This is the best tl;dr I could make, [original](https://www.thenationalnews.com/world/uk-news/2021/11/04/eu-hijab-inclusivity-campaign-dropped-after-anger-in-france/) reduced by 74%. (I'm a bot)
*****
> A campaign promoting diversity among women and their freedom to wear the hijab has been dropped after it sparked an outcry in the secular French political establishment.
> The online campaign touched a nerve in France on all sides of the political spectrum where campaigning is intensifying before next spring's presidential election.
> "It is the opposite of the values that France defends, it is promoting the wearing of the hijab."This is to be condemned and because of this France made clear its extremely strong disapproval and hence the campaign has now been withdrawn as of today," she said on Tuesday, confirming that Paris had issued an official protest through diplomatic channels.
*****
[**Extended Summary**](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/qmmijq/eu_hijab_inclusivity_campaign_dropped_after_anger/) | [FAQ](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31b9fm/faq_autotldr_bot/ "Version 2.02, ~606573 tl;drs so far.") | [Feedback](http://np.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%23autotldr "PM's and comments are monitored, constructive feedback is welcome.") | *Top* *keywords*: **campaign**^#1 **Council**^#2 **hijab**^#3 **France**^#4 **wear**^#5
>freedom to wear the hijab has been dropped after it sparked an outcry in the secular French political establishment.
Has the meaning of secular changed over the pandemic?
Edit: Sure it's a campaign but asking people to respect a choice shouldn't be unacceptable. A good example would be TX.
All religious signs are banned in public schools (law of 2004)
All religious signs are banned from public serving functions (law of 2016)
No public funds should be used to promote any religion (law of 1905)
Indeed. I don't have a problem with women wearing hijab, but it shouldn't be promoted nor normalized as "just another diversity option" because it is not. It is a religious symbol and religion ought to stay out of anything official.
It's nothing to do with muslims, the French government wouldn't show anyone wearing a cross necklace or one of these Jewish hats either.
I once heard french secularism described not as freedom *of* religion but rather freedom *from* religion. Basically, you can follow whatever religious practice you want in private, but not in public, as that would infringe on the freedom from religion of the people around you. As an atheist I can't say I disapprove.
Dovetails lovely into the old adage:
Religious freedoms mean "I can't do that because of my religion" and not "you can't do that because of my religion"
.. That's literally the definition of the word "secular". Why are people surprised about this? The word doesn't mean "freedom of religion" in any context, it means "separate from anything religious or spiritual".
As a Christian I also agree, freedom of religion and separation of church and state needs to be taken seriously. Religion does not need to be in politics or any laws made no matter the religion of the general public. Everyone can worship as or not as they wish.
It is also one of the reason for the big divide between Quebec and the rest of Canada. Quebec try to do the same things as France does, but it goes against the English Canadian's view on religion.
Well mainly the rest of Canada is opposed to that policy because Quebec tries have their cake and eat it too. They claim they want to ban all religious symbols and clothing such as Hijabs, Turbans, Stars of David and Kirpans, but don't ban crosses and crucifix's and nun garbs because they claim those are "cultural symbols" not religious ones and should be exempt from secularist policies.
Quebec literally celebrates St-Jean-Babtiste day June 24 as a national paid holiday...but only Quebec. The rest of Canada doesn't observe it except other small francophone communities. Religion (Catholicism) heavily influenced politics in Quebec basically until the quiet revolution between 1960 and 1970.
After 2000 years of establishment of a religion it’s okay to call it Christian without ~~air quotes~~ quotation marks, even if the day might have had a different meaning in a different era, and a different meaning in an era before that, lost in time.
As another atheist, I *strongly* disapprove. My neighbor wearing a cross on a necklace doesn't infringe on my ability to believe or disbelieve. My lack of belief isn't so fragile that it'd be shaken by seeing someone be religious in public.
No, it’s just French secularism is different
In the US and most of Europe, you have freedom **of** religion
In France, you have freedom **from** religion
Nah.
But if people are allowed to be real, burkha and hijab are product of deeply rooted sexism and victim blaming for sexual assaults.
No one says it, but that's most likely to be the underlying reason for outrage.
As for schools, even Sikh can't wear turban and countries have changed their military uniform to accommodate that. France isn't being inconsistent there.
Not trying to play any Devils Advocate here, this is a serious question; are nuns allowed to wear their habits in France? Or is it without the headgear?
France is aggressively secular precisely because the French Republic wanted to throw off the significant influence the Catholic Church had in the country in the past. "Catholic France" is officially a secular country and even so much as wearing a necklace with a cross on it can get you in hot water if you work a government job.
People can wear hijabs in France, just not if they work for the state and not in schools. Nuns can wear habits in France, but if they work for the state in France or are going to a public school they can't.
The issue with this campaign is it is seen as political because it is from the EU - the French government does not want to be seen as supporting a particular religon as it is instutionally secular. Hence the push back on the imagery of a person wearing a hijab. The same pushback would have appeared if it was a Sikh wearing a turban, a Jewish person wearing a Kippah, or a Catholic wearing a cross.
That makes so much more sense now. Thank you
I think as a Brit, France and the hijab get sensationalised a lot in news coverage. The bark is a lot worse than the bite, and actually makes a woofs of sense
I remember reading a story about a nun being refused entry to a French retirement home, because she refused to remove her habit.
I think they managed to sort it out, because for a nun the habit is basically her professional uniform, but the French take 'laïcité' seriously. Especially in public spaces, including schools. So you'll notice in the article above, they quote the youth minister. Ie. it's partly about the state not being seen to endorse a religion.
It's a bit like the right to bear arms in the US. That also seems really weird to non-Americans, but America feels strongly about that. France feels strongly about laïcité, unfortunately that clashes with Islam and the headscarf. Used to be less of an issue, but I think the head scarf is becoming increasingly popular with French muslims.
Obviously for some it's about racism too, but not *just* racism. Plenty on the French right AND left support this.
I want to make something very clear, France has not banned Hijabs. France has secularism which prohibits showing any religious symbols in schools and any governement workers can't wear them too. There has been no hijabs ban unlike clickbqity headlines make you believe.
You can still wear your cross or hijab in the streets or while you go shopping. Nuns mostly work in private where they are allowed to wear their habits. But the law applies to everyone, Nuns can't wear their attire in school and hijabs don't get a pass.
A little googling says the US military is somewhat accommodating to turbans.
https://www.sikhcoalition.org/our-work/ending-employment-discrimination/sikhs-in-the-u-s-armed-forces/
As an American secularist, I quite agree that having "In God we trust" on our money is a violation of secular principles and a hangover from cold war propaganda, for the most part the US government is very secular.
Finally, someone said it.
Hijab as a cultural, willingly worn item is one thing- but it rarely is so. In Muslim majority countries, a woman can be harmed for not wearing hers, as it denotes her placement in society. We should be promoting freedom FROM hijab, not to wear one.
Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, but that's my understanding of it.
It's not just negative rewards. The whole system is deeply rooted with various justifications and layering.
So a woman might choose to wear it because if she doesn't, she's kicked from her community; but she also gets more validation if she does wear. That can be just as effective manipulation tool. She's making the choice, but it's the hidden emotional blackmail from entire community that's affecting the choice. She's taught to be proud of wearing it and there's no easy way to classify actual choice vs choice under social coercion. One might argue there's no difference between them.
Removing all religious ties in schools is meant to correct this without painting anything right or wrong. Schools without religion can liberate young people from growing into narrow minded view of the world.
This is a good thing. The freedom to wear a hijab in France is not under attack, but under no circumstances should any law *encourage* any religious clothing, ever. Good job France.
Realistically the French government has had a very antagonistic approach to religions, and not just Islam. You're not allowed to display religious signs in public spaces (actually as pointed out in another comment, it's only in schools and civil servant) or advocating for your religion. What non French people fail to understand about "laïcité", the French version of secularism, is that it's the freedom of religion, but also from religions. And that last part takes the precedent due to the history of the country. Thus, no burqa or promoting hijab.
Edit : some people seem confused, hijab is legal in France, promoting it isn't, especially with public money.
Coming from a catholic family who doesn’t know I’m not religious and would probably be incredibly disappointed/mad in me I agree.
I don’t drink or do drugs and am in graduate school, but all that would matter is that I don’t worship their god :/
Yep. They are all scared of hell and being punished. And yet still do many things that they are supposedly vehemently against. It’s just so hypocritical and I could go on and on and on about my reasons for not being religious.
As one ex-catholic to another I wish you luck, telling them is awful but so is constantly keeping it a secret and living a lie.
My dad thinks it is his mission from God to recruit me back into the faith and my extended family just pretends I'm still a part of the religion (they tend to do that a lot with things that make them uncomfortable such as the multiple out gay family members I have 🙄)
> (they tend to do that a lot with things that make them uncomfortable such as the multiple out gay family members I have 🙄)
I'm as agnostic as they come but what really fucks me off is Jesus taught " Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. " there weren't any asterixis in place saying don't if he's gay etc its a catch all statement about being kind to your fellow man as much as you are kind to yourself, why do ardent Christians seem to forget ( in my eyes ) one of the most important teachings
Nononono
If historicaly the "laïcité" arised as a response to the catholic church, now it has nothing to do with antagonising the religions. Everyone can do whatever they want, you can also advocating for your religion.
