- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- [email protected]
- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- [email protected]
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.
You must log in or register to comment.
Religious freedom is a human right. Self determination is a human right. As long as whatever you do does not cause a negative impact on other people (see the second right) or society at large, then gtfo.
There is no “second right” in France. The law is simple : Don’t wear visible religious sign at school. There are private religious schools if you disagree with the public system.
Is it so insane to think there could be a school with both religious and areligious people at the same time? A secular school that doesn’t support a religion, but allows students to express themselves how they choose? When did that become a radical idea?
It’s not insane, but this separation has been done in 1905. In France the state is separated from the church (and by extension the religious). It’s not radical it takes roots in the principle of equality.
Separation of church and state is always a good thing, I’m not arguing against that, but this feels like a whole different level. If anything, this is the state taking an active role in changing the rules of the church. That’s not separation, that’s state sponsored atheism
The public schools are the one from the state. Those one are separate from the church. But everybody can go tothe private schools those can be religious or not.
That’s secularism, not atheism.
Students should express themselves how they choose.
That’s why you protect them from indoctination/religion forcing a certain outfit upon them.
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.
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.
I don’t deny that there are occurrences where some girls are forced. What about the 95% others?
You can’t put forth a law punishing the majority for a “likely”. What happened to the “Liberté Egalité Fraternité” which this liberticide law is obviously trampling?
The population has been fed the islamophobic narrative long enough to have such laws pass without anybody thinking about how ridiculous they are (replace hijab/abaya with dreadlocks or other piece of clothing… What do other people care?). The divide is so deep and constantly maintained by the politicians who, since they find no real answers the actual problems plaguing the day to day life of citizen, prefer to turn them against each other: divide to better rule.
Thats dogshit
Having gone to school with many muslims, sadly, it’s more like 4/5. As in, 4 out of 5 of those girls are forced to wear their religious garment. If they don’t it’s seen as shameful for their entire family.
Some are beaten but most of them are given a free choice: they can choose not to wear it and leave their family (and most friends). Or they can choose to abide and show how much they love god. Not many 10 year old girls choose to leave their family though.
And the other 1/5th are the full on religious fruitcakes.
I have anecdotal experiences too: my sister is Muslim and was wearing hijab in France. Of her own will. My parents argued repeatedly AGAINST it because of all the problems she’d have (and she did have) in that glorious free country. But she wouldn’t budge, because she didn’t want a human to dictate to her what she could wear.
In many places such dress code is more cultural than religious. From the religious point of view, yes women are to wear it however one cannot FORCE them to. In some places they do, but the scripture does not allow this.
In secular countries people do not know the difference or don’t even bother because it mostly affects non whites. Instead of tracking the cases where there is abuse and dealing with them accordingly, they just ban it wholesale across the board. It’s like banning knives because some people use them violently.
France has never once, in the history of the country, ever given half a shit about doing the right thing or not disenfranchising people.
They have a very cool history but France is a shit show top to bottom.
Basically all of their governing tenets only exist to prevent the French from just living in a state of constant revolution.
It’s funny that the French are romanticised as a revolutionary people, always ready to stand up to the man and fight for the people.
They’ve probably just been shit on by their own government more that most other nations, so they’ve reached that tipping point of revolution more than anyone else.
The French are the ones doing a lot of the shitting on themselves. The Reign of Terror wasn’t a government initiative.
Tbh true, yet still not everything in france is bad
“Self determination is a human right” There’s nothing I agree more on. Unfortunately some muslim communities do not agree, and the men and the women aren’t on the same level. Many women are forced to port the abaya and other vests that cover their figure in entirety, and I don’t think they should be forced to if they don’t want to. 85% of the muslim women in France that I know do not want to port it, but they’re obligated by their family. Banning it entirely is not the perfect solution, but it’s a step in the the direction of eradicating religions in France. The time of Christianity and Islam is way beyond us.
i like the slow stumble from “self-determination is a human right” to “eradicating religions in france”
“85% of the muslim women in france ᵗʰᵃᵗ ᶦ ᵏⁿᵒʷ” really adds to the experience too, thank you
Yeah, sorry, I didn’t exprime myself correctly here. Let me rephrase it:
If you want to be christian or muslim, please be, I don’t have nothing against you. But I’m not ok with parents forcing their religion down the throats of their kids.
And, let’s face it, religion it’s at an all time low, especially with newer generations like mine, and I don’t like how boomers force their kids to “go to church”, “dress in a certain manner”, ecc, when the kids don’t even believe.
Parents get to raise their kids. For instance, your parents raised you to believe that stripping someone’s rights protects their rights.
They were wrong to do that, but they get to do that
My parents are Catholics, and it’s also for that that I’ve begun disliking religions altogether.
Is banning dresses at a state-level a thing that shouldn’t ever happen? Yes.
Do I agree with the banning of a robe that strips women of their identity? Still yes.
We humans are contradictory existencies
Lol I like to joke that nothing turns you against Catholicism (or religion in general) like growing up Catholic.
I’m a hardliner on freedom and (safe) expression, full stop, but I def get where you’re coming from.
