this post was submitted on 05 Sep 2023
270 points (100.0% liked)

World News

1034 readers
33 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 72 points 1 year ago (1 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.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Wahots@pawb.social 54 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 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 18 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 13 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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

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

[–] maporita@unilem.org 5 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Then they should move elsewhere. When you immigrate to a country it's on you to conform. I as a gay man would never consider moving to a Muslim country where my lifestyle is rejected. If otters feel their values don't align with secularism then don't come here.

[–] ExLisper@linux.community 10 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Yes, they should but relocating is expensive and after couple of decades of discrimination most of them are not very rich. France brought them from their colonies (not literally of course they they put their immigration policy in place because they actually wanted immigrants) and then bocked all opportunities from them. Now they are shocked that migrants are not happy living as second class citizens...

[–] Obi@sopuli.xyz 5 points 1 year ago

Can't disagree there...

[–] 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

[–] Schlemmy@lemmy.ml 51 points 1 year ago (2 children)

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

[–] ParsnipWitch@feddit.de 7 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 5 points 1 year ago

Make proper education mandatory

[–] some_guy@lemmy.sdf.org 41 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 33 points 1 year ago (2 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.

[–] packadal 8 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 5 points 1 year ago (2 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.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] some_guy@lemmy.sdf.org 7 points 1 year ago

I support a ban on cowboy boots, too.

[–] Cethin@lemmy.zip 29 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 26 points 1 year ago (1 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 15 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 18 points 1 year ago

The goal is to replace religion with nationalism

It really isn't, though?

[–] some_guy@lemmy.sdf.org 11 points 1 year ago

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.

[–] Armen12@lemm.ee 33 points 1 year ago (5 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 (5 replies)
[–] gnuhaut@lemmy.ml 30 points 1 year ago (1 children)

New criminal offense: Learning while Muslim.

[–] qyron@sopuli.xyz 18 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Only that is not.

Crucifixes and other outter religious symbols are facing the same restriction.

For what reason a particular creed holds such tight restrictions on what garments are considered adequate over others evades.

This is a quite harsh way to impose a rule but it is a fair one. No one is being denied education. This is "keep your beliefs to yourself and do not impose it onto others".

[–] tryptaminev@feddit.de 12 points 1 year ago (4 children)

the Abaya is just a long wide cut dress. They are banning girls from wearing long dresses, because these are popular with muslims. If the girls decide to wear hoodies now to be conservative about what they show of their body it would need to be banned by that logic too. Basically anything that is not skin tight hot pants and crop tops should be banned because it might be worn by muslim girls to adhere to their religious values.

This ruling has nothing to do with actual secular values. It is just to discriminate against muslim children.

[–] qyron@sopuli.xyz 5 points 1 year ago

Tailored to specifications dictated by an unquestionable authority or are the abaya user free to order the garment to be tailored to their personal specific taste?

Because to what I can gather it is supposed to be used as a form to preserve modesty, which implies simplicity and discretion.

Flowing, straight cut dresses are not exclusive to the muslim world.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] gnuhaut@lemmy.ml 9 points 1 year ago (1 children)

"Ackshually, technically, totally fair." This clearly only affects this one group of people in practice. The law was obviously made to garner the bigot vote and distract from the incredibly unpopular shit this government is pulling. This "technically" shit is only deflection. I mean it works great on people who are Islamophobic but don't actually want to admit that to themselves. Plausible deniability.

impose it onto others

How are these children "imposing" anything onto others? You see one abaya, and now you're forced to accept Mohammed as your prophet? Do you know what "impose" means? You used it correctly just two sentences before that.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Anonbal185@aussie.zone 24 points 1 year ago (1 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 17 points 1 year ago

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.

[–] cyclohexane@lemmy.ml 23 points 1 year ago (2 children)

As someone who comes from Muslim upbringing, I am 100% against face veils and abayas. But this is very clearly racist. Those girls are the victims, so why punish them even further? France is such a fascist place.

[–] luk3th3dud3@feddit.de 10 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Clearly not racist. Same rules for everyone.

[–] gnuhaut@lemmy.ml 12 points 1 year ago (3 children)

Weird how in practice this seems to only affect one group of people. Weird how all the bigots seem love this. But this couldn't be the reason for this, could it? Who would ever try to exploit the widespread Islamophobia in France to gain popularity and distract from real problems?

[–] luk3th3dud3@feddit.de 6 points 1 year ago (1 children)

From what I understand, this affects everyone. All religious symbols are banned from school. I do not know what the rest of your murmuring has to do with the specific topic.

[–] tryptaminev@feddit.de 6 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

because the Abaya is not a religious symbol. It is a long dress that is worn for religious reasons, in this case to not reveal too much of the body. So if they want to ban this religious "symbol" then they need to ban all clothes that arent very revealing.

[–] luk3th3dud3@feddit.de 5 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Yes of course, it is just a piece of clothing. A piece of clothing that women are forced to wear in public in the women's rights loving state of saudi arabia. It is not about very revealing clothing, you are intentionally missing the point here. It is specifically about this piece of religious clothing.

[–] tryptaminev@feddit.de 9 points 1 year ago

You are wrong. There is no forcing of women to wear an abaya in saudi arabia. they are forced to wear clothes that arent revealing, but it is not specific to this kind of clothing.

Also it is a weird flex to say that it is good to force women to wear certain clothing because saudi arabia forces them to wear different clothing. You still end up forcing women to wear or not to wear certain things, taking away their liberty.

Again it is not a religious symbol because it is not defined by the religion, unlike the robe of a priest, the cross or the head scarf.

If you want to ban the underlying "symbol" of not wearing revealing clothing, youd need to ban all clothing that does that and not just the abaya. But they wont do that because they are bigoted hypocrites.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] Honytawk@lemmy.zip 8 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Please learn what fascism means.

And racism while you are at it.

[–] cyclohexane@lemmy.ml 5 points 1 year ago

Thanks for the recommendation, but I already know.

[–] Vree@feddit.de 16 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…

Who should respect who?

  • Girls with abayas should respect local culture and not wear them.
  • Locals should respect girls with abayas and let them wear them.
  • Locals should respect girls with abayas and every girl should wear it.
[–] Hawk@lemmy.dbzer0.com 10 points 1 year ago

All the students should start wearing abayas.

It will entirely break down the argument that it's a religious symbol.

While secularism is important for the school as an official institution, the fact that this applies to private persons is absolutely dumb.

[–] Gsus4@feddit.nl 10 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

After looking at what an abaya is and understanding some of the overt and covert reasons for doing this and the reaction, the cool solution would be if abayas (they're really just a loose dress) started to be marketed at everyone, so that anyone could wear them and end this stupid debacle. What do people wear in the west if they don't want people to look at their "curves" anyway? Huge market gap, right there. Or maybe instead of abayas they'll start wearing long trench coats to school, lol.

PS: meanwhile, in SA: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-saudi-women-socialmedia-idUSKCN1NL2A1

[–] Armen12@lemm.ee 10 points 1 year ago (1 children)

"Women in Saudi Arabia have for decades been required to wear the abaya - a loose, all-covering robe - in public, a dress code strictly enforced by police."

And there are still people in here defending this lol

[–] Flyswat@lemmy.dbzer0.com 10 points 1 year ago (2 children)

People are oppressed in that part of the world, let's oppress the ones in our country with the opposite this way they are more free!

[–] neshura@bookwormstory.social 7 points 1 year ago

From personal experience with people whose parents are Muslim: a lot of those kids aren't wearing this out of their own free will.

I understand how this is controversial but I think it is absolutely necessary. Parents have no right to force their religion on their kids and unless there are laws against it those kids will not have any second of time free from that oppression. And before you claim hypocrisy: The same goes for Christianity and any of its bullshit like crosses everywhere.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] MEtrINeS@lemmy.dbzer0.com 7 points 1 year ago

Good! The rules are for everybody. Freedom from religion!

load more comments
view more: next ›