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
Actually the State does pay for a big part of church maintenance: link.
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
Definitely shouldn’t be accommodating to ancient cults. I don’t want people who never grew out of believing in Santa to decide how to educate children
That’s Quebec’s take, government employees in a position of authority (including teachers) can’t wear religious signs, the rest is free to do what they want (unlike France’s version where students can’t wear religious signs either).
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
Removed by mod
That is far closer from the truth indeed.
deleted by creator
"mon dieu! b-but that wouldn’t discriminate against anyone at all!’
Sacre bleu!!!
Or not wearing. I just had a chat with the flying spaghetti monster, and it told me I had to stop wearing pants in public. I’ll be seriously pissed off if my lack of garments will stop me from getting an education.
Don’t forgot your colander hat!
Yes, let’s exempt them from proper education. That’ll solve the problem.
“We will forcefully integrate you into our culture by excluding you from our culture”
Genius, what could possibly go wrong.
next up: “why do they live in segregated ghettos?!”
:its so sad how those savages just refuse to assimilate into our superious culture 😔😔😔
They aren’t exempt from education, school is mandatory in France. It’s their parents who will get into trouble.
Do you think? Their parents have sent them to school.
Yes, the parents have to make sure their child gets to school and can participate in class. This also means they have to make sure their child (is able to) follow the rules.
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.
“Since 2004, in France, religious signs and symbols have been banned in schools, including headscarves, kippas and crosses,”
I agree with it, not in the “hah, we are dunking on minorities” way, but just because I’m personally so sick of religion being a part of every waking moment of life and being used as a cudgel to influence public policy, media, and what choices people can make when it comes to important personal choices, such as healthcare. Of course, this is being viewed through my American lens, but we’ve seen similar erosions in public institutions due to so-called “religious rights” despite being a secular country. While France’s version is fairly blunt, it seeks to normalize and equalize everyone, which I think is a decent goal.
If it wasn’t religion, I’m positive it would be something else. But I think it’s very healthy to maintain separation of religion while at public institutions, particularly in a world where religious extremism is on the rise.
France is fairly blunt in most ways.
When you come to live in France, you are french. If you don’t consider yourself french, you are just a tourist.
This is my interpretation of the attitude my French friends have.
When you come to live in France, you are french.
I don’t think that’s how most of the immigrants feel.
Then they should move elsewhere. When you immigrate to a country it’s on you to conform. I as a gay man would never consider moving to a Muslim country where my lifestyle is rejected. If otters feel their values don’t align with secularism then don’t come here.
Yes, they should but relocating is expensive and after couple of decades of discrimination most of them are not very rich. France brought them from their colonies (not literally of course they they put their immigration policy in place because they actually wanted immigrants) and then bocked all opportunities from them. Now they are shocked that migrants are not happy living as second class citizens…
Can’t disagree there…
I am glad other gay men think the same way I am.
I am all for tolerance and acceptance, but not of opposition, religion extremists and sexism.
lol no. Youre french when they can put you on a pedestal for how becoming french has helped you achieve something. But god forbid you do something that is not considered favorable by the french. Then you are an immigrant and you being an immigrant is the cause of all
The people this affects the most aren’t the people using religion as a cudgel.
Which isn’t to say that e.g. orthodox Jews and Muslims don’t wield religion as a cudgel when they have the opportunity - just look at East Ramapo NY or Israel. But they don’t have any kind of broad institutional power in the US or France.
In the US, the big problem is dominionist Christianity, and there’s no religious requirement for them to wear something in particular.
Laicity is tolerance. What’s happening currently is the opposite of tolerance. It’s extremism the same as the most zealous fanatics, it’s merely fascist zeal instead of religious zeal.
Racism against children must be one of these “western values” I’ve been hearing so much about.
French people will claim that secularism is the most important value in all of France but them half of the national days off are Catholic holidays.
Also I’m willing to bet really good money that if a nun wore a habit to a beach, she wouldn’t get fined. A muslim woman wearing a burkini would though.
Because we keep national days purely for religious reasons, right? How about we abolish Halloween too, all those hypocrite atheists all over the world pretending not to believe in religions.
There’s such a thing as cultural heritage. Revolutionaries tried to do away with it but it didn’t take. Most of them were pagan holidays which were co-opted by the church anyway.
