Schoolgirls who refused to change out of the loose-fitting robes have been sent home with a letter to parents on secularism.
French public schools have sent dozens of girls home for refusing to remove their abayas – long, loose-fitting robes worn by some Muslim women and girls – on the first day of the school year, according to Education Minister Gabriel Attal.
Defying a ban on the garment seen as a religious symbol, nearly 300 girls showed up on Monday morning wearing abayas, Attal told the BFM broadcaster on Tuesday.
Most agreed to change out of the robe, but 67 refused and were sent home, he said.
The government announced last month it was banning the abaya in schools, saying it broke the rules on secularism in education that have already seen headscarves forbidden on the grounds they constitute a display of religious affiliation.
The move gladdened the political right but the hard left argued it represented an affront to civil liberties.
The 34-year-old minister said the girls refused entry on Monday were given a letter addressed to their families saying that “secularism is not a constraint, it is a liberty”.
If they showed up at school again wearing the gown there would be a “new dialogue”.
He added that he was in favour of trialling school uniforms or a dress code amid the debate over the ban.
Uniforms have not been obligatory in French schools since 1968 but have regularly come back on the political agenda, often pushed by conservative and far-right politicians.
Attal said he would provide a timetable later this year for carrying out a trial run of uniforms with any schools that agree to participate.
“I don’t think that the school uniform is a miracle solution that solves all problems related to harassment, social inequalities or secularism,” he said.
But he added: “We must go through experiments, try things out” in order to promote debate, he said.
‘Worst consequences’
Al Jazeera’s Natacha Butler, reporting from Paris before the ban came into force said Attal deemed the abaya a religious symbol which violates French secularism.
“Since 2004, in France, religious signs and symbols have been banned in schools, including headscarves, kippas and crosses,” she said.
“Gabriel Attal, the education minister, says that no one should walk into a classroom wearing something which could suggest what their religion is.”
On Monday, President Emmanuel Macron defended the controversial measure, saying there was a “minority” in France who “hijack a religion and challenge the republic and secularism”.
He said it leads to the “worst consequences” such as the murder three years ago of teacher Samuel Paty for showing Prophet Muhammad caricatures during a civics education class.
“We cannot act as if the terrorist attack, the murder of Samuel Paty, had not happened,” he said in an interview with the YouTube channel, HugoDecrypte.
An association representing Muslims has filed a motion with the State Council, France’s highest court for complaints against state authorities, for an injunction against the ban on the abaya and the qamis, its equivalent dress for men.
The Action for the Rights of Muslims (ADM) motion is to be examined later on Tuesday.
For those who don’t get this, ‘Laïcité’ is what the French call the secularism which is part of their constitution.
Plenty are as serious about it, as many in the US are about free speech or the right to own a gun.
Obviously this is also in part a more recent phenomenon. France has a large Muslim population and laïcité is arguably interpreted more strictly by those who wish to combat the influence of Islam on French mainstream culture.
In Quebec we usually have to explain the difference between secularism and laïcité by mentioning that secularism is the separation of church and State by accommodating all religions equally while laïcité is the separation of church and State by excluding religion from the public domain. Quebec’s take on laïcité is more relaxed than France’s.
I think what’s so annoying about these laws is that they go à contresens, by strengthening religion in civic life. These girls are now forced to go to religious schools if they want to continue wearing their harmless cultural dress. In fact, religious schools have exploded in population since the laws on laïcité have passed in France. Many of those girls would have otherwise integrated into French society and become bored of religion, just like Catholic children do, if they went to a normal school. I remember listening to a French philosopher on a debate program say “Seuls les pays qui ont interdit le port du voile ont fini par l’imposer”. I don’t know if that’s literally true, but I think banning makes many muslims feel defiant and more passionate about their religious identity.
It’s especially galling in Canada, which has one of the most well-integrated and moderate Muslim minority populations in the world. A law like this is actively harmful to the goal of lessening “la pertinence de la religion dans la vie civile”. It goes against its own goals, to solve a problem that doesn’t exist.
Since you’re mentioning Canada, at the same time in Quebec (the only place with a similar law) it’s only for government employees in a position of authority so I don’t think it’s really an issue considering we already impose restrictions on the same employees when it comes to displaying political signs and it received support from many people that are part of the groups most affected because they don’t want to have left a country where religion is part of politics only to go live somewhere where it’s trying to do the same thing. Creating a barrier between the two where we say “If your religion is so important to you that you can’t accept to remove the sign you’re wearing while at work, it might mean you are not ready to represent a laïc State” isn’t a bad thing. I wouldn’t support a ban for students or all government employees and so on (like France is doing).
