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.
Is it getting rebuilt for it’s religious importance or historical importance? Do they rebuild all churches that burn down?
Hint: Answers start with h and n
That’s just hypocrisy here. The building is used for religious ceremonies. There’s nothing more religious than this church.
Now mind you I’m not against rebuilding it, because I’m not an anti religion zealot. I’m merely pointing out the hypocrisy of hunting Muslims out of schools in the name of laicity while rebuilding a church with state money.
Funny how you skipped both questions
Well you should read this.
The state actually does pay for a big part of church maintenance.
https://www.bfmtv.com/economie/economie-social/finances-publiques/l-etat-et-le-financement-religieux-une-separation-loin-d-etre-absolue_AN-201608030105.html
Although it seems to be something that can apply to any religious buildings and especially the ones built before the law on laïcité came into effect (kind of a grandfather clause)… It could be argued that at this point they have an historical value that more recent buildings don’t have…
Absolutely. But incidentally most religious buildings dating from before 1905 are catholic or protestant. So this is not neutral. And some of those buildings have no real historical value per se, at least not any more than any other random building from that era.
I don’t think it’s not neutral just because historically buildings of other religions didn’t get built… The proof that it’s neutral is that even for the pre-1905 non christian buildings the same law is applied instead of only paying for buildings of the majority’s religion. Financing newer non-christian buildings to reach some kind of equilibrium wouldn’t be neutral and would go against the spirit of laïcité… The older buildings have a patrimonial value as they’re a representation of France’s values before 1905…
We should not kid ourselves: this is, as you said yourself, a grandfather clause. This was meant to slightly appease religious people post 1905. The historical value argument is, in most case, rather moot. Plenty of non religious buildings are older and have arguably more cultural value and yet are not maintained with public money.
Besides, the spirit of laïcité is being completely subverted lately. I mean, on the one hand we hear discourse such as is quoted in this article, and on the other our president is still chanoine de Latran. You’d think such staunch defenders of the separation between church and state would take issue with holding a clergy title…
As an addendum, one should keep in mind that in 2017 Macron ran on a platform that heavily criticized the left’s “obsession with laïcité”. What is happening today is pure unadulterated opportunism.
So catholaïcité then! On a ça au Québec aussi 😂
Actually the State does pay for a big part of church maintenance: link.