this post was submitted on 05 Sep 2023
474 points (96.7% liked)

World News

32326 readers
997 users here now

News from around the world!

Rules:

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
 

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.


you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] cyclohexane@lemmy.ml 20 points 1 year ago (7 children)

As someone who comes from Muslim upbringing, I am 100% against face veils and abayas. But this is very clearly racist. Those girls are the victims, so why punish them even further? France is such a fascist place.

[–] TheCaconym@hexbear.net 32 points 1 year ago (2 children)

You are correct, this is part of a series of laws over the past decade specifically aimed at muslims in France, and it indeed issues from racism

But also:

Those girls are the victims

lmao, wearing an abaya is not "being a victim", it's a fucking dress

How about just letting the girls wear whatever the fuck they want to wear

[–] usernamesaredifficul@hexbear.net 21 points 1 year ago (2 children)

I never understood the depth of feeling over this.

In the west there are laws about public indecency which legislate what people may wear outside and these rules demand women wear shirts but do not demand the same of men. We therefore categorically do not culturally believe in the absolute freedom of a person to wear what they will and in fact are arguing a position of where the line is on acceptable dress

[–] Harrison@ttrpg.network 12 points 1 year ago

In the west there are laws about public indecency which legislate what people may wear outside and these rules demand women wear shirts but do not demand the same of men.

In some western countries, there are ones that do not make a distinction

[–] Nationalgoatism@hexbear.net 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

In the west there are laws about public indecency which legislate what people may wear outside and these rules demand women wear shirts but do not demand the same of men.

Such laws are categorically reactionary and misogynistic, and we should obviously oppose them

[–] usernamesaredifficul@hexbear.net 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

so if you're in a mcDonalds you think that a man should just be able to show anyone his dick then because that's what a lack of public indecency laws would entail

[–] Nationalgoatism@hexbear.net 3 points 1 year ago

I was mostly referring to laws setting different requirements for men and women's clothing in public. However I grew up in a place where it was not unheard of to walk down the street completely naked. It was just something some people did. So I will say that there is a big difference between being naked and deliberately trying to flash your genitals.

[–] socsa@lemmy.ml 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Man, the underlying philosophy of hexbear tankies really is hard to pin down. You defend it when China's leader gets up and says batshit crazy stuff like "we need to focus on the sinofication of islam," but you don't like it when France says "we don't want religion in schools."

It almost feels like that underlying philosophy is "west bad."

[–] cyclohexane@lemmy.ml 7 points 1 year ago

Wearing a hijab or abaya is not "bringing religion into school". It is bringing a person with whatever they always dress in outside into school. They are not trying to convert people or loudly calling for prayer in a disruptive manner. They are simply existing.

[–] sooper_dooper_roofer@hexbear.net 14 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

dude it's literally a fucking scarf. you are saying you're against people wearing scarves

I am AGAINST women wearing JEANS AND T SHIRTS because they are being OPPRESSED into NOT SHOWING more of their skin in a WONDERFUL and MISOGYNY-FREE alternative such as a BIKINI or THONG

it's a dress but same difference

[–] cyclohexane@lemmy.ml 5 points 1 year ago

I am not against the abaya itself. I am against women or girls being coerced into any kind of clothing. Unfortunately, most girls wearing abayas are coerced by their families. But again, I am against France coercing clothing onto girls too. What they do is even worse.

[–] set_secret@lemmy.world 10 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

can you be racist if it's targeting a religion? honest question. I mean you can be any race and musilm. is it religious discrimination? maybe, but they ban religious garbs for all other religions too, ironically from my understanding, the whole point of it is to level the education playing field so religion isn't discriminated against during the Education process.

I guess you could argue some religious garb is heavily tied to cultural identity and that's probably a fair argument that it disproportionately affects some more than others. Poples right to express their culture shouldn't be infringed upon by the state, the policy is definitely messy, but i don't think it's racist.

[–] Pipoca@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago

I guess you could argue some religious garb is heavily tied to cultural identity

More importantly, some is tied to religious identity.

For example, regardless of your culture, if you converted to orthodox Judaism you'd be obligated to wear a kippah if you're male.

[–] ExLisper@linux.community 3 points 1 year ago

I guess you have to check what % of native French are Muslim vs what % of immigrants from middle east are. If by targeting Islam you're pretty much exclusively targeting immigrants I would say it's kind of racist.

[–] sudneo@lemmy.world 7 points 1 year ago

As you can read in the article, most simply agreed to wear something else. For those who refused, some talks with families will follow. To me it seems a fairly rational way to enforce the rule.

[–] luk3th3dud3@feddit.de 6 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Clearly not racist. Same rules for everyone.

[–] Pipoca@lemmy.world 9 points 1 year ago

Uniform rules don't always affect everyone uniformly. It's really not hard to create uniform laws that disproportionately target a particular group.

