- cross-posted to:
- news@kbin.social
- europe@feddit.de
- cross-posted to:
- news@kbin.social
- europe@feddit.de
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.
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.
Still, schools shouldn’t be able to dictate how people can dress as long as they cover their genitals and their clothes aren’t dangerous.
Eh, maybe… In my public, absolutely standard highschool we still had a dress code, you couldn’t have bare legs or excessively low collars
And here in sweden the justice system has to dole out yearly reminders to schools that dressing freely is protected by the constitution, and dress codes or uniforms are literally illegal.
That’s….amazing tbh
That’s amazing, why don’t we have something like this in Germany
I seriously doubt it. And I’m sure if it is, no one enforces it.
Edit: y’all can vote me down all day, but the law says “ostentacious religious insignia,” and I’m sure a little cross has been overlooked many times.
It is 100% banned. Any religious apparel or trinkets are banned.
No it isn’t. The 2004 law banned “large” crosses and allowed small ones but banned ALL hijabs.
It was never equally enforced.
Actually,
ostentacious religious insignia
Up for debate.
Maybe you should be less confident about things you don’t know. In this particular regard, the French are quite consistent.
ostentacious religious insignia
That’s the law. That’s pretty vague. So, I’m pretty confident not everyone is enforcing a tiny cross necklace.
If I was a French teenager I would wear a cross to school and claim it was a T.
Just wear all the symbols and say you’re being inclusive.
Coexisting like a stone cold mother fucker.
Is this a “Brave New World” reference?
If you’re going to copy and paste something several times, and are representing it as a quotation from law, maybe spell-check it? Also, I think there are good arguments to be made on both sides of this issue, but comparing an inconspicuous piece of jewelry to an abaya seems disingenuous. If small crosses were allowed, but small star and crescents weren’t, that would obviously be wrong.
It’s a quote. It’s copy and paste. If someone spelled it wrong, it’s not me.
Either way. If a tiny cross is allowed and a tiny star is not, that’s bad.
No symbols should be allowed of any kind. 🤷♂️
I wonder how they handle tattoos.
Removed by mod
“ostentacious religious insignia” is the law.
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.
It’s difficult to say whether someone is wearing what they are wearing through choice or because it is demanded of them.
I agree with you, demanding that they wear something else is not the answer.
Especially when they’re kids. People should be able to wear whatever they want. But kids don’t often get to choose what they want. They’re often at the mercy of what their parents want and that’s it.
There’s also something to be said about pressure from family members. Even if the kid chose to wear something, did they really do so out of their own free will? Or because their parents said they’ll burn in hell for all eternity if they don’t?
And it’s not like we’re talking about something like simple taste in clothing or mild culture differences. We’re talking about clothes that are drenched in misogyny. It’s not about literal clothing in a vacuum, but rather what those clothes imply about women as a whole.
Then you’re just replacing the oppressor with the state.
Let children wear what they want.
What if their community’s pressure is the reason why they wear certain types of clothing?
A solid reason not to be part of that community anymore.
Try that when you’re 10 👍
The trick when you are 10 is to memorize and record every single detail of it. Which adult did what on what day and which did nothing to stop it.
That way when you get older you can be crystal clear why you disowned the ones that did nothing and go after the ones that actively harmed you.
The religious deserve as much forgiveness as they have shown everyone else.
This is the only reason why anyone wears any particular type of clothing. There is no style of clothing that it objectively makes sense to wear.
The eradication of the will to wear this stuff is the answer. Without religion, barely anyone will want to wear religious signs.
It’s not the point of the ban. You shouldn’t wear any religious signs. It’s the same as banning christian cross (which is obviously already banned since years and years)
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.
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
Removed by mod
I agree that it will not be effective in reducing the amount of these types of robes that will be worn. But it will be effective in reducing the visibility of this particular religious clothing, and thus the religion itself. We (everyone everywhere) already ban lots of clothing styles, there are minimums you have to attain. can’t have nipples or genitalia showing, and even though that might sound nitpicky, I’m from team #freethechest and having a covered chest is something I personally do not think should be required. It’s just nipples/boobs, everyone should just grow up and let it fly
I get this completely. This is nothing new for France, they have been blocking Christians from wearing crosses and Jews from wearing kippah’s for a very long time, it’s only reasonable that the Muslim population gets treated equally. Schools should remain completely secular, I am in complete agreement with France there.
