France to ban female students from wearing abayas in state schools

I'm not very comfortable with these type of bans.

People say women shouldn't be forced to wear certain items of clothing and deal with it by forcing them to wear different items of clothing.

Doesn't seem very productive.

I always think of that meme with a women in full body coverings and a women wearing a bikini and they're both thinking about how awful it is that society pressures women to dress like the other.

Playing the advocate of the devil: the reason given is clearly stated as not being about being forced to wear anything, but about a general ban on religious signs in state schools. For example I imagine wearing a Christian cross around your neck is also banned.
- A consistently enforced bad law is still a bad law. All consistently means is that everyone has to suffer.
- Yep. Yarmulkes are also banned, and I wouldn't be able to wander around the school with my 9 pointed star necklace or ring, even though NO ONE knows what they mean.
- Still, schools shouldn't be able to dictate how people can dress as long as they cover their genitals and their clothes aren't dangerous.
- I seriously doubt it. And I’m sure if it is, no one enforces it.
  Edit: y’all can vote me down all day, but the law says “ostentacious religious insignia,” and I’m sure a little cross has been overlooked many times.
It’s difficult to say whether someone is wearing what they are wearing through choice or because it is demanded of them.
I agree with you, demanding that they wear something else is not the answer.
- Especially when they're kids. People should be able to wear whatever they want. But kids don't often get to choose what they want. They're often at the mercy of what their parents want and that's it.
  There's also something to be said about pressure from family members. Even if the kid chose to wear something, did they really do so out of their own free will? Or because their parents said they'll burn in hell for all eternity if they don't?
  And it's not like we're talking about something like simple taste in clothing or mild culture differences. We're talking about clothes that are drenched in misogyny. It's not about literal clothing in a vacuum, but rather what those clothes imply about women as a whole.
- The eradication of the will to wear this stuff is the answer. Without religion, barely anyone will want to wear religious signs.
It's not the point of the ban. You shouldn't wear any religious signs. It's the same as banning christian cross (which is obviously already banned since years and years)
- Yes. France is extremely militant about keeping religion and state separate. That extends to state institutions like state schools.
I always think of that meme with a women in full body coverings and a women wearing a bikini and they’re both thinking about how awful it is that society pressures women to dress like the other.
Equating the pressure of society, at large, when you're an independent adult, and the pressure of your parents, when you're still under their authority is not fair.
It's the same reasoning behind pride parades and banning hate speech. Right wingers will hide behind "free choice" to spread their oppression of women and to shelter their children from progressive ideology, therefore we must forcibly expose them to tolerant viewpoints in the name of equity.
I agree that it will not be effective in reducing the amount of these types of robes that will be worn. But it will be effective in reducing the visibility of this particular religious clothing, and thus the religion itself. We (everyone everywhere) already ban lots of clothing styles, there are minimums you have to attain. can't have nipples or genitalia showing, and even though that might sound nitpicky, I'm from team #freethechest and having a covered chest is something I personally do not think should be required. It's just nipples/boobs, everyone should just grow up and let it fly
- Neither have these families I would imagine. How common is that in France?

I get this completely. This is nothing new for France, they have been blocking Christians from wearing crosses and Jews from wearing kippah's for a very long time, it's only reasonable that the Muslim population gets treated equally. Schools should remain completely secular, I am in complete agreement with France there.

Except abayas are basically just some loose-fitting clothes that can be worn by anyone regardless their religion. It's like banning kimono or sari.
- If it's just an outfit and not religious clothes than there should be no problem, right?
How people dress is none of the government's business. This is just authoritarism.
- Except when you want it, because you like it when you don't see other people's genitalia. Then it suddenly is the governments bussiness. In this case it's even just for during your attendance at a public school.
- Whoever people sleep or get married with is none of anyone's business, but Muslims are against homosexuality.
They banned crosses for Christians because they ban Muslim headwear. They had to do something for Christian or it would have been the most obvious racism.
- Read the article. Crosses have been banned for a long time, before the Muslim headwear.
- Read the article. Crosses have been banned for a long time, before the Muslim headwear.

