287
Plane passenger invoked Sharia law to avoid sitting next to a woman, then attacked flight attendant (townflex.com)
submitted 3 months ago by to c/nottheonion@lemmy.world
85 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 70 points 3 months ago* (33 children)

he refused to sit next to a woman, citing Sharia law, and later assaulted a female flight attendant who intervened.
.
Authorities identified the suspect only as a Turkish national living in Germany.

That level of disrespect for the values of a democracy should get you expelled IMO.
This is an extreme level of sexist discrimination, that goes against fundamental values of a modern democracy.
This kind of people is not fit to live in a democracy.
Fining him and maybe even sending him to jail for a few months will not teach such a person anything, but will only radicalize him further against the values of democracy.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 33 child comments
    •
  • [–] 67 points 3 months ago (15 children)

    Good — now do all the religious zealots — like Christian or Jewish extremists.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 15 child comments
    •
  • [–] 36 points 3 months ago (10 children)

    “Christian extremists” always leaves a bad taste in my mouth. A real Christian extremist would be giving away everything they owned and responding to all violence with pacifism. I think Christofascism usually fits better.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
    •
  • [–] 14 points 3 months ago (1 child)

    I hate the "those extremists are not REAL members of my religion" rhetoric. We shouldn't forget that christianity also tells us to stone gay men to death, that slavery is good if the victims are from other nations, and that women should subject themselves to their husbands. The European slavers of the past were some of the most horrible people in history, and they were very christian too as they followed these rules to a tee. They did break the laws about respecting your fellow man, sure, but the inverse can be said of the christians who are decent people. They adhere the love thy neighbour rules, but break the rules that say that they should stone gay men. This means that the decent christians are much better people, but not necessarily more or less christian than the slavers of the past.

    So if you are a christian and you feel bad by this association, I suggest that, instead of defending your relegion, you re-evaluate it.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 2 points 3 months ago

    I agree with the main argument of what you’re saying. I’m sharing that I’d flag these ones as fascist-forward, not religion-to-the-extreme.

    At the end of the day, people are people and you’ll get the worst of us rising to the top in any power structure. In the case of Christianity, moving from a Jewish sect to a formal empire-backing religion of its own may be the worst thing that ever happened to it. Slavery, the crusades, the inquisition, imperial colonialism, they’re all up there too.

    Stoning gay men? That’s not Jesus-based, although it is definitely supported by some Christian sects even today. But that supports fundamentalist Judaism, and isn’t what Jesus taught (“whoever is without sin, cast the first stone”).

    So the problem then comes down to: what do you do when you share an identity with people who proudly do vile things in the name of that identity?

    The teachings of Jesus actually are useful in exploring the answer to that question. He wasn’t Christian, he was Jewish. And he never renounced Judaism, even though he denounced the actions of the contemporary leaders of the Jewish faith.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 6 points 3 months ago

    Weird to only make that distinction for Christians, as if it's the only religion with lofty ideals. An extremist Muslim who's fervently committed to jihad would be someone who's really dedicated to self-control, charity, and protecting the vulnerable.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] -2 points 3 months ago (3 children)

    Even Jesus said to sell your cloak for a sword, a good Christian shouldn't seek to start conflict but is entirely allowed to defend themselves.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 8 points 3 months ago (2 children)

    No, he didn’t — at least not in any Biblically recorded passage. And the one time one of his apostles took his metaphors literally and wielded a sword, he was chastised for it.

    There’s nothing by Jesus in the Bible stating that a person should defend themselves. There is, however, a command that if someone demands your cloak, to give them your tunic as well, and as far as you are able, to be at peace with those around you.

    All the “fight in the name of Christianity” stuff is from Constantine and later.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (1 child)

    Luke 22:36. I was directly referencing the Bible. Later when Jesus chastises Simon it's for defying Jesus's will and trying to prevent his arrest. When was the last time you read the Bible?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 1 point 3 months ago

    The disciples said, “See, Lord, here are two swords.” “That’s enough!” he replied.