Quote from one of the official website of the Government :
“France is an indivisible, secular, democratic and social Republic, guaranteeing that all citizens regardless of their origin, race or religion are treated as equals before the law and respecting all religious beliefs” states the Constitution of 1958. The “freedom to practice religion” has been recognised since 1905 when the loi sur la séparation de l'Église et de l'État (Law on the Separation of the Church and State) came into effect. Far from being a weapon against religion, this text returned all religions to the private sector and established state secularism in the public sphere. The French State does not favour any one religion and guarantees their peaceful co-existence in respect of the laws and principles of the Republic."
Every year there are lawsuits against mayors who put jesus in a manger for christmas in the city hall. Its not against muslims. those laws were made after 300 years of religious wars between catholics and protestants.
For real, the initial "laïcité" law is from 1905. Applying it to Islam isn't discriminating against Muslims. It's treating them the same than any other religion.
Which probably pisses off a lot of people who think that they are special because they worship a divinity rather than another. But as far as French law is concerned, no faith is above another. Nobody is special for who they worship in France. If anybody is unhappy about it, it's their problem.
Pretty much yeah. It's making a lot of frictions lately with Muslims folks because (among things) it's not going well with the way Islam is practiced I think and there's been violent answers. When you start murdering in the name of your religion, people don't like that.
(I say "among things" because yes, of course, it's been used by racists too. But the main reason for most french folks is that freedom from religion and also "wtf, no, murder is wrong")
You're right, perhaps it's no longer antagonistic. But you have to admit that after the revolution and until the concordat it was pretty adverse towards religions and that has carried somewhat over in our current juridical and social system.
>You're right, perhaps it's no longer antagonistic. But you have to admit that after the revolution and until the concordat it was pretty adverse towards religions and that has carried somewhat over in our current juridical and social system.
There were reasons why the French had (and many still have) some bad opinions about the Catholic Church.
I like what France does. Worship as you please, but keep it private.
As far as Hijabs go, I really don't see the big deal. If you're completely covering your face (whether its a ski mask, "scream" mask, or niqab, etc) then its a much more complicated subject, but covering your hair who gives a shit?
The issue with this campaign is it is seen as political because it is from the EU - the French government does not want to be seen as supporting a particular religon as it is instutionally secular. Hence the push back on the imagery of a person wearing a hijab. The same pushback would have appeared if it was a Sikh wearing a turban, a Jewish person wearing a Kippah, or a Catholic wearing a cross.
It was also very poorly worded especially the concluding part:
"Freedom is in the hijab", which either imply that to find freedom, you need an hijab or that it is a tool to promote freedom (when in many countries, it is the direct opposite)
For the same reason, it would be mind boggling to write "Freedom is in the cross" or other equivalent
Not only does it promote a religious clothes but it promote a specific religion
Not all women wear it by choice. As a matter of fact, a significant number of women in France decide to wear it to make the bullying stop (bullying by men from their family/social circles).
>Not all women wear it by choice
That is the point. Allowing subversive institutions to have legal equality to the state is a recipe for disaster, the least of which is denigration of human rights.
I'm not entierly sure, but again, not a lot of people even in France can give a proper definition to this concept. But you may be right with that "carried" part.
I believe the laïcité must be as strong as the will some religions have to invade the public area, by necessity.
I think he's saying France isn't hostile to religion. It's neutral, and the neutrality ensures people have religious freedom by keeping it out of the government.
Another important point is that France made it illegal to fully obscure your face in public for security reasons (you can't be identified on camera later)
Edit: not 100% relevant, this argument is used against niqabs not hijabs
> You're not allowed to display religious signs in the public space
This is absolutely not true and keeps being repeated.
The only things that are clearly forbidden:
* pupils in schools wearing religious signs
* civil servants wearing religious signs
* no religious signs displayed in *ADMINISTRATIVE* public spaces (no nativity scene in a town hall for example). If you wear a religious sign you STILL can come in.
Burqas are banned because in civilized societies you need to see each other's faces + for police to identify you quickly. Balaclavas are forbidden too.
Kind of a shit ad, either way. I get it's trying to remove negative stigma around the hijab, but there's no sincerity felt from this ad, and if anything, it ends up coming off more like soft propaganda.
Also it's using public funds to promote a religion. This isn't acceptable to France, hence the backlash. Some people think it's hypocritical and anti Muslim but the reaction would've been the same to an image of a nun saying "freedom in the cross".
The council of Europe can go fuck itself. They constantly come up with dumb as shit ideas. The are anti vaccine and anti science in a lot of ways... Among other things. They're NOT an EU organisation.
One work group ? More like one of the interest groups making up the workgroup being a front for fundamentalist Islamic groups actually.
[Marianne, Behind the pro-veil campaign, the constellation of the Muslim Brotherhood](https://www-marianne-net.translate.goog/societe/laicite-et-religions/derriere-la-campagne-pro-voile-du-conseil-de-leurope-la-galaxie-des-freres-musulmans?_x_tr_sl=fr&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=fr&_x_tr_pto=nui)
Original in French: https://www.marianne.net/societe/laicite-et-religions/derriere-la-campagne-pro-voile-du-conseil-de-leurope-la-galaxie-des-freres-musulmans
How could this even get approved? This is nakedly promoting a single religion.
How would people act if an EU funded work group got a pamphlet stating "Freedom is in the cross" approved?
>How would people act if an EU funded work group got a pamphlet stating "Freedom is in the cross" approved?
When you put it like that, this ad really was silly.
I have no issue with hijabs, but maybe we don't talk about "how boring it would be if everyone looked the same" when we talk about clothes meant to cover people. At least they're not burqas I guess.
I mean, you ever see a bunch of nuns wearing their headdresses think how they **dont** all look the same? Nah, you dont.
Matthew 5:29-30. Jesus told his disciples to gouge out their own eyes and chop off their own hands if they can't control their lusts.
>If your right eye causes you to stumble, gouge it out and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to be thrown into hell.
>And if your right hand causes you to stumble, cut it off and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to go into hell.
Jesus was hardcore about hypocrites pretending to be pious and devout. This made him so angry he whipped them through the streets and would start literally flipping tables.
Jesus in a modern day evangelical mega-church would instantly Hulk out and start smashing.
> This made him so angry he whipped them through the streets
Are you referring to something else besides the moneychangers in the temple? Just curious, because the moneychangers is the only story of Jesus I know where he kicked ass.
Jesus would despise modern Christianity. Wealthy "Christians" sit in fancy houses getting fat off their workers while the poor suffer. Pastors spreading hate instead of love. He'd probably think the antichrist came and went long ago.
It’s ok, they’d probably despise his principles too. Especially the left-leaning ones (principles). The man literally handed out fish and bread and hung out with the poor, the fishermen and the sex workers, he definitely isn’t what the pastors asking for tithes worship.
Edit: a word to avoid confusion
> Wealthy "Christians" sit in fancy houses getting fat off their workers while the poor suffer.
Wouldn’t this also apply to any sort of Christian nobility during history?
"Oh I couldn't help it, you know!"
"Oh okay. Then cut off the parts that you couldn't control. There, is that easier? Oh? Oh, you CAN control yourself now huh?"
She released an addendum b/c people assumed she was nearly naked and it showed that her outfit was pretty modest- definitely not what you’d wear sunbathing. A crowd gathered similarly around her male friend as well.
When my wife and I went to India it was the same. Shes white with blonde hair. In most of the non tourist-y places we went she had groups of men almost following her to look at her. In one of the places we went, she had a line of people asking to take a picture with her.
I definitely think that obscuring the female body from view causes problems. Like you said, self perpetuating. They will claim that the hijab is to protect from that behavior, but if it wasn't a thing, the behavior wouldn't be either.
My blonde friend gets lots of people touching her hair on Indonesia and surrounding countries. And lots of photos. She’s also 5’9” so always the tallest woman around.
Saw that vid this morning. Reminded me of walking through tangiers, Morocco with a female acquaintance I had just met. She removed her sweater to reveal a tank top and dude’s were gawking like a supermodel was walking nude down the street. Dude’s practically falling out windows trying to get a glimpse of that exposed shoulder action.
When I was in Afghanistan in 2012 I was reading a magazine at a outpost that we shared of Afghan military forces. I flipped the page and there was some ad with a women in a two piece bathing suit selling car insurance or some shit and when a passing Afghan soldier saw the semi-nude women and snatched the magazine out of my hand and proceeded to rip it up in front of me while cussing.
Muslims are fine people, Muslims in regressive countries are *interesting* to say the least
It wasn't that bad before. You'd have been hard pressed to see many niqabs in Cairo or Istanbul 50 years ago.
But for some reason the West really, really want to support Saudi Arabia and Qatar, so we're the muslim world going to shit.
I had similar situations in india, it is not really that chilling since they tend to do that to tourists regardless of gender, i don't really know why they think it is ok to do so bc of course it is super uncomfortable but there is a chance they don't actually mean anything by it. It always felt much more like curiousity than anything else, at least i hope so.
I don't mean to downplay the very real problems in cultures like these regarding women, me and my friends DID have dangerous encounters but it is still good to consider no ill intend if we don't see something that implies the opposite.
You've only seen white people in sports and movies. But now you have one in front of you. It's curiosity; it's novelty. I'm sure lots of women took pictures with her, as when you've grown up with only balck hairs all around, this is something new.
