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.


  • some_guy@lemmy.sdf.org
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    67
    arrow-down
    15
    ·
    1 year ago

    “Gabriel Attal, the education minister, says that no one should walk into a classroom wearing something which could suggest what their religion is.”

    I was initially torn on this, but as long as it’s for all religions, I support it. I firmly believe that I shouldn’t know your religion unless I ask. Religion is toxic.

    I do think you should have the freedom to wear religious signifiers as an adult. I just don’t approve. But I don’t want to stop you. Children in school? This is the same (to me) as requiring them to leave their phones at home.

    • Cethin@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      73
      arrow-down
      16
      ·
      1 year ago

      In the Americas there were schools for native American children where they forced them to dress, eat, speak, and behave “properly” and not practice their religion. The goal was to eliminate their culture and make them homogeneously American or Canadian. (They also killed a fucking ton) This sort of nationalism has generally been looked back on as a mistake and a horrible atrocity. Why should it be acceptable towards other religious groups?

      • some_guy@lemmy.sdf.org
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        39
        arrow-down
        10
        ·
        1 year ago

        These kids aren’t being taken from their families. They aren’t being forced to give up their religion in their homes. These are not the same. This isn’t about “other religious groups.” It’s all religions while at school, and I’m fine with that.

        • Cethin@lemmy.zip
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          41
          arrow-down
          19
          ·
          1 year ago

          The goal is to replace religion with nationalism, which isn’t an admirable goal. They may not literally say it out loud, but it’s pretty obvious.

          • some_guy@lemmy.sdf.org
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            16
            arrow-down
            4
            ·
            1 year ago

            I’m not in support of nationalism. I don’t know if what you said is accurate or not. I simply approve of keeping religion out of schools.

            • GarbageShoot [he/him]@hexbear.net
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              4
              ·
              1 year ago

              This is like the democrats who applaud gun control even when it is used with surgical precision to prevent black communities from defending themselves from police violence. “I don’t support police violence, I simply approve of gun control”.

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

              As much as you wish, I don’t think you can because it is a part of one’s life. Whether you are Atheist or practice a religion, the beliefs and practices you have are in my opinion fundamental for you. Let’s take the reverse, would you as an Atheist pretend to believe in a certain religion for 4-6 hours a day just so you could learn? You can take this and experiment with all kinds of situations. Sure, religion shouldn’t be taught in schools, religion has nothing to do with schools but while we shouldn’t teach religion we shouldn’t also take religion out of the human. Your beliefs are fundamental to you. I think there is a certain level of tolerance we should have towards other people as long as they don’t interfere and infringe on the freedoms and liberties of others. Having the freedom to wear what you want and act the way you want while you don’t bother others should be allowed.

              If you want to have a private school where everyone follows a specific rule set, regulation, specific formal clothing etc. Go ahead, make your own.

              But I do feel public schools as a public good should allow everyone to learn while also not requiring one to remove parts of things that form one’s identity.

              • Spzi@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                7
                arrow-down
                2
                ·
                1 year ago

                would you as an Atheist pretend to believe in a certain religion for 4-6 hours a day

                France wants people to not show their religion in school. That’s different from pretending to have another, or no religion.

                Like in moments when I don’t wear my favorite sports team’s insignias, I’m not pretending to be fan of another team instead.

              • some_guy@lemmy.sdf.org
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                5
                arrow-down
                2
                ·
                1 year ago

                I generally wish to respect others. But I can’t help but note that mass shooters are frequently deeply Christian. I’m not advocating for someone to pretend that they believe in another religion or that they don’t believe in their own. I’m mildly offended by people who advertise their religion by wearing a cross above their clothing. I think they should tuck it below so that I don’t know what their religion is because frankly, I find their faith offensive. It’s unfortunate that some religions require that their faithful observe traditions that make it obvious that they are faithful.

                Religion is, at its root, a system of control and an excuse for bad behavior. At it’s worst it is a grift and a shortcut to genocide. I know that there are many religious people who are good and descent (my mother, for example), but I still resent that her religion guides her politics in ways that are illogical. I had a friend who believed in 1999 that the earth was ~5000 years old and that dinosaurs were a test of his faith by god. Religion is holding us back.

        • Uncaged_Jay@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          4
          ·
          1 year ago

          Okay, so how is this different from saying “I don’t care if they’re gay, as long as it’s in the privacy of their own homes”? It’s the same sentiment about what is (to some) also an immutable characteristic about their personality

          • some_guy@lemmy.sdf.org
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            5
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            This is a strong argument and initially left me speechless. However, religion is something you choose. I don’t think people choose to be gay.