    There are two interpretations here of this passage. We seem to have come down on opposite sides.

    The first is that he was calling them to take up literal swords to defend themselves, and that two swords would be enough for the purpose. The later rebuke of Peter was then about him using the sword to defend Jesus instead of himself.

    The second, which makes more sense in my view based on how the gospel of Luke is laid out, is that Jesus was speaking figuratively, and when the disciples responded by producing actual swords, he rebuked them with “that’s enough!” This lines up structurally with his interaction with Peter in the garden as far as the literature goes. However, if taken as a recorded literal event, ignoring the structure that Luke used to frame the story, it does raise the question of: why did Jesus allow Peter to take one of the swords with them to the garden?

    In my view, that doesn’t overcome the context of the events in Luke’s narrative or align with the events in Matthew, Mark or John, but I can see why others could use it to defend their position — Constantine certainly did; the early church did not.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 3 points 3 months ago (2 children)

    So you don't disagree with the ideology of fascism, you only disagree with who is being targeted by it.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 3 months ago (1 child)

    Fascist were historically noted for their anti-religious stance.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 7 points 3 months ago

    Fascists use religion (along with everything else available) to gain, increase, and maintain power. Fascists will even use socialist rhetoric if it gains them power. Actions matter more than what people are saying.

    You can say you're a socialist or whatever, but if you want to hurt people simply for being different from you, then you're a fascist.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [+] -21 points 3 months ago (16 children)

    This is an extreme level of sexist discrimination, that goes against fundamental values of a modern democracy.

    Well that escalated quickly. More seriously, while the man in the OP is definitely entitled, what he wanted was not inherently sexist. Having strict beliefs about cross-gender contact can lead to sexism, but isn't that in and of itself. Most cultures out there put some limit on what unrelated men and women can do or where they can be together, and those limits can be fairly benign as long as they don't lead people to do things like assault flight attendants.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 16 child comments
    •
  • [–] 20 points 3 months ago* (5 children)

    Not accepting women as equals is NOT COMPATIBLE with democracy. If your believes rule out rights for 50% of the population, you also don't deserve living in one. Physically attacking the female flight attendant shows this isn't something about "beliefs about cross-gender contact", its about seeing women as inferior.

    Same tale as with fascism: total tolerance leads to the extinction of tolerance, which means we must be intolerant of people like this disgusting chud.

    There must be a mechanism to remove such people from societies where they only inflict damage. Sadly simple removing his citizenship is not legal, but i'd approve of any measured approach to make him realize that living where people regardless of gender have the same rights might come at a cost that is too high to pay.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
    •
  • [–] 9 points 3 months ago*

    I tried to make a respond too, but Yours is probably better.

    Physically attacking the female flight attendant shows this isn’t something about “beliefs about cross-gender contact”, its about seeing women as inferior.

    Excellent point. 👍

    Sadly simple removing his citizenship is not legal

    If he has dual citizenship it is. But IMO it sucks that it has to depend on that.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [+] -10 points 3 months ago (3 children)

    Physically attacking the female flight attendant shows this isn't something about "beliefs about cross-gender contact", its about seeing women as inferior.

    Or he could just be an entitled asshole. There's no point in making judgements without enough information, and it's not like being entitled justifies punching a flight attendant in the face.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 9 points 3 months ago (2 children)

    People actively physically harming others aren't "assholes", they are criminals. The combination with his obvious believe in the inferiority of women makes it a fucking hate crime.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [+] -7 points 3 months ago (1 child)

    People actively physically harming others aren't "assholes", they are criminals.

    Okay? That has nothing to do with anything I said.

    The combination with his obvious believe in the inferiority of women makes it a fucking hate crime.

    Well that's certainly your assumption, but you haven't actually backed it up with anything.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 10 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (3 children)

    Refusing to be seated next to a woman isn't sexist? Ahah you old prankster!

