While some countries like New Zealand are promoting the social inclusion of the Muslim community through initiatives such as the introduction of hijabs as part of the official uniform for Muslim women who wish to join the police service, other European nations like Switzerland and France seem to be doing the opposite.

Less than a month after Switzerland narrowly voted in favour of banning face coverings in public, including the burka or niqab worn by Muslim women, France has followed its steps and announced stricter measures against “religious” clothing and symbols in public.

On the 30th of March, the French Senate voted in favour of a draft law to outlaw the public use of hijab on women under the age of 18, the use of burkinis in public swimming pools and prohibit hijabi mothers from accompanying their children to school field trips – “Prohibition in the public space of any conspicuous religious sign by minors and of any dress or clothing which would signify an interiorization of women over men.”

These provisions form part of the so-called “anti-separatism” bill voted by the conservative-led Senate – led by President Emmanuel Macron’s centrist La République En Marche (LREM) party. However, the bill has not been put in effect yet, as it must first be confirmed by the French National Assembly.

France has historically prioritised the separation between the state and religion, following the ideal of individualism. Therefore the proposed regulations come as no surprise due to the principles of secularisation upheld by the nation, proven through measures such as the banning of veils in public schools since 2004.

It has been expressed by French President Emmanuel Macron that the demonstration of religious beliefs through the use of clothing and symbols is underscoring the country’s secular system, since it is believed to encourage separatism.

However, these “anti-separatist” measures have been perceived as counterintuitive and discriminatory by both the French and international public. Many have resorted to social media to express their outrage, arguing that the implementation of such measures would further exclude the Muslim community from French society due to its disregard for their customs and beliefs. Should the bill be passed into law the age of consent for wearing a hijab (18) in France will become higher than the age of consent for sex (15), ignoring the that a high percentage of Muslim women wear the hijab starting at the age of puberty, likely prior to being 18 years old.

According to Amnesty International’s Europe researcher, Marco Perolini, the proposed law is a serious violation of human rights:

“This proposed law would be a serious attack on rights and freedoms in France… Time and again we have seen the French authorities use the vague and ill-defined concept of ‘radicalization’ or ‘radical Islam’ to justify the imposition of measures without valid grounds, which risks leading to discrimination in its application against Muslims and other minority groups. This stigmatization must end,”

Marco Perolini, Amnesty International

This makes us wonder, is this a law to suppress separatism or enhance it?

Words By Chiara Ferrari

The post France And The Hijab Ban – What’s Happening to Separatism appeared first on Voir Fashion.

Last week, the Conservative party unveiled their police, crime, sentencing, and courts bill. The bill proposed changes to law enforcement and sentencing in England and Wales. Since its unveiling, the bill has caused public concern over its potential to pose a threat to human rights, its allowance for less government accountability to the general public, and its ability to successfully award more power and control to the government – and yesterday, on the 16th March, the bill passed its second reading by 359 votes to 263. No member of any opposing party voted for the bill, and no member of the Conservative party voted against the bill.

How does the bill affect our rights?

The PCSC bill allows law enforcement to shut down any protests of which it believes ‘may result in serious disruption to the activities of an organisation which are carried on in the vicinity of the procession’. The issue here lies with the vague grounds on which protesting may be deemed to be of ‘serious disruption’. Protests often include loud music, megaphones, shouting, etc, so if the bill cracks down on the noise levels permitted for a protest (which it does), then key elements of protests which serve to a) gain public attention b) spread their message far and wide and c) draw focus to the extent of people who have joined the protest, have been targeted. The bill states that if protestors refuse to follow orders on how their protest should be conducted, they can face fines of up to £2,500, and as BBC News reports; ‘It will also become a crime to fail to follow restrictions the protesters “ought” to have known about, even if they have not received a direct order from an officer’.

Over the summer, demonstrations against institutional racism took place across the globe as more instances of police brutality both in the US and UK gained much social media attention. In the wave of protests that ensued after the murder of George Floyd, public attention turned to the problematic issue of the statues erected across the country celebrating historical figures who had such strong ties to the slave trade. In Bristol, the statue of Edward Colston who had a strong involvement in the Atlantic Slave Trade, was toppled and pushed into the waters of Bristol Harbour. Whilst to many, the defacing and removal of a statue that celebrated the life of a racist figure seems like a positive, progressive change, authoritarian-like figures in the UK perceived this as a direct attack on British history. What that fails to consider, however, is that the toppling of the statue of a prolific racist actually educates many people about British history to a greater extent. The PCSC bill specifies that damage to such memorials will now result in a prison sentence of up to 10 years.

