A draft law banning speech and dressing "detrimental to the spirit of Chinese people" has sparked debate in China.
The proposed legal changes also forbid "insulting, slandering or otherwise infringing upon the names of local heroes and martyrs" as well as vandalism of their memorial statues.
Would its presence in China also count as hurting national feelings," one user posted on Chinese Twitter-like platform Weibo.
She cited one case that drew headlines in China last year where a kimono-clad woman was detained in the city of Suzhou and accused of "picking quarrels and provoking trouble" because she had worn the Japanese garment.
In March this year, police detained a woman donning a replica of a Japanese military uniform at a night market.
And earlier last month, people who wore rainbow print clothing were denied entry to a concert by Taiwanese singer Chang Hui-mei in Beijing.
The original article contains 520 words, the summary contains 145 words. Saved 72%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!
I love how suxbears regard China as this perfect incredibly strong world power and china's all like "your shirt makes me cry and piss myself, if you wear that again I'll have to gulag you and give you the wall."
Question, do we in the Neurodivergent community get to reclaim words like "retard" the same way other communities do with their derogatory slurs? Or are we once again "different" and shouldn't be allowed to reclaim what is ours?
The french have banned all religious iconography from educational institutions. Simple separation of church and state. This is different, and it's kind of obvious.
I'm from France so I can step in here. He's actually talking about the recent ban on the abaya, a long dress that's trending in the middle east and that some women recently started wearing here. Nothing to do with religions.
Also, the ban concerns school students, not government employees such as teachers. So even if the dress was religious, the ban wouldn't be because of "laïcité" (separation of church and state).
Actually, it would be a breach of the principle of "laïcité", because the state shouldn't be able to decide how the citizens can practice their religion. You can't have a separation of church and state, and at the same time a state that mandates which religions are good and which aren't.
There isn't, both are plain old systemic oppression (generally mostly misogyny and/or queerphobia) disguised as "concern for the population", there to control and further marginalise.
(though, of course, fans of both China and France and/or haters of women, queers, and/or Muslims, would die on this hill trying to convince themselves otherwise)