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
      13
      ·
      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
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        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
            32
            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
              4
              ·
              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.

              • 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
        49
        ·
        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
      48
      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
          12
          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.

      • 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
      5
      ·
      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
            4
            ·
            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.

  • Cornpop@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    169
    arrow-down
    23
    ·
    1 year ago

    I get this completely. This is nothing new for France, they have been blocking Christians from wearing crosses and Jews from wearing kippah’s for a very long time, it’s only reasonable that the Muslim population gets treated equally. Schools should remain completely secular, I am in complete agreement with France there.

    • redcalcium@lemmy.institute
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      65
      arrow-down
      30
      ·
      1 year ago

      Except abayas are basically just some loose-fitting clothes that can be worn by anyone regardless their religion. It’s like banning kimono or sari.

      • Kraivo@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        39
        arrow-down
        20
        ·
        1 year ago

        If it’s just an outfit and not religious clothes than there should be no problem, right?

        • SulaymanF@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          48
          arrow-down
          20
          ·
          1 year ago

          It’s still targeting ethnicities. There’s no denying that these bans have a racial component to it.

          • maynarkh@feddit.nl
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            18
            arrow-down
            9
            ·
            1 year ago

            I’d say it’s cultural rather than racial. Putting one culture above others is not the same as putting one race above others.

            • AngryCommieKender@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              15
              arrow-down
              13
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              Especially since one culture refuses to assimilate when they migrate to a new country. Yeah I’m an American, but if I moved to France or Japan I wouldn’t try to change the local culture, I’d try to fit in. If I visited Saudi Arabia, not that they’d let me, my pasty white ass is putting on a turban and some robes so that I don’t die of sun exposure. I’d be the first person in history to get a 4th degree sunburn. I’m not gonna wander around in short pants, and flip flops bare chested the way I could here in SoCal.

                • TheGrandNagus@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  6
                  arrow-down
                  3
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  Yeah, no.

                  If someone comes to my country I’d expect them to adapt.

                  No homophobic abuse, no sexist abuse, no telling women what they can and can’t do.

                  Cultures aren’t all equal. If your culture is built on bigotry, I have zero respect for it. According to some cultures, I should be stoned to death for being a bisexual man. Fuck those cultures.

                • AngryCommieKender@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  7
                  arrow-down
                  5
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  Yeah. When you decide to join another culture, you don’t force yours on them. If your culture was so shitty that you had to flee to a different country, then maybe it was a shitty culture that shouldn’t be preserved

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

                  It’s pretty simple. Give up your culture for another if the other is superior. If your culture is bigoted, for whatever reason, religious or not, give it up.

            • TimewornTraveler@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              4
              arrow-down
              6
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              Splitting hairs. It’s still bigotry. Just because it’s bigotry towards something real rather than something we pretend is real doesn’t really change much.

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

            It is not. It’s targeting religious signs. If your ethnicity can’t live with the same laws as others than it isn’t not you being ostracized, it’s you being dick by forcing everyone to follow your dogmas.

            • SulaymanF@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              12
              arrow-down
              6
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              Not everyone who wears an abaya is religious or Muslim. And France doesn’t target religious signs equally, which is why the 2004 law banned hijab but allowed crosses.

              And if you’re mad that others have to somehow “cater to your dogmas,” someone should tell the French who visit Algeria and other middle eastern countries and demand wine and pork.

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

                It allowed crosses and other religious symbols, such as the islamic moon and star so long as they were hidden by clothing

                A hijab isn’t hidden by clothing, it is the clothing.

                • SulaymanF@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  4
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  1 year ago

                  So are turbans. Sikhs fought and died to protect france during world war 2, only for their children to be told they must now hide their religion and conform.

                  This is a badly written law and France is in the wrong here with their unique interpretation of laicite different than every other country’s secularism. As Thomas Jefferson said, other people’s beliefs and expressions “neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.”

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

                  So you’re saying the law is completely biased, since the exception fits how Christians commonly display their religion? How convenient.

              • Kraivo@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                4
                arrow-down
                6
                ·
                1 year ago

                Man, we are in the discussion where literally first post saying that French government preventing people from wearing crosses. What is the point of your argument, if you ignore information given to you by others?

                If a female goes to Saudi Arabia, she is forced to obey the laws of Saudi Arabia and cover parts of the body. If a female goes to France, why is it your problem that people should obey the laws of the France?

                You are insane.