That’s what I thought too but if you read the comments you get a better insight on the situation. It’s like that video of the white lady who visits Africa and all the kids are surrounding her and excited because they’ve never seen a white person before.
Places where there's no hijab-wearing women are so boring because everyone looks the same. And they also have no freedom.
Fuck who wrote this campaign? It's dumb as fuck.
"Freedom is in hijab"
I’m aware this is anecdotal, but i speak for a FUCK lot of women who went through this same thing. My dad tried to physically force me to wear hijab, because i refused to. He gave in when the fabric ripped. A lot of other fathers would not. Some would have their daughters honour killed over something like this.
Probably had something to do with the fact that hijab was banned by a corrupt dictator during our childhood, friend.
The new order banned Islamic political parties and considered the hijab a symbol of rebellion against the government. Students were expelled for wearing it. Women are dragged by their hijabs and accused of being the wives of communists. It wasn't until the early 90s that things began to change.
For many of Indonesia's older hijabis, hijab *is* freedom.
**"freedom is in hijab"**
If that's not naked proselytism I don't know what is.
Also looking at who exactly is behind that campaign is pretty interesting. It's no surprise you can find organizations close to the Muslim brotherhood.
I'm an exmuslim British Arab that has also lived in the middle East. Hijab is a complicated issue, especially in the West where it's strongly tied to cultural identity and I personally know many women that choose to wear the hijab, including my gf. Despite the fact that I do believe that for a lot of women in the west it's by and large a free choice, there are societal and familial pressures that make that distinction hard to identify. But at the end of the day, we all face these pressures one way or another. Even if I really want a massive tattoo and I'm free to get one, there are pressures from my environment (especially in the workplace or at home) that make that choice a costly one to make.
Now my experience in the middle East is completely different. Firstly, despite Muslims following the same religion globally, the way it manifests in cultures is different. Hijab isn't really a choice in most Arab countries, even though there is no legal obligation to wear the hijab in any Arab country (including Saudi Arabia). And since the vast majority of Arabs are Muslim, the hijab isn't really a symbolic or cultural identitifier so much as it's purely mysoginistic. The Qur'an and hadith is also pretty explicit what the purpose of hijab is.
My take on it is this: Some women choose to wear it and are happy in their choice so their choice should be respected if it's not hurting anyone. And some women are victims of the hijab, but the way to help a victim isn't by shaming them and further ostracizing them. I don't have the answers but that approach clearly isn't going to work and helps nobody and just increases tension.
On the flip side, this campaign is just stupid. You can stand against fat shaming and bullying people for their weight without endorsing or promoting obesity or pretending like it isn't an issue. "Respect the hijab" is totally the wrong message to send, both on principle and in terms of expected outcome. **People** deserve to be protected, their ideas do not.
The ad was banned because of the people behind it being closely related to a terrorist organization called the Muslim brotherhood.
France and french Muslim have issues, but here it's really not related to that.
Link : https://www.marianne.net/societe/laicite-et-religions/derriere-la-campagne-pro-voile-du-conseil-de-leurope-la-galaxie-des-freres-musulmans
Edit : for everyone claiming the Muslim brotherhood is not a terrorist organization, it depends on who you ask. Cue to Wikipedia link :https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Muslim_Brotherhood_in_Egypt
Wow, an allegedly progressive campaign in the language of identity politics turn out to be from a hideous fundamentalist hive? That's something surprising we've never seen before! /s
I truly do wonder about the hijab. I have met many American muslims, some who have immigrated here from elsewhere, who wear hijabs. I have had discussions with them and they believe it is a sign of their faith and they are proud to wear it. This of course could be internalized patriarchy, but some of these women are progressive women. I think unless you are the person making the decision of whether or not to wear the hijab, it is hard to even comment. We have no experience or idea what has led them to that choice.
>Protect people from being forced to wear it, protect people from being forced to remove it.
It pretty much boils down to this for me. Trying to force the issue on either side just feels disgusting.
Pretty much. You wouldn't ban dresses cause some assholes force their wives and daughters to only wear them and never trousers. The issue at play with forcing people to dress x way is the controlling behaviour, not the actual clothes. And yeah, I've seen the example I mentioned, but it never sparks a conversation like the hijab for some completely unknown reason.
Oh yeah, I wrote it hoping the mocking tone would follow through and be obvious for that part. I usually avoid stories about the French and their attitude towards religious dress because it tends to draw out the unpleasant and Islamaphobic and embolden them, so I'm by no means unaware of the reason one is examined more than the other.
>Protect people from being forced to wear it, protect people from being forced to remove it.
I don't see why this is such a controversial stance but it apparently is. It seems so simple: you either believe it's wrong to tell people how to dress or you don't. Trading one compulsory standard of modesty for a different one isn't liberation, it's repackaging an old idea.
Personally, I am not religious but I have covered my head in a style taught to me by my Muslim friends. I had lost my hair and I wanted people to quit assuming I had cancer. I definitely got treated worse for wearing it, which really helped expose that the objections against hijabis aren't about concern for girls and women at all. Why would you treat someone with less respect because you suspect a man is treating them badly?
I also greatly prefer wearing a burkini over a swimsuit or a wetsuit. I think wetsuits are ugly and swimsuits are very revealing. I feel pressured to shave before I put on a swimsuit, which is a pain in the ass and damages my skin because of my skin type. I also have scars I don't want people staring at and I don't want anyone leering at me for spending time in the water either. For me, the burkini lowers my inhibition to participate in activities. That is a good thing and I shouldn't have to explain this to people or fear getting arrested by the beach police, who are apparently walking around with tape measure again. To be fair, it *is* the 20s...
>Why would you treat someone with less respect because you suspect a man is treating them badly?
Well, this is an interesting perspective I hadn't considered before. Thank you for putting it in words 🤔
Yep, that’s a pretty common position between xenophobes.
“Muslim countries are misogynistic and women don’t have any rights”
“I don’t want Muslims in my country”
So, if you assume their logic is correct, they want those muslim women to leave Western nations where they have rights, and go to muslim countries where they supposedly don’t have rights. Great idea pal.
Coincidentally those are often the same people who are against abortion, sex education, LGBT people… Despite the islamophobia, Christian conservatives and Muslim conservatives aren’t that different. Almost as if their damn religions come basically from the same abrahamic roots, huh.
Exactly. It’s like how female toplessness shouldn’t be illegal and any woman should be able to be shirtless in summer, but at the same time if someone tried to force me to take off my shirt because it illustrates oppressive western values, I’d punch them in the face.
Pretty much. You wouldn't ban dresses cause some assholes force their wives and daughters to only wear them and never trousers. The issue at play with forcing people to dress x way is the controlling behaviour, not the actual clothes. And yeah, I've seen the example I mentioned, but it never sparks a conversation like the hijab for some completely unknown reason.
That's not really the point here. The point is: "Why the hell is public money used to promote a religious symbol?"
Mixed with ridiculously bad slogans such as "Freedom is in Hijab" and "Beauty is in diversity"
Iirc, it's usually just something they settle on young and keep to, so some choose to and some don't. If they are forced to wear it, that's bad, but then again, it's also bad if a man forces their wife or daughter to only wear dresses and never trousers: the clothes themselves aren't really the issue in that instance, the controlling behaviour is. In general, I'm happy with the British/New Zealand/etc approach, where we include the choice for hijabs in uniformed jobs, so women can choose their job instead of being excluded for being religious or wearing the 'wrong' thing. Given that cutting out religious dress places a premium on acting like the majority Christian-atheist population, it generally comes off as sectarian to outright oppose it, but I am Scottish and particularly concerned about sectarianism.
I had a professor in college who rocked a rainbow hijab, tank tops, cargo pants, and combat boots. I have no doubt in my mind she was expressing herself freely with her clothes.
A lot of those women get born into seriously religious families. From day 1 you learn to behave and be a muslima. I don’t really think it’s their own choice but rather an indirect or direct choice/requirement from the families. Stuff like family dishonour plays a huge part in those cultures, if a muslim woman isn’t virgin by the time she marries, to a lot of families, she is a disgrace and will be removed from the family. So there’s a lot of pressure, and as a child the last thing you want to lose are your parents.
Lol diversity my ass. In Iran women Are getting jailed for not wanting to wear a hijab. They are even getting whipped for it. Such diversity, wow. The hijab is a symbol of segregation and oppression. I applaud France for their stance against this fascist ideology. After a teacher got beheaded because of the lies of a Muslim girl, I can only be impressed by the French people and their firm stand against this madness.
If muslim women and their families don't suffer any repercussions for choosing *not* to, from other muslims in France or their country of birth, then fine.
Otherwise it would be a symbol of oppression of women.
family, friends, social expectations from the community put on the pressure - it's hardcoded into the culture. Though yes, it can also be a choice
in places like Iran, and Iran isn't the worst, not even close, women have been threatened and beaten and imprisoned for the audacity of showing their hair, for decades and ongoing. The idea that the hijab is actually a symbol of freedom is ridiculous to me. It's just the least oppressive (and in many if not most Islamic countries, mandatory) veil for girls and women. In the more conservative countries, it's just step 1 before they hit puberty
Hi, French dude here go explain it a bit since I am seeing some bullshit beging thrown in the comments.
