Despite how one may want to discuss how bad or good and the constitutionality of the law I am talking about in the preceding two posts, the reason for which I started writing is how something like a headscarf can be understood as a symbol then extended the talk about the other things mentioned when I found that. However HERE is what I found as the text of the law. And guess what? The word translated as "symbols" actually translates as "signs" in both the title and the text of the law. There is a huge difference between signs and symbols. So why did the media feel that much liberty in translating it that way? I don't know.
Moreover, the translation of the page above seems to talk, in the body of the law, about the pupils doing the action of showing the religious affiliation through the outfit not the outfit doing that, while leaving the door open for both interpretations in the title.
Theses two things seems to take away the arguments I made in the preceding posts except for the one about the passivity in the action.
Moreover, the translation of the page above seems to talk, in the body of the law, about the pupils doing the action of showing the religious affiliation through the outfit not the outfit doing that, while leaving the door open for both interpretations in the title.
Theses two things seems to take away the arguments I made in the preceding posts except for the one about the passivity in the action.
No comments:
Post a Comment