- cross-posted to:
- world@lemmy.world
- cross-posted to:
- world@lemmy.world
You must log in or register to comment.
“When you walk into a classroom, you shouldn’t be able to identify the pupils’ religion just by looking at them,”
Sir I’m sorry but a abaya doesn’t prove someone is religious. You can wear one if you so please even if you’re not Islam. It’s just a dress.
Sure, and you an atheist could wear a cross and speak a prayer every morning. They just usually don’t and until we can telepathically determine what someone actually believes such insignia are the best way to show support for religion.
I think saying this largely denies the cultural implications of many religiously associated garments and symbols.
Most religious symbols are not just that, they’re cultural ones. People adopt them, change them, redefine them. Drawing lines between religion and culture is very difficult so attempting to stop someone dressing some way is just a restriction of freedom, regardless of religion.
Many of these girls are brought up to believe it is wrong to not cover your body as a girl and woman. How is that freedom?
Forcing someone to stop smoking is not giving them freedom
When they got addicted it may very much give them freedom.
These veils are not chosen by girls out of freedom. No 10 year old girl suddenly stands up and thinks “Better to cover my body, otherwise I may tempt the men around me”.
It does not matter if a vice is chosen or unchosen. Smoking is a great example. You may not choose a tobacco addiction.
Situation A: you have the freedom to choose to quit or not. Quitting results in more freedom. Not quitting results in less. The total freedoms available to you at any time are the freedom TO quit and the freedom OF quitting
Situation B: You have no freedom to choose to quit. Your total freedoms are: freedom from quitting.
So your freedoms have decreased in situation B. We have to ask if personal freedoms are preferable to better outcomes.
The difference is that freedom is independent of opinion. You are either free to do so lawfully or not. But if I say “it would be better for you to not have that freedom”, I need to demonstrate what “better” means. And there everyone often disagrees.
If you really want to take smoking as an analogy the situation would be like this: Your parents forced you into a tabacco addiction. You are growing up being told that you can’t go anywhere without smoking and those around you who do not smoke are doing a bad thing.
Is it good or bad if these children have a place where their parents have no power to force them to smoke?
But pretty much only devout muslim women wear them. Might as well be a hijab at this point.
That s a good thing actually
I’m all for letting people wear whatever they want. What is the harm?
Here in Canada I’ve seen police officers wearing turbans. Works for me. Nude beaches? Sure thing. I’ve seen people in my neighborhood wearing Saudi-style niqabs and Afghan-style burqas.
Who am I to tell people what they should or shouldn’t wear? How could it be my business?
I’m also for people burning the Qur’an if they so please. Or the bible, or the rainbow flag, or the national flag if that’s how they want to protest. Ideas are there to be challenged.
I draw the line at threatening or harming people.
Nude beaches? Sure thing. I
In other words: Nudist “clothing” is banned from the entire public safe very few exceptions.
In Spain you are allowed to walk around naked on any public spaces, with very few exceptions. It doesn’t happen very often in practice, but it’s allowed.
Yeah, that is how you actually let people decide to wear what they want. Afaik Spain also doesn’t have burqa ban or anything similar (at least not in general, there may be rules in special cases).
I’m just always a bit annoyed when US-Americans criticise it when European countries ban certain clothing. They have rather draconian laws at home as well. And of course we’re talking about schools here, hence school uniforms provide another relevant and rather widespread example of infringements on clothing-freedom.
Being nude in public is technically legal (but only kinda*) in my country but I don’t think forcing people to wear any clothes is comparable to banning specific types of clothes.
*It’s basically legal as long as you’re not offending anyone. So walking around naked around town might be legal, but anything you do could suddenly make it illegal.
This means that the law doesn’t really have to be changed overtime since it’s just based on what the general population thinks should be okay and not.
I don’t think forcing people to wear any clothes is comparable to banning specific types of clothes.
There are differences, but I’d actually argue that only banning very specific clothing is a lesser infraction on liberty. If you really want to be nude, you have to ditch clothing altogether. With specific garments there tends to be some wiggle room. E.g. you might try to adhere to your religious rules by wearing a wig and baggy clothing.
Edit: I agree with you that it’s based on the “offending portion” but that’s the case with religious clothing in France. A lot of people there are offended by it.
I love you
I love you too 😁
I draw the line at threatening or harming people.
Except these bans are harming people.
Anyone dictating what others can or cannot wear is harming people.All this “enlightened” centrism bullshit does is enable oppressors.
I agree, but there is a somewhat thorny question here: Where does the dictation start?