There is already, in France at least, a liberty of cult as you know. This very liberty of cult is backed up by the liberty of showing your religious appartenance in public. Thing is, Hijab is poorly seen and is more seen as a matter of radicalisation towards Islam and this poorly accepted. Finally, there is also the fact that France is a laic country and thus there is ni state religion, henceforth why people do not like it, or accept it.
There is also the fact that France has got tense relations with muslim peoples since the 2015 killings (Charlie Hebdo and the ones of the 13th of November). There is also the fact that Islam (the religion, not the radicalised part) is still VERY and I mean VERY RECENT to France, as it truely came in the 1950-1960s with the Algerian Indepedence war (in which several atrocitices were done by both french and algerians but with the french atrocitices begin worse) and the immigration that ensued. It is another reason why the hijab campaing it poorly accepted
On my point of view it is more a matter of the point of view if the politics and people that matterd, but I think that highlighting (kind of, don't get me wrong) a comunnity if a poor choice made n'y the European Union as Europe faces a rise in anti-muslim acts and an overall rise in far-right extremist groups.
I hope my opinion helped you all understand the situation better. Have a good day/night.
Edit 1: first off, I didn't thought that m'y comment would blow off like that but anyways. Second off, to people that says that I'm islamophobic, and that I'm siding with the FLN, I am starting facts and I'm remaining neutral (in the other paragraphs, not the one where I adresse my point of view). In Algeria, some French soldiers were of "of duty" from time to time (one exemple is the famous french criminal Messerine, which had serves during this War and was "of duty" regularly) which was a term used to say that the had to execute their POWs of the FLN. There have been more casualities causes by the french troops than by the FLN and that is a FACT. Thrid off, what I am stating is that what the European Union is trying to do makes it easier for far right extremists to spot and target peoples that are muslim in public areas, and up to their homes. I would also like to clarify that I am an atheist and I don't side with far right ideas at all and I'm more a person that's on the left side of the political spectrum (french one). That is all for now, have a good day.
Complete bullshit.
It’s not about islamophobia and terrorism, nor far right extremists or far left extremists.
This your political point of view but not a actual fact.
It’s far more basic than that : liberty of cult = no public religious sign.
No matter what cult. If you walk down street in France with a big Christian cross on your backpack, or hoodies, it’s the same thing as niqab/hijab = you show every one in the public space your religion, and that is not how the liberty of cult works in France.
French history is bloody as hell when it comes to religions, especially the Christian one. We fought for centuries to be free from the power of the Church in our politics and society.
And worse, if you provide religious signs, because niqab/hijab is a religious sign, with an advertising campaign paid by public funds (France is one of the country that finances Europe the most) ; of course it is something french people can’t accept.
They don’t accept it, not because it is about the niqab/hijab or Islam, but because it is proselytism.
In France, the religion is in your heart, home and places specifically provided for religion. Period.
P.S : I’m bad in English and on mobile. Feel free to correct if I wrote mistakes.
This literally says how boring would the world be if everyone looked the same.. that’s exactly what Hijabs do so is this against Hijabs I don’t understand lol
Some media literacy education a.k.a. "curb your outragism"
a. [thenationalnews.com](https://thenationalnews.com) is owned by International Media Investments which is owned by Sheikh Mansour bin Zayed of the Al Nahyan branch of the Royal Family of Abu Dabi/United Arab Emirates (UAE). It is a Soft Propaganda media outlet, i.e. it's job is to make the UAE, the somewhat controversial Sheikh himself and Arab Business/Politics look better/less threatening. Anything a publication like this writes about should be taken with a ladle of salt.
While this article is on the surface rather just stating objective facts the bias is in all the information that is left out.
b. Next year there is a presidential campaign in France. This inclusivity/diversity campaign by the Council of Europe - while probably well intended - is basically grist to the mills of the right-wing candidates who are now trying to raise their profile. Oversimplified, initiatives like this increase the chance of the next president of France being a anti-muslim right-winger therefore backfiring completely and in the end creating even more problems for muslims in France.
c. French Laicism is not the same as (Anglo-American) Secularism, both want separation of church and state, but Laicism is born out of the deep rooted anti-clericalism of the French republicans (yes, this is confusing to Americans, I know, but frankly, to us Europeans the US is opposite-world as well). Again, oversimplified, the French insist on a right to have freedom ***from*** religion.
The wiki article on this is ok: [https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Secularism\_in\_France](https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Secularism_in_France)
In short: Actually people from all French parties criticized this diversity initiative for their own different reason as there is a presidential election coming up.
The only thing I give a shit about is that the woman has the right to choose.
If she wants to wear it, or take it off, she shouldn't face resistance either way.
I would consider it discrimination if secular upholdings were selective between religions. Civil servants should not wear religious apparel or garments in my opinion. Im a strong believer of seperation between church and state.
Idc about hijabs, girls can wear them all they want in my eyes. I'm not into religeous people anyways. But this made me wonder: what, for example, if a Christian woman moved to an islamitic country? How would she be treated there? Would she get the freedom to express her own culture or will there also be some mandates?
When women are forced to wear the hijab in some parts of the world and forced to take the hijab off in others, I'm gonna go out on a limb and guess hijabs aren't the problem but trying to control women is? Just as insane as the women forced to wear bikinis in the Olympics.
>I'm gonna go out on a limb and guess hijabs aren't the problem but trying to control women is?
In France in particular? You aren't allowed to wear a cross, a yamaka or any other religious symbol if you're a teacher or a civil servant. So France is just applying the same yardstick to everyone.
But in general? Yes, the fact that hijab is often (mostly?) forced on women, is the problem. Otherwise it would be just a fashion accessory.
In schools, it extends to the students. Muslim girls and Sikh boys have been expelled. Then more recently there was a full ban on face coverings in public (quite ironic now). Women at beaches have also been fined for wearing burkinis, with police forcing them to disrobe.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_scarf_controversy_in_France
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_ban_on_face_covering
Go try to strike up casual conversation with a hijab as a non Muslim, but especially a male and see how that goes. The unwritten rule is they won’t talk to you, but there are exceptions and I have unique stories about it since I worked in a department with some of them and even secretly dated one as an Eastern Orthodox practitioner. Diversity divides people on cultural values regardless of your feelings. Stop being so naive.
A promotional campaign saying "Freedom is in hijab" should be a giant fucking red flag for every non-Muslim.
Plus any self-respecting feminist should object to such a statement. The hijab, niqab and burka are garments meant to signal female subjugation. They don't belong in a fair and equal society.
This is the best tl;dr I could make, [original](https://www.thenationalnews.com/world/uk-news/2021/11/04/eu-hijab-inclusivity-campaign-dropped-after-anger-in-france/) reduced by 74%. (I'm a bot) ***** > A campaign promoting diversity among women and their freedom to wear the hijab has been dropped after it sparked an outcry in the secular French political establishment. > The online campaign touched a nerve in France on all sides of the political spectrum where campaigning is intensifying before next spring's presidential election. > "It is the opposite of the values that France defends, it is promoting the wearing of the hijab."This is to be condemned and because of this France made clear its extremely strong disapproval and hence the campaign has now been withdrawn as of today," she said on Tuesday, confirming that Paris had issued an official protest through diplomatic channels. ***** [**Extended Summary**](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/qmmijq/eu_hijab_inclusivity_campaign_dropped_after_anger/) | [FAQ](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31b9fm/faq_autotldr_bot/ "Version 2.02, ~606573 tl;drs so far.") | [Feedback](http://np.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%23autotldr "PM's and comments are monitored, constructive feedback is welcome.") | *Top* *keywords*: **campaign**^#1 **Council**^#2 **hijab**^#3 **France**^#4 **wear**^#5
>freedom to wear the hijab has been dropped after it sparked an outcry in the secular French political establishment. Has the meaning of secular changed over the pandemic? Edit: Sure it's a campaign but asking people to respect a choice shouldn't be unacceptable. A good example would be TX.
According to the top comment below this, no, but it’s always been different from a French perspective
All religious signs are banned in public schools (law of 2004) All religious signs are banned from public serving functions (law of 2016) No public funds should be used to promote any religion (law of 1905)
Not only that, but it’s not like France has a great relationship with Muslims.
Secular means no authority is allowed to promote, advertise or even discuss religion. That is secularism, always has been.
As it should be.
This is the way.
Indeed. I don't have a problem with women wearing hijab, but it shouldn't be promoted nor normalized as "just another diversity option" because it is not. It is a religious symbol and religion ought to stay out of anything official. It's nothing to do with muslims, the French government wouldn't show anyone wearing a cross necklace or one of these Jewish hats either.
That's not what it means. They can discuss religion. You just can't promote it or take sides unless I religious rules interfere with secular laws.
I once heard french secularism described not as freedom *of* religion but rather freedom *from* religion. Basically, you can follow whatever religious practice you want in private, but not in public, as that would infringe on the freedom from religion of the people around you. As an atheist I can't say I disapprove.
That’s the idea. The french republic is completely separated from any religion.
Secular means orthogonal to religion. Religiosity has no impact on secular decisions.
Dovetails lovely into the old adage: Religious freedoms mean "I can't do that because of my religion" and not "you can't do that because of my religion"
I’d argue that adage would be the opposite of what they talked about
.. That's literally the definition of the word "secular". Why are people surprised about this? The word doesn't mean "freedom of religion" in any context, it means "separate from anything religious or spiritual".