I'm not sure I like this. I sort of get not allowing religious symbols to be worn, but you're forcing people to dress in a certain way. I don't think the government should be able to do that

This is where I landed. They should simply continue to permit children to remove it at school if they choose, while they are under the guardianship of the state.
- The kids won't, because they're too scared to disobey their parents.
I feel like conflicted is the "correct" way to feel. On one hand, the government is literally enforcing clothing laws. On the other hand, this may prevent children from being forced into something they did not choose. I feel like a religion wrapping up your child in cloth so they lose their individually as a human being is cult-like behavior.
It would be better if the religion just wasn't allowed to make them do this, but then they would just "suggest" women do this. This "suggestion" of course is actually coercion at best.
- It's a dress. It isn't a headscarf or something. It's just a loose dress.
- France has been enforcing secularism since the turn of the 20th century. If you turn up with a turban, or a yarmulke, or a cross you'd be sent home too. If parents feel so aggrieved that the state disallows religious symbolism & clothing on state property they can send their kids to a private school.
What's your thought on school's uniform?
- I never felt like there was much of a point for them. It was annoying for my family because we always had to buy specific clothes for school
At this point they should just mandate school uniform.
- I'm not against it, honestly. I have seen the pros and cons of each. We had a loose dress code at my school but no uniforms, and style of dress certainly became one mode of division among students. Rich kids, poor kids, athletes, nerds, etc. were all separated by dress.
  I'm not the biggest fan of conformity, but uniform dress codes allow the students to basically be at a level playing field as far as visual expression goes. I've worked in schools with uniforms and the students there seem to prefer not having to put any thought into what they wear.
But religion and family should? 🤔
- Is condemning one thing endorsing another? Do two things wrongs make a right?
- I get you, but... isn't religion supposed to be a free decision? you're agreeing to their terms and conditions (I know, I know, you can stop the laugh track).
- No, it those shouldn't either. Which is why I'm conflicted here.
- As for religion you have the choice to follow it or not, and following it comes with the burden of wearing certain things but you can choose to not follow that religion whenever you want if you want to dress differently. In a public school you should be able to choose what you wear, because you pretty much have to go to school.

The especially dumb part of this is that abayas aren't specifically Muslim or religious in nature, they're cultural. They are a long flowing dress, without even a head covering. A bunch of non-Islamic women wear them in a variety of countries.

So this is more attempting to ban entire cultural outfits, which is ridiculous.

For context, the French are very strict about any form of symbol on what students wear. I couldn't even wear a baseball cap with a team logo and that's not religious.
- Lol what the only reason they could prevent you from wearing a cap is because it's considered 'rude' to keep your hat inside classroom. A private school can do whatever they want and force student to wear uniforme but in public school you can wear whatever you want except specific banned religious symbole (cross, kippa, headscarf etc...)
You forgot to mention that the abaya is compulsory in Saudi Arabia (except for tourists) and Qatar.
- And that's bad. Can we agree that making a dress compulsory and making a dress banned are both bad, because they both restrict choice?
- Saudi Arabia overturned that requirement in 2019, so you're quite a few years out of date. It is required in Qatar though, yes.
It's ridiculous either way

I am mildly in favor of that. Kids can't decide what to wear it's their parents who do.

This will simply reduce the artificial divide between those wear that type of stuff and who doesn't.

I also don't believe it's a freedom endangering, because they're aren't spontaneously people wearing abayas or burka or whatever just for the pleasure of it, I interpret the fact of wearing it as religious propaganda and artificial separation.

I don't know the law in France, but I'd worry it'll cause religious parents to just keep their kids out of state school and do some form of private religious education, causing a greater divide. The best counter to these attitudes is exposure to diversity and other viewpoints. Maybe the kids going to school and seeing that there are other ways is better.
- "Maybe the kids going to school and seeing there are other ways is better". Yeah, but they aren't the ones deciding how they dress. They parents are the ones that do.
Nah, girls just won't be sent to schools.
This will be "the last straw" for many of their fathers.
Some will go, and their parents will begrudgingly accept (or turn a blind eye to their daughter dressing down as soon as she's near school.). The majority reaction will be similar to what you see in other nations that don't respect women enough to let them keep their autonomy.
- That'll get the fathers at least 6 months in prison in France, probably more for negligence etc.
  And homeschooling requires a very good reason why they can't go to school (pretty much always a health condition, and that needs proof) there are annual inspections and every other year the reason for homeschooling is verified.
- Just not sending the children isn't an option in pretty much every place in Europe
Best comment.
can you explain why other people wearing culturally traditional clothing is "religious propaganda and artificial separation"? do you feel this way about other traditional garb, or is it just the scary muslims?
- Yes i can explain. Literally nobody else does it. And if someone would, then my position will be the same: wear regular clothes in public institutions.
Have you ever lived in France?
- Oui ça fait 20 ans que j'y suis, indeed
If there was a uniform at school it would be different. Here it's fashion police. Specifically targeted at Arab culture.
It's an atheist theocracy. Also called fascism.
- I don't think you understand what fascism is.
- It's obviously targeted, but at religion not a specific ethnic group. Moreover, that law will make those pupils look like anyone else, so if anything, this will reduce the stigma

