The French government’s decision to ban children from wearing the abaya, the loose-fitting, full-length robes worn by some Muslim women, in state-run schools drew applause on Monday from the right, but also criticism.
The French government’s decision to ban children from wearing the abaya, the loose-fitting, full-length robes worn by some Muslim women, in state-run schools drew applause on Monday from the right, but also criticism.
The other commenter was saying ‘crosses are allowed if they’re not too big.’
Which is it?
Usually if it isn’t visible. Like a necklace worn under clothes. The idea being that you should not make your religious apparent.
He was saying that they would wear them around their necks and in their ears and nobody would bother them about it.
It is mainly up to the head of the school to define what is acceptable or not.
In my case it wouldn’t bother me me if a Jewish, Muslim, or any other religion student wore a penny sized necklace under his clothes, but not if it is a ostensible one.
That’s the problem with clothes, it shows ostensibly from which religion, caste or culture you are from.
Yeah, he didn’t make any mention of obscuring it with clothing or it being up to the ‘head of the school.’
The law is intentionally broad while leaving some space for interpretation in order to encompasse case that may not yet exist.
Law is like an onion. Each layer encompasses the previous one with more precise definition, while not contradicting it. In this case, the constitution protect the freedom of religion, but also separate religion from the state. Thus you are free to have one, but not to ostensibly display it in public (by that I mean in state owned) spaces.
From this point you have 2 way to say what is considered as ostensible according to said law. Application decrees, which is taken by the executive branch, and which is what was used in this case. And jurisprudence, which are the result of the judiciary branch.