    • Adkml [he/him]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      62
      arrow-down
      14
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      I was initially torn on this, but as long as it’s for all religions, I support it.

      The law, in its majestic equality, forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal their bread

      Yea they made it so nobody could wear religious cultural clothes but there’s only one religion that includes wearing those clothes as a belief.

      Would you also support a policy that nobody named @some_guy should be allowed to talk, no matter who they are.

      • usernamesaredifficul [he/him]@hexbear.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        37
        arrow-down
        7
        ·
        1 year ago

        Yea they made it so nobody could wear religious cultural clothes but there’s only one religion that includes wearing those clothes as a belief

        there are multiple such as Islam and Sikhism to give two examples. This law is just an example of religious persecution against religions that don’t fit in with the French idea of which religions a French person should have

        • Adkml [he/him]@hexbear.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          29
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          Your right should have said there’s multiple religions it was discriminating against just highlighting how it lines up with Frances history of Islamophobia.

      • nudny ekscentryk@szmer.info
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        12
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        Yea they made it so nobody could wear religious cultural clothes but there’s only one religion that includes wearing those clothes as a belief.

        One, this is not true. Two, this includes other symbols like pendants

      • some_guy@lemmy.sdf.org
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        The first is a good argument. And I support breaking that law.

        The second is a good argument in that I wasn’t factoring the requirement (which I kinda don’t care about because I reject religion, so I know that I’m wrong even though I reject religion, fuck religion). Were religion not so toxic, I would have more sympathy. In this case, I’m gonna sound like a real fuckwad, but assimilate.

        The third is just silly.

        • usernamesaredifficul [he/him]@hexbear.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          35
          arrow-down
          4
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          I’m gonna sound like a real fuckwad, but assimilate.

          bruh-moment

          can’t believe you just said “facing persecution for your religious faith simply don’t be a member of the religious minority being persecuted”

              • Colour_me_triggered@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                3
                arrow-down
                2
                ·
                1 year ago

                At which point it becomes child abuse. And the state should step in. Let’s not forget that France also doesn’t permit the display of any religious symbolism instate institutions including Christian. Either these kids are free to choose a different item of clothing, or they’re being abused by their family. Simple.

                • PolandIsAStateOfMind@lemmy.ml
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  3
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  1 year ago

                  Every kid of belivers is being rased in their faith, worldwide. It is religious indoctrination and frankly i agree that this is child abuse, but it’s not illegal anywhere. People refraining from this and allowing the children to choose are very rare. And even then it might still not exactly be the choice, in basically all societies there is considerable peer and social pressure to conform to its values.

        • GarbageShoot [he/him]@hexbear.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          36
          arrow-down
          6
          ·
          1 year ago

          “Just assimilate to Christian culture, Muslims. I’m anti-religion of all kinds, btw.”

          You are too caught up in liberal abstraction to allow yourself to understand the material reality.

            • GarbageShoot [he/him]@hexbear.net
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              11
              arrow-down
              5
              ·
              1 year ago

              Pure reactionary sophistry. They are not made to go to church, but they still get the Christian Sabbath off but not Muslim Jumu’ah (their equivalent, midday prayer) on Fridays. France is “secular” but it just so happens that the laws of its “secularism” cut in a direction that wildly favors Christianity.

              You claim to be a communist, don’t you? You should know this quote:

              The law, in its majestic equality, forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal their bread.

              – Anatole France

              As I said, liberal abstraction that obscures the deliberate material impact of the laws.

                • GarbageShoot [he/him]@hexbear.net
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  9
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  I was taking an opportunity to demonstrate a point with what you said, not suggesting that all bread stealing should be legalized.

                  Your ideology is a joke. “Surely, some girl wearing too baggy a dress will hamper education and heighten religious differences. No, we must teach these children tolerance by socializing them in an environment where we have eliminated any visible deviations from the dominant (liberal Christian) culture. Then, when they go out on the street and see people who look different, they will in fact be more tolerant of people with traits alien to how they were socialized.”

                  Every word you say is just laundering reactionary bullshit under a veil of virtue.

              • Neshura@bookwormstory.social
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                Christian Sabbath off but not Muslim Jumu’ah

                hear me out: that just might be, really far stretch I know, but it just might be because the western weekend formed out of the Jewish Sabbath, which was adopted by Christianity. However it is not anymore the justification for having it. The only reason Saturday and Sunday are the weekend is because nobody bothered moving the date after the religious meaning was largely lost on the general population. Religion in Europe is in steep decline, unlike in certain other parts of the western world.