I’ve heard this argument that it’s “not so bad” in Quebec, but I don’t know why we need to accept any “badness” at all. What countervailing benefit justifies the cost? Students will not convert to Sikhism or Islam because they’re taught by a Sikh or Muslim teacher. It’s a non-issue.
Contrary to what you say, the affected groups are far from supportive. In fact, I would not be surprised one bit if, like in France, Muslims in Quebec have hardened their views, becoming more devout, in response to la loi 21.
I said it’s not an issue and that it’s not a bad thing, not that it’s “not so bad” and that we’re tolerating “badness”.
It’s not about conversion, it’s about discrimination or the appearance of discrimination by an employee of the State.
How does a Jewish defendant feel when a judge that’s visibly Muslim makes a decision against them? Well that judge represents the State and the State needs to be neutral and to have the appearance of neutrality in front of the people it has authority over.
And again, that judge couldn’t have a hammer and sickle pin on their robe even though the freedom of political opinion and of expressing it is as protected as the freedom of religious expression. Can you imagine a visibly communist judge making a decision against a private business suing the government? Yeah, that wouldn’t fly.
How does a non-white defendant feel when a visibly white judge, which are most judges, makes a decision against them? Or a man rules against a woman who is a rape victim? Such things happen all the time. People seem perfectly happy with state representatives being white, without quotas or positive discrimination to improve diversity. Why all this concern for “social justice” only when it comes to these minority religions?
Do you really think there is no “badness” at all… for anyone? Some people have had to make a difficult decision between career and identity. You might be blasé about that decision, but for some people it would be as difficult as being forbidden from speaking your native language, or forbidden from being openly gay.
The difference here is that skin color and gender aren’t a choice, whereas wearing a religious sign, just like wearing a sign of your political allegiance, is a choice.
Unless you tell me that wearing a kippah isn’t a choice for the wearer, which would be in direct violation of our charter or rights and freedom…
The people concerned also get affected if their religious sign can’t be worn because of uniforms, they don’t go and sue employers that tell them they can’t wear a safety hat over a turban or that they can’t drive a transport van while wearing a burqa that hinders their view. If their sign is so important that they can’t satisfy the criterias for the job they just go work in another field and that’s it.
The State doesn’t have to guarantee access to jobs to people who don’t fit the criterias for the job, including the responsibility to appear neutral. The perfect State employee in a position of authority would be a robot that looks nothing like a human with a gender neutral voice, since we can’t have that we’re stuck telling people that they need to adopt a neutral appearance to work certain jobs or they can go do the equivalent job in the private sector if it exists or they can take other tasks which don’t put them in a position of authority, including some very good jobs for the State!
Laïcité should be the accommodation of all religion. Laïcité is tolerance. But the fascists are turning it into bullying religions.
That’s secularism. It’s as if you just didn’t read what I wrote.
So what is the rebuilding of Notre-dame de Paris ? Secularism too ?
Fascism it is.
Is it getting rebuilt for it’s religious importance or historical importance? Do they rebuild all churches that burn down?
Hint: Answers start with h and n
That’s just hypocrisy here. The building is used for religious ceremonies. There’s nothing more religious than this church.
Now mind you I’m not against rebuilding it, because I’m not an anti religion zealot. I’m merely pointing out the hypocrisy of hunting Muslims out of schools in the name of laicity while rebuilding a church with state money.
Funny how you skipped both questions
good summary
deleted by creator
To be fair, it is more correct to say « France is a racist country hiding behind laïcité and feminism to justify their Islamophobia. »
All other religious symbols are also banned (in schools), so this argument seems pretty weak. One can agree or disagree, but considering religion a private matter that should stay out of the public buildings is a perfectly legitimate stance, in my opinion.
As you said, religion is a private matter.
While the school institution should absolutely avoid anything that has to do with religion, the students are still private entities. Taking away their freedom to express themselves in any way is one of the worst things to do to a young person and will only have the opposite effect.
Twist or turn it as you want, this law is just racism they wrapped up nicely.
I believe there are a huge number of ways we want to avoid young people express themselves in school. I am thinking for example about Nazi simbols, but the examples are countless. It’s just that according to you religion is not “one of those things”. I bet you wouldn’t defend someone to express himself by coming to school in full KKK outfit in the same way, would you?
Also, given the fact that the law applies to everyone, I don’t find it racist, and not even discriminatory. Again, Muslim people are disproportionally affected just because Islam has many of such symbols and garments, not because the law targets them specifically.Christians’s veils are banned as well (like the one nuns wear),the difference is that only few people in specific contexts wear them.
No one ever was removed from school for wearing a Christian cross.
