World News
A community for discussing events around the World
Rules:
-
Rule 1: posts have the following requirements:
- Post news articles only
- Video links are NOT articles and will be removed.
- Title must match the article headline
- Not United States Internal News
- Recent (Past 30 Days)
- Screenshots/links to other social media sites (Twitter/X/Facebook/Youtube/reddit, etc.) are explicitly forbidden, as are link shorteners.
-
Rule 2: Do not copy the entire article into your post. The key points in 1-2 paragraphs is allowed (even encouraged!), but large segments of articles posted in the body will result in the post being removed. If you have to stop and think "Is this fair use?", it probably isn't. Archive links, especially the ones created on link submission, are absolutely allowed but those that avoid paywalls are not.
-
Rule 3: Opinions articles, or Articles based on misinformation/propaganda may be removed. Sources that have a Low or Very Low factual reporting rating or MBFC Credibility Rating may be removed.
-
Rule 4: Posts or comments that are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, anti-religious, or ableist will be removed. “Ironic” prejudice is just prejudiced.
-
Posts and comments must abide by the lemmy.world terms of service UPDATED AS OF 10/19
-
Rule 5: Keep it civil. It's OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It's NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
-
Rule 6: Memes, spam, other low effort posting, reposts, misinformation, advocating violence, off-topic, trolling, offensive, regarding the moderators or meta in content may be removed at any time.
-
Rule 7: We didn't USED to need a rule about how many posts one could make in a day, then someone posted NINETEEN articles in a single day. Not comments, FULL ARTICLES. If you're posting more than say, 10 or so, consider going outside and touching grass. We reserve the right to limit over-posting so a single user does not dominate the front page.
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
Lemmy World Partners
News !news@lemmy.world
Politics !politics@lemmy.world
World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world
Recommendations
For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/
- Consider including the article’s mediabiasfactcheck.com/ link
view the rest of the comments
Why us there so much muslim hate in Europe, I just don’t get it
a lot of islamic terror attacks in the past have made people bitter.
and i mean a lot of them
So this is what Lemmy is doing now? "Why is there hatred of Muslims? Because ~~they're terrorists~~ of frequent terror attacks."
Maybe you had all these terror attacks because you already had large groups of disaffected young men who didn't feel like local society had anything for them and then became radicalised?
In France, Muslims are half as likely to get a callback for a job than Christians with the same credentials.. So people already hated them. The terrorist attacks are just the latest excuse.
I think it just might have to do with the history of Islamic terror attacks..
Such as the London bombings and bridge attack, Charlie Hebdo attack and the more recent stabbings in France, the Madrid train bombings which killed 193 people, the November 2015 Paris attack in which 130 were murdered, the 2016 Atatürk Airport attack in Turkey which left 45 dead, the 2016 Brussels bombings, just to name a few...
I'm not suggesting that all or even most Islamic individuals are dangerous/terrorists. But there is a long, bloody history of Islamic extremism throughout Europe.
I'm also not suggesting this justifies these bans in Italy whatsoever. I share this because it's essential context to answer your question.
All of the attacks you listed happened within a 15 year timeframe. Which is not coincidentally the War on Terror timeframe. The discrimination is a lot older and the history of Islamic-Europe relations is a lot more nuanced than this. Far more relevant is the growing Far-right sentiment and anti-immigrant rhetoric across Europe.
Muslim immigrants will have de facto faced as much (if not far more) hostility and prejudice before any of those events.
What changed is that by the late 20th century, it had become politically unacceptable for right-wing parties to be perceived to be preying on overt racism towards their countries' brown-skinned citizens. But the War on Terror at the start of the 21st century created a new organising framework for nativists, whereby they could incite hatred against exactly the same brown-skinned people as before, but claim they were targeting them for their religion and not their skin colour. At the heart of it is still the same prejudice towards those who are different, it's just that the aspect of difference they choose to focus on today is more politically acceptable than the one they used to focus on.
From the perspective of a brown-skinned Muslim immigrant, the ideological hoops the far-right jump through are likely irrelevant. These people were targeted by nativists before, and they get targeted by nativists now.
I don't disagree with you that it's the product of racism and discrimination. But the terror attacks also fuel that hate.
I can say the same thing about the consequences of my (US) country's actions in the 'war on terror.' We're the greatest contributing factor to the formation of ISIS. The casualties of our drone strikes alone (from Bush, Obama, and trump) were vastly civilian targets.