You’ve got the same energy as the “I don’t care if people are gay but I don’t want to see it and I don’t want them to indoctrinate kids” crowd
Indoctrination doesn’t make kids gay, you must know that, right?
Yeah I fucking know that
I don’t think they’re the same thing… and I really hope I don’t really give off that energy, because I have multiple friends that are gay/bisex. Plus, I’m too bisex.
There’s rarely a good news nowadays let’s enjoy this one
Reading all the anti-privacy and self expression things that France are pushing…wouldn’t understand why anyone would want to move to france in this day and age.
If I agree with some anti-privacy woes, France (and more broadly Europe) is way more privacy friendly than the US. We have to fight for it from time to time, but for now it goes mostly in the right direction.
As for religious stuff, to understand that you have to understand France. We are, due to our history, mostly irreligious (50% of the whole population in 2017), with most religious people being non-practicing. Like every country we have our religious nutjobs, but they are mostly irrevelant compared to the US ones.
As such, we as a whole generally consider that religion should not impact public life and public places nor be displayed in there, with some specific exception (nuns and priests, as it is considered as being an uniform mandated by their trade).School is a public space, as such public display of religion are forbidden. This is not specifically agains Muslim, the same would apply to a nun when going to school as a student. Other less ostensible religious sign, like crucifixes, are also banned.
All that is (mostly) to fight communitarianism, which is viewed here as a threat to society.Pretty progressive. Nice.
The bread
This is the way (to the nearest bakery of course)
Laicite has been a thing for a very long time. Simply put, France recognizes your right to believe any crap you like in your private life and recognizes religions under law, but people don’t get to practice their religion in the public sphere, e.g. on state property.
This is as opposed to US secularism which is barely lip service and constantly undermined. If you want an analogue, France erects a steel barrier between religion and governance whereas US erects a 4ft chain link fence.
What a narrow understanding of religion. That law is based on the understanding that “religion” is something completely inside the mind and maybe something you attend once a week. That may have been nice in 1700s Europe when the only religion around were denominations of Christianity but it doesn’t account for the many religions that mandate looks and dress and even some that require tattoos. Instead the state implicitly labels those religions as inferior or less civilized and goes out of their way to single them out for law enforcement.
And the “obey or leave” mindset in this thread is ignorant of history, as France involuntarily made all Algerians French citizens and declared their lands French territory. This 2004 law and new amendments singles them out.
Laicite has been a thing in France for over a 100 years. There is nothing “narrow” about it and it affected religions LONG before Muslims became the latest to experience it.
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.
France, overall, has become a terrible country.
Good. Muslisms countries penalize homosexuality, women freedom between other things.
Western Europe should ban Muslisms religious things.
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)
As if hardcore Christians didn’t advocate for those exact same things.
Yes but they don’t hang gays anymore…
They absolutely would if they could.
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.
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.”
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.
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.
You know what makes everyone look alike? A niqab.
Someone call the Taliban and let them know they’re defenders of freedom.
lol your argument is dumb sorry You know what else make everyone alike? Plastic surgery. Someone call surgeons
Plastic surgery does not make everyone look alike. That’s a silly thing to say lol
Also you’re missing the highly relevant point that plastic surgery is not compulsory
Well i made a silly argument to show you how I feel about yours lol.
Nobody is imposing a cloth on anyone, and even less a religious one. So you can’t use niqqab in your argument against me because that’s literally what i am against!
You could say for example that’s a cultural thing, and forbidding it would somehow restrict the minority. But then, it’s only public schools, the law doesn’t care (me neither) about adults wearing it outside. (I don’t know why I am arguing with myself on your behalf 🤔)
What it does care about, is to prevent community bubbles forming within groups of children. Which i totally support.
we’re just controlling what communities people are allowed to form. Nothing oppressive
Ok lol
We are controlling what communities ARE NOT allowed to form. Stop negating my points lol
LOL
Got em!
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.
“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
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.
Religion likes to seep into the lives of people that don’t want it. That’s the problem. Religion is fucking up politics and lives around the world. Sure, if you want to be oppressed by sky dad and sky dad leaders, do it in private. I don’t want that religious toxicity anywhere near me. That includes the christo-fascist bastards in high places in the U.S.
You say “freedom of choice of religion” I say “you’re putting it in my fucking face and letting religion decide laws that directly affect my family and I.” Get that religious shit out of my fucking face. Sick of it.
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
deleted by creator
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.
deleted by creator
Wow. As a religious minority it’s incredibly depressing to see how many people on here support this violation of religious liberty.
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.
Laîcite is the right for each, to practice his/her religion, without the state interfering, if not against laws and in the respect concerning other peoples. Without being prosecuted for this…
They now change the word to be against Muslims in France. Because “laicite” is always use against them.
Novlangue.
Abayas are not religious dress nor a symbol of a religion, and the law does not speak to individual choices about wearing religious symbols anyway. This is no different to banning ‘Black’ hairstyles or imposing sexist dress codes. It’s racism, not secularism.
deleted by creator
Hair covering is an Abrahamic thing. But abayas are not hair covering so what the fuck are you on about?