Banning religion from public space is actually against the French constitution, and it’s not a fair fight against religion, it’s racism against Muslim.
Christian crosses are actually forbidden in French school (from what I read). I don’t know if anybody ever got removed from school from it, but the rule is there. I can’t talk on what is against or not French constitution as I am not qualified to do so (not even for my own country), but I trust that if that’s the case, courts will determine that.
A final remark, being Muslim is a choice, is not a birth condition nor a race (or ethnicity). This means that at most you can talk of religious discrimination, not racism. Coincidentally religious discrimination is very common in very religious countries (including Muslim countries), both towards other religions and even more against atheists or apostates.
No. The crosses banned are the big ones that the teacher would put on the wall. People are free to wear any pendant they like.
The teacher need to not show any religious sign because it represent the state.
Forbidding people to dress how they like or even show that they have a religion is fascism. It’s like forbidding same sex couple to show that they love eachother.
And I can’t care less about Muslim theocracies, they are fascists and that is the problem. What I care about is that France is becoming fascist too, and I am ashamed of it. Becoming fascist to fight fascism is an irony that doesn’t make it better.
Accprding to https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_law_on_secularity_and_conspicuous_religious_symbols_in_schools you seem incorrect. The point is exactly that of preventing religious displays in schools, and I wouldn’t call it fascism. In fact, fascist regimes have done exactly the opposite, giving huge visibility to religion and (the case in Italy) making Christianity religion of the state.
The comparison with same sex couple showing displays of affection seems completely ridiculous to me, especially because Muslims are disproportionally affected only because Islam is a religion in which there are more symbols, but it is not targeted specifically against then.
What is important is that people can, if they choose to do so, freely profess their own religion, or the lack thereof. This does not mean that this can be done in any space, and I am personally a big supporter for schools being very neutral spaces.
When a school ban children because of their religion it’s not really neutral.
Let’s not pretend children have a choice how they dress.
The alienation that children feel when they are forced to look different from their peers is a strong point for school provided uniforms.
Hey! Another fascist classical idea!
Its funny that Islamists use the term “Islamophobia” considering they teach an homophobic culture themselves. Dont ask for tolerance if you are not willing to be tolerant yourself.
Fuck all zealots, especially the fascist ones.
Fuck all zealots
Exactly. Also muslim.
I wish we would put half as much energy into fighting racism and fascism.
And homophobia
That is far closer from the truth indeed.
deleted by creator
“Gabriel Attal, the education minister, says that no one should walk into a classroom wearing something which could suggest what their religion is.”
I was initially torn on this, but as long as it’s for all religions, I support it. I firmly believe that I shouldn’t know your religion unless I ask. Religion is toxic.
I do think you should have the freedom to wear religious signifiers as an adult. I just don’t approve. But I don’t want to stop you. Children in school? This is the same (to me) as requiring them to leave their phones at home.
An Abaya is just a flowing robe.
This ban is like an American school saying you’re allowed to wear cowboy hats but not sombreros because sombreros are associated with catholicism, in that they are mostly associated with the culture of a predominately catholic country.
This is like banning kids from wearing rainbows because it signifies their values.
Then what’s the big deal? No hats.
The rule isn’t no flowing robes.
The rule is “no flowing robes on kids suspected of being muslim”.
So let the french kids who are not muslim, wear these robes and see what happens.
I support a ban on cowboy boots, too.
I disagree, the Abaya is not just a flowing robe.
It is a garment that is required by the Sharia law (see Saudi Arabia and other Muslim countries where women are not allowed to choose what they wear).
Allowing this is the first step in letting religion in the public schools in France, where it has always been explicitly banned.
And it is very unlike banning rainbows, those are a symbol used to promote acceptance of the diversity of others, something religions struggle with (ever notice how religion is closely tied with extremism?)
Another factor to take into account is that these young girl may be forced by their family to wear such a garment, imposing upon them something they may not be old enough to refuse.
Also, look up the paradox of intolerance, as allowing anyone to do as they please causes the rise of extremism.
This is a very hyperbolic take on that paradox.
An article of clothing can’t be religious on its own. Saudi Arabia may have done the wrong thing by requiring this specific article of clothing but banning it is also bad.
A girl may want to wear a loose fitting dress for any number of reasons. Some people are just more modest than others and that shouldn’t be punished.
Looking at abaya online, and as a westerner I actually kinda like the style of them as well. I could see them being work as a strictly fashionable article of clothing.
An article of clothing can’t be religious on its own
Really? What about a kippa ? Or a priest’s robes ?
The kippa is forbidden in french schools for this very same reason, it signals religion.
Loose fitting dresses are not forbidden, abayas are. They are a specific kind of loose fitting dresses. One that signals religion.
