Just ban religion
Amen to that!
A law banning one religion’s symbology is always going to be a bad time for everyone. As seen with other burqa bans, this will just cause division, which is exactly what the originators of the bill are looking for. Shame that level heads didn’t prevail. Again.
It’s weird for me to be defending the right to wear a burqa. I think extreme religious practices like this are silly and need to be modernised, and I particularly think that teaching women and girls to “cover their beauty” is disgraceful. But this is not the way to fix it. This just makes it worse, aggravating divisions and entrenching views. Fuck your burqa ban.
I am in favour of banning the burqa, but I think it’s particularly funny that the guys who are supposedly all about individual freedom (iniciativa liberal, despite the name they are much closer to libertarians) at least in their propaganda voted in favour of banning face-covering in public (which is what the law actually refers to, because in Portugal, for the time being, it is unconstitutional to ban a specific religious item).
I think the face-covering law is specifically targeting the religious item, especially considering the exceptions to the rule.
If a country banned any pointed objects from being worn around the neck, in case it could be used as a weapon, say, we would all know that was a ban on the crucifix. I believe it’s just a smokescreen, like the surveillance laws being masqueraded as child-protection.I would be in favour of banning the use of the crucifix in public too. Not because I think it’s a dangerous object, but because I believe religion should remain at home or in a place specifically designated for that purpose.
Yes, I agree that in an ideal world, religions would not be part of society. However- forcing the issue in our current societies with a top-down ban is absolutely never going to work. People will rebel against this kind of oppression of what they believe, deeply (however foolishly), is their truth and their duty to an omnipotent being.
Education and connection to the rest of the world is the solution to that problem. These things dull religious fervour. But people have been religious for at least as long as we have been able to write. There’s no erasing that in a short few generations, let alone a single election cycle.
Very much agree with this. The end result might actually be that women and girls won’t be allowed to go out at all, which isn’t great.
More than likely in some cases.
And I don’t see any potential positive end results for anyone except bigots.
Reminder that the problem with Islam isn’t that they force women to cover themselves, it’s that apostasy is punished so severely that secular women would rather put up with the burqas. If a woman genuinely believes in Islam, she should have the right to practice her religion.
As an American, I don’t have a whole lot to be proud of, but I’ll be damned if I don’t think every country deserves First Amendment rights
So no more face masks during a respiratory pandemic? 🤦
Edit: Apparently people didn’t read the article. The proposed law was modified to forbid all sorts of face covering and the terms are so vague that is absolutely includes N95 masks and similar.
It specifically allows face coverings for:
-
Health, professional, artistic, entertainment or advertising reasons;
-
Places of worship and diplomatic and consular premises, as well as aircraft;
-
Weather conditions, security reasons or other situations provided for by law.
-
Reminds me when such a law was passed in Austria, and people started phoning in people dressed as ninjas and animal mascots in malls and amusement parks
Removed by mod
Why is this bad?
Because it isn’t a ban on burqas (which alone would also be problematic on grounds of religious freedom), but a general ban on all face covering in public. And this should be obviously a problem both for health reasons (respiratory masks) and video surveillance with face recognition.
So there are no exemptions in case of necessary medical devices?
yes there are. Exceptions:
-
Health, professional, artistic, entertainment or advertising reasons;
-
Places of worship and diplomatic and consular premises, as well as aircraft;
-
Weather conditions, security reasons or other situations provided for by law.
-
I have not checked the details in the actual law, so maybe.
It might not be, or it might, but I somehow don’t believe that the far-right who proposed this had the well-being of women and girls in mind.
Ok ? Does this matter? It still seems like a good idea. How are you supposed to identify someone if they commit a crime? If it was a mask it would be illegal
The wellbeing of women and girls matters, yes.
In fact, their wellbeing (along with everyone else’s) is exactly why you would be trying to stop crime in the first place.
How are you supposed to identify someone if they commit a crime?
They’re wearing a fucking burka FFS, it’s a pretty good way to identify a person. It’s about as easy as it gets. Also, have you ever tried to run from the cops in one of those things? It’s a fool who chooses that as their getaway clothing.
If everyone wears a burqa, how are you meant to tell one person apart from another
Everyone doesn’t wear a burqa though. The vast majority of people don’t. So, if a crime is committed by someone wearing one, it will be much easier for the police to find them than it would be by recognising the details of their faces.
So, under ‘international law’, is it now legal to invade Portugal and stop them oppressing their women? Or does that only apply if they have proven oil reserves?