                • SulaymanF@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  8
                  arrow-down
                  2
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  The first post incorrectly repeated the talking point that crosses are also banned. That’s misleading. They banned “large” crosses and the 2004 law explicitly allowed “small” crosses, but made no similar exceptions for minority religions in France.

                  You can’t have it both ways; either human rights apply worldwide or they don’t. If you believe that both Saudi and France have the right to take away rights for women, you’re the insane one not me.

        • WorldWideLem@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          8
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          No problem meaning they shouldn’t care about not being able to wear it? Or that the French government shouldn’t care in the first place?

          • Kraivo@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            arrow-down
            6
            ·
            1 year ago

            If it wasn’t religious sign, French government wouldn’t care about it

      • Chee_Koala@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        42
        arrow-down
        9
        ·
        1 year ago

        Except when you want it, because you like it when you don’t see other people’s genitalia. Then it suddenly is the governments bussiness. In this case it’s even just for during your attendance at a public school.

        • afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          10
          arrow-down
          5
          ·
          1 year ago

          I am okay with everyone walking around nude. If you really want skin cancer and everyone seeing your thunder thighs you should be able to. Me personally I am going to continue to wear clothing.

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

          ah yes, France, the country famous for its prudence in regards to nudists.

        • dragonflyteaparty@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          14
          arrow-down
          17
          ·
          1 year ago

          Public indecency laws are more of a hygiene issue. Making religious clothes or jewelry illegal to wear at school sits very weird with me.

          • PR3CiSiON@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            5
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            I wouldn’t say it is mostly a hiygene issue, though that is a solid perk. It’s because most people get offended at nudity. I personally don’t think they should, and I don’t, but that’s how they feel so…

      • electrogamerman@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        5
        ·
        1 year ago

        Whoever people sleep or get married with is none of anyone’s business, but Muslims are against homosexuality.

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

          Funny, I know Muslims who aren’t against gays but they still wear headscarves. Maybe it’s more complex than the Saudi policy line?

          Also, are you saying authoritarian government is good if they only discriminate against people you don’t like? I guess that’s something an Auth would say…

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

            Authorarian government is good when people are attacking minorities.

            Muslisms dont want to accept homosexuality? Then ban them and make them go back to their countries. You want to stay? Its time to accept homosexuality in their religion. Simple.

            Funny, I know Muslims who aren’t against gays but they still wear headscarves. Maybe it’s more complex than the Saudi policy line?

            Funny, because you never see people with headscarves on the pride parades. There are thousands of them living in western Europe, but somehow they dissappear during pride parade. Funny, isn’t?

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

              you never see people with headscarves on the pride parades

              What does that even mean? That you yourself have never seen someone wearing a headscarf at pride? Personally, I think it’s a huge leap to take that and say no/very few Muslims in western Europe go to pride.

              It wouldn’t matter even if that was true. Plenty of people support the LGBTQ+ community and don’t go to pride, same goes for many people who are part of the community.

            • TimewornTraveler@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              Isn’t it curious how this argument is never applied to bigotry broadly. People always seem to be so on-board with banning Muslims from France for this reason or that, and always retreat into criticizing their beliefs, as if that were some consistent policy. But some hick in West Virginia doens’t accept gays? Why not call for banishing him from America?

              Oh they are immigrants? Funny because plenty of muslims are born in France/America and have lived there their entire lives. And even the ones who haven’t - it’s called a fucking refugee. A good nation is one that takes someone in who is hurting, regardless of who they are and what they believe, and do their best to provide an environment that protects everyone and gives them a chance to learn accepting beliefs.

              Notice how none of this shit has anything to do with headscarves btw… almost like there’s another agenda here…

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

                It is tho. We need to erradicate homophobia from everywhere. You have to understand the background tho.

                Yeah, all religion are against homosexuality, but christianity and catolicisism is at least trying to integrate homosexuality into the religion. There are gay fathers, churches have the rainbow flag, the pope (the head of the religion) just last week advocated for same sex couples. Is it perfect? No it is not, but at least there are some people in the religion trying.

                What about muslim? No, they are not trying. Countries where muslism is the main religion have death penalty or life sentences for homosexuals. And the problem is that is not the main problem of the religion, for them to be able to accept homosexuality, they would first need to realize that they are misogynistics, and that is not happening any time soon.

                It is the same thing white people vs mideast people. Are all white people queer friendly? Not they are not, but there are a lot more that support homosexuality. Are all mideast people homophobic? Not they are not, but I am probable to be beaten up by a mideast guy than by a white guy (in Europe).