I don’t see them working as a fashion article, but that may just be my taste.
I really appreciate you engaging in more than just one liners.
I disagree, the Abaya is not just a flowing robe.
It is a garment that is required by the Sharia law (see Saudi Arabia and other Muslim countries where women are not allowed to choose what they wear).
From le Monde
[Saudi Arabia] Since 2022 (…) has outlawed the wearing of abaya for women during examinations.
It is not a religious garment. It is a cultural garment. You’re right that it is often worn by Muslim women/girls to achieve islamic notions of modesty. But it’s predominately worn by people strongly influenced by Arab culture, not muslims everywhere.
I agree that countries should not generally be dictating what people are allowed to wear.
Allowing this is the first step in letting religion in the public schools in France, where it has always been explicitly banned.
Except it’s not the first step in letting religion in schools. It was already allowed and then was banned. The pendulum is swinging away from religious tolerance. It would be more accurate to view the ban as the next step in a series of measures further disembracing France’s ethnic minorities.
And it is very unlike banning rainbows, those are a symbol used to promote acceptance of the diversity of others
So you support symbols of the acceptance of the diversity of others. But you do not support actual acceptance of cultural diversity.
ever notice how religion is closely tied with extremism?
Yes. Too many religions have dark histories/presents.
Another factor to take into account is that these young girl may be forced by their family to wear such a garment, imposing upon them something they may not be old enough to refuse.
I think the best way to help people in situations like this is to get them into environments where they can make strong relationships with people outside their family’s religion. Like public schools.
Also, look up the paradox of intolerance, as allowing anyone to do as they please causes the rise of extremism.
I’m familiar with the concept and agree that limitations to freedom are necessary to protect freedom. But is it intolerance to wear an Abaya or is it intolerance to forbid unfamiliar styles of clothing?
I applaud France’s goal of a secular society. But I think this policy is a misstep.
Look at images of abaya compared to duster cardigans and maybe you’ll see what I mean.
Dont compare an Abaya to a rainbow. They are nothing a like.
In the Americas there were schools for native American children where they forced them to dress, eat, speak, and behave “properly” and not practice their religion. The goal was to eliminate their culture and make them homogeneously American or Canadian. (They also killed a fucking ton) This sort of nationalism has generally been looked back on as a mistake and a horrible atrocity. Why should it be acceptable towards other religious groups?
These kids aren’t being taken from their families. They aren’t being forced to give up their religion in their homes. These are not the same. This isn’t about “other religious groups.” It’s all religions while at school, and I’m fine with that.
The goal is to replace religion with nationalism, which isn’t an admirable goal. They may not literally say it out loud, but it’s pretty obvious.
The goal is to replace religion with nationalism
It really isn’t, though?
I’m not in support of nationalism. I don’t know if what you said is accurate or not. I simply approve of keeping religion out of schools.
As much as you wish, I don’t think you can because it is a part of one’s life. Whether you are Atheist or practice a religion, the beliefs and practices you have are in my opinion fundamental for you. Let’s take the reverse, would you as an Atheist pretend to believe in a certain religion for 4-6 hours a day just so you could learn? You can take this and experiment with all kinds of situations. Sure, religion shouldn’t be taught in schools, religion has nothing to do with schools but while we shouldn’t teach religion we shouldn’t also take religion out of the human. Your beliefs are fundamental to you. I think there is a certain level of tolerance we should have towards other people as long as they don’t interfere and infringe on the freedoms and liberties of others. Having the freedom to wear what you want and act the way you want while you don’t bother others should be allowed.
If you want to have a private school where everyone follows a specific rule set, regulation, specific formal clothing etc. Go ahead, make your own.
But I do feel public schools as a public good should allow everyone to learn while also not requiring one to remove parts of things that form one’s identity.
I generally wish to respect others. But I can’t help but note that mass shooters are frequently deeply Christian. I’m not advocating for someone to pretend that they believe in another religion or that they don’t believe in their own. I’m mildly offended by people who advertise their religion by wearing a cross above their clothing. I think they should tuck it below so that I don’t know what their religion is because frankly, I find their faith offensive. It’s unfortunate that some religions require that their faithful observe traditions that make it obvious that they are faithful.
Religion is, at its root, a system of control and an excuse for bad behavior. At it’s worst it is a grift and a shortcut to genocide. I know that there are many religious people who are good and descent (my mother, for example), but I still resent that her religion guides her politics in ways that are illogical. I had a friend who believed in 1999 that the earth was ~5000 years old and that dinosaurs were a test of his faith by god. Religion is holding us back.
would you as an Atheist pretend to believe in a certain religion for 4-6 hours a day
France wants people to not show their religion in school. That’s different from pretending to have another, or no religion.