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.
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…
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.
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?
It is a huge problem yes, but banning clothes does not solve a shit. As an answer to your question, we need to deal with them the same way we deal with any other homophobes.
Funny, I know Muslims who aren’t against gays but they still wear headscarves. Maybe it’s more complex than the Saudi policy line?
Also, are you saying authoritarian government is good if they only discriminate against people you don’t like? I guess that’s something an Auth would say…
Authorarian government is good when people are attacking minorities.
Muslisms dont want to accept homosexuality? Then ban them and make them go back to their countries. You want to stay? Its time to accept homosexuality in their religion. Simple.
Funny, I know Muslims who aren’t against gays but they still wear headscarves. Maybe it’s more complex than the Saudi policy line?
Funny, because you never see people with headscarves on the pride parades. There are thousands of them living in western Europe, but somehow they dissappear during pride parade. Funny, isn’t?
you never see people with headscarves on the pride parades
What does that even mean? That you yourself have never seen someone wearing a headscarf at pride? Personally, I think it’s a huge leap to take that and say no/very few Muslims in western Europe go to pride.
It wouldn’t matter even if that was true. Plenty of people support the LGBTQ+ community and don’t go to pride, same goes for many people who are part of the community.
Isn’t it curious how this argument is never applied to bigotry broadly. People always seem to be so on-board with banning Muslims from France for this reason or that, and always retreat into criticizing their beliefs, as if that were some consistent policy. But some hick in West Virginia doens’t accept gays? Why not call for banishing him from America?
Oh they are immigrants? Funny because plenty of muslims are born in France/America and have lived there their entire lives. And even the ones who haven’t - it’s called a fucking refugee. A good nation is one that takes someone in who is hurting, regardless of who they are and what they believe, and do their best to provide an environment that protects everyone and gives them a chance to learn accepting beliefs.
Notice how none of this shit has anything to do with headscarves btw… almost like there’s another agenda here…
It is tho. We need to erradicate homophobia from everywhere. You have to understand the background tho.
Yeah, all religion are against homosexuality, but christianity and catolicisism is at least trying to integrate homosexuality into the religion. There are gay fathers, churches have the rainbow flag, the pope (the head of the religion) just last week advocated for same sex couples. Is it perfect? No it is not, but at least there are some people in the religion trying.
What about muslim? No, they are not trying. Countries where muslism is the main religion have death penalty or life sentences for homosexuals. And the problem is that is not the main problem of the religion, for them to be able to accept homosexuality, they would first need to realize that they are misogynistics, and that is not happening any time soon.
It is the same thing white people vs mideast people. Are all white people queer friendly? Not they are not, but there are a lot more that support homosexuality. Are all mideast people homophobic? Not they are not, but I am probable to be beaten up by a mideast guy than by a white guy (in Europe).
Notice how none of this shit has anything to do with headscarves btw… almost like there’s another agenda here…
I agree it hasnt, but if mideast/muslim people keep being homophobic, then I am glad that the government is taking measurements to ban mideast/muslim cultural things like headscarves.
They want respect and inclusion? Then respect and be inclusive of others. It is this simple.
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
-
Except abayas are basically just some loose-fitting clothes that can be worn by anyone regardless their religion. It’s like banning kimono or sari.
If it’s just an outfit and not religious clothes than there should be no problem, right?
It’s still targeting ethnicities. There’s no denying that these bans have a racial component to it.
I’d say it’s cultural rather than racial. Putting one culture above others is not the same as putting one race above others.
Especially since one culture refuses to assimilate when they migrate to a new country. Yeah I’m an American, but if I moved to France or Japan I wouldn’t try to change the local culture, I’d try to fit in. If I visited Saudi Arabia, not that they’d let me, my pasty white ass is putting on a turban and some robes so that I don’t die of sun exposure. I’d be the first person in history to get a 4th degree sunburn. I’m not gonna wander around in short pants, and flip flops bare chested the way I could here in SoCal.
oh no it’s the assimilation police, dictating how and when people give up their culture!
Yeah. When you decide to join another culture, you don’t force yours on them. If your culture was so shitty that you had to flee to a different country, then maybe it was a shitty culture that shouldn’t be preserved
It’s pretty simple. Give up your culture for another if the other is superior. If your culture is bigoted, for whatever reason, religious or not, give it up.
