• crapwittyname@feddit.uk
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    12 days 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
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      12 days 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.

    • devils@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      8 days ago

      The face-covering law includes items that aren’t the burqa, such as bandannas and mascot/fursuit heads. However, it wouldn’t surprise me if you’re correct in assuming it’s targeting a religious item, especially since the law doesn’t usually get enforced unless it’s a woman wearing a burqa.

      • crapwittyname@feddit.uk
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        8 days ago

        It’s a fact that the law was originally introduced by the far right, and specifically banned the burqa. Then it was expanded to include other face coverings, with exceptions.

        • devils@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          8 days ago

          That doesn’t surprise me in the least bit. I will have to look further into this. Regardless, it’s a stupid law.