Like in moments when I don’t wear my favorite sports team’s insignias, I’m not pretending to be fan of another team instead.
Okay, so how is this different from saying “I don’t care if they’re gay, as long as it’s in the privacy of their own homes”? It’s the same sentiment about what is (to some) also an immutable characteristic about their personality
This is a strong argument and initially left me speechless. However, religion is something you choose. I don’t think people choose to be gay.
Yes, let’s exempt them from proper education. That’ll solve the problem.
Make proper education mandatory
deleted by creator
I guess, though attendance in school isn’t
Schooling in France is not mandatory (although instruction is). Since French law mandates only education, and not necessarily attendance at a school, families may provide teaching themselves, provided that they comply with the educational standards laid down in law and monitored by the State.
Its easy, get the girls some new clothes
The fascist way to inclusion!
People are down voting you but your sentiment is right. By excluding these girls from school you only punish the girls involved and deny them and the schools a chance to make things work.
Because muslims and Islam are so inlcusive, tolerant and respectful
So it’s a competition and you have to be more of a zealot than them?
Bro, no one is more zealot than Muslims and islam, and France is stopping them, and im happy of that.
No one is more zealous than the fascists we have in France. But apparently you share their views so whatever.
How is that relevant with France? Iran being fascist is completely irrelevant to France becoming fascist. The same kind of argument was used against Jews and roms by Hitler.
People should be allowed to wear what they want. That said, nobody should voluntarily wear these terrible symbols of sexism and oppression. The literal religious purpose of the abaya and even the hijab is to promote modesty, with the rationale that men can’t control themselves and it’s women’s responsibility to do that for them. Fuck that message and fuck the ideology that it perpetuates.
This is exactly the problem. If men had to cover their bodies, I wouldnt mind it, but because only women have to cover their bodies, it is sexist.
men have to cover their bodies as well, just not as much as women. I think it’s unfair to assume gender equality will ever be real because of the amount of difference they both have.
What differences have men and women that make women have to cover all but their face/eyes and men dont?
Modesty is not a religious value. Many philosophies promote it.
Secularism doesn’t, and that is what France is.
I don’t want religion in schools, outside that, you’re still free to practice what you want, but keep religion out of education. France got this one right
Do they ban other forms of religious expression? Crosses/crucifixes? Yarmulke/kippah?
Or is it just Islamic symbols?From what I’ve read they ban all of it. Granted I don’t live there nor do I see it in practice, but they’ve mentioned it in a few articles.
I read up on it a bit more.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_law_on_secularity_and_conspicuous_religious_symbols_in_schools
It seems like regulations on religious attire are selectively applied. Small crosses and stars of David, some variations of Sikh turbans, Fatima’s hands are acceptable and the final decision is left up to school headmasters.
It also sounds like the legislators who created it specifically intended to target Muslim headdress.
It’s one thing to keep religion out of education. It seems that they’re disproportionately concerned about suprsesssing Islam in their schools.
Ah, thanks for the link. Yes, they’re definitely in the wrong if there’s even an iota of selective enforcement.
I want to be very careful around judging the intentions of people who live 5000 miles away and speak a language I don’t understand. There’s a lot of room to misunderstand people’s intentions.
But from what I can see, it’s looking like there’s an intentional bias.
so let girls bring small muslim symbol in their necklaces? that seems fair to me.
I could see that as fair as long as everyone agrees that a small symbol on their neck is an appropriate expression of their religion.
If I were to think of a Muslim country that officially embraces secularism in government what would that look like? What if they said that everyone can wear a discreet head covering. Christians, Jews, Buddhists, Daoists, Jains, etc are also allowed to wear small headscarves appropriate to their religion.
The problem is that headscarves just aren’t generally meaningful to those other religions.
I’m even more suspicious of the intent of the French law since they apparently went out of their way to create an exemption for non-Muslim head scarves. The law seems to be constructed and interpreted as, “If we can tell that its related to Islam, it’s out.” The case where a girl was sent home for wearing a skirt that was too long really just looks like they want to make Muslims (and Muslim girls, in particular) more uncomfortable.
The difference here is that headscarves is a symbol of opression, you have to understand that.
The thing with symbols is that they don’t have have objective meanings. Their meanings are entirely a matter of interpretation and they’re incredibly fluid.
Necklaces can also be symbols of oppression. Chains, in general are far more commonly used as symbols of oppression than any article of clothing. There’s the obvious association with collars that are used to control slaves and livestock. There is also slavery symbolism associated with ankle and wrist bracelets, largely due to their similarity to shackles.
