Re:Switzerland votes against electronic ID system provided b...
by stjohnswarts on Sunday March 07, 2021 @07:47PM
(#26381251)
The laws of religion should not override those of the state. To do so would lead to a theocracy and that has been shown to be almost universally bad on any large scale.
Re:Switzerland votes against electronic ID system provided b...
by Dylan16807 on Sunday March 07, 2021 @09:52PM
(#26381892)
The laws of the state shouldn't go out of their way to get in the way of the laws of religion, doing so for no real reason other than spite.
To do so creates conflict where there should be none, which is against the very purpose of a state.
Re:Switzerland votes against electronic ID system provided b...
by supergirl on Monday March 08, 2021 @03:53AM
(#26383537)
I imagine the women are not physically forced (or maybe only some are) but instead are “educated” from childhood that this is the way. How would you solve it then?
Re:Switzerland votes against electronic ID system provided b...
by techsupporter on Monday March 08, 2021 @04:08AM
(#26383619)
Massive public education campaign, as is routinely done for many other topics found objectionable by various religions but acceptable in secular society? From birth control to blood transfusions to interest on loans?
At minimum, show the non-religious benefits of doing (or not doing) a thing and why it is relevant for the individual. Don’t punish the victim for doing the thing; if someone must be punished, make it the person imposing the action.
Re:Switzerland votes against electronic ID system provided b...
by supergirl on Monday March 08, 2021 @06:45AM
(#26384703)
> Massive public education campaign
That's only slightly better than getting a fine. If gov would run a ad campaign / school program with "making women wear burka is bad" then the victims would still be the ones to suffer because it's still directed at the way of life as they know it.
But your solution is to implement a law which punishes the victim, rather then doing anything about their presumed victimizer.
If the women who didn't want to wear the covering didn't want to wear it, what is stopping them from simply not doing it to start with? The answer of course is husband's, brothers, family etc. and probably that they'd be recognized in their community.
But this is someone's religion - a fair bit more important to them then the laws of the state in a lot of cases. So you haven't answered how you're going to protect those women from being targeted and forced to simply never leave the house, if they are being targeted by people who are forcing them to do something they don't want to.
Your law offers no solution to this - and again - implements itself by targeting the apparent victims it proposes to protect with punishment.
Setting aside that the government can stay the hell out of what I choose to wear, this is just a monumentally stupid approach to anything.