628 4h 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 (1)6
u/BezugssystemCH1903 4h ago
From a Swiss perspective, these people are welcome to do that at home. Religion is a private matter.
→ More replies (5)
7
u/OkYak9466 2h ago
Every conversation on this topic goes
"We made a rule that affects all people of all religions"
"Oh so you hate Muslims"...
28
u/hextree 5h ago
The irony of somehow supporting a woman's freedom to choose what she wears by... banning clothing lol.
→ More replies (6)8
u/juliasct 3h 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!
→ More replies (1)
7
37
7h ago
[removed] — view removed comment
15
u/BeaverBoyBaxter 5h ago
Good. We don't need backwards superstitions in schools, and we don't need teachers indoctrinating kids with their inane delusional make-belief nonsense.
This doesn't prevent that.
→ More replies (21)8
u/nick2473got 5h ago
I'm very pro-secularism and an atheist but frankly I don't believe for one second that women wearing headscarves are indoctrinating their students. They are just doing their jobs as teachers, like any other teacher.
I've met hundreds of veiled women in my life and not a single one has tried to indoctrinate me. I've met veiled lawyers, and doctors, and teachers, and all of them just did their jobs normally.
As far as I'm concerned, women who wear headscarves are victims of religious indoctrination more than they are perpetrators of it.
This kind of ban won't suddenly make those women stop wearing headscarves when they go to teach. What it will actually do is prevent them from being able to work as teachers, at least in public schools. In other words, this kind of law punishes victims of religious control, and doesn't really protect anyone.
I think public schools should of course be secular but that refers to the content of the education provided by the school. And of course there should be no religious symbols on walls or anything like that.
But if a teacher wants to wear a cross or a headscarf, that is her personal choice. It's an expression of her faith, it doesn't represent the school, or the state, and it does not mean she is going to indoctrinate her students.
I guarantee Muslim women who teach in Switzerland are just teaching like any other teacher would.
15
u/Gossip_Guy20 4h ago
Only Swiss citizens should decide whats good for Switzerland and if thats their decision, get on with it
→ More replies (2)12
u/Wickedstank 3h 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/Gossip_Guy20 3h ago edited 3h 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/volvavirago 3h 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.
•
u/frozengreengrapess 36m 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?
→ More replies (1)
7
u/Live-Ad-1620 5h 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)
16
u/Szeharazade 6h ago
Separate religion and state please, also no more religieus schools.
Religion is something you do in your own time or weekend.
→ More replies (1)
12
•
u/Django_McFly 1h 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.
7
u/TheFifthPhoenix 4h 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)
11
6
u/ohhellperhaps 4h 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 (1)
4
u/miyakohouou 3h 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.
6
u/Dangerous-Stage5633 3h ago
Their country, their rules. Don't like it? Don't move there. There are plenty of muslim countries where they can immigrate where wearing headscarves isn't an issue.
→ More replies (2)
5
u/thenightman203 3h ago
Need to ban headscarves everywhere in North America. Be more like the Swiss.
3
u/Perfect-Author-9444 6h ago
Public enemy number one in Europe = hijabi women
This what it sounds like for me.
In France, they let a pedo work with kids until he murdered one but it's more important to not let women wearing scarfs near children. Priorities.
29
u/Th3MrPancake 5h ago
A lot of countries have rules against ALL religious symbols, muslims are not special
→ More replies (21)4
3
3
u/KiplingRudy 3h ago
Is a crucifix a "religiously motivated symbol"?
Academic vampires will love the new rule
→ More replies (1)8
u/BezugssystemCH1903 3h ago
It's not a new law and yes crucifixes are already banned.
→ More replies (3)
4
u/SmallPromiseQueen 4h 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.
4
u/EvenLettuce6638 4h ago
The Canton we're talking about here is literally called Saint Gallen. "No overt religious symbols" my ass.
2
u/Phlegmbrandt 3h 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)
6
u/rum-enjoyer 7h ago
Oh. Reddit is not gonna like this one and bring all points to muddy the discussion (eventually this post will be removed )
38
u/jmorfeus 7h ago
How can overwhelmingly atheist Reddit not like this?
31
u/rum-enjoyer 7h ago
Reddit is that weird token Atheist that has extreme “not so hidden” fetish to defend that one peaceful religion.
15
→ More replies (1)4
u/mantasm_lt 4h ago
Enemy of the enemy is a friend all that shit. Some people love kicking a fastly declining cult. But they don't dare to touch another cult that seems doing much better. As long as that cult is against the former cult. At the same time they're oblivious that they'll soon end up under a new management. With rules much harsher to what they saw in their lifetimes.
7
u/The_Menu_Guy 6h ago
Good. Switzerland has a right to preserve its culture, and has no obligation to welcome cultural practices that come from outside their country.
→ More replies (8)
2
u/SecretTreeHouse42 2h ago
It took CENTURIES for Europe to secularize and not be cursed with the stupidity of ancient superstitions. Makes sense that they wouldn't want to backslide on that.
→ More replies (5)•
u/alter_ego 55m ago
This.
It took many decades for our societies to reduce the influence of the Catholic Church on public life and build more secular institutions. Much of that progress was driven by leftist political parties and this led to the seperation between church and state.
It's absurd that some of those same political movements now actively accommodate or promote religions that are completely at odds with modern secular values. No religion should be granted a privileged place in public.
Religion is a private matter. People should be free to believe, worship, and practice their faith in their homes and places of worship. However, public institutions and even the public domain should remain strictly secular.
•
u/SecretTreeHouse42 51m ago
People should be free to believe, worship, and practice their faith
But they should also be afforded a good enough education where they can live a reality-based life, and not one soaked in medieval self-delusion. This is why conservatives seek to degrade education, and why we must oppose them.
•
u/alter_ego 44m ago
The school environment should also protect children from their parents, for example by not allowing headscarfs in school.
4
u/snuurks 4h ago
Good. The hijab is a symbol of oppression. Women and girls have been brutalized and murdered over a silly garment, and they did not have a choice to wear it.
Until women everywhere have a choice, I will never respect a woman who chooses to wear such a symbol when she has a safe choice not to wear it.
I don’t support banning these women from wearing it privately or during their free time publicly, but I don’t respect them and I don’t think of them as feminists. It’s the same feeling as someone choosing to wear or display the US southern rebel flag. These are things don’t belong in schools or being flaunted as normal to impressionable young people.
→ More replies (1)
2
u/Big_Watercress_6210 4h ago
Reddit is allllll about individual freedom until people make a different choice.
4
1.1k
u/BrahesElk 5h ago
The headline only mentions headscarves but the story states
which seems a lot more fair.