                France has a population of ~40% Atheist/Agnostics. If you seriously think Christianity dictates the laws in France you are delusional.

        • Adkml [he/him]@hexbear.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          30
          arrow-down
          7
          ·
          1 year ago

          Wow. So literally saying they should just assimilate, so much for that whole “they have to respect our culture because we respect theirs”

          Also yea the third point was stupid, it was to illustrate how dumb your argument was.

          Bit then you just came out and admitted to being a bigot and leapfrogging my point.

          • some_guy@lemmy.sdf.org
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            5
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            I am bigoted against religion. I otherwise accept everyone for who they are. I have no shame in taking this stance.

            • AOCapitulator [they/them, she/her]@hexbear.net
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              19
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              The point people are trying to make is that it’s not the religion that’s being targeted, but the minority non white culture, and it’s being done in a way to hide its true intent, which you are supporting based on its appearance.

              This has nothing to do with secularism and everything to do with punishing and invalidating nonwhite culture

              • some_guy@lemmy.sdf.org
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                I suspect that you’re right and if that’s the case, that’s terrible. I would support removal of religion from schools simply on the basis that it’s the source of most of the world’s wars. In the US, I think we should take the gloves off and churches should pay taxes. I detest that it causes people to vote and behave irrationally and is used as a smoke screen to excuse bad behavior. My support for kicking religion out of schools is based in that and does not apply as a tool to suppress non-western peoples.

                It’s unfortunate that what you’re suggesting is probably the real reason. Put me in charge and it really will be because I’m sick of religion in a completely colorblind fashion.

                • AOCapitulator [they/them, she/her]@hexbear.net
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  11
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  world’s wars

                  You may have a leg to stand on in terms of premodern history, but for the last 150 years most wars have been due to capitalism, not religion. You are not exactly incorrect, but you are in my view taking symptoms as the disease, when we really need to zoom out, religion itself isn’t the base level problem, its authoritative structures not derived from the consent and for the betterment of the people, religion is but a powerful historical tool

                  • some_guy@lemmy.sdf.org
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    You’re right. I have no argument with your statement other than to say that religion has justified violence on a non-war scale. Take all the violence that has been influenced by religion that isn’t a war and factor that in with the wars.

                    Yes, capitalism is destroying lives, the world, etc. Absolutely.

                    The thing that I was thinking about last night is if I had one wish that would come true, what would it be? I hate that there are people unhoused. I hate that there are people who are abused. I hate that there is hunger. But to cure all terrible things, I think erasing religion would be the greatest step to removing barriers in finding consensus. I think it’s the thing most responsible for dividing people. Tribalism will still exist, but if you removed this all-present motivation from personal interactions and people’s sense of morals, I think we’d make progress on all other fronts.

                • usernamesaredifficul [he/him]@hexbear.net
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  6
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  Well if we look at the Romans, Assyrians, British, French, and Germans and their wars it’s abundantly clear that most of their wars were for the aquisition of wealth. The vast majority of wars even in the middle ages were openly about arguments between noble families over land

                  • some_guy@lemmy.sdf.org
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    You’re discounting the Protestant Reformation and Crusades, not to mention all other wars for religion. Yes, people fight for territory and resources. People also fight for a fictional man in the sky.

                • GarbageShoot [he/him]@hexbear.net
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  3
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  I would support removal of religion from schools simply on the basis that it’s the source of most of the world’s wars.

                  This is false. It was used as the pretext for most of the world’s wars, just as secular equality is used as the pretext for this law, but the actual cause of those and virtually all wars lies in material motivations (land, resources, etc), just as the true objective of the law is to forcibly assimilate minorities.

            • Adkml [he/him]@hexbear.net
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              20
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              1 year ago

              Yea bigots generally aren’t shameful about their bigotry they just usually try to tap dance around the word bigot, good for you for being honest I guess.

    • m0darn@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      44
      arrow-down
      15
      ·
      1 year ago

      An Abaya is just a flowing robe.

      This ban is like an American school saying you’re allowed to wear cowboy hats but not sombreros because sombreros are associated with catholicism, in that they are mostly associated with the culture of a predominately catholic country.

      This is like banning kids from wearing rainbows because it signifies their values.

      • packadal@beehaw.org
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        8
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        I disagree, the Abaya is not just a flowing robe.

        It is a garment that is required by the Sharia law (see Saudi Arabia and other Muslim countries where women are not allowed to choose what they wear).

        Allowing this is the first step in letting religion in the public schools in France, where it has always been explicitly banned.

        And it is very unlike banning rainbows, those are a symbol used to promote acceptance of the diversity of others, something religions struggle with (ever notice how religion is closely tied with extremism?)