For example, North Dakota passed a law that required Voter ID with a residential street address on it. However, many Native Americans living on tribal land in the state didn't have a residential street address.. Most people in the state who lived in a house that didn't have an address lived on a reservation. The law was clearly racist and specifically designed to depress the Native American vote for partisan gain, yet used the same rules for everyone to do so.

[–] gnuhaut@lemmy.ml 5 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Weird how in practice this seems to only affect one group of people. Weird how all the bigots seem love this. But this couldn't be the reason for this, could it? Who would ever try to exploit the widespread Islamophobia in France to gain popularity and distract from real problems?

[–] luk3th3dud3@feddit.de 6 points 1 year ago (1 children)

From what I understand, this affects everyone. All religious symbols are banned from school. I do not know what the rest of your murmuring has to do with the specific topic.

[–] tryptaminev@feddit.de 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

because the Abaya is not a religious symbol. It is a long dress that is worn for religious reasons, in this case to not reveal too much of the body. So if they want to ban this religious "symbol" then they need to ban all clothes that arent very revealing.

[–] luk3th3dud3@feddit.de 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Yes of course, it is just a piece of clothing. A piece of clothing that women are forced to wear in public in the women's rights loving state of saudi arabia. It is not about very revealing clothing, you are intentionally missing the point here. It is specifically about this piece of religious clothing.

[–] tryptaminev@feddit.de 5 points 1 year ago

You are wrong. There is no forcing of women to wear an abaya in saudi arabia. they are forced to wear clothes that arent revealing, but it is not specific to this kind of clothing.

Also it is a weird flex to say that it is good to force women to wear certain clothing because saudi arabia forces them to wear different clothing. You still end up forcing women to wear or not to wear certain things, taking away their liberty.

Again it is not a religious symbol because it is not defined by the religion, unlike the robe of a priest, the cross or the head scarf.

If you want to ban the underlying "symbol" of not wearing revealing clothing, youd need to ban all clothing that does that and not just the abaya. But they wont do that because they are bigoted hypocrites.

[–] CybranM@feddit.nu 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)
[–] gnuhaut@lemmy.ml 6 points 1 year ago

Is the intention of urinals to bully women?

[–] electrogamerman@lemmy.world 5 points 1 year ago (2 children)

France is such a fascist place.

As opposed to muslims?

[–] CybranM@feddit.nu 6 points 1 year ago (1 children)

The middle east was a haven for philosophy and science, two thousand years ago. A shame so much of it fell apart due to religious extremism

[–] cyclohexane@lemmy.ml 7 points 1 year ago

It fell apart after colonialism, and then Western powers proceeded to fund extremist political groups like the brotherhood, Wahhabists, Al-Qaeda, etc. to combat the leftists.

[–] cyclohexane@lemmy.ml 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Yes. "Muslims" aren't (isn't?) a fascist place

[–] electrogamerman@lemmy.world -2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Only a fascist religion, got ya.

[–] cyclohexane@lemmy.ml 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Not that either. Have a read here, maybe you'll stop embarrassing yourself: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism

[–] electrogamerman@lemmy.world -2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Have a read here, maybe you'll stop embarrassing yourself:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamofascism

You think a religion can't be fascist? Lmao.

[–] cyclohexane@lemmy.ml 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Alright let's take a read. Let's start at the very beginning of the "scholarly analysis" section.

The widespread use in mass media of the term "Islamofascism" has been challenged as confusing because of its conceptual fuzziness [...] and linking Islam to that concept was more a matter of denigration than of ideological clarity [...] Walter Laqueur, after reviewing this and related terms, concluded that "Islamic fascism, Islamophobia and antisemitism, each in its way, are imprecise terms we could well do without but it is doubtful whether they can be removed from our political lexicon." [...] the term "Islamofascism" circulated mainly as a propaganda, rather than as an analytic, term after the September 11 attacks

Ahh, I didn't expect that you'd link me an article that says your argument is full of shit.

Ok ok let's look at the few scholars who had a position of agreement

The earliest example of the term "Islamofascism," according to William Safire,[10] occurs in an article penned by the Scottish scholar and writer Malise Ruthven writing in 1990.

As a neologism it was adopted broadly in the wake of the September 11 attacks to intimate that either all Muslims, or those Muslims who spoke of their social or political goals in terms of Islam, were fascists.[18] Khalid Duran is often credited with devising the phrase at that date. He used it in 2001 to characterize Islamism generally, as a doctrine that would compel both a state and its citizens to adopt the religion of Islam.[3][19][20] Neo-conservative journalist Lulu Schwartz is regarded as the first Westerner to adopt the term and popularise it in the aftermath of the attack on the World Trade Center.