You’re mistaken on the definition of racism. This has nothing to do with race and everything to do with how France deals with secularism
I’m French and actually he’s bang on the money, it’s entirely about racism under the bullshit cover of “secularity”
I’m also French and I don’t know, maybe you’re right and that’s a way to hide the real racist motives. I’m probably biased because I dislike all religions equally though
I’m an antitheist and, speaking as one, let me request that you pull your head out of whatever it is stuck in. France is notoriously Islamophobic and these are girls who are just wearing loose-fitting clothes because of a religious practice based on modesty. Is either the religion or the practice itself above critique? Certainly not, but forcing people not to do something so harmless is ridiculous religious discrimination.
You know what? I’ll think about it
Props honestly, I definitely have a hard time not digging my heels in
Dislike all religions equally… blah blah blah… some religions more equally than others blah blah
Maybe think of the outcome of your country’s rightism instead of being so preoccupied with sticking it to the religions
deleted by creator
There’s a difference between not believing in a religion and not wanting the views of religion forced apon you. (secularism)
Vs.
Banning all religious symbolism. (Fascism)
deleted by creator
Yeah, everything to do with secularism. That’s why France has Christian public holidays. And Macron called for closer ties between the state and Catholic church, and said Europe has “Judeo Christian roots”. Oh wait…
Europe doesn’t have judeo-christian roots?
No, it has Christian roots. I’m Jewish, and I hate the term “Judeo-christian.” We do not believe the same things, and we do not share the same history. Christians have been persecuting us for well over a thousand years, they’ve driven us out of our homes, murdered us en-masse multiple times in multiple different countries in multiple different centuries, and have refused to give us any respect and dignity until after World War 2, when it became politically convenient for them to do so.
Our values are different, our history is different, the only thing we have in common is that the Christians read our bible sometimes when it’s convenient for them to cite it to reinforce their intolerance.
Fair enough, though one could also see it at recognizing the Jewish roots of the christian religion. And I genuinely believe that the holocaust and general hardships endured during WW2 bought the Jewish people a fair amount of goodwill, it’s not all cynical political calculations.
It got us so much good will that the French still ban us from wearing religious garments in public, and antisemitic attacks across Europe have been increasing steadily for at least 20 years, with governments seemingly unable to do anything about it.
If you “recognize your roots” but changed your name and also have spent your entire lifetime attempting to murder your parents and grandparents, I think it’s fair to say that you don’t respect or care about your roots.
the French still ban us from wearing religious garments in public
This is completely wrong. You are legally free to wear a kippa or any other religious signs almost everywhere in France. Exceptions are:
- in public schools
- at work if:
- you’re a civil servant
- there is a legitimate reason for a ban (security, hygiene, …)
That’s literally it. I lived in a Jewish neighborhood in Paris and saw kippas constantly, nobody gave a fuck.
If you “recognize your roots” but changed your name and also have spent your entire lifetime attempting to murder your parents and grandparents, I think it’s fair to say that you don’t respect or care about your roots.
OK?
Again, this is not racism. There are white Muslims and black christians everywhere in France
Racism isn’t exclusively about skin color you dolt.
It sounds like they’re not saying that Muslims are not allowed to practise their religion. They’re just not allowed to do it in school, but no one’s allowed to practise their religion in school apparently so not it’s not racist.
“The law in it’s great magnanimity prohibits poor and rich alike from sleeping under bridges and stealing bread.”.
A law can be applied equally to everyone and still target a specific group of people.
deleted by creator
From wikipedia:
Racism is discrimination and prejudice towards people based on their race or ethnicity.
Did you know Irish people were considered “not white” at some point in history?
Germans too!
Ok it’s a slightly different form of bigotry does that make it ok since your only argument seems to be “it’s not racism because it doesn’t explicitly say it’s discriminating against a specific race”
You’re right, it’s not ok
What’s even the point of this line of argument? At best you prove that this technically isn’t racism in the strictest definitional sense but it’s still just as harmful to kids and Muslims as racism.
It’s not racism, it’s just a racism-adjacent form of bigotry. Feeling owned yet, tankie?
Actually, I shot everyone in that refugee camp regardless of religion so I didn’t do genocide, just ordinary everyday mass murder
.This was an actual argument that was run in one of the Yugoslav tribunals BTW.
I don’t think you could define this as strictly not racist, since “race” constitutes arbitrary characteristics decided upon largely by white hegemony. It’s how Africans became a singular black race despite being different cultures and language groups. It’s why Jews are sometimes white, sometimes not.
It’s absolutely why most Americans consider a native Spanish speaker a different race, no matter how white they are. We’re in a moment where being Muslim is a racial marker excluding a person from whiteness.