For a 200 year old law, it's pretty straight forward. And for all it's flaws, the Nth revolution didn't like the Catholic church for ... reasons, so they wanted to make a law to get them out of politics and make them liable for their shenanigans. Thankfully they didn't discriminate when they wrote the law.

https://www.gouvernement.fr/sites/default/files/contenu/piece-jointe/2017/02/libertes_et_interdits_eng.pdf

PROHIBITIONS AND LIMITS TO INDIVIDUAL FREEDOMS IN THE FRAMEWORK OF “LAÏCITÉ”

 The principle of secularism means that the State and religious organisations are separate. There is therefore no state-run public worship. The State neither recognises, nor subsidises, nor salaries any form of worship. Exceptions and adjustments to the ban on funding are defined in the legislation and case-law; they concern in particular chaplaincies, which are paid for by the State1

 No religion can impose its prescriptions on the Republic. No religious principle can be invoked for disobeying the law.

Laîcite is the right for each, to practice his/her religion, without the state interfering, if not against laws and in the respect concerning other peoples. Without being prosecuted for this..
They now change the word to be against Muslims in France. Because "laicite" is always use against them.
Novlangue.
Abayas are not religious dress nor a symbol of a religion, and the law does not speak to individual choices about wearing religious symbols anyway. This is no different to banning 'Black' hairstyles or imposing sexist dress codes. It's racism, not secularism.
No religion can impose its prescriptions on the Republic. No religious principle can be invoked for disobeying the law.
I don't see how wearing cultural clothing would be imposing anything. I have Indian heritage -- would I be banned from wearing punjabis in public, despite it having no religious bearing at all?
if the state doesnt recognise any form of worship, why are they seemingly banning perceived symbols of worship? how does any of the law you quoted justify banning folks from even wearing perceived religious symbols?
unless this isnt a religious symbol anyway, in which case the above law is even less relevant and this is a blatant case of cultural discrimination
Except banning anything at school is the opposite of what's written here: the Republic forbid wearing some dress because it's wrongly associated with religion.
The government is turning atheism into an oppressive religion.
- Lol sorry but could only laugh on "turning atheism into oppressive religion"..

Religious freedom is a human right. Self determination is a human right. As long as whatever you do does not cause a negative impact on other people (see the second right) or society at large, then gtfo.

There is no "second right" in France. The law is simple : Don't wear visible religious sign at school. There are private religious schools if you disagree with the public system.
- Is it so insane to think there could be a school with both religious and areligious people at the same time? A secular school that doesn't support a religion, but allows students to express themselves how they choose? When did that become a radical idea?
"Self determination is a human right" There's nothing I agree more on. Unfortunately some muslim communities do not agree, and the men and the women aren't on the same level. Many women are forced to port the abaya and other vests that cover their figure in entirety, and I don't think they should be forced to if they don't want to. 85% of the muslim women in France that I know do not want to port it, but they're obligated by their family. Banning it entirely is not the perfect solution, but it's a step in the the direction of eradicating religions in France. The time of Christianity and Islam is way beyond us.
- i like the slow stumble from "self-determination is a human right" to "eradicating religions in france"
  "85% of the muslim women in france ᵗʰᵃᵗ ᶦ ᵏⁿᵒʷ" really adds to the experience too, thank you
You can practice your religion inside your home. Once you're out in public you should respect others and hide your religion away. This is the way!
- Not having to hide who you are is a human right, I get where stuff like this is coming from but if there was a rule to hide all symbols of sexualities to protect people it'd become pretty obvious that it's homophobic. Being able to exist in public shouldn't require making changes to yourself.
Nope. Religion should be banned.
Also the girls are likely forced to do that so you are Dubble wrong.
- I don't deny that there are occurrences where some girls are forced. What about the 95% others?
  You can't put forth a law punishing the majority for a "likely". What happened to the "Liberté Egalité Fraternité" which this liberticide law is obviously trampling?
  The population has been fed the islamophobic narrative long enough to have such laws pass without anybody thinking about how ridiculous they are (replace hijab/abaya with dreadlocks or other piece of clothing... What do other people care?). The divide is so deep and constantly maintained by the politicians who, since they find no real answers the actual problems plaguing the day to day life of citizen, prefer to turn them against each other: divide to better rule.
- name a video game that doesn't have some element of religion in it. pac man? ghosts = belief in afterlife. space invaders? I'd call "belief in aliens" a religious belief of sorts. bubble bobble? maybe?
  you also gotta reprint every single piece of American paper money.
  what about my tarot card collection? you gonna lock me in jail because I think the art is cool?
  what about how I listen to Bach or Mozart in the bath?
  you gonna arrest me for saying "Jesus fucking christ" when my cat brings up a hairball?
  I also enjoy "what we do in the shadows", Yellowjackets, home alone, lord of the rings, dune... all banned by you.
  Even chess has a bishop, king and queen...
  There's no need to be a redditeur about it, nearly everything is a religious experience or adjacent, and I say that as a secular person and atheist myself.

