this post was submitted on 05 Sep 2023
478 points (96.7% liked)

World News

32315 readers
1014 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
[–] usernamesaredifficul@hexbear.net 15 points 1 year ago (2 children)

you can't have secularism that bans religion

[–] AOCapitulator@hexbear.net 7 points 1 year ago (1 children)
[–] usernamesaredifficul@hexbear.net 10 points 1 year ago (1 children)

secularism means the state not involving itself in matters of religion. Banning a religion is the state involving itself in matters of religion and therefore definitionally not secular

also it's a violation of human rights and just a terrible idea as you can't effectively ban a religion the outside pressure tends to make religious groups more insular and can even deepen faith especially in abrahamic religions which have doctrines about martyrdom and oppression

[–] uralsolo@hexbear.net 0 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

I would argue that indoctrinating a child into wearing religious dress is a violation of that child's human rights and that they should be protected from it by the state.

[–] Farman@hexbear.net 6 points 1 year ago

More so than forcing children to strip?

[–] usernamesaredifficul@hexbear.net 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

all cultures indoctrinate children into how it's appropriate to dress dumbass that's what cultural ideas of clothing are. You didn't on your own learn that you have to wear shoes shirts etc

[–] uralsolo@hexbear.net 1 points 1 year ago (2 children)

wear shoes and shirt

wear dress that is explicitly designed to dehumanize you

these are the same thing

wear dress that is explicitly designed to dehumanize you

it's not desinged to dehumanise that's the least charitable possible interpretation

also you don't think they're the same because you have been raised thinking one is normal and one isn't

[–] sysgen@hexbear.net 1 points 1 year ago

Abaya and the male equivalents are mostly adaptations to arid, sunny climates and predate Islam.

[–] Armen12@lemm.ee 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Religion is not being banned, so that argument is invalid

Try again

the comment I was replying to was literally talking about banning religion