Many of these students and their families are being dictated to by Sunni wahabbist imams trained and funded by Saudi oil money, and they actually come from cultures and religious traditions that didn’t give a shit about the abaya in the ‘60s and ‘70s.
Well how about they tackle the foreign financial support of such extremist religious subgroups then? How about they provide more public information about the personal rights of women to choose themself what they wear? How about providing better infrastructure with properly trained social workers to better help such women to flee from such oppressive households?
Any of these examples would be several times better at actually improving the lives of such women. Definitely more than them being forced to not wear something. Women who are forced to wear such stuff should be helped to understand that it isn’t right for them to be forced to wear something they don’t want. Guess what certainly doesn’t help in that task, the state also dictating what they can’t wear.
The guy you answered was argueing the opposite of what you understood. He said, there should be no prohibition of practices unless they harm people.
I draw the line at threatening or harming people
Except these bans are harming people
Sorry for not being clear in my statement. I mean harming as in: beheading, stoning, bombing, shooting, etc. Not as in hurting their feelings.
But we agree: nobody should impose on other people what they can or cannot wear, whether it is religious symbols or pirate regalia.
All this “enlightened” centrism bullshit does is enable oppressors
Could you please elaborate?
burning rainbow flags doesn’t only hurt feelings
Can you elaborate? What else does it do? I’m queer, and while I don’t like seeing the rainbow flag being burnt, it doesn’t compare with receiving a beating.
it is a precursor to beating. Attack the symbols first and if it is socially accepted you can escalate to violence against the people. The Nazis didnt start by gassing the jews. they started with making it okay fo be hostile to them in public, denouncing them in every way and slowly ramping up the violence. Same story for any discrimination of minorities escalated into violence and murder.
it represents a hate crime
The fact that you think this is about “hurt feelings” rather than what it is - actual oppression that leads to real life marginalisation, violence, and death, you’re either not paying attention or are being wilfully ignorant and obtuse.
All this “enlightened” centrism bullshit does is enable oppressors
Could you please elaborate?You could open your eyes, or simply take the idea of dictating what people do and don’t wear to it’s only conclusion (it is literally oppression in its own right, no matter your personal feelings on the matter), but here, I’ll save you having to do any hard work:
specifically:
https://socialistworker.co.uk/what-we-think/stop-islamophobic-attacks-on-the-veil/
https://daily.jstor.org/muslim-women-and-the-politics-of-the-headscarf/
generally:
https://www.counterpunch.org/2020/10/14/liberalism-and-fascism-partners-in-crime/
https://blacklikemao.medium.com/how-liberalism-helps-fascism-d4dbdcb199d9
Sorry, I truly have trouble understanding your sentences. I gather that you are upset, but I’m not sure about what, exactly. I hope things turn out okay for you.
Lmfao, go fuck yourself you condescending wilfully ignorant fascism enabling prick. Was that clear enough for you?
go fuck yourself you condescending wilfully ignorant fascism enabling prick
I will do so thinking of you 😘
You know, the solution to women being told what to wear is not to tell them that they cannot wear it.
I don’t agree with this prohibition, and I doubt that it’s likely going to achieve much, but if my experience looking at past government restrictions on things that people want to do is predictive of the situation here, it’ll mean that someone will sit down and figure out the exact limit that the French government prohibits and then figure out a garment or combination of garments that accomplishes as much of the original aims as possible without crossing whatever specific garment line is there.
I mean, what’s a women’s garment that does the head and neck? The bonnet?
googles
Hmm. Apparently it actually did have some religious background.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bonnet_(headgear)
Bonnets remained one of the most common types of headgear worn by women throughout most of the 19th century. Especially for a widow, a bonnet was de rigueur. Silk bonnets, elaborately pleated and ruched, were worn outdoors, or in public places like shops, galleries, churches, and during visits to acquaintances. Women would cover their heads with caps simply to keep their hair from getting dirty and perhaps out of female modesty, again, in European society, based upon the historical teaching of the Christian Bible. In addition, women in wedlock would wear caps and bonnets during the day, to further demonstrate their status as married women.
But, as far as I know, they aren’t banned. So someone says “Okay, so people can’t wear (religious) abayas, but can wear (secular) trenchcoats? This new garment isn’t an abaya. This is a bonnet and trenchcoat.” Or, you know, whatever.
Wanna know why this whole thing isn’t about a pupil wearing something that shows their religion? They sure as hell don’t ban the kippah, sikhi turban or buddhist and hindu garnments.
For some reason it only goes after Muslims and there mostly after women with the guise of “protecting them from oppression! ;-)”. And it never involves actual talk with the “oppressed” women in question, it’s always the assumption, that of course these women can’t decide for themself and obviously all are forced to wear such garnments.