Wow. As a religious minority it's incredibly depressing to see how many people on here support this violation of religious liberty.

Yeah I agree with you. It's one thing to say the school can't promote a religious creed to the pupils, it is another to limit self-expression of dress when it doesn't impact other students
- French secularism is way different than what americans have, it is pretty unique. Remember it
It's been part of France's political culture that religious signification has no place in public institutions. Given that Germany, Spain, Portugal, Italy and Britain offer ways to religious groups to punish others through the legal system for not accepting their criteria regarding what constitutes legitimate criticism [*], but France doesn't, I'd argue that France is doing something right.
In 2018, a youth in Spain was condemned to pay 480€ for publishing an edited photograph of a Christ image with his own face.
This event emboldened fanatic religious organizations, which sought charges against an actor for saying "I shit on God and Virgin Mary!" in a restaurant. Fortunately he wasn't declared guilty, but he suffered a judicial process of 2 years. This doesn't mean they didn't achieve their goal: they sent everyone the message that you should think twice the next time you consider you have freedom of expression.
If you let religious people think their beliefs must be protected from any criticism, many of them will start to see their privilege as the norm, and eventually encroach the freedoms of everyone else.
- France may be good for not respecting a religion and disallowing abuse of religious systems that would attack the freedom of non-religious/minority-religious citizens, but are going to the opposite side of this problem. Abayas don't hurt anyone and, from what I can tell/correct me if wrong, are used as a religious observation. France is going out of their way to impose restrictions on elements that are generally harmless that these people may see as a religious necessity, attacking the freedom of religious citizens. There has to be a balance and they're off on the other arc of the pendulum swing here.
- Yeah honestly. As much as we've struggled with developing and even enforcing it today, I think America has a good balance between freedom to practice and freedom from state sponsored religion
Religion has no place in the modern world.
- And the real reason is unmasked. This isn’t “freedom,” this is pushing atheism. There’s a reason the US Supreme Court has struck down similar policies for nearly a century, because it privileges atheism over any religion.
I honestly don't understand the contradicting argument of "there should be no religious symbol in a state school, if you want that go to a religious school" and "no religious symbols allowed will set them free".
Surely if you are funneling all of these kids into religious schools and away from the state system, you're going to entrench them in that religion further, not "set them free". It just serves to divide kids even more than if you allowed them all the freedom to mingle in the same school with all their religious garb.
Yeah its why I'm downvoting people, they seem to think Christianity is the only religon in existence and that anyone who follows religon ends up like those domestic terrorists in america
It reminds me of athiest reddit
- The same law applies to Christians, too. For instance, you also wouldn't be allowed to wear a cross at school.
The people here do not represent what the world outside looks like and anonymity emboldens extreme views.
In a way I get it, your way of life is being discriminated against. But with thousands of years of history and present day to go off of, I still feel it's a good thing.
I kinda compare it to smoking cigarettes. There are a ton of people who do it, but it's so obviously unhealthy. I won't go on with the analogy, but you can get pretty grim with it.
You can have a fulfilling and culture filled life without blind hope for a greater power and possibly being negatively influenced by that belief; either through authority figures in your church or you're own interpretations of religious teachings.
Another thing I saw mentioned was that it's a state run school. Separation of church and state is something I vehemently agree with. So while it might suck for you, your grandchildren will be better off because they're not losing anything.
Protecting the society's Overton window concerning women from being shifted toward any religious group's preferred direction (let alone a minority group that has a terrible present tract record insofar as female equality is concerned) is a real hard thing to get right. Quite honestly, having grown up as a fundamentalist evangelical Christian and having spent years deprogramming myself from my childhood indoctrination, I would have zero issue seeing the same laws equally enforced against public expressions of religion in this country as well. Any space children have from their family to form their own opinions, without being forced to "other" themselves through religiocultural garb, is good space.

