55
submitted 3 days ago by CAVOK@lemmy.world to c/europe@feddit.org
all 26 comments
sorted by: hot top new old
[-] botbot@feddit.org 13 points 2 days ago
[-] pirateKaiser@sh.itjust.works 8 points 2 days ago

Amen to that!

[-] starman2112@sh.itjust.works 3 points 1 day ago

As an American, I don't have a whole lot to be proud of, but I'll be damned if I don't think every country deserves First Amendment rights

[-] crapwittyname@feddit.uk 13 points 2 days ago

A law banning one religion's symbology is always going to be a bad time for everyone. As seen with other burqa bans, this will just cause division, which is exactly what the originators of the bill are looking for. Shame that level heads didn't prevail. Again.

It's weird for me to be defending the right to wear a burqa. I think extreme religious practices like this are silly and need to be modernised, and I particularly think that teaching women and girls to "cover their beauty" is disgraceful. But this is not the way to fix it. This just makes it worse, aggravating divisions and entrenching views. Fuck your burqa ban.

[-] Tryenjer@lemmy.world 1 points 12 hours ago* (last edited 12 hours ago)

I am in favour of banning the burqa, but I think it's particularly funny that the guys who are supposedly all about individual freedom (iniciativa liberal, despite the name they are much closer to libertarians) at least in their propaganda voted in favour of banning face-covering in public (which is what the law actually refers to, because in Portugal, for the time being, it is unconstitutional to ban a specific religious item).

[-] crapwittyname@feddit.uk 1 points 9 hours ago* (last edited 8 hours ago)

I think the face-covering law is specifically targeting the religious item, especially considering the exceptions to the rule.
If a country banned any pointed objects from being worn around the neck, in case it could be used as a weapon, say, we would all know that was a ban on the crucifix. I believe it's just a smokescreen, like the surveillance laws being masqueraded as child-protection.

[-] Tryenjer@lemmy.world 1 points 7 hours ago* (last edited 7 hours ago)

I would be in favour of banning the use of the crucifix in public too. Not because I think it's a dangerous object, but because I believe religion should remain at home or in a place specifically designated for that purpose.

[-] crapwittyname@feddit.uk 1 points 5 hours ago* (last edited 5 hours ago)

Yes, I agree that in an ideal world, religions would not be part of society. However- forcing the issue in our current societies with a top-down ban is absolutely never going to work. People will rebel against this kind of oppression of what they believe, deeply (however foolishly), is their truth and their duty to an omnipotent being.
Education and connection to the rest of the world is the solution to that problem. These things dull religious fervour. But people have been religious for at least as long as we have been able to write. There's no erasing that in a short few generations, let alone a single election cycle.

[-] CAVOK@lemmy.world 9 points 2 days ago

Very much agree with this. The end result might actually be that women and girls won't be allowed to go out at all, which isn't great.

[-] crapwittyname@feddit.uk 3 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

More than likely in some cases.
And I don't see any potential positive end results for anyone except bigots.

[-] starman2112@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 day ago

Reminder that the problem with Islam isn't that they force women to cover themselves, it's that apostasy is punished so severely that secular women would rather put up with the burqas. If a woman genuinely believes in Islam, she should have the right to practice her religion.

[-] poVoq@slrpnk.net 4 points 3 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

So no more face masks during a respiratory pandemic? ๐Ÿคฆ

Edit: Apparently people didn't read the article. The proposed law was modified to forbid all sorts of face covering and the terms are so vague that is absolutely includes N95 masks and similar.

[-] Polaris@jlai.lu 7 points 2 days ago

Reminds me when such a law was passed in Austria, and people started phoning in people dressed as ninjas and animal mascots in malls and amusement parks

[-] xcel@piefed.social 1 points 2 days ago
[-] poVoq@slrpnk.net 8 points 2 days ago

Because it isn't a ban on burqas (which alone would also be problematic on grounds of religious freedom), but a general ban on all face covering in public. And this should be obviously a problem both for health reasons (respiratory masks) and video surveillance with face recognition.

[-] Zacryon@feddit.org 4 points 2 days ago

So there are no exemptions in case of necessary medical devices?

