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.
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.
Can’t just let women wear what they want. Clearly lacking a penis makes them incapable of deciding what clothes to wear.
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.
It seems like any religious emblems or clothing aren’t allowed in public schools, not so much that they can’t wear what they want.
I think it’s fair enough, it’s pretty obvious that religion and education are incompatible in the modern age. Anyone who disagrees with that is a “religious” person who’s never read a holy book.
I am a militant atheist and disagree with this decision completely. Freedom means nothing if it doesn’t include the freedom to make bad decisions.
Oh just to be clear: Jesus was talking to Satan not the Holy Ghost and Allah doesn’t exist.
There, the two unforgivable sins of the two major ones. I don’t much care for people claiming to be atheists without backing it up.
What? I honestly don’t understand what you’re trying to get across here
Just because I am an atheist does not mean I am against people having religion by law. I would prefer that no one has religion by choice. Just like I would prefer everyone to have healthy lifestyles. Just like I would prefer if we all stopped listening to rap-rock.
There is a difference between what I wish and what I think should be lawful.
But you probably couldn’t loudly play rap-rock in a public school, either. Doing something in private or in public are quite different.
I’m quite alright with the banning of religious symbols, but I do agree, banning what is essentially a robe, is a bit much. Then again, enforcing clothing standards is actually fairly common. People should be allowed to wear what they want, but within limits. I don’t think most people would find it appropriate if a stundent showed up to school in a bikini.
You are muddling distracting from learning with freedom of expression. They do not have to be in conflict. There is a difference between listening to vile music on your earbuds and blasting it. There is a difference between wearing a cross and standing on your desk to give the good news during math class.
There is also a difference between wearing a small cross around your neck and a t-shirt saying “sinners repent or burn in hell”.
The question is, where, between all these differences, do we draw the line. And for context, I’m not really with France on this one.
It s not only female its everyone . No one can were religion cloth. That just normal you are in a public place .
That’s not how it’s actually enforced. This is making new laws and regulations picking on a minority.
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.
Banning clothes in public space is fascism.
I guess then we will force them to wear a special star and send them in special “protective” camps?
Let me guess, you’re either an american or an anglo?
I’m French. But I know what fascism or racism are so I understand it can be a bit unsettling.
Et si tu me crois pas à cause de l’anglais on peut faire le débat en français, mais j’avoue que parler avec des fascistes ignorants m’emmerde pas mal.
I can understand that, the intolerant culture attached to islam really detremental to integration effort and harmony in france, and by that they hope to remove that label in schools, which hopefully will make people interact more across cultural groups, and further integration.
People forget what happened to countries like Lebanon and Iran.
That kind of law doesn’t integrate anyone. It actually fuel racism and communautarism.
What’s good with these topics is that we instantly see who is a fascist though.
There’s rarely a good news nowadays let’s enjoy this one
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.
It’s letting children wear headcoverings. I don’t see how that’s religiously infringing on non headscarf wearers.
Its infringing on those children’s right to have a sane, rational upbringing in which they aren’t oppressed by old men and used as social currency, which their only value being their bodies
And being forced to take off garments of clothing by other old men is the solution?
Don’t be ridiculous
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.
Hey Denmark, follow this advice to become a proper fascist country.
You don’t know shit about France and the challenges we’re facing. Stay in your line.
I live in France though. And I lived in 5 cities in various part of it, so I’m pretty sure I know the country.
And I know racists are a shame for France, the country of Lumières, révolution and résistance against fascism.
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?
Removed by mod
Atheists can wear a crucifix necklace too but it would still be considered a religious symbol
France has a strict ban on religious signs in state schools and government buildings, arguing that they violate secular laws.
Is this a case of being lost in translation or something? I wouldn’t consider religious garb to be a “sign.”
Signs should be better translated to symbols here
Calling clothes a “symbol” of religion is a stretch, too.
A display of religion then? It is meant as anything that could identify you as someone with a certain religion
The real question is: would they stop a kid from wearing a necklace with a cross, for example?
deleted by creator
Yes, obviously in the context of this story. It seems weird to assume otherwise to me
It’s not really obvious, which is why I had to ask. The article focuses on a piece of clothing which isn’t really religiously significant being banned, so I wouldn’t say it’s obvious what falls under the law.
But the reason it was banned was clearly identified as being because it is symbolic of a religion. Based on that, how wouldn’t a cross necklace also qualify?
They did in mine. Most of my classmates found it pretty cringe too
Thats interesting. Is that purely from a religious symbol standpoint or is it a jewellery thing too? And cringe that they were banned or that they were worn at all?
