- cross-posted to:
- worldnews@lemmit.online
- cross-posted to:
- worldnews@lemmit.online
Schoolgirls who refused to change out of the loose-fitting robes have been sent home with a letter to parents on secularism.
French public schools have sent dozens of girls home for refusing to remove their abayas – long, loose-fitting robes worn by some Muslim women and girls – on the first day of the school year, according to Education Minister Gabriel Attal.
Defying a ban on the garment seen as a religious symbol, nearly 300 girls showed up on Monday morning wearing abayas, Attal told the BFM broadcaster on Tuesday.
Most agreed to change out of the robe, but 67 refused and were sent home, he said.
The government announced last month it was banning the abaya in schools, saying it broke the rules on secularism in education that have already seen headscarves forbidden on the grounds they constitute a display of religious affiliation.
The move gladdened the political right but the hard left argued it represented an affront to civil liberties.
The 34-year-old minister said the girls refused entry on Monday were given a letter addressed to their families saying that “secularism is not a constraint, it is a liberty”.
If they showed up at school again wearing the gown there would be a “new dialogue”.
He added that he was in favour of trialling school uniforms or a dress code amid the debate over the ban.
Uniforms have not been obligatory in French schools since 1968 but have regularly come back on the political agenda, often pushed by conservative and far-right politicians.
Attal said he would provide a timetable later this year for carrying out a trial run of uniforms with any schools that agree to participate.
“I don’t think that the school uniform is a miracle solution that solves all problems related to harassment, social inequalities or secularism,” he said.
But he added: “We must go through experiments, try things out” in order to promote debate, he said.
‘Worst consequences’
Al Jazeera’s Natacha Butler, reporting from Paris before the ban came into force said Attal deemed the abaya a religious symbol which violates French secularism.
“Since 2004, in France, religious signs and symbols have been banned in schools, including headscarves, kippas and crosses,” she said.
“Gabriel Attal, the education minister, says that no one should walk into a classroom wearing something which could suggest what their religion is.”
On Monday, President Emmanuel Macron defended the controversial measure, saying there was a “minority” in France who “hijack a religion and challenge the republic and secularism”.
He said it leads to the “worst consequences” such as the murder three years ago of teacher Samuel Paty for showing Prophet Muhammad caricatures during a civics education class.
“We cannot act as if the terrorist attack, the murder of Samuel Paty, had not happened,” he said in an interview with the YouTube channel, HugoDecrypte.
An association representing Muslims has filed a motion with the State Council, France’s highest court for complaints against state authorities, for an injunction against the ban on the abaya and the qamis, its equivalent dress for men.
The Action for the Rights of Muslims (ADM) motion is to be examined later on Tuesday.
For those who don’t get this, ‘Laïcité’ is what the French call the secularism which is part of their constitution.
Plenty are as serious about it, as many in the US are about free speech or the right to own a gun.
Obviously this is also in part a more recent phenomenon. France has a large Muslim population and laïcité is arguably interpreted more strictly by those who wish to combat the influence of Islam on French mainstream culture.
In Quebec we usually have to explain the difference between secularism and laïcité by mentioning that secularism is the separation of church and State by accommodating all religions equally while laïcité is the separation of church and State by excluding religion from the public domain. Quebec’s take on laïcité is more relaxed than France’s.
I think what’s so annoying about these laws is that they go à contresens, by strengthening religion in civic life. These girls are now forced to go to religious schools if they want to continue wearing their harmless cultural dress. In fact, religious schools have exploded in population since the laws on laïcité have passed in France. Many of those girls would have otherwise integrated into French society and become bored of religion, just like Catholic children do, if they went to a normal school. I remember listening to a French philosopher on a debate program say “Seuls les pays qui ont interdit le port du voile ont fini par l’imposer”. I don’t know if that’s literally true, but I think banning makes many muslims feel defiant and more passionate about their religious identity.
It’s especially galling in Canada, which has one of the most well-integrated and moderate Muslim minority populations in the world. A law like this is actively harmful to the goal of lessening “la pertinence de la religion dans la vie civile”. It goes against its own goals, to solve a problem that doesn’t exist.