Here’s a trick I do. Go show an uniformed white American a picture of Bashar al-Assad. Every time I’ve done this, they’ll say he’s a white guy. Then tell them he’s the president of Syria and a Muslim. They instantly flip.
If it’s not from the racism region of France than it’s just sparkling bigotry
“You can’t be racist against Mexicans because it’s a country not a race!”
“You can’t be racist against Irish Catholics because it’s a religion not a race”
Well, yes. “Hating Mexicans” is not racism. Just like hating the French, Poles, or Americans. It’s nationalism, xenophobia, chauvinism etc, but not racism
Words matter. There are different ones for a reason
Religion in France is racialized as it is in most parts of the world, pretending otherwise is just a denial of reality and history, the French state couldn’t care less for secularism on its own merits, it only cares about religion in the context of the eternal “immigrant” communities who it refuses to actually integrate because of the continuous French colonial mindset and a 19th century conception of frenchness which is centered around white pan-europeanism
If secularism was the point, the french state would have launched a social crusade against the Catholic church decades ago
It’s not a coincidence the law was implemented in 2004 at the height of the war on terror
I think you’re underestimating how aggressive french laicity originally had to be to extract a church that was entrenched deep within government and culture and felt entitled to exert more ultraconservative political influence than it is today:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1905_French_law_on_the_Separation_of_the_Churches_and_the_State
In 1886, another law ensured secularisation of the teaching staff of the National Education.[10][11]
Other moves towards secularism included:
the introduction of divorce and a requirement that civil marriages be performed in a civil ceremony[12]
legalizing work on Sundays[13][14]
making seminarians subject to conscription[14][15]
secularising schools and hospitals[8][12]
abolishing the law ordaining public prayers at the beginning of each parliamentary session and of the assizes[14][16]
ordering soldiers not to frequent Catholic clubs[17]
removing the religious character from the judicial oath and religious symbols from courtrooms[18]
forbidding the participation of the armed forces in religious processions[14]
deleted by creator
Oh cool, looking forward to this rehashing of the 2017 era “Islam isn’t a race, therefore islamophobia has no connection to racism” rhetoric.
secular means not taking a religious stance and being neutral about it. Being secular would mean letting people wear them as they choose not allowing people to wear religious attire is taking a religious stance and thus isn’t secular
rather than secularity this is religious persecution
No, secularism is about people having the freedom of religion. Being forced by family or peers to wear religious clothing is incompatible with freedom of religion.
Do they ban catholic children wearing crosses around their necks?
I think a better line is that they have school on Fridays but not on Sundays
They do according to the article and what I know
deleted by creator
Yes of it’s visible. Religious symbols are allowed to be worn if they are not visible.
Religion is a private matter. When you start spreading it all over the place, then no, it has no place in school or in our (France) society in general.
I was the victim of this attitude when I was a teen and my family wanted me to follow our religion and yet I still agree with this attitude. My main beef wasn’t with the institution but with how specific teachers decided to deal with me. Ultimately I got over religion, and hopefully some of those kids will, too.Yes
I would be less likely to reject that totally if it wasn’t because of the obvious inequality of enforcement
You’re arguing with people from Hexbear. You’d have better luck against a brick wall.
Hexbears: Stronger than brick walls.
You heard it here first folks!
:)
Love to tacitly admit I can’t have a conversation if the other person points out things like “why what I said was wrong”
deleted by creator
Yeah no shit a brick wall will let you say all the dumb shit you want without pushback
Step right up
I agree, face the wall
deleted by creator
Religion is not a race
Race is made up. Anything can be a race if you treat it like one. And Muslims are treated like one.
Religion is not a race
Removed by mod
Really disappointing to see this 2012 discourse point brought up by a lemmygrad user. As a communist you should know that race is made up, a social construct with no basis in reality. Any group that is treated like a race is a race within that culture. And Muslims have been racialized in most Western countries, and ESPECIALLY so in France.
“Its not rocket science” actually the subject of race is a pretty complex topic in sociology! Maybe you should read a book or two about it.
as if that’s not used as a cudgel against brown people anyway
I want to ban people from eating tuna mayo sandwiches and rotting shark I’m not racist
In EVIL CEE CEE PEE CHYNA, Muslim children are denied education if they wear their cultural attire to school.
bit idea:
shove this in libs’ faces and say “China has already annexed France, it’s over”
Okay colonialism is bad but think of how good the food would be.
pls Xi come and liberate us
“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.
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?
I was initially torn on this, but as long as it’s for all religions, I support it.