                Notice how none of this shit has anything to do with headscarves btw… almost like there’s another agenda here…

                I agree it hasnt, but if mideast/muslim people keep being homophobic, then I am glad that the government is taking measurements to ban mideast/muslim cultural things like headscarves.

                They want respect and inclusion? Then respect and be inclusive of others. It is this simple.

            • gmtom@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              6
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              1 year ago

              Definitely a better argument than “some Muslims don’t like gays, so we should stop French schoolgirls from wearing a specific kind of dress, that’ll teach 'em”

              Well done mate, you and Macron have solved homophobia.

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

                Some muslisms is a BIG under statement.

                If you were afraid of going to the street and hold hands or kiss with a partner because you could be beaten or killed, you would understand, so yeah, im glad France took this decision.

                • gmtom@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  4
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago
                  1. I’m gay and live in a heavily Muslim area, so stfu

                  2. Stopping french school girls from wearing a specific dress does… what? To stop Muslim homophobia exactly?

                  3. Christians also are anti gays, should we ban graphic tees as some sad, ineffectual petty revenge on them for homophobia?

                  4. Okay edgelord

    • bouh@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      11
      ·
      1 year ago

      They banned crosses for Christians because they ban Muslim headwear. They had to do something for Christian or it would have been the most obvious racism.

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

        Read the article. Crosses have been banned for a long time, before the Muslim headwear.

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

          There’s an exception for the most common kind of religious expression for Christians. Small crosses are permitted. If you want to be fair, you need to ban them too.

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

        Read the article. Crosses have been banned for a long time, before the Muslim headwear.

  • Moyer1666@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    99
    arrow-down
    15
    ·
    1 year ago

    I’m not sure I like this. I sort of get not allowing religious symbols to be worn, but you’re forcing people to dress in a certain way. I don’t think the government should be able to do that

    • Rukmer@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      30
      ·
      1 year ago

      I feel like conflicted is the “correct” way to feel. On one hand, the government is literally enforcing clothing laws. On the other hand, this may prevent children from being forced into something they did not choose. I feel like a religion wrapping up your child in cloth so they lose their individually as a human being is cult-like behavior.

      It would be better if the religion just wasn’t allowed to make them do this, but then they would just “suggest” women do this. This “suggestion” of course is actually coercion at best.

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

          The accompanying image appears to be showing a head covering? I am visually impaired though so correct me if I’m wrong.

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

              This article clarifies that they sometimes do and sometimes do not include a head covering, so thanks for that clarification. The information under the rationale heading is what I had in mind when making my comment. I was in a Christian cult that controlled the way we dressed, and wanted us all to be very uniform (no personality, that would detract from God’s message) and modest (we’d be tempting men of skirts weren’t long, etc.).

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

        France has been enforcing secularism since the turn of the 20th century. If you turn up with a turban, or a yarmulke, or a cross you’d be sent home too. If parents feel so aggrieved that the state disallows religious symbolism & clothing on state property they can send their kids to a private school.

    • killeronthecorner@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      34
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      This is where I landed. They should simply continue to permit children to remove it at school if they choose, while they are under the guardianship of the state.

      • Moyer1666@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        13
        ·
        1 year ago

        I never felt like there was much of a point for them. It was annoying for my family because we always had to buy specific clothes for school

        • Mr_Blott@feddit.uk
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          13
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          The whole point nowadays is to stop kids being bullied for not being able to afford the “right” clothes; that’s part of the point of this law too

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

            Prevention of tribes is the best benefit imo. I remember on school there were a number of ethnic/cultural groups that didn’t socialize with people out of their group. I don’t believe that fosters a healthy community, and behaviors or symbolic garments to identify you as a member of a group reinforce those group identities instead of all being human beings.

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

            Yup. I’m thankful for school uniforms. I came from a poor family and being mocked for wearing cheap clothes would’ve been awful, I was already ridiculed enough for my background as-is.

            Personally I’m with France on this one.

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

        I’m not against it, honestly. I have seen the pros and cons of each. We had a loose dress code at my school but no uniforms, and style of dress certainly became one mode of division among students. Rich kids, poor kids, athletes, nerds, etc. were all separated by dress.

        I’m not the biggest fan of conformity, but uniform dress codes allow the students to basically be at a level playing field as far as visual expression goes. I’ve worked in schools with uniforms and the students there seem to prefer not having to put any thought into what they wear.

      • VCTRN@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        13
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        I get you, but… isn’t religion supposed to be a free decision? you’re agreeing to their terms and conditions (I know, I know, you can stop the laugh track).

