France to ban female students from wearing abayas in state schools
France to ban female students from wearing abayas in state schools
www.bbc.com
France to ban female students from wearing abayas in state schools
243 comments
-
So much for freedom of religion.
"When you walk into a classroom, you shouldn't be able to identify the pupils' religion just by looking at them,"
What a dumb fucking reason. Really, that's the best he could come up with? Why not? What's so bad about knowing someone's religion, when they are obviously not shy about it?
I get banning religious symbols from schools, because the institutes themselves are supposed to be non-religious (seperation of state and church and so on), but if the students themselves want to express their religion, let them.
-
French laicite is not freedom of religion, as the Anglosphere would understand it. (Which makes their insistence that it's just the direct translation of "secularism" frustrating.) It's a consistent effort to make religion every individual's private business.
Compare fucking. You can do whatever you want with whoever you want. Just not on a street corner. Other people don't want to deal with that.
I don't personally endorse this approach, for a variety of reasons, but you have to understand it to condemn it.
-
That's very interesting, I didn't know that.
I wasn't talking about Frances interpretation though, as I'm obviously not well informed on that. I was more thinking about the EU commitment to freedom of religion as stated in the "EU Guidelines on the promotion and protection of freedom of religion or belief", in which all EU member states commit to protijg the freedom of religion in the EU (and even outside if possible, see OSCE).
Just as a small excerpt:
(b) the freedom to manifest one's religion or belief, individually or in community with others, in public or private, through worship, observance, practice and teaching.
This includes the duty to rescind discriminatory legislation, implement legislation that protects freedom of religion or belief, and halt official practices that cause discrimination, as well as to protect people from discrimination by state and other influential actors, whether religious or non-religious
So the state has a responsibility to protect the freedom of religion, within it's territory.
-
-
School is a special place. Religion must not get in
-
Said every authoritarian ever. So you don't believe in freedom of religion and being able to express that?
-
Of course I do, just not in school. School is more sacred than religions
-
That's literally what freedom of religion means though. To be able to express your religion in both public and private, without the state interfering. Every EU country has committed itself to the "EU Guidelines on the promotion and protection of freedom of religion or belief". Freedom of religion does not mean that people are free to follow their religion behind closed doors or in places that you or the state allow them to practice it.
-
To be honest pupils still have the right to talk about their religion. The difference between clothing and discussion is that clothing seems more intrusive to others
-
-
-
-
-
Before being muslim you are French. Disallowing any religious symbols allow people to bond easily because they are not blocked by religion.
They can see something else at school, it allows them to widen their perspective. Either, since childhood, the only thing they’ll do is practice a religion their parents have forced unto them.
After high school, I see no problems about showing your religious symbols because normally at this point of your life, you are educated about a lot of things and able to choose for yourself…
-
Sorry to burst your bubble, but people in other countries (like Germany) where they are allowed to display religious symbols are able to bond just fine. If you can't "bond" with someone because they're wearing a cross on a chain or cover their head with religious clothing, that sounds like a you-issue. Regardless of why they practice their religion, it's not up to you or the state to tell them how to practice it. Sure some are forced into it by their parents, but banning religious symbols in schools isn't going to fix that. What it does do however, is stop students from practicing a religion they freely chose.
This law is made by people who are intimidated by things they don't understand and that probably have their roots in racism and islamophobia.
-
People in Germany have trouble to "bond" though. Unless you want to ignore the multitude of troubles some immigrants (even second and third generation) face here. To deny these also have to do with religious conservatism isn't helpful.
That some of the children here are still forced into religion, sometimes living in a basically parallel society, is a problem that shouldn't simply be brushed aside.
-
Im not denying that there are problems with integration. I'm not denying that some kids are forced into religion.
I'm saying that taking away the liberty to express your religion, won't change anything about that. All it does is appease people who are offended or threatened by religion (Islamophobia, anti semitism etc.).
A kid that is forced into religion won't become an atheist if it can't wear a headdress or a cross chain in school.
-
I think it does help people become more free from religious oppression.