This is not freedom.

- Forcing a person not to wear a type of clothing is just as bad forcing them to wear it. The reasons for either are not important.
- No.
- So to protect the freedom of these women you deny them the freedom to wear a dress?
  Holy fuck the racists are so stupid it's surreal!

I get the reasoning, but really it feels like papering over cracks rather than addressing the root cause.

Set up proper support structures to prevent people from being coerced into things they don't want to, make sure people are given places to get away from controlling people and exposed to the fact that things don't have to be like that.

The best cure for religion is Education and Opportunities to fully integrate in the wider society.
So France needs to invest into giving the kids in even the baundelieres (the poor neighbourhoods around the major cities) as much Education and as many Opportunities as possible and most will naturally drift away from the snake oil which is religion.
You see the single biggest mechanic of racial descrimination (not just in France) is poverty: those kids from low education hence low income immigrant parents - who lack the education (hence the income) because they hail from countries with worse Education systems - are stuck in high crime low opportunity ghettos with much lower lifetime opportunities than the rest, impacted by poverty every day of their lifes (outright racism comes as events, poverty is every waking hour of every day) for the "crime" of having popped out of the "wrong" vagina.
Some manage to come out of this, but theirs is a much taller ladder to climb so their chances of reaching a good life are less than most.
The thing is, genuinelly flattenning the playing field (which, beyond the massive boost to average quality of life, would have the minor side effect of most of the next generation leaving the claws of religion) would cost lots of money and there's no will in France to have people like the wealthiest man and woman in Europe (both of which live there) and their circle of friends part with a small fractionof their wealth to make it possible: hard-right neoliberal with authoritarian streak Macron would never do even the mildest of wealth redistributions (as it would impact his mates and his clients) so instead out comes another "let's force them to not look 'wrong'" authoritarian "solution".
If you pardon my french (hehe!), this shit is all related and all boils down to how society is structured to help a few prey on the many resulting in massive inequality in access to resources and opportunities and constant, relentless discrimination on the basis of wealth, all of which then causes all sorts of "secondary" issues which are then papered over using the cheapest method there is to cover it up: abusing the Law and Legal Violence to coerce the most powerless of all to "keep up appearances".
- Compared to the US, France has massive taxes and wealth redistribution. You actually have an estate/inheritance tax that captures tax not only from the inheritance but from gifts made during the lifetime of the deceased. You have universal healthcare. You also have a massive influx of immigrants, not all of them from former French colonies, many of whom don't give a fuck about France's highly valued secularism and other cultural values. You don't come to a France looking for a better life and simultaneously demand that France make an exception for you to allow the offensive visible symbolic separation of women from society because your religion/culture demands it. It is entitled in the extreme that people want to make France like the country they fled.
It's not about stopping people from being coerced, it's about the state forbidding religious symbols on state property including schools. France is strictly secular and forbids religion in the public sphere, i.e. state property like schools, politics etc.
It just so happens to have the pleasant side effect that kids in state schools are free from the segregation, clothing and other religious bullshit they might have to endure in their private life. The government has no control over that other aspect however it might lead to kids growing into adults who are less orthodox in their own lives.

Reading all the anti-privacy and self expression things that France are pushing...wouldn't understand why anyone would want to move to france in this day and age.