It started with the burqa and niqab but the people in favor of that promised that it’s just about the face covering, that there is no reason go after the hijab or similar garnments. Surprise surprise, only a few years later here we are and they still fight against “oppression” by limiting what Muslim women can wear. One would think that fighting oppression really was the goal of these people they would ask for actual support measures like providing education campaigns about personal rights and better support network for women. But no, these people think or pretend that such bans will magically solve the issue without any flanking measures. And that tells you all you need to know about their sincerities regarding this topic. It’s not about the girls and women, it never was and never will be.
deleted by creator
The problem with religious clothing is that the more people who wear it, the more pressure can be put on children to wear it or stand out/be condemned. It gets worse when the clothing is gender-specific.
It also puts children in a situation where their religious background can be seen from afar, making them Christian/Muslim/Jew etc. first and citizen second, when in a secularised country it should always be the other way round.
It is twice as bad when teachers wear religious clothing, because how can you not wear it if your teacher is wearing it. And when children wear religious clothing and have to defend wearing it, they get into a situation where they may have to defend it and wear it and even be part of peer pressure because there is no way out, you are either pushed from one side or the other and many choose to then rather push themselves.
Religious freedom is a double-edged sword: Freedom to live your religion, but also the freedom to live without religion, and especially children who are brought up in a religious family need the school as a place where religion isn’t a thing, so that they have a place to even think about what it feels like to live without it. Religion needs to be a personal choice and only if you have a place to check what it means to be without it you can choose.
If your religion can not give children a place to be without it so they can then freely choose, there is something severely wrong with that religion. Unfortunately I have yet to find a religion that does allow it.
I can understand you thought process buts its more of a Theoretic then this happening in Realf Life in many Families they do not care that much about it.
Kids only wear it if they are Praying or after getting older.
how can you not wear it if your teacher is wearing it
What logic is this? Just make everyone know that a school is a safe space where nobody is made to wear or not wear anything unless it’s offensive (such as profane, racist or too revealing).
You want uniforms?
I literally said that nobody is [forced] to wear or not wear anything […] - as in “total freedom unless offensive”. You’re implying I said the opposite.
But where does offensive start? People in my youth would’ve called some of our metal band shirts to be offensive.
Yeah, defining that is a bit of a problem. However, I am pretty sure most schools have had prior incidents that set a precedent. I guess some even have specific blacklist (hard curse words, depictions of nudity, revealing armpits etc.) or even a whitelist (sports gear in PE, clothing of major religions)
See, I would’ve never in a million years guessed armpits are somehow offensive to anyone.
Ever been in a teenage boys’ locker room? Armpits STINK.
…Also I was in a school with a strict dress code (light shirts only with no print) as well as one where a “MOTHERFUCKER” hoodie was apparently permitted. I don’t really care either way but I don’t see how prohibiting religious attire would help.
Because a teacher is a role model and if your teacher is a role model for religion in a place that should be the one place free from it, then that’s not working.
School can only be a safe place for children to take a breath from a religious background if religion stays completely out of it.
You think it can be a safe space when the girl gets told by its parents “look the teacher is wearing this, so you need too” even if the teacher isn’t saying it?Unfortunately religious clothing isn’t just clothing like every other and religions of this world (not just one specific) are not about safe spaces, they want to be everywhere and they want to occupy school too. A secular country can not allow that.
a teacher is a role model
Maybe in primary school but not really since middle school.
Problem is, the “unless” part is different for everyone. Lot of people find religious stuff offensive, while the revealing stuff not.
So much for freedom of religion.
“When you walk into a classroom, you shouldn’t be able to identify the pupils’ religion just by looking at them,”
What a dumb fucking reason. Really, that’s the best he could come up with? Why not? What’s so bad about knowing someone’s religion, when they are obviously not shy about it?
I get banning religious symbols from schools, because the institutes themselves are supposed to be non-religious (seperation of state and church and so on), but if the students themselves want to express their religion, let them.
French laicite is not freedom of religion, as the Anglosphere would understand it. (Which makes their insistence that it’s just the direct translation of “secularism” frustrating.) It’s a consistent effort to make religion every individual’s private business.
Compare fucking. You can do whatever you want with whoever you want. Just not on a street corner. Other people don’t want to deal with that.
I don’t personally endorse this approach, for a variety of reasons, but you have to understand it to condemn it.
That’s very interesting, I didn’t know that.
