France is Simply Saying Non to the Abayah

[Leonardo17]

The headscarf, Christian crosses and Jewish kipas were already banned in France since 2004. The Burkini is also banned in some public beaches. Now a particular middle eastern clothe called “Abayah” has also been banned.
 

---

That’s because schools needed clear guidance’s on which item is to be seen as “a clear sign of belonging to a religious group or religious belief system”. And that’s the principle of Laicité. Meaning that you cannot wear any sign of belonging to a religious group in schools or in any public institution.


 
I think I totally support this idea of strict separation between church and state but I also believe in “let the woman decide”. I would rather set an age limit (like alcohol and tobacco) and after that age (16 or 18) I would let anyone wear anything they want. / And I just checked to see that women are allowed to wear whatever they want (even head to toe clothing) in French Universities.  

---

[Aegon]

I'll bet all the money on the goddamn planet that France does not enforce the laws against Christian crosses, and that only Muslims will really need to abide by this requirement.

[Leonardo17]

I will also add these quotes from the French Minister of Education Gabriel Attal:
“Secularism is not a constraint, it is a liberty”
 

---

 
So all conspicuous signs of religious affiliation have been banned.
 
In the previous school year there were about 300 girls who defied these rules. While most of them agreed to change-up when they were told to do so, some 70 still refused.
 
And that’s why I really admire the firmness of Emmanuel Macron on this. The problem in most European nations is that, you cannot not go to school either. So one side has to give in. The principle of laicité or traditional customs of minority groups.
 
I must also add that leftists are very critical of this approach. I am not. But I think that dialogue is crucial while carrying-out such policies.
 
Minority identities are a very important issue in almost all countries. So like the events in Sweden the government must repeat its message “I am doing this because of that. I am not against your culture or identity. This is our social contract here. So try to be patient until you are 18 and are able to study in college as a grown up woman who can make her own decisions”
 
And I don’t really know the government’s approach in Sweden after the Quran burning incident. But the French are usually very good at this. As long as they are able to maintain this “communication” than there should be no major issue.
 
Here is the full article:
https://www.yahoo.com/news/muslim-studen...42202.html
 

---

[Leonardo17]

I'll bet all the money on the goddamn planet that France does not enforce the laws against Christian crosses, and that only Muslims will really need to abide by this requirement.

Well that would be profoundly racist wouldn’t it?
 
- I don’t think I agree with that. In US schools almost everyone is wearing large crosses etc. especially minority groups. So these and Jewish Kippas are to be banned.
 
Also, as a symbol, I have come to understand that the Hijap is simply bigger in size. And the message is much stronger. But that’s another issue, so I think they are absolutely right

[zebo-the-fat]

Back when I was in school (1960's) we had to wear the school uniform, no exceptions

[Anomalocaris]

I'll bet all the money on the goddamn planet that France does not enforce the laws against Christian crosses, and that only Muslims will really need to abide by this requirement.

Well that would be profoundly racist wouldn’t it?
 
- I don’t think I agree with that. In US schools almost everyone is wearing large crosses etc. especially minority groups. So these and Jewish Kippas are to be banned.
 
Also, as a symbol, I have come to understand that the Hijap is simply bigger in size. And the message is much stronger. But that’s another issue, so I think they are absolutely right

it would only be racism, or some thing akin to racism, if the discrimination is based on some thing, one cannot change, or are extremely difficult and burdensome to change, to the extent the cost of the change outweigh any benefit of affecting the change

[FrustratedFool]

I'm conflicted by such laws.

My libertarian side wants people to be able to wear whatever they want. My utilitarian side wants society protected from the insidious influence of religion.

Tricky.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Well that would be profoundly racist wouldn’t it?

No, but it would be religious bigotry.

[Aegon]

Well that would be profoundly racist wouldn’t it?
 
- I don’t think I agree with that. In US schools almost everyone is wearing large crosses etc. especially minority groups. So these and Jewish Kippas are to be banned.
 
Also, as a symbol, I have come to understand that the Hijap is simply bigger in size. And the message is much stronger. But that’s another issue, so I think they are absolutely right

it would only be racism, or some thing akin to racism, if the discrimination is based on some thing, one cannot change, or are extremely difficult and burdensome to change, to the extent the cost of the change outweigh any benefit of affecting the change

I don't think that's a fair definition of racism or racial discrimination. And I think telling Muslims they cannot wear the garb that is intrinsic to their belief system is a form of discrimination. 

I would also absolutely not agree with the idea that it's not discrimination if you can simply remove it. Negative feeling towards religious groups aren't focused solely on religious garb, it's those who subscribe to the faith that they really dislike. Banning hijab or khimar is a relatively kind, roundabout way of trying to remove Muslims from society.

[Anomalocaris]

I don’t think it is automatically or intrinsically wrong to attempt to suppress expression of specific religions.