Pupils will be banned from wearing abayas, loose-fitting full-length robes worn by some Muslim women, in France’s state-run schools, the education minister has said.
The rule will be applied as soon as the new school year starts on 4 September.
France has a strict ban on religious signs in state schools and government buildings, arguing that they violate secular laws.
Wearing a headscarf has been banned since 2004 in state-run schools.
I’m not very comfortable with these type of bans.
People say women shouldn’t be forced to wear certain items of clothing and deal with it by forcing them to wear different items of clothing.
Doesn’t seem very productive.
I always think of that meme with a women in full body coverings and a women wearing a bikini and they’re both thinking about how awful it is that society pressures women to dress like the other.
Playing the advocate of the devil: the reason given is clearly stated as not being about being forced to wear anything, but about a general ban on religious signs in state schools. For example I imagine wearing a Christian cross around your neck is also banned.
A consistently enforced bad law is still a bad law. All consistently means is that everyone has to suffer.
Yeah, I simply stated what reason was given for the ban by the minister, which the comment above me seems to have read over.
Why are government officials all-powerful and all-weak at the same time? Funny how that works. The law is dumb, problematic, impossible to enforce? Hands are tied. The law makes sense and easy to perform? Selectively enforced if at all.
Yep. Yarmulkes are also banned, and I wouldn’t be able to wander around the school with my 9 pointed star necklace or ring, even though NO ONE knows what they mean.
Baha’i?
Yes, but did you know that before looking it up? Also we aren’t the only ones to use the symbol, just the latest.
I admit I did not. I appreciate you sharing your anecdote, I learned something new today thanks to you.
Still, schools shouldn’t be able to dictate how people can dress as long as they cover their genitals and their clothes aren’t dangerous.
Eh, maybe… In my public, absolutely standard highschool we still had a dress code, you couldn’t have bare legs or excessively low collars
And here in sweden the justice system has to dole out yearly reminders to schools that dressing freely is protected by the constitution, and dress codes or uniforms are literally illegal.
That’s….amazing tbh
That’s amazing, why don’t we have something like this in Germany
God that sounds dreadful. I used to get mocked outside of school for wearing poor clothes when I was young. Imagine having to deal with that literally all the time.
Yeah here in sweden we have welfare so everyone can afford basics like that.
We have welfare too. Doesn’t change the fact that people on welfare aren’t regularly buying expensive clothing. Same goes for Sweden.
I seriously doubt it. And I’m sure if it is, no one enforces it.
Edit: y’all can vote me down all day, but the law says “ostentacious religious insignia,” and I’m sure a little cross has been overlooked many times.
It is 100% banned. Any religious apparel or trinkets are banned.
No it isn’t. The 2004 law banned “large” crosses and allowed small ones but banned ALL hijabs.
It was never equally enforced.
Allowed small ones, obscured by clothing.
A necklace under your shirt is fine. That applies as equally to a cross as it does to an islamic moon and star.
They just aren’t allowed to be massive so that they’re visible even under some clothing.
The law is already unequal and discriminatory and that’s before we even get to the unequal enforcement. Muslims are sent home from school while Christians are not for the same rule violations (e.g. Christians in France who observe Ash Wednesday).
Don’t you think it’s culturally biased? The norm for Christians is a small cross necklace. The norm for Muslims is not. Isn’t it quite convenient that the exception fits well with one religion but not the other?
Actually,
ostentacious religious insignia
Up for debate.
Maybe you should be less confident about things you don’t know. In this particular regard, the French are quite consistent.
ostentacious religious insignia
That’s the law. That’s pretty vague. So, I’m pretty confident not everyone is enforcing a tiny cross necklace.
If I was a French teenager I would wear a cross to school and claim it was a T.
Just wear all the symbols and say you’re being inclusive.
Coexisting like a stone cold mother fucker.
Is this a “Brave New World” reference?
If you’re going to copy and paste something several times, and are representing it as a quotation from law, maybe spell-check it? Also, I think there are good arguments to be made on both sides of this issue, but comparing an inconspicuous piece of jewelry to an abaya seems disingenuous. If small crosses were allowed, but small star and crescents weren’t, that would obviously be wrong.
It’s a quote. It’s copy and paste. If someone spelled it wrong, it’s not me.
Either way. If a tiny cross is allowed and a tiny star is not, that’s bad.
No symbols should be allowed of any kind. 🤷♂️
I wonder how they handle tattoos.
You would be very wrong
“ostentacious religious insignia” is the law.