        • Kecessa@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          1 year ago

          I’m playing Devil’s advocate honestly. I’m much more comfortable with Quebec’s take than France’s (which is similar but one step above, in Quebec it only applies to government employees in a position of authority)

      • Pyr_Pressure@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        9
        arrow-down
        6
        ·
        1 year ago

        As for religion you have the choice to follow it or not, and following it comes with the burden of wearing certain things but you can choose to not follow that religion whenever you want if you want to dress differently. In a public school you should be able to choose what you wear, because you pretty much have to go to school.

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

          You can stop following it whenever you want?

          You realise that we’re talking about kids here, right?

        • Kyoyeou (Ki jəʊ juː)@slrpnk.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          8
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          I agree with this. But my girlfriend would certainly not. We’re in France and yet the pressure of her family on religion makes it that even on point she doesn’t care much about, there is so much behind her that it’s a real real pressure to respect the religion, which is hard to sometimes imagine, and to me an atheist seems ridiculous, you should make your own choices, well, for her, simply because of the people she is with. Not following certain religious rules can cost her a lot. Economically or Mentally for exemple

  • Silverseren@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    87
    arrow-down
    23
    ·
    1 year ago

    The especially dumb part of this is that abayas aren’t specifically Muslim or religious in nature, they’re cultural. They are a long flowing dress, without even a head covering. A bunch of non-Islamic women wear them in a variety of countries.

    So this is more attempting to ban entire cultural outfits, which is ridiculous.

    • gnygnygny@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      21
      arrow-down
      7
      ·
      1 year ago

      You forgot to mention that the abaya is compulsory in Saudi Arabia (except for tourists) and Qatar.

      • bric@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        21
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        And that’s bad. Can we agree that making a dress compulsory and making a dress banned are both bad, because they both restrict choice?

      • Silverseren@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        12
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        Saudi Arabia overturned that requirement in 2019, so you’re quite a few years out of date. It is required in Qatar though, yes.

    • ours@lemmy.film
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      17
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      For context, the French are very strict about any form of symbol on what students wear. I couldn’t even wear a baseball cap with a team logo and that’s not religious.

      • Mouette@jlai.lu
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Lol what the only reason they could prevent you from wearing a cap is because it’s considered ‘rude’ to keep your hat inside classroom. A private school can do whatever they want and force student to wear uniforme but in public school you can wear whatever you want except specific banned religious symbole (cross, kippa, headscarf etc…)

        • ours@lemmy.film
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          They just want to have a rule that doesn’t discriminate against any specific religion. Public schools have whatever rules the Government has elected. We had a weird mix between the local Government rules (mandatory uniform) plus the French public school rules (no outer religious symbols).

  • EvilHaitianEatingYourCat@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    79
    arrow-down
    32
    ·
    1 year ago

    I am mildly in favor of that. Kids can’t decide what to wear it’s their parents who do.

    This will simply reduce the artificial divide between those wear that type of stuff and who doesn’t.

    I also don’t believe it’s a freedom endangering, because they’re aren’t spontaneously people wearing abayas or burka or whatever just for the pleasure of it, I interpret the fact of wearing it as religious propaganda and artificial separation.

    • visak@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      13
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      I don’t know the law in France, but I’d worry it’ll cause religious parents to just keep their kids out of state school and do some form of private religious education, causing a greater divide. The best counter to these attitudes is exposure to diversity and other viewpoints. Maybe the kids going to school and seeing that there are other ways is better.

      • Estebiu@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        “Maybe the kids going to school and seeing there are other ways is better”. Yeah, but they aren’t the ones deciding how they dress. They parents are the ones that do.

        • visak@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          8
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Of course. And if the parents dress them in that and keep them isolated the kids will pass that on to the next generation. If the kids go to school and see there are other options, maybe they’ll choose to be different when they’re independent or raise their kids differently. This is why cults always seek to isolate their members – exposure to diversity breaks the cycle.

    • mycroft@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      24
      arrow-down
      17
      ·
      1 year ago

      Nah, girls just won’t be sent to schools.

      This will be “the last straw” for many of their fathers.

      Some will go, and their parents will begrudgingly accept (or turn a blind eye to their daughter dressing down as soon as she’s near school.). The majority reaction will be similar to what you see in other nations that don’t respect women enough to let them keep their autonomy.

      • babeuh@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        28
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        That’ll get the fathers at least 6 months in prison in France, probably more for negligence etc.

