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.

  • 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
      25
      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
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          31
          arrow-down
          4
          ·
          1 year ago

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

          • TheGrandNagus@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            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.

            • Swedneck
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              5
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              Yeah here in sweden we have welfare so everyone can afford basics like that.

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

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

                • Swedneck
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  4
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

        • SulaymanF@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          15
          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.