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.
view the rest of the comments
Good. Fuck religious indoctrination among the kids.
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.
God sure does enact genocides on his "chosen people" quite often. I guess religious nuts sometimes forget what they're chosen for lol.
Yeah, they'll even repeat your username!
Edit: I love that @fxomt hates my arguments so much they even downvoted my private joke with no idea what it means
Iykyk lol
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.
How do you know that?
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.
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.
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.
"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?
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.
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".
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?
Show me the fucking data then you muppet. Kids in burqa in school is such a high-profile problem that it needs legislative action, surely there must be a mountain of data documenting the harm they do, and how prohibiting burqas in school makes that harm go away.
Or are you saying we shouldn't legislate based on data ? Dicks out, pure vibe, and if someone disagrees you just tell them they don't get it or maybe they think they're literally all-knowing. Jesus fucking christ man.
Oh, please elaborate. What data specifically are you asking for? No vague strawmen, but an actual argument and a specific datapoint that is something that is measurable?
You're arguing in bad faith to begin with, and then you go on and ignore all the arguments put to you. You talk about integration, but then instead of actually integrating, you advocate for segregation of the sexes and religions by ignoring the points that you'd have to actually build separate facilities for burka wearing girls to eat and they wouldn't participate in PE or at least shower afterwards, which would be unhygienic.
It's downright obvious you're trolling as hard you can to get me to say "we won't accept blabla islam blabla", but we do. Integration is always a compromise, and the compromise some cultures (which happen to also be majority muslim) have had to make is for instance stopping the genital mutilation of girls. That's just illegal here, no matter what culture you come from. Sorry, but that's unacceptable, no matter what you believe in. Burkas and Niqabs aren't, but when it comes to education in Finnish schools, afraid there's no room for them, for very practical reasons.
Ramadan is accommodated, because not eating doesn't require a separate space be built. But some veiled space where girls can be protected from the lusty eyes of.. checks notes... elementary school aged boys? Nah.
Truly an insufferable prick
You literally ignore every other word from my comment saying that you're ignoring everything, except the part where I say it's obvious you're trolling [because you're constantly ignoring the actual points made].
You don't see the irony in your reply which ignores >98% of my reply?
And you'll solve that by telling them they can't dress the way they want? How does that work, exactly?
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
Proof?
You need proof that kids, barring any religious indoctrination, would rather not be baking under layers of clothing that differentiates and marks them out from their classmates?
This guy is just sealioning you.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sealioning
Probably yeah, but I felt up to shooting down the dumbest arguments for those reading along
No, I want proof that kids are being forced into these things by their parents and don't, you know, believe in their religion. Because if it's the latter then freedom of religion (and, you know, freedom in general) should allow them to out whatever they want on their faces and heads. What mandate does the government have to infringe on the freedom of children and parenrs in this way?
So, religious indoctrination? Because kids are so qualified to be figuring out what mystical stuff they believe in at the age of 9. I'm all for religious freedom for adults, you're free to worship whatever you like. I'm against brainwashing kids into religion via family the moment they're born. Give them a chance to figure it out for themselves.
Even setting aside religion, every tradition or cultural value is an example of indoctrination. The logical conclusion of your position is that kids not only shouldn't be raised to he believe in anything, but also that the government has a right and duty to intervene to prevent kids from being raised to believe in things. After all, if kids shouldn't be raised to believe in religion, why should they be raised to believe in human rights? Why should they be taught that hurting people is bad? There's no self-consistent logical framework that would allow one to single out religion in this manner. Hell, more specifically on the matter of clothing, why is indoctrinating girls into wearing burkas bad but indoctrinationg them into wearing skirts not?
Most traditions or cultural values don't demand belief, unlike religion.
Because we as a society have decided that these are the values we wish to protect and propagate. We have made no such decisions with regards to religion, in fact likely the opposite.
I just pointed one out.
Nobody's advocating indoctrinating them into wearing skirts. I don't see anybody protesting them wearing pants or w/e.
But plenty do. Everything from "this is how dish A should be eaten" to "leave your shoes at the door" to "we should be nice to our parents" is a belief, even if there's no mysticism behind it. Are you going to arrest parents for teaching their kids that dessert is supposed to be eaten after dinner?
So parents should only be allowed to teach rightthink, and the state has a duty to use its monopoly on violence to intervene whenever parents attempt to teach children wrongthink (wrongthink being anything other than what the state, representing society, has deemed as rightthink). You just trampled all over freedom of thought and conscience with that statement, and PS: Fascists can use the exact same line of thought to ban pride flags and minority cultures.
Yeah you're gonna have to back that one up with numbers.
You did not. You gave no logical framework that justifies state violence in cases of religion and doesn't justify it in cases of non-religion. Your response to me pointing out that believing in God and believing in human rights can both be affected by your position was "but one is rightthink so it's fine," not any kind of logical distinction.
In many societies schoolgirls are, in fact, expected or forced to wear skirts rather than pants for school (see: Japan), and as for the rest: Why do women wear women's clothing rather than men's clothing if not for cultural indoctrination? Why do men not wear skirts and tank tops if not for cultural indoctrination?
They're a belief. They don't DEMAND you belief in them, else go to hell / get isolated by your family.
Is anybody discussing arrest in the current situation? You're pulling a classic reductio ad absurdum.
This is not an attempt to ban parents passing their religion on to their kids, it's merely preventing them from doing so in school, and giving some children potentially their only taste of gender equality that they'll receive before they turn 18.
You've made a lot of claims yourself, feel free to back them up any time.
We're not talking 'many cultures'. We're talking about Sweden, and last I checked they did not force girls to wear skirts. For the record I'm against forced uniform segregation by gender.
That is blatantly untrue. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filial_piety#Developments_in_modern_society. People of any culture will react negatively when cultural values or traditions they hold dear are ignored or disrespected by their children. This is why homophobia is still going strong in predominantly atheists societies like China and Japan, for example.
Yes, that's the point. The only difference between banning niqab in schools and my example is extent; fundamentally they're both using state violence to enforce conformity in child rearing, which is bad no matter how much or little of it you do.
So only rightthink should be practiced at schools? There is no qualifier you could add to this idea that won't make it fucked up, because imposing rightthink via state violence is bad no matter where you do it.
If you can only respond with "no u," you should really reevaluate your position. Also I'll back up any claim you want me to, but you'll need to be more specific than that.
First this is Finland in the OP. Second, you ignored the second half of that part.
Holy shit the amount of bad rhetoric you've gotten into one comment.
Thats sort of impressive.
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?