Global News
What is global news?
Something that happened or was uncovered recently anywhere in the world. It doesn't have to have global implications. Just has to be informative in some way.
Post guidelines
Title format
Post title should mirror the news source title.
URL format
Post URL should be the original link to the article (even if paywalled) and archived copies left in the body. It allows avoiding duplicate posts when cross-posting.
[Opinion] prefix
Opinion (op-ed) articles must use [Opinion] prefix before the title.
Country prefix
Country prefix can be added to the title with a separator (|, :, etc.) where title is not clear enough from which country the news is coming from.
Rules
This community is moderated in accordance with the principles outlined in Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which emphasizes the right to freedom of opinion and expression. In addition to this foundational principle, we have some additional rules to ensure a respectful and constructive environment for all users.
1. English only
Title and associated content has to be in English.
2. No social media posts
Avoid all social media posts. Try searching for a source that has a written article or transcription on the subject.
3. Respectful communication
All communication has to be respectful of differing opinions, viewpoints, and experiences.
4. Inclusivity
Everyone is welcome here regardless of age, body size, visible or invisible disability, ethnicity, sex characteristics, gender identity and expression, education, socio-economic status, nationality, personal appearance, race, caste, color, religion, or sexual identity and orientation.
5. Ad hominem attacks
Any kind of personal attacks are expressly forbidden. If you can't argue your position without attacking a person's character, you already lost the argument.
6. Off-topic tangents
Stay on topic. Keep it relevant.
7. Instance rules may apply
If something is not covered by community rules, but are against lemmy.zip instance rules, they will be enforced.
Companion communities
- !legalnews@lemmy.zip - International and local legal news.
- !technology@lemmy.zip - Technology, social media platforms, informational technologies and tech policy.
- !interestingshare@lemmy.zip - Fascinating articles, captivating images, satisfying videos, interesting projects, stunning research and more.
- !europe@feddit.org - News and information about Europe.
Icon generated via LLM model | Banner attribution
If someone is interested in moderating this community, message @brikox@lemmy.zip.
This is pure and simple Islamophobia and racism. Their head dressings do not detract from anyone's learning including their own. This is like banning hair dye because it might "disturb and distract" other students. Bullshit.
Good. Fuck religious indoctrination among the kids.
Agreed, and this goes for any religion that does it. But what really grinds my gears about (other) leftists defending this kind of religious expression is, this isn't something women choose. They're forced to and groomed from young age to cover themselves. Meanwhile, their brothers, fathers, sons all walk around free to wear shorts, t-shirts, etc. If men had to cover themselves the same way, then sure, at least there would be some level of equality. This is just plain old misogyny that has no place in modern societies.
However, with that said, there's a real possibility banning head coverings would ultimately hurt girls, instead of helping them. Good education and financial independence and stability in adulthood would give these girls a better and safer way to escape. Like with any other societal problem, it's complex and can't be simply "magiced" away.
But what really grinds my gears about (other) leftists defending this kind of religious expression is, this isn't something women choose.
How do you know that?
They're forced to and groomed from young age to cover themselves.
That's... kind of how all parenting works? You could legit say "they're forced to and groomed from young age to X" and replace X with anything you want and it'll work so you're not really saying much.
This is just plain old misogyny that has no place in modern societies.
Yeah here's the thing: Freedom of conscience means freedom of conscience, even when you don't like that conscience. If misogyny is reason enough for you to take a sledgehammer to this core pillar of democratic society then go ahead, but know that fascists can use that same sledgehammer against whatever beliefs you have that they don't like.
How do you know that?
Try wearing a headcovering for an entire day and I'm sure you'll figure it out.
Hijab, sure, easy. But a burka or a niqab? Nah, ain't no-one choosing that without years of conditioning.
You could legit say "they're forced to and groomed from young age to X" and replace X with anything you want and it'll work so you're not really saying much.
"They're forced from a young age to respect differences and think for themselves and groomed not to behave in a way that limits the freedom of others."
Yeah, totally the same, isn't it? /s
"Taking a sledgehammer against a core pillar of a democratic society" what are you talking about? You think a code democratic principle is being broken here by limiting burkas and niqabs?
Sure, buddy
This you?
It gets even worse, once the 'gods chosen people' and 'dirty heathens' discussions start. Kids have no filter. I'm speaking of all abrahamic religions and a a good chunk of everything else.
I think that's a misinterpretation of the concepts of Freedom of Religion and Laicity (freedom from religion).
In the French understanding, laicity means that no representative of the State is allowed to show their religion, or treat people differently according to their religion / political orientation. Traditionally it even extended further : for example teachers would refrain from exposing their religion / political views because they recognized the influence they held on their community, and that being outspoken is unfair to those who do not share those views.
That being said, the Burqa laws are an attempt to place that burden on the users of the services of the State. It's pretty toxic because they should be served equally, which obviously they can't be when you write laws that target one specific group over others.