Please try to imagine you are brought up with the rule you have to cover your whole body with a veil all the time you leave your home. Especially if you are brought up to do that since you are a child. It's a powerful tool to keep control over someone with a relative simple thing. It's not just a necklace or some other small thing.
-
I can imagine that just fine and it's horrible. I love in a country with a fuck ton of Muslim immigrants and I'm sure a lot of their children would prefer not to have to cover their hair (that's what we're talking about, not a burka as you describe it).
Yes it's a powerful tool to keep kids under the influence of their parents religion. But taking away the symbols of that religion won't make the kids atheist or magically take them out of the influence of their families. If you think that parents who enforce the strict rules of their religion because the kid can't wear certain clothing at school, you are Truely delusional. Best case the lod doesn't wear it in school, but still has to do so every other minute in their life. Worst case the parents pull their kids out of school, because the school threatens their influence. A lot of those kids are going to end up home schooled by their radical families or simply go to a private school, where such rules don't exist. Neither is going to help the kid.
-
The abaya isn't just a headscarf, though. It only leaves the face uncovered and I have seen kids who also additionally cover parts of their face with it.
I am not sure of the details in current laws in France, many (most?) countries in Western Europe do not allow homeschooling and private schools have to follow almost all of the same laws as state schools.
Personally I think we need to do more to push back against conservatism, not less.
-
The abaya isn't just a headscarf, though. It only leaves the face uncovered and I have seen kids who also additionally cover parts of their face with it.
I just googled it and it's literally a fucking dress. Sure it's often combined with a headscarf or (I guess this is what most people have a problem with, a Niqab), but how can you tell women (and often also men) not to wear a dress?
You're right about the homeschooling (not so much on the private schools, but that's not really relevant to the point), but that doesn't stop religious radicals to pull their kids from schools so they can better indoctrinate the kids themselves. This was a common problem during the pandemic, where parents who didn't agree with the state policies pulled their kids from school and it's a common problem in counties where homeschooling is legal (like the US), where strictly religious or conservative parents pull their kids from school because they're learning about gender identity and receive sex education.
Personally I think we need to do more to push back against conservatism, not less.
Something we agree on for once. I'm not religious and I hate to see religion being pushed on to kids. However, I'm a all a strong believer in democracy and the freedoms it gives us. That dies mean though, that we have responsibilities as well. You can't pick and chose when to apply the rules we set up for a better world and when not to. The EU has committed itself to the "EU Guidelines on the promotion and protection of freedom of religion or belief" and we can't throw that out of the window, because we don't like how Muslim people dress.
-
I don't know if you can just pull out your kids from school in France. Where I live all kids have to go to school, without exception. The police will literally come and bring them to school if the parents try to keep them home. If you don't make sure your kids go to school you will even loose custody.
It has nothing to do with not liking how Muslims dress. I think where we actually disagree on is where on the scale of fucked up we put the whole "women and girls need to cover themselves".
I don't agree at all that it's just a dress or just a headscarf. It's a symbol of sexist oppression. And a strong one at that. Allowing parents to make their kids follow that rule is a disgrace in my eyes. It's bowing to extreme sexism and conservatism because you are scared the parents will be mad.
No, we need to put our foot down on this. This practice shouldn't take hold in a country which calls itself caring for the freedom of it's people, children in particular. In my eyes we are backstabbing these kids. They could have been free from what their parents impose upon them. But we decided to let them down.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
I agree. I'm American and live in an area with a large Indian immigrant diaspora and I'm able to "bond" with them just fine. Many of them wear religious symbols and wear every day, but they're just normal people. They dress differently, but so do many non religious people also.
-
The specific religious traditions matter though. The context and rules surrounding covering of girls and women are a more problematic matter. The same goes for other religious practices that are rooted in values that have no place in a secular and more or less egalitarian state.
-
You have a very odd understanding of what "secular state" means. It doesn't mean that the state can dictate where or how you're allowed to express you religion. It doesn't mean that some parts of religion are to be tolerated, where as those that you see as bad can be forbidden at will.
All it means, is that the state institutions, can't force you to partake in a religion or activities related to that religion. Kids who voluntarily want to express their religion are free to do so. Whether that kid is forced into following that religion, is not an issue of a "secular state".