It’s difficult to say whether someone is wearing what they are wearing through choice or because it is demanded of them.
I agree with you, demanding that they wear something else is not the answer.
Especially when they’re kids. People should be able to wear whatever they want. But kids don’t often get to choose what they want. They’re often at the mercy of what their parents want and that’s it.
There’s also something to be said about pressure from family members. Even if the kid chose to wear something, did they really do so out of their own free will? Or because their parents said they’ll burn in hell for all eternity if they don’t?
And it’s not like we’re talking about something like simple taste in clothing or mild culture differences. We’re talking about clothes that are drenched in misogyny. It’s not about literal clothing in a vacuum, but rather what those clothes imply about women as a whole.
Then you’re just replacing the oppressor with the state.
Let children wear what they want.
What if their community’s pressure is the reason why they wear certain types of clothing?
This is the only reason why anyone wears any particular type of clothing. There is no style of clothing that it objectively makes sense to wear.
A solid reason not to be part of that community anymore.
Try that when you’re 10 👍
The trick when you are 10 is to memorize and record every single detail of it. Which adult did what on what day and which did nothing to stop it.
That way when you get older you can be crystal clear why you disowned the ones that did nothing and go after the ones that actively harmed you.
The religious deserve as much forgiveness as they have shown everyone else.
We’re talking about children. They don’t have choice.
And we see from Muslims, Mormons, Jehovah’s Witnesses, and others, that families can and will often disown you and treat you like shit over it.
I’m in agreement with France here. They’re very consistent. Go to a state school? Keep religious displays out of it, full stop.
So your solution to kids not having a choice is to not give them a choice?
The eradication of the will to wear this stuff is the answer. Without religion, barely anyone will want to wear religious signs.
It’s not the point of the ban. You shouldn’t wear any religious signs. It’s the same as banning christian cross (which is obviously already banned since years and years)
Yes. France is extremely militant about keeping religion and state separate. That extends to state institutions like state schools.
I always think of that meme with a women in full body coverings and a women wearing a bikini and they’re both thinking about how awful it is that society pressures women to dress like the other.
Equating the pressure of society, at large, when you’re an independent adult, and the pressure of your parents, when you’re still under their authority is not fair.
I agree that it will not be effective in reducing the amount of these types of robes that will be worn. But it will be effective in reducing the visibility of this particular religious clothing, and thus the religion itself. We (everyone everywhere) already ban lots of clothing styles, there are minimums you have to attain. can’t have nipples or genitalia showing, and even though that might sound nitpicky, I’m from team #freethechest and having a covered chest is something I personally do not think should be required. It’s just nipples/boobs, everyone should just grow up and let it fly
Removed by mod
Neither have these families I would imagine. How common is that in France?
I’m French, stonings occur every other Tuesday morning
That depends hugely on the region. They do it on Thursday where they say Chocolatine.
They’re not really French though
I still don’t get why we can’t get an app for it or something. The paper lottery system is just so primitive. Has to be a better way to decide who gets stoned to death for conformity and harvest.
Well, that’s called an honor killing. For a start, This article defines that concept in detail (which I tell you to forewarn that I’m immune to sealioning about the definition), has tables of trends, and has credible sources at the bottom. Honor killings, also known as shame killings, have attracted the attention of the EU as a major issue to be solved as a consequence of their spread. I can’t find a lot of data related to France specifically, but I do know the French consider their country to have a Femicide problem in general, and it’s reasonable to expect that if the total number of women being murdered is on the rise, the raw number of honor killings is climbing even if the proportion remains fixed.
I get this completely. This is nothing new for France, they have been blocking Christians from wearing crosses and Jews from wearing kippah’s for a very long time, it’s only reasonable that the Muslim population gets treated equally. Schools should remain completely secular, I am in complete agreement with France there.
Except abayas are basically just some loose-fitting clothes that can be worn by anyone regardless their religion. It’s like banning kimono or sari.
If it’s just an outfit and not religious clothes than there should be no problem, right?
It’s still targeting ethnicities. There’s no denying that these bans have a racial component to it.
I’d say it’s cultural rather than racial. Putting one culture above others is not the same as putting one race above others.
Especially since one culture refuses to assimilate when they migrate to a new country. Yeah I’m an American, but if I moved to France or Japan I wouldn’t try to change the local culture, I’d try to fit in. If I visited Saudi Arabia, not that they’d let me, my pasty white ass is putting on a turban and some robes so that I don’t die of sun exposure. I’d be the first person in history to get a 4th degree sunburn. I’m not gonna wander around in short pants, and flip flops bare chested the way I could here in SoCal.
oh no it’s the assimilation police, dictating how and when people give up their culture!
