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.
The law, in its majestic equality, forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal their bread
Yea they made it so nobody could wear religious cultural clothes but there's only one religion that includes wearing those clothes as a belief.
Would you also support a policy that nobody named @some_guy should be allowed to talk, no matter who they are.
there are multiple such as Islam and Sikhism to give two examples. This law is just an example of religious persecution against religions that don't fit in with the French idea of which religions a French person should have
Your right should have said there's multiple religions it was discriminating against just highlighting how it lines up with Frances history of Islamophobia.
One, this is not true. Two, this includes other symbols like pendants
Presumably if a bunch of Mormons or Mennonites or whatever else set up in France and all their kids dressed the same way, the school would step in on that too. Maybe they wouldn't, but then the problem isn't the policy it's biased enforcement.
The first is a good argument. And I support breaking that law.
The second is a good argument in that I wasn't factoring the requirement (which I kinda don't care about because I reject religion, so I know that I'm wrong even though I reject religion, fuck religion). Were religion not so toxic, I would have more sympathy. In this case, I'm gonna sound like a real fuckwad, but assimilate.
The third is just silly.
can't believe you just said "facing persecution for your religious faith simply don't be a member of the religious minority being persecuted"
Being religious is a choice, not a birth defect
It's not a choice when they indoctrinate kids in it, which all religions do.
At which point it becomes child abuse. And the state should step in. Let's not forget that France also doesn't permit the display of any religious symbolism instate institutions including Christian. Either these kids are free to choose a different item of clothing, or they're being abused by their family. Simple.
Every kid of belivers is being rased in their faith, worldwide. It is religious indoctrination and frankly i agree that this is child abuse, but it's not illegal anywhere. People refraining from this and allowing the children to choose are very rare. And even then it might still not exactly be the choice, in basically all societies there is considerable peer and social pressure to conform to its values.
"Just assimilate to Christian culture, Muslims. I'm anti-religion of all kinds, btw."
You are too caught up in liberal abstraction to allow yourself to understand the material reality.
The kids aren't being made to attend church on Sunday. They're being made to be part of a secular society, one that takes its secularism more seriously than many other countries do.
Pure reactionary sophistry. They are not made to go to church, but they still get the Christian Sabbath off but not Muslim Jumu'ah (their equivalent, midday prayer) on Fridays. France is "secular" but it just so happens that the laws of its "secularism" cut in a direction that wildly favors Christianity.
You claim to be a communist, don't you? You should know this quote:
-- Anatole France
As I said, liberal abstraction that obscures the deliberate material impact of the laws.
I was taking an opportunity to demonstrate a point with what you said, not suggesting that all bread stealing should be legalized.
Your ideology is a joke. "Surely, some girl wearing too baggy a dress will hamper education and heighten religious differences. No, we must teach these children tolerance by socializing them in an environment where we have eliminated any visible deviations from the dominant (liberal Christian) culture. Then, when they go out on the street and see people who look different, they will in fact be more tolerant of people with traits alien to how they were socialized."
Every word you say is just laundering reactionary bullshit under a veil of virtue.
This is an impasse. You look at French culture and see a liberal Christian one, I see a liberal secular one. When Christianity infects schools you don't get dress codes you get much more overt and disgusting propagandizing, like what's being pushed in Florida right now.
hear me out: that just might be, really far stretch I know, but it just might be because the western weekend formed out of the Jewish Sabbath, which was adopted by Christianity. However it is not anymore the justification for having it. The only reason Saturday and Sunday are the weekend is because nobody bothered moving the date after the religious meaning was largely lost on the general population. Religion in Europe is in steep decline, unlike in certain other parts of the western world.
France has a population of ~40% Atheist/Agnostics. If you seriously think Christianity dictates the laws in France you are delusional.
Lmao conflating Christian culture with Secularism, classic blunder
Wow. So literally saying they should just assimilate, so much for that whole "they have to respect our culture because we respect theirs"
Also yea the third point was stupid, it was to illustrate how dumb your argument was.
Bit then you just came out and admitted to being a bigot and leapfrogging my point.
I am bigoted against religion. I otherwise accept everyone for who they are. I have no shame in taking this stance.
Yea bigots generally aren't shameful about their bigotry they just usually try to tap dance around the word bigot, good for you for being honest I guess.
The point people are trying to make is that it’s not the religion that’s being targeted, but the minority non white culture, and it’s being done in a way to hide its true intent, which you are supporting based on its appearance.
