That's not true...the world includes more than just Europe, the Five Eyes, China, Japan, and Korea. Hell, Romanian is 98% Christian. Edit: can't believe I responded to the original post instead of...
a religious american (the most religious Christian country in the world)
That's not true...the world includes more than just Europe, the Five Eyes, China, Japan, and Korea. Hell, Romanian is 98% Christian.
Edit: can't believe I responded to the original post instead of OP's comment 🤦
Yep. But that's not surprising, since IMO it's really just not-so-thinly veiled bigotry and legalized discrimination being foisted on the public under the guise of "secularism". The same shit has...
Yep. But that's not surprising, since IMO it's really just not-so-thinly veiled bigotry and legalized discrimination being foisted on the public under the guise of "secularism". The same shit has been happening here in Canada with Quebec politicians having repeatedly attempted (and failing), but eventually (partially) succeeding in banning hijabs, abayas, yarmulkes, and turbans for government employees. Which, again just IMO, is terribly un-Canadian, and I absolute hate it and the asshole politicians pushing for it... especially since Canada has rather large Sikh and Muslim populations, a significant number of whom are public servants, military personnel, etc. It's also a legal/constitutional mess which is still working its way though the courts here. Eventually it will probably make its way to our Supreme Court and hopefully get struck down, but until it does a lot of people are essentially being persecuted for their faith in Quebec.
IANAL, but AFAIK the notwithstanding clause is not a total free pass for laws to violate the Charter. And while so far the lower courts in Quebec have ruled in favor of allowing the current...
IANAL, but AFAIK the notwithstanding clause is not a total free pass for laws to violate the Charter. And while so far the lower courts in Quebec have ruled in favor of allowing the current religious symbols ban to remain in place, the judges have also generally agreed that it likely violates the Charter, so it remains to be seen what the Supreme Court will think of all of this.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/notwithstanding-clause-secularism-law-religious-symbols-ban-1.5995738 Aside from this one exception, It seems relatively cut and dry that the not...
As Blanchard explains, it doesn't matter what rights are overridden by the clause. All that matters is that proper procedure is followed when invoking it, which Quebec did.
Aside from this one exception,
The one, albeit significant, set-back for the pro-Bill 21 side was Blanchard's decision to exempt English schools from the religious symbols ban, citing their minority language education rights.
Those rights, Section 23 in the charter, can't be overridden by the notwithstanding clause.
It seems relatively cut and dry that the not withstanding clause covers this situation. I haven’t read any articles that suggest otherwise at least.
Again, IANAL, and the notwithstanding clause may indeed be inviolate when it comes to overriding particular sections of the Charter (section 2 or sections 7 to 15)... but that's precisely why...
Again, IANAL, and the notwithstanding clause may indeed be inviolate when it comes to overriding particular sections of the Charter (section 2 or sections 7 to 15)... but that's precisely why other avenues of attacking the law have been taken recently. E.g. Section 28 (gender equality rights). But how far those challenges go remains to be seen.
NP. And while I can't find the article anymore (although it may have only been a blog post somewhere), another potential avenue of attacking the religious symbols ban that I read about was under...
NP. And while I can't find the article anymore (although it may have only been a blog post somewhere), another potential avenue of attacking the religious symbols ban that I read about was under Section 27 (Preserving and enhancing the multicultural heritage of Canadians), since many "religious" symbols aren't actually strictly such, and are instead entangled as much with cultural heritage as they are religious doctrine. Section 27 is a bit of weird one though, since it's not so much a right in and of itself, but rather an overall ethos meant to generally be applied to the rest of the Charter. However it has been used by the Supreme Court as justification in the past to uphold the rights of women to wear the niqab while testifying in court, so there is precedence for it being used to decide on other conflicting areas of law already, and it's also not included in the scope of the notwithstanding clause.
The rule allowing small Christian symbols has context, which is that they must not be visible. France is pretty consistent: no religion in school, period. This isn’t a ban on religious symbols,...
The rule allowing small Christian symbols has context, which is that they must not be visible.
France is pretty consistent: no religion in school, period. This isn’t a ban on religious symbols, it’s a ban on spreading religion in a secular place. In other words, nobody cares if it’s not visible.
And from a French person to y’all … it feels like nobody here even attempts to understand this rule before calling it hypocritical or bigoted. Our “keep that shit out of school” is exactly how we respect religion: by preventing people from imposing it on one another, in a place filled with highly influenceable young people.
This system is what allowed me to choose my own religion and brand of spiritualism and, being part Greek, I know that if Christians got their way, I would have been branded a Christian de facto.
In some respects there's just no reconciling what an American considers acceptable for the government to mandate and what a frenchman would. But I'd note that many if not all, really, pieces of...
In some respects there's just no reconciling what an American considers acceptable for the government to mandate and what a frenchman would. But I'd note that many if not all, really, pieces of Western culture (clothing, iconography, etc.) have their roots intertwined at some level with Christianity.