The ultimate test is what the individual thinks of it. If we’re forbidding a girl from wearing some article of clothing that she wants to wear, we’re the oppressors. If we’re truly worried about some situation where parents are forcing their children to wear some clothing a more appropriate response would be to either ban all religious clothing or to adopt a policy of clothing choice being a protected privacy matter and barring schools from discussing a student’s clothing choices with their parents.
From the evidence I’ve seen, this policy is less about protecting the rights of girls and more about using that as a rationalization to marginalize Muslims.
How much of human stupidity can be boiled down to “I don’t like you wearing a silly hat,” I wonder.
It’s not about that, it’s about oppressive religions being forced to be slightly less oppressive, at least in France. Good for them
Oh man the irony of this statement. Jesus Christ.
I’ll assume you mean this is oppressive against Islam? It’s not, it’s a blanked no-religuous clothing rule and that is perfect.
That this hits islam rather hard is because that religion IS oppressive, especially to women. Girls should be free to dress the way they like and not be told they’re garbage if someone can see their hair or body shape
More ironic than opressive religions asking for tolerance and respect?
Who should respect who?
- Girls with abayas should respect local culture and not wear them.
- Locals should respect girls with abayas and let them wear them.
- Locals should respect girls with abayas and every girl should wear it.
We are expected to respect local culture when we visit islamic countries. Although I’m all for self-expression and freedom I can’t see why France is making a mistake here.
Majority would disagree with me, but I am leaning towards “girls should respect local culture” and not wear them. The same applies to islamic countries (as you just mentioned) - tourist girls, when going there, are respecting local culture and wear them.
Respect works both ways, and those girls should respect local culture.
Everyone should respect each other religion or lack of, and not display things that could be associated with religion to avoid problems and conflicts.
It’s unnecessary if I go to university with my shirt of Satan and a patch with a pentagram. Better to leave that at home.
Religion deserves no respect because there is nothing intrinsically objective about it. Anyone can believe anything. So, I propose we simply have rules that are for everyone, ignores religion, and we just live by them. As long as your religion doesn’t break those rules, do whatever the fuck you want.
Everyone should respect each other religion or lack of
Mmm yes, good thinking
and not display things that could be associated with religion to avoid problems and conflicts.
So girls should not wear them?
Good! The rules are for everybody. Freedom from religion!
deleted by creator
That’s because every liberty is somebody else’s constraint. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_religion_in_France
The French concept of religious freedom did not grow out of an existing pluralism of religions but has its roots in a history with Roman Catholicism as the single official religion and including centuries of persecution of people not endorsing it, or straying from the most official line, from the Cathars to the Huguenots and the Jansenists – this lasted until the French Revolution.
French insistence on the lack of religion in all things public (laïcité or secularism) is a notable feature in the French ideal of citizenship. This concept of secularism, also plays a role in ongoing discussions about the wearing of scarves by Muslim women in public schools. In 2004, the French Parliament passed a law prohibiting the wearing of ostentatious religious garb in public primary and secondary schools; motivations included the tradition of keeping religious and political debates and proselytism out of such schools, as well as the preservation of the freedom of Muslim female students forced to wear certain costumes out of peer pressure.
deleted by creator
yep, your slavery increases somebody else’s freedom from work, but they are not the same thing, that “is” is doing some heavy lifting there.
The point by George Orwell is that when you accept propaganda soundbites unthinkingly, you become somebody’s tool.
After looking at what an abaya is and understanding some of the overt and covert reasons for doing this and the reaction, the cool solution would be if abayas (they’re really just a loose dress) started to be marketed at everyone, so that anyone could wear them and end this stupid debacle. What do people wear in the west if they don’t want people to look at their “curves” anyway? Huge market gap, right there. Or maybe instead of abayas they’ll start wearing long trench coats to school, lol.
PS: meanwhile, in SA: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-saudi-women-socialmedia-idUSKCN1NL2A1
“Women in Saudi Arabia have for decades been required to wear the abaya - a loose, all-covering robe - in public, a dress code strictly enforced by police.”
And there are still people in here defending this lol
People are oppressed in that part of the world, let’s oppress the ones in our country with the opposite this way they are more free!
I mean, im pretty sure a women not wearing an Abaya in Saudi Arabia would have it waaaaaaaaaaay worse than a girl not being able to wear it in school. That doesnt seem like the opposite to me
Yes, telling people not to bring religion into public education is so oppressive right?
Give me a break, this is the 21st century, not the 15th century
started to be marketed at everyone
The equivalent for men is the qamis, however you don’t see them using it. Just this tells everything you need to know about the abaya.