Splitting hairs. It’s still bigotry. Just because it’s bigotry towards something real rather than something we pretend is real doesn’t really change much.
It is not. It’s targeting religious signs. If your ethnicity can’t live with the same laws as others than it isn’t not you being ostracized, it’s you being dick by forcing everyone to follow your dogmas.
Not everyone who wears an abaya is religious or Muslim. And France doesn’t target religious signs equally, which is why the 2004 law banned hijab but allowed crosses.
And if you’re mad that others have to somehow “cater to your dogmas,” someone should tell the French who visit Algeria and other middle eastern countries and demand wine and pork.
Man, we are in the discussion where literally first post saying that French government preventing people from wearing crosses. What is the point of your argument, if you ignore information given to you by others?
If a female goes to Saudi Arabia, she is forced to obey the laws of Saudi Arabia and cover parts of the body. If a female goes to France, why is it your problem that people should obey the laws of the France?
You are insane.
The first post incorrectly repeated the talking point that crosses are also banned. That’s misleading. They banned “large” crosses and the 2004 law explicitly allowed “small” crosses, but made no similar exceptions for minority religions in France.
You can’t have it both ways; either human rights apply worldwide or they don’t. If you believe that both Saudi and France have the right to take away rights for women, you’re the insane one not me.
No problem meaning they shouldn’t care about not being able to wear it? Or that the French government shouldn’t care in the first place?
If it wasn’t religious sign, French government wouldn’t care about it
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.
deleted by creator
I’m not sure I like this. I sort of get not allowing religious symbols to be worn, but you’re forcing people to dress in a certain way. I don’t think the government should be able to do that
This is where I landed. They should simply continue to permit children to remove it at school if they choose, while they are under the guardianship of the state.
The kids won’t, because they’re too scared to disobey their parents.
That has nothing to do with the purview or remit of the state.
Why not
I feel like conflicted is the “correct” way to feel. On one hand, the government is literally enforcing clothing laws. On the other hand, this may prevent children from being forced into something they did not choose. I feel like a religion wrapping up your child in cloth so they lose their individually as a human being is cult-like behavior.
It would be better if the religion just wasn’t allowed to make them do this, but then they would just “suggest” women do this. This “suggestion” of course is actually coercion at best.
It’s a dress. It isn’t a headscarf or something. It’s just a loose dress.
The accompanying image appears to be showing a head covering? I am visually impaired though so correct me if I’m wrong.
This article clarifies that they sometimes do and sometimes do not include a head covering, so thanks for that clarification. The information under the rationale heading is what I had in mind when making my comment. I was in a Christian cult that controlled the way we dressed, and wanted us all to be very uniform (no personality, that would detract from God’s message) and modest (we’d be tempting men of skirts weren’t long, etc.).
France has been enforcing secularism since the turn of the 20th century. If you turn up with a turban, or a yarmulke, or a cross you’d be sent home too. If parents feel so aggrieved that the state disallows religious symbolism & clothing on state property they can send their kids to a private school.
But religion and family should? 🤔
Is condemning one thing endorsing another? Do two things wrongs make a right?
I get you, but… isn’t religion supposed to be a free decision? you’re agreeing to their terms and conditions (I know, I know, you can stop the laugh track).
You really believe that families religious enough to force their kids to wear certain clothes would accept that they renounce their religion?
Yep, hence the laugh track. I was raised as a Christian (atheist now) and I know first hand you don’t get to choose lol but renouncing a religion is not a crime (in my country at least)
Well up that laugh track to 11 when you hear what islam thinks about that last part
Yeah, I know such cases exists.
As for religion you have the choice to follow it or not, and following it comes with the burden of wearing certain things but you can choose to not follow that religion whenever you want if you want to dress differently. In a public school you should be able to choose what you wear, because you pretty much have to go to school.
You can stop following it whenever you want?
You realise that we’re talking about kids here, right?
I agree with this. But my girlfriend would certainly not. We’re in France and yet the pressure of her family on religion makes it that even on point she doesn’t care much about, there is so much behind her that it’s a real real pressure to respect the religion, which is hard to sometimes imagine, and to me an atheist seems ridiculous, you should make your own choices, well, for her, simply because of the people she is with. Not following certain religious rules can cost her a lot. Economically or Mentally for exemple
No, it those shouldn’t either. Which is why I’m conflicted here.
