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.

  • Lmaydev@programming.dev
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    198
    arrow-down
    40
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    I’m not very comfortable with these type of bans.

    People say women shouldn’t be forced to wear certain items of clothing and deal with it by forcing them to wear different items of clothing.

    Doesn’t seem very productive.

    I always think of that meme with a women in full body coverings and a women wearing a bikini and they’re both thinking about how awful it is that society pressures women to dress like the other.

    • daellat@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      81
      arrow-down
      12
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Playing the advocate of the devil: the reason given is clearly stated as not being about being forced to wear anything, but about a general ban on religious signs in state schools. For example I imagine wearing a Christian cross around your neck is also banned.

        • daellat@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          7
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          Yeah, I simply stated what reason was given for the ban by the minister, which the comment above me seems to have read over.

          • afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            6
            arrow-down
            10
            ·
            1 year ago

            Why are government officials all-powerful and all-weak at the same time? Funny how that works. The law is dumb, problematic, impossible to enforce? Hands are tied. The law makes sense and easy to perform? Selectively enforced if at all.

      • AngryCommieKender@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        11
        ·
        1 year ago

        Yep. Yarmulkes are also banned, and I wouldn’t be able to wander around the school with my 9 pointed star necklace or ring, even though NO ONE knows what they mean.

      • hungryphrog@lemmy.blahaj.zone
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        24
        arrow-down
        24
        ·
        1 year ago

        Still, schools shouldn’t be able to dictate how people can dress as long as they cover their genitals and their clothes aren’t dangerous.

        • Damage@feddit.it
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          14
          arrow-down
          5
          ·
          1 year ago

          Eh, maybe… In my public, absolutely standard highschool we still had a dress code, you couldn’t have bare legs or excessively low collars

          • Swedneck@discuss.tchncs.de
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            31
            arrow-down
            4
            ·
            1 year ago

            And here in sweden the justice system has to dole out yearly reminders to schools that dressing freely is protected by the constitution, and dress codes or uniforms are literally illegal.

            • TheGrandNagus@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              arrow-down
              3
              ·
              1 year ago

              God that sounds dreadful. I used to get mocked outside of school for wearing poor clothes when I was young. Imagine having to deal with that literally all the time.

                • TheGrandNagus@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  We have welfare too. Doesn’t change the fact that people on welfare aren’t regularly buying expensive clothing. Same goes for Sweden.

                  • Swedneck@discuss.tchncs.de
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    4
                    arrow-down
                    1
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    i thought you meant that they had ragged clothes, people don’t really flaunt expensive clothes that much here.

                    any bad treatment in schools here is generally just down to kids having bad home environments and taking it out on those they percieve as weaker, or kids having undiagnosed autism/adhd and having trouble with being social so they just sorta get forgotten about.

                    You don’t generally get bullied for being poor here because you don’t generally really notice that people are poor, and with high living standards there simply ends up being less bullying.

              • Darthjaffacake@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                I’m really sorry to hear you have that experience that sounds awful, the concept of poor clothes doesn’t exist everywhere though so I’m not really sure what to say, I really wish I could’ve worn whatever I liked at school since I had to wear coats in summer at the cost of my health (my skin kinda sucks ngl) and the uniform they asked us to buy was so expensive and ill fitting. Again, you’ve got a different experience and I respect that.

      • tsonfeir@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        16
        arrow-down
        50
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        I seriously doubt it. And I’m sure if it is, no one enforces it.

        Edit: y’all can vote me down all day, but the law says “ostentacious religious insignia,” and I’m sure a little cross has been overlooked many times.

          • SulaymanF@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            16
            arrow-down
            9
            ·
            1 year ago

            No it isn’t. The 2004 law banned “large” crosses and allowed small ones but banned ALL hijabs.

            It was never equally enforced.

            • TheGrandNagus@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              4
              arrow-down
              4
              ·
              1 year ago

              Allowed small ones, obscured by clothing.

              A necklace under your shirt is fine. That applies as equally to a cross as it does to an islamic moon and star.

              They just aren’t allowed to be massive so that they’re visible even under some clothing.

              • SulaymanF@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                3
                arrow-down
                2
                ·
                1 year ago

                The law is already unequal and discriminatory and that’s before we even get to the unequal enforcement. Muslims are sent home from school while Christians are not for the same rule violations (e.g. Christians in France who observe Ash Wednesday).

              • assassin_aragorn@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                arrow-down
                2
                ·
                1 year ago

                Don’t you think it’s culturally biased? The norm for Christians is a small cross necklace. The norm for Muslims is not. Isn’t it quite convenient that the exception fits well with one religion but not the other?

        • RobotDrZaius@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          30
          arrow-down
          6
          ·
          1 year ago

          Maybe you should be less confident about things you don’t know. In this particular regard, the French are quite consistent.

          • tsonfeir@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            4
            ·
            1 year ago

            ostentacious religious insignia

            That’s the law. That’s pretty vague. So, I’m pretty confident not everyone is enforcing a tiny cross necklace.

