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.
Accprding to https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_law_on_secularity_and_conspicuous_religious_symbols_in_schools you seem incorrect. The point is exactly that of preventing religious displays in schools, and I wouldn't call it fascism. In fact, fascist regimes have done exactly the opposite, giving huge visibility to religion and (the case in Italy) making Christianity religion of the state.
The comparison with same sex couple showing displays of affection seems completely ridiculous to me, especially because Muslims are disproportionally affected only because Islam is a religion in which there are more symbols, but it is not targeted specifically against then.
What is important is that people can, if they choose to do so, freely profess their own religion, or the lack thereof. This does not mean that this can be done in any space, and I am personally a big supporter for schools being very neutral spaces.
When a school ban children because of their religion it's not really neutral.
The school did not ban children though, nor because of their religion.
The school complied with a law that forbids religious symbols/garments. Also the children were not banned, were asked to wear something else and most did.
Muslim children are perfectly able to attend school, provided that they do so without visible religious symbols, exactly like everyone else.
We didn't ban children, we merely told girls how they should properly dress, because that they were too modest to the liking of the racists.
"We" actually told everyone what NOT to dress, because some dresses are actually not (only) garments but religious symbols. Again, if you use this argument I will play the devil's advocate and support people going in KKK uniform to school. Wouldn't we want to tell boys how to dress, no? Or a good ol' SS uniform.
Clothes sometimes are more than pieces of cloth we cover ourselves with, and some of them have religious value, whether you acknowledge it or not. You can argue that for you schools should NOT be a neutral space (regarding religion), but you can't make up argument such as religious clothing being worn for modesty.
Except it's not a religious dress. It's a cultural marker. But yeah, sure just make it like all Muslims are fanatical terrorists, that will include them well in the society.
Do we ban metal heads then because they're satanist worshipers?
That's just because culture and religion are somewhat related. This does not make religious garments not religious.
Strawman
Strawman
When this whole thing is a strawman from the government to avoid talking about the terrible state of the school, I find it funny that you're talking about strawman. Especially to dismiss legitimate comparisons.
Your comparisons are strawman arguments because they are argument nobody (definitely not me) made, which you are using to try to deligitimize other arguments that you can't challenge (apparently), by somehow pretending that your strawman and my arguments are similar.
Talk about the poor state of French schools if you wish, it is an important topic, but this doesn't make religious garments less religious. Your argument was that these are cultural markers, and NOT religious symbols, which is a pretty easy claim to debunk with a quick research on why those garments exist, who wears them, what they represent, etc.
Do you know what a strawman is? You don't seem to know.
The strawman is the abaya because it's a non issue that the government is advertising to make it the political subject of the return to class period, that in order not to talk about the actual issues. That is what a strawman is: an argument to deviate the discussion. It has nothing to do with a comparison.
A comparison helps to understand an argument, or make parallels to make the reasoning more robust.
This lecture was free. You can try an actual argument now rather than trying sophisms like a troll.
From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man
Not sure what your "lesson" was referring to, but your old comment is exactly the definition of a strawman.
Let me remind it to you:
Nobody made any argument about making all muslims like fanatical terrorists, nobody mentioned anything about metal heads (we were talking about religion), but you wanted to use the refusal of these ridiculous made-up arguments because you couldn't anymore defend your main thesis (I assume), which is "Except it’s not a religious dress.".
So your "comparisons" are strawman because they have nothing to do with the other comparison term.
This said, I argued my way to every comment, you moved the goalpost 10000km now, moving from "they are not religious dresses" to "the whole topic is a strategy from the government to distract from..." (which might also be true, but it's completely unrelated as we are already discussing of this particular subject), and now you call me names for the sake of using basic logic in my conversation. Well, this lesson is free as well, it's called learn to fucking discuss like an adult. I am blocking you in the meanwhile because it's now obvious that you have absolutely no argument and you argue in bad faith as well.