        And homeschooling requires a very good reason why they can’t go to school (pretty much always a health condition, and that needs proof) there are annual inspections and every other year the reason for homeschooling is verified.

      • hh93@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        23
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Just not sending the children isn’t an option in pretty much every place in Europe

    • Lols [they/them]@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      11
      arrow-down
      8
      ·
      1 year ago

      can you explain why other people wearing culturally traditional clothing is “religious propaganda and artificial separation”? do you feel this way about other traditional garb, or is it just the scary muslims?

      • EvilHaitianEatingYourCat@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        12
        arrow-down
        9
        ·
        1 year ago

        Yes i can explain. Literally nobody else does it. And if someone would, then my position will be the same: wear regular clothes in public institutions.

        • Lols [they/them]@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          i think enforcing the local culture by telling women what they can and cannot wear is bad, actually

          can you explain why you disagree with that stance

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

            we are talking about underage girls here, not exactly adult “women” so I reject the idea that those girls could choose/buy their outfit. Regardless, I disagree because:

              1. We are choosing between either parents imposing a robe, or the state imposing a robe; wearing that robe would clearly differentiate the ethnicity/religious background of the pupil, while wearing regular “whatever everyone else is wearing” would help the integration and erase the boundaries. Note that parents cannot just withdraw the kid out of school, so they have to integrate; private education is almost never an option
              1. It avoids the whole can of worms like “professor didn’t like my muslim robe, that’s why I got bad grades”
              1. Personal take: I HATE religion. Yes, churches too, I have enough hate for every religious nut out there. And no need to tell me “abaya is not a religious dress”, who are you fooling.

            Ideally, I agree, State should just fuck up and let people live. But that’s not taking into account any local context, and nobody lives in a vacuum, people live in some particular society. As an immigrant myself, I do think that it’s best for foreigners to integrate to host country as much as possible.

        • TopRamenBinLaden@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          What about the Jews and their Yamakas? The Catholics and their Rosary? Other religions have certain dress codes and accessories, too. They are just not always a full body covering.

          I would hope that schools in France ban other religious items like those if they are banning Muslim clothing and accessories.

    • bouh@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      17
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      If there was a uniform at school it would be different. Here it’s fashion police. Specifically targeted at Arab culture.

      It’s an atheist theocracy. Also called fascism.

      • EvilHaitianEatingYourCat@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        8
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        It’s obviously targeted, but at religion not a specific ethnic group. Moreover, that law will make those pupils look like anyone else, so if anything, this will reduce the stigma

        • bouh@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          It’s not targeted at religion because it’s not a religious dress. Ergo it’s a culture that’s targeted and it’s blatant racism.

          Stigmatising people for their culture or religion never integrate them.

          We should teach fascists how to read what’s written on our townhall though.

          • EvilHaitianEatingYourCat@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            5
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            It’s clearly associated with religion, so technical details do not matter. This law is literally erasing the difference between all, stop repeating the same argument guys, it’s not stigmatizing anyone because they all damn look the same

  • mycroft@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    52
    arrow-down
    7
    ·
    edit-2
    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

    1. 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_Nell 🇵🇸@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      13
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      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
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      18
      arrow-down
      10
      ·
      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
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      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
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        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
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          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 [they/them]@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      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
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      arrow-down
      12
      ·
      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.

  • jerd@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    63
    arrow-down
    26
    ·
    1 year ago

    Religious freedom is a human right. Self determination is a human right. As long as whatever you do does not cause a negative impact on other people (see the second right) or society at large, then gtfo.

    • gnygnygny@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      46
      arrow-down
      13
      ·
      1 year ago

      There is no “second right” in France. The law is simple : Don’t wear visible religious sign at school. There are private religious schools if you disagree with the public system.

    • Estebiu@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      30
      arrow-down
      17
      ·
      1 year ago

      “Self determination is a human right” There’s nothing I agree more on. Unfortunately some muslim communities do not agree, and the men and the women aren’t on the same level. Many women are forced to port the abaya and other vests that cover their figure in entirety, and I don’t think they should be forced to if they don’t want to. 85% of the muslim women in France that I know do not want to port it, but they’re obligated by their family. Banning it entirely is not the perfect solution, but it’s a step in the the direction of eradicating religions in France. The time of Christianity and Islam is way beyond us.