I wasn’t talking about Frances interpretation though, as I’m obviously not well informed on that. I was more thinking about the EU commitment to freedom of religion as stated in the “EU Guidelines on the promotion and protection of freedom of religion or belief”, in which all EU member states commit to protijg the freedom of religion in the EU (and even outside if possible, see OSCE).
Just as a small excerpt:
(b) the freedom to manifest one’s religion or belief, individually or in community with others, in public or private, through worship, observance, practice and teaching.
This includes the duty to rescind discriminatory legislation, implement legislation that protects freedom of religion or belief, and halt official practices that cause discrimination, as well as to protect people from discrimination by state and other influential actors, whether religious or non-religious
So the state has a responsibility to protect the freedom of religion, within it’s territory.
Before being muslim you are French. Disallowing any religious symbols allow people to bond easily because they are not blocked by religion.
They can see something else at school, it allows them to widen their perspective. Either, since childhood, the only thing they’ll do is practice a religion their parents have forced unto them.
After high school, I see no problems about showing your religious symbols because normally at this point of your life, you are educated about a lot of things and able to choose for yourself…
Sorry to burst your bubble, but people in other countries (like Germany) where they are allowed to display religious symbols are able to bond just fine. If you can’t “bond” with someone because they’re wearing a cross on a chain or cover their head with religious clothing, that sounds like a you-issue. Regardless of why they practice their religion, it’s not up to you or the state to tell them how to practice it. Sure some are forced into it by their parents, but banning religious symbols in schools isn’t going to fix that. What it does do however, is stop students from practicing a religion they freely chose.
This law is made by people who are intimidated by things they don’t understand and that probably have their roots in racism and islamophobia.
I agree. I’m American and live in an area with a large Indian immigrant diaspora and I’m able to “bond” with them just fine. Many of them wear religious symbols and wear every day, but they’re just normal people. They dress differently, but so do many non religious people also.
The specific religious traditions matter though. The context and rules surrounding covering of girls and women are a more problematic matter. The same goes for other religious practices that are rooted in values that have no place in a secular and more or less egalitarian state.
You have a very odd understanding of what “secular state” means. It doesn’t mean that the state can dictate where or how you’re allowed to express you religion. It doesn’t mean that some parts of religion are to be tolerated, where as those that you see as bad can be forbidden at will.
All it means, is that the state institutions, can’t force you to partake in a religion or activities related to that religion. Kids who voluntarily want to express their religion are free to do so. Whether that kid is forced into following that religion, is not an issue of a “secular state”.
It also means a certain collection of values. And having rules for girls and women that include them having to cover their hair and body “because religion” is going against those values.
And yes, it absolutely does matter in a secular state whether people forcing their children into religious beliefs. At least in school the children should learn that these rules only exist in the minds of their parents or communities. Freedom also means to be free to choose. And grooming your children into religious practices is not freedom.
You actually have no idea what you’re talking about, sorry.
I’m glad we finally landed on Islam though, it shows that this law is supported by islamophobes and people like you are the perfect way to show this to the world.
Just a one minute Google search and you could have saved yourself from this absolutely embarrassing answer. Here let me do it for you:
A secular state is an idea pertaining to secularity, whereby a state is or purports to be officially neutral in matters of religion, supporting neither religion nor irreligion.[1] A secular state claims to treat all its citizens equally regardless of religion, and claims to avoid preferential treatment for a citizen based on their religious beliefs, affiliation or lack of either over those with other profiles.[2]
Prohibiting people from expressing their religions is strictly anti secular.
People in Germany have trouble to “bond” though. Unless you want to ignore the multitude of troubles some immigrants (even second and third generation) face here. To deny these also have to do with religious conservatism isn’t helpful.
That some of the children here are still forced into religion, sometimes living in a basically parallel society, is a problem that shouldn’t simply be brushed aside.
Im not denying that there are problems with integration. I’m not denying that some kids are forced into religion.
I’m saying that taking away the liberty to express your religion, won’t change anything about that. All it does is appease people who are offended or threatened by religion (Islamophobia, anti semitism etc.).
A kid that is forced into religion won’t become an atheist if it can’t wear a headdress or a cross chain in school.
I think it does help people become more free from religious oppression.
Please try to imagine you are brought up with the rule you have to cover your whole body with a veil all the time you leave your home. Especially if you are brought up to do that since you are a child. It’s a powerful tool to keep control over someone with a relative simple thing. It’s not just a necklace or some other small thing.
I can imagine that just fine and it’s horrible. I love in a country with a fuck ton of Muslim immigrants and I’m sure a lot of their children would prefer not to have to cover their hair (that’s what we’re talking about, not a burka as you describe it).