Yeah. When you decide to join another culture, you don’t force yours on them. If your culture was so shitty that you had to flee to a different country, then maybe it was a shitty culture that shouldn’t be preserved
Yeah, no.
If someone comes to my country I’d expect them to adapt.
No homophobic abuse, no sexist abuse, no telling women what they can and can’t do.
Cultures aren’t all equal. If your culture is built on bigotry, I have zero respect for it. According to some cultures, I should be stoned to death for being a bisexual man. Fuck those cultures.
It’s pretty simple. Give up your culture for another if the other is superior. If your culture is bigoted, for whatever reason, religious or not, give it up.
Splitting hairs. It’s still bigotry. Just because it’s bigotry towards something real rather than something we pretend is real doesn’t really change much.
It is not. It’s targeting religious signs. If your ethnicity can’t live with the same laws as others than it isn’t not you being ostracized, it’s you being dick by forcing everyone to follow your dogmas.
Not everyone who wears an abaya is religious or Muslim. And France doesn’t target religious signs equally, which is why the 2004 law banned hijab but allowed crosses.
And if you’re mad that others have to somehow “cater to your dogmas,” someone should tell the French who visit Algeria and other middle eastern countries and demand wine and pork.
It allowed crosses and other religious symbols, such as the islamic moon and star so long as they were hidden by clothing
A hijab isn’t hidden by clothing, it is the clothing.
So are turbans. Sikhs fought and died to protect france during world war 2, only for their children to be told they must now hide their religion and conform.
This is a badly written law and France is in the wrong here with their unique interpretation of laicite different than every other country’s secularism. As Thomas Jefferson said, other people’s beliefs and expressions “neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.”
So you’re saying the law is completely biased, since the exception fits how Christians commonly display their religion? How convenient.
Man, we are in the discussion where literally first post saying that French government preventing people from wearing crosses. What is the point of your argument, if you ignore information given to you by others?
If a female goes to Saudi Arabia, she is forced to obey the laws of Saudi Arabia and cover parts of the body. If a female goes to France, why is it your problem that people should obey the laws of the France?
You are insane.
The first post incorrectly repeated the talking point that crosses are also banned. That’s misleading. They banned “large” crosses and the 2004 law explicitly allowed “small” crosses, but made no similar exceptions for minority religions in France.
You can’t have it both ways; either human rights apply worldwide or they don’t. If you believe that both Saudi and France have the right to take away rights for women, you’re the insane one not me.
No problem meaning they shouldn’t care about not being able to wear it? Or that the French government shouldn’t care in the first place?
If it wasn’t religious sign, French government wouldn’t care about it
How people dress is none of the government’s business. This is just authoritarism.
Except when you want it, because you like it when you don’t see other people’s genitalia. Then it suddenly is the governments bussiness. In this case it’s even just for during your attendance at a public school.
I am okay with everyone walking around nude. If you really want skin cancer and everyone seeing your thunder thighs you should be able to. Me personally I am going to continue to wear clothing.
ah yes, France, the country famous for its prudence in regards to nudists.
Public indecency laws are more of a hygiene issue. Making religious clothes or jewelry illegal to wear at school sits very weird with me.
I wouldn’t say it is mostly a hiygene issue, though that is a solid perk. It’s because most people get offended at nudity. I personally don’t think they should, and I don’t, but that’s how they feel so…
Whoever people sleep or get married with is none of anyone’s business, but Muslims are against homosexuality.
Oh, so two wrongs do make a right now?
What wrong are homosexuals doing?
Wrong 1: Cultures and religions being bigoted against LGBT people.
Wrong 2: Banning all expression of those religions and cultures by anyone, even if they don’t believe in the bigotry.
When did I say that we are doing something wrong? My point is that that just because many/some Muslims are homophobes, it doesn’t mean banning certain clothes is okay.
So what should we do against homophobic Muslims?
Funny, I know Muslims who aren’t against gays but they still wear headscarves. Maybe it’s more complex than the Saudi policy line?
Also, are you saying authoritarian government is good if they only discriminate against people you don’t like? I guess that’s something an Auth would say…
Authorarian government is good when people are attacking minorities.
Muslisms dont want to accept homosexuality? Then ban them and make them go back to their countries. You want to stay? Its time to accept homosexuality in their religion. Simple.