Ahh, nice! Americans and Europeans, the inventors of fascism, think that Muslims are actually fascist. The same ones that support mass murder machines and wars around the world? I sure would trust those people... If I was the dumbest man on earth. Thankfully I'm far from that, but we know who is 👀.

I highly urge you to block my account so that you're less likely to embarrass yourself in the future.

[–] electrogamerman@lemmy.world -2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Ahh, nice! Americans and Europeans, the inventors of fascism, think that Muslims are actually fascist. The same ones that support mass murder machines and wars around the world? I sure would trust those people… If I was the dumbest man on earth. Thankfully I’m far from that, but we know who is 👀.

But we are discussing this in a post about muslims in Europe, huh? So you wouldnt trust Americans and Europeans, but you are urging to come live here? Why dont go to muslim countries, if they are so perfect?

I highly urge you to block my account so that you’re less likely to embarrass yourself in the future.

Not at all bro, lets keep dicussing in a good manner. Waiting here for you answer to the above comment.

[–] cyclohexane@lemmy.ml 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Where do you see me urging anyone to go anywhere? Where do you see me calling "Muslim countries" perfect? The middle east and north Africa has been ravaged by European colonialism, and it continues to be ravaged by wars sponsored by them. It is very much the opposite of perfect.

[–] electrogamerman@lemmy.world -2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Well, congrats, like it or not, France is a secularism country, so follow the rules just as other people do.

"but it is fascism!". No, it is not. Go to islamic countries, were women are killed if they dont cover themselves, or LGBT people are killed for literally just existing, then youll understand what fascism is.

[–] cyclohexane@lemmy.ml 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I said nothing about whether France is secular or not. I said it is fascist.

No, it is not.

Yes it is.

women are killed if they dont cover themselves, or LGBT people are killed for literally just existing

Really admire your whataboutism. "France isn't fascist! Look, other countries do bad thing! That proves France not fascist!". Do you hear yourself? And this isn't beginning to address what a ridiculous claim that is, but I don't want to fall for your goalpost moving.

[–] electrogamerman@lemmy.world -2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Bro this "whataboutism" is just a poor excuse for muslims to try to enforce their facist politics into others.

You know what the difference is between France and Islamic countries is? Here I will make it simple to you:

  1. France is not killing people based in their politics. Islamic countries are.

  2. France is not forcing people to be dressed how they want. On the contrary they are enforcing freedom of wearing whatever people want. That includes forcing groups that are forcing women to cover themselves to stop it.

One has to be intolerant of intolerance to be tolerant.

[–] cyclohexane@lemmy.ml 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)
  1. That is a deflection of the entire discussion. I will be happy to talk with you about Muslim countries and who France is killing overseas, once we're done talking about France's fascism. Please stop deflecting.

  2. They literally are forcing a specific type of dress, and banning others. Would you like me to directly quote it? It's very easy to Google this, but if you want me to quote it and directly cite it, I will.

There's nothing intolerant about someone wearing something to school. But it is intolerant to single them out and bar tbem from education because of it.

[–] electrogamerman@lemmy.world -1 points 1 year ago

That is a deflection of the entire discussion. I will be happy to talk with you about Muslim countries and who France is killing overseas, once we’re done talking about France’s fascism. Please stop deflecting.

I said Muslim is a fascist religion, and you said it is not. So, I gave you examples of why Muslim and Islamic countries are actually Fascists. Ill gladly hear why you think Muslim is not Fascist, or why you think France is Fascist and Muslim is not.

They literally are forcing a specific type of dress, and banning others. Would you like me to directly quote it? It’s very easy to Google this, but if you want me to quote it and directly cite it, I will.

Yes, I will gladly read about France enforcing a specific type of dress. They are not banning dresses, they are banning opressive groups telling girls how to dress, because yes, France is enforcing a freedom of dress, and that means telling opressing groups that they cannot force women to dress how they want.

There’s nothing intolerant about someone wearing something to school. But it is intolerant to single them out and bar tbem from education because of it.

It is not just "wearing something to school", thats not want france is banning right here. They are banning oppresive groups telling girls and women how to dress. That is literally the whole point. Opressive groups tell women/girls how to dress, then they act surprised when they are told that they cannot do that, "but they are targeting us!!", yes, stop telling people what to wear. Period.

[–] Honytawk@lemmy.zip 1 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Please learn what fascism means.

And racism while you are at it.

[–] autismdragon@hexbear.net 43 points 1 year ago

Is this a "Islam isnt a race" thing or? Because the these types of laws in France are very clearly targetted towards Muslims and in the west Muslims have been heavily racialized. Races are made up categories so anything can be a race if its treated like one, and muslims are treated like one.

Also France might not technically be "a fascist country" but it has a lot of fascist policies and this would be one.

[–] cyclohexane@lemmy.ml 3 points 1 year ago

Thanks for the recommendation, but I already know.