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.

    • CookieJarObserver
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      47
      arrow-down
      25
      ·
      1 year ago

      Nope. You aren’t allowed to have religious shit on you in general public in france.

          • SCB@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            30
            arrow-down
            31
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            Nah you just agree with the oppression

            You’re like a Trump supporter in the US talking about “freedom” but then getting angry at trans people. Your side even uses the same arguments - “they don’t have the right to teach their children to be this way!”

            It’s all oppression.

            • bric@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              19
              arrow-down
              3
              ·
              1 year ago

              This. The whole point of freedom is that every person gets to choose for themselves, and the government should be preserving that choice and limiting elements that take choice away. It’s morally reprehensible to support choice only when it’s choices that you agree with, that’s how state religions became a thing in the first place.

                • bric@lemm.ee
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  8
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  Another commenter mentioned how similar some of the arguments are with far right anti-lgbt arguments are, and I don’t think there’s a better example of it than your comment. “I don’t want to ban it, I just hate it and don’t want to see it, so let’s ban it from anywhere I could run into it”. " ‘You say freedom to love you you want’ I say ‘You’re putting it in my fucking face and letting LGBT activists decide laws that directly affect my family and I’. Get that gay shit out of my face. Sick of it". Don’t you see how that type of rhetoric can be problematic?

                  I’m sorry, but you’re going to run into people in the world that do and say things you don’t agree with, that’s part of life. If you want to fight to keep it out of government and laws, I’ll be fighting right there with you, but once you extend it to people you’re just silencing and oppressing. Freedom is even more important when you don’t agree with the choices people are making, if you can’t agree with that then I don’t want to be anywhere near the “free” world you help build

                  • Honytawk@lemmy.zip
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    arrow-down
                    3
                    ·
                    edit-2
                    1 year ago

                    I mean, the bible itself says that practicing christianity should happen behind closed doors. [Matthew 6:5 & 6:6].

              • SCB@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                4
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                Im pretty sure I can advocate for freedom for everyone everywhere and not run afoul of any hypocrisy, because I’m an adult capable of thinking.

                  • Guntrigger@feddit.ch
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    3
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    Force them to wear some different clothes, that will make them tolerate trans people more.

                  • SCB@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    2
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    Yes people are allowed to hate anyone they want. What they’re not allowed to do is act on that hate.

    • EvilHaitianEatingYourCat@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      23
      arrow-down
      38
      ·
      1 year ago

      No it’s not. making something mandatory for a group of people makes that group of people well separated from the rest. here is exactly opposite : they are trying to make them look like anyone else.

      • funkless_eck
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        32
        arrow-down
        14
        ·
        1 year ago

        this ban is as dumb as banning heavy metal, dungeons and dragons, skateboards, backwards baseball caps, etc etc

        it’s all just trying to look tough enough to court right wing racists on targets too vulnerable to fight back.

        if you want to protect vulnerable young girls, you don’t start by ostracising them from the community.

          • funkless_eck
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            1 year ago

            how is saying someone from a group of people can’t dress in attitudes that identifies them as a member of the group not ostracising? it’s the very definition.

            • EvilHaitianEatingYourCat@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              Because “ostracizing” means “to exclude” someone. While imposing a common dress standard is to include everyone. so petty much the opposite of “ostracizing”

              • generalpotato@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                3
                ·
                1 year ago

                A common dress standard would be called a uniform. This law isn’t mandating uniforms, so you’re incorrect. It’s excluding religious groups, so yes, ostracizing.

                • EvilHaitianEatingYourCat@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  arrow-down
                  2
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  Ostracising means to exclude. The law forces the blending. The mental gymnastics you need to find “exclusion” in that is buffing. Again it’s not excluding anyone, it tries to male them blend with the rest. Blend. Mix. Nobody is excluded. I never mentioned uniforms, neither the law, i don’t know why you bring that up. Yes, uniforms obviously make everyone uniform but we aren’t talking about it. Dressing regularly also make everyone look “regular” or “secular”, we don’t need uniforms.

                  If anything, the groups of people are literally excluding themselves by wearing stuff nobody else does.

                  Looks like at some point people are just repeating the same argument for everything and opposite of it.

                  • generalpotato@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    Yes, we’ve established what ostracizing means. If anybody seems to be jumping through hoops to prove that this law, that target religious minorities isn’t targeted at religious minorities, is you. You shouldn’t have to force (or make them) “blend”. If there’s force or a mandate involved, then it’s already not the best path to freedom of expression and identity.

                    There’s no such thing as a “secular dress” because people in a truly secular society, can come from different (incl non western) backgrounds and can choose to wear whatever they want. Therefore, you either don’t claim freedom of expression or identity or you accept that this is a targeted law aimed at a minority group in the name of “secularism” and is no different than the Taliban mandating face-covering like somebody else stated in these discussions. This just happens to be on the other end of the spectrum.

      • jalatani@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        13
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        “trying to make them” is a problematic phrase and why this doesn’t make sense. Nobody should be “made” to do anything, if people are choosing to look different they should be free to do so.

      • SCB@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        18
        arrow-down
        15
        ·
        1 year ago

        You know what makes everyone look alike? A niqab.

        Someone call the Taliban and let them know they’re defenders of freedom.

          • SCB@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            9
            arrow-down
            6
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            Plastic surgery does not make everyone look alike. That’s a silly thing to say lol

            Also you’re missing the highly relevant point that plastic surgery is not compulsory

            • EvilHaitianEatingYourCat@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              7
              arrow-down
              5
              ·
              1 year ago

              Well i made a silly argument to show you how I feel about yours lol.

              Nobody is imposing a cloth on anyone, and even less a religious one. So you can’t use niqqab in your argument against me because that’s literally what i am against!

              You could say for example that’s a cultural thing, and forbidding it would somehow restrict the minority. But then, it’s only public schools, the law doesn’t care (me neither) about adults wearing it outside. (I don’t know why I am arguing with myself on your behalf 🤔)

              What it does care about, is to prevent community bubbles forming within groups of children. Which i totally support.