      • Lols [they/them]@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        28
        arrow-down
        11
        ·
        1 year ago

        i like the slow stumble from “self-determination is a human right” to “eradicating religions in france”

        “85% of the muslim women in france ᵗʰᵃᵗ ᶦ ᵏⁿᵒʷ” really adds to the experience too, thank you

        • Estebiu@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          14
          arrow-down
          9
          ·
          1 year ago

          Yeah, sorry, I didn’t exprime myself correctly here. Let me rephrase it:

          If you want to be christian or muslim, please be, I don’t have nothing against you. But I’m not ok with parents forcing their religion down the throats of their kids.

          And, let’s face it, religion it’s at an all time low, especially with newer generations like mine, and I don’t like how boomers force their kids to “go to church”, “dress in a certain manner”, ecc, when the kids don’t even believe.

          • SCB@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            8
            arrow-down
            11
            ·
            1 year ago

            Parents get to raise their kids. For instance, your parents raised you to believe that stripping someone’s rights protects their rights.

            They were wrong to do that, but they get to do that

            • Estebiu@lemmy.dbzer0.com
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              6
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              My parents are Catholics, and it’s also for that that I’ve begun disliking religions altogether.

              Is banning dresses at a state-level a thing that shouldn’t ever happen? Yes.

              Do I agree with the banning of a robe that strips women of their identity? Still yes.

              We humans are contradictory existencies

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

                Lol I like to joke that nothing turns you against Catholicism (or religion in general) like growing up Catholic.

                I’m a hardliner on freedom and (safe) expression, full stop, but I def get where you’re coming from.

    • Aux@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      8
      ·
      1 year ago

      You can practice your religion inside your home. Once you’re out in public you should respect others and hide your religion away. This is the way!

      • Flyswat@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        13
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        I don’t deny that there are occurrences where some girls are forced. What about the 95% others?

        You can’t put forth a law punishing the majority for a “likely”. What happened to the “Liberté Egalité Fraternité” which this liberticide law is obviously trampling?

        The population has been fed the islamophobic narrative long enough to have such laws pass without anybody thinking about how ridiculous they are (replace hijab/abaya with dreadlocks or other piece of clothing… What do other people care?). The divide is so deep and constantly maintained by the politicians who, since they find no real answers the actual problems plaguing the day to day life of citizen, prefer to turn them against each other: divide to better rule.

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

          France has never once, in the history of the country, ever given half a shit about doing the right thing or not disenfranchising people.

          They have a very cool history but France is a shit show top to bottom.

          Basically all of their governing tenets only exist to prevent the French from just living in a state of constant revolution.

          • Guntrigger@feddit.ch
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            It’s funny that the French are romanticised as a revolutionary people, always ready to stand up to the man and fight for the people.

            They’ve probably just been shit on by their own government more that most other nations, so they’ve reached that tipping point of revolution more than anyone else.

        • Project_Straylight@lemmy.villa-straylight.social
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Having gone to school with many muslims, sadly, it’s more like 4/5. As in, 4 out of 5 of those girls are forced to wear their religious garment. If they don’t it’s seen as shameful for their entire family.

          Some are beaten but most of them are given a free choice: they can choose not to wear it and leave their family (and most friends). Or they can choose to abide and show how much they love god. Not many 10 year old girls choose to leave their family though.

          And the other 1/5th are the full on religious fruitcakes.

      • funkless_eck@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        11
        arrow-down
        20
        ·
        1 year ago

        name a video game that doesn’t have some element of religion in it. pac man? ghosts = belief in afterlife. space invaders? I’d call “belief in aliens” a religious belief of sorts. bubble bobble? maybe?

        you also gotta reprint every single piece of American paper money.

        what about my tarot card collection? you gonna lock me in jail because I think the art is cool?

        what about how I listen to Bach or Mozart in the bath?

        you gonna arrest me for saying “Jesus fucking christ” when my cat brings up a hairball?

        I also enjoy “what we do in the shadows”, Yellowjackets, home alone, lord of the rings, dune… all banned by you.

        Even chess has a bishop, king and queen…

        There’s no need to be a redditeur about it, nearly everything is a religious experience or adjacent, and I say that as a secular person and atheist myself.

      • jimbolauski@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        33
        arrow-down
        14
        ·
        1 year ago

        Forcing a person not to wear a type of clothing is just as bad forcing them to wear it. The reasons for either are not important.

        • Kalash@feddit.ch
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          8
          arrow-down
          26
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          You hear that the military? Stop forcing people in those ugly camo uniforms! Reasons for wearing them aren’t important!

            • Kalash@feddit.ch
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              4
              arrow-down
              6
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              I was mostly for showing that forcing a clothing standard sometimes does have reasons. Team sports would be another one.

