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.
Why are government officials all-powerful and all-weak at the same time? Funny how that works. The law is dumb, problematic, impossible to enforce? Hands are tied. The law makes sense and easy to perform? Selectively enforced if at all.
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.
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.
The eradication of the will to wear this stuff is the answer. Without religion, barely anyone will want to wear religious signs.
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.
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.
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
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.
Removed by mod
Neither have these families I would imagine. How common is that in France?
I’m French, stonings occur every other Tuesday morning
I still don’t get why we can’t get an app for it or something. The paper lottery system is just so primitive. Has to be a better way to decide who gets stoned to death for conformity and harvest.
That depends hugely on the region. They do it on Thursday where they say Chocolatine.
They’re not really French though
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.
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.
Public indecency laws are more of a hygiene issue. Making religious clothes or jewelry illegal to wear at school sits very weird with me.
I wouldn’t say it is mostly a hiygene issue, though that is a solid perk. It’s because most people get offended at nudity. I personally don’t think they should, and I don’t, but that’s how they feel so…
ah yes, France, the country famous for its prudence in regards to nudists.
Whoever people sleep or get married with is none of anyone’s business, but Muslims are against homosexuality.
Oh, so two wrongs do make a right now?
What wrong are homosexuals doing?
Wrong 1: Cultures and religions being bigoted against LGBT people.
Wrong 2: Banning all expression of those religions and cultures by anyone, even if they don’t believe in the bigotry.
When did I say that we are doing something wrong? My point is that that just because many/some Muslims are homophobes, it doesn’t mean banning certain clothes is okay.
So what should we do against homophobic Muslims?
nobody cares about your whattaboutism
Lmao. Great argument! Definitely the right step for France!
Definitely a better argument than “some Muslims don’t like gays, so we should stop French schoolgirls from wearing a specific kind of dress, that’ll teach 'em”
Well done mate, you and Macron have solved homophobia.
Some muslisms is a BIG under statement.
If you were afraid of going to the street and hold hands or kiss with a partner because you could be beaten or killed, you would understand, so yeah, im glad France took this decision.
-
I’m gay and live in a heavily Muslim area, so stfu
-
Stopping french school girls from wearing a specific dress does… what? To stop Muslim homophobia exactly?
-
Christians also are anti gays, should we ban graphic tees as some sad, ineffectual petty revenge on them for homophobia?
-
Okay edgelord
-
They banned crosses for Christians because they ban Muslim headwear. They had to do something for Christian or it would have been the most obvious racism.
Read the article. Crosses have been banned for a long time, before the Muslim headwear.
There’s an exception for the most common kind of religious expression for Christians. Small crosses are permitted. If you want to be fair, you need to ban them too.
Read the article. Crosses have been banned for a long time, before the Muslim headwear.
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.
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.
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.
If there was a uniform at school it would be different. Here it’s fashion police. Specifically targeted at Arab culture.
It’s an atheist theocracy. Also called fascism.
I don’t think you understand what fascism is.
It’s obviously targeted, but at religion not a specific ethnic group. Moreover, that law will make those pupils look like anyone else, so if anything, this will reduce the stigma
It’s not targeted at religion because it’s not a religious dress. Ergo it’s a culture that’s targeted and it’s blatant racism.
Stigmatising people for their culture or religion never integrate them.
We should teach fascists how to read what’s written on our townhall though.
It’s clearly associated with religion, so technical details do not matter. This law is literally erasing the difference between all, stop repeating the same argument guys, it’s not stigmatizing anyone because they all damn look the same
No point explaining racism to a racist I guess…
Yeah pretty easy to throw around insults instead of elaborating, but who cares now
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.
- PROHIBITIONS AND LIMITS TO INDIVIDUAL FREEDOMS IN THE FRAMEWORK OF “LAÏCITÉ”
The principle of secularism means that the State and religious organisations are separate. There is therefore no state-run public worship. The State neither recognises, nor subsidises, nor salaries any form of worship. Exceptions and adjustments to the ban on funding are defined in the legislation and case-law; they concern in particular chaplaincies, which are paid for by the State1
No religion can impose its prescriptions on the Republic. No religious principle can be invoked for disobeying the law.
No religion can impose its prescriptions on the Republic. No religious principle can be invoked for disobeying the law.
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?
deleted by creator
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.
Except banning anything at school is the opposite of what’s written here: the Republic forbid wearing some dress because it’s wrongly associated with religion.
The government is turning atheism into an oppressive religion.
Lol sorry but could only laugh on “turning atheism into oppressive religion”…
Says the guy with the randomly generated username from random.org
People woth randomised usernames are usually trolls or bad faith accounts because they want to make it harder for their accounts to be found by using randomised usernames
I understand you lack arguments, but wow
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.
It’s ridiculous either way
This is not freedom.