Whether it's politically/religiously motivated drone strikes on civilians, bombs in subways, or knife attacks, those actions spawn further fear, hate, intolerance, and extremism.
Even though Italy is enacting racist policies/systems, they are able to gather support for/'justify' their actions due largely to the terror attacks throughout Europe.
It's more than just a product of it - it's the main factor.
Over the last half century or so, the UK has experienced around 200 civilian deaths from Islamic terrorism and around 2,000 civilian deaths from Irish terrorism. Which community do you think the far-right in the UK tend to target?
The ones with more melanin who look different. Too easy.
We don’t have black people to discriminate against, so we make do with browns after discriminating against Jews fell out of fashion.
Hehe, fash-ion.
A lot of people is mentioning terror attacks, but I think that's only part of it. The sexist nature of most muslim people living in Europe adds up to the mix. It seems to me that people in US are OK with burkini, just to mention something present in this article, but in Europe it is mostly seen as yet another sign of that sexism.
If there is one thing US has done well, it’s combating racism based on religion (Islamophobia, Anti-Semitism etc.) it still exists but much better than whatever the fuck is happening in Europe
Keeps us the hating the billionaires if we hate our fellow neighbours instead.
Probably because there is a, perceived or cultivated, associations between Muslims and immigrants/people of color. And if you can't outright punish someone based on "race" you go after the closest thing.
It’s not about skin colour, it’s about a way of life that is considered too radically different from their own: racists assume that muslims don’t want to integrate in Italian society, don’t follow the rules, abuse women with their hijabs and restrictions of movement (muslim women can’t drive nor go anywhere without a male relative). The native Muslim community is so minuscule in Italy that most Muslims are immigrants and speak other languages Italians don’t understand and makes them suspicious. They are concerned they could hide weapons under their tunics and hijabs. They don’t like that they cover their face and can’t be identified. It’s the lifestyle that they are bothered with, the skin colour is irrelevant. Italians were equally racist against Albanians in the 90ies because they were migrating in Italy by the thousands per day and were committing a lot of crimes, and Albanians are caucasians.
This only true in middle east. Muslim women in south east asia don't have this restriction and can do whatever they want like living alone, drive cars and hold any job, even leadership positions such as president and ministers.
People can already conceal weapons beneath their jacket or suit, and covid basically normalize wearing masks in a lot of countries (not sure about Italy, is it normal for a person to walk around wearing masks there?).
That’s actually not true, it is accepted that as long as one remains within the border of a city or county, there is need for a male to escort, the dispute is only about traveling outside of the city, some say it’s not necessary even then, some say it is necessary if they need to stay for a night, some say 3 nights, but this ‘can’t travel anywhere without male’ is completely wrong, this is might be stated by conservative(s) or maybe racists idk about that
Well, you are not obliged to follow it, you can’t use this as an excuse to take away their rights, I don’t like iPhones so I am going to ban them
What do you mean by ‘local culture’, if that means that one should stop practicing their religion, than that goes against your own constitution, if you want a place like that, then by all means, make a ‘local culture’ where everyone is only allowed to do what you or the majority wants, but then spell it out clearly in your book, then if someone goes against, they are at fault, but you put on the image of secularism and freedom of expression, and then deny one particular group this right
And the word for these kind of people rhymes with ‘fascist’
Huh? Why does every discussion on muslim rights always start getting to Muhammad when y’all can’t justify your hypocrisy, how many modern day muslims have slaves or multiple wives/marry under the present age of consent in your country? The topic is why are you taking away their basic rights guaranteed to them by your country itself, if they do any of the things mentioned above in the present day, then that should be dealt separately
Sauce?
And arab countries are not a very great example in most things but one thing you can’t deny is that they have extremely low crime rates
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_the_United_Arab_Emirates
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_Saudi_Arabia
A simple google search was enough from on your side, but since you don’t seem to be arguing in good faith, I put some wiki links for you
Can you provide me an English link? My browser can’t seem to be able to translate it
Edit: nvm got it
That specifically talks about immigrants so that still doesn’t justify your prejudice, but since I can’t read the study i will refrain from saying anything
But like I said if you believe it’s a problem then stop putting on the face of secularism and say that we will not entertain or give the rights to Muslims, then that’s a non issue, however you can’t simultaneously show that you don’t discriminate but then continue to do this kind of stuff
I can’t seem to find one that sorts by religion, can you provide me an English with link to the exact page?
