France to ban female students from wearing abayas in state schools : europe

[–] LazyKoala@feddit.de 0 points 1 year ago (11 children)

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.

[–] mindbleach@sh.itjust.works 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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.

[–] LazyKoala@feddit.de 0 points 1 year ago

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.

[–] lazynooblet@lazysoci.al 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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.

[–] LazyKoala@feddit.de 0 points 1 year ago

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."

[–] Mubelotix@jlai.lu 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

School is a special place. Religion must not get in

[–] LazyKoala@feddit.de 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Said every authoritarian ever. So you don't believe in freedom of religion and being able to express that?

[–] Mubelotix@jlai.lu 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Of course I do, just not in school. School is more sacred than religions

[–] LazyKoala@feddit.de 0 points 1 year ago

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.

[–] noctisatrae@beehaw.org 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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…

[–] LazyKoala@feddit.de 0 points 1 year ago (2 children)

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.

[–] bermuda@beehaw.org 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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.

[–] ParsnipWitch@feddit.de 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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.

[–] LazyKoala@feddit.de 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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".

[–] ParsnipWitch@feddit.de 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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.

[–] LazyKoala@feddit.de 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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.

[–] ParsnipWitch@feddit.de 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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.

[–] LazyKoala@feddit.de 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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.

load more comments (1 replies)

[–] ParsnipWitch@feddit.de 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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.

[–] LazyKoala@feddit.de 0 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

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.

[–] ParsnipWitch@feddit.de 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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.

[–] LazyKoala@feddit.de 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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.

[–] ParsnipWitch@feddit.de 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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.

[–] LazyKoala@feddit.de 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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.

load more comments (1 replies)

load more comments (7 replies)

[–] frostbiker@lemmy.ca 0 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

I'm all for letting people wear whatever they want. What is the harm?

Here in Canada I've seen police officers wearing turbans. Works for me. Nude beaches? Sure thing. I've seen people in my neighborhood wearing Saudi-style niqabs and Afghan-style burqas.

Who am I to tell people what they should or shouldn't wear? How could it be my business?

I'm also for people burning the Qur'an if they so please. Or the bible, or the rainbow flag, or the national flag if that's how they want to protest. Ideas are there to be challenged.

I draw the line at threatening or harming people.

[–] Leax@lemmy.dbzer0.com 0 points 1 year ago (5 children)

France is a secularist Republic. Freedom of religion is guaranteed but every religious sign is banned in the public space.

[–] frostbiker@lemmy.ca 0 points 1 year ago (3 children)

I understand that's how things are, but I don't think that is how they should be. And while I'm an atheist, I also understand many people aren't. Why force my irreligiosity on them?

So while students should not be indoctrinated on any particular religion in school, I don't see the harm in letting both teachers and students wear whatever they like, including religious symbols.

In fact, it would be great if we taught all students the basics of multiple world religions in school and let people of different faiths talk to each other about what is important to them.

[–] Syndic@feddit.de 0 points 1 year ago

I understand that’s how things are, but I don’t think that is how they should be.

Don't take that guy just at his word. France does force secularism on their government buildings and workers, including teachers. But public wearing of religious symbols or garnment is perfectly fine. They recently banned face covering, with the obvious target of Muslim women wearing burqa or niqabs, but everything else is perfectly legal to wear in public.

[–] Turun@feddit.de 0 points 1 year ago (3 children)

I can see where you are coming from. How can we forbid clothing if the goal is to not dictate what to wear?

But consider that in a community, be that at school or in the neighborhood, classmates and neighbors can uphold unregulated, religious rules. Is it free choice of clothing if the law doesn't forbid anything, but only girls with (insert appropriate clothing) are allowed to join in the play? And there is plenty precedent of religion that causes precisely such group behavior.

[–] Syndic@feddit.de 0 points 1 year ago

Well if that really were the fears of people proposing such bans, then there would be a lot of better ways to achieve this. At the very least they would try to support such bans with flanking policies such as better infrastructure to support such women who are oppressed in a religious ways as for example better integration courses and public information.