Jewelry is allowed but not very common
Its cringe this person worn it even tho we all know about secularism
In the UK at my kids school, yes. No jewelry of any kind allowed. Not even studs in newly pierced ears, which is a bit annoying.
I also went to a UK school and there was no jewellery of any kind because it was against uniform policy, not for religious reasons. I was pretty sure there was no problem with religious headgear though, for example Sikh turban wearing.
I was asking about the French public schools as thats what the article was about.
Banning something is as opressive as making it mandatory.
No it’s not. making something mandatory for a group of people makes that group of people well separated from the rest. here is exactly opposite : they are trying to make them look like anyone else.
“trying to make them” is a problematic phrase and why this doesn’t make sense. Nobody should be “made” to do anything, if people are choosing to look different they should be free to do so.
But they don’t choose tho. Parents do, but not kids
this ban is as dumb as banning heavy metal, dungeons and dragons, skateboards, backwards baseball caps, etc etc
it’s all just trying to look tough enough to court right wing racists on targets too vulnerable to fight back.
if you want to protect vulnerable young girls, you don’t start by ostracising them from the community.
How is that ostracizing? Expand your word.
how is saying someone from a group of people can’t dress in attitudes that identifies them as a member of the group not ostracising? it’s the very definition.
Because “ostracizing” means “to exclude” someone. While imposing a common dress standard is to include everyone. so petty much the opposite of “ostracizing”
A common dress standard would be called a uniform. This law isn’t mandating uniforms, so you’re incorrect. It’s excluding religious groups, so yes, ostracizing.
Ostracising means to exclude. The law forces the blending. The mental gymnastics you need to find “exclusion” in that is buffing. Again it’s not excluding anyone, it tries to male them blend with the rest. Blend. Mix. Nobody is excluded. I never mentioned uniforms, neither the law, i don’t know why you bring that up. Yes, uniforms obviously make everyone uniform but we aren’t talking about it. Dressing regularly also make everyone look “regular” or “secular”, we don’t need uniforms.
If anything, the groups of people are literally excluding themselves by wearing stuff nobody else does.
Looks like at some point people are just repeating the same argument for everything and opposite of it.
You know what makes everyone look alike? A niqab.
Someone call the Taliban and let them know they’re defenders of freedom.
LOL
Got em!
lol your argument is dumb sorry You know what else make everyone alike? Plastic surgery. Someone call surgeons
Plastic surgery does not make everyone look alike. That’s a silly thing to say lol
Also you’re missing the highly relevant point that plastic surgery is not compulsory
Well i made a silly argument to show you how I feel about yours lol.
Nobody is imposing a cloth on anyone, and even less a religious one. So you can’t use niqqab in your argument against me because that’s literally what i am against!
You could say for example that’s a cultural thing, and forbidding it would somehow restrict the minority. But then, it’s only public schools, the law doesn’t care (me neither) about adults wearing it outside. (I don’t know why I am arguing with myself on your behalf 🤔)
What it does care about, is to prevent community bubbles forming within groups of children. Which i totally support.
we’re just controlling what communities people are allowed to form. Nothing oppressive
Ok lol
We are controlling what communities ARE NOT allowed to form. Stop negating my points lol
Oh really? Let’s ban murder. Is it as opressive as if we made murdering ppl mandatory? Remember that people’s rights depend on other’s obligations.
Hyperbolic bad faith argument. A person should have a right to choose the clothes they wear. Maybe this school should stick to uniforms if certain articles of clothing are so problematic.
It is not one school, it is all public achools in the country. You can’t defend the right to choose clothes in one sentence and say they should switch to uniforms in the other
Nope. You aren’t allowed to have religious shit on you in general public in france.
Yeah and that’s fucked up and oppressive
No its the opposite.
Nah you just agree with the oppression
You’re like a Trump supporter in the US talking about “freedom” but then getting angry at trans people. Your side even uses the same arguments - “they don’t have the right to teach their children to be this way!”
It’s all oppression.
You’ll be in for quite the surprise when you learn how these fundamentalist muslims think about trans rights
Im pretty sure I can advocate for freedom for everyone everywhere and not run afoul of any hypocrisy, because I’m an adult capable of thinking.