The attempt to place the blame on parents is equally toxic. You have the freedom to raise your kids the way you see fit : having a conscience is not illegal. If that leads them to do illegal stuff, well that's when the law comes in, but not before.
It's all fun and games until the next fascist administration uses the same Burqa laws to prohibit whatever you hold dear.
It's all fun and games until the next fascist administration uses the same Burqa laws to prohibit whatever you hold dear.
Yeah, next they'll be saying something like "kids shouldn't bring life-like replica guns to school" or something equally authoritarian.
The horror.
That's a great joke. I'm sure there's no reasonable scenario you could have picked instead of that one.
It's not like some places in the world are prohibiting discourse about homosexuality or the criticism of religion, under the same guise of "protecting children from indoctrination".
It's not like some places in the world are prohibiting discourse about homosexuality or the criticism of religion, under the same guise of "protecting children from indoctrination".
I am Finnish. Neither of those are in any way forbidden or avoided?
You're pretending — in bad faith — that this is some authoritarian bullshit. It isn't. It's perfectly reasonable not to allow kids to cover their faces. I wasn't allowed to in school in the 90's either.
Again, hijabs are completely fine.
No i'm trying to see the bigger picture here. Our great grandparents were deeply religious too and because schools are accomodating to all ways of life (the burden of laicity is not on the user) they were allowed to integrate with each other and that's how you get from >90% of religious practice in a country to <50%.
Those burqa laws have no discernable point, there is no metric that you could point to and say "see, that's how it's making society better". They only have negative externalities. Sure you can punish that teenage girl and make her life more complicated. Hell, you might even get her to quit public school, that would be fucking sweet right ? What does society ever gain from that ?
It's a solution in search of a problem, and as these things often are, it will be misused by someone whose agenda you despise.
It's not integration when you demand that your kid can't eat in the same room as others or that they won't participate in PE.
Religious kids get driven to other schools, with taxis, payed for by the state, in order to be able to practice their religion and culture. There and back.
But yeah, keep pretending in bad faith as if this is some authoritarian culture denying bullshit. It's not like I've said it several times now, so you surely won't seem at all ridiculous by obtusely continuing it. ^/s
Just because a thing doesn't have "a discernable point..." TO YOU, doesn't mean it doesn't have at all. Or do you think you're literally all-knowing?
And you'll solve that by telling them they can't dress the way they want? How does that work, exactly?
In the previous comment I was replying to you in this post, you were just asking someone how would you know what they want to wear?
Try wearing a burka for a day and report back how you like it.
But they are allowed to wear whatever they want — within reason. You have to cover your genitals at least, that's usually a minimum. And you're not allowed to cover your entire face. Between those two rules, I'm sure you can come up with something you'll like.
Hijabs are still completely fine, btw.
Those are the ones that a cultural argument can be made for and I definitely see how one can also definitely want to wear them. But burka or niqab? C'mon who are you lying to?
You think the kids are the ones insisting they want to be covered up? It's the parents who are doing it. Take that ability away from the parents and the kids DGAF
I always love the irony when people worry that others are being dictated on how to dress so they then themselves dictate to people how they can dress.
I always love the irony when people making such comments are unable to understand that setting SOME dressing rules in schools and working places is absolutely NOT the same as the dictation of wearing distinct clothing anytime and anywhere. The latter has far bigger restrictive impact on your freedom of expression.
This puts a lot of pressure on Muslim girls and places them in a further disadvantaged position compared to not only Christians, but even to Muslim boys.
Also, while Finnish schools are expected maintain confessional neutrality, display of a cross somehow doesn't count.
Fuck religion. Embrace personal experience over dogmatic teachings.
Every finn should get an emotional support burka.
Freedom of religion until we don't like it.
Why should there be freedom of religion any more? What does religion do?
Why should there be freedom of religion any more?
This is an argument that will lead to you being forced into being a christian.
Because freedom of religion is pretty much just a special case of freedom of thought and conscience? Unless you want the state to use its monopoly on violence to punish people for wrongthink, freedom of religion is here to stay.
Why should a state be allowed to dictate what people believe?
What do you have in mind? Maybe we should start rounding up people for having the wrong belief
I feel like a lot of comments here suffers from The Paradox of Tolerance.
This is about a minister setting down their foot on what degree of tolerance outside of cultural and societal norms this country should have. Just like any other country. Look at for example at Afghanistan, Japan, and Estonia - are they any different? Better or worse?
That's not what the paradox of tolerance is. The paradox of tolerance, according to your own link, is that tolerating intolerant ideas allows them to thrive and expand until they enforce their intolerance on everyone else. Unless you think that allowing girls to wear burkas will lead to Finland becoming a caliphate, the paradox of tolerance doesn't apply. Also, in typical Westerner fashion, you completely ignored the impact of colonial meddling in your example choices.