The bill has gained much attention on social media over the threat it poses to our right to protest and its overreaction to the damage of memorials, but another hugely problematic issue with the bill is that it also cruelly targets the Gypsy, Roma & Traveller communities. For clarity, the threats posed to the GRT community are outlined here.

Travellers Against Racism took to Twitter to express their major concerns for what this bill means for them.

This all comes as very little shock to those who have an awareness of the current government’s views on human rights, for reference, you can view the current Prime Minister, Boris Johnson’s voting record on human rights issues here.

How does this bill award the government more control?

The bill’s broad terms on how they define a ‘disruptive’ protest mean it’s potentially wide open for protestors to be treated as criminals for simply making noise about an issue that is ‘inconvenient’. It’s not a huge jump to argue that the government would utilise this bill to incriminate those who protest against the government either, we only have to look at the UK government’s unlawful proroguing of parliament in 2019 to see this. 

The lack of second-party consultation for the PCSC bill should also raise major concerns over the extent of control the government has been awarded. There are no stipulations regarding another institution intervening with the way in which these laws are exercised. 

David Lammy, the Labour MP for Tottenham and the Shadow Secretary of State for Justice and Shadow Lord Chancellor declared in his speech in commons yesterday that –

“By giving the police the discretion to use these powers some of the time, it takes away our freedoms ALL of the time”

Where is the outcry?

Unfortunately, the dangerous implications of this bill passing did not feature on some major news outlets’ evening news shows, but why?

Firstly, the 307-page bill was released one week before parliament had to vote on the processing of the bill, meaning the time for close analysis was incredibly short, not allowing for ministers and the public to properly scrutinise and understand the bill fully. 

Secondly, confusion around the permanency of the bill has affected the concentration of outcries. In a recent YouGov poll on 14-15th March 2021, 59% of Britons believed vigils or marches should not take place during a pandemic, whilst 26% of Britons believe they should. The PCSC bill, however, is not in place to monitor the protests that occur during a pandemic, but rather, intervene and crack down on protests that occur during and after the pandemic.

The recent behaviour from Met Police at the vigil of Sarah Everard raises much cause for concern regarding the PCSC bill allowing police lawfully to intervene with future protests.

Is there anything we can do?

Whilst the reality of this PCSC bill appears bleak and daunting, it’s no reason to give up. The option to contact your local MP’s and express your concerns over the bill is still available and important. You can also follow #KillTheBill hashtags online to see what type of zoom meetings and live streams are available for you to watch in order to gain a better understanding of the implications of the bill as well as be involved in the fight against it. Lastly, investigate joining a union for your workplace, a measure that can help protect you against everyday injustices. 

If you would like to read a copy of the PCSC bill you can do so here.

Words By Megan Selway

The post The UK Policing Bill: What Does It Mean? appeared first on Voir Fashion.

‘Fatima’s next job could be in cyber’ (she just doesn’t know it yet), this was the ad that sparked anger in the UK and disbelief around the world. The ad was part of the ‘Rethink. Reskill. Reboot’ campaign initiated in 2019, by the QA company together with the British Government and NCSC in order to encourage the British population to reconsider their career paths and redirect towards cyber alternatives.

Needless to say that it wasn’t well perceived by the public and simply demonstrated the disregard of Boris Johnson’s current government towards the artistic community. Which according to the Arts Council of England contributes to the UK economy with over £10 billion per year.

The inevitable backlash that resulted on social media included judgment and apologies from the culture minister Oliver Dowden over Twitter, who also announced the extra financial support of £1.57bn for the culture and arts sector. The MP stated that the ad was “crass” and “not something from the Department for Digital, Culture, Media, and Sports (DCMS)”

However, even if the images of “helpless dancers and sales workers” have been pulled it won’t be easily forgotten nor forgiven. It is absurd how such a vital industry, that is meant to be supported and promoted, was clearly disrespected and underestimated in a period of uncertainty such as the one we’re currently going through. It is true that remote working became a viable alternative, however, this shouldn’t undermine the relevance of creative jobs and their investment in society. And sadly, yet not surprising, this campaign followed. Chancellor Rishi Sunak’s comments made in the past week: “I can’t pretend that everyone can do exactly the same job that they were doing at the beginning of this crisis. And that’s why we’ve put a lot of our extra resources into trying to create new opportunities for people”.

Even if the intention behind both these comments and ads might have been the one to encourage people to find solutions following the Covid-19 pandemic, they did just the opposite.