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
if the state doesnt recognise any form of worship, why are they seemingly banning perceived symbols of worship? how does any of the law you quoted justify banning folks from even wearing perceived religious symbols?
unless this isnt a religious symbol anyway, in which case the above law is even less relevant and this is a blatant case of cultural discrimination
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?
You’re not from the religion that has been plaguing the country with terrorism for years, that’s the difference. I know it’s cultural, but we have history. Something like 2 years ago a teacher got beheaded. Since then we’re seeing lots of “cultural expression” in schools. This is not the french way. In France you act like French, period.
I was unaware that everyone from that religion was a terrorist and supported that beheading. The cornerstone of liberty and democracy relies on not judging people by their heritage, culture, nor religion. It’s unconscionable to persecute by association.
All this will do is create more tension and resentment. It isn’t how you end terrorism. It’s how you create it. If you want to maintain a philosophy of “in France you act French”, so be it. But recognize in doing so, you’re adopting the same way of thinking as America’s conservatives. And that should give you significant pause.
Even if one despises religion above all, as one should, there is no sufficient reason to ban this type of stuff.
On the other side, it is time to give these morons back what they have brought upon others and thus deserve.
I totally support that. https://www.indigo.ca/en-ca/little-hijabi-a-little-girls-love-for-her-hijab/9781504319508.html Kids wearing hijabs, abayas (put any religious symbol here) must be considered as a form of child abuse. It is crucial to refrain from imposing outdated and fantastical beliefs onto young minds.
The Abaya is cultural and not religious though.
So why is it mandatory for women in Quater and Saudi Arabia ?
Because their law requires it for “modesty reasons”, probably like a uniform of some sort, but it’s not a religious garment in Islam. It covers the whole body except the head, feet and hands. Anyone wearing an Abaya outside of Qatar and Saudi Arabia is doing so for cultural reasons, not religious reasons.
These kinds of laws should not oppress culture, unless we want to see an extinction of diversity. They should exist solely to limit religious child indoctrination, and give children a fighting chance to make their own decisions with regard to religion.
That’s exactly what this law is doing by banning religious sign into the public school. Pretenting that the introduction of this clothe, absolutely not present into the French culture, has nothing to do with the religion is fallacious.
Please don’t do this. The culture finds its foundation entirely within religious beliefs, and the abaya stands as a tangible expression of this connection. From the Wikipedia: “The rationale for the abaya is often attributed to the Quranic quote, “O Prophet, tell your wives and daughters, and the believing women, to cover themselves with a loose garment. They will thus be recognised and no harm will come to them” (Qur’an 33:59,[2] translated by Ahmed Ali). This quotation is often given as the argument for wearing the abaya.”
The cross is synonymous with Christianity, yet there’s an exception in this law for small crosses. If you want to go down this path, you must ban everything, with no exceptions.
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.
You hear that the military? Stop forcing people in those ugly camo uniforms! Reasons for wearing them aren’t important!
So schoolchildren should be treated like they’re in the military?
The dream of any fascist is kid soldiers (also kid workers, they’re never productive soon enough).
This analogy is poor.
I was mostly for showing that forcing a clothing standard sometimes does have reasons. Team sports would be another one.
Also, banning every item of clothing that could be seen as religious, might turn into an endless game of whack-a-mole. So if France is so keen on secular clothing in schools, school uniforms seem like a legit option.
I am not a fan of school uniforms either.
Why can’t we just let kids decide what to wear? Especially when it isn’t even their own children. I generally let my kids pick out their own clothing. My middle school rolled out a uniform and it was an uncomfortable disaster. Always vowed that when I became a parent I wouldn’t do this to my own kids. Fun fact it isn’t illegal to take a picture of your shredded uniform you found in the attic and mail it to your old principal’s house with a note scrawled on it “fuck you for making me wear this”.
In any case team sports are also a really bad analogy. A small cross or head covering is not a distraction from learning the way kids not wearing sports stuff would be for the game.
I’m also not a fan of school uniforms in general and I don’t have personal expirence with them.
But the topic of dress codes came up a couple of time when I was in highschool. One of them even lead to a “ban” though, it was only school policy, not a law. But yeah, there were a couple of girls that really pushed the limits of how short they could make their tops and hotpants. I, of course, loved it at the time, but looking back as an adult, 14-16 year olds probably shouldn’t dress like that in school.
Another topic I even caused myself. I went through kind of a punk phase and one day showed up with steel-tipped boots and a 30cm, neon green mohawk. There were some complaints, but ultimatly nothing happened.
My point is, regulating clothing in certain public situation is quite common with widley varying regional standards. It’s not as simple as “everyone should be able to wear what they want”.
I don’t think anyone would confuse military service with freedom.
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?
No.
My two cents, The ban is actually good. In school settings, religious headscarf/clothing makes you lot standout and people might get averse too it. This allows these people to actually mix in well with others.
The ban is good cause these kids are conditioned from birth to wear these. They haven’t explored things out of the religious context and how f* up religions are at controlling people.
We are landing on moon and we have religions claiming everything revolves around earth. I would outright ban all these cults.
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.
