SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
posted by
FatPhil
on Thursday October 19 2017, @05:45PM
from the they-suspected-he-had-frickin-lasers dept.
from the they-suspected-he-had-frickin-lasers dept.
A man dressed as a shark has been fined under new anti-burqa laws in Austria. A PR agency has admitted the incident was a stunt designed to make a "socially relevant" point.
Police had confronted a man on Friday after he was seen promoting a new outlet of the McShark electronics store in Vienna in a costume that covered his face. When he refused to remove his shark head, he was given a fine of €150 ($176).
[...] Regional daily Österreich reported the officers acted after a call from an unidentified member of the public. Police had suspected the report came from someone who wished to prove a point about the new laws.
http://www.dw.com/en/austria-burqa-ban-man-dressed-as-shark-falls-afoul-of-new-law/a-40872491
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
Anti-Burka Law Bites Shark Mascot
|
Log In/Create an Account
| Top
| 52 comments
| Search Discussion
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Hacking's just another word for nothing left to kludge.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 19 2017, @10:08PM (8 children)
Yes, advancing feminism by denying women the right to practice their religion freely!
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 20 2017, @01:43AM (5 children)
All the religions that require women to wear stupid outfits -- including the crazy Christian ones with the head coverings and all that jazz -- are dangerous because these people really believe their moronic fairy tales. Religion is fine so long as it is neutered and everyone sort of only gives it half-hearted deference. But when it makes you wear certain clothes, shave (or not shave) a certain way -- you know it's gone off into the dangerous cult territory.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Anal Pumpernickel on Friday October 20 2017, @03:30AM (3 children)
When you try to combat injustice by banning people from wearing certain clothing, you have already failed. We must respect people's individual liberties first and foremost. If some people are being forced to wear these clothes or are being attacked for not doing so, then we should handle that on an individual basis, even if we can't catch all the bad guys.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 20 2017, @03:18PM (2 children)
Why? Any scientific reason for that? Where's the respect for liberties of children or the mentally retarded/unstable?
My guess is the OP wants to draw a line where even adults don't have that much liberty. Like parents forcing children to behave in certain ways till they hopefully grow mature enough to understand why it actually makes sense.
Personally it's fine with me for people to wear almost whatever they want as long as it's safe for wherever they are wearing it[1]. Or even not wear anything.
But lots of people can't handle that. Nudity or semi-nudity may have too strong an effect on many young males with raging hormones... My guess is it might be more "hard-wired".
From what I see "traditional clown outfits" seem to cause more distress to children than people in burqas, so if anything we should ban people from being in clown outfits in public places. See also: https://www.sheffield.ac.uk/international/news/1.116934 [sheffield.ac.uk]
Clowns scare many kids even when it's their first time seeing one. But burqas don't seem to bother most kids much. Seems to me that the aversion against burqas is more like a developed prejudice. So perhaps we should allow or even encourage burqas in public to help weed out the prejudiced adults who can't control themselves ;).
[1] For example, when near moving machinery no wearing of stuff that could easily be accidentally snagged in it.
(Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Saturday October 21 2017, @12:33AM
What does that mean? Why do I need a "scientific reason" to make a value judgement? Even if you could scientifically demonstrate that doing X would lead to some result that could be deemed positive by some people, that wouldn't change the fact that the question of whether we 'should' do X or not would still be entirely subjective.
People can disagree with me and be authoritarian trash if they wish to.
I don't know. Are you assuming I agree with the lack of respect for their liberties? There are countless situations where I do not agree with that.
Some people can't handle nudity? Too bad for those people. Government thugs shouldn't be able to control what you wear or stop you from being nude. Anyone could be offended by anything, so why do we only pay attention to people offended by things such as nudity? Why not listen to people who don't want to see others wearing red shirts, for instance? Their concerns are not any less valid. My guess is that a lot of the people in power are just forcing their own preferences on everyone else by restricting what people can do even if they are harming no one.
(Score: 2) by etherscythe on Tuesday October 24 2017, @06:11PM
Granting that puberty is a tough time: what a crock of shit. Respect your fellow humans' rights or society has no obligation to respect yours, there's no excuse "his face offended me with its ugliness, I couldn't help but shoot him" that flies in any reasonable forum or courtroom. If the natural human form provokes you to uncontrollable reaction, you either need therapy or a cell at the zoo.
"Fake News: anything reported outside of my own personally chosen echo chamber"
(Score: 2) by Bot on Sunday October 22 2017, @07:50AM
> including the crazy Christian ones with the head coverings and all that jazz
There is no problem if a law forbids to cover head in public. Nuns can uncover their heads without risk of retaliation. In fact nuns strike a good balance between uniformity sacrifice and freedom nowadays. Hasn't been always like that, but hey, hard times were hard for mostly everybody.
OTOH I can attest some decades ago women still covered themselves in the south of Italy, where males are still very possessive. I would add paranoid, but I sensed a lot of repressed sluttiness there, so...
Account abandoned.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 20 2017, @08:46AM (1 child)
Not only that. It is seen - by politicians - as the men controlling their wives and daughters forcing them to wear burqas. Problem is, while we in the north-western parts of Europe are used to religion being something people do on Sundays in a special building, in other parts of the world - including the middle east - they actually believe in their religion.
Any woman that believes that her God wants her to wear a burqa unless she wants to go to hell, she is not going to stop just because her husband can't force her to wear it. And of course a law like this can't prevent her from wearing a burqa. All the law does is forbid her from leaving the house.
Now, who is more oppressed? The woman who is forced by her husband to wear a burqa, or the woman who is forbidden by law from leaving her home?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 21 2017, @04:02AM
If she believes it that much, it is better she stay at home and avoid infecting others with her retarded thoughts.