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.
New criminal offense: Learning while Muslim.
what's next sikhs can't wear turbans in school
The law covers that also. All visible religious garments are forbidden.
ok so straight up religious persecution of multiple groups
Except the Catholics of course, can't touch them
It's so funny to me that so many people in this thread are like "well technically it also applies to christians wearing crosses! So it isn't discriminatory." I guarantee you that a kid wearing a cross won't get in any trouble for it, they certainly won't be sent home. They'd probably be asked to hide it better and let off by the teacher, if anything at all was said.
These kinds of laws are classic examples of laws that are deliberately targeted at specific groups, but worded in a way which technically makes them apply to everyone, with the intent that enforcement will not target the group it wasn't supposed to.
also Christianity doesn't have a commandment about people wearing crosses at all times so it's not an equivalent ask to not wear a cross
Only that is not.
Crucifixes and other outter religious symbols are facing the same restriction.
For what reason a particular creed holds such tight restrictions on what garments are considered adequate over others evades.
This is a quite harsh way to impose a rule but it is a fair one. No one is being denied education. This is "keep your beliefs to yourself and do not impose it onto others".
"Ackshually, technically, totally fair." This clearly only affects this one group of people in practice. The law was obviously made to garner the bigot vote and distract from the incredibly unpopular shit this government is pulling. This "technically" shit is only deflection. I mean it works great on people who are Islamophobic but don't actually want to admit that to themselves. Plausible deniability.
How are these children "imposing" anything onto others? You see one abaya, and now you're forced to accept Mohammed as your prophet? Do you know what "impose" means? You used it correctly just two sentences before that.
Want to throw "mansplaining" and "neckbeard" there too? Seems to be missing to finish the bouquet.
Could not care any less. By definition, I uphold that no creed, whatsoever, deserves special treatment. And fascism is the hot buzzer nowadays: everything and everyone is a fascist nowadays, the moment they are not willing to concede by default on any given point.
The abaya is an outter sign of religiosity, usually imposed to women that come from muslim backgrounds or go into it. It is not a fashion statement or personal style: it's forced differentiation that no one has to respect or endure.
Have the girls and women have a say on what they use, not a father, or male relative or a religious figure nor a so called sacred book.
Inadvertantly answered to this point above but I'll expand a little more.
Personally speaking, which makes the following an anecdote, which by the force of argument engagement voids it of validity, I actually find quite beautiful the elaborate embroidery and decorations the traditional northern Africa and Turkish garments can sport. I find it lavish, elaborate and just beautiful. The art and work put into it is fabulous. But this same elaborate work is usually absent in the abayas and other "traditional" muslim associated garments we usually see in Europe, which are often bland, in drab colors. Why?
If it is about defending culture, which is the default argument, why aren't those traditional garments sewn and used here, where they could even contribute to counter the prêt-à-porter seasonal discardable fashion? Make an actual contribution to the local culture and enrich it.
the Abaya is just a long wide cut dress. They are banning girls from wearing long dresses, because these are popular with muslims. If the girls decide to wear hoodies now to be conservative about what they show of their body it would need to be banned by that logic too. Basically anything that is not skin tight hot pants and crop tops should be banned because it might be worn by muslim girls to adhere to their religious values.
This ruling has nothing to do with actual secular values. It is just to discriminate against muslim children.
And crosses are just lines meeting at right angles. And purity rings are just small cylinders. We don't ban any cylinder or lines meeting at right angles. You're making a sad attempt at a slippery slope argument.
Tailored to specifications dictated by an unquestionable authority or are the abaya user free to order the garment to be tailored to their personal specific taste?
Because to what I can gather it is supposed to be used as a form to preserve modesty, which implies simplicity and discretion.
Flowing, straight cut dresses are not exclusive to the muslim world.
Hoodies are not banned. You are making stuff up.
i didnt say they are banned. but by the pretended logic behind the ban they would need to ban hoodies too. Which shows that the law is not aimed at enforcing secularism but at discriminating muslims. Most likely to appease the far right.
According to German news (source) girls already had to defend their choice of wearing an oversized sweater and long skirt. That's going way too far in regulation in my opinion.
That is blatantly wrong! What's banned is the sign in the room, from the teacher, a representative of the state.
Only Muslim get to get new laws to ban any sign of their religion. Cross pendant were never banned. Scarfs were only banned when Muslim wear them.
Keep your beliefs to yourself should apply to fascists too.
No, every religious sign is banned.
Christians are just less of an arse when it comes to those symbols. They either stop wearing it or hide it under clothes.
But if a Christian came in wearing a hat with a cross on top, they would also get send home.
Same with orthodox Jews. They need to hide their payot or will be send home.
If you can't handle secularism in education, don't go live in a secular country.
How exactly do you hide sideburns?
