The education minister says female Muslim students will not be allowed to wear the loose-fitting robe.

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.

  • EvilHaitianEatingYourCat@lemmy.worldEnglish
    2·
    1 year ago

    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.

    • generalpotato@lemmy.worldEnglish
      1·
      1 year ago

      Yes, we’ve established what ostracizing means. If anybody seems to be jumping through hoops to prove that this law, that target religious minorities isn’t targeted at religious minorities, is you. You shouldn’t have to force (or make them) “blend”. If there’s force or a mandate involved, then it’s already not the best path to freedom of expression and identity.

      There’s no such thing as a “secular dress” because people in a truly secular society, can come from different (incl non western) backgrounds and can choose to wear whatever they want. Therefore, you either don’t claim freedom of expression or identity or you accept that this is a targeted law aimed at a minority group in the name of “secularism” and is no different than the Taliban mandating face-covering like somebody else stated in these discussions. This just happens to be on the other end of the spectrum.

      • EvilHaitianEatingYourCat@lemmy.worldEnglish
        1·
        1 year ago

        Oh finally some arguments!

        • I am not jumping, i know who it is targeting, and i never said opposite. I also agree it’s definitely strictly more freedom-restrictive, but i also believe this is a good thing in this context. I might be wrong, that’s why I said " mildly in favor" of that law. France is known to impose French language on minorities (bretons, occitans etc…) in the name of national unity, and this law follows in the same directon, (but thankfully doesn’t forbid a language lol which I would definitely be against)
        • It is absolutely different from Talibans, and that’s not even debatable. One is imposing 1 dress on everyone forbidding everything else, the other is excluding 1 particular dress, allowing anything else. One is making women stand out and look the same, the other blends them and allows for self expression (in the defined limits). There is plenty of room to choose a dress style.
        • Integrating into host culture is good thing. Yes, that means, at some point, making different choices, looking different, and faking amusement for pointless holidays.
        • Bonus point: there won’t be a way to discriminate pupils based on their look, no more “I got a bad grade because teacher didn’t like my national dress”. I hear you say “well that won’t stop the discrimination”, and I agree, people will discriminate on anything from hair color to one’s accent; but that’s one possible discrimination less