And for some reason it's always only about Muslim women! Other religions which can also coerce or force family members to follow a certain dress code, not a single word about them.

load more comments (2 replies)

load more comments (1 replies)

[–] Syndic@feddit.de 0 points 1 year ago

Freedom of religion is guaranteed but every religious sign is banned in the public space.

No it's not! Thousands of people walk around with religious symbols and garnments in public all the time in France.

Secularism is enforced in government offices and employed people.

load more comments (3 replies)

[–] geissi@feddit.de 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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.

It has been updating the law over the years to reflect its changing population, which now includes the Muslim headscarf and Jewish kippa, but abayas have not been banned outright.

So going by the article, some religious clothing is outright banned while crosses are allowed as long as they are not large?

[–] Mubelotix@jlai.lu 0 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

All crosses are banned. Totally unacceptable. Source: I'm a 20yo french.

[–] rufus@discuss.tchncs.de 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

What about heavy metal band shirts with an upside-down cross on it?

[–] tetha@feddit.de 0 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Hm. Not sure about school, because I have little reason to go there. But I certainly have shirts that are work or grandma unfriendly, or that I would only wear around devote christians I trust. With that, I wouldn't be opposed with a ban for shirts that are created to offend specific religions. It's a different side of a very similar coin.

[–] rufus@discuss.tchncs.de 0 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

I was wondering how you'd word such a rule. Is the symbol forbidden, or wearing it with some intent? What's if it's dual use, a piece of clothes but also associated with a religion? Can I wear a Kufiya that can be viewed as a political statement? Is that okay? It also touches religion. What about a bit more subtle symbols, a fish instead of wearing a cross? It's kind of a slippery slope.

Or the heavy metal t-shirt i mentioned. These are most of the times not religious at all but use christian or northern mythology and those imagery. They also do not mock religion except you're a super insecure fundamentalist.

Do we only forbid religious imagery, or also that of cults? Is there a line? Can I wear my spaghetti monster shirt? Wear pirate insignia?

I'm genuinely interested in how the french people/legislator solve the issue with the whole thing being a slippery slope and kind of vague. I'm a fan of laicism myself.

[–] tetha@feddit.de 0 points 1 year ago

The thing is, I don't have an answer to all of these questions.

On the other hand, I know pagan bands with songs about "Killing all the christian heathens coming to colonize scandinavia". About "Crushing the roman christians coming to take germanic women with their fairy tales of a weak god". (BTW, this is explicitly not about german nationalism. There are nazis abusing these terms of skandinavian/germanic origins, many of them, but this isn't part of that). Those are what I meant when I said: I'm not sure if I want to discuss those with a christian I don't necessarily trust. Because face it, norse mythology was colonized by roman christians. maybe for good, maybe not, I don't know.

And in another direction, a lot of metal / heavy metal / rock imagery is based around pushing and prodding and poking christians. Not just subtly. They thrived on this to establish themself as counter-culture. "You are Christians. We are sons of satan. We listen to the other music." For those, I can very much find a foundation in christian religion. Like, look at denmark. Burning a stack of paper shouldn't be a big thing, but now they are creating laws against burning the Koran. Not sure how I feel about this.

In that light, I'd very much be in favor of a school uniform, or a specification of unicolor shirts / t-shirts without imagery, I have to say. Concessions are bound to be abused in every way, with that hat on.

The sad thing to me personally is: IMO, we should embrace diversity. Someone wearing a weird cloth on top of their hair should be a source of curiosity. It should be an exposure to something new and an option to grow and reflect and to learn they are just a person, just a bit different. Like the first time you try to cook for a vegetarian, a vegan, or try to date a lesbian.

[–] CookieJarObserver@sh.itjust.works 0 points 1 year ago (6 children)

Good. Religion shit has to stop.

[–] uint8_t@feddit.de 0 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

kinda, yes, but not through state-enforced bans

[–] Llewellyn@lemm.ee 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Through what then?