If I agree with some anti-privacy woes, France (and more broadly Europe) is way more privacy friendly than the US. We have to fight for it from time to time, but for now it goes mostly in the right direction.
As for religious stuff, to understand that you have to understand France. We are, due to our history, mostly irreligious (50% of the whole population in 2017), with most religious people being non-practicing. Like every country we have our religious nutjobs, but they are mostly irrevelant compared to the US ones.
As such, we as a whole generally consider that religion should not impact public life and public places nor be displayed in there, with some specific exception (nuns and priests, as it is considered as being an uniform mandated by their trade).
School is a public space, as such public display of religion are forbidden. This is not specifically agains Muslim, the same would apply to a nun when going to school as a student. Other less ostensible religious sign, like crucifixes, are also banned.
All that is (mostly) to fight communitarianism, which is viewed here as a threat to society.
- Pretty progressive. Nice.
The bread
- This is the way (to the nearest bakery of course)
Laicite has been a thing for a very long time. Simply put, France recognizes your right to believe any crap you like in your private life and recognizes religions under law, but people don't get to practice their religion in the public sphere, e.g. on state property.
This is as opposed to US secularism which is barely lip service and constantly undermined. If you want an analogue, France erects a steel barrier between religion and governance whereas US erects a 4ft chain link fence.
- What a narrow understanding of religion. That law is based on the understanding that “religion” is something completely inside the mind and maybe something you attend once a week. That may have been nice in 1700s Europe when the only religion around were denominations of Christianity but it doesn’t account for the many religions that mandate looks and dress and even some that require tattoos. Instead the state implicitly labels those religions as inferior or less civilized and goes out of their way to single them out for law enforcement.
  And the “obey or leave” mindset in this thread is ignorant of history, as France involuntarily made all Algerians French citizens and declared their lands French territory. This 2004 law and new amendments singles them out.
- Yeah, let’s ban garments because garments can be attributed to religion or fashion or culture or comfort or any or all combination of the above, in public spaces and alienate religious groups, let them homeschool their children, which may/may not breed more dogmatic/extremists views and then cry about immigrants screwing things up by not integrating just because setting up laws that separate religion and state weren’t enough. Laws can’t be enforced right? Like laws don’t discourage behaviors in a secular civil society right?
  Genius moves there. I like the 5D chess this government is playing.

This is the best summary I could come up with:

Students will be banned from wearing abaya, a loose-fitting full-length robe worn by some Muslim women, in France's state-run schools, the education minister has said.

"When you walk into a classroom, you shouldn't be able to identify the pupils' religion just by looking at them," Education Minister Gabriel Attal told France's TF1 TV, adding: "I have decided that the abaya could no longer be worn in schools."

The garment has being increasingly worn in schools, leading to a political divide over them, with right-wing parties pushing for a ban while those on the left have voiced concerns for the rights of Muslim women and girls.

France has enforced a strict ban on religious signs at schools since the 19th Century, including Christian symbols such as large crosses, in an effort to curb any Catholic influence from public education.

The debate on Islamic symbols has intensified since a Chechen refugee beheaded teacher Samuel Paty, who had shown students caricatures of the Prophet Mohammed, near his school in a Paris suburb in 2020.

The announcement is the first major policy decision by Mr Attal, who was appointed France's education minister by President Emmanuel Macron this summer at the age of 34.

The original article contains 388 words, the summary contains 199 words. Saved 49%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!

The same "I know what's best for them" and "the law applies equally to everyone" arguments in favor of bans on drugs that many in liberal spaces will detest, they will happily use when supporting shit like this. We all know that everyone doesn't suffer equally under laws like this. Religion may be the opium of the people, but does that mean we should be the narcs? You don't eradicate religion by banning it. You eradicate it by having secular institutions provide the things people go to religion for, like a sense of purpose, assistance, and community.

France has a strict ban on religious signs in state schools and government buildings, arguing that they violate secular laws.

Is this a case of being lost in translation or something? I wouldn't consider religious garb to be a "sign."

Signs should be better translated to symbols here
- Calling clothes a "symbol" of religion is a stretch, too.

Banning something is as opressive as making it mandatory.

Nope. You aren't allowed to have religious shit on you in general public in france.
- Yeah and that's fucked up and oppressive
- Hyperbolic bad faith argument. A person should have a right to choose the clothes they wear. Maybe this school should stick to uniforms if certain articles of clothing are so problematic.
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.
- 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.
- "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.
- You know what makes everyone look alike? A niqab.
  Someone call the Taliban and let them know they're defenders of freedom.

The French state literally making laws governing fashion is the most French thing ever.