I’m playing Devil’s advocate honestly. I’m much more comfortable with Quebec’s take than France’s (which is similar but one step above, in Quebec it only applies to government employees in a position of authority)
At this point they should just mandate school uniform.
I’m not against it, honestly. I have seen the pros and cons of each. We had a loose dress code at my school but no uniforms, and style of dress certainly became one mode of division among students. Rich kids, poor kids, athletes, nerds, etc. were all separated by dress.
I’m not the biggest fan of conformity, but uniform dress codes allow the students to basically be at a level playing field as far as visual expression goes. I’ve worked in schools with uniforms and the students there seem to prefer not having to put any thought into what they wear.
What’s your thought on school’s uniform?
I never felt like there was much of a point for them. It was annoying for my family because we always had to buy specific clothes for school
The whole point nowadays is to stop kids being bullied for not being able to afford the “right” clothes; that’s part of the point of this law too
Prevention of tribes is the best benefit imo. I remember on school there were a number of ethnic/cultural groups that didn’t socialize with people out of their group. I don’t believe that fosters a healthy community, and behaviors or symbolic garments to identify you as a member of a group reinforce those group identities instead of all being human beings.
The especially dumb part of this is that abayas aren’t specifically Muslim or religious in nature, they’re cultural. They are a long flowing dress, without even a head covering. A bunch of non-Islamic women wear them in a variety of countries.
So this is more attempting to ban entire cultural outfits, which is ridiculous.
You forgot to mention that the abaya is compulsory in Saudi Arabia (except for tourists) and Qatar.
And that’s bad. Can we agree that making a dress compulsory and making a dress banned are both bad, because they both restrict choice?
I agree let’s promote shorty and crop top in Quatar.
deleted by creator
Saudi Arabia overturned that requirement in 2019, so you’re quite a few years out of date. It is required in Qatar though, yes.
For context, the French are very strict about any form of symbol on what students wear. I couldn’t even wear a baseball cap with a team logo and that’s not religious.
Lol what the only reason they could prevent you from wearing a cap is because it’s considered ‘rude’ to keep your hat inside classroom. A private school can do whatever they want and force student to wear uniforme but in public school you can wear whatever you want except specific banned religious symbole (cross, kippa, headscarf etc…)
They just want to have a rule that doesn’t discriminate against any specific religion. Public schools have whatever rules the Government has elected. We had a weird mix between the local Government rules (mandatory uniform) plus the French public school rules (no outer religious symbols).
It’s ridiculous either way
I am mildly in favor of that. Kids can’t decide what to wear it’s their parents who do.
This will simply reduce the artificial divide between those wear that type of stuff and who doesn’t.
I also don’t believe it’s a freedom endangering, because they’re aren’t spontaneously people wearing abayas or burka or whatever just for the pleasure of it, I interpret the fact of wearing it as religious propaganda and artificial separation.
Nah, girls just won’t be sent to schools.
This will be “the last straw” for many of their fathers.
Some will go, and their parents will begrudgingly accept (or turn a blind eye to their daughter dressing down as soon as she’s near school.). The majority reaction will be similar to what you see in other nations that don’t respect women enough to let them keep their autonomy.
That’ll get the fathers at least 6 months in prison in France, probably more for negligence etc.
And homeschooling requires a very good reason why they can’t go to school (pretty much always a health condition, and that needs proof) there are annual inspections and every other year the reason for homeschooling is verified.
Just not sending the children isn’t an option in pretty much every place in Europe
I don’t know the law in France, but I’d worry it’ll cause religious parents to just keep their kids out of state school and do some form of private religious education, causing a greater divide. The best counter to these attitudes is exposure to diversity and other viewpoints. Maybe the kids going to school and seeing that there are other ways is better.
“Maybe the kids going to school and seeing there are other ways is better”. Yeah, but they aren’t the ones deciding how they dress. They parents are the ones that do.
Of course. And if the parents dress them in that and keep them isolated the kids will pass that on to the next generation. If the kids go to school and see there are other options, maybe they’ll choose to be different when they’re independent or raise their kids differently. This is why cults always seek to isolate their members – exposure to diversity breaks the cycle.