Since you’re mentioning Canada, at the same time in Quebec (the only place with a similar law) it’s only for government employees in a position of authority so I don’t think it’s really an issue considering we already impose restrictions on the same employees when it comes to displaying political signs and it received support from many people that are part of the groups most affected because they don’t want to have left a country where religion is part of politics only to go live somewhere where it’s trying to do the same thing. Creating a barrier between the two where we say “If your religion is so important to you that you can’t accept to remove the sign you’re wearing while at work, it might mean you are not ready to represent a laïc State” isn’t a bad thing. I wouldn’t support a ban for students or all government employees and so on (like France is doing).
I’ve heard this argument that it’s “not so bad” in Quebec, but I don’t know why we need to accept any “badness” at all. What countervailing benefit justifies the cost? Students will not convert to Sikhism or Islam because they’re taught by a Sikh or Muslim teacher. It’s a non-issue.
Contrary to what you say, the affected groups are far from supportive. In fact, I would not be surprised one bit if, like in France, Muslims in Quebec have hardened their views, becoming more devout, in response to la loi 21.
I said it’s not an issue and that it’s not a bad thing, not that it’s “not so bad” and that we’re tolerating “badness”.
It’s not about conversion, it’s about discrimination or the appearance of discrimination by an employee of the State.
How does a Jewish defendant feel when a judge that’s visibly Muslim makes a decision against them? Well that judge represents the State and the State needs to be neutral and to have the appearance of neutrality in front of the people it has authority over.
And again, that judge couldn’t have a hammer and sickle pin on their robe even though the freedom of political opinion and of expressing it is as protected as the freedom of religious expression. Can you imagine a visibly communist judge making a decision against a private business suing the government? Yeah, that wouldn’t fly.
How does a non-white defendant feel when a visibly white judge, which are most judges, makes a decision against them? Or a man rules against a woman who is a rape victim? Such things happen all the time. People seem perfectly happy with state representatives being white, without quotas or positive discrimination to improve diversity. Why all this concern for “social justice” only when it comes to these minority religions?
Do you really think there is no “badness” at all… for anyone? Some people have had to make a difficult decision between career and identity. You might be blasé about that decision, but for some people it would be as difficult as being forbidden from speaking your native language, or forbidden from being openly gay.
The difference here is that skin color and gender aren’t a choice, whereas wearing a religious sign, just like wearing a sign of your political allegiance, is a choice.
Unless you tell me that wearing a kippah isn’t a choice for the wearer, which would be in direct violation of our charter or rights and freedom…
The people concerned also get affected if their religious sign can’t be worn because of uniforms, they don’t go and sue employers that tell them they can’t wear a safety hat over a turban or that they can’t drive a transport van while wearing a burqa that hinders their view. If their sign is so important that they can’t satisfy the criterias for the job they just go work in another field and that’s it.
The State doesn’t have to guarantee access to jobs to people who don’t fit the criterias for the job, including the responsibility to appear neutral. The perfect State employee in a position of authority would be a robot that looks nothing like a human with a gender neutral voice, since we can’t have that we’re stuck telling people that they need to adopt a neutral appearance to work certain jobs or they can go do the equivalent job in the private sector if it exists or they can take other tasks which don’t put them in a position of authority, including some very good jobs for the State!
Laïcité should be the accommodation of all religion. Laïcité is tolerance. But the fascists are turning it into bullying religions.
That’s secularism. It’s as if you just didn’t read what I wrote.
So what is the rebuilding of Notre-dame de Paris ? Secularism too ?
Fascism it is.
Is it getting rebuilt for it’s religious importance or historical importance? Do they rebuild all churches that burn down?
Hint: Answers start with h and n
Actually the State does pay for a big part of church maintenance: link.
That’s just hypocrisy here. The building is used for religious ceremonies. There’s nothing more religious than this church.
Now mind you I’m not against rebuilding it, because I’m not an anti religion zealot. I’m merely pointing out the hypocrisy of hunting Muslims out of schools in the name of laicity while rebuilding a church with state money.
Funny how you skipped both questions
Well you should read this.
The state actually does pay for a big part of church maintenance.
