Sir, you just said kurta is being weared during religious ceremonies.. It's hard argue that it is not a religious dress..
Well if that yellow thing becomes widely acknowledged as a "religious display" then yes, it will be banned in public schools.. It does sound dumb but only because you made an extravagant decision to make "yellow" a religious sign. If you claimed "let's have a crossed bar" as religious sign, suddenly it becomes easier to imagine
I am not jumping, i know who it is targeting, and i never said opposite. I also agree it's definitely strictly more freedom-restrictive, but i also believe this is a good thing in this context. I might be wrong, that's why I said " mildly in favor" of that law. France is known to impose French language on minorities (bretons, occitans etc..) in the name of national unity, and this law follows in the same directon, (but thankfully doesn't forbid a language lol which I would definitely be against)
It is absolutely different from Talibans, and that's not even debatable. One is imposing 1 dress on everyone forbidding everything else, the other is excluding 1 particular dress, allowing anything else. One is making women stand out and look the same, the other blends them and allows for self expression (in the defined limits). There is plenty of room to choose a dress style.
Integrating into host culture is good thing. Yes, that means, at some point, making different choices, looking different, and faking amusement for pointless holidays.
Bonus point: there won't be a way to discriminate pupils based on their look, no more "I got a bad grade because teacher didn't like my national dress". I hear you say "well that won't stop the discrimination", and I agree, people will discriminate on anything from hair color to one's accent; but that's one possible discrimination less
Ostracising means to exclude. The law forces the blending. The mental gymnastics you need to find "exclusion" in that is buffing.
Again it's not excluding anyone, it tries to male them blend with the rest. Blend. Mix. Nobody is excluded. I never mentioned uniforms, neither the law, i don't know why you bring that up. Yes, uniforms obviously make everyone uniform but we aren't talking about it. Dressing regularly also make everyone look "regular" or "secular", we don't need uniforms.
If anything, the groups of people are literally excluding themselves by wearing stuff nobody else does.
Looks like at some point people are just repeating the same argument for everything and opposite of it.
Because "ostracizing" means "to exclude" someone. While imposing a common dress standard is to include everyone.
so petty much the opposite of "ostracizing"
we are talking about underage girls here, not exactly adult "women" so I reject the idea that those girls could choose/buy their outfit.
Regardless, I disagree because:
We are choosing between either parents imposing a robe, or the state imposing a robe; wearing that robe would clearly differentiate the ethnicity/religious background of the pupil, while wearing regular "whatever everyone else is wearing" would help the integration and erase the boundaries. Note that parents cannot just withdraw the kid out of school, so they have to integrate; private education is almost never an option
It avoids the whole can of worms like "professor didn't like my muslim robe, that's why I got bad grades"
Personal take: I HATE religion. Yes, churches too, I have enough hate for every religious nut out there. And no need to tell me "abaya is not a religious dress", who are you fooling.
Ideally, I agree, State should just fuck up and let people live. But that's not taking into account any local context, and nobody lives in a vacuum, people live in some particular society.
As an immigrant myself, I do think that it's best for foreigners to integrate to host country as much as possible.
You re blessed, because i am bound to deal with whatever random BS is announced next. I ll take a call with developer