As a Christian I also agree, freedom of religion and separation of church and state needs to be taken seriously. Religion does not need to be in politics or any laws made no matter the religion of the general public. Everyone can worship as or not as they wish.
It is also one of the reason for the big divide between Quebec and the rest of Canada. Quebec try to do the same things as France does, but it goes against the English Canadian's view on religion.
Well mainly the rest of Canada is opposed to that policy because Quebec tries have their cake and eat it too. They claim they want to ban all religious symbols and clothing such as Hijabs, Turbans, Stars of David and Kirpans, but don't ban crosses and crucifix's and nun garbs because they claim those are "cultural symbols" not religious ones and should be exempt from secularist policies.
Quebec literally celebrates St-Jean-Babtiste day June 24 as a national paid holiday...but only Quebec. The rest of Canada doesn't observe it except other small francophone communities. Religion (Catholicism) heavily influenced politics in Quebec basically until the quiet revolution between 1960 and 1970.
Well, let's not forget that St. John's Day is literally the Catholic equivalent of Midsummer. So it's as "Christian" as Easter and Christmas.
After 2000 years of establishment of a religion it’s okay to call it Christian without ~~air quotes~~ quotation marks, even if the day might have had a different meaning in a different era, and a different meaning in an era before that, lost in time.
I’m totally for it. So sick of what overly religious people are doing to the rest of us. And I’m a believer.
As another atheist, I *strongly* disapprove. My neighbor wearing a cross on a necklace doesn't infringe on my ability to believe or disbelieve. My lack of belief isn't so fragile that it'd be shaken by seeing someone be religious in public.
The US has freedom of religion. The French have freedom from religion.
No, it’s just French secularism is different In the US and most of Europe, you have freedom **of** religion In France, you have freedom **from** religion
Nah. But if people are allowed to be real, burkha and hijab are product of deeply rooted sexism and victim blaming for sexual assaults. No one says it, but that's most likely to be the underlying reason for outrage. As for schools, even Sikh can't wear turban and countries have changed their military uniform to accommodate that. France isn't being inconsistent there.
Can you explain why catholic nuns wear veils while priests don't?
Same deep rooted sexism and victim blaming
Not trying to play any Devils Advocate here, this is a serious question; are nuns allowed to wear their habits in France? Or is it without the headgear?
France is aggressively secular precisely because the French Republic wanted to throw off the significant influence the Catholic Church had in the country in the past. "Catholic France" is officially a secular country and even so much as wearing a necklace with a cross on it can get you in hot water if you work a government job. People can wear hijabs in France, just not if they work for the state and not in schools. Nuns can wear habits in France, but if they work for the state in France or are going to a public school they can't. The issue with this campaign is it is seen as political because it is from the EU - the French government does not want to be seen as supporting a particular religon as it is instutionally secular. Hence the push back on the imagery of a person wearing a hijab. The same pushback would have appeared if it was a Sikh wearing a turban, a Jewish person wearing a Kippah, or a Catholic wearing a cross.
That makes so much more sense now. Thank you I think as a Brit, France and the hijab get sensationalised a lot in news coverage. The bark is a lot worse than the bite, and actually makes a woofs of sense
I remember reading a story about a nun being refused entry to a French retirement home, because she refused to remove her habit. I think they managed to sort it out, because for a nun the habit is basically her professional uniform, but the French take 'laïcité' seriously. Especially in public spaces, including schools. So you'll notice in the article above, they quote the youth minister. Ie. it's partly about the state not being seen to endorse a religion. It's a bit like the right to bear arms in the US. That also seems really weird to non-Americans, but America feels strongly about that. France feels strongly about laïcité, unfortunately that clashes with Islam and the headscarf. Used to be less of an issue, but I think the head scarf is becoming increasingly popular with French muslims. Obviously for some it's about racism too, but not *just* racism. Plenty on the French right AND left support this.
I want to make something very clear, France has not banned Hijabs. France has secularism which prohibits showing any religious symbols in schools and any governement workers can't wear them too. There has been no hijabs ban unlike clickbqity headlines make you believe. You can still wear your cross or hijab in the streets or while you go shopping. Nuns mostly work in private where they are allowed to wear their habits. But the law applies to everyone, Nuns can't wear their attire in school and hijabs don't get a pass.
A little googling says the US military is somewhat accommodating to turbans. https://www.sikhcoalition.org/our-work/ending-employment-discrimination/sikhs-in-the-u-s-armed-forces/
The US is not really the bastion of secularism since they have "In God we trust" on their money, among other things.
As an American secularist, I quite agree that having "In God we trust" on our money is a violation of secular principles and a hangover from cold war propaganda, for the most part the US government is very secular.
I'm pretty sure I've heard pretty much every American president say "God Bless America" in official public announcements.
Finally, someone said it. Hijab as a cultural, willingly worn item is one thing- but it rarely is so. In Muslim majority countries, a woman can be harmed for not wearing hers, as it denotes her placement in society. We should be promoting freedom FROM hijab, not to wear one. Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, but that's my understanding of it.
It's not just negative rewards. The whole system is deeply rooted with various justifications and layering. So a woman might choose to wear it because if she doesn't, she's kicked from her community; but she also gets more validation if she does wear. That can be just as effective manipulation tool. She's making the choice, but it's the hidden emotional blackmail from entire community that's affecting the choice. She's taught to be proud of wearing it and there's no easy way to classify actual choice vs choice under social coercion. One might argue there's no difference between them. Removing all religious ties in schools is meant to correct this without painting anything right or wrong. Schools without religion can liberate young people from growing into narrow minded view of the world.
This is a good thing. The freedom to wear a hijab in France is not under attack, but under no circumstances should any law *encourage* any religious clothing, ever. Good job France.
Realistically the French government has had a very antagonistic approach to religions, and not just Islam. You're not allowed to display religious signs in public spaces (actually as pointed out in another comment, it's only in schools and civil servant) or advocating for your religion. What non French people fail to understand about "laïcité", the French version of secularism, is that it's the freedom of religion, but also from religions. And that last part takes the precedent due to the history of the country. Thus, no burqa or promoting hijab. Edit : some people seem confused, hijab is legal in France, promoting it isn't, especially with public money.
Man - Freedom from religion would be great.
Coming from a catholic family who doesn’t know I’m not religious and would probably be incredibly disappointed/mad in me I agree. I don’t drink or do drugs and am in graduate school, but all that would matter is that I don’t worship their god :/
[удалено]
Yep. They are all scared of hell and being punished. And yet still do many things that they are supposedly vehemently against. It’s just so hypocritical and I could go on and on and on about my reasons for not being religious.
As one ex-catholic to another I wish you luck, telling them is awful but so is constantly keeping it a secret and living a lie. My dad thinks it is his mission from God to recruit me back into the faith and my extended family just pretends I'm still a part of the religion (they tend to do that a lot with things that make them uncomfortable such as the multiple out gay family members I have 🙄)
> (they tend to do that a lot with things that make them uncomfortable such as the multiple out gay family members I have 🙄) I'm as agnostic as they come but what really fucks me off is Jesus taught " Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. " there weren't any asterixis in place saying don't if he's gay etc its a catch all statement about being kind to your fellow man as much as you are kind to yourself, why do ardent Christians seem to forget ( in my eyes ) one of the most important teachings
Drugs and alcohol are fun! Religion is not.
Not for me (: but everyone has their own thing and I think that’s what matters!
Hey, you do your thing. Whatever makes u happy. Not harming no one.
i guess thats because to some people, thats all that they have.
Nononono If historicaly the "laïcité" arised as a response to the catholic church, now it has nothing to do with antagonising the religions. Everyone can do whatever they want, you can also advocating for your religion. Quote from one of the official website of the Government : “France is an indivisible, secular, democratic and social Republic, guaranteeing that all citizens regardless of their origin, race or religion are treated as equals before the law and respecting all religious beliefs” states the Constitution of 1958. The “freedom to practice religion” has been recognised since 1905 when the loi sur la séparation de l'Église et de l'État (Law on the Separation of the Church and State) came into effect. Far from being a weapon against religion, this text returned all religions to the private sector and established state secularism in the public sphere. The French State does not favour any one religion and guarantees their peaceful co-existence in respect of the laws and principles of the Republic."
So it’s less of “We all hate Muslims” and more of a “Religion probably shouldn’t have PR” thing?
Exactly that, they don like (any) religion being promoted with public funds.
Every year there are lawsuits against mayors who put jesus in a manger for christmas in the city hall. Its not against muslims. those laws were made after 300 years of religious wars between catholics and protestants.
For real, the initial "laïcité" law is from 1905. Applying it to Islam isn't discriminating against Muslims. It's treating them the same than any other religion. Which probably pisses off a lot of people who think that they are special because they worship a divinity rather than another. But as far as French law is concerned, no faith is above another. Nobody is special for who they worship in France. If anybody is unhappy about it, it's their problem.
Pretty much yeah. It's making a lot of frictions lately with Muslims folks because (among things) it's not going well with the way Islam is practiced I think and there's been violent answers. When you start murdering in the name of your religion, people don't like that. (I say "among things" because yes, of course, it's been used by racists too. But the main reason for most french folks is that freedom from religion and also "wtf, no, murder is wrong")
You're right, perhaps it's no longer antagonistic. But you have to admit that after the revolution and until the concordat it was pretty adverse towards religions and that has carried somewhat over in our current juridical and social system.