              Also, banning every item of clothing that could be seen as religious, might turn into an endless game of whack-a-mole. So if France is so keen on secular clothing in schools, school uniforms seem like a legit option.

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

                I am not a fan of school uniforms either.

                Why can’t we just let kids decide what to wear? Especially when it isn’t even their own children. I generally let my kids pick out their own clothing. My middle school rolled out a uniform and it was an uncomfortable disaster. Always vowed that when I became a parent I wouldn’t do this to my own kids. Fun fact it isn’t illegal to take a picture of your shredded uniform you found in the attic and mail it to your old principal’s house with a note scrawled on it “fuck you for making me wear this”.

                In any case team sports are also a really bad analogy. A small cross or head covering is not a distraction from learning the way kids not wearing sports stuff would be for the game.

                • Kalash@feddit.ch
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  4
                  arrow-down
                  3
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  1 year ago

                  I’m also not a fan of school uniforms in general and I don’t have personal expirence with them.

                  But the topic of dress codes came up a couple of time when I was in highschool. One of them even lead to a “ban” though, it was only school policy, not a law. But yeah, there were a couple of girls that really pushed the limits of how short they could make their tops and hotpants. I, of course, loved it at the time, but looking back as an adult, 14-16 year olds probably shouldn’t dress like that in school.

                  Another topic I even caused myself. I went through kind of a punk phase and one day showed up with steel-tipped boots and a 30cm, neon green mohawk. There were some complaints, but ultimatly nothing happened.

                  My point is, regulating clothing in certain public situation is quite common with widley varying regional standards. It’s not as simple as “everyone should be able to wear what they want”.

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

              The dream of any fascist is kid soldiers (also kid workers, they’re never productive soon enough).

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

        So to protect the freedom of these women you deny them the freedom to wear a dress?

        Holy fuck the racists are so stupid it’s surreal!

        • Kra@mtgzone.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          6
          ·
          1 year ago

          Yeah so extremely racist to protect women from religious extremists. Just the mindless name dropping again, calling everyone and everybody a racist.

          • bouh@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            7
            arrow-down
            4
            ·
            1 year ago

            Protecting women by telling them how to dress. That feels very much like 19th century.

            You understand the dress is not even religious?

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

              What percentage of husbands/street enforcers will beat her if she doesn’t wear it? Where do those cultural norms of modesty come from, pray tell?

  • Swedneck@discuss.tchncs.de
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    31
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    1 year ago

    I get the reasoning, but really it feels like papering over cracks rather than addressing the root cause.

    Set up proper support structures to prevent people from being coerced into things they don’t want to, make sure people are given places to get away from controlling people and exposed to the fact that things don’t have to be like that.

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

      The best cure for religion is Education and Opportunities to fully integrate in the wider society.

      So France needs to invest into giving the kids in even the baundelieres (the poor neighbourhoods around the major cities) as much Education and as many Opportunities as possible and most will naturally drift away from the snake oil which is religion.

      You see the single biggest mechanic of racial descrimination (not just in France) is poverty: those kids from low education hence low income immigrant parents - who lack the education (hence the income) because they hail from countries with worse Education systems - are stuck in high crime low opportunity ghettos with much lower lifetime opportunities than the rest, impacted by poverty every day of their lifes (outright racism comes as events, poverty is every waking hour of every day) for the “crime” of having popped out of the “wrong” vagina.

      Some manage to come out of this, but theirs is a much taller ladder to climb so their chances of reaching a good life are less than most.

      The thing is, genuinelly flattenning the playing field (which, beyond the massive boost to average quality of life, would have the minor side effect of most of the next generation leaving the claws of religion) would cost lots of money and there’s no will in France to have people like the wealthiest man and woman in Europe (both of which live there) and their circle of friends part with a small fractionof their wealth to make it possible: hard-right neoliberal with authoritarian streak Macron would never do even the mildest of wealth redistributions (as it would impact his mates and his clients) so instead out comes another “let’s force them to not look ‘wrong’” authoritarian “solution”.

      If you pardon my french (hehe!), this shit is all related and all boils down to how society is structured to help a few prey on the many resulting in massive inequality in access to resources and opportunities and constant, relentless discrimination on the basis of wealth, all of which then causes all sorts of “secondary” issues which are then papered over using the cheapest method there is to cover it up: abusing the Law and Legal Violence to coerce the most powerless of all to “keep up appearances”.