Funny, I know Muslims who aren’t against gays but they still wear headscarves. Maybe it’s more complex than the Saudi policy line?
Funny, because you never see people with headscarves on the pride parades. There are thousands of them living in western Europe, but somehow they dissappear during pride parade. Funny, isn’t?
you never see people with headscarves on the pride parades
What does that even mean? That you yourself have never seen someone wearing a headscarf at pride? Personally, I think it’s a huge leap to take that and say no/very few Muslims in western Europe go to pride.
It wouldn’t matter even if that was true. Plenty of people support the LGBTQ+ community and don’t go to pride, same goes for many people who are part of the community.
Isn’t it curious how this argument is never applied to bigotry broadly. People always seem to be so on-board with banning Muslims from France for this reason or that, and always retreat into criticizing their beliefs, as if that were some consistent policy. But some hick in West Virginia doens’t accept gays? Why not call for banishing him from America?
Oh they are immigrants? Funny because plenty of muslims are born in France/America and have lived there their entire lives. And even the ones who haven’t - it’s called a fucking refugee. A good nation is one that takes someone in who is hurting, regardless of who they are and what they believe, and do their best to provide an environment that protects everyone and gives them a chance to learn accepting beliefs.
Notice how none of this shit has anything to do with headscarves btw… almost like there’s another agenda here…
It is tho. We need to erradicate homophobia from everywhere. You have to understand the background tho.
Yeah, all religion are against homosexuality, but christianity and catolicisism is at least trying to integrate homosexuality into the religion. There are gay fathers, churches have the rainbow flag, the pope (the head of the religion) just last week advocated for same sex couples. Is it perfect? No it is not, but at least there are some people in the religion trying.
What about muslim? No, they are not trying. Countries where muslism is the main religion have death penalty or life sentences for homosexuals. And the problem is that is not the main problem of the religion, for them to be able to accept homosexuality, they would first need to realize that they are misogynistics, and that is not happening any time soon.
It is the same thing white people vs mideast people. Are all white people queer friendly? Not they are not, but there are a lot more that support homosexuality. Are all mideast people homophobic? Not they are not, but I am probable to be beaten up by a mideast guy than by a white guy (in Europe).
Notice how none of this shit has anything to do with headscarves btw… almost like there’s another agenda here…
I agree it hasnt, but if mideast/muslim people keep being homophobic, then I am glad that the government is taking measurements to ban mideast/muslim cultural things like headscarves.
They want respect and inclusion? Then respect and be inclusive of others. It is this simple.
nobody cares about your whattaboutism
Lmao. Great argument! Definitely the right step for France!
Definitely a better argument than “some Muslims don’t like gays, so we should stop French schoolgirls from wearing a specific kind of dress, that’ll teach 'em”
Well done mate, you and Macron have solved homophobia.
Some muslisms is a BIG under statement.
If you were afraid of going to the street and hold hands or kiss with a partner because you could be beaten or killed, you would understand, so yeah, im glad France took this decision.
-
I’m gay and live in a heavily Muslim area, so stfu
-
Stopping french school girls from wearing a specific dress does… what? To stop Muslim homophobia exactly?
-
Christians also are anti gays, should we ban graphic tees as some sad, ineffectual petty revenge on them for homophobia?
-
Okay edgelord
-
deleted by creator
Removed by mod
Read the article. Crosses have been banned for a long time, before the Muslim headwear.
There’s an exception for the most common kind of religious expression for Christians. Small crosses are permitted. If you want to be fair, you need to ban them too.
Read the article. Crosses have been banned for a long time, before the Muslim headwear.
I’m not sure I like this. I sort of get not allowing religious symbols to be worn, but you’re forcing people to dress in a certain way. I don’t think the government should be able to do that
This is where I landed. They should simply continue to permit children to remove it at school if they choose, while they are under the guardianship of the state.
The kids won’t, because they’re too scared to disobey their parents.
That has nothing to do with the purview or remit of the state.
Why not
I feel like conflicted is the “correct” way to feel. On one hand, the government is literally enforcing clothing laws. On the other hand, this may prevent children from being forced into something they did not choose. I feel like a religion wrapping up your child in cloth so they lose their individually as a human being is cult-like behavior.
It would be better if the religion just wasn’t allowed to make them do this, but then they would just “suggest” women do this. This “suggestion” of course is actually coercion at best.
It’s a dress. It isn’t a headscarf or something. It’s just a loose dress.
The accompanying image appears to be showing a head covering? I am visually impaired though so correct me if I’m wrong.