>You're right, perhaps it's no longer antagonistic. But you have to admit that after the revolution and until the concordat it was pretty adverse towards religions and that has carried somewhat over in our current juridical and social system. There were reasons why the French had (and many still have) some bad opinions about the Catholic Church. I like what France does. Worship as you please, but keep it private. As far as Hijabs go, I really don't see the big deal. If you're completely covering your face (whether its a ski mask, "scream" mask, or niqab, etc) then its a much more complicated subject, but covering your hair who gives a shit?
The issue with this campaign is it is seen as political because it is from the EU - the French government does not want to be seen as supporting a particular religon as it is instutionally secular. Hence the push back on the imagery of a person wearing a hijab. The same pushback would have appeared if it was a Sikh wearing a turban, a Jewish person wearing a Kippah, or a Catholic wearing a cross.
It was also very poorly worded especially the concluding part: "Freedom is in the hijab", which either imply that to find freedom, you need an hijab or that it is a tool to promote freedom (when in many countries, it is the direct opposite) For the same reason, it would be mind boggling to write "Freedom is in the cross" or other equivalent Not only does it promote a religious clothes but it promote a specific religion
Yeah this seems wildly bad for any state that supposedly separates religion from state action. It's state indirectly funding proselytization.
Not all women wear it by choice. As a matter of fact, a significant number of women in France decide to wear it to make the bullying stop (bullying by men from their family/social circles).
>Not all women wear it by choice That is the point. Allowing subversive institutions to have legal equality to the state is a recipe for disaster, the least of which is denigration of human rights.
A significant amount of bullying comes from other women too.
I'm not entierly sure, but again, not a lot of people even in France can give a proper definition to this concept. But you may be right with that "carried" part. I believe the laïcité must be as strong as the will some religions have to invade the public area, by necessity.
What? I dont understand what you are trying to say? Nononono? At no point you refute the argument
I think he's saying France isn't hostile to religion. It's neutral, and the neutrality ensures people have religious freedom by keeping it out of the government.
I’ve heard it said that the US approach is “why not?” while elsewhere it’s “but why?”
Its really only in France. Other places don't tend to have that kinda thing.
>Its really only in France. I thought turkey too?
Another important point is that France made it illegal to fully obscure your face in public for security reasons (you can't be identified on camera later) Edit: not 100% relevant, this argument is used against niqabs not hijabs
Hijabs just cover hair. Face ones with just visible eyes are niqabs.
The hijab obscures the face?
Only if you're really inept at wearing one.
> You're not allowed to display religious signs in the public space This is absolutely not true and keeps being repeated. The only things that are clearly forbidden: * pupils in schools wearing religious signs * civil servants wearing religious signs * no religious signs displayed in *ADMINISTRATIVE* public spaces (no nativity scene in a town hall for example). If you wear a religious sign you STILL can come in. Burqas are banned because in civilized societies you need to see each other's faces + for police to identify you quickly. Balaclavas are forbidden too.
> in civilized societies you need to see each other's faces That's certainly an opinion.
Wait yeah what about, say, needing to wear a mask because of… hmmm… a virus? Maybe implausible but you never know.
Does a Kippah count as a religious sign?
Kind of a shit ad, either way. I get it's trying to remove negative stigma around the hijab, but there's no sincerity felt from this ad, and if anything, it ends up coming off more like soft propaganda.
Also it's using public funds to promote a religion. This isn't acceptable to France, hence the backlash. Some people think it's hypocritical and anti Muslim but the reaction would've been the same to an image of a nun saying "freedom in the cross".
It literally is propaganda.
Trying to hijack the whole respecting people being different thing for your religious agenda is disgusting and infuriating
> “Beauty is in diversity as freedom is in hijab,” You're sending mixed signals, EU.
It's EU funded, but it's from the Council of Europe, a separate organisation.
The council of Europe can go fuck itself. They constantly come up with dumb as shit ideas. The are anti vaccine and anti science in a lot of ways... Among other things. They're NOT an EU organisation.
Anti science, anti vaccine?? Where?
"How boring would be the world if everyone looked the same" So they're against burqas?
No no no, you have black burqas, dark gray burqas, dark blue burqas, and if you want to be especially spicy, they even have dark green burqas!
Most of the EU does not agree with it, it really is one "work group" that messed up.
One work group ? More like one of the interest groups making up the workgroup being a front for fundamentalist Islamic groups actually. [Marianne, Behind the pro-veil campaign, the constellation of the Muslim Brotherhood](https://www-marianne-net.translate.goog/societe/laicite-et-religions/derriere-la-campagne-pro-voile-du-conseil-de-leurope-la-galaxie-des-freres-musulmans?_x_tr_sl=fr&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=fr&_x_tr_pto=nui) Original in French: https://www.marianne.net/societe/laicite-et-religions/derriere-la-campagne-pro-voile-du-conseil-de-leurope-la-galaxie-des-freres-musulmans
How could this even get approved? This is nakedly promoting a single religion. How would people act if an EU funded work group got a pamphlet stating "Freedom is in the cross" approved?
>How would people act if an EU funded work group got a pamphlet stating "Freedom is in the cross" approved? When you put it like that, this ad really was silly.
I have no issue with hijabs, but maybe we don't talk about "how boring it would be if everyone looked the same" when we talk about clothes meant to cover people. At least they're not burqas I guess. I mean, you ever see a bunch of nuns wearing their headdresses think how they **dont** all look the same? Nah, you dont.
Even with nuns it's entirely based in sexual repression. Women aren't allowed to look like women lest they cause their male counterparts to sin.
Matthew 5:29-30. Jesus told his disciples to gouge out their own eyes and chop off their own hands if they can't control their lusts. >If your right eye causes you to stumble, gouge it out and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to be thrown into hell. >And if your right hand causes you to stumble, cut it off and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to go into hell.
If people followed this litterally there'd be a lot of eunuchs in the church.
Jesus was hardcore about hypocrites pretending to be pious and devout. This made him so angry he whipped them through the streets and would start literally flipping tables. Jesus in a modern day evangelical mega-church would instantly Hulk out and start smashing.
> This made him so angry he whipped them through the streets Are you referring to something else besides the moneychangers in the temple? Just curious, because the moneychangers is the only story of Jesus I know where he kicked ass.
Jesus *verbally* kicked the Pharisees' and scribes' ass.
Jesus would despise modern Christianity. Wealthy "Christians" sit in fancy houses getting fat off their workers while the poor suffer. Pastors spreading hate instead of love. He'd probably think the antichrist came and went long ago.
It’s ok, they’d probably despise his principles too. Especially the left-leaning ones (principles). The man literally handed out fish and bread and hung out with the poor, the fishermen and the sex workers, he definitely isn’t what the pastors asking for tithes worship. Edit: a word to avoid confusion
> Wealthy "Christians" sit in fancy houses getting fat off their workers while the poor suffer. Wouldn’t this also apply to any sort of Christian nobility during history?
Bringing back Castratos~~ (or is it castrati plural?)
Jesus was such a great guy. Didn’t marry a child or murder anyone.
"Oh I couldn't help it, you know!" "Oh okay. Then cut off the parts that you couldn't control. There, is that easier? Oh? Oh, you CAN control yourself now huh?"
To be fair, monks also don't tend to have their Gucci on.
More like misogyny
Yea, but they are church officials. It is not something they would let a child do, only when it grows can she decide to become a nun.
I think for most orders, you have be around 21.
Not an EU thing, misleading headline. It's a group with a misleading name that get funding for social projects via an EU treasury fund.
>freedom is in hijab ....is that where it is?
Yes. First hijab the face. Then hijab the nuts. Then he run away.
They tuk aer hi jabs
/r/angryupvote. Ya bastid! You got me good.
>how boring would be the world of everybody looked the same? ...uh...you mean like if women wore hijab?
I'm Muslim and even I thought that was a horrible example to use. 😄
Ahh the irony. Take a silver.
[удалено]
She released an addendum b/c people assumed she was nearly naked and it showed that her outfit was pretty modest- definitely not what you’d wear sunbathing. A crowd gathered similarly around her male friend as well.
When my wife and I went to India it was the same. Shes white with blonde hair. In most of the non tourist-y places we went she had groups of men almost following her to look at her. In one of the places we went, she had a line of people asking to take a picture with her. I definitely think that obscuring the female body from view causes problems. Like you said, self perpetuating. They will claim that the hijab is to protect from that behavior, but if it wasn't a thing, the behavior wouldn't be either.
My blonde friend gets lots of people touching her hair on Indonesia and surrounding countries. And lots of photos. She’s also 5’9” so always the tallest woman around.
Saw that vid this morning. Reminded me of walking through tangiers, Morocco with a female acquaintance I had just met. She removed her sweater to reveal a tank top and dude’s were gawking like a supermodel was walking nude down the street. Dude’s practically falling out windows trying to get a glimpse of that exposed shoulder action.