Yes it’s a powerful tool to keep kids under the influence of their parents religion. But taking away the symbols of that religion won’t make the kids atheist or magically take them out of the influence of their families. If you think that parents who enforce the strict rules of their religion because the kid can’t wear certain clothing at school, you are Truely delusional. Best case the lod doesn’t wear it in school, but still has to do so every other minute in their life. Worst case the parents pull their kids out of school, because the school threatens their influence. A lot of those kids are going to end up home schooled by their radical families or simply go to a private school, where such rules don’t exist. Neither is going to help the kid.
The abaya isn’t just a headscarf, though. It only leaves the face uncovered and I have seen kids who also additionally cover parts of their face with it.
I am not sure of the details in current laws in France, many (most?) countries in Western Europe do not allow homeschooling and private schools have to follow almost all of the same laws as state schools.
Personally I think we need to do more to push back against conservatism, not less.
This is why not
“Secularism means the freedom to emancipate oneself through school,” Mr Attal told TF1
Seems pretty reasonable to me.
Yes the freedom to do so. You should be free to NOT do that though. You should be free from pressure in both directions.
You can’t have a parallel religious law system in a secular state. So there absolutely should be pressure on people to accept that religious “rules” have no power there.
Yes but forbidding the choice to wear a cross necklace or a headscarf is not exactly freedom is it?
Nobody is arguing for a parallel law system
I think you underestimate the influence of religious symbols. It’s not just any type of clothing. It’s a tool for religious communities that has considerable impact, especially when your parents make you wear it, it has beliefs attached to it and is easily visible to everyone around you.
I mean parents so have a lot of freedom to raise their children as they see fit. And I think that is a good thing. I would not do a lot of things that other people do, but it’s totally in the rights of people to raise their children religiously, and that can include wearing certain kinds of clothes.
Well, that’s were we disagree. I don’t think parents should be free to raise their child however they want to. And it’s also not in their rights in every country.
I did not know what an abaya is, but it did not matter to know this is a stupid ban. Just let people wear whatever the fuck they want to wear.
France has enforced a strict ban on religious signs at schools since the 19th Century, including Christian symbols such as large crosses, in an effort to curb any Catholic influence from public education.
It has been updating the law over the years to reflect its changing population, which now includes the Muslim headscarf and Jewish kippa, but abayas have not been banned outright.
So going by the article, some religious clothing is outright banned while crosses are allowed as long as they are not large?
Is it a bad idea for me, a non-religious person, to wear one in solidarity? (As well as for privacy, sun protection, etc.)
(I do not live in France.)
I fail to see why not. It’s just a dress. You shall wear whatever resonates with you.
It’s not just a dress, unfortunately. It’s a dress, strongly associated with female oppressive rules of Islam.
deleted by creator
No, I do not. Sorry I didn’t say that. Probably an important detail… I’ll edit it in.
Great news for all women and Europe
Good. Religion shit has to stop.
kinda, yes, but not through state-enforced bans
Through what then?
people losing interest on their own. yes it’s slower, but true change can only happen through internal motivators.
It doesn’t, though. Instead religious conservatives build parallel societies. Children should grow up knowing that in a secular state religious bans and rules have no power.
It’s the hobby of their parents and nothing more. Than they can decide if they want to participate in the hobby or not. The veiling of women and girls can be a powerful tool in keeping control over them through separation, for example.
You have to get off the internet mate, none of your arguments ever make it past the edgy 14 year old stage.
Well you’re just being condescending, that’s not going to convince anyone either.
If i see a dumb opinion without any argument behind it i will call it out, especially if its always by the same person.
If i see a dumb opinion without any argument behind it i will call it out
Not in that immature form though
And who are you?
Good. We don’t need more religion interfering with people’s life.
Another step towards criminalizing Muslims. They are a convenient scapegoat for the fascists and libs to channel the anger and hate away from themselves and towards marginalized groups.
No, like already pointed out, in France, Religion has no place in schools. This has nothing directly to do with muslims
Secularism is not the motivation behind this. If it was, this law would have already been on the books for centuries. But Islamophobia is a great way to get the racist vote right now.
I you believe this has nothing to do with Muslims, I’ve got a bridge to sell you.
The law has already been in the books for one century. Laïcity is the removal of any religious sign from schools and is one of the pillars of the French Republic. Yet, recently France failed to enforce it and that’s why explicit stances are taken now, which looks bad of course but it is a necessary course correction.
Makes sense. Anyone who needs it probably needs integrate better, or possibly their male relatives.
Yeah, the western value of telling women what they can and cannot wear… In this regard the male relatives you speak off are very well integrated according to this logic.
