If I have to draw a line, that line wouldn't be straight. To apply the same standard across the board irregardless of local consideration ... isn't that what people hate about things like American Exceptionalism and the like? There is something call "Live and Let's live". You have your house, and I have mine, we don't run the same way but we also don't interfere. But at the sametime, you can't come into my house, bending my rule and tell me just "live and let live". Doesn't work like that. (The you and me here are just general pronounces). It's a totally different matter if the Swiss goes to the countries where these people originate from and tell them they should ban face covering, I'll tell them stfu and gtfo, but this is their house.
And why does it have to become worthy of critique? As in ... you just feel the need to criticize something?
There is probably why I have a different perspective as you: I normally categorize human behavior into 3 states: bad, neutral, good. Let me use charity as an example:A flaw to me would be - excusing such behavior, or general apathy.
- Bad: you're a greedy person, not only you don't help others, you actually deprive other of what they need to enrich yourself. This is where I find criticism is deserved.
- neutral: you keep to yourself, you take what you need, and you don't deprive other. Basically you don't deep into other bubble as long as they don't enter yours. This is to me, live and let's live.
- Good: you do charity. Which is consider going beyond normal obligation. This is where I gonna "praise" you.
In fact, I dislike people who find the need to criticize others for not doing charity more than the people who doesn't do charity themselves. (Again, just a figure of speaking, not saying I'm disliking YOU here specifically )
For China, yes, as you can see it's not the same line I use elsewhere. If you can only tolerate one set of standard, that's the definition of intolerance. Of course there is a minimum somewhere, I don't care what culture it is but something like chopping off people head is definitely wrong, but this is not something like that. If you want to classify every culture difference as discrimination, I'm sorry this is just one to add to the list because we already did ton, I'll give you another example:So that's your line?
Couple years ago I watched a documentary of a Germany's integration class where they explained to a middle east man: his wife has the right to go to a disco, and he can't not have more than one wife. So on both counts, this is a violation of another culture, but you can also see a contradiction. The former is an extension of freedom, but the latter is a restriction on existing freedom. . They are justified one over another simply due to what acceptable to the local culture, ironically this is exactly what you would say in the later quote: fair and equal don't matter, what matter is what the local find acceptable.
Reason I remember it because it reminded me when I first came, we were refugee too so we did spent a few month in a refugee class. We noticed a middle east couple with an middle age man and a very young wife. In our discussion, we found out she's the youngest of his 5 wives. So when the embassy told him "our law only recognize one wife, you have to pick one to bring with you." He picked the youngest, and as a result, now there were 4 estranged women left behind in a male dominated society ... which I hope you would agree probably a much worse situation than a face covering ban.
Will you label that discrimination against Mulism culture (with a very bad consequence in this case)? Should we accommodate him and allow him to have all 5 wives? Because if you insist on drawing one line for everything, you are obligated to say yes to both of those.
And here I thought COVID-19 had taught people of the West why that's ... not a really good principal. So by that, you mean all the people who don't follow protocol have been right all long?Honestly "fair" or "equal" doesnt even come into play for me. People should be free.