I agree.
can you explain why other people wearing culturally traditional clothing is “religious propaganda and artificial separation”? do you feel this way about other traditional garb, or is it just the scary muslims?
Yes i can explain. Literally nobody else does it. And if someone would, then my position will be the same: wear regular clothes in public institutions.
i think enforcing the local culture by telling women what they can and cannot wear is bad, actually
can you explain why you disagree with that stance
we are talking about underage girls here, not exactly adult “women” so I reject the idea that those girls could choose/buy their outfit. Regardless, I disagree because:
-
- We are choosing between either parents imposing a robe, or the state imposing a robe; wearing that robe would clearly differentiate the ethnicity/religious background of the pupil, while wearing regular “whatever everyone else is wearing” would help the integration and erase the boundaries. Note that parents cannot just withdraw the kid out of school, so they have to integrate; private education is almost never an option
-
- It avoids the whole can of worms like “professor didn’t like my muslim robe, that’s why I got bad grades”
-
- Personal take: I HATE religion. Yes, churches too, I have enough hate for every religious nut out there. And no need to tell me “abaya is not a religious dress”, who are you fooling.
Ideally, I agree, State should just fuck up and let people live. But that’s not taking into account any local context, and nobody lives in a vacuum, people live in some particular society. As an immigrant myself, I do think that it’s best for foreigners to integrate to host country as much as possible.
-
What about the Jews and their Yamakas? The Catholics and their Rosary? Other religions have certain dress codes and accessories, too. They are just not always a full body covering.
I would hope that schools in France ban other religious items like those if they are banning Muslim clothing and accessories.
They are actually. That’s literally said: “no religious symbols in school”.
That’s good then I see no problem as long as the rule is enforced equally. Religion has no place in schools, unless it’s history class.
Best comment.
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.
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
I don’t think you understand what fascism is.
Have you ever lived in France?
Oui ça fait 20 ans que j’y suis, indeed
That made me laugh
Un bon petit enfant de Petain
Où ?
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.
“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.
deleted by creator
Removed by mod
deleted by creator
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.
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.
Removed by mod
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.
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 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!
“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
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.
Yeah I agree with you. It’s one thing to say the school can’t promote a religious creed to the pupils, it is another to limit self-expression of dress when it doesn’t impact other students
French secularism is way different than what americans have, it is pretty unique. Remember it
Really? What’s it like?
deleted by creator
The US over here was supposed to be that way, with the separation of church and state.
As you have likely seen—due to the ceaseless amount of news about the US everywhere—that is a fucking joke now. Our country is overridden by the devils evangelical spawn.
deleted by creator
The idea was that they stay out of politics, the government stays out of religion, because that’s mutually beneficial.
Now they’re on the cusp of reaping what they’ve sowed with the unholy evangelical alliance. People aren’t interested in churches anymore and young people especially. Republicans are one election away from nonviability for president (knock on wood, and please let it be the election in 2024). Young people fucking loathe Republicans and evangelicals.
Are there young people still casting their lot with them? Absolutely. But the proportional difference is disastrous in politics. Even a 45-55 split is massive, and millennials and Zoomers are certainly more than that on Republicans.
So what is the solution for religious families then? Are they forced to private institutions/homeschool?
deleted by creator
I’m interested to know if there’s any kind of religious education in the French school system?
In the UK I was in a CofE school (Christian) but our Religious Education classes taught about all religions pretty equally.
Removed by mod
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.
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.
I honestly don’t understand the contradicting argument of “there should be no religious symbol in a state school, if you want that go to a religious school” and “no religious symbols allowed will set them free”.
Surely if you are funneling all of these kids into religious schools and away from the state system, you’re going to entrench them in that religion further, not “set them free”. It just serves to divide kids even more than if you allowed them all the freedom to mingle in the same school with all their religious garb.
The people here do not represent what the world outside looks like and anonymity emboldens extreme views.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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
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.
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
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.
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.
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?
-
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.
I would encourage you to research how Madrasas work so that we can have a more informed discussion. Homeschooling/private schooling, or any other alternative schooling’s curriculum isn’t likely going to have the same amount of oversight as a state’s education system. Because of this notion alone, alternative education systems are more prone to spreading misinformed ideas and/or ideas with a certain slant to them.