Oh France, always there to show the world that you can be as stupid as America but in completely different ways
If that did calm down demonstrartions in France about retirement age I would be impressed!
Am not particularly with or against the law but I feel it was no accident it was introduced these days.
All the students should start wearing abayas.
It will entirely break down the argument that it’s a religious symbol.
While secularism is important for the school as an official institution, the fact that this applies to private persons is absolutely dumb.
All the students should start wearing abayas
Or none should wear abayas?
It will entirely break down the argument that it’s a religious symbol.
That makes zero sense???
and the comment I replied to makes a lot of sense, lmao
If nobody wears it, it enforces the idea that it’s a religious symbol. Everybody wearing it just makes it another piece of clothing.
💡
Nope,
If nobody wears it
it just makes it another piece of clothing.
Be real, the only reason Muslims are making a big deal out of this, its because its a religious symbol. If the government would have banned jeans or whatever, Muslims wouldn’t bat an eye.
New criminal offense: Learning while Muslim.
Only that is not.
Crucifixes and other outter religious symbols are facing the same restriction.
For what reason a particular creed holds such tight restrictions on what garments are considered adequate over others evades.
This is a quite harsh way to impose a rule but it is a fair one. No one is being denied education. This is “keep your beliefs to yourself and do not impose it onto others”.
“Ackshually, technically, totally fair.” This clearly only affects this one group of people in practice. The law was obviously made to garner the bigot vote and distract from the incredibly unpopular shit this government is pulling. This “technically” shit is only deflection. I mean it works great on people who are Islamophobic but don’t actually want to admit that to themselves. Plausible deniability.
impose it onto others
How are these children “imposing” anything onto others? You see one abaya, and now you’re forced to accept Mohammed as your prophet? Do you know what “impose” means? You used it correctly just two sentences before that.
“Ackshually, technically, totally fair.”
Want to throw “mansplaining” and “neckbeard” there too? Seems to be missing to finish the bouquet.
This clearly only affects this one group of people in practice. The law was obviously made to garner the bigot vote and distract from the incredibly unpopular shit this government is pulling. This “technically” shit is only deflection. I mean it works great on people who are Islamophobic but don’t actually want to admit that to themselves. Plausible deniability.
Could not care any less. By definition, I uphold that no creed, whatsoever, deserves special treatment. And fascism is the hot buzzer nowadays: everything and everyone is a fascist nowadays, the moment they are not willing to concede by default on any given point.
The abaya is an outter sign of religiosity, usually imposed to women that come from muslim backgrounds or go into it. It is not a fashion statement or personal style: it’s forced differentiation that no one has to respect or endure.
Have the girls and women have a say on what they use, not a father, or male relative or a religious figure nor a so called sacred book.
impose it onto others
How are these children “imposing” anything onto others? You see one abaya, and now you’re forced to accept Mohammed as your prophet? Do you know what “impose” means? You used it correctly just two sentences before that.
Inadvertantly answered to this point above but I’ll expand a little more.
Personally speaking, which makes the following an anecdote, which by the force of argument engagement voids it of validity, I actually find quite beautiful the elaborate embroidery and decorations the traditional northern Africa and Turkish garments can sport. I find it lavish, elaborate and just beautiful. The art and work put into it is fabulous. But this same elaborate work is usually absent in the abayas and other “traditional” muslim associated garments we usually see in Europe, which are often bland, in drab colors. Why?
If it is about defending culture, which is the default argument, why aren’t those traditional garments sewn and used here, where they could even contribute to counter the prêt-à-porter seasonal discardable fashion? Make an actual contribution to the local culture and enrich it.
That is blatantly wrong! What’s banned is the sign in the room, from the teacher, a representative of the state.
Only Muslim get to get new laws to ban any sign of their religion. Cross pendant were never banned. Scarfs were only banned when Muslim wear them.
Keep your beliefs to yourself should apply to fascists too.
No, every religious sign is banned.
Christians are just less of an arse when it comes to those symbols. They either stop wearing it or hide it under clothes.
But if a Christian came in wearing a hat with a cross on top, they would also get send home.
Same with orthodox Jews. They need to hide their payot or will be send home.
If you can’t handle secularism in education, don’t go live in a secular country.
How exactly do you hide sideburns?
If they wear a hat to put them under, it’d probably be interpreted as a religious head covering and they’d be sent home anyways.
Christians are just less of an arse when it comes to those symbols.
That’s like saying that Christians are less of an arse when it comes to religious dietary rules. It’s just not a part of their religion in the same way that not proselytizing is a part of Judaism.
Honestly, as someone who grew up in the US, Christian proselytizers are orders of magnitude worse than the modern orthodox kid in school who wore a kippah.