            • mothersprotege@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              1 year ago

              If you’re going to copy and paste something several times, and are representing it as a quotation from law, maybe spell-check it? Also, I think there are good arguments to be made on both sides of this issue, but comparing an inconspicuous piece of jewelry to an abaya seems disingenuous. If small crosses were allowed, but small star and crescents weren’t, that would obviously be wrong.

              • tsonfeir@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                arrow-down
                2
                ·
                1 year ago

                It’s a quote. It’s copy and paste. If someone spelled it wrong, it’s not me.

                Either way. If a tiny cross is allowed and a tiny star is not, that’s bad.

                No symbols should be allowed of any kind. 🤷‍♂️

                I wonder how they handle tattoos.

    • nogooduser@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      47
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      1 year ago

      It’s difficult to say whether someone is wearing what they are wearing through choice or because it is demanded of them.

      I agree with you, demanding that they wear something else is not the answer.

      • CoderKat@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        23
        arrow-down
        5
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Especially when they’re kids. People should be able to wear whatever they want. But kids don’t often get to choose what they want. They’re often at the mercy of what their parents want and that’s it.

        There’s also something to be said about pressure from family members. Even if the kid chose to wear something, did they really do so out of their own free will? Or because their parents said they’ll burn in hell for all eternity if they don’t?

        And it’s not like we’re talking about something like simple taste in clothing or mild culture differences. We’re talking about clothes that are drenched in misogyny. It’s not about literal clothing in a vacuum, but rather what those clothes imply about women as a whole.

        • SulaymanF@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          11
          arrow-down
          6
          ·
          1 year ago

          Then you’re just replacing the oppressor with the state.

          Let children wear what they want.

          • Kecessa@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            11
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            What if their community’s pressure is the reason why they wear certain types of clothing?

            • glassware@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              This is the only reason why anyone wears any particular type of clothing. There is no style of clothing that it objectively makes sense to wear.

                • afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  6
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  The trick when you are 10 is to memorize and record every single detail of it. Which adult did what on what day and which did nothing to stop it.

                  That way when you get older you can be crystal clear why you disowned the ones that did nothing and go after the ones that actively harmed you.

                  The religious deserve as much forgiveness as they have shown everyone else.

              • TheGrandNagus@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                4
                arrow-down
                3
                ·
                1 year ago

                We’re talking about children. They don’t have choice.

                And we see from Muslims, Mormons, Jehovah’s Witnesses, and others, that families can and will often disown you and treat you like shit over it.

                I’m in agreement with France here. They’re very consistent. Go to a state school? Keep religious displays out of it, full stop.

                  • TheGrandNagus@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    3
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    Who says what I want is for kids to be able to choose to wear literally anything they want?

                    I was pointing out that kids don’t wear these out of choice, so it’s silly to act like the government is oppressing the kids by banning them.

                    I’m all for France aggressively separating religion and state institutions.

      • duviobaz@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        The eradication of the will to wear this stuff is the answer. Without religion, barely anyone will want to wear religious signs.

    • ImExiled@artemis.camp
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      23
      arrow-down
      10
      ·
      1 year ago

      It’s not the point of the ban. You shouldn’t wear any religious signs. It’s the same as banning christian cross (which is obviously already banned since years and years)

      • TheGrandNagus@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Yes. France is extremely militant about keeping religion and state separate. That extends to state institutions like state schools.

    • SuddenDownpour@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      13
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      I always think of that meme with a women in full body coverings and a women wearing a bikini and they’re both thinking about how awful it is that society pressures women to dress like the other.

      Equating the pressure of society, at large, when you’re an independent adult, and the pressure of your parents, when you’re still under their authority is not fair.

    • nxfsi@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      10
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      It’s the same reasoning behind pride parades and banning hate speech. Right wingers will hide behind “free choice” to spread their oppression of women and to shelter their children from progressive ideology, therefore we must forcibly expose them to tolerant viewpoints in the name of equity.

    • Chee_Koala@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      I agree that it will not be effective in reducing the amount of these types of robes that will be worn. But it will be effective in reducing the visibility of this particular religious clothing, and thus the religion itself. We (everyone everywhere) already ban lots of clothing styles, there are minimums you have to attain. can’t have nipples or genitalia showing, and even though that might sound nitpicky, I’m from team #freethechest and having a covered chest is something I personally do not think should be required. It’s just nipples/boobs, everyone should just grow up and let it fly

          • afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            1 year ago

            I still don’t get why we can’t get an app for it or something. The paper lottery system is just so primitive. Has to be a better way to decide who gets stoned to death for conformity and harvest.

        • pimento64@sopuli.xyz
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Well, that’s called an honor killing. For a start, This article defines that concept in detail (which I tell you to forewarn that I’m immune to sealioning about the definition), has tables of trends, and has credible sources at the bottom. Honor killings, also known as shame killings, have attracted the attention of the EU as a major issue to be solved as a consequence of their spread. I can’t find a lot of data related to France specifically, but I do know the French consider their country to have a Femicide problem in general, and it’s reasonable to expect that if the total number of women being murdered is on the rise, the raw number of honor killings is climbing even if the proportion remains fixed.