This has nothing to do with secularism and everything to do with punishing and invalidating nonwhite culture
I suspect that you're right and if that's the case, that's terrible. I would support removal of religion from schools simply on the basis that it's the source of most of the world's wars. In the US, I think we should take the gloves off and churches should pay taxes. I detest that it causes people to vote and behave irrationally and is used as a smoke screen to excuse bad behavior. My support for kicking religion out of schools is based in that and does not apply as a tool to suppress non-western peoples.
It's unfortunate that what you're suggesting is probably the real reason. Put me in charge and it really will be because I'm sick of religion in a completely colorblind fashion.
You may have a leg to stand on in terms of premodern history, but for the last 150 years most wars have been due to capitalism, not religion. You are not exactly incorrect, but you are in my view taking symptoms as the disease, when we really need to zoom out, religion itself isn't the base level problem, its authoritative structures not derived from the consent and for the betterment of the people, religion is but a powerful historical tool
You're right. I have no argument with your statement other than to say that religion has justified violence on a non-war scale. Take all the violence that has been influenced by religion that isn't a war and factor that in with the wars.
Yes, capitalism is destroying lives, the world, etc. Absolutely.
The thing that I was thinking about last night is if I had one wish that would come true, what would it be? I hate that there are people unhoused. I hate that there are people who are abused. I hate that there is hunger. But to cure all terrible things, I think erasing religion would be the greatest step to removing barriers in finding consensus. I think it's the thing most responsible for dividing people. Tribalism will still exist, but if you removed this all-present motivation from personal interactions and people's sense of morals, I think we'd make progress on all other fronts.
Capitalism is positive to no one’s lives but a vanishingly small % of the smallest % of the world, and does great harm to all others
Religion is integrated into a number of oppressive systems that largely prop up capitalism, but is also neutral for many people.
I definitely don’t disagree that humanity has moved past the need for religion as we have now, and it’s destruction would definitely be a net positive.
The thing is though, destroying capitalism and bringing about communism would also destroy organized religion as it now exists, but the opposite is not true, deleting religion from the world would do almost nothing to change anything for most people.
Palestinians would still be getting genocided by Israel, because it’s not religion that is the cause of that, it’s just a tool for the messaging of the Israeli state, not the actual reason, for one concrete example
Sure, it would probably make the world a better place, but it would not advance humanity much towards a brighter future
We’d just have the current world but instead of division along religious lines, it would be more explicitly along economic or racial/ethnic lines
US Evangelical Christian’s wouldn’t suddenly become good nice people, they’re still vicious racist monsters, the way they talk about the people they hate and dehumanize would simply be slightly different words
Organized religion like Catholicism is an undebatably malignant social entity, but religion in general? I think Marx has it completely right:
When he calls it "the opium of the people" he doesn't mean "they do it recreationally and it kills them," he means "though it hampers them, it anesthetizes pain inflicted on them from without". If you want humanity to be free of religion rather than merely having an atheistic upper class be free of needing to see the rabble practice religion (by persecuting the latter), then the primary answer is not to legislate against religion but to legislate against the problems that, in turn, drive people to religion. It can be difficult to accept, but whether it matches your personal experience or not, religion serves useful social functions, just as opium serves useful medical functions (whatever else we may rightly say about both). If you want to get rid of religion, you need to do the good that it does better than it. If you want the oppressed creature not to sigh, end its oppression. To simply stifle its sigh is to strangle it.
Great response. I'd counter that fear of death will still provide a gateway to religion, but there's nothing else with which I'd quibble. Cheers!
Well if we look at the Romans, Assyrians, British, French, and Germans and their wars it's abundantly clear that most of their wars were for the aquisition of wealth. The vast majority of wars even in the middle ages were openly about arguments between noble families over land
You're discounting the Protestant Reformation and Crusades, not to mention all other wars for religion. Yes, people fight for territory and resources. People also fight for a fictional man in the sky.
yeah if you discount all the secular motives behind the wars of the reformation as well. The French have basically always been trying to keep Germany down as Germany's large population worries them financially and militarily. Henry the 8th didn't convert for religious reasons he converted because he needed a strong male heir to keep the plantagenots at bay and the pope wouldn't let him annul his marriage to Catharine of Aragon who kept having stillbirths
This is false. It was used as the pretext for most of the world's wars, just as secular equality is used as the pretext for this law, but the actual cause of those and virtually all wars lies in material motivations (land, resources, etc), just as the true objective of the law is to forcibly assimilate minorities.
LOL
What the fuck I thought Christopher Hitchens died
Dawkins and Harris yet live, unfortunately
My North African grandfather lost a leg to untreated necrosis defending that gallic shithole from nazism, they can go assimilate his rotted leg