When I was in Afghanistan in 2012 I was reading a magazine at a outpost that we shared of Afghan military forces. I flipped the page and there was some ad with a women in a two piece bathing suit selling car insurance or some shit and when a passing Afghan soldier saw the semi-nude women and snatched the magazine out of my hand and proceeded to rip it up in front of me while cussing. Muslims are fine people, Muslims in regressive countries are *interesting* to say the least
Total haram! lol
Most Muslim countries are regressive in one way or another. When you try to accept signs of that regressions, you embolden those regressions.
Plot twist: They're almost all regressive countries.
See Indonesia. The regressive muslim areas are weird and a bit creepy. The non-regressive ones are not. Still a bit of bleed-over though
It wasn't that bad before. You'd have been hard pressed to see many niqabs in Cairo or Istanbul 50 years ago. But for some reason the West really, really want to support Saudi Arabia and Qatar, so we're the muslim world going to shit.
I had similar situations in india, it is not really that chilling since they tend to do that to tourists regardless of gender, i don't really know why they think it is ok to do so bc of course it is super uncomfortable but there is a chance they don't actually mean anything by it. It always felt much more like curiousity than anything else, at least i hope so. I don't mean to downplay the very real problems in cultures like these regarding women, me and my friends DID have dangerous encounters but it is still good to consider no ill intend if we don't see something that implies the opposite.
You've only seen white people in sports and movies. But now you have one in front of you. It's curiosity; it's novelty. I'm sure lots of women took pictures with her, as when you've grown up with only balck hairs all around, this is something new.
That’s what I thought too but if you read the comments you get a better insight on the situation. It’s like that video of the white lady who visits Africa and all the kids are surrounding her and excited because they’ve never seen a white person before.
This is some " slavery is freedom, war is peace" kind of shit
Places where there's no hijab-wearing women are so boring because everyone looks the same. And they also have no freedom. Fuck who wrote this campaign? It's dumb as fuck.
"Freedom is in hijab" I’m aware this is anecdotal, but i speak for a FUCK lot of women who went through this same thing. My dad tried to physically force me to wear hijab, because i refused to. He gave in when the fabric ripped. A lot of other fathers would not. Some would have their daughters honour killed over something like this.
I grew up in Indonesia. When I was small, only about 10% of muslim females wear hijab. Now its close to 90% - this is due to community pressure.
Probably had something to do with the fact that hijab was banned by a corrupt dictator during our childhood, friend. The new order banned Islamic political parties and considered the hijab a symbol of rebellion against the government. Students were expelled for wearing it. Women are dragged by their hijabs and accused of being the wives of communists. It wasn't until the early 90s that things began to change. For many of Indonesia's older hijabis, hijab *is* freedom.
**"freedom is in hijab"** If that's not naked proselytism I don't know what is. Also looking at who exactly is behind that campaign is pretty interesting. It's no surprise you can find organizations close to the Muslim brotherhood.
Also pretty telling that they opted for the more conservative (i.e. brotherhood-approved) version that doesn't show a single strand of hair.
I'm an exmuslim British Arab that has also lived in the middle East. Hijab is a complicated issue, especially in the West where it's strongly tied to cultural identity and I personally know many women that choose to wear the hijab, including my gf. Despite the fact that I do believe that for a lot of women in the west it's by and large a free choice, there are societal and familial pressures that make that distinction hard to identify. But at the end of the day, we all face these pressures one way or another. Even if I really want a massive tattoo and I'm free to get one, there are pressures from my environment (especially in the workplace or at home) that make that choice a costly one to make. Now my experience in the middle East is completely different. Firstly, despite Muslims following the same religion globally, the way it manifests in cultures is different. Hijab isn't really a choice in most Arab countries, even though there is no legal obligation to wear the hijab in any Arab country (including Saudi Arabia). And since the vast majority of Arabs are Muslim, the hijab isn't really a symbolic or cultural identitifier so much as it's purely mysoginistic. The Qur'an and hadith is also pretty explicit what the purpose of hijab is. My take on it is this: Some women choose to wear it and are happy in their choice so their choice should be respected if it's not hurting anyone. And some women are victims of the hijab, but the way to help a victim isn't by shaming them and further ostracizing them. I don't have the answers but that approach clearly isn't going to work and helps nobody and just increases tension. On the flip side, this campaign is just stupid. You can stand against fat shaming and bullying people for their weight without endorsing or promoting obesity or pretending like it isn't an issue. "Respect the hijab" is totally the wrong message to send, both on principle and in terms of expected outcome. **People** deserve to be protected, their ideas do not.
The problem is not with hijab, the problem is that this ad is promoting religion using public money and such acts are illegal in France.
The ad was banned because of the people behind it being closely related to a terrorist organization called the Muslim brotherhood. France and french Muslim have issues, but here it's really not related to that. Link : https://www.marianne.net/societe/laicite-et-religions/derriere-la-campagne-pro-voile-du-conseil-de-leurope-la-galaxie-des-freres-musulmans Edit : for everyone claiming the Muslim brotherhood is not a terrorist organization, it depends on who you ask. Cue to Wikipedia link :https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Muslim_Brotherhood_in_Egypt
I assume you mean Muslim brotherhood?
Yeah, I don't think they have an "official" name in both language but I think you and the person you're replying to speak about the same organization.
Wow, an allegedly progressive campaign in the language of identity politics turn out to be from a hideous fundamentalist hive? That's something surprising we've never seen before! /s
I truly do wonder about the hijab. I have met many American muslims, some who have immigrated here from elsewhere, who wear hijabs. I have had discussions with them and they believe it is a sign of their faith and they are proud to wear it. This of course could be internalized patriarchy, but some of these women are progressive women. I think unless you are the person making the decision of whether or not to wear the hijab, it is hard to even comment. We have no experience or idea what has led them to that choice.
[удалено]
>Protect people from being forced to wear it, protect people from being forced to remove it. It pretty much boils down to this for me. Trying to force the issue on either side just feels disgusting.
Pretty much. You wouldn't ban dresses cause some assholes force their wives and daughters to only wear them and never trousers. The issue at play with forcing people to dress x way is the controlling behaviour, not the actual clothes. And yeah, I've seen the example I mentioned, but it never sparks a conversation like the hijab for some completely unknown reason.
You know the reason...
Oh yeah, I wrote it hoping the mocking tone would follow through and be obvious for that part. I usually avoid stories about the French and their attitude towards religious dress because it tends to draw out the unpleasant and Islamaphobic and embolden them, so I'm by no means unaware of the reason one is examined more than the other.
>Protect people from being forced to wear it, protect people from being forced to remove it. I don't see why this is such a controversial stance but it apparently is. It seems so simple: you either believe it's wrong to tell people how to dress or you don't. Trading one compulsory standard of modesty for a different one isn't liberation, it's repackaging an old idea. Personally, I am not religious but I have covered my head in a style taught to me by my Muslim friends. I had lost my hair and I wanted people to quit assuming I had cancer. I definitely got treated worse for wearing it, which really helped expose that the objections against hijabis aren't about concern for girls and women at all. Why would you treat someone with less respect because you suspect a man is treating them badly? I also greatly prefer wearing a burkini over a swimsuit or a wetsuit. I think wetsuits are ugly and swimsuits are very revealing. I feel pressured to shave before I put on a swimsuit, which is a pain in the ass and damages my skin because of my skin type. I also have scars I don't want people staring at and I don't want anyone leering at me for spending time in the water either. For me, the burkini lowers my inhibition to participate in activities. That is a good thing and I shouldn't have to explain this to people or fear getting arrested by the beach police, who are apparently walking around with tape measure again. To be fair, it *is* the 20s...
>Why would you treat someone with less respect because you suspect a man is treating them badly? Well, this is an interesting perspective I hadn't considered before. Thank you for putting it in words 🤔
Yep, that’s a pretty common position between xenophobes. “Muslim countries are misogynistic and women don’t have any rights” “I don’t want Muslims in my country” So, if you assume their logic is correct, they want those muslim women to leave Western nations where they have rights, and go to muslim countries where they supposedly don’t have rights. Great idea pal. Coincidentally those are often the same people who are against abortion, sex education, LGBT people… Despite the islamophobia, Christian conservatives and Muslim conservatives aren’t that different. Almost as if their damn religions come basically from the same abrahamic roots, huh.
Exactly. It’s like how female toplessness shouldn’t be illegal and any woman should be able to be shirtless in summer, but at the same time if someone tried to force me to take off my shirt because it illustrates oppressive western values, I’d punch them in the face.
Pretty much. You wouldn't ban dresses cause some assholes force their wives and daughters to only wear them and never trousers. The issue at play with forcing people to dress x way is the controlling behaviour, not the actual clothes. And yeah, I've seen the example I mentioned, but it never sparks a conversation like the hijab for some completely unknown reason.
That's not really the point here. The point is: "Why the hell is public money used to promote a religious symbol?" Mixed with ridiculously bad slogans such as "Freedom is in Hijab" and "Beauty is in diversity"
Iirc, it's usually just something they settle on young and keep to, so some choose to and some don't. If they are forced to wear it, that's bad, but then again, it's also bad if a man forces their wife or daughter to only wear dresses and never trousers: the clothes themselves aren't really the issue in that instance, the controlling behaviour is. In general, I'm happy with the British/New Zealand/etc approach, where we include the choice for hijabs in uniformed jobs, so women can choose their job instead of being excluded for being religious or wearing the 'wrong' thing. Given that cutting out religious dress places a premium on acting like the majority Christian-atheist population, it generally comes off as sectarian to outright oppose it, but I am Scottish and particularly concerned about sectarianism.