This article clarifies that they sometimes do and sometimes do not include a head covering, so thanks for that clarification. The information under the rationale heading is what I had in mind when making my comment. I was in a Christian cult that controlled the way we dressed, and wanted us all to be very uniform (no personality, that would detract from God’s message) and modest (we’d be tempting men of skirts weren’t long, etc.).
France has been enforcing secularism since the turn of the 20th century. If you turn up with a turban, or a yarmulke, or a cross you’d be sent home too. If parents feel so aggrieved that the state disallows religious symbolism & clothing on state property they can send their kids to a private school.
What’s your thought on school’s uniform?
I never felt like there was much of a point for them. It was annoying for my family because we always had to buy specific clothes for school
Removed by mod
Prevention of tribes is the best benefit imo. I remember on school there were a number of ethnic/cultural groups that didn’t socialize with people out of their group. I don’t believe that fosters a healthy community, and behaviors or symbolic garments to identify you as a member of a group reinforce those group identities instead of all being human beings.
Yup. I’m thankful for school uniforms. I came from a poor family and being mocked for wearing cheap clothes would’ve been awful, I was already ridiculed enough for my background as-is.
Personally I’m with France on this one.
At this point they should just mandate school uniform.
I’m not against it, honestly. I have seen the pros and cons of each. We had a loose dress code at my school but no uniforms, and style of dress certainly became one mode of division among students. Rich kids, poor kids, athletes, nerds, etc. were all separated by dress.
I’m not the biggest fan of conformity, but uniform dress codes allow the students to basically be at a level playing field as far as visual expression goes. I’ve worked in schools with uniforms and the students there seem to prefer not having to put any thought into what they wear.
But religion and family should? 🤔
Is condemning one thing endorsing another? Do two things wrongs make a right?
I get you, but… isn’t religion supposed to be a free decision? you’re agreeing to their terms and conditions (I know, I know, you can stop the laugh track).
You really believe that families religious enough to force their kids to wear certain clothes would accept that they renounce their religion?
Yep, hence the laugh track. I was raised as a Christian (atheist now) and I know first hand you don’t get to choose lol but renouncing a religion is not a crime (in my country at least)
Well up that laugh track to 11 when you hear what islam thinks about that last part
Yeah, I know such cases exists.
No, it those shouldn’t either. Which is why I’m conflicted here.
I’m playing Devil’s advocate honestly. I’m much more comfortable with Quebec’s take than France’s (which is similar but one step above, in Quebec it only applies to government employees in a position of authority)
As for religion you have the choice to follow it or not, and following it comes with the burden of wearing certain things but you can choose to not follow that religion whenever you want if you want to dress differently. In a public school you should be able to choose what you wear, because you pretty much have to go to school.
You can stop following it whenever you want?
You realise that we’re talking about kids here, right?
I agree with this. But my girlfriend would certainly not. We’re in France and yet the pressure of her family on religion makes it that even on point she doesn’t care much about, there is so much behind her that it’s a real real pressure to respect the religion, which is hard to sometimes imagine, and to me an atheist seems ridiculous, you should make your own choices, well, for her, simply because of the people she is with. Not following certain religious rules can cost her a lot. Economically or Mentally for exemple
The especially dumb part of this is that abayas aren’t specifically Muslim or religious in nature, they’re cultural. They are a long flowing dress, without even a head covering. A bunch of non-Islamic women wear them in a variety of countries.
So this is more attempting to ban entire cultural outfits, which is ridiculous.
For context, the French are very strict about any form of symbol on what students wear. I couldn’t even wear a baseball cap with a team logo and that’s not religious.
Lol what the only reason they could prevent you from wearing a cap is because it’s considered ‘rude’ to keep your hat inside classroom. A private school can do whatever they want and force student to wear uniforme but in public school you can wear whatever you want except specific banned religious symbole (cross, kippa, headscarf etc…)
They just want to have a rule that doesn’t discriminate against any specific religion. Public schools have whatever rules the Government has elected. We had a weird mix between the local Government rules (mandatory uniform) plus the French public school rules (no outer religious symbols).
You forgot to mention that the abaya is compulsory in Saudi Arabia (except for tourists) and Qatar.
And that’s bad. Can we agree that making a dress compulsory and making a dress banned are both bad, because they both restrict choice?
I agree let’s promote shorty and crop top in Quatar.
deleted by creator
Saudi Arabia overturned that requirement in 2019, so you’re quite a few years out of date. It is required in Qatar though, yes.