You may say that they are no longer associated with Christianity after years of secular usage, and that's true, but if you ban items from Arabic cultures merely because they are associated with religion, when will they ever have the time to "launder" themselves of religious association? Does this not de facto bias towards Western culture just because it was the first to secularize?
Also I really doubt this is applied consistently. I'm sure there's many pieces of Daoist iconography I can come up with that no French school administration will have an issue with - probably wouldn't even know it was religious.
Well, yeah, and that's all there needs to be said about it… Again, the rule isn't "no abaya". It's not even "no religious clothing". It's no display of religion.
You may say that they are no longer associated with Christianity after years of secular usage
Well, yeah, and that's all there needs to be said about it…
Again, the rule isn't "no abaya". It's not even "no religious clothing". It's no display of religion.
Genuine question: how are uniforms / dress codes in France in schools, if not specifically in the schools in question? Can students wear clothing that is "modest" enough? Some students were fine...
Genuine question: how are uniforms / dress codes in France in schools, if not specifically in the schools in question? Can students wear clothing that is "modest" enough? Some students were fine with the rule and complied, so I imagine it isn't necessarily restrictive against their modesty requirements.
I agree, especially given Macron's quote from another comment: If that's the goal, then all symbols should be banned. I definitely know your religion if you're wearing a small cross.
I agree, especially given Macron's quote from another comment:
"School must remain neutral: I don't know what your religion is; you don't know what mine is," the president said.
If that's the goal, then all symbols should be banned. I definitely know your religion if you're wearing a small cross.
I mean I sort of understand the logic, in theory you can't have religious-based discrimination and violence (which is a problem in France) if people don't know each other's religion. In practice...
I mean I sort of understand the logic, in theory you can't have religious-based discrimination and violence (which is a problem in France) if people don't know each other's religion. In practice that obviously doesn't work though, and it misunderstands why discrimination happens. Bigots are not going to see a clearly middle eastern looking person and think "well they could be Christian, there's no way for me to know, I better be respectful".
In the interview he's talking about a high school teacher that was murdered by an Islamic terrorist, and again this philosophy does not address that problem at all. Terrorists do not generally wait for hard evidence of someone's religion before attacking them.
Because that's how things are done in France. There may be an involved answer a historian could provide (I believe it goes back to the French Revolution) but the gist is that France just has a...
Because that's how things are done in France. There may be an involved answer a historian could provide (I believe it goes back to the French Revolution) but the gist is that France just has a culture that thinks religion should be private.
The French view is that religion is a matter for the private sphere, not to be flaunted or expressed in public. Civic life is meant to explicitly secular. It's not really something I'd buy into...
The French view is that religion is a matter for the private sphere, not to be flaunted or expressed in public. Civic life is meant to explicitly secular. It's not really something I'd buy into personally, but it's a pretty deeply engrained part of French national identity.
Obviously it has issues in the edge cases, like wearing small symbolic tokens. That's partly kind of like drawing a line between saying something normally and TURNING ON CRUISE CONTROL FOR COOL.
I already said it in another comment but : in France secularism is a principle of freedom, the freedom to believe or not to believe. It is one foundation of french society and french school that...
I already said it in another comment but : in France secularism is a principle of freedom, the freedom to believe or not to believe. It is one foundation of french society and french school that exists to protect students from ideological, economic and religious proselytizing.
School in France is « laïque », in english the definition would be something like : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secularism In all my schooling in the south of France I have never seen Catholic,...
In all my schooling in the south of France I have never seen Catholic, Jewish, Muslim, etc… clothing or signs on another student. Not even a small cross.
I suppose a distinction must be made between a secular school and secular students. I would agree with a lack of religious symbols and endorsement by the school. I wouldn't agree with the forceful...
I suppose a distinction must be made between a secular school and secular students. I would agree with a lack of religious symbols and endorsement by the school. I wouldn't agree with the forceful removal of religious symbols from anyone's bodies.
I see your point but here secularism is a principle of freedom, the freedom to believe or not to believe. It is one foundation of french society and french school that exists to protect students...
I see your point but here secularism is a principle of freedom, the freedom to believe or not to believe. It is one foundation of french society and french school that exists to protect students from ideological, economic and religious proselytizing.
The school system here is mostly free, even for many higher education courses, so it makes sense to me to have to follow certain rules in order to benefit from this. At home/outside school, you are free to believe in a religion or not.
Yeah, I got that from the article. I am respectful of French democracy, but to me this sounds profoundly authoritarian. In fact, this is to me just as authoritarian as the dress codes enforced by...
Yeah, I got that from the article. I am respectful of French democracy, but to me this sounds profoundly authoritarian. In fact, this is to me just as authoritarian as the dress codes enforced by Islamic states.
One's freedom ends where the other's begin. We believe that people wearing religious symbols in schools encroaches on other people's own freedom of belief. I am a strong proponent of this system,...
authoritarian
One's freedom ends where the other's begin. We believe that people wearing religious symbols in schools encroaches on other people's own freedom of belief. I am a strong proponent of this system, as I am of the opinion that letting people wear (or not wear) religious symbols is what leads to the creation of in-groups and out-groups, bullying, and ultimