537

France to ban female students from wearing abayas in state schools (www.bbc.com)

submitted 1 year ago by MicroWave@lemmy.world to c/world@lemmy.world

460 comments fedilink hide all child comments

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.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[-] mycroft@lemmy.world 45 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

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.

https://www.gouvernement.fr/sites/default/files/contenu/piece-jointe/2017/02/libertes_et_interdits_eng.pdf

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.

[-] TGhost@lemmy.ml 9 points 1 year ago

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.

[-] JoBo@feddit.uk 7 points 1 year ago

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.

[-] assassin_aragorn@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago

No religion can impose its prescriptions on the Republic. No religious principle can be invoked for disobeying the law.

I don't see how wearing cultural clothing would be imposing anything. I have Indian heritage -- would I be banned from wearing punjabis in public, despite it having no religious bearing at all?

[-] ClumZy@sh.itjust.works 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

You're not from the religion that has been plaguing the country with terrorism for years, that's the difference. I know it's cultural, but we have history. Something like 2 years ago a teacher got beheaded. Since then we're seeing lots of "cultural expression" in schools. This is not the french way. In France you act like French, period.

[-] assassin_aragorn@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

I was unaware that everyone from that religion was a terrorist and supported that beheading. The cornerstone of liberty and democracy relies on not judging people by their heritage, culture, nor religion. It's unconscionable to persecute by association.

All this will do is create more tension and resentment. It isn't how you end terrorism. It's how you create it. If you want to maintain a philosophy of "in France you act French", so be it. But recognize in doing so, you're adopting the same way of thinking as America's conservatives. And that should give you significant pause.

[-] Lols@lemm.ee -1 points 1 year ago

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

[-] bouh@lemmy.world -3 points 1 year ago

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.

[-] kSPvhmTOlwvMd7Y7E@lemmy.world 6 points 1 year ago

Lol sorry but could only laugh on "turning atheism into oppressive religion"..

[-] x4740N@lemmy.world -3 points 1 year ago

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

[-] kSPvhmTOlwvMd7Y7E@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

I understand you lack arguments, but wow

this post was submitted on 28 Aug 2023

537 points (97.2% liked)

World News

39153 readers

2907 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

Rule 1: posts have the following requirements:
- Post news articles only
- Video links are NOT articles and will be removed.
- Title must match the article headline
- Not United States Internal News
- Recent (Past 30 Days)
- Screenshots/links to other social media sites (Twitter/X/Facebook/Youtube/reddit, etc.) are explicitly forbidden, as are link shorteners.
Rule 2: Do not copy the entire article into your post. The key points in 1-2 paragraphs is allowed (even encouraged!), but large segments of articles posted in the body will result in the post being removed. If you have to stop and think "Is this fair use?", it probably isn't. Archive links, especially the ones created on link submission, are absolutely allowed but those that avoid paywalls are not.
Rule 3: Opinions articles, or Articles based on misinformation/propaganda may be removed. Sources that have a Low or Very Low factual reporting rating or MBFC Credibility Rating may be removed.
Rule 4: Posts or comments that are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, anti-religious, or ableist will be removed. “Ironic” prejudice is just prejudiced.
Posts and comments must abide by the lemmy.world terms of service UPDATED AS OF 10/19
Rule 5: Keep it civil. It's OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It's NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.

Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.

Rule 6: Memes, spam, other low effort posting, reposts, misinformation, advocating violence, off-topic, trolling, offensive, regarding the moderators or meta in content may be removed at any time.
Rule 7: We didn't USED to need a rule about how many posts one could make in a day, then someone posted NINETEEN articles in a single day. Not comments, FULL ARTICLES. If you're posting more than say, 10 or so, consider going outside and touching grass. We reserve the right to limit over-posting so a single user does not dominate the front page.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.