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 4 points 3 months ago* (3 children)

    This is so far out I'm simply at a loss for words on how to respond!? But I will make an effort to try anyway.
    The norm in a modern democracy is to treat each other as equals, and respect the personal sphere of individuals.
    Of course there are limits on what people can do towards each other, like assault is not allowed, but that rule is equal for all, and is not a "sexist" rule. It does protect women against sexist assault, but it does the same for men, although the problem for women are several magnitudes bigger.
    Are you really comparing sitting next to a woman would be akin to sexual assault, in a society where men and women are treated as equals?

    I have to downvote you, because I don't see a way you could have made the above comment in good faith. I reeks of apologism towards religious extremism and sexual discrimination.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] -3 points 3 months ago

    You're arguing past my point and not really addressing anything I actually said?

    Are you really comparing sitting next to a woman would be akin to sexual assault, in a society where men and women are treated as equals?

    No? I'm comparing it to something like hugs, which are acceptable cross-gender greetings in some places but limited to the same gender in others. That doesn't make places where the latter holds anti-democratic. I thought I was clear enough on that, but I'm not justifying what the man in the OP did; I'm just saying jumping from that to "disrespect for democratic values" is reading more into the story than there is to it. Plain entitlement is sufficient to explain everything we see here, and there'd have been no problem had the man been more respectful about what he was trying to do (for example by looking for someone to switch seats with). This is ultimately a problem of how he went about it, not of what he was trying to do.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [+] 0 points 3 months ago* (2 children)
    [deleted]
  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 5 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (1 child)

    No? I’m comparing it to something like hugs, which are acceptable cross-gender greetings in some places

    No it's not, not among strangers in a random situation like sitting besides each other in a plane.
    But sure if both parties are OK with it, why should society be involved with a voluntary legal interaction between 2 people that consent?

    Not consenting to sit beside a woman however is CLEARLY discriminatory. As is attacking the flight attendant for doing her job! It is not normal or polite behavior. It is prejudiced religious bigotry.
    And anyone behaving like that can fuck right off, and live in a paradise of religious bigotry in some religiously fanatic country.
    You are trying to compare crazy with normal. Religious law is based on superstition and delusions. Democracy is based on the pursuit of building a better and fairer society for all.
    Democracy is the opposite of being based on religion. If you want to live under laws based on religion, you do not belong or deserve to live in a democracy.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] -4 points 3 months ago

    Not consenting to sit beside a woman however is CLEARLY discriminatory.

    Other behavior aside, how?
    Following Merriam Webster:

    Discrimination: the act, practice, or an instance of unfairly treating a person or group differently from other people or groups on a class or categorical basis (such as race, religion, gender, or sexual orientation)

    Is this even treating someone else like anything other than yourself in the first place?*
    Sitting next to someone wouldn't provide anything. In fact, it's quite negative.
    * Well, perhaps in this case that means unfairly treating people of your own gender by increasing possibility of someone sitting next to them in certain scenarios, which would fullfil the definition of discrimination.

    In this case, if there were no other seats available, simply not taking the flight would have caused no harm. Actually, it would have made one passenger who'd keep more space happy. While it could be argued the passenger got better experience unfairly, based on her gender, I doubt anyone would give that a serious thought.

    (My comment concerns someone voluntarily separating themselves)

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
    • load more comments (-1 replies)
  • [–] 1 point 3 months ago (1 child)

    If you're choosing to do or not do something with someone because of their sex/gender it's sexist. Simple as that. I don't care if those beliefs are due to religion or not.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 1 point 3 months ago

    That must be quite the surprise to people who only enter romantic relationships with the sex they're attracted to.

    More seriously, sexism is specifically prejudice based on sex, and it's bad for obvious reasons (the fact that it causes harm to the sex suffering from such prejudice). If you want to expand the definition to include "choosing to do or not do something with someone because of their sex/gender" (we'll call this sexism+) you'll have to argue that sexism+ is rooted in regular sexism. This isn't something you can just assume (well you can, but what can be claimed without evidence can be dismissed without evidence).

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent