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.
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.
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
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?
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.
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.
It's the same reasoning behind pride parades and banning hate speech. Right wingers will hide behind "free choice" to spread their oppression of women and to shelter their children from progressive ideology, therefore we must forcibly expose them to tolerant viewpoints in the name of equity.
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
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abaya
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
The whole point nowadays is to stop kids being bullied for not being able to afford the "right" clothes; that's part of the point of this law too
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.
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.
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.
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.
Saudi Arabia overturned that requirement in 2019, so you're quite a few years out of date. It is required in Qatar though, yes.
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).
It's ridiculous either way
I am mildly in favor of that. Kids can't decide what to wear it's their parents who do.
This will simply reduce the artificial divide between those wear that type of stuff and who doesn't.
I also don't believe it's a freedom endangering, because they're aren't spontaneously people wearing abayas or burka or whatever just for the pleasure of it, I interpret the fact of wearing it as religious propaganda and artificial separation.
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
can you explain why other people wearing culturally traditional clothing is "religious propaganda and artificial separation"? do you feel this way about other traditional garb, or is it just the scary muslims?
Yes i can explain. Literally nobody else does it. And if someone would, then my position will be the same: wear regular clothes in public institutions.
i think enforcing the local culture by telling women what they can and cannot wear is bad, actually
can you explain why you disagree with that stance
we are talking about underage girls here, not exactly adult "women" so I reject the idea that those girls could choose/buy their outfit. Regardless, I disagree because:
Ideally, I agree, State should just fuck up and let people live. But that's not taking into account any local context, and nobody lives in a vacuum, people live in some particular society. As an immigrant myself, I do think that it's best for foreigners to integrate to host country as much as possible.
What about the Jews and their Yamakas? The Catholics and their Rosary? Other religions have certain dress codes and accessories, too. They are just not always a full body covering.
I would hope that schools in France ban other religious items like those if they are banning Muslim clothing and accessories.
They are actually. That's literally said: "no religious symbols in school".
That's good then I see no problem as long as the rule is enforced equally. Religion has no place in schools, unless it's history class.
Best comment.
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.
https://www.gouvernement.fr/sites/default/files/contenu/piece-jointe/2017/02/libertes_et_interdits_eng.pdf
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.
I don't see how wearing cultural clothing would be imposing anything. I have Indian heritage -- would I be banned from wearing punjabis in public, despite it having no religious bearing at all?
You're not from the religion that has been plaguing the country with terrorism for years, that's the difference. I know it's cultural, but we have history. Something like 2 years ago a teacher got beheaded. Since then we're seeing lots of "cultural expression" in schools. This is not the french way. In France you act like French, period.
I was unaware that everyone from that religion was a terrorist and supported that beheading. The cornerstone of liberty and democracy relies on not judging people by their heritage, culture, nor religion. It's unconscionable to persecute by association.
All this will do is create more tension and resentment. It isn't how you end terrorism. It's how you create it. If you want to maintain a philosophy of "in France you act French", so be it. But recognize in doing so, you're adopting the same way of thinking as America's conservatives. And that should give you significant pause.
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
"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.
i like the slow stumble from "self-determination is a human right" to "eradicating religions in france"
"85% of the muslim women in france ᵗʰᵃᵗ ᶦ ᵏⁿᵒʷ" really adds to the experience too, thank you
Yeah, sorry, I didn't exprime myself correctly here. Let me rephrase it:
If you want to be christian or muslim, please be, I don't have nothing against you. But I'm not ok with parents forcing their religion down the throats of their kids.
And, let's face it, religion it's at an all time low, especially with newer generations like mine, and I don't like how boomers force their kids to "go to church", "dress in a certain manner", ecc, when the kids don't even believe.
This is not freedom.
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.
If I agree with some anti-privacy woes, France (and more broadly Europe) is way more privacy friendly than the US. We have to fight for it from time to time, but for now it goes mostly in the right direction.
As for religious stuff, to understand that you have to understand France. We are, due to our history, mostly irreligious (50% of the whole population in 2017), with most religious people being non-practicing. Like every country we have our religious nutjobs, but they are mostly irrevelant compared to the US ones.
As such, we as a whole generally consider that religion should not impact public life and public places nor be displayed in there, with some specific exception (nuns and priests, as it is considered as being an uniform mandated by their trade).
School is a public space, as such public display of religion are forbidden. This is not specifically agains Muslim, the same would apply to a nun when going to school as a student. Other less ostensible religious sign, like crucifixes, are also banned.
All that is (mostly) to fight communitarianism, which is viewed here as a threat to society.
Pretty progressive. Nice.
The bread
Laicite has been a thing for a very long time. Simply put, France recognizes your right to believe any crap you like in your private life and recognizes religions under law, but people don't get to practice their religion in the public sphere, e.g. on state property.
This is as opposed to US secularism which is barely lip service and constantly undermined. If you want an analogue, France erects a steel barrier between religion and governance whereas US erects a 4ft chain link fence.
What a narrow understanding of religion. That law is based on the understanding that “religion” is something completely inside the mind and maybe something you attend once a week. That may have been nice in 1700s Europe when the only religion around were denominations of Christianity but it doesn’t account for the many religions that mandate looks and dress and even some that require tattoos. Instead the state implicitly labels those religions as inferior or less civilized and goes out of their way to single them out for law enforcement.
And the “obey or leave” mindset in this thread is ignorant of history, as France involuntarily made all Algerians French citizens and declared their lands French territory. This 2004 law and new amendments singles them out.
Laicite has been a thing in France for over a 100 years. There is nothing "narrow" about it and it affected religions LONG before Muslims became the latest to experience it.
Laicite was created after Christians went to war against Christians. It still is trapped in that paradigm and is narrow because it fails to take into account the practices of other religions. For example, Christianity has almost no dietary laws but that’s not the case for Jews, Hindus, or Muslims. Should French schools require beef on the menu to avoid religious accommodation for Hindus? Should circumcision be banned in order to prevent Jewish boys from standing out in locker rooms?
Laicite is a narrow and antiquated mindset and there’s a reason other secular countries haven’t embraced it.
I'm pretty certain you know these are stupid arguments.
I’m not going to respond to ad hominem attacks. Peace.
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".
Wow. As a religious minority it's incredibly depressing to see how many people on here support this violation of religious liberty.
Yeah I agree with you. It's one thing to say the school can't promote a religious creed to the pupils, it is another to limit self-expression of dress when it doesn't impact other students
French secularism is way different than what americans have, it is pretty unique. Remember it
Really? What’s it like?
It is less about religious freedom but more about the fact that no religion should exist in state run places like school. It is quite complicated, you might want to google it. For example american stuff like swearing on a bible thing, even if there is a non religious alternative, would be extremely controversial in france
The US over here was supposed to be that way, with the separation of church and state.
As you have likely seen—due to the ceaseless amount of news about the US everywhere—that is a fucking joke now. Our country is overridden by the devils evangelical spawn.
I guess, but it feels like your state aknowledges religions with speciak tax regimes and stuff like that. The whole religious freedom thing is kinda cringe to me
The idea was that they stay out of politics, the government stays out of religion, because that's mutually beneficial.
Now they're on the cusp of reaping what they've sowed with the unholy evangelical alliance. People aren't interested in churches anymore and young people especially. Republicans are one election away from nonviability for president (knock on wood, and please let it be the election in 2024). Young people fucking loathe Republicans and evangelicals.
Are there young people still casting their lot with them? Absolutely. But the proportional difference is disastrous in politics. Even a 45-55 split is massive, and millennials and Zoomers are certainly more than that on Republicans.
It's been part of France's political culture that religious signification has no place in public institutions. Given that Germany, Spain, Portugal, Italy and Britain offer ways to religious groups to punish others through the legal system for not accepting their criteria regarding what constitutes legitimate criticism [*], but France doesn't, I'd argue that France is doing something right.
In 2018, a youth in Spain was condemned to pay 480€ for publishing an edited photograph of a Christ image with his own face.
This event emboldened fanatic religious organizations, which sought charges against an actor for saying "I shit on God and Virgin Mary!" in a restaurant. Fortunately he wasn't declared guilty, but he suffered a judicial process of 2 years. This doesn't mean they didn't achieve their goal: they sent everyone the message that you should think twice the next time you consider you have freedom of expression.
If you let religious people think their beliefs must be protected from any criticism, many of them will start to see their privilege as the norm, and eventually encroach the freedoms of everyone else.
France may be good for not respecting a religion and disallowing abuse of religious systems that would attack the freedom of non-religious/minority-religious citizens, but are going to the opposite side of this problem. Abayas don't hurt anyone and, from what I can tell/correct me if wrong, are used as a religious observation. France is going out of their way to impose restrictions on elements that are generally harmless that these people may see as a religious necessity, attacking the freedom of religious citizens. There has to be a balance and they're off on the other arc of the pendulum swing here.
Enforcing Muslim girls and women to hide their hair does definitely hurt someone: those who want to leave religion. It is a very common problem for ex-Muslim women and teenagers to suffer harassment both at home and elsewhere from bigoted Muslims who think they do not have the right to apostate. As soon as you stop complying with an enforced form of clothing, you're signalling those people that you're a sinner.
old.reddit.com/r/exmuslim/comments/9cnyvl/help_muslim_security_guard_at_work_told_my/
It's obvious that the "we should give women from oppressive backgrounds the choice to volunteer to oppress themselves in public schools" folks didn't grow up in an oppressive religion. It is actually quite easier to understand if one thinks of ALL religions as cults for a moment, to remove the veneer of the sacred.
What technically could be called a "choice" is often far from it. On the mild side, maybe your momma or daddy isn't "forcing" you to wear an abaya/floor length jean dress/bonnet/whatever, but if you choose NOT to wear it, you face disapproval and pushback from co-religionists. On the harsh side, choosing not to wear whatever garb can lead you to being harshly punished, ostracized, even beaten.
Giving the kids half a chance to form a self-concept that is larger than their family's own religiocultural worldview is a kind of freedom, and yes, it diverges greatly from the US view of "religious freedom," which is includes the freedom to try and indoctrinate one's kids to ensure that there will be a future generation of primitive baptists/mainstream evangelicals/US anglicans/muslims/etc. that continue to teach that women are subserviant to men.
So surely forcing them to take it off while at school is exacerbating that problem. They either comply with the state and be seen as a sinner by their religion, or stick to their religious belief (forced or not) and are at odds with the state.
Religion has no place in the modern world.
I honestly don't understand the contradicting argument of "there should be no religious symbol in a state school, if you want that go to a religious school" and "no religious symbols allowed will set them free".
Surely if you are funneling all of these kids into religious schools and away from the state system, you're going to entrench them in that religion further, not "set them free". It just serves to divide kids even more than if you allowed them all the freedom to mingle in the same school with all their religious garb.
The people here do not represent what the world outside looks like and anonymity emboldens extreme views.
Yeah its why I'm downvoting people, they seem to think Christianity is the only religon in existence and that anyone who follows religon ends up like those domestic terrorists in america
It reminds me of athiest reddit
The same law applies to Christians, too. For instance, you also wouldn't be allowed to wear a cross at school.
I'm not against freedom of expression as long as it doesn't bring harm to anyone
Wearing symbols of a religon or faith someone subscribes to doesn't harm anyone just like dressing with a person's own preference of clothing does not harm anyone
People should be free to express themselves and not be forced to hide parts of themselves away in public because someone in government thinks dressing a certain way or wearing a symbol of faith or religon inherently leads to something bad happening for example americas domestic terrorists
And just to he clear I'm not supporting right wing bigotry with my comment, I will never be tolerant of bigotry and intolerance
And I've seen a lot of people in this posts comment section being in support of this being rude & inflammatory
YOU NEVER TAKE AWAY THE RIGHTS / EQUALITY OF PEOPLE WITH GOOD INTENTIONS IN MIND
In a way I get it, your way of life is being discriminated against. But with thousands of years of history and present day to go off of, I still feel it's a good thing.
I kinda compare it to smoking cigarettes. There are a ton of people who do it, but it's so obviously unhealthy. I won't go on with the analogy, but you can get pretty grim with it.
