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.
Is condemning one thing endorsing another? Do two things wrongs make a right?
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.
Choose their own path by checks notes telling them what they can’t wear.
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.
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 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)
Yes. France is extremely militant about keeping religion and state separate. That extends to state institutions like state schools.
fuck off. no family has every stoned their wife, sister, or mother to death, for not wearaing a bikini
Neither have these families I would imagine. How common is that in France?
Well, that’s called an honor killing. For a start, This article defines that concept in detail (which I tell you to forewarn that I’m immune to sealioning about the definition), has tables of trends, and has credible sources at the bottom. Honor killings, also known as shame killings, have attracted the attention of the EU as a major issue to be solved as a consequence of their spread. I can’t find a lot of data related to France specifically, but I do know the French consider their country to have a Femicide problem in general, and it’s reasonable to expect that if the total number of women being murdered is on the rise, the raw number of honor killings is climbing even if the proportion remains fixed.
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
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.
Yup. I’m thankful for school uniforms. I came from a poor family and being mocked for wearing cheap clothes would’ve been awful, I was already ridiculed enough for my background as-is.
Personally I’m with France on this one.
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.
But religion and family should? 🤔
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.
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)
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.
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
You can stop following it whenever you want?
You realise that we’re talking about kids here, right?
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.
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).
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.
It’s ridiculous either way
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.
24:31
And tell the believing women to lower their gaze and guard their chastity, and not to reveal their adornments1 except what normally appears.2
This verse has been traditionally used by Muslims to enforce social norms or laws to prevent women from showing their hair. When there’s a religious enforcement to hide your hair, clothes that hide hair become part of the religious liturgy.
Hair covering is an Abrahamic thing. But abayas are not hair covering so what the fuck are you on about?
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
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
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 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 to fight communitarianism, which is viewed here as a threat to society.
Pretty progressive. Nice.
The bread
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.
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.
So violate their faith for school? That’s not an ideal solution
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 honestly. As much as we’ve struggled with developing and even enforcing it today, I think America has a good balance between freedom to practice and freedom from state sponsored religion
Probably not the best moment in that country’s history to make that claim
This term, the Supreme Court decided two cases involving religion: Groff v. DeJoy was a relatively low-profile case about religious accommodations at work; 303 Creative v. Elenis was a blockbuster case about the clash between religious exercise and principles of equal treatment. (The legal question was technically about speech, but religion was at the core of the dispute.)
In both cases, plaintiffs asserted religiously grounded objections to complying with longstanding and well-settled laws or rules that would otherwise apply to them. And in both, the court handed the plaintiff a resounding victory.
These cases are the latest examples of a striking long-term trend: Especially since Amy Coney Barrett became a justice in 2020, the court has taken a sledgehammer to a set of practices and compromises that have been carefully forged over decades to balance religious freedom with other important — and sometimes countervailing — principles.
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.
Religion has no place in the modern world.
The people here do not represent what the world outside looks like and anonymity emboldens extreme views.
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.
So while it might suck for you, your grandchildren will be better off because they’re not losing anything.
France has a strict ban on religious signs in state schools and government buildings, arguing that they violate secular laws.
Is this a case of being lost in translation or something? I wouldn’t consider religious garb to be a “sign.”
Signs should be better translated to symbols here
Calling clothes a “symbol” of religion is a stretch, too.
A display of religion then? It is meant as anything that could identify you as someone with a certain religion
The real question is: would they stop a kid from wearing a necklace with a cross, for example?
They did in mine. Most of my classmates found it pretty cringe too
Thats interesting. Is that purely from a religious symbol standpoint or is it a jewellery thing too? And cringe that they were banned or that they were worn at all?
deleted by creator
In the UK at my kids school, yes. No jewelry of any kind allowed. Not even studs in newly pierced ears, which is a bit annoying.
I also went to a UK school and there was no jewellery of any kind because it was against uniform policy, not for religious reasons. I was pretty sure there was no problem with religious headgear though, for example Sikh turban wearing.
I was asking about the French public schools as thats what the article was about.
deleted by creator
Yes, obviously in the context of this story. It seems weird to assume otherwise to me
It’s not really obvious, which is why I had to ask. The article focuses on a piece of clothing which isn’t really religiously significant being banned, so I wouldn’t say it’s obvious what falls under the law.
But the reason it was banned was clearly identified as being because it is symbolic of a religion. Based on that, how wouldn’t a cross necklace also qualify?
The same “I know what’s best for them” and “the law applies equally to everyone” arguments in favor of bans on drugs that many in liberal spaces will detest, they will happily use when supporting shit like this. We all know that everyone doesn’t suffer equally under laws like this. Religion may be the opium of the people, but does that mean we should be the narcs? You don’t eradicate religion by banning it. You eradicate it by having secular institutions provide the things people go to religion for, like a sense of purpose, assistance, and community.
Banning something is as opressive as making it mandatory.
Nope. You aren’t allowed to have religious shit on you in general public in france.
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
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.
“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
You know what makes everyone look alike? A niqab.
Someone call the Taliban and let them know they’re defenders of freedom.
LOL
Got em!
lol your argument is dumb sorry You know what else make everyone alike? Plastic surgery. Someone call surgeons
Plastic surgery does not make everyone look alike. That’s a silly thing to say lol
Also you’re missing the highly relevant point that plastic surgery is not compulsory
Well i made a silly argument to show you how I feel about yours lol.
Nobody is imposing a cloth on anyone, and even less a religious one. So you can’t use niqqab in your argument against me because that’s literally what i am against!
You could say for example that’s a cultural thing, and forbidding it would somehow restrict the minority. But then, it’s only public schools, the law doesn’t care (me neither) about adults wearing it outside. (I don’t know why I am arguing with myself on your behalf 🤔)
What it does care about, is to prevent community bubbles forming within groups of children. Which i totally support.
we’re just controlling what communities people are allowed to form. Nothing oppressive
Ok lol
We are controlling what communities ARE NOT allowed to form. Stop negating my points lol
I think some are forgetting, these bans are in schools, outside these schools you can wear whatever you want
I don’t think that makes it any better somehow.
This is not freedom.
Removed by mod
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!
Removed by mod
No.
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.