Creative careers are as important as any others, and we shouldn’t be discouraged from thinking so simply because they may not conform to the outdated perceptions or social norms. Luckily, the reaction of every single one of us, including known personalities demonstrates that the majority of the population realises this and will continue to defend the Arts and Culture industry no matter the actions taken by the government.

If you’re in the mood for a laugh, view some of our favourite tweets:

Words by Chiara Ferrari

The post Undermining the Arts: The Controversial Campaign of ‘Rethink Reskill Reboot’ appeared first on Voir Fashion.

Red lipstick has dominated beauty sales as the best-selling colour for decades. The classic colour symbolises power, affluence, glamour, sexuality and rebellion all at the same time. It’s political – check out Netflix’s seminal documentary Knock Down the House if you don’t know what I mean. Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez wore red lipstick throughout her campaigning, and it became notoriously synonymous with her feminism and politics and her successful climb into the White House. It symbolised her refusal to comply with typical conventions that women in power should wear neutral and inoffensive colours to avoid scrutiny, and attempt to blend in to the mass of anodyne grey and black suits that inevitably surround her.

Red lipstick has been around for centuries. Cleopatra wore a red lip made from the colour of crushed beetles; it was a symbol of decadence and affluence because of the volume of beetles needed to create the tint. Her subjects wore a more rust toned, less regal colour made from the less excessive ground stones. (She also invented black cat-eye winged liner, AND was the ruler of Egypt – woman’s a badass.) Queen Elizabeth I wore red lipstick to ‘ward off evil spirits’ and was buried with her lips caked in the lead-lined rouge. Lipstick was banned in 1920s New York by men who feared that women might use it to poison them. Red lipstick was worn during times of adversity; during WWII colours like ‘Victory Red’ were manufactured and the cherry pop was even given to female survivors upon emancipation from concentration camps in an attempt to help normalise them and give women a sense of femininity back.

More recently, the vermilion shade has hit headlines again, this time for its intensely political motivations. Worn by the suffragettes in the early 20thcentury, it became tantamount to feminism, subversion, rebellion and politics. Earlier this year, more than 100 Congresswomen took to the international stage wearing all white outfits at the State of the Union address in homage to the white of their feminist mothers, and striking red lips were also hugely popular with its female patronages.

November 2018 was a historic month for women in politics. More women won seats in Congress than ever before: 92 in the House and 10 in the Senate. These included the first Native American and first Muslim woman ever elected into Congress who stood proudly alongside the two youngest Congress members to ever serve, one of whom was fierce New Yorker Ocasio-Cortez, with her suffragette inspired white suit, notorious gold hoops and bold ruby lipstick.

It is commonplace to downplay the importance of sartorial and beauty choices with women in politics, either relegating them to frivolity or unimportance. But they are still a marked and loaded choice, and one that often comes with deliberate repercussions, in an effort to stand out rather than falling by the wayside in comparison to the blander male counterparts. While, admittedly, their choice of lipstick is, as Racked journalist Cheryl Wischover dubbed, the ‘least important thing about them’, it has captured the eyes and hearts of many spectators and therefore is worth examining.

Make-up is often referred to as ‘war paint’, first coined during the Thatcherite premiership, where women, coupled with padded shoulders to create masculine silhouettes, went into the workplace to do battle with their male colleagues. We live in a society where women are expected to look ‘presentable’ which usually means some time spent in front of the mirror before heading off to work; in fact, some jobs contractually oblige women to wear make-up (and high heels) to work. Make-up has also caused some controversy as being anti-feminist, with some condoning this view, believing that capitulating to and perpetuating the patriarchal view of how a woman should look and doing so does nothing for the cause, only objectifying ourselves for the male gaze.

Women are consistently scrutinised for their appearance, much more so than men. Donald Trump has played a large role in encouraging this kind of rhetoric; let’s journey back to when he mocked fellow presidential contender Carly Fiorina. “Look at that face,” Trump trumpeted. “Would anyone vote for that? Can you imagine that, the face of our next president?!” He added, “I mean, she’s a woman, and I’m not s’posed to say bad things, but really, folks, come on. Are we serious?”

Gross.

‘Loose Lips Sink Ships’ first appeared in WWII propaganda posters under the guise of protection when really it was a tactic of censorship and hypervigilance. The sentiment urged you to ‘keep mum’ during the wartime effort but now it can be rebranded as the record-breaking, glass-ceiling smashing modern wartime effort of an equal and well-represented society where all voices are loud, brash and demanding. A red lip imbues a sense of power, without limitation, interstellar – as powerfully illustrated by Voir’s beauty editorial Rocket Girl by Jen Wilding, helping you discover your shooting star alter ego.