Definitely shouldn’t be accommodating to ancient cults. I don’t want people who never grew out of believing in Santa to decide how to educate children
That’s Quebec’s take, government employees in a position of authority (including teachers) can’t wear religious signs, the rest is free to do what they want (unlike France’s version where students can’t wear religious signs either).
good summary
deleted by creator
To be fair, it is more correct to say « France is a racist country hiding behind laïcité and feminism to justify their Islamophobia. »
All other religious symbols are also banned (in schools), so this argument seems pretty weak. One can agree or disagree, but considering religion a private matter that should stay out of the public buildings is a perfectly legitimate stance, in my opinion.
As you said, religion is a private matter.
While the school institution should absolutely avoid anything that has to do with religion, the students are still private entities. Taking away their freedom to express themselves in any way is one of the worst things to do to a young person and will only have the opposite effect.
Twist or turn it as you want, this law is just racism they wrapped up nicely.
I believe there are a huge number of ways we want to avoid young people express themselves in school. I am thinking for example about Nazi simbols, but the examples are countless. It’s just that according to you religion is not “one of those things”. I bet you wouldn’t defend someone to express himself by coming to school in full KKK outfit in the same way, would you?
Also, given the fact that the law applies to everyone, I don’t find it racist, and not even discriminatory. Again, Muslim people are disproportionally affected just because Islam has many of such symbols and garments, not because the law targets them specifically.Christians’s veils are banned as well (like the one nuns wear),the difference is that only few people in specific contexts wear them.
No one ever was removed from school for wearing a Christian cross.
Banning religion from public space is actually against the French constitution, and it’s not a fair fight against religion, it’s racism against Muslim.
Christian crosses are actually forbidden in French school (from what I read). I don’t know if anybody ever got removed from school from it, but the rule is there. I can’t talk on what is against or not French constitution as I am not qualified to do so (not even for my own country), but I trust that if that’s the case, courts will determine that.
A final remark, being Muslim is a choice, is not a birth condition nor a race (or ethnicity). This means that at most you can talk of religious discrimination, not racism. Coincidentally religious discrimination is very common in very religious countries (including Muslim countries), both towards other religions and even more against atheists or apostates.
No. The crosses banned are the big ones that the teacher would put on the wall. People are free to wear any pendant they like.
The teacher need to not show any religious sign because it represent the state.
Forbidding people to dress how they like or even show that they have a religion is fascism. It’s like forbidding same sex couple to show that they love eachother.
And I can’t care less about Muslim theocracies, they are fascists and that is the problem. What I care about is that France is becoming fascist too, and I am ashamed of it. Becoming fascist to fight fascism is an irony that doesn’t make it better.
Accprding to https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_law_on_secularity_and_conspicuous_religious_symbols_in_schools you seem incorrect. The point is exactly that of preventing religious displays in schools, and I wouldn’t call it fascism. In fact, fascist regimes have done exactly the opposite, giving huge visibility to religion and (the case in Italy) making Christianity religion of the state.
The comparison with same sex couple showing displays of affection seems completely ridiculous to me, especially because Muslims are disproportionally affected only because Islam is a religion in which there are more symbols, but it is not targeted specifically against then.
What is important is that people can, if they choose to do so, freely profess their own religion, or the lack thereof. This does not mean that this can be done in any space, and I am personally a big supporter for schools being very neutral spaces.
When a school ban children because of their religion it’s not really neutral.
The school did not ban children though, nor because of their religion.
The school complied with a law that forbids religious symbols/garments. Also the children were not banned, were asked to wear something else and most did.
Muslim children are perfectly able to attend school, provided that they do so without visible religious symbols, exactly like everyone else.
Let’s not pretend children have a choice how they dress.
The alienation that children feel when they are forced to look different from their peers is a strong point for school provided uniforms.
Hey! Another fascist classical idea!
Being prevented from engaging in a social dynamic with your peers is a bit different from being forced to engage in a social dynamic, I’m going to consider uniforms the lesser evil.
Its funny that Islamists use the term “Islamophobia” considering they teach an homophobic culture themselves. Dont ask for tolerance if you are not willing to be tolerant yourself.
Fuck all zealots, especially the fascist ones.
Exactly. Also muslim.
I wish we would put half as much energy into fighting racism and fascism.
And homophobia
Removed by mod
That is far closer from the truth indeed.