No, it's fascism.
- I fully agree that's it's an authoritarian measure that needlessly targets a vulnerable minority.
  But it's also something we should laugh at the French state for. Orwell memorably mused that the reason the goose-step never made its way into British military marching drills - at a time when many other European armies were adopting it - was because if British civilians saw soldiers on parade goose-stepping down the road then they would laugh at them. He thought that instinct to laugh at pompous displays of authority was something that helped insulate the British from the fascist and communist totalitarianism that took root elsewhere in the first half of the 20th century. Fascists tend to have very thin skins.
  The French state is making laws to regulate women's fashion. They should know that doing this makes them look ridiculous to normal people.

I totally support that. https://www.indigo.ca/en-ca/little-hijabi-a-little-girls-love-for-her-hijab/9781504319508.html Kids wearing hijabs, abayas (put any religious symbol here) must be considered as a form of child abuse. It is crucial to refrain from imposing outdated and fantastical beliefs onto young minds.

The Abaya is cultural and not religious though.
- So why is it mandatory for women in Quater and Saudi Arabia ?
- Please don't do this. The culture finds its foundation entirely within religious beliefs, and the abaya stands as a tangible expression of this connection. From the Wikipedia: "The rationale for the abaya is often attributed to the Quranic quote, "O Prophet, tell your wives and daughters, and the believing women, to cover themselves with a loose garment. They will thus be recognised and no harm will come to them" (Qur'an 33:59,[2] translated by Ahmed Ali). This quotation is often given as the argument for wearing the abaya."

I think some are forgetting, these bans are in schools, outside these schools you can wear whatever you want

I don't think that makes it any better somehow.

Can't just let women wear what they want. Clearly lacking a penis makes them incapable of deciding what clothes to wear.

It s not only female its everyone . No one can were religion cloth. That just normal you are in a public place .
- Except this kind of outfit is not religious at all. Abaya is basically just a dress which can be worn by anyone regardless their religion, unlike burqa and hijab. It's like banning sari because Hindus women wear them, even though it's not a religious cloth.
  The goal here is to ban religious symbol, right? Not outright banning anything related to middle-eastern culture? Surely there is a reasonable middle ground between banning religious symbols and banning the entire ethnic culture.
- That’s not how it’s actually enforced. This is making new laws and regulations picking on a minority.
- Banning clothes in public space is fascism.
  I guess then we will force them to wear a special star and send them in special "protective" camps?
They literally ban ALL forms of religious depictions in France. Women just get forced, by a religion, to wear specific clothes to adhere to arbitrary standards set by some old dead dude(s). This is super par for the course and makes a lot of sense for them. The only thing oppressive here is the religion that forces women to wear shit to fit some ideals/standards, especially children who don't know any better and are forced into it/don't have a concept of doing anything else.
- To stop women from being forced to do something by the dead we force them to do something by the living. Makes perfect sense.
  I once pulled a gun on someone and ordered them to be free.
It seems like any religious emblems or clothing aren't allowed in public schools, not so much that they can't wear what they want.
I think it's fair enough, it's pretty obvious that religion and education are incompatible in the modern age. Anyone who disagrees with that is a "religious" person who's never read a holy book.
- I am a militant atheist and disagree with this decision completely. Freedom means nothing if it doesn't include the freedom to make bad decisions.
  Oh just to be clear: Jesus was talking to Satan not the Holy Ghost and Allah doesn't exist.
  There, the two unforgivable sins of the two major ones. I don't much care for people claiming to be atheists without backing it up.

Even if one despises religion above all, as one should, there is no sufficient reason to ban this type of stuff.

On the other side, it is time to give these morons back what they have brought upon others and thus deserve.

I'm an atheist and consider all organized religion evil. But restricting what people can wear in school (apart from covering their genitals and not restricting movement or vision to the point that it hinders education) is indefensible.

Organized religion and their tools and symbols of opressiin have no place in modern society. The enlightenment is 300 years old now and we still have whackos like all the Americans in this thread talking about "religion is freedom". Its not freedom, its a fucking lie and it exists to control and oppress.

Vive La France, bring on more of this

To paraphrase: humanity be free when the last stone of the last church falls upon the last priest.

It's letting children wear headcoverings. I don't see how that's religiously infringing on non headscarf wearers.
- Its infringing on those children's right to have a sane, rational upbringing in which they aren't oppressed by old men and used as social currency, which their only value being their bodies

France has adopted laicite for years and frankly it's the right thing for secularism. It doesn't stop people worshiping whoever or whatever they like in their spare time, or wearing whatever religious garb they want. But not on government property including state schools.

