Indeed, anything else would most likely be equivalent to brushing the underlying issue under the carpet. Though there is nothing wrong in backing up the cause with an ICJ opinion. And the fact that the UN General Assembly voted in favor of such an opinion is clearly indicative of the shift of narrative.
There is a pending Israel-Palestine ICJ advisory opinion which can potentially prohibit the Israeli occupation of the West Bank and therefore politically delegitimise the Oslo Accords.
That being said, many of the court's judges are from Western states and close allies to the US.
I was in a similar spot and gave up before starting. This is due to several reasons: 1) My circle of relatives and friends, like yours, neglect their privacy and would not engage with me in a serious conversation regarding it; 2) educational institutions, businesses, organisations and even governmental bodies may rely on WhatsApp for communications; and 3) the two big telecom monopolies offer enticing mobile data deals for using WhatsApp.
While I am not saying you should give up, you should go for modest goals (e.g. converting your close family to signal when chatting together) and eliminate optimistic expectations so you don't get crushed.
Its events take place in the fifth century AD between Upper Egypt, Alexandria and northern Syria, following the adoption of Christianity by the Roman Empire, and the ensuing internal sectarian conflict between the church fathers on the one hand, and the new believers on the other hand, declining paganism.
Personally it made me nostalgic since I left spotify a few years ago and I long for those summer nights listening to my playlists while writing and reading.
I'd go further and declare that the “social contract” is a mythical story that serves to dominate the masses. The constitution is a body of rules set by a constituent assembly (aka a bunch of elites) which the people have no control over.
It is clear that what the court and private companies intend is to appease and target bigoted demigraphics for purely economic benefits, which the decrease thereof constitutes a “social issue.” We know quite well that in the heart of the European continent, this policy is targeting hijab more so than any other so-called religious symbol. If the authorities genuinely want to prevent “social disputes” they could've tackled social inequalities and the discrimination against asylum seekers and refugees, as well as addressing Islamophobia instead of chucking the root problem in the dustbin.
Perhaps liberal Nation-States may not entertain my second argument, but the veil is primarily a cultural element and not a religious symbol. Comparing it to the cross is a bad-faith analogy. The veil in fact predates Islam and was (and is still) present in many civilizations in different forms, including China and India. Its usage was also common in Europe before the 20th century, though now it is pretty much reduced to ceremonials and rituals. Would such a ban on religious symbols include the traditional indian outfits as well?
I am also quite intrigued to know how does a piece of clothing affect the workplace environment. Does removing it automatically imply neutrality? Is this all it takes to deem one “neutral”? And this brings me to ask how exactly does neutrality affect the workplace, should a religious ornament imply otherwise?
And say that veiled women refused to remove their veils, this means that a significant fraction of citizens are subsequently barred from professional and civic activity. How would this marginalization aid the resolution of those “social disputes”?
According to the court, the ban is justified if the employer needs “to present a neutral image towards customers or to prevent social disputes” (emphasis added). Is that a fair justification in your opinion?
I highly appreciate your helpful comment. This perhaps is a good introduction for the rise of a nationalistic spirit anong the colonized people. I will keep them in mind, thanks!
Five posts a day isn't bad as you put it. You've been for years overstimulated by Reddit's abundant content. Many of us have been contributing to lemmy perfectly fine; we see reccurent usernames and profile pictures, we grow compassionate and sincere with each others thanks to this familiarity.
Not everything should keep on mindlessly growing. Not growing fast enough isn't a problem, yet our modern, capitalist lifestyles make it seem so. That said, I am not against lemmy's ongoing growth per se.
Not open source but the app is ad free and has zero trackers.