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

        Compared to the US, France has massive taxes and wealth redistribution. You actually have an estate/inheritance tax that captures tax not only from the inheritance but from gifts made during the lifetime of the deceased. You have universal healthcare. You also have a massive influx of immigrants, not all of them from former French colonies, many of whom don’t give a fuck about France’s highly valued secularism and other cultural values. You don’t come to a France looking for a better life and simultaneously demand that France make an exception for you to allow the offensive visible symbolic separation of women from society because your religion/culture demands it. It is entitled in the extreme that people want to make France like the country they fled.

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

      It’s not about stopping people from being coerced, it’s about the state forbidding religious symbols on state property including schools. France is strictly secular and forbids religion in the public sphere, i.e. state property like schools, politics etc.

      It just so happens to have the pleasant side effect that kids in state schools are free from the segregation, clothing and other religious bullshit they might have to endure in their private life. The government has no control over that other aspect however it might lead to kids growing into adults who are less orthodox in their own lives.

  • Stroopwafel1@feddit.nl
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    40
    arrow-down
    13
    ·
    1 year ago

    Reading all the anti-privacy and self expression things that France are pushing…wouldn’t understand why anyone would want to move to france in this day and age.

  • MildPudding@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    62
    arrow-down
    35
    ·
    1 year ago

    Wow. As a religious minority it’s incredibly depressing to see how many people on here support this violation of religious liberty.

  • AutoTL;DR@lemmings.worldB
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    22
    ·
    1 year ago

    This is the best summary I could come up with:


    Students will be banned from wearing abaya, a loose-fitting full-length robe worn by some Muslim women, in France’s state-run schools, the education minister has said.

    “When you walk into a classroom, you shouldn’t be able to identify the pupils’ religion just by looking at them,” Education Minister Gabriel Attal told France’s TF1 TV, adding: “I have decided that the abaya could no longer be worn in schools.”

    The garment has being increasingly worn in schools, leading to a political divide over them, with right-wing parties pushing for a ban while those on the left have voiced concerns for the rights of Muslim women and girls.

    France has enforced a strict ban on religious signs at schools since the 19th Century, including Christian symbols such as large crosses, in an effort to curb any Catholic influence from public education.

    The debate on Islamic symbols has intensified since a Chechen refugee beheaded teacher Samuel Paty, who had shown students caricatures of the Prophet Mohammed, near his school in a Paris suburb in 2020.

    The announcement is the first major policy decision by Mr Attal, who was appointed France’s education minister by President Emmanuel Macron this summer at the age of 34.


    The original article contains 388 words, the summary contains 199 words. Saved 49%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!

  • Floey@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    18
    ·
    1 year ago

    The same “I know what’s best for them” and “the law applies equally to everyone” arguments in favor of bans on drugs that many in liberal spaces will detest, they will happily use when supporting shit like this. We all know that everyone doesn’t suffer equally under laws like this. Religion may be the opium of the people, but does that mean we should be the narcs? You don’t eradicate religion by banning it. You eradicate it by having secular institutions provide the things people go to religion for, like a sense of purpose, assistance, and community.

  • samus12345@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    19
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    France has a strict ban on religious signs in state schools and government buildings, arguing that they violate secular laws.

    Is this a case of being lost in translation or something? I wouldn’t consider religious garb to be a “sign.”

        • setVeryLoud(true);@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Because their law requires it for “modesty reasons”, probably like a uniform of some sort, but it’s not a religious garment in Islam. It covers the whole body except the head, feet and hands. Anyone wearing an Abaya outside of Qatar and Saudi Arabia is doing so for cultural reasons, not religious reasons.

          These kinds of laws should not oppress culture, unless we want to see an extinction of diversity. They should exist solely to limit religious child indoctrination, and give children a fighting chance to make their own decisions with regard to religion.

          • gnygnygny@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            That’s exactly what this law is doing by banning religious sign into the public school. Pretenting that the introduction of this clothe, absolutely not present into the French culture, has nothing to do with the religion is fallacious.

      • kurzon@lemmy.sdf.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        Please don’t do this. The culture finds its foundation entirely within religious beliefs, and the abaya stands as a tangible expression of this connection. From the Wikipedia: “The rationale for the abaya is often attributed to the Quranic quote, “O Prophet, tell your wives and daughters, and the believing women, to cover themselves with a loose garment. They will thus be recognised and no harm will come to them” (Qur’an 33:59,[2] translated by Ahmed Ali). This quotation is often given as the argument for wearing the abaya.”

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

          The cross is synonymous with Christianity, yet there’s an exception in this law for small crosses. If you want to go down this path, you must ban everything, with no exceptions.