And if having a death penalty for being a rapist (I am not talk about minorities here) means a lot less no. of overall women raped, than I am more than happy tbh, the rules are strict but they also mean it is a lot lot safer, a person is gonna think twice before stealing your hard earned mac because of the fear of amputation (even though it’s not commonly done)
My current city is suffering with a rape epidemic, and the reason for that is most people can get out of jail after a few months if they provide enough money or have enough power, if they just announce that death penalty, I’d be happy
But we are drifting off topic here
Uh, maybe let’s say you are right, I can’t seem to make heads nor tails of the website, but if that’s the case, then I could see where you are coming from, but I still think that discriminating an entire religious group that makes up 25% of the world population for some bad actors is till racism
Edit: but why are you guys burning quran anyway?
It’s upto norway to decide whether they want to take Muslims or not, so I am not gonna debate that, and from here I guess you are right that maybe a particular group might be causing more problems than others, but then I think you should clearly spell it out and say muslims will be under extra scrutiny/different laws, don’t put on the image of secularism, which is my entire point
Okay I am genuinely curious here, I am not very well versed about what’s going on in norway but I surely haven’t heard anything major like muslims planning a coup and overthrowing the government, or is this something else I don’t know
Imho countries like Lebanon would probably have descended on civil war anyway because of lack of resources and brutal military intervention by guess who
Here is the problem, conveniently made a comment about this just somewhere above in this post. https://lemmy.world/comment/7735405
We both disagree on a very fundamental thing as you can see, I don’t see any point in continuing the discussion further, thanks for your time
Well I hate that too and Ig I should have clarified that, for me religion is something you study and own but only for yourself, not something you impose on others, sure you can share it, but forcing it, a big NO
Science is comparatively not talked that much about in religion because it is not the main topic
Talking about quran specifically, I don’t think you will find anything that goes against established science, because all of the things it talks about are not some rocket science but rather everyday observations (plants growing, embryos etc), and I know it’s far fetched, but if you study comparative religion, you wont find anything in it that completely contradicts common sense, or is forced or bigoted, some strict rules that might exist are part of what you accept when you accept a particular religion/take part in something, and since there is no compulsion, I don’t think there is a problem (https://quran.com/al-baqarah/256)
And I would also like to add that that I understand your frustration, a tree is recognized by it’s fruit, you can’t say ‘Oh we are the worst kind of people, but my religion makes sense, see for yourself’, I think any sane person will respond somewhere along the lines ‘Why should I tolerate a tree whose products are rotten people like you’ or something idk I can’t seem to come up with anything better, so it’s something we all have to work on
Edit: And a lot of strict rules about women aren’t that strict to begin with, they were just made so by overly conservative people or people who somewhat misunderstood some quranic verses based specifically about the prophets household, thankfully most people nowadays are of a much more moderate position (see for eg nouman ali khan, he is stated as conservative by a lot of people, but you could see his stance his much different than what the media and extremely conservative scholars might make you believe)
So I will say, that your frustration is not completely unreasonable, but I will still maintain that taking someones basic right based on the fact that they are muslims is wrong, you can maybe put them in extra scrutiny when traveling or in public spaces, but stopping them from making a prayer? I don’t think so
Here is an alternative Piped link(s):
https://piped.video/rMGBz5Zxld4
https://piped.video/oQSBqdEt-Bo
https://piped.video/feCEk81OATQ
https://piped.video/FlfgiSEiTfY
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I'm open-source; check me out at GitHub.
Well, I thought I had a little insight on the matter since I'm Italian, guess I was wrong. /s
Right wing news outlets push Islamophobia hard. Same ones that love israel.
If you want to keep the imperialism going it's important that people hate whatever culture you're trying to invade so your country can "save it from barbarism".
Consequences stemming from the destabilization of the middle east by foreign interference.
I never said that one or the other european country was or wasn't involved, but consequences of an action aren't limited to who enacts it or to who is acted upon. Some here in these comments mention terrorism. As an example of what I meant when I said "consequences stemming from the destabilization of the middle east by foregin interference", I will mention the perception of Islam as a religion that endorses terrorism as some here in the comments did. Religious extremism has only become a problem due to foreign interference. One of the most well known groups, ISIS, only became as strong as they became due to the Iraq war.
I don't know if you are expressing your disapproval of their immigration, but I feel like we shouldn't put the two kinds of "destabilization" on equal levels. I'm sure the german and french natives can't say they have anywhere near as many problems as the people arriving. I also must note a certain double standard here in that I don't see anyone speaking against receiving ukrainian refugees, despite those countries not being blamed with what is happening in Ukraine.