-
It also means a certain collection of values. And having rules for girls and women that include them having to cover their hair and body "because religion" is going against those values.
And yes, it absolutely does matter in a secular state whether people forcing their children into religious beliefs. At least in school the children should learn that these rules only exist in the minds of their parents or communities. Freedom also means to be free to choose. And grooming your children into religious practices is not freedom.
-
You actually have no idea what you're talking about, sorry.
I'm glad we finally landed on Islam though, it shows that this law is supported by islamophobes and people like you are the perfect way to show this to the world.
Just a one minute Google search and you could have saved yourself from this absolutely embarrassing answer. Here let me do it for you:
A secular state is an idea pertaining to secularity, whereby a state is or purports to be officially neutral in matters of religion, supporting neither religion nor irreligion.[1] A secular state claims to treat all its citizens equally regardless of religion, and claims to avoid preferential treatment for a citizen based on their religious beliefs, affiliation or lack of either over those with other profiles.[2]
Prohibiting people from expressing their religions is strictly anti secular.
-
You left a whole bunch of other stuff out when it comes to the discussion about secular states. I am not even sure if you even are interested in a discussion since you already brought up your first dead-end argument by trying to insult me. But I try anyway.
A secular state is a group of values that aren't set in stone but are loosely based on the idea to separate state and religion. So the question isn't whether someone is an islamophobe or not. It's whether or not you consider certain religious practices and symbols as crossing that line in certain contexts. The context here is schools, which aren't your private home but a state institution.
To give you examples what is not endangering this separation: Celebrating Ramadan, Christmas and other religious holidays, going to prayers in temples, mosques, churches, etc.
What is definitely crossing the line in a secular state: Demanding that restaurant aren't allowed to sell cow meat because of your religious beliefs, demanding that people have to go on a fast on Easter weekend.
Stuff that gets discussed over an over again because it isn't clear cut: Teaching girls that they need to hide their hair and bodies because of religion, circumcision of baby boys because of religion, forcing children to do a confession for their communion.
For these and similar points you will find people who see it either way. Personally I think all of these shouldn't be allowed in a secular state because it forces children into religious beliefs and all of these are potentially harmful or are a tool to separate "believers" from "non-believers". It goes beyond your private life and touches laws and values that are part of the state.
-
You left a whole bunch of other stuff out when it comes to the discussion about secular states.
Yes I didn't quite the entire Wikipedia page, but I think my quote should already point out the incompatibility between banning religious clothing and committing yourself to secularism. Just to be clear: I brought up the idea of secularism in context of the state pushing religion on its people. I wouldn't even use it as an argument in this case. The best argument to make here is that France as a member of the EU has committed itself to freedom of religion and thus should have no say in how people dress in their public and private life. There have been valid exceptions (such as banning covering your face at protests, banks etc.) for safety reasons, but this clearly doesn't apply here.
Yes you're right, imposing your views on others, does cross the line of a secular state. No one is asking that students have to cover their hair, it's only demanded that they are allowed to do so. Equally crossing the line is the opposite, the state forcing it's belief onto it's people, by telling them they can't express their religion in the form of religious clothing.
It goes beyond your private life and touches laws and values that are part of the state.
Apart from me mostly agreeing that the religious practices you mentioned suck, it doesn't matter if it goes beyond your private life. Freedom of religion, me as you are free to express you religion in private **and public. ** You're free to dislike it, but that's what it is. Seeing people wearing Burkas, prayer beeds, crosses or whatever does not impact your freedom, even if it makes you uncomfortable. As I already mentioned, laws are a different issue. Of course religion is not above the law and of there are valid security concerns such as covering your face in a bank or a protest, there is no reason why the law should interfere with religion. A person wearing a dress at school, is definetly no such concern.
-
So you think parents should be allowed to impose rules onto their kids because of religious beliefs and we shouldn't do anything about it? That is where I disagree. Kids don't cover their bodies because they decided they want to. It's a sexist and deeply conservative rule imposed onto them by their religious nutjob parents.
I don't care whether grownups decide to follow whatever type of religious practices they wish. But indoctrination of children with sexist beliefs shouldn't be allowed.