If they wear a hat to put them under, it'd probably be interpreted as a religious head covering and they'd be sent home anyways.
That's like saying that Christians are less of an arse when it comes to religious dietary rules. It's just not a part of their religion in the same way that not proselytizing is a part of Judaism.
Honestly, as someone who grew up in the US, Christian proselytizers are orders of magnitude worse than the modern orthodox kid in school who wore a kippah.
That's not secularism, that's authoritarianism. I wish my country wasn't becoming fascist.
So Christians are just less annoying than Muslims? And they should leave if they don't like it here?
Spoken like a true bigot. And you were trying so hard to convince others it's got nothing to do with Islamophobia. Just can't stop yourself, can you?
I'm a little south of France, secularism and laicism are built into our constituion and we still have a rather fresh memroy of what fascism was and did to our people and country.
Public school is to be non confessional, which implies you keep your personal beliefs private.
The best parallel I can find to the muslim code of dress would be the monastic dressing of catholic orders. It is not optional, it's enforced. But unlike the muslim dress code, the monastic dressing implies you are away from the common world 90% of your time and you actively and willingly chose that way of life.
Who would care if a muslim was to go every now and then dressed in their religious attire? It would be a personal choice, perhaps something moved the individual to dress that way on a given day as they felt fragile for a loss or some other reason where they felt the need to seek comfort in their belief. But mandated out of oppression, because women tempt men and thus need to be modest? That is saying that men are forever children (and by default stupid) and force women into a perpetual motherhood, from birth.
Catholics carry their cross around their necks but can easily tuck inside their clothes. Jewish men can fold and keep their head cover in a pocket (do women have any equivalent?). And so on and so forth.
I am French, I know very well how it works. Laws that tell people how they can dress are not secularist, they are authoritarian. Removing children from school because they aren't dress correctly is not secularism, it's authoritarian.
France is becoming fascist, that's all there is to see here.
Isn't it in Cannes that beach goers cannot be by the boardwalk without their shirts?
I remember seeing a news cover where a man, sitting on the dividind wall without a shirt, was acosted by the police and eventually walked to the police station.
Is that fascism as well?
I think it's exaggerated but the reasoning behind the ordnance was enforcing common social etiquette/decorum.
Do I agree with the principle behind this? No. But there should be no need to enforce basic social norms because one creed understands itself as being above all norms that are not perscribed by a book cobbled together from oral narrations, 600 or 800 years ago.
Religious belief does not deserve special treatment from the law.
Anyone from any non muslim country faces similar or worst impositions when settling on such a nation; "tolerated" is not "accepted".
You can generalize as much you like it's irrelevant. The matter at hand is that a law is 1) telling women how to dress and 2) fucking with Muslims.
The irony is that these dresses are deemed "too modest".
Also, what happen in a Muslim theocracy is completely irrelevant. We're talking about France policy. France doesn't have to become fascist just because theocracies are fascists. That's not how it works.
You're in your right to dislike or disagree of my arguments. Could not care any less.
The law is, to what I can gather, telling any and all religious confessions that no outter signs are tolerated in the school space. If the halfwit of the minister that divulged focused on the muslim attire, they are either idiots or aiming at picking up dirt to snuff some other event.
I wonder if this thread would have garnered so much attention if instead of muslim women the event would have had involved jewish male teens and their sideburns.
My parallel with the muslim nations was not to excuse a so called "fascist" imposition from the french government to cull religious zealotry but to remind what that same zealory aspires to have in nations where the creed is minoritary: total, complete, absolute and inquestionable control over people's lives, including what they can or not wear.
Are catholics religiously obligated to wear crosses at all times? Reform and conservative Jews only wear kippot while praying, but orthodox Jews wear them all the time and consider it to be an obligation to wear one all the time.
Do you also require orthodox Jewish and Muslim children to eat pork and shellfish in school lunches, and appreciate how flexible catholic parents are about letting their kids violate the kosher or halal rules?
Nowadays, I think it depends on who you ask.
Growing in a somewhat religious family, it was never a mandatory item to carry, although it was a common sight on both men and womens jewelry, usually made out of gold or silver.
Today I find it increasingly common to see more devout church goers using crucifixes or even rosary beads around their necks.
So... it depends?
Dietary difference is not on the table to discuss; it's a non subject. Many people have differentiated diets for multiple reasons besides a given creed.
And if the law stipulates that an animal must be slaughtered by a means that guarantees the least possible suffering, then the law is actually pushing aside religious precept over objective benefit.
If my memory serves me well enough, jewish and muslim slaughtering involves slicing the carothide artery to allow the animal to bleed out, which is a slow and stressful death. In my very own barbaric country, that is considered cruelty.
Although not a vegan or vegetarian, I find distasteful the image of an animal slowly fading away as it bleeds to the ground, when a more humane method os available.
Huh? Muslims can still go to school, cant they?