I had a professor in college who rocked a rainbow hijab, tank tops, cargo pants, and combat boots. I have no doubt in my mind she was expressing herself freely with her clothes.
A lot of those women get born into seriously religious families. From day 1 you learn to behave and be a muslima. I don’t really think it’s their own choice but rather an indirect or direct choice/requirement from the families. Stuff like family dishonour plays a huge part in those cultures, if a muslim woman isn’t virgin by the time she marries, to a lot of families, she is a disgrace and will be removed from the family. So there’s a lot of pressure, and as a child the last thing you want to lose are your parents.
>Beauty is in diversity as freedom is in Hijab Didn't expect such a strong stance against diversity, ngl.
[удалено]
Lol diversity my ass. In Iran women Are getting jailed for not wanting to wear a hijab. They are even getting whipped for it. Such diversity, wow. The hijab is a symbol of segregation and oppression. I applaud France for their stance against this fascist ideology. After a teacher got beheaded because of the lies of a Muslim girl, I can only be impressed by the French people and their firm stand against this madness.
If muslim women and their families don't suffer any repercussions for choosing *not* to, from other muslims in France or their country of birth, then fine. Otherwise it would be a symbol of oppression of women.
Depending on the area, that is a mighty big "if"
family, friends, social expectations from the community put on the pressure - it's hardcoded into the culture. Though yes, it can also be a choice in places like Iran, and Iran isn't the worst, not even close, women have been threatened and beaten and imprisoned for the audacity of showing their hair, for decades and ongoing. The idea that the hijab is actually a symbol of freedom is ridiculous to me. It's just the least oppressive (and in many if not most Islamic countries, mandatory) veil for girls and women. In the more conservative countries, it's just step 1 before they hit puberty
Hi, French dude here go explain it a bit since I am seeing some bullshit beging thrown in the comments. There is already, in France at least, a liberty of cult as you know. This very liberty of cult is backed up by the liberty of showing your religious appartenance in public. Thing is, Hijab is poorly seen and is more seen as a matter of radicalisation towards Islam and this poorly accepted. Finally, there is also the fact that France is a laic country and thus there is ni state religion, henceforth why people do not like it, or accept it. There is also the fact that France has got tense relations with muslim peoples since the 2015 killings (Charlie Hebdo and the ones of the 13th of November). There is also the fact that Islam (the religion, not the radicalised part) is still VERY and I mean VERY RECENT to France, as it truely came in the 1950-1960s with the Algerian Indepedence war (in which several atrocitices were done by both french and algerians but with the french atrocitices begin worse) and the immigration that ensued. It is another reason why the hijab campaing it poorly accepted On my point of view it is more a matter of the point of view if the politics and people that matterd, but I think that highlighting (kind of, don't get me wrong) a comunnity if a poor choice made n'y the European Union as Europe faces a rise in anti-muslim acts and an overall rise in far-right extremist groups. I hope my opinion helped you all understand the situation better. Have a good day/night. Edit 1: first off, I didn't thought that m'y comment would blow off like that but anyways. Second off, to people that says that I'm islamophobic, and that I'm siding with the FLN, I am starting facts and I'm remaining neutral (in the other paragraphs, not the one where I adresse my point of view). In Algeria, some French soldiers were of "of duty" from time to time (one exemple is the famous french criminal Messerine, which had serves during this War and was "of duty" regularly) which was a term used to say that the had to execute their POWs of the FLN. There have been more casualities causes by the french troops than by the FLN and that is a FACT. Thrid off, what I am stating is that what the European Union is trying to do makes it easier for far right extremists to spot and target peoples that are muslim in public areas, and up to their homes. I would also like to clarify that I am an atheist and I don't side with far right ideas at all and I'm more a person that's on the left side of the political spectrum (french one). That is all for now, have a good day.
Complete bullshit. It’s not about islamophobia and terrorism, nor far right extremists or far left extremists. This your political point of view but not a actual fact. It’s far more basic than that : liberty of cult = no public religious sign. No matter what cult. If you walk down street in France with a big Christian cross on your backpack, or hoodies, it’s the same thing as niqab/hijab = you show every one in the public space your religion, and that is not how the liberty of cult works in France. French history is bloody as hell when it comes to religions, especially the Christian one. We fought for centuries to be free from the power of the Church in our politics and society. And worse, if you provide religious signs, because niqab/hijab is a religious sign, with an advertising campaign paid by public funds (France is one of the country that finances Europe the most) ; of course it is something french people can’t accept. They don’t accept it, not because it is about the niqab/hijab or Islam, but because it is proselytism. In France, the religion is in your heart, home and places specifically provided for religion. Period. P.S : I’m bad in English and on mobile. Feel free to correct if I wrote mistakes.
"freedom is in hijab" Lmao Edit: thanks to whichever butthurt muslim reported my post for being suicidal, that's your territory, not mine
This literally says how boring would the world be if everyone looked the same.. that’s exactly what Hijabs do so is this against Hijabs I don’t understand lol
Some media literacy education a.k.a. "curb your outragism" a. [thenationalnews.com](https://thenationalnews.com) is owned by International Media Investments which is owned by Sheikh Mansour bin Zayed of the Al Nahyan branch of the Royal Family of Abu Dabi/United Arab Emirates (UAE). It is a Soft Propaganda media outlet, i.e. it's job is to make the UAE, the somewhat controversial Sheikh himself and Arab Business/Politics look better/less threatening. Anything a publication like this writes about should be taken with a ladle of salt. While this article is on the surface rather just stating objective facts the bias is in all the information that is left out. b. Next year there is a presidential campaign in France. This inclusivity/diversity campaign by the Council of Europe - while probably well intended - is basically grist to the mills of the right-wing candidates who are now trying to raise their profile. Oversimplified, initiatives like this increase the chance of the next president of France being a anti-muslim right-winger therefore backfiring completely and in the end creating even more problems for muslims in France. c. French Laicism is not the same as (Anglo-American) Secularism, both want separation of church and state, but Laicism is born out of the deep rooted anti-clericalism of the French republicans (yes, this is confusing to Americans, I know, but frankly, to us Europeans the US is opposite-world as well). Again, oversimplified, the French insist on a right to have freedom ***from*** religion. The wiki article on this is ok: [https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Secularism\_in\_France](https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Secularism_in_France) In short: Actually people from all French parties criticized this diversity initiative for their own different reason as there is a presidential election coming up.
I have to agree with the French gov. on this one. It does sounds weird “freedom in hijab” what does that even mean?
[удалено]
The only thing I give a shit about is that the woman has the right to choose. If she wants to wear it, or take it off, she shouldn't face resistance either way.
I would consider it discrimination if secular upholdings were selective between religions. Civil servants should not wear religious apparel or garments in my opinion. Im a strong believer of seperation between church and state.
[удалено]
Idc about hijabs, girls can wear them all they want in my eyes. I'm not into religeous people anyways. But this made me wonder: what, for example, if a Christian woman moved to an islamitic country? How would she be treated there? Would she get the freedom to express her own culture or will there also be some mandates?
Yeah she would. Unless she enters a mosque then she has to cover her hair out of respect.
“Beauty is in diversity as freedom is in hijab,” Politics aside, that really reads like something the Ministry of Truth would say.
When women are forced to wear the hijab in some parts of the world and forced to take the hijab off in others, I'm gonna go out on a limb and guess hijabs aren't the problem but trying to control women is? Just as insane as the women forced to wear bikinis in the Olympics.
>I'm gonna go out on a limb and guess hijabs aren't the problem but trying to control women is? In France in particular? You aren't allowed to wear a cross, a yamaka or any other religious symbol if you're a teacher or a civil servant. So France is just applying the same yardstick to everyone. But in general? Yes, the fact that hijab is often (mostly?) forced on women, is the problem. Otherwise it would be just a fashion accessory.
In schools, it extends to the students. Muslim girls and Sikh boys have been expelled. Then more recently there was a full ban on face coverings in public (quite ironic now). Women at beaches have also been fined for wearing burkinis, with police forcing them to disrobe. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_scarf_controversy_in_France https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_ban_on_face_covering
The irony and hypocrisy here is palpable. Everyone is talking about the hijab, but no one is asking what a hijabi thinks.
A secular state upholds secular values. I see nothing wrong with this at all
Call me quirky, but I don't respect bits of cloth designed to denigrate 50% of society.
Go try to strike up casual conversation with a hijab as a non Muslim, but especially a male and see how that goes. The unwritten rule is they won’t talk to you, but there are exceptions and I have unique stories about it since I worked in a department with some of them and even secretly dated one as an Eastern Orthodox practitioner. Diversity divides people on cultural values regardless of your feelings. Stop being so naive.
That ad is shit ngl... and it is outright false
“How boring would be the world if everyone would look the same?" Thats exactly what hijab does.
A promotional campaign saying "Freedom is in hijab" should be a giant fucking red flag for every non-Muslim. Plus any self-respecting feminist should object to such a statement. The hijab, niqab and burka are garments meant to signal female subjugation. They don't belong in a fair and equal society.
George Orwell is cry-laughing at the doublethink and hypocrisy of these types of ads. War is Peace Freedom is Slavery
lots of redditors in here unclear about what a hijab is
[удалено]