[–] uint8_t@feddit.de 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

people losing interest on their own. yes it's slower, but true change can only happen through internal motivators.

load more comments (1 replies)

load more comments (5 replies)

[–] Rozauhtuno@lemmy.blahaj.zone 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Good, bodily autonomy ought to be respected only when it aligns with western values 🤡

Much feminism. 🤡

[–] gapbetweenus@feddit.de 0 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Kipas are banned too. France is a laicist country. You don't like it, you don't have to live there - there are enough religious states out there that let you opres women to your hearts desire.

[–] Rozauhtuno@lemmy.blahaj.zone 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

there are enough religious states out there that let you opres women to your hearts desire.

Oppressing, like this very ban? Prohibiting a woman to wear what you don't like is exactly as oppressing as forcing her to wear something. Hiding behind secularism doesn't make it okay, it's still anti-feminist, and paternalistic.

My point is about the lack of respect for body autonomy, which is binary: either there is or there isn't. Either you own your own body or the state does, which compiles the list of what you can and cannot do with it.

[–] gapbetweenus@feddit.de 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

How do you get by without the ability to read? It is equally forbidden for other religion and men (example Kipa) to wear religious symbols in school) - same rules for everyone.

Either you own your own body or the state does, which compiles the list of what you can and cannot do with it.

Wait till you hear of the tyranny of school uniforms. Basically Afghanistan. When you grow up, I'm sure you will learn to not to think in absolutes and also to read. Save my post and read it whet the time comes.

[–] Rozauhtuno@lemmy.blahaj.zone 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

How do you get by without the ability to read?

That should be my line. I've already said twice that I'm arguing this under the lens of feminism and twice already you've conveniently ignored it to hide behind the excuse of laicism. And if that wasn't enough now you've resorted to infantilizing who disagrees with you.

Forcing someone to do something because of religion is wrong and oppressive, but that doesn't mean that forcing someone NOT to do something in the name of laicism isn't any less oppressive.

I'm questioning whether the law is just and is applied justly, you are running on the assumption that the law must be just because it oppresses everyone equally. That's an example of negative peace.

Anyway, I hate internet screaming contests, so I'm done. Enjoy your neoliberal state slipping into authoritarianism. Peace ✌

[–] gapbetweenus@feddit.de 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

under the lens of feminism

And again, just for my amusement since - you can't read, same rules apply to men, women and different religion.

to infantilizing who disagrees with you.

Nah, mate - you have done it to yourself, but just not engaging with what I write and making weird absolutist statement. Obviously I don't know if you are a teen, but I sure hope so.

but that doesn’t mean that forcing someone NOT to do something in the name of laicism isn’t any less oppressive.

So how do you make sure that girls that don't want to wear religious closing are not forced to to so? Sometimes you have to chose, whose rights to oppress - and sorry I will be always on the side of moderates and not fundamentalist. Since as mentioned before - there is no point in appeasement of fundamentalist.

you are running on the assumption that the law must be just because it oppresses everyone equally.

No, I was more like: you don't like secular countries - move to a religious one. Because we have a lot of the second and only a few of the first. But again - you can't read so you will never know.

Anyway, I hate internet screaming contests,

Sure buddy.

Enjoy your neoliberal state slipping into authoritarianism.

Sure, gay Europe is in it's downfall and will end surly soon, just after capitalism collapses. I know that argument from somewhere - and not from feminists.

[–] Hawk@lemmy.dbzer0.com 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

The fact that it also applies to men is not an argument in your discussion.

It's sad that freedom has to be given up for those few who are oppressed.

All these laws do is divide people. They're racist laws wrapped in a thin layer of good intentions and nationalism.

[–] gapbetweenus@feddit.de 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Nah, mate - religious rules that only apply to one sex don't belong in the modern world. You can try to spin it all you want - but it's conservative Islam that tells women what to wear.

[–] Hawk@lemmy.dbzer0.com 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

And now it's the government telling women what to wear, which is even worse as it takes everyone's freedom, not only those who are oppressed.

load more comments (1 replies)

Europe

Rules