Yeah you sure can advocate for people to be free to hate trans people and indoctrinate their children with it. You can sleep easy
This. The whole point of freedom is that every person gets to choose for themselves, and the government should be preserving that choice and limiting elements that take choice away. It’s morally reprehensible to support choice only when it’s choices that you agree with, that’s how state religions became a thing in the first place.
deleted by creator
Another commenter mentioned how similar some of the arguments are with far right anti-lgbt arguments are, and I don’t think there’s a better example of it than your comment. “I don’t want to ban it, I just hate it and don’t want to see it, so let’s ban it from anywhere I could run into it”. " ‘You say freedom to love you you want’ I say ‘You’re putting it in my fucking face and letting LGBT activists decide laws that directly affect my family and I’. Get that gay shit out of my face. Sick of it". Don’t you see how that type of rhetoric can be problematic?
I’m sorry, but you’re going to run into people in the world that do and say things you don’t agree with, that’s part of life. If you want to fight to keep it out of government and laws, I’ll be fighting right there with you, but once you extend it to people you’re just silencing and oppressing. Freedom is even more important when you don’t agree with the choices people are making, if you can’t agree with that then I don’t want to be anywhere near the “free” world you help build
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.
Good. Muslisms countries penalize homosexuality, women freedom between other things.
Western Europe should ban Muslisms religious things.
As if hardcore Christians didn’t advocate for those exact same things.
Yes, but christianism/catholicism has accepted progressive ideals more. Just this week the pope advocated for same sex couples.
When I see that in muslism, when muslism countries remove the death or life jail penalties for same sex couples, when queer people are not scared of walking though mideast communities in western Europe, then I will advocate for muslisms.
Plenty of Christians despise the pope and Evangelicals would love to hang queer people and they use all the same symbolism.
That doesn’t take away that the pope, the head of the religion, plus other members are pushing for same sex couples.
Show me that happening in muslism.
Yes but they don’t hang gays anymore…
They absolutely would if they could.
Removed by mod
So were at the point with Lemmy now that we have to deal with blatant racists? cool.
That means that a large portion of reddit moved to Lemmy. Its a double edged sword
I think you forgot the /s at the end (so that mods won’t ban you for satire lol)
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 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.
It’s not about stopping people from being coerced, it’s about the state forbidding religious symbols on state property including schools. France is strictly secular and forbids religion in the public sphere, i.e. state property like schools, politics etc.
It just so happens to have the pleasant side effect that kids in state schools are free from the segregation, clothing and other religious bullshit they might have to endure in their private life. The government has no control over that other aspect however it might lead to kids growing into adults who are less orthodox in their own lives.
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”.
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.
do we not see how it’s different to ban crosses, the religious symbolism of the entrenched culture, the state, and the hegemonic culture - and the banning of headscarves and abayas, traditions associated with an oppressed minority? This is absolutely not just fair neutrality across the board on all religious expression, the kids will still be reading books by Christians, being taught by Christian teachers, following a curriculum decided by a Christian board and meeting education metrics voted on by Christian politicians so they can be part of the workforce in a Christian entrenched nation.
Any thoughts that this is good because they’re just treating all religions equally is enlightened centrism.
France isn’t really super Christian anymore for a Christian nation. About 50% of the French claims to be Christian and a 1/3 claims to have no religion. Compare that to Italy which is 80% Christian
What percent is Muslim? How is that proportionality among teachers, or among legislators? And how many laws are still enforced from a time when France was much more Christian? What is the religious makeup of those who wrote the French literary classics and the history textbooks?
It sounds like you’ve researched next to nothing of what you’re talking about and are just making grandstanding statements based on pre-existing conclusions.
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.
The bread
This is the way (to the nearest bakery of course)
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.
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.
Yeah, let’s ban garments because garments can be attributed to religion or fashion or culture or comfort or any or all combination of the above, in public spaces and alienate religious groups, let them homeschool their children, which may/may not breed more dogmatic/extremists views and then cry about immigrants screwing things up by not integrating just because setting up laws that separate religion and state weren’t enough. Laws can’t be enforced right? Like laws don’t discourage behaviors in a secular civil society right?
Genius moves there. I like the 5D chess this government is playing.
Homeschooling is a thing in every country. I don’t see how you can claim laicite is the cause of it, or even increases the risk of extremism.
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.
Calling your arguments stupid is not ad hominem. But if you want me to elucidate then by all means:
-
Forcing people to eat beef (or pork) is not covered by laicite. Wearing religious clothing & symbols on state property is. I’m sure a case to be made that schools should be sensitive to religious dietary restrictions and provide alternatives, but that’s not what you were saying.
-
Circumcision is not covered by laicite at least insofar as school is concerned. Maybe there are regs about how it is performed in public hospitals. Wearing religious clothing & symbols on state property is.
All clear now?
-
