Search Results: public opinion

According to French media reports, a 15-year-old French Muslim girl was banned from her class twice for wearing a skirt that was too long, and therefore supposedly a conspicuous display of religion. France's state secularism has led to very strict laws prohibiting students from wearing overtly religious symbols in institutions of education.

(The student, identified as Sarah, already apparently removed her headscarf before entering the school, in accordance with French law. But her long skirt was deemed a "provocation," and potential act of protest.)

"The girl was not excluded, she was asked to come back with a neutral outfit," a local official in the northeastern French town of Charleville-Mezieres, near the border with Belgium, told the AFP.

The news sparked an outcry on social media, with commentators remarking on the hypocrisy and bigotry lurking beneath Sarah's treatment. On Twitter, the hashtag #JePorteMaJuppeCommeJeVeux ("I wear my skirt as I like") trended.

One Twitter user set Sarah's skirt against those worn by three other white public figures:





Others made gestures to the United States:










The user above quips that Michelle Obama's dress is "unworthy of the Republic."

Critics of France's secularist laws in schools say they often thinly conceal a widespread bias against Muslims and immigrants in French society. Studies have revealed how Muslims face systematic discrimination on the basis of their race, creed and culture.

Speaking to local newspaper L'Ardennais, Sarah said that her skirt was "nothing special, it’s very simple, there’s nothing conspicuous. There is no religious sign whatsoever."




This is very retarded in my opinion.

I imagine this depends a lot on where you're from, where I live it's very rare, but I have seen it and I know people here have a lot of different opinions about it, so what do you think? And of course I'm not talking about a beach or public pool, but like at a mall, at the bus, a restaurant etc.

Last year, a bisexual male student at the University of Texas–San Antonio, Alfred MacDonald, apparently engaged in a conversation with a Christian student who noted she was marrying a Muslim man, expressing his discomfort with the religion- or rather, with the fact that he'd be facing the death penalty for his sexual orientation in 10 Muslim-majority countries. For this, he was instructed to meet with the chair of the philosophy department, Dr Eve Browning, where he was told in no uncertain terms that he had committed the crime of "offending" someone, that "We have not designed our program to tolerate these behaviors," and that "We're not going to let you damage the program."

However, the entire conversation was secretly recorded by MacDonald, and has now been published, making for some interesting listening: https://vid.me/2CRaa. At various points, MacDonald attempted to use philosophical reasoning to defend himself, to no avail. When Dr Browning noted that multiple people were offended by his comments, MacDonald accused her of succumbing to the logical fallacy of ad populum reasoning; and when he protested that he was on a public university campus, where the 1st Amendment is in effect, Dr Browning stated that his "very objectionable... derogatory comments" could absolutely get him dismissed from the philosophy program, and expelled from the university.

Intimidated by the threat of dismissal, MacDonald transferred to a different university not longer after his meeting with Dr Browning, and waited until he was in good standing at his new university before going public with the audio recording. Both Dr Eve Browning and the University of Texas–San Antonio refuse to comment, with Dr Browning citing her safety as the reason: ‘The number of threats I am receiving (due to threads the student has started on Reddit) makes this a subject I would not feel safe discussing even very generally.’

So, what are your opinions- whose side do you take on this? Was this fair?