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.


  • @Armen12@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    261 year ago

    I don’t want religion in schools, outside that, you’re still free to practice what you want, but keep religion out of education. France got this one right

    • axont [comrade/them, they/them]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      221 year ago

      An abaya isn’t religious, they’re just worn in places that are usually Muslim and often worn by Muslims. This is racist discrimination.

      • usernamesaredifficul [he/him]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        281 year ago

        even if it was religious (which it partially is) muslims have a right to practice their faith. Keep religion out of education is a slogan that means don’t let religious groups control the content of educational content but has been coopted in this thread to mean “don’t allow children the right to practice their parents faith”

        • @ThePenitentOne@discuss.online
          link
          fedilink
          3
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          I agree with the first point, and I think if they want to promote secularism (which is good) they should go about it by educating people in philosophy and logical reasoning as an additional class. Although, I still feel saying ‘practice their parents’ faith’ is problematic. I don’t think any kid should be taught that one religion is true since they can’t really logically think or reason and are very emotionally immature, at least before being a teenager. The indoctrination of young children is very damaging and much harder to get out of. This goes for any ideology, but religion especially since belief is based only on faith. They can wear what they want ofc, but there is also a problem with acting like religion can’t be criticised. However, here the way they went about it is just unproductive.

          • usernamesaredifficul [he/him]
            link
            fedilink
            English
            111 year ago

            if they want to promote secularism (which is good)

            you mean athiesm. Secularism is when you don’t take any stance about what people should believe.

            and you can’t just have parents not involve their children in their religious belief even athiest parents involve their children in their beliefs on religion

      • @MEtrINeS@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        1
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Bullshit. Abaya is a religious garment. The equivalent for men is the qamis, however you don’t see muslim boys using it.

    • @nednobbins@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      51 year ago

      Do they ban other forms of religious expression? Crosses/crucifixes? Yarmulke/kippah?
      Or is it just Islamic symbols?

      • @Fraylor@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        31 year ago

        From what I’ve read they ban all of it. Granted I don’t live there nor do I see it in practice, but they’ve mentioned it in a few articles.

        • @nednobbins@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          61 year ago

          I read up on it a bit more.

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_law_on_secularity_and_conspicuous_religious_symbols_in_schools

          It seems like regulations on religious attire are selectively applied. Small crosses and stars of David, some variations of Sikh turbans, Fatima’s hands are acceptable and the final decision is left up to school headmasters.

          It also sounds like the legislators who created it specifically intended to target Muslim headdress.

          It’s one thing to keep religion out of education. It seems that they’re disproportionately concerned about suprsesssing Islam in their schools.

          • @Fraylor@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            31 year ago

            Ah, thanks for the link. Yes, they’re definitely in the wrong if there’s even an iota of selective enforcement.

            • @nednobbins@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              11 year ago

              I want to be very careful around judging the intentions of people who live 5000 miles away and speak a language I don’t understand. There’s a lot of room to misunderstand people’s intentions.

              But from what I can see, it’s looking like there’s an intentional bias.

            • @nednobbins@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              11 year ago

              I could see that as fair as long as everyone agrees that a small symbol on their neck is an appropriate expression of their religion.

              If I were to think of a Muslim country that officially embraces secularism in government what would that look like? What if they said that everyone can wear a discreet head covering. Christians, Jews, Buddhists, Daoists, Jains, etc are also allowed to wear small headscarves appropriate to their religion.

              The problem is that headscarves just aren’t generally meaningful to those other religions.

              I’m even more suspicious of the intent of the French law since they apparently went out of their way to create an exemption for non-Muslim head scarves. The law seems to be constructed and interpreted as, “If we can tell that its related to Islam, it’s out.” The case where a girl was sent home for wearing a skirt that was too long really just looks like they want to make Muslims (and Muslim girls, in particular) more uncomfortable.

                • @nednobbins@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  01 year ago

                  The thing with symbols is that they don’t have have objective meanings. Their meanings are entirely a matter of interpretation and they’re incredibly fluid.

                  Necklaces can also be symbols of oppression. Chains, in general are far more commonly used as symbols of oppression than any article of clothing. There’s the obvious association with collars that are used to control slaves and livestock. There is also slavery symbolism associated with ankle and wrist bracelets, largely due to their similarity to shackles.

                  The ultimate test is what the individual thinks of it. If we’re forbidding a girl from wearing some article of clothing that she wants to wear, we’re the oppressors. If we’re truly worried about some situation where parents are forcing their children to wear some clothing a more appropriate response would be to either ban all religious clothing or to adopt a policy of clothing choice being a protected privacy matter and barring schools from discussing a student’s clothing choices with their parents.

                  From the evidence I’ve seen, this policy is less about protecting the rights of girls and more about using that as a rationalization to marginalize Muslims.

                  • @electrogamerman@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    -1
                    edit-2
                    1 year ago

                    First of all, your comparison of a small necklace with a slave chain, completely out of place.

                    Second, there is no country/religion forcing people, specifically forcing women to wear necklaces. You dont hear in the news “women gets sentenced to death for not wanting to wear a necklace”. You know what does happen? “Women gets sentenced to death for not wanting to cover her hair”.

                    “The policy is used to tarjet one group”. It applies to everyone. If other people were forcing clothing into their girls, they would also need to change that. Except only muslisms are forcing clothing into girls.