It’s ridiculous either way
Removed by mod
I don’t know the law in France, but I’d worry it’ll cause religious parents to just keep their kids out of state school and do some form of private religious education, causing a greater divide. The best counter to these attitudes is exposure to diversity and other viewpoints. Maybe the kids going to school and seeing that there are other ways is better.
“Maybe the kids going to school and seeing there are other ways is better”. Yeah, but they aren’t the ones deciding how they dress. They parents are the ones that do.
Of course. And if the parents dress them in that and keep them isolated the kids will pass that on to the next generation. If the kids go to school and see there are other options, maybe they’ll choose to be different when they’re independent or raise their kids differently. This is why cults always seek to isolate their members – exposure to diversity breaks the cycle.
I agree.
Nah, girls just won’t be sent to schools.
This will be “the last straw” for many of their fathers.
Some will go, and their parents will begrudgingly accept (or turn a blind eye to their daughter dressing down as soon as she’s near school.). The majority reaction will be similar to what you see in other nations that don’t respect women enough to let them keep their autonomy.
That’ll get the fathers at least 6 months in prison in France, probably more for negligence etc.
And homeschooling requires a very good reason why they can’t go to school (pretty much always a health condition, and that needs proof) there are annual inspections and every other year the reason for homeschooling is verified.
Just not sending the children isn’t an option in pretty much every place in Europe
Best comment.
Have you ever lived in France?
Removed by mod
That made me laugh
Un bon petit enfant de Petain
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
I don’t think you understand what fascism is.
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
For a 200 year old law, it’s pretty straight forward. And for all it’s flaws, the Nth revolution didn’t like the Catholic church for … reasons, so they wanted to make a law to get them out of politics and make them liable for their shenanigans. Thankfully they didn’t discriminate when they wrote the law.
- PROHIBITIONS AND LIMITS TO INDIVIDUAL FREEDOMS IN THE FRAMEWORK OF “LAÏCITÉ”
The principle of secularism means that the State and religious organisations are separate. There is therefore no state-run public worship. The State neither recognises, nor subsidises, nor salaries any form of worship. Exceptions and adjustments to the ban on funding are defined in the legislation and case-law; they concern in particular chaplaincies, which are paid for by the State1
No religion can impose its prescriptions on the Republic. No religious principle can be invoked for disobeying the law.
Laîcite is the right for each, to practice his/her religion, without the state interfering, if not against laws and in the respect concerning other peoples. Without being prosecuted for this…
They now change the word to be against Muslims in France. Because “laicite” is always use against them.
Novlangue.
Abayas are not religious dress nor a symbol of a religion, and the law does not speak to individual choices about wearing religious symbols anyway. This is no different to banning ‘Black’ hairstyles or imposing sexist dress codes. It’s racism, not secularism.
deleted by creator
Hair covering is an Abrahamic thing. But abayas are not hair covering so what the fuck are you on about?
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
Says the guy with the randomly generated username from random.org
People woth randomised usernames are usually trolls or bad faith accounts because they want to make it harder for their accounts to be found by using randomised usernames
Removed by mod
Religious freedom is a human right. Self determination is a human right. As long as whatever you do does not cause a negative impact on other people (see the second right) or society at large, then gtfo.
There is no “second right” in France. The law is simple : Don’t wear visible religious sign at school. There are private religious schools if you disagree with the public system.
Is it so insane to think there could be a school with both religious and areligious people at the same time? A secular school that doesn’t support a religion, but allows students to express themselves how they choose? When did that become a radical idea?
It’s not insane, but this separation has been done in 1905. In France the state is separated from the church (and by extension the religious). It’s not radical it takes roots in the principle of equality.
Separation of church and state is always a good thing, I’m not arguing against that, but this feels like a whole different level. If anything, this is the state taking an active role in changing the rules of the church. That’s not separation, that’s state sponsored atheism
The public schools are the one from the state. Those one are separate from the church. But everybody can go tothe private schools those can be religious or not.
That’s secularism, not atheism.
I don’t see it as separation. Requiring something religious or banning something religious are both state mandates. It’s moreso a strict secular enforcement.
Students should express themselves how they choose.
That’s why you protect them from indoctination/religion forcing a certain outfit upon them.
“Self determination is a human right” There’s nothing I agree more on. Unfortunately some muslim communities do not agree, and the men and the women aren’t on the same level. Many women are forced to port the abaya and other vests that cover their figure in entirety, and I don’t think they should be forced to if they don’t want to. 85% of the muslim women in France that I know do not want to port it, but they’re obligated by their family. Banning it entirely is not the perfect solution, but it’s a step in the the direction of eradicating religions in France. The time of Christianity and Islam is way beyond us.
