The education minister says female Muslim students will not be allowed to wear the loose-fitting robe.

Pupils will be banned from wearing abayas, loose-fitting full-length robes worn by some Muslim women, in France’s state-run schools, the education minister has said.

The rule will be applied as soon as the new school year starts on 4 September.

France has a strict ban on religious signs in state schools and government buildings, arguing that they violate secular laws.

Wearing a headscarf has been banned since 2004 in state-run schools.

  • EvilZionistEatingChildren@lemmy.worldEnglish
    2339·
    10 months ago

    No it’s not. making something mandatory for a group of people makes that group of people well separated from the rest. here is exactly opposite : they are trying to make them look like anyone else.

    • funkless_eck@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
      3314·
      10 months ago

      this ban is as dumb as banning heavy metal, dungeons and dragons, skateboards, backwards baseball caps, etc etc

      it’s all just trying to look tough enough to court right wing racists on targets too vulnerable to fight back.

      if you want to protect vulnerable young girls, you don’t start by ostracising them from the community.

        • funkless_eck@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
          4·
          10 months ago

          how is saying someone from a group of people can’t dress in attitudes that identifies them as a member of the group not ostracising? it’s the very definition.

          • EvilZionistEatingChildren@lemmy.worldEnglish
            11·
            10 months ago

            Because “ostracizing” means “to exclude” someone. While imposing a common dress standard is to include everyone. so petty much the opposite of “ostracizing”

            • generalpotato@lemmy.worldEnglish
              3·
              10 months ago

              A common dress standard would be called a uniform. This law isn’t mandating uniforms, so you’re incorrect. It’s excluding religious groups, so yes, ostracizing.

              • EvilZionistEatingChildren@lemmy.worldEnglish
                22·
                10 months ago

                Ostracising means to exclude. The law forces the blending. The mental gymnastics you need to find “exclusion” in that is buffing. Again it’s not excluding anyone, it tries to male them blend with the rest. Blend. Mix. Nobody is excluded. I never mentioned uniforms, neither the law, i don’t know why you bring that up. Yes, uniforms obviously make everyone uniform but we aren’t talking about it. Dressing regularly also make everyone look “regular” or “secular”, we don’t need uniforms.

                If anything, the groups of people are literally excluding themselves by wearing stuff nobody else does.

                Looks like at some point people are just repeating the same argument for everything and opposite of it.

                • generalpotato@lemmy.worldEnglish
                  1·
                  10 months ago

                  Yes, we’ve established what ostracizing means. If anybody seems to be jumping through hoops to prove that this law, that target religious minorities isn’t targeted at religious minorities, is you. You shouldn’t have to force (or make them) “blend”. If there’s force or a mandate involved, then it’s already not the best path to freedom of expression and identity.

                  There’s no such thing as a “secular dress” because people in a truly secular society, can come from different (incl non western) backgrounds and can choose to wear whatever they want. Therefore, you either don’t claim freedom of expression or identity or you accept that this is a targeted law aimed at a minority group in the name of “secularism” and is no different than the Taliban mandating face-covering like somebody else stated in these discussions. This just happens to be on the other end of the spectrum.

                  • EvilZionistEatingChildren@lemmy.worldEnglish
                    1·
                    10 months ago

                    Oh finally some arguments!

                    • I am not jumping, i know who it is targeting, and i never said opposite. I also agree it’s definitely strictly more freedom-restrictive, but i also believe this is a good thing in this context. I might be wrong, that’s why I said " mildly in favor" of that law. France is known to impose French language on minorities (bretons, occitans etc…) in the name of national unity, and this law follows in the same directon, (but thankfully doesn’t forbid a language lol which I would definitely be against)
                    • It is absolutely different from Talibans, and that’s not even debatable. One is imposing 1 dress on everyone forbidding everything else, the other is excluding 1 particular dress, allowing anything else. One is making women stand out and look the same, the other blends them and allows for self expression (in the defined limits). There is plenty of room to choose a dress style.
                    • Integrating into host culture is good thing. Yes, that means, at some point, making different choices, looking different, and faking amusement for pointless holidays.
                    • Bonus point: there won’t be a way to discriminate pupils based on their look, no more “I got a bad grade because teacher didn’t like my national dress”. I hear you say “well that won’t stop the discrimination”, and I agree, people will discriminate on anything from hair color to one’s accent; but that’s one possible discrimination less
    • jalatani@lemm.eeEnglish
      131·
      10 months ago

      “trying to make them” is a problematic phrase and why this doesn’t make sense. Nobody should be “made” to do anything, if people are choosing to look different they should be free to do so.

    • SCB@lemmy.worldEnglish
      1816·
      10 months ago

      You know what makes everyone look alike? A niqab.

      Someone call the Taliban and let them know they’re defenders of freedom.

        • SCB@lemmy.worldEnglish
          96·
          10 months ago

          Plastic surgery does not make everyone look alike. That’s a silly thing to say lol

          Also you’re missing the highly relevant point that plastic surgery is not compulsory

          • EvilZionistEatingChildren@lemmy.worldEnglish
            75·
            10 months ago

            Well i made a silly argument to show you how I feel about yours lol.

            Nobody is imposing a cloth on anyone, and even less a religious one. So you can’t use niqqab in your argument against me because that’s literally what i am against!

            You could say for example that’s a cultural thing, and forbidding it would somehow restrict the minority. But then, it’s only public schools, the law doesn’t care (me neither) about adults wearing it outside. (I don’t know why I am arguing with myself on your behalf 🤔)

            What it does care about, is to prevent community bubbles forming within groups of children. Which i totally support.