Schools in France send dozens of Muslim girls home for wearing abayas - eviltoast

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.


  • bouh@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    6
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    1 year ago

    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.

    • qyron@sopuli.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      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”.

      • bouh@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        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.

        • qyron@sopuli.xyz
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          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.