That's my point you are completely missing in your mission trying to paint me as some kind of intolerant islamophobe.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
That's nationalist at best. Why is French more important than Muslim? Because they write the laws? Doesn't that seem a little unfair?
I hate organized religion, but I don't give a shit what someone does if it doesn't hurt anyone else. I also hate authoritarianism that limits people's options and attempts to force then into some sort of cultural hegymony.
In the Americas (both he us and Canada), we forces native Americans to attend schools to attempt to remove their culture and make them "American." This has generally been viewed as a horrible atrocity. Hopefully France doesn't attempt to follow the mistakes of history.
-
France literally gave me everything: free school, free healthcare, open culture for all, it has literally been a super important part of who I am today thanks to all the things I got access to for free.
It’s the true country of freedom, with intellectuals that paved the way for the American independence, the first to assert the importance of the humans over religious dogma and violence.
You just want to get rid of this because wearing religious symbol « don’t hurt anyone ». Well, let me tell you the truth, those little girls don’t know why they have to wear those scarves. They don’t know that this is a symbol against women’s rights because they weren’t educated about it, so yes it does hurt people.
So yes, this is a nationalist POV, does this make my point less valid ?
EDIT: you are really rooting for this ?? Here’s what those symbols really mean.
-
Why is French more important than Muslim?
because france is a real thing that actually exists.
-
France exists as much as Islam exists. It's a made up belief that enough people agree to follow the rules of. Before modern times, borders were basically invisible and could be crossed freely. Many wars were fought because borders couldn't be defined well, because they're made up. I fact, Islam was originally created as a state and religion together as one, so it exists at least as much as France.
-
nah, the name might be made up but you can touch it.
-
Can you touch it any more than Islam though? You can touch ground it says is it's own, but that was called another thing before and will be called something else after. It's not called France. There is nothing fundamentally "French" about the ground. If I take a scoop of dirt from France and take it to Germany, it doesn't maintain it's France-ness. It isn't any more real than money is. It's a useful concept that we all agree to believe in, but it's not fundamental. The government is something you can touch I guess, but the same is true for leadership in Islam.
-
Yes
-
How?
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Probably not the reason, but don't you remember how many assholes were at school? You express anything at all about yourself and you are open to attack.
-
Don't worry kids, the school attacked you so that other kids wouldn't be able to.
-
You're not wrong. My kids have just finished school and it may as well have been a jail. Strict dress code with no ability to express themselves.
-
-
So you bar people from expressing their religion so they don't get bullied? Absolute gigabrain move.
"Should we punish the bullies? Maybe take measures so the teachers know how to better deal with conflict? No. Let's punish the kids getting bullied by taking away their right to express their religion. Surely the bullies won't find anything else to bully these kids."
-
I think they do punish the bullies. The through process is more that, the school isn't omnipotent and bullies will bully not matter what but if something becomes a bullying target, then it gets blanket removed from all. The school feels like its being firm but fair, but in reality they continually nibble at the childrens freedoms to the point where it totally feels like a jail for kids.
-
-
-
This is why not
"Secularism means the freedom to emancipate oneself through school," Mr Attal told TF1
Seems pretty reasonable to me.
-
Yes the freedom to do so. You should be free to NOT do that though. You should be free from pressure in both directions.
-
You can't have a parallel religious law system in a secular state. So there absolutely should be pressure on people to accept that religious "rules" have no power there.
-
Yes but forbidding the choice to wear a cross necklace or a headscarf is not exactly freedom is it?
Nobody is arguing for a parallel law system
-
I think you underestimate the influence of religious symbols. It's not just any type of clothing. It's a tool for religious communities that has considerable impact, especially when your parents make you wear it, it has beliefs attached to it and is easily visible to everyone around you.
-
I mean parents so have a lot of freedom to raise their children as they see fit. And I think that is a good thing. I would not do a lot of things that other people do, but it's totally in the rights of people to raise their children religiously, and that can include wearing certain kinds of clothes.
-
Well, that's were we disagree. I don't think parents should be free to raise their child however they want to. And it's also not in their rights in every country.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
243 comments