A debate is erupting around Islamic face coverings in Finland’s educational institutions.
Archived version: https://archive.is/20250813123725/https://yle.fi/a/74-20177195
Disclaimer: The article linked is from a single source with a single perspective. Make sure to cross-check information against multiple sources to get a comprehensive view on the situation.
This is pure and simple Islamophobia and racism. Their head dressings do not detract from anyone’s learning including their own. This is like banning hair dye because it might “disturb and distract” other students. Bullshit.
I always love the irony when people worry that others are being dictated on how to dress so they then themselves dictate to people how they can dress.
I always love the irony when people making such comments are unable to understand that setting SOME dressing rules in schools and working places is absolutely NOT the same as the dictation of wearing distinct clothing anytime and anywhere. The latter has far bigger restrictive impact on your freedom of expression.
On the one hand I agree that some dressing rules in schools and working places are fine - but on the other you have to be willfully ignorant if you can’t see the blatant Islamophobia at play with targeting religious head coverings like this. Note how they always go after niqabs, but never dastars. Dressing rules at school should be about teaching kids what’s expected in polite society, and polite society should make room for cultural expression.
dastar
don’t think i’ve ever seen one in any nordic or european country. first time i saw one was when i visited north america. there has never been a debate around them, because there are basically no sikh in the nordic countries. germany has about 25000 sikh and they’re the most populous country in europe. for comparison, canada has half the population of germany and 30 times as many sikh.
Good. Fuck religious indoctrination among the kids.
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.
But what really grinds my gears about (other) leftists defending this kind of religious expression is, this isn’t something women choose.
How do you know that?
They’re forced to and groomed from young age to cover themselves.
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.
This is just plain old misogyny that has no place in modern societies.
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.
How do you know that?
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.
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.
“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?
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.
Kids have no filter
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
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.
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”.
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?
And you’ll solve that by telling them they can’t dress the way they want? How does that work, exactly?
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?
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?
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?
This is stupid but also dumb. The article said that it would make it illegal to wear face coverings. So does that include, like, medical masks?
This law is just straight up Anti-Islam.
Can you imagine the outcry if a similar law was passed to prevent people from wearing yamakas on the idea of “freedom”?
Everyone should be free to wear whatever they want - but that’s not what this is about. Nobody wears a burka or niqab because they genuinely want to.
Maybe this European country could also make a law that prevents children from face masks prevent them from getting diseases or prevent immunocompromised patients from wearing face masks since they’re both forced to?
Nobody wants to wear a face mask because they genuinely want to. 🤦
I really can not believe you just used the line that nobody wants to wear this religious garb of their chosen religion and culture. Let’s just ignore the major amount of assumptions and xenophobia present in this line of thought.
The factor of the matter is, you have no idea why people choose to wear that, and while I’m sure some people may be coerced into it, but for the most part, I’m positive that the majority of people are choosing to wear these garbs willingly.
Are you really about to sit here and tell me that there’s a difference between a yamaka and a burka? Do people willingly choose to wear yamakas, or do they have to wear them? Do people choose to wear dastars or do they have to be worn? Given this is a European country, I’m going to assume that there isn’t any sort of religious law here, meaning that people can dress how they want.
I can very easily make this argument that you made about yamakas and why those should not be allowed in public, and then I can use the fact that the country that claims to be the sole representive of Jewish people, is using their religion to commit a genocide, so I can even make an argument that wearing a yamaka causes people to feel unsafe in public areas.
It is my belief that these laws are anti-Muslim, anti-Islam, xenophobic laws put on the books to prevent refugees from the European-caused disasters in the Middle East from coming to their states and to make them as hostile as possible to cultures that these countries are not willing to understand.
If you’re not willing to grant me that virtually every woman wearing a burka or niqab does so because she has to, not because she wants to, then we’re so far apart on this that there’s nothing to discuss.
then we’re so far apart on this that there’s nothing to discuss
edit: added a line for formatting
You’re wrong and you’re projecting, You can’t imagine wanting to do it, so you’re sure it can’t be that way.
“While the niqab is a commendable act in Islam, it is not obligatory for Muslim women. The majority of scholars agree that covering the face and hands is not required, as supported by Quranic verses and Hadiths. A Muslim woman fulfills her religious obligations by adhering to the conditions of the hijab, making the niqab a matter of personal choice rather than a strict religious duty.”
Sure, many are in families that push them to do it, but in the end it’s not like they’re not allowed not to by the religion.
Sure, many are in families that push them to do it, but in the end it’s not like they’re not allowed not to by the religion
I never claimed otherwise. It’s the lived experience that matters, not the literal interpretation of the original text.
As I said elsewhere in the thread: The Quran and hadiths, while not always explicit, make multiple references to how women should dress. Different countries and religious sects interpret these rules differently, but it all boils down to the same thing: in these cultures, there are consequences for women who don’t follow the tradition.
My issue isn’t with covering your face or hair - it’s when the person isn’t truly free to choose. And I’d argue that, especially when it comes to the burka or niqab, that’s the case for a genuinely high percentage.
“grant me my racist stereotype, or I’m not talking to you”
Interesting strategy, cotton, let’s see how that plays out.
In Iran, women are required by law to wear the hijab. In Afghanistan, they’re required by the Taliban to wear a burka or at least a niqab. In Sudan, hijab was mandatory for women until 2019, and the same applies in Saudi Arabia and the Aceh province of Indonesia. But sure - go ahead and call me racist for even daring to suggest they’re doing it for any reason other than their own free choice.
Ah I hope you can forgive my ignorance. I thought we were talking about a proposed law that directly discriminates against Islam in Finland.