I'm with you but I think anglo-saxons don't get it because of a cultural thing.
What's sad is that they just keep criticizing without trying to understand France approach to laicité and cultural assimilation, thinking somehow that their view is the right way (which is kind of insulting). Makes me think of the whole trevor noah dispute against the french ambassador about the french football team being "african" (which most french people find to be insulting). There are french things it seems that americans/british will never get, which is fine, but please don't act as if your moral compass is superior.
Also it's surprising that many France's left-side parties are against this, they used to be the more fervent supporters of laicité. The fact that this is more of a right-wing thing make that rule seem more about stigmatization even in french debates somehow, where it IMO shouldn't be.

I mean, wasn’t this the same government that was gassing it’s own citizens not too long ago because they were protesting for their rights?

I’m not surprised they are passing an idiotic ban like this so kudos for being even shittier I guess?

So men are allowed to?

It's not religious male clothing, so probably yeah.
Noone is forcing them to wear them so I don't see how there'd be a need to forbid them from wearing abayas.
- Great so one side is telling women what they must do and the other side is telling women what they must not do.

Great!

Hey Denmark, are you looking at this? This is how your treat religion. They are no better than anyone else and they do not deserve any kind of special treatment.

I didn't realize being able to wear "loose-fitting full-length robes" was special treatment. Have atheists been unable to wear this type of clothing up until now?
- Atheists can wear a crucifix necklace too but it would still be considered a religious symbol
Hey Denmark, follow this advice to become a proper fascist country.

My two cents, The ban is actually good. In school settings, religious headscarf/clothing makes you lot standout and people might get averse too it. This allows these people to actually mix in well with others.

The ban is good cause these kids are conditioned from birth to wear these. They haven't explored things out of the religious context and how f* up religions are at controlling people.

We are landing on moon and we have religions claiming everything revolves around earth. I would outright ban all these cults.

How about instead of telling women what to wear you actually set up support structures for the women who have been abused by religion. This law is asinine and barely differs from religious nuts who force them to wear the headscarf.
- And how would exactly Women find out they have been abused by the religions for all their life w/o knowing about it.

France is not beating the racism (rather, l’racism) allegations

Ok, what the fuck is going on with the women in that video? I've seen more realistic alien makeup on Star Trek TOS.

What's wrong with your face?

I don't see any bad makeup, it just looks like she used Vaseline as a moisturizer and used way too much because shes extremely shiny.

I can understand that, the intolerant culture attached to islam really detremental to integration effort and harmony in france, and by that they hope to remove that label in schools, which hopefully will make people interact more across cultural groups, and further integration.

People forget what happened to countries like Lebanon and Iran.
That kind of law doesn't integrate anyone. It actually fuel racism and communautarism.
What's good with these topics is that we instantly see who is a fascist though.

There's rarely a good news nowadays let's enjoy this one

Good. Muslisms countries penalize homosexuality, women freedom between other things.

Western Europe should ban Muslisms religious things.

As if hardcore Christians didn't advocate for those exact same things.
- Yes, but christianism/catholicism has accepted progressive ideals more. Just this week the pope advocated for same sex couples.
  When I see that in muslism, when muslism countries remove the death or life jail penalties for same sex couples, when queer people are not scared of walking though mideast communities in western Europe, then I will advocate for muslisms.
- Yes but they don't hang gays anymore...
- So were at the point with Lemmy now that we have to deal with blatant racists? cool.
- I think you forgot the /s at the end (so that mods won't ban you for satire lol)

France, overall, has become a terrible country.

do we not see how it's different to ban crosses, the religious symbolism of the entrenched culture, the state, and the hegemonic culture - and the banning of headscarves and abayas, traditions associated with an oppressed minority? This is absolutely not just fair neutrality across the board on all religious expression, the kids will still be reading books by Christians, being taught by Christian teachers, following a curriculum decided by a Christian board and meeting education metrics voted on by Christian politicians so they can be part of the workforce in a Christian entrenched nation.

Any thoughts that this is good because they're just treating all religions equally is enlightened centrism.

France isn’t really super Christian anymore for a Christian nation. About 50% of the French claims to be Christian and a 1/3 claims to have no religion. Compare that to Italy which is 80% Christian
- What percent is Muslim? How is that proportionality among teachers, or among legislators? And how many laws are still enforced from a time when France was much more Christian? What is the religious makeup of those who wrote the French literary classics and the history textbooks?