[-] CactusEcho@piefed.social 1 points 1 day ago

yes there are. Exceptions:

  • Health, professional, artistic, entertainment or advertising reasons;

  • Places of worship and diplomatic and consular premises, as well as aircraft;

  • Weather conditions, security reasons or other situations provided for by law.

[-] poVoq@slrpnk.net -1 points 2 days ago

I have not checked the details in the actual law, so maybe.

[-] CAVOK@lemmy.world 5 points 2 days ago

It might not be, or it might, but I somehow don't believe that the far-right who proposed this had the well-being of women and girls in mind.

[-] xcel@piefed.social 4 points 2 days ago

Ok ? Does this matter? It still seems like a good idea. How are you supposed to identify someone if they commit a crime? If it was a mask it would be illegal

[-] crapwittyname@feddit.uk 1 points 2 days ago

The wellbeing of women and girls matters, yes.

In fact, their wellbeing (along with everyone else's) is exactly why you would be trying to stop crime in the first place.

How are you supposed to identify someone if they commit a crime?

They're wearing a fucking burka FFS, it's a pretty good way to identify a person. It's about as easy as it gets. Also, have you ever tried to run from the cops in one of those things? It's a fool who chooses that as their getaway clothing.

[-] xcel@piefed.social 2 points 1 day ago

If everyone wears a burqa, how are you meant to tell one person apart from another

[-] crapwittyname@feddit.uk 2 points 1 day ago

Everyone doesn't wear a burqa though. The vast majority of people don't. So, if a crime is committed by someone wearing one, it will be much easier for the police to find them than it would be by recognising the details of their faces.

[-] emergencyfood@sh.itjust.works -2 points 2 days ago

So, under 'international law', is it now legal to invade Portugal and stop them oppressing their women? Or does that only apply if they have proven oil reserves?

this post was submitted on 17 Jul 2026
55 points (95.1% liked)

Europe

11618 readers
678 users here now

News and information from Europe ๐Ÿ‡ช๐Ÿ‡บ

(Current banner: La Mancha, Spain. Feel free to post submissions for banner images.)

Rules (2024-08-30)

  1. This is an English-language community. Comments should be in English. Posts can link to non-English news sources when providing a full-text translation in the post description. Automated translations are fine, as long as they don't overly distort the content.
  2. No links to misinformation or commercial advertising. When you post outdated/historic articles, add the year of publication to the post title. Infographics must include a source and a year of creation; if possible, also provide a link to the source.
  3. Be kind to each other, and argue in good faith. Don't post direct insults nor disrespectful and condescending comments. Don't troll nor incite hatred. Don't look for novel argumentation strategies at Wikipedia's List of fallacies.
  4. No bigotry, sexism, racism, antisemitism, islamophobia, dehumanization of minorities, or glorification of National Socialism. We follow German law; don't question the statehood of Israel.
  5. Be the signal, not the noise: Strive to post insightful comments. Add "/s" when you're being sarcastic (and don't use it to break rule no. 3).
  6. If you link to paywalled information, please provide also a link to a freely available archived version. Alternatively, try to find a different source.
  7. Light-hearted content, memes, and posts about your European everyday belong in other communities.
  8. Don't evade bans. If we notice ban evasion, that will result in a permanent ban for all the accounts we can associate with you.
  9. No posts linking to speculative reporting about ongoing events with unclear backgrounds. Please wait at least 12 hours. (E.g., do not post breathless reporting on an ongoing terror attack.)
  10. Always provide context with posts: Don't post uncontextualized images or videos, and don't start discussions without giving some context first.

(This list may get expanded as necessary.)

Posts that link to the following sources will be removed

Unless they're the only sources, please also avoid The Sun, Daily Mail, any "thinktank" type organization, and non-Lemmy social media (incl. Substack). Don't link to Twitter directly, instead use xcancel.com. For Reddit, use old:reddit:com

(Lists may get expanded as necessary.)

Ban lengths, etc.

We will use some leeway to decide whether to remove a comment.

If need be, there are also bans: 3 days for lighter offenses, 7 or 14 days for bigger offenses, and permanent bans for people who don't show any willingness to participate productively. If we think the ban reason is obvious, we may not specifically write to you.

If you want to protest a removal or ban, feel free to write privately to the admin that applied the rule (check modlog first to find who was it.)

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS