this post was submitted on 05 Sep 2023
421 points (96.3% liked)

World News

32286 readers
861 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.


top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Hyperreality@kbin.social 111 points 1 year ago (30 children)

For those who don't get this, 'Laïcité' is what the French call the secularism which is part of their constitution.

Plenty are as serious about it, as many in the US are about free speech or the right to own a gun.

Obviously this is also in part a more recent phenomenon. France has a large Muslim population and laïcité is arguably interpreted more strictly by those who wish to combat the influence of Islam on French mainstream culture.

[–] Kecessa@sh.itjust.works 55 points 1 year ago (17 children)

In Quebec we usually have to explain the difference between secularism and laïcité by mentioning that secularism is the separation of church and State by accommodating all religions equally while laïcité is the separation of church and State by excluding religion from the public domain. Quebec's take on laïcité is more relaxed than France's.

[–] SkepticalButOpenMinded@lemmy.ca 12 points 1 year ago (5 children)

I think what’s so annoying about these laws is that they go à contresens, by strengthening religion in civic life. These girls are now forced to go to religious schools if they want to continue wearing their harmless cultural dress. In fact, religious schools have exploded in population since the laws on laïcité have passed in France. Many of those girls would have otherwise integrated into French society and become bored of religion, just like Catholic children do, if they went to a normal school. I remember listening to a French philosopher on a debate program say “Seuls les pays qui ont interdit le port du voile ont fini par l'imposer”. I don’t know if that’s literally true, but I think banning makes many muslims feel defiant and more passionate about their religious identity.

It’s especially galling in Canada, which has one of the most well-integrated and moderate Muslim minority populations in the world. A law like this is actively harmful to the goal of lessening “la pertinence de la religion dans la vie civile”. It goes against its own goals, to solve a problem that doesn’t exist.

load more comments (5 replies)
load more comments (16 replies)
load more comments (29 replies)
[–] Wahots@pawb.social 67 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (3 children)

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

I agree with it, not in the "hah, we are dunking on minorities" way, but just because I'm personally so sick of religion being a part of every waking moment of life and being used as a cudgel to influence public policy, media, and what choices people can make when it comes to important personal choices, such as healthcare. Of course, this is being viewed through my American lens, but we've seen similar erosions in public institutions due to so-called "religious rights" despite being a secular country. While France's version is fairly blunt, it seeks to normalize and equalize everyone, which I think is a decent goal.

If it wasn't religion, I'm positive it would be something else. But I think it's very healthy to maintain separation of religion while at public institutions, particularly in a world where religious extremism is on the rise.

[–] bane_killgrind@kbin.social 24 points 1 year ago (2 children)

France is fairly blunt in most ways.

When you come to live in France, you are french. If you don't consider yourself french, you are just a tourist.

This is my interpretation of the attitude my French friends have.

[–] ExLisper@linux.community 14 points 1 year ago (4 children)

When you come to live in France, you are french.

I don't think that's how most of the immigrants feel.

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] tryptaminev@feddit.de 8 points 1 year ago

lol no. Youre french when they can put you on a pedestal for how becoming french has helped you achieve something. But god forbid you do something that is not considered favorable by the french. Then you are an immigrant and you being an immigrant is the cause of all

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] some_guy@lemmy.sdf.org 52 points 1 year ago (2 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.

[–] m0darn@lemmy.ca 29 points 1 year ago (9 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.

load more comments (8 replies)
[–] Cethin@lemmy.zip 23 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 27 points 1 year ago (8 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.

load more comments (8 replies)
[–] Schlemmy@lemmy.ml 42 points 1 year ago (17 children)

Yes, let's exempt them from proper education. That'll solve the problem.

[–] ParsnipWitch@feddit.de 13 points 1 year ago (2 children)

They aren't exempt from education, school is mandatory in France. It's their parents who will get into trouble.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] RaivoKulli@sopuli.xyz 8 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Make proper education mandatory

load more comments (15 replies)
[–] Anamnesis@lemmy.world 34 points 1 year ago (3 children)

People should be allowed to wear what they want. That said, nobody should voluntarily wear these terrible symbols of sexism and oppression. The literal religious purpose of the abaya and even the hijab is to promote modesty, with the rationale that men can't control themselves and it's women's responsibility to do that for them. Fuck that message and fuck the ideology that it perpetuates.

[–] electrogamerman@lemmy.world 12 points 1 year ago (2 children)

This is exactly the problem. If men had to cover their bodies, I wouldnt mind it, but because only women have to cover their bodies, it is sexist.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[–] Armen12@lemm.ee 25 points 1 year ago (10 children)

I don't want religion in schools, outside that, you're still free to practice what you want, but keep religion out of education. France got this one right

load more comments (10 replies)
[–] Etterra@lemmy.world 21 points 1 year ago (4 children)

How much of human stupidity can be boiled down to "I don't like you wearing a silly hat," I wonder.

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] Vree@feddit.de 18 points 1 year ago

Those girls get pressured by their family and then pressured again in school/work. They have to wear it but also mustn’t…

[–] Anonbal185@aussie.zone 7 points 1 year ago (7 children)

It's France they're very xenophobic. Just look at how they treat the Corsicans, Brentons, Basques and Catalans.

Night and day to even a few hundred metres across the road in Spain or Andorra.

[–] echodot@feddit.uk 16 points 1 year ago (2 children)

I'm not saying France isn't racist because they absolutely are but this doesn't seem like that this seems like applying the same rules to everyone equally.

Just going by the article.

[–] pankkake@lemmy.world 9 points 1 year ago

this seems like applying the same rules to everyone equally

Though it can seem fair, applying the same rules to everyone equally can be very racist.

[–] Pipoca@lemmy.world 7 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (3 children)

A law that requires everyone to eat bacon would apply to everyone equally, but it's still antisemitic and islamophobic.

[–] variaatio@sopuli.xyz 7 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (3 children)

However I would note... France has rule about no crosses or cross wearing in schools. So it isn't like Islam is being singled out. Well this specific rule is about them, but France has very wide rule of "no religious clothing, items or symbols" in school and they don't much pick sides. Jewish kids... No kippas, Protestants and Catholics, no crosses, Muslims, no head scrafs, no face veils, no religious robes. Sikhs, no turbans.

So it isn't xenophobic, since the local majority religion is also under rules of "no religious symbols wearing".

What one can say is, that it is highly anti-religious. However that isn't same thing as xenophobic or say specifically antisemitic or islamophobic. Islamophobic would be "Muslim girls aren't allowed to wear scarfs, but it's okay for catholic girls to wear crosses".

French government "doesn't like" the local traditional majority religion either.

One absolutely can argue about "is it too much restriction of religious liberty in general", however one can't argue "well but this is about jews or muslims". It isn't. This specific rule about abayas is mostly a technocratic decision based on wider political decision of "we have principle of no religious displays in school". It was decided "oh yeah, we missed this one religious clothing wearing/display. Add it to the long list of specified banned religious displays of all kinds".

I'm sure, if member of the church of the flying spaghetti monster tried to walk to French school with colander on their head, the courts would rule "no colander hats either, that is religious display also. You can go join the Jewish and Sikhs on the club house of "France banned our religious hat" club.

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (6 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›