The law, in its majestic equality, forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal their bread
Yea they made it so nobody could wear religious cultural clothes but there’s only one religion that includes wearing those clothes as a belief.
Would you also support a policy that nobody named @some_guy should be allowed to talk, no matter who they are.
Yea they made it so nobody could wear religious cultural clothes but there’s only one religion that includes wearing those clothes as a belief
there are multiple such as Islam and Sikhism to give two examples. This law is just an example of religious persecution against religions that don’t fit in with the French idea of which religions a French person should have
Yea they made it so nobody could wear religious cultural clothes but there’s only one religion that includes wearing those clothes as a belief.
One, this is not true. Two, this includes other symbols like pendants
Presumably if a bunch of Mormons or Mennonites or whatever else set up in France and all their kids dressed the same way, the school would step in on that too. Maybe they wouldn’t, but then the problem isn’t the policy it’s biased enforcement.
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.
as requiring them to leave their phones at home
you can’t just leave religion and culture at the door and freedom of conscience isn’t a right only adults are entitled to nor is it comparable to playing on your phone
It’s France they’re very xenophobic. Just look at how they treat the Corsicans, Brentons, Basques and Catalans.
Night and day to even a few hundred metres across the road in Spain or Andorra.
I’m not saying France isn’t racist because they absolutely are but this doesn’t seem like that this seems like applying the same rules to everyone equally.
Just going by the article.
this seems like applying the same rules to everyone equally
Though it can seem fair, applying the same rules to everyone equally can be very racist.
A law that requires everyone to eat bacon would apply to everyone equally, but it’s still antisemitic and islamophobic.
However I would note… France has rule about no crosses or cross wearing in schools. So it isn’t like Islam is being singled out. Well this specific rule is about them, but France has very wide rule of “no religious clothing, items or symbols” in school and they don’t much pick sides. Jewish kids… No kippas, Protestants and Catholics, no crosses, Muslims, no head scrafs, no face veils, no religious robes. Sikhs, no turbans.
So it isn’t xenophobic, since the local majority religion is also under rules of “no religious symbols wearing”.
What one can say is, that it is highly anti-religious. However that isn’t same thing as xenophobic or say specifically antisemitic or islamophobic. Islamophobic would be “Muslim girls aren’t allowed to wear scarfs, but it’s okay for catholic girls to wear crosses”.
French government “doesn’t like” the local traditional majority religion either.
One absolutely can argue about “is it too much restriction of religious liberty in general”, however one can’t argue “well but this is about jews or muslims”. It isn’t. This specific rule about abayas is mostly a technocratic decision based on wider political decision of “we have principle of no religious displays in school”. It was decided “oh yeah, we missed this one religious clothing wearing/display. Add it to the long list of specified banned religious displays of all kinds”.
I’m sure, if member of the church of the flying spaghetti monster tried to walk to French school with colander on their head, the courts would rule "no colander hats either, that is religious display also. You can go join the Jewish and Sikhs on the club house of “France banned our religious hat” club.
So it isn’t xenophobic, since the local majority religion is also under rules of “no religious symbols wearing”.
However, does the local majority religion mandate wearing a religious symbol?
Wearing a cross doesn’t seem akin in significance to wearing a turban or a kippah. From what I understand, it’s more of just a Christian fashion statement than a deep part of the religion.
So yes, this seems quite xenophobic to do something that’s a mild annoyance at worst for the dominant religion and a major issue for minority religions.
I suppose the French government would argue that really isn’t their problem. And it isn’t.
They have a rule that has been standing for a long time and is simply been enforced, it’s the individual religions who dictate how severely they see this.
How does that in any way address the question of if the law is xenophobic or not?
What about a law that requires only women to cover their bodies and not men? What would that be?
Absolutely sexist. I’m honestly kind of dumbfounded by the number of people opposing this. France has done some stupid shit recently, but they are absolutely in the right here.
That’s rich coming from you, assuming you’re Australian :) How are we mistreating them exactly? I live in Nantes, Breton culture is everywhere, street signs are translated in Breton, there are bilingual schools… They don’t seem very oppressed to me.
Well let’s start.
In Spain the medium of instruction can be and is set by the regional government. Catalan, Basque, Occitian and Galician is used extensively as a medium of instruction in public schools (fully funded by the government)
There’s extensive media which includes government owned media in those languages. And for government services you can ask for someone to speak to you in those languages.
The languages are promoted and are co-official. I have friends from Galicia and have been there.
