France to ban female students from wearing abayas in state schools

MicroWave@lemmy.world to World News@lemmy.world – 528 points –
France to ban female students from wearing abayas in state schools
bbc.com

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.

458

You are viewing a single comment

Banning something is as opressive as making it mandatory.

Nope. You aren't allowed to have religious shit on you in general public in france.

Yeah and that's fucked up and oppressive

No its the opposite.

Nah you just agree with the oppression

You're like a Trump supporter in the US talking about "freedom" but then getting angry at trans people. Your side even uses the same arguments - "they don't have the right to teach their children to be this way!"

It's all oppression.

This. The whole point of freedom is that every person gets to choose for themselves, and the government should be preserving that choice and limiting elements that take choice away. It's morally reprehensible to support choice only when it's choices that you agree with, that's how state religions became a thing in the first place.

5 more...

You'll be in for quite the surprise when you learn how these fundamentalist muslims think about trans rights

Im pretty sure I can advocate for freedom for everyone everywhere and not run afoul of any hypocrisy, because I'm an adult capable of thinking.

Yeah you sure can advocate for people to be free to hate trans people and indoctrinate their children with it. You can sleep easy

Force them to wear some different clothes, that will make them tolerate trans people more.

Seeing where this comment thread originated: do you believe Trump supporters will stop hating trans people faster if we allow them to wear their religious uniforms?

Yes people are allowed to hate anyone they want. What they're not allowed to do is act on that hate.

So you want to have people teach their kids to hate and promote violence and then you're going to stop them when they physically act on it. Seems to me you want to sit on your high horse while the world around you gets worse

5 more...
5 more...
5 more...
5 more...

Oh really? Let's ban murder. Is it as opressive as if we made murdering ppl mandatory? Remember that people's rights depend on other's obligations.

Hyperbolic bad faith argument. A person should have a right to choose the clothes they wear. Maybe this school should stick to uniforms if certain articles of clothing are so problematic.

It is not one school, it is all public achools in the country. You can't defend the right to choose clothes in one sentence and say they should switch to uniforms in the other

No it's not. making something mandatory for a group of people makes that group of people well separated from the rest. here is exactly opposite : they are trying to make them look like anyone else.

this ban is as dumb as banning heavy metal, dungeons and dragons, skateboards, backwards baseball caps, etc etc

it's all just trying to look tough enough to court right wing racists on targets too vulnerable to fight back.

if you want to protect vulnerable young girls, you don't start by ostracising them from the community.

How is that ostracizing? Expand your word.

how is saying someone from a group of people can't dress in attitudes that identifies them as a member of the group not ostracising? it's the very definition.

Because "ostracizing" means "to exclude" someone. While imposing a common dress standard is to include everyone. so petty much the opposite of "ostracizing"

A common dress standard would be called a uniform. This law isn’t mandating uniforms, so you’re incorrect. It’s excluding religious groups, so yes, ostracizing.

Ostracising means to exclude. The law forces the blending. The mental gymnastics you need to find "exclusion" in that is buffing. Again it's not excluding anyone, it tries to male them blend with the rest. Blend. Mix. Nobody is excluded. I never mentioned uniforms, neither the law, i don't know why you bring that up. Yes, uniforms obviously make everyone uniform but we aren't talking about it. Dressing regularly also make everyone look "regular" or "secular", we don't need uniforms.

If anything, the groups of people are literally excluding themselves by wearing stuff nobody else does.

Looks like at some point people are just repeating the same argument for everything and opposite of it.

Yes, we’ve established what ostracizing means. If anybody seems to be jumping through hoops to prove that this law, that target religious minorities isn’t targeted at religious minorities, is you. You shouldn’t have to force (or make them) “blend”. If there’s force or a mandate involved, then it’s already not the best path to freedom of expression and identity.

There’s no such thing as a “secular dress” because people in a truly secular society, can come from different (incl non western) backgrounds and can choose to wear whatever they want. Therefore, you either don’t claim freedom of expression or identity or you accept that this is a targeted law aimed at a minority group in the name of “secularism” and is no different than the Taliban mandating face-covering like somebody else stated in these discussions. This just happens to be on the other end of the spectrum.

Oh finally some arguments!

  • I am not jumping, i know who it is targeting, and i never said opposite. I also agree it's definitely strictly more freedom-restrictive, but i also believe this is a good thing in this context. I might be wrong, that's why I said " mildly in favor" of that law. France is known to impose French language on minorities (bretons, occitans etc..) in the name of national unity, and this law follows in the same directon, (but thankfully doesn't forbid a language lol which I would definitely be against)
  • It is absolutely different from Talibans, and that's not even debatable. One is imposing 1 dress on everyone forbidding everything else, the other is excluding 1 particular dress, allowing anything else. One is making women stand out and look the same, the other blends them and allows for self expression (in the defined limits). There is plenty of room to choose a dress style.
  • Integrating into host culture is good thing. Yes, that means, at some point, making different choices, looking different, and faking amusement for pointless holidays.
  • Bonus point: there won't be a way to discriminate pupils based on their look, no more "I got a bad grade because teacher didn't like my national dress". I hear you say "well that won't stop the discrimination", and I agree, people will discriminate on anything from hair color to one's accent; but that's one possible discrimination less

"trying to make them" is a problematic phrase and why this doesn't make sense. Nobody should be "made" to do anything, if people are choosing to look different they should be free to do so.

You know what makes everyone look alike? A niqab.

Someone call the Taliban and let them know they're defenders of freedom.

lol your argument is dumb sorry You know what else make everyone alike? Plastic surgery. Someone call surgeons

Plastic surgery does not make everyone look alike. That's a silly thing to say lol

Also you're missing the highly relevant point that plastic surgery is not compulsory

Well i made a silly argument to show you how I feel about yours lol.

Nobody is imposing a cloth on anyone, and even less a religious one. So you can't use niqqab in your argument against me because that's literally what i am against!

You could say for example that's a cultural thing, and forbidding it would somehow restrict the minority. But then, it's only public schools, the law doesn't care (me neither) about adults wearing it outside. (I don't know why I am arguing with myself on your behalf 🤔)

What it does care about, is to prevent community bubbles forming within groups of children. Which i totally support.

we're just controlling what communities people are allowed to form. Nothing oppressive

Ok lol

5 more...