Not theocratic countries that had there politics “reset” by the west multiple times.
It is interesting that I was talking about how Muslims should have the freedom of religion in places like Finland and then you immediately pivot to how there are Islamic oppressive countries, which you also note have loosened the restrictions for the last 7 years, have laws about religious garb. In a theocracy. That isn’t democratic.
Good simile. Definitely pokes a ton of holes in the “this minister is xenophobic and Islamophobic for trying to introduce this law” and isn’t a red herring fallacy.
Strawmanning, motte-and-bailey, whataboutism, moving the goalposts, ad hominem, false equivalence and dismissive sarcasm.
Was there a sale at the bad-faith argument tactics store?
…Unless they want to
This puts a lot of pressure on Muslim girls and places them in a further disadvantaged position compared to not only Christians, but even to Muslim boys.
Also, while Finnish schools are expected maintain confessional neutrality, display of a cross somehow doesn’t count.
Fuck religion. Embrace personal experience over dogmatic teachings.
Ah yes, religion. Famously not part of anyone’s personal experience.
Figuring out answers to essential questions is personal experience. Forcing dogmas written by long dead horny men to give cookie cutter answers to such questions is religion.
Finland
Freedom of religion until we don’t like it.
Why should there be freedom of religion any more? What does religion do?
What do you have in mind? Maybe we should start rounding up people for having the wrong belief
Why should there be freedom of religion any more?
This is an argument that will lead to you being forced into being a christian.
Because freedom of religion is pretty much just a special case of freedom of thought and conscience? Unless you want the state to use its monopoly on violence to punish people for wrongthink, freedom of religion is here to stay.
Why should a state be allowed to dictate what people believe?
It’s a part of culture. You can’t dictate to a people how their culture should be. And in case of a minority group like muslims in Norway it’s a form of oppression. Because you know who will be targeted first if freedom of religion falls.
Culture is important, but these things can be taught as history too
What things? How do you think people live their religion that it can all just be discarded and taught in a sterile manner?
explain how you are going to enforce a ban on religion
Every finn should get an emotional support burka.
I feel like a lot of comments here suffers from The Paradox of Tolerance.
This is about a minister setting down their foot on what degree of tolerance outside of cultural and societal norms this country should have. Just like any other country. Look at for example at Afghanistan, Japan, and Estonia - are they any different? Better or worse?
That’s not what the paradox of tolerance is. The paradox of tolerance, according to your own link, is that tolerating intolerant ideas allows them to thrive and expand until they enforce their intolerance on everyone else. Unless you think that allowing girls to wear burkas will lead to Finland becoming a caliphate, the paradox of tolerance doesn’t apply. Also, in typical Westerner fashion, you completely ignored the impact of colonial meddling in your example choices.
Still pretty anti-muslim.
The paradox of tolerance is that in order to have a tolerant society you must be intolerant of tolerance. Not allowing people to wear religious garb due to some perceived notion of freedom, I would say is pretty intolerant.
The minister is a bigot and racist.
Your profile says “religion is cancer” yet you seem fine with forcing women to cover their faces because their religion mandates it and their father/husband doesn’t want other men seeing them.
I disagree with religion but I still think people should have the freedom to follow one.
No one’s trying to ban religions here - you just don’t get a free pass for barbaric behavior because of it.
Barbaric behavior like… not showing one’s hair?
This isn’t about hijabs - it’s about burkas and niqabs. One covers everything except the eyes, and the other covers those too.
What makes it barbaric isn’t the desire to be covered, but the fact that it’s not the woman’s choice. Nobody dresses up in a bag willingly.
It isn’t forced in Finland
It is by choice
I thought burka referred to something else so my bad there. In that case I think the whole affair is pretty weird myself, but the original point still stands: Women wearing these things is up to them, and whether parents raise their children to wear these things is up to them. When talking about parenting the whole concept of consent gets pretty dubious, but that’s the case for everything. Society generally recognizes that parents have great leeway in raising their kids, so I expect more than vibes as a reason to infringe on that.
Nobody dresses up in a bag willingly.
Lost your horse somewhere, white knight? You’ll need a source to back that up.
I’ll quote my other comment:
In Iran, women are required by law to wear the hijab. In Afghanistan, they’re required by the Taliban to wear a burka or at least a niqab. In Sudan, hijab was mandatory for women until 2019, and the same applies in Saudi Arabia and the Aceh province of Indonesia.
I’m not saying that literally nobody wears burka or niqab willingly but I think we have enough examples of it being forced upon them that it doesn’t seem like a huge stretch for me to generalize that it’s the rule rather than exception.
Okay imagine you move somewhere where all the guys go outside with their dicks out, but you don’t want to because you were raised to think your dick should be covered. Even without somebody explicitly forcing you to cover your dick, you’ll still instinctively want to do it because it’s a deeply held cultural taboo to go outside with your dick out, especially if you’re part of an immigrant community that still covers their dicks. Now imagine that your school says you have to go to school with your dick out even if you feel uncomfortable with it.
Yes, the requirement for Muslim women to cover their hair is rooted in and perpetuated by misogyny, but ideas about modesty and decency don’t just disappear overnight and it’s kind of unfair for western societies to put girls in ththat position.
Would you make the same argument for genital mutilation or arranged marriages too? This isn’t about fashion choises. It’s about oppression. Not everything should be exported to other cultures.
Who said I’m fine forcing women to do anything? Some women make the choice to wear religious clothing. I’m for the individual choice to do whatever you want with your own body as long as it doesn’t directly affect someone else’s.