You can practice your religion inside your home. Once you’re out in public you should respect others and hide your religion away. This is the way!
This is not freedom.
Removed by mod
Forcing a person not to wear a type of clothing is just as bad forcing them to wear it. The reasons for either are not important.
You hear that the military? Stop forcing people in those ugly camo uniforms! Reasons for wearing them aren’t important!
This analogy is poor.
I was mostly for showing that forcing a clothing standard sometimes does have reasons. Team sports would be another one.
Also, banning every item of clothing that could be seen as religious, might turn into an endless game of whack-a-mole. So if France is so keen on secular clothing in schools, school uniforms seem like a legit option.
I am not a fan of school uniforms either.
Why can’t we just let kids decide what to wear? Especially when it isn’t even their own children. I generally let my kids pick out their own clothing. My middle school rolled out a uniform and it was an uncomfortable disaster. Always vowed that when I became a parent I wouldn’t do this to my own kids. Fun fact it isn’t illegal to take a picture of your shredded uniform you found in the attic and mail it to your old principal’s house with a note scrawled on it “fuck you for making me wear this”.
In any case team sports are also a really bad analogy. A small cross or head covering is not a distraction from learning the way kids not wearing sports stuff would be for the game.
I’m also not a fan of school uniforms in general and I don’t have personal expirence with them.
But the topic of dress codes came up a couple of time when I was in highschool. One of them even lead to a “ban” though, it was only school policy, not a law. But yeah, there were a couple of girls that really pushed the limits of how short they could make their tops and hotpants. I, of course, loved it at the time, but looking back as an adult, 14-16 year olds probably shouldn’t dress like that in school.
Another topic I even caused myself. I went through kind of a punk phase and one day showed up with steel-tipped boots and a 30cm, neon green mohawk. There were some complaints, but ultimatly nothing happened.
My point is, regulating clothing in certain public situation is quite common with widley varying regional standards. It’s not as simple as “everyone should be able to wear what they want”.
I don’t think anyone would confuse military service with freedom.
So schoolchildren should be treated like they’re in the military?
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
Yeah so extremely racist to protect women from religious extremists. Just the mindless name dropping again, calling everyone and everybody a racist.
Removed by mod
What percentage of husbands/street enforcers will beat her if she doesn’t wear it? Where do those cultural norms of modesty come from, pray tell?
No.
Wow. As a religious minority it’s incredibly depressing to see how many people on here support this violation of religious liberty.
Reading all the anti-privacy and self expression things that France are pushing…wouldn’t understand why anyone would want to move to france in this day and age.
I get the reasoning, but really it feels like papering over cracks rather than addressing the root cause.
Set up proper support structures to prevent people from being coerced into things they don’t want to, make sure people are given places to get away from controlling people and exposed to the fact that things don’t have to be like that.
The best cure for religion is Education and Opportunities to fully integrate in the wider society.
So France needs to invest into giving the kids in even the baundelieres (the poor neighbourhoods around the major cities) as much Education and as many Opportunities as possible and most will naturally drift away from the snake oil which is religion.
You see the single biggest mechanic of racial descrimination (not just in France) is poverty: those kids from low education hence low income immigrant parents - who lack the education (hence the income) because they hail from countries with worse Education systems - are stuck in high crime low opportunity ghettos with much lower lifetime opportunities than the rest, impacted by poverty every day of their lifes (outright racism comes as events, poverty is every waking hour of every day) for the “crime” of having popped out of the “wrong” vagina.
Some manage to come out of this, but theirs is a much taller ladder to climb so their chances of reaching a good life are less than most.
The thing is, genuinelly flattenning the playing field (which, beyond the massive boost to average quality of life, would have the minor side effect of most of the next generation leaving the claws of religion) would cost lots of money and there’s no will in France to have people like the wealthiest man and woman in Europe (both of which live there) and their circle of friends part with a small fractionof their wealth to make it possible: hard-right neoliberal with authoritarian streak Macron would never do even the mildest of wealth redistributions (as it would impact his mates and his clients) so instead out comes another “let’s force them to not look ‘wrong’” authoritarian “solution”.
If you pardon my french (hehe!), this shit is all related and all boils down to how society is structured to help a few prey on the many resulting in massive inequality in access to resources and opportunities and constant, relentless discrimination on the basis of wealth, all of which then causes all sorts of “secondary” issues which are then papered over using the cheapest method there is to cover it up: abusing the Law and Legal Violence to coerce the most powerless of all to “keep up appearances”.