The first red lipstick was produced by Guerlain, named ‘Ne M’Oubliez Pas’ – don’t forget me. Be rebellious, be formidable, be sexy. Be all these things – and be unforgettable.

Your puckered pout is powerful. Paint on that red and get to work.

Kisses x

By Lizzy Greenwood

Artwork: Sasha Green

The post Red Lips Sink Ships appeared first on Voir Fashion.

Fashion is innately political, whether you subscribe to the industry or not. It can make an overtly political statement (think of the women in Congress wearing white to Trump’s State of the Union address or the female Oscars attendees wearing black in solidarity post ) or it may simply imbue your personal politics. Whether you’re up to date with high-street trends, a staunch charity shop scourer, or indeed completely unmoved by fashion, clothes make a statement about your personal beliefs whether you’re cognisant of them of not.

A huge trend we’ve seen on the catwalks for the upcoming long hot summer is the redux of tie-dye; it’s a fun, acidic look that first catapulted into popularity in the 1960s and 70s. It is tantamount to flower power, dancing Woodstock hippies and drug culture. While the 70s brought to the table the unisex flare trouser, androgyny and gender fluidity, tropes that are coming to the fore in recent years, Prada, Stella McCartney and R13 have all endorsed the tie-dye trend. So what’s different now? With grown-up silhouettes, the look has evolved into flowing dresses, blazers, jumpsuits and skirts, moving away from the repurposed t-shirts that we are accustomed to. The colour schemes too have graduated from primary colours to softer pastels and beiges making it more wearable from surfboard to boardroom.

Fashion is now making its overdue move towards sustainability which sees the re-imagination of tie-dye using organic batik processes and fabric treatments giving each designer piece its artisanal uniqueness, promoting hand-made work and individuality. (The irony of course being that fast fashion mass-produces on a colossal scale which diametrically opposes the original ethos of the trend. Urban Outfitters however does promote upcycling with its reworked section and be sure to look around vintage shops and markets to find original tie-dye material.)

Synonymous with the swinging sixties, you might be surprised to know that the process of tie-dye (literally tying clothes and dying them) actually goes back millennia. It was seen previously in various guises in China, India and Peru as a method of organically dying clothes. Despite its apex in the 60s and 70s, tie-dye first appeared in the States as early as the 1930s as a by-product of the Great Depression in 1929. It was advertised as an easy, low-cost way of repurposing old sacks and fabrics into something new and colourful to decorate with in and around the home.

Three decades later the hippies claimed it for themselves and it became the helical, hallucinogenic symbol of peace and love that we associate it with today. Primarily, it was a cheap way of refashioning old garments, but what made it particularly appealing to the zeitgeist of this generation was its unencumbered and unabashed individuality. No two

t-shirts could be the same.

So anyway, what does this all mean? This summer, we are seeing a resurgence of tie-dye in a big way. There is undoubtedly political potency as to why we’re seeing a reprisal of counterculture and anti-establishment ideology in 2019. Certainly, political and social parallels can be drawn between the two eras; the 60s/70s saw hard-line conservatism spread across the United States. Lyndon Johnson’s administration was plagued with riots and race wars in predominantly black neighbourhoods, his approval ratings were below 50% and after facing public backlash blamed the press for distorting facts… sound terrifyingly familiar? Nixon was entangled in violent anti-war protests concerning the suspension of bombing in Vietnam, agreed with abortion only in some ‘necessary’ circumstances and was notably ‘not for women’ in an interview with George HW Bush… albeit recognising some merits, continuing to describe two “attractive women, both of them Republicans”. Flash forward 50 years and this rhetoric is echoed hauntingly by Trump’s administration withdrawing from nuclear treaties, degrading women’s reproductive rights and sexual health funding and his notorious relationships with women that really needs no further explanation.

The movement embodied sombre, muted colours, so tie-dye brings back to life women’s vibrancy, demanding a better future, not unlike the voices of hippies back in the 60s. The political climate is shifting, women are no longer staying quiet, in fact we’re louder than ever. Tie-dye fits rather nicely in this rebellion. The rebellion against fast-fashion, against homogeny and against the denigration of female rights.

Artwork by Sasha Green

The post The Politics of Tie-Dye appeared first on Voir Fashion.