OK, good for them I guess? But the regional language and culture thing is a much different and bigger issue in Spain.
Anyway, speakers of regional languages are not repressed in France. There are bilingual schools, newspapers and cultural associations which are partially funded by the state. Things might not be perfect, but I’ve never heard of anyone having to hide their regional origin for fear of repercussions, or discriminated against because of it. Those are things I personally experienced in Australia BTW.
deleted by creator
Basque here. Yes.
We have our own parliament and laws (like all the autonomous communities) and police. Basque, Catalan and Galician are official languages, and they now can be used in the Spanish Congress too.
Obc not everything is perfect, but that can be said of everything. You can’t compare that with a centralist country as france.
Whether they do or not isn’t really the question. Can more be done? Yes of course. But Catalan, Occitian, Basque and Galician is co-official which affords them use as a medium of instruction, media usage, can ask for services from the government in those languages etc. How’s France doing for those points?
And more importantly Spain has changed in the past 50 years. Keep in mind even half a century ago Spain was the same as France in terms of repressing cultures. France well, it’s still the same.
New criminal offense: Learning while Muslim.
what’s next sikhs can’t wear turbans in school
The law covers that also. All visible religious garments are forbidden.
ok so straight up religious persecution of multiple groups
Except the Catholics of course, can’t touch them
It’s so funny to me that so many people in this thread are like “well technically it also applies to christians wearing crosses! So it isn’t discriminatory.” I guarantee you that a kid wearing a cross won’t get in any trouble for it, they certainly won’t be sent home. They’d probably be asked to hide it better and let off by the teacher, if anything at all was said.
These kinds of laws are classic examples of laws that are deliberately targeted at specific groups, but worded in a way which technically makes them apply to everyone, with the intent that enforcement will not target the group it wasn’t supposed to.
also Christianity doesn’t have a commandment about people wearing crosses at all times so it’s not an equivalent ask to not wear a cross
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.
the Abaya is just a long wide cut dress. They are banning girls from wearing long dresses, because these are popular with muslims. If the girls decide to wear hoodies now to be conservative about what they show of their body it would need to be banned by that logic too. Basically anything that is not skin tight hot pants and crop tops should be banned because it might be worn by muslim girls to adhere to their religious values.
This ruling has nothing to do with actual secular values. It is just to discriminate against muslim children.
And crosses are just lines meeting at right angles. And purity rings are just small cylinders. We don’t ban any cylinder or lines meeting at right angles. You’re making a sad attempt at a slippery slope argument.
Tailored to specifications dictated by an unquestionable authority or are the abaya user free to order the garment to be tailored to their personal specific taste?
Because to what I can gather it is supposed to be used as a form to preserve modesty, which implies simplicity and discretion.
Flowing, straight cut dresses are not exclusive to the muslim world.
Hoodies are not banned. You are making stuff up.
i didnt say they are banned. but by the pretended logic behind the ban they would need to ban hoodies too. Which shows that the law is not aimed at enforcing secularism but at discriminating muslims. Most likely to appease the far right.
According to German news (source) girls already had to defend their choice of wearing an oversized sweater and long skirt. That’s going way too far in regulation in my opinion.
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?
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?
Women and men ARE equal, what are you talking about? What’s unfair is not allowing women to express themselves freely because you can’t control yourself
Exactly, I can’t for the life of me understand why so many fake leftists today would even defend this oppressive garbage, it makes no sense
Yeah, I’m a leftist and I find Islam as abhorrent as Christianity. I get that Muslims are a minority in the west, and so they’re often unjustly persecuted. But that doesn’t mean we should accept conservative nonsense just cause it comes from a minority religious group.
Im glad I read this. I support any minority and any freedom of religion, but not in a thousand years will I support conservative, ancient ideals.
But that doesn’t mean we should accept conservative nonsense just cause it comes from a minority religious group.
Especially a minority religious group that is growing. I am all for tolerance and acceptance, but not of extremist religious groups. They need to be stopped before its too late.
It’s not about defending THIS religion. It’s about religion in general. In our western countries it’s normal that this religion is the odd one out. While I do not agree with what everyone has to say, I still want to keep supporting freedom of religion. You get my point? Look I don’t agree with what you have to say but isn’t it nice that you can still express yourself here and have this conversation?
Modesty is not a religious value. Many philosophies promote it.
Secularism doesn’t, and that is what France is.
Nobody forces you to live there.
Don’t know what this comment said but I assume it was
Removed by mod
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
Removed by mod