You can have a fulfilling and culture filled life without blind hope for a greater power and possibly being negatively influenced by that belief; either through authority figures in your church or you're own interpretations of religious teachings.
Another thing I saw mentioned was that it's a state run school. Separation of church and state is something I vehemently agree with. So while it might suck for you, your grandchildren will be better off because they're not losing anything.
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!
Is this a case of being lost in translation or something? I wouldn't consider religious garb to be a "sign."
Signs should be better translated to symbols here
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.
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.
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.
The French state literally making laws governing fashion is the most French thing ever.
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.
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.
I think some are forgetting, these bans are in schools, outside these schools you can wear whatever you want
I don't think that makes it any better somehow.
Even if one despises religion above all, as one should, there is no sufficient reason to ban this type of stuff.
On the other side, it is time to give these morons back what they have brought upon others and thus deserve.
I'm an atheist and consider all organized religion evil. But restricting what people can wear in school (apart from covering their genitals and not restricting movement or vision to the point that it hinders education) is indefensible.
Can't just let women wear what they want. Clearly lacking a penis makes them incapable of deciding what clothes to wear.
It s not only female its everyone . No one can were religion cloth. That just normal you are in a public place .
Except this kind of outfit is not religious at all. Abaya is basically just a dress which can be worn by anyone regardless their religion, unlike burqa and hijab. It's like banning sari because Hindus women wear them, even though it's not a religious cloth.
The goal here is to ban religious symbol, right? Not outright banning anything related to middle-eastern culture? Surely there is a reasonable middle ground between banning religious symbols and banning the entire ethnic culture.
That’s not how it’s actually enforced. This is making new laws and regulations picking on a minority.
They literally ban ALL forms of religious depictions in France. Women just get forced, by a religion, to wear specific clothes to adhere to arbitrary standards set by some old dead dude(s). This is super par for the course and makes a lot of sense for them. The only thing oppressive here is the religion that forces women to wear shit to fit some ideals/standards, especially children who don't know any better and are forced into it/don't have a concept of doing anything else.
To stop women from being forced to do something by the dead we force them to do something by the living. Makes perfect sense.
I once pulled a gun on someone and ordered them to be free.
Organized religion and their tools and symbols of opressiin have no place in modern society. The enlightenment is 300 years old now and we still have whackos like all the Americans in this thread talking about "religion is freedom". Its not freedom, its a fucking lie and it exists to control and oppress.
Vive La France, bring on more of this
To paraphrase: humanity be free when the last stone of the last church falls upon the last priest.
France has adopted laicite for years and frankly it's the right thing for secularism. It doesn't stop people worshiping whoever or whatever they like in their spare time, or wearing whatever religious garb they want. But not on government property including state schools.
I'm with you but I think anglo-saxons don't get it because of a cultural thing.
What's sad is that they just keep criticizing without trying to understand France approach to laicité and cultural assimilation, thinking somehow that their view is the right way (which is kind of insulting). Makes me think of the whole trevor noah dispute against the french ambassador about the french football team being "african" (which most french people find to be insulting). There are french things it seems that americans/british will never get, which is fine, but please don't act as if your moral compass is superior.
Also it's surprising that many France's left-side parties are against this, they used to be the more fervent supporters of laicité. The fact that this is more of a right-wing thing make that rule seem more about stigmatization even in french debates somehow, where it IMO shouldn't be.
I mean, wasn’t this the same government that was gassing it’s own citizens not too long ago because they were protesting for their rights?
I’m not surprised they are passing an idiotic ban like this so kudos for being even shittier I guess?
So men are allowed to?
It's not religious male clothing, so probably yeah.
Great!
Hey Denmark, are you looking at this? This is how your treat religion. They are no better than anyone else and they do not deserve any kind of special treatment.
I didn't realize being able to wear "loose-fitting full-length robes" was special treatment. Have atheists been unable to wear this type of clothing up until now?
Atheists can wear a crucifix necklace too but it would still be considered a religious symbol
Ok, what the fuck is going on with the women in that video? I've seen more realistic alien makeup on Star Trek TOS.
What's wrong with your face?
I don't see any bad makeup, it just looks like she used Vaseline as a moisturizer and used way too much because shes extremely shiny.