Swedish "Feminist" officials wear headscarves in Iran

[Shad]

This is why Milo has a dim view of feminists. They are very picky when it comes to choosing their targets.

No they are picky when it comes to Islam as their primary target in Christianity for whatever reason.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Given they are so-called feminists I would say yes as it would consistent with the views of feminism. After all it is a law which makes the Hijab mandatory rather than a choice. They are in a unique position of making a stand without any repercussion from law enforcement. However they caved which calls into question if they are feminist or merely pandering.

I'm pretty sure that being a feminist doesn't mean it becomes the sole issue concerning a person. I would imagine they weighed up wearing a hijab vs economic benefit for their country...Something they are supposed to be furthering.

I'd be fine with countries refusing to trade with other countries on moral grounds. But if they are trading, trade forums is possibly not the right place to make statements about wearing a hijab.

However, to be honest, I'm still in two minds about the whole thing.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

It would appear that given diplomatic immunity (DI), they could do a scarf-free visit without breaking the law. But for the sake of discussion, let's say that DI didn't apply:

What we have here is not as simple as a cultural difference, what we have here is a crucial difference in values. So to me, when they wear the scarf, they are demonstrating that they value their short-term economic gains more than they value feminism.

The country they serve decided to trade with Iran. Perhaps that is more congruent here. Personal beliefs shouldn't interfere in politics.

 

[icehorse]

The country they serve decided to trade with Iran. Perhaps that is more congruent here. Personal beliefs shouldn't interfere in politics.

I would answer that countries tend to have somewhat codified values. I'd bet that Sweden's values are not in harmony with Islamism. So someone in the Swedish government was being hypocritical at some point. The most probable explanation is that Sweden might claim to be a defended of secularism and human rights, but that they'll look the other way if economics is in play.

This sort of thing happens all the time in international relationships. What's somewhat unique is this self appointed "feminist" label.

 

[Shad]

I'm pretty sure that being a feminist doesn't mean it becomes the sole issue concerning a person.

No but it does mean being an activist against certain view such as mandatory clothing for women by laws.

I would imagine they weighed up wearing a hijab vs economic benefit for their country...Something they are supposed to be furthering.

Why would economic benefits be dependent on wearing a hijab? Unless the people you happen to be dealing with are misogynists... oh wait.

I'd be fine with countries refusing to trade with other countries on moral grounds. But if they are trading, trade forums is possibly not the right place to make statements about wearing a hijab.

Said people can take back the claim that they are a "feminist government" as they clearly are not. They should be "situational feminists" which is largely limited to nations which have minor issue woman face compared to the issues Iranian women face. In place X they are feminist but not in y place.

However, to be honest, I'm still in two minds about the whole thing.

I am just pointing out their claims to being a feminist government is garbage pandering when put to the test.

 

[Estro Felino]

No but it does mean being an activist against certain view such as mandatory clothing for women by laws.

Well...I don't think there's something wrong with mandatory clothing by law. In France, religious clothing is not allowed in public spaces such as public offices and schools. So people are not allowed to wear kippah, headscarves, visible crosses, or any religious clothing. I hope they apply this law in my country too, soon.
If you want to visit or to become a citizen of a foreign country, you have to respect the laws of that country. And, as the French would say: "à Rome, fais comme les Romains"

 

[Shad]

Well...I don't think there's something wrong with mandatory clothing by law. In France, religious clothing is not allowed in public spaces such as public offices and schools. So people are not allowed to wear kippah, headscarves, visible crosses, or any religious clothing. I hope they apply this law in my country too, soon.
If you want to visit or to become a citizen of a foreign country, you have to respect the laws of that country. And, as the French would say: "à Rome, fais comme les Romains"

France's laws are no better.

Diplomatic immunity is a game changer in this situation. They are not tourist.

When in Rome do as the Romans do is flawed. It is no more than demanding people follow values of another nation that they do not agree with and would never follow in a free society. Would you become antisemitic in Nazi Germany? Would you accept child marriage if you were in Iraq? Also it fails as not everyone follows such an idea. For example people wanting religious courts in nation which restrict such courts by it's constitution. It can also reinforce the view to the natives that there is nothing wrong with their laws which is what the state wants. When Muslims in EU ghettos start practicing this idea I will reconsider my view of it.

 

[Notanumber]

I thought this was amusing when the BBC showed it, but didn’t realise that anyone could take offence.

 

[SomeRandom]

How dare these women........obey the laws of the land for the sake of diplomacy?
I don't approve of the mandatory hijab laws either (if a woman chooses to wear one, then fine) but given how delicate international diplomacy often is, I fail to see why this is such a big deal. Diplomats often bend over backwards to not offend whoever it is they are meeting with. Otherwise it'll turn into a literal international scandal. These ladies were only doing their job.

 

[icehorse]

How dare these women........obey the laws of the land for the sake of diplomacy?
I don't approve of the mandatory hijab laws either (if a woman chooses to wear one, then fine) but given how delicate international diplomacy often is, I fail to see why this is such a big deal. Diplomats often bend over backwards to not offend whoever it is they are meeting with. Otherwise it'll turn into a literal international scandal. These ladies were only doing their job.

And I'd say they were compromising their values for financial gains.

 

[SomeRandom]

And I'd say they were compromising their values for financial gains.

The way one acts on the job has no bearing on their beliefs. I have had to go out of my way to accomodate racists at my work. It doesn't mean I favour racism. Or indeed "compromising my values for money." But I realise there is a time and place for everything. Diplomats are under international scrutiny everywhere they go. They have to uphold not only their country's values but must be mindful of other customs and laws when traveling. This is their job.

 

[icehorse]

The way one acts on the job has no bearing on their beliefs. I have had to go out of my way to accomodate racists at my work. It doesn't mean I favour racism. Or indeed "compromising my values for money." But I realise there is a time and place for everything. Diplomats are under international scrutiny everywhere they go. They have to uphold not only their country's values but must be mindful of other customs and laws when traveling. This is their job.

And I would say they sacrificed their country's values.

 

[Shad]

I'm pretty sure that being a feminist doesn't mean it becomes the sole issue concerning a person. I would imagine they weighed up wearing a hijab vs economic benefit for their country...Something they are supposed to be furthering.

Considering Iran has sanctions on trade what benefits were there to be had? All you have pointed out is that they will cave for financial benefits when the time comes.

I'd be fine with countries refusing to trade with other countries on moral grounds. But if they are trading, trade forums is possibly not the right place to make statements about wearing a hijab.

Again if a group proclaims it self something than does not follow it's own claim it is merely pandering.

What does a dress code have to do with a trade mission? They are not citizens and have diplomatic immunity Why do they need to wear the hijab? Oh wait they are just pandering to another group of people like they did with their voter base

However, to be honest, I'm still in two minds about the whole thing.

If you consider their claim pandering the issue is resolved. Alternatively you could conclude that like all modern feminist Sweden ignores places where women face actual oppression rather than mostly faux issues at home which are easy to address.

 

[Notanumber]

The Prime Minister of the UK said, "What a woman wears is a woman's choice.", but when she was the Home Secretary, she felt it was necessary to wear a headscarf in her own country.

A Month of Islam and Multiculturalism in Britain: February 2017

 

[TurkeyOnRye]

This is not good:

Sweden’s ‘feminist’ government criticized for wearing headscarves in Iran

Brazen political posturing. It's a signal flare to their base to display their tolerance and love of multiculturalism. This isn't exactly a culture or government I would bend over backwards for to impress.