        Another factor to take into account is that these young girl may be forced by their family to wear such a garment, imposing upon them something they may not be old enough to refuse.

        Also, look up the paradox of intolerance, as allowing anyone to do as they please causes the rise of extremism.

        • ursakhiin@beehaw.org
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          This is a very hyperbolic take on that paradox.

          An article of clothing can’t be religious on its own. Saudi Arabia may have done the wrong thing by requiring this specific article of clothing but banning it is also bad.

          A girl may want to wear a loose fitting dress for any number of reasons. Some people are just more modest than others and that shouldn’t be punished.

          Looking at abaya online, and as a westerner I actually kinda like the style of them as well. I could see them being work as a strictly fashionable article of clothing.

          • packadal@beehaw.org
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            4
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            An article of clothing can’t be religious on its own

            Really? What about a kippa ? Or a priest’s robes ?

            The kippa is forbidden in french schools for this very same reason, it signals religion.

            Loose fitting dresses are not forbidden, abayas are. They are a specific kind of loose fitting dresses. One that signals religion.

            I don’t see them working as a fashion article, but that may just be my taste.

        • m0darn@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          I really appreciate you engaging in more than just one liners.

          I disagree, the Abaya is not just a flowing robe.

          It is a garment that is required by the Sharia law (see Saudi Arabia and other Muslim countries where women are not allowed to choose what they wear).

          From le Monde

          [Saudi Arabia] Since 2022 (…) has outlawed the wearing of abaya for women during examinations.

          It is not a religious garment. It is a cultural garment. You’re right that it is often worn by Muslim women/girls to achieve islamic notions of modesty. But it’s predominately worn by people strongly influenced by Arab culture, not muslims everywhere.

          I agree that countries should not generally be dictating what people are allowed to wear.

          Allowing this is the first step in letting religion in the public schools in France, where it has always been explicitly banned.

          Except it’s not the first step in letting religion in schools. It was already allowed and then was banned. The pendulum is swinging away from religious tolerance. It would be more accurate to view the ban as the next step in a series of measures further disembracing France’s ethnic minorities.

          And it is very unlike banning rainbows, those are a symbol used to promote acceptance of the diversity of others

          So you support symbols of the acceptance of the diversity of others. But you do not support actual acceptance of cultural diversity.

          ever notice how religion is closely tied with extremism?

          Yes. Too many religions have dark histories/presents.

          Another factor to take into account is that these young girl may be forced by their family to wear such a garment, imposing upon them something they may not be old enough to refuse.

          I think the best way to help people in situations like this is to get them into environments where they can make strong relationships with people outside their family’s religion. Like public schools.

          Also, look up the paradox of intolerance, as allowing anyone to do as they please causes the rise of extremism.

          I’m familiar with the concept and agree that limitations to freedom are necessary to protect freedom. But is it intolerance to wear an Abaya or is it intolerance to forbid unfamiliar styles of clothing?

          I applaud France’s goal of a secular society. But I think this policy is a misstep.

          Look at images of abaya compared to duster cardigans and maybe you’ll see what I mean.

        • m0darn@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          9
          arrow-down
          6
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          The rule isn’t no flowing robes.

          The rule is “no flowing robes on kids suspected of being muslim”.

          • books@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            8
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            So let the french kids who are not muslim, wear these robes and see what happens.

    • usernamesaredifficul [he/him]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      32
      arrow-down
      6
      ·
      1 year ago

      as requiring them to leave their phones at home

      you can’t just leave religion and culture at the door and freedom of conscience isn’t a right only adults are entitled to nor is it comparable to playing on your phone

        • usernamesaredifficul [he/him]@hexbear.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          7
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          Are kids meaningfully capable of exercising their freedom of conscience though

          arguably not but you could also make that argument in favour of all children being forced to wear islamic dress.

          yes religious parents put their finger on the scale of the kids decision but so do non-religious parents with regards to their kids religious views that’s just how raising children within a culture works. It’s not a lifetime commitment the same freedom of conscience that means they have a right to practice their faith also means they have a right to abandon it if once they are older they change their minds.

          ols can and should seek to eliminate these kinds of cultural differences within the student body because it teaches kids to segregate themselves, that’s why school uniforms are generally a good thing.

          school uniforms are a good thing but exemptions to uniform rules on religious grounds have been a long recorded tradition. When the British forced sepoys to use cartridges that meant they had to partially consume beef and pork fat were the Indians wrong to compain or were the British merely removing cultural differences between the Muslims, Hindus, and British.