By forcing parents to pull out of a more secular system because of stupid ideas such as these, you are automatically predisposing their children to such issues, which is why I stated what I stated and there’s plenty of material a google search away to back this up along with news/articles covering problems with integration.
.1) Nobody is being “forced” out, they choose to, 2) and home schooling is a thing EVERYWHERE, 3) extremism is a thing EVERYWHERE and usually not during a child’s education but later in life. Most extremists are in fact just losers - petty criminals, drug addicts, social misfits etc. who get sent to prison or who join forums and are groomed and radicalised. Across the pond in the UK with no laicite and you will still have extremists. In virtually every case they were groomed after the fact.
Laicite is not the cause of this, although a child’s upbringing, or lack thereof, does have some bearing. The majority of parents, regardless of religion are not fundamentalists, let alone extremists, and will sensibly choose to send their kids to a state school or private school. I daresay the vast majority of Christians, Muslims, Hindus, Jews and every other denomination in France are more than happy to send kids to a state school. I daresay the majority of people in France after a generation or two don’t even have an objection to this arrangement and consider it normal.
This is not freedom.
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.
I get the reasoning, but really it feels like papering over cracks rather than addressing the root cause.
Set up proper support structures to prevent people from being coerced into things they don’t want to, make sure people are given places to get away from controlling people and exposed to the fact that things don’t have to be like that.
The best cure for religion is Education and Opportunities to fully integrate in the wider society.
So France needs to invest into giving the kids in even the baundelieres (the poor neighbourhoods around the major cities) as much Education and as many Opportunities as possible and most will naturally drift away from the snake oil which is religion.
You see the single biggest mechanic of racial descrimination (not just in France) is poverty: those kids from low education hence low income immigrant parents - who lack the education (hence the income) because they hail from countries with worse Education systems - are stuck in high crime low opportunity ghettos with much lower lifetime opportunities than the rest, impacted by poverty every day of their lifes (outright racism comes as events, poverty is every waking hour of every day) for the “crime” of having popped out of the “wrong” vagina.
Some manage to come out of this, but theirs is a much taller ladder to climb so their chances of reaching a good life are less than most.
The thing is, genuinelly flattenning the playing field (which, beyond the massive boost to average quality of life, would have the minor side effect of most of the next generation leaving the claws of religion) would cost lots of money and there’s no will in France to have people like the wealthiest man and woman in Europe (both of which live there) and their circle of friends part with a small fractionof their wealth to make it possible: hard-right neoliberal with authoritarian streak Macron would never do even the mildest of wealth redistributions (as it would impact his mates and his clients) so instead out comes another “let’s force them to not look ‘wrong’” authoritarian “solution”.
If you pardon my french (hehe!), this shit is all related and all boils down to how society is structured to help a few prey on the many resulting in massive inequality in access to resources and opportunities and constant, relentless discrimination on the basis of wealth, all of which then causes all sorts of “secondary” issues which are then papered over using the cheapest method there is to cover it up: abusing the Law and Legal Violence to coerce the most powerless of all to “keep up appearances”.
Compared to the US, France has massive taxes and wealth redistribution. You actually have an estate/inheritance tax that captures tax not only from the inheritance but from gifts made during the lifetime of the deceased. You have universal healthcare. You also have a massive influx of immigrants, not all of them from former French colonies, many of whom don’t give a fuck about France’s highly valued secularism and other cultural values. You don’t come to a France looking for a better life and simultaneously demand that France make an exception for you to allow the offensive visible symbolic separation of women from society because your religion/culture demands it. It is entitled in the extreme that people want to make France like the country they fled.
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.
Can’t just let women wear what they want. Clearly lacking a penis makes them incapable of deciding what clothes to wear.
It s not only female its everyone . No one can were religion cloth. That just normal you are in a public place .
Except this kind of outfit is not religious at all. Abaya is basically just a dress which can be worn by anyone regardless their religion, unlike burqa and hijab. It’s like banning sari because Hindus women wear them, even though it’s not a religious cloth.
The goal here is to ban religious symbol, right? Not outright banning anything related to middle-eastern culture? Surely there is a reasonable middle ground between banning religious symbols and banning the entire ethnic culture.
That’s not how it’s actually enforced. This is making new laws and regulations picking on a minority.
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.
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.
