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.

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.

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)

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

Removed by mod

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.

How people dress is none of the government’s business. This is just authoritarism.

deleted by creator

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.

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.

What’s your thought on school’s uniform?

At this point they should just mandate school uniform.

But religion should? 🤔

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.

You forgot to mention that the abaya is compulsory in Saudi Arabia (except for tourists) and Qatar.

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.

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.

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?

Have you ever lived in France?

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.

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.

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

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.