That’s not secularism, that’s authoritarianism. I wish my country wasn’t becoming fascist.
So Christians are just less annoying than Muslims? And they should leave if they don’t like it here?
Spoken like a true bigot. And you were trying so hard to convince others it’s got nothing to do with Islamophobia. Just can’t stop yourself, can you?
I’m a little south of France, secularism and laicism are built into our constituion and we still have a rather fresh memroy of what fascism was and did to our people and country.
Public school is to be non confessional, which implies you keep your personal beliefs private.
The best parallel I can find to the muslim code of dress would be the monastic dressing of catholic orders. It is not optional, it’s enforced. But unlike the muslim dress code, the monastic dressing implies you are away from the common world 90% of your time and you actively and willingly chose that way of life.
Who would care if a muslim was to go every now and then dressed in their religious attire? It would be a personal choice, perhaps something moved the individual to dress that way on a given day as they felt fragile for a loss or some other reason where they felt the need to seek comfort in their belief. But mandated out of oppression, because women tempt men and thus need to be modest? That is saying that men are forever children (and by default stupid) and force women into a perpetual motherhood, from birth.
Catholics carry their cross around their necks but can easily tuck inside their clothes. Jewish men can fold and keep their head cover in a pocket (do women have any equivalent?). And so on and so forth.
I am French, I know very well how it works. Laws that tell people how they can dress are not secularist, they are authoritarian. Removing children from school because they aren’t dress correctly is not secularism, it’s authoritarian.
France is becoming fascist, that’s all there is to see here.
Isn’t it in Cannes that beach goers cannot be by the boardwalk without their shirts?
I remember seeing a news cover where a man, sitting on the dividind wall without a shirt, was acosted by the police and eventually walked to the police station.
Is that fascism as well?
I think it’s exaggerated but the reasoning behind the ordnance was enforcing common social etiquette/decorum.
Do I agree with the principle behind this? No. But there should be no need to enforce basic social norms because one creed understands itself as being above all norms that are not perscribed by a book cobbled together from oral narrations, 600 or 800 years ago.
Religious belief does not deserve special treatment from the law.
Anyone from any non muslim country faces similar or worst impositions when settling on such a nation; “tolerated” is not “accepted”.
You can generalize as much you like it’s irrelevant. The matter at hand is that a law is 1) telling women how to dress and 2) fucking with Muslims.
The irony is that these dresses are deemed “too modest”.
Also, what happen in a Muslim theocracy is completely irrelevant. We’re talking about France policy. France doesn’t have to become fascist just because theocracies are fascists. That’s not how it works.
You’re in your right to dislike or disagree of my arguments. Could not care any less.
The law is, to what I can gather, telling any and all religious confessions that no outter signs are tolerated in the school space. If the halfwit of the minister that divulged focused on the muslim attire, they are either idiots or aiming at picking up dirt to snuff some other event.
I wonder if this thread would have garnered so much attention if instead of muslim women the event would have had involved jewish male teens and their sideburns.
My parallel with the muslim nations was not to excuse a so called “fascist” imposition from the french government to cull religious zealotry but to remind what that same zealory aspires to have in nations where the creed is minoritary: total, complete, absolute and inquestionable control over people’s lives, including what they can or not wear.
Catholics carry their cross around their necks but can easily tuck inside their clothes. Jewish men can fold and keep their head cover in a pocket (do women have any equivalent?).
Are catholics religiously obligated to wear crosses at all times? Reform and conservative Jews only wear kippot while praying, but orthodox Jews wear them all the time and consider it to be an obligation to wear one all the time.
Do you also require orthodox Jewish and Muslim children to eat pork and shellfish in school lunches, and appreciate how flexible catholic parents are about letting their kids violate the kosher or halal rules?
Nowadays, I think it depends on who you ask.
Growing in a somewhat religious family, it was never a mandatory item to carry, although it was a common sight on both men and womens jewelry, usually made out of gold or silver.
Today I find it increasingly common to see more devout church goers using crucifixes or even rosary beads around their necks.
So… it depends?
Dietary difference is not on the table to discuss; it’s a non subject. Many people have differentiated diets for multiple reasons besides a given creed.
And if the law stipulates that an animal must be slaughtered by a means that guarantees the least possible suffering, then the law is actually pushing aside religious precept over objective benefit.
If my memory serves me well enough, jewish and muslim slaughtering involves slicing the carothide artery to allow the animal to bleed out, which is a slow and stressful death. In my very own barbaric country, that is considered cruelty.
Although not a vegan or vegetarian, I find distasteful the image of an animal slowly fading away as it bleeds to the ground, when a more humane method os available.
Huh? Muslims can still go to school, cant they?
