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.
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.
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.
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.
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.”
Having died in ww2 should not give you full freedom to force your religion on your children
The fact that you blanket assume everyone forces their religion on their children is telling. Furthermore, the French government pressures ADULTS into taking off their religious apparel, so that debunks your argument. That’s not freedom, and it makes France no freer than Iran or Uzbekistan.
The fact that you blanket assume kids are going to spontaneously start wearing turbans withour their parents having anything to do with it is telling.
It debunks my argument about schoolchildren that similar rules exist for adults (when working in the government)?
If you think having to take off your religious uniform when you’re representing the government is the comparable to state oppression in Iran or Uzbekistan, I get a feeling you don’t know too much about life in those countries
You don’t know any Sikhs then. Talk to a few and get back to me. They proudly wear turbans because it’s part of their religion to break down social class barriers and their adornments are meant to symbolize their desire to help fellow man. Sikh kids WANT to wear it as a sign of maturity in their faith, not because anyone is pressuring them into dressing that way. And you want to hold them back from this?
Muslims and Arabs have similar ideas; men grow facial hair both to show manhood and to imitate their beloved prophets. Should France ban beards like China does against its Uighurs? Where does this oppression end, in the name of France’s phony “freedom”?
As soon as it becomes apparent certain clothes or even hairstyles are forced on people to show they are part of a group, a ban can be discussed. Especially when they are forced on young children.
Every fundamentalist will use the same argument as you do: that these children merely want to express their religious feelings. Sadly, you can’t open that door to those that won’t force it on their children, to protect those of those who will.
I’m sure a righteous god won’t think wearing a uniform is all that important in showing your love.
Plenty of religious people fought and died in WW2. That doesn’t mean they get the right to make religious displays in state schools.
I guess this is where we agree to disagree. I view people covering their hair (of either gender) as in keeping with the tenets of their faith and as part of their relationship with God, and you view this good intention as some effort to show off to other people around you. Get over yourself; the state taking this right away is no different than 20th century dictators who force men to shave or ban religious symbols that the ruling class dislikes.
So you’re saying the law is completely biased, since the exception fits how Christians commonly display their religion? How convenient.
That’s not completely biased in the slightest.
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.
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.
Wear small abaya if you want to, dude. I just told ya that people should follow the laws of the country. I didn’t even gave you my opinion on it.
Will you advocate for France banning all crosses henceforth then?
Probably yes, but actually if they can be seen. After all it is about signs, things that can be seen. Now, please, don’t message me about this topic anymore.