Compared to the US, France has massive taxes and wealth redistribution. You actually have an estate/inheritance tax that captures tax not only from the inheritance but from gifts made during the lifetime of the deceased. You have universal healthcare. You also have a massive influx of immigrants, not all of them from former French colonies, many of whom don’t give a fuck about France’s highly valued secularism and other cultural values. You don’t come to a France looking for a better life and simultaneously demand that France make an exception for you to allow the offensive visible symbolic separation of women from society because your religion/culture demands it. It is entitled in the extreme that people want to make France like the country they fled.
It’s not about stopping people from being coerced, it’s about the state forbidding religious symbols on state property including schools. France is strictly secular and forbids religion in the public sphere, i.e. state property like schools, politics etc.
It just so happens to have the pleasant side effect that kids in state schools are free from the segregation, clothing and other religious bullshit they might have to endure in their private life. The government has no control over that other aspect however it might lead to kids growing into adults who are less orthodox in their own lives.
This is the best summary I could come up with:
Students will be banned from wearing abaya, a loose-fitting full-length robe worn by some Muslim women, in France’s state-run schools, the education minister has said.
“When you walk into a classroom, you shouldn’t be able to identify the pupils’ religion just by looking at them,” Education Minister Gabriel Attal told France’s TF1 TV, adding: “I have decided that the abaya could no longer be worn in schools.”
The garment has being increasingly worn in schools, leading to a political divide over them, with right-wing parties pushing for a ban while those on the left have voiced concerns for the rights of Muslim women and girls.
France has enforced a strict ban on religious signs at schools since the 19th Century, including Christian symbols such as large crosses, in an effort to curb any Catholic influence from public education.
The debate on Islamic symbols has intensified since a Chechen refugee beheaded teacher Samuel Paty, who had shown students caricatures of the Prophet Mohammed, near his school in a Paris suburb in 2020.
The announcement is the first major policy decision by Mr Attal, who was appointed France’s education minister by President Emmanuel Macron this summer at the age of 34.
The original article contains 388 words, the summary contains 199 words. Saved 49%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!
The same “I know what’s best for them” and “the law applies equally to everyone” arguments in favor of bans on drugs that many in liberal spaces will detest, they will happily use when supporting shit like this. We all know that everyone doesn’t suffer equally under laws like this. Religion may be the opium of the people, but does that mean we should be the narcs? You don’t eradicate religion by banning it. You eradicate it by having secular institutions provide the things people go to religion for, like a sense of purpose, assistance, and community.
France has a strict ban on religious signs in state schools and government buildings, arguing that they violate secular laws.
Is this a case of being lost in translation or something? I wouldn’t consider religious garb to be a “sign.”
I totally support that. https://www.indigo.ca/en-ca/little-hijabi-a-little-girls-love-for-her-hijab/9781504319508.html Kids wearing hijabs, abayas (put any religious symbol here) must be considered as a form of child abuse. It is crucial to refrain from imposing outdated and fantastical beliefs onto young minds.
The Abaya is cultural and not religious though.
So why is it mandatory for women in Quater and Saudi Arabia ?
Because their law requires it for “modesty reasons”, probably like a uniform of some sort, but it’s not a religious garment in Islam. It covers the whole body except the head, feet and hands. Anyone wearing an Abaya outside of Qatar and Saudi Arabia is doing so for cultural reasons, not religious reasons.
These kinds of laws should not oppress culture, unless we want to see an extinction of diversity. They should exist solely to limit religious child indoctrination, and give children a fighting chance to make their own decisions with regard to religion.
That’s exactly what this law is doing by banning religious sign into the public school. Pretenting that the introduction of this clothe, absolutely not present into the French culture, has nothing to do with the religion is fallacious.
Please don’t do this. The culture finds its foundation entirely within religious beliefs, and the abaya stands as a tangible expression of this connection. From the Wikipedia: “The rationale for the abaya is often attributed to the Quranic quote, “O Prophet, tell your wives and daughters, and the believing women, to cover themselves with a loose garment. They will thus be recognised and no harm will come to them” (Qur’an 33:59,[2] translated by Ahmed Ali). This quotation is often given as the argument for wearing the abaya.”
The cross is synonymous with Christianity, yet there’s an exception in this law for small crosses. If you want to go down this path, you must ban everything, with no exceptions.