Are you talking about the freedom of conservative religious men oppressing their women, their children and trying hard actively not to integrate into the society they live in?
Forcing a person not to wear a type of clothing is just as bad forcing them to wear it. The reasons for either are not important.
No.
So to protect the freedom of these women you deny them the freedom to wear a dress?
Holy fuck the racists are so stupid it’s surreal!
Yeah so extremely racist to protect women from religious extremists. Just the mindless name dropping again, calling everyone and everybody a racist.
Protecting women by telling them how to dress. That feels very much like 19th century.
You understand the dress is not even religious?
What percentage of husbands/street enforcers will beat her if she doesn’t wear it? Where do those cultural norms of modesty come from, pray tell?
The French state literally making laws governing fashion is the most French thing ever.
No, it’s fascism.
I fully agree that’s it’s an authoritarian measure that needlessly targets a vulnerable minority.
But it’s also something we should laugh at the French state for. Orwell memorably mused that the reason the goose-step never made its way into British military marching drills - at a time when many other European armies were adopting it - was because if British civilians saw soldiers on parade goose-stepping down the road then they would laugh at them. He thought that instinct to laugh at pompous displays of authority was something that helped insulate the British from the fascist and communist totalitarianism that took root elsewhere in the first half of the 20th century. Fascists tend to have very thin skins.
The French state is making laws to regulate women’s fashion. They should know that doing this makes them look ridiculous to normal people.
Wow. As a religious minority it’s incredibly depressing to see how many people on here support this violation of religious liberty.
Religion has no place in the modern world.
And the real reason is unmasked. This isn’t “freedom,” this is pushing atheism. There’s a reason the US Supreme Court has struck down similar policies for nearly a century, because it privileges atheism over any religion.
The US Supreme Court has struck down similar policies because US population are religious zealots.
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.
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.
Abayas don’t hurt anyone
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.
Yeah honestly. As much as we’ve struggled with developing and even enforcing it today, I think America has a good balance between freedom to practice and freedom from state sponsored religion
Probably not the best moment in that country’s history to make that claim
This term, the Supreme Court decided two cases involving religion: Groff v. DeJoy was a relatively low-profile case about religious accommodations at work; 303 Creative v. Elenis was a blockbuster case about the clash between religious exercise and principles of equal treatment. (The legal question was technically about speech, but religion was at the core of the dispute.)
In both cases, plaintiffs asserted religiously grounded objections to complying with longstanding and well-settled laws or rules that would otherwise apply to them. And in both, the court handed the plaintiff a resounding victory.
These cases are the latest examples of a striking long-term trend: Especially since Amy Coney Barrett became a justice in 2020, the court has taken a sledgehammer to a set of practices and compromises that have been carefully forged over decades to balance religious freedom with other important — and sometimes countervailing — principles.
The people here do not represent what the world outside looks like and anonymity emboldens extreme views.
Protecting the society’s Overton window concerning women from being shifted toward any religious group’s preferred direction (let alone a minority group that has a terrible present tract record insofar as female equality is concerned) is a real hard thing to get right. Quite honestly, having grown up as a fundamentalist evangelical Christian and having spent years deprogramming myself from my childhood indoctrination, I would have zero issue seeing the same laws equally enforced against public expressions of religion in this country as well. Any space children have from their family to form their own opinions, without being forced to “other” themselves through religiocultural garb, is good space.
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
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.
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
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.
Nope. Religion should be banned.
Also the girls are likely forced to do that so you are Dubble wrong.
name a video game that doesn’t have some element of religion in it. pac man? ghosts = belief in afterlife. space invaders? I’d call “belief in aliens” a religious belief of sorts. bubble bobble? maybe?
you also gotta reprint every single piece of American paper money.
what about my tarot card collection? you gonna lock me in jail because I think the art is cool?
what about how I listen to Bach or Mozart in the bath?
you gonna arrest me for saying “Jesus fucking christ” when my cat brings up a hairball?
I also enjoy “what we do in the shadows”, Yellowjackets, home alone, lord of the rings, dune… all banned by you.
Even chess has a bishop, king and queen…
There’s no need to be a redditeur about it, nearly everything is a religious experience or adjacent, and I say that as a secular person and atheist myself.
What? Shut the fuck up idiot.
You can practice your religion inside your home. Once you’re out in public you should respect others and hide your religion away. This is the way!
Not having to hide who you are is a human right, I get where stuff like this is coming from but if there was a rule to hide all symbols of sexualities to protect people it’d become pretty obvious that it’s homophobic. Being able to exist in public shouldn’t require making changes to yourself.
You can only exist in public as part of such public.
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
deleted by creator
Don’t be ridiculous
I think some are forgetting, these bans are in schools, outside these schools you can wear whatever you want
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.
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.
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?
deleted by creator
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.
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.
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.
deleted by creator
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.
