this post was submitted on 05 Sep 2023
473 points (96.6% liked)

World News

32523 readers
665 users here now

News from around the world!

Rules:

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Schoolgirls who refused to change out of the loose-fitting robes have been sent home with a letter to parents on secularism.


French public schools have sent dozens of girls home for refusing to remove their abayas – long, loose-fitting robes worn by some Muslim women and girls – on the first day of the school year, according to Education Minister Gabriel Attal.

Defying a ban on the garment seen as a religious symbol, nearly 300 girls showed up on Monday morning wearing abayas, Attal told the BFM broadcaster on Tuesday.

Most agreed to change out of the robe, but 67 refused and were sent home, he said.

The government announced last month it was banning the abaya in schools, saying it broke the rules on secularism in education that have already seen headscarves forbidden on the grounds they constitute a display of religious affiliation.

The move gladdened the political right but the hard left argued it represented an affront to civil liberties.

The 34-year-old minister said the girls refused entry on Monday were given a letter addressed to their families saying that “secularism is not a constraint, it is a liberty”.

If they showed up at school again wearing the gown there would be a “new dialogue”.

He added that he was in favour of trialling school uniforms or a dress code amid the debate over the ban.

Uniforms have not been obligatory in French schools since 1968 but have regularly come back on the political agenda, often pushed by conservative and far-right politicians.

Attal said he would provide a timetable later this year for carrying out a trial run of uniforms with any schools that agree to participate.

“I don’t think that the school uniform is a miracle solution that solves all problems related to harassment, social inequalities or secularism,” he said.

But he added: “We must go through experiments, try things out” in order to promote debate, he said.


‘Worst consequences’

Al Jazeera’s Natacha Butler, reporting from Paris before the ban came into force said Attal deemed the abaya a religious symbol which violates French secularism.

“Since 2004, in France, religious signs and symbols have been banned in schools, including headscarves, kippas and crosses,” she said.

“Gabriel Attal, the education minister, says that no one should walk into a classroom wearing something which could suggest what their religion is.”

On Monday, President Emmanuel Macron defended the controversial measure, saying there was a “minority” in France who “hijack a religion and challenge the republic and secularism”.

He said it leads to the “worst consequences” such as the murder three years ago of teacher Samuel Paty for showing Prophet Muhammad caricatures during a civics education class.

“We cannot act as if the terrorist attack, the murder of Samuel Paty, had not happened,” he said in an interview with the YouTube channel, HugoDecrypte.

An association representing Muslims has filed a motion with the State Council, France’s highest court for complaints against state authorities, for an injunction against the ban on the abaya and the qamis, its equivalent dress for men.

The Action for the Rights of Muslims (ADM) motion is to be examined later on Tuesday.


you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] some_guy@lemmy.sdf.org 53 points 1 year ago (4 children)

“Gabriel Attal, the education minister, says that no one should walk into a classroom wearing something which could suggest what their religion is.”

I was initially torn on this, but as long as it's for all religions, I support it. I firmly believe that I shouldn't know your religion unless I ask. Religion is toxic.

I do think you should have the freedom to wear religious signifiers as an adult. I just don't approve. But I don't want to stop you. Children in school? This is the same (to me) as requiring them to leave their phones at home.

[–] Cethin@lemmy.zip 53 points 1 year ago (1 children)

In the Americas there were schools for native American children where they forced them to dress, eat, speak, and behave "properly" and not practice their religion. The goal was to eliminate their culture and make them homogeneously American or Canadian. (They also killed a fucking ton) This sort of nationalism has generally been looked back on as a mistake and a horrible atrocity. Why should it be acceptable towards other religious groups?

[–] some_guy@lemmy.sdf.org 31 points 1 year ago (3 children)

These kids aren't being taken from their families. They aren't being forced to give up their religion in their homes. These are not the same. This isn't about "other religious groups." It's all religions while at school, and I'm fine with that.

[–] Cethin@lemmy.zip 20 points 1 year ago (2 children)

The goal is to replace religion with nationalism, which isn't an admirable goal. They may not literally say it out loud, but it's pretty obvious.

[–] u_tamtam@programming.dev 23 points 1 year ago

The goal is to replace religion with nationalism

It really isn't, though?

[–] some_guy@lemmy.sdf.org 14 points 1 year ago (4 children)

I'm not in support of nationalism. I don't know if what you said is accurate or not. I simply approve of keeping religion out of schools.

[–] GarbageShoot@hexbear.net 4 points 1 year ago

This is like the democrats who applaud gun control even when it is used with surgical precision to prevent black communities from defending themselves from police violence. "I don't support police violence, I simply approve of gun control".

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[–] Adkml@hexbear.net 45 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (37 children)

I was initially torn on this, but as long as it's for all religions, I support it.

The law, in its majestic equality, forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal their bread

Yea they made it so nobody could wear religious cultural clothes but there's only one religion that includes wearing those clothes as a belief.

Would you also support a policy that nobody named @some_guy should be allowed to talk, no matter who they are.

[–] usernamesaredifficul@hexbear.net 28 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Yea they made it so nobody could wear religious cultural clothes but there's only one religion that includes wearing those clothes as a belief

there are multiple such as Islam and Sikhism to give two examples. This law is just an example of religious persecution against religions that don't fit in with the French idea of which religions a French person should have

[–] Adkml@hexbear.net 24 points 1 year ago

Your right should have said there's multiple religions it was discriminating against just highlighting how it lines up with Frances history of Islamophobia.

[–] nudnyekscentryk@szmer.info 11 points 1 year ago

Yea they made it so nobody could wear religious cultural clothes but there's only one religion that includes wearing those clothes as a belief.

One, this is not true. Two, this includes other symbols like pendants

[–] uralsolo@hexbear.net 9 points 1 year ago

Presumably if a bunch of Mormons or Mennonites or whatever else set up in France and all their kids dressed the same way, the school would step in on that too. Maybe they wouldn't, but then the problem isn't the policy it's biased enforcement.

load more comments (34 replies)
[–] m0darn@lemmy.ca 28 points 1 year ago (4 children)

An Abaya is just a flowing robe.

This ban is like an American school saying you're allowed to wear cowboy hats but not sombreros because sombreros are associated with catholicism, in that they are mostly associated with the culture of a predominately catholic country.

This is like banning kids from wearing rainbows because it signifies their values.

[–] some_guy@lemmy.sdf.org 7 points 1 year ago

I support a ban on cowboy boots, too.

[–] books@lemmy.world 6 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Then what's the big deal? No hats.

[–] m0darn@lemmy.ca 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

The rule isn't no flowing robes.

The rule is "no flowing robes on kids suspected of being muslim".

[–] books@lemmy.world 6 points 1 year ago

So let the french kids who are not muslim, wear these robes and see what happens.

[–] packadal@beehaw.org 6 points 1 year ago (2 children)

I disagree, the Abaya is not just a flowing robe.

It is a garment that is required by the Sharia law (see Saudi Arabia and other Muslim countries where women are not allowed to choose what they wear).

Allowing this is the first step in letting religion in the public schools in France, where it has always been explicitly banned.

And it is very unlike banning rainbows, those are a symbol used to promote acceptance of the diversity of others, something religions struggle with (ever notice how religion is closely tied with extremism?)

Another factor to take into account is that these young girl may be forced by their family to wear such a garment, imposing upon them something they may not be old enough to refuse.

Also, look up the paradox of intolerance, as allowing anyone to do as they please causes the rise of extremism.

[–] ursakhiin@beehaw.org 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

This is a very hyperbolic take on that paradox.

An article of clothing can't be religious on its own. Saudi Arabia may have done the wrong thing by requiring this specific article of clothing but banning it is also bad.

A girl may want to wear a loose fitting dress for any number of reasons. Some people are just more modest than others and that shouldn't be punished.

Looking at abaya online, and as a westerner I actually kinda like the style of them as well. I could see them being work as a strictly fashionable article of clothing.

[–] packadal@beehaw.org 3 points 1 year ago

An article of clothing can't be religious on its own

Really? What about a kippa ? Or a priest's robes ?

The kippa is forbidden in french schools for this very same reason, it signals religion.

Loose fitting dresses are not forbidden, abayas are. They are a specific kind of loose fitting dresses. One that signals religion.

I don't see them working as a fashion article, but that may just be my taste.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] usernamesaredifficul@hexbear.net 23 points 1 year ago (1 children)

as requiring them to leave their phones at home

you can't just leave religion and culture at the door and freedom of conscience isn't a right only adults are entitled to nor is it comparable to playing on your phone

[–] uralsolo@hexbear.net 7 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Are kids meaningfully capable of exercising their freedom of conscience though? I'm not suggesting that every religious parent would kick their children out of the house for not dressing a certain way, but I am saying that every religious parent puts their finger on the scale of their kids' decision. Schools can and should seek to eliminate these kinds of cultural differences within the student body because it teaches kids to segregate themselves, that's why school uniforms are generally a good thing.

[–] usernamesaredifficul@hexbear.net 6 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Are kids meaningfully capable of exercising their freedom of conscience though

arguably not but you could also make that argument in favour of all children being forced to wear islamic dress.

yes religious parents put their finger on the scale of the kids decision but so do non-religious parents with regards to their kids religious views that's just how raising children within a culture works. It's not a lifetime commitment the same freedom of conscience that means they have a right to practice their faith also means they have a right to abandon it if once they are older they change their minds.

ols can and should seek to eliminate these kinds of cultural differences within the student body because it teaches kids to segregate themselves, that's why school uniforms are generally a good thing.

school uniforms are a good thing but exemptions to uniform rules on religious grounds have been a long recorded tradition. When the British forced sepoys to use cartridges that meant they had to partially consume beef and pork fat were the Indians wrong to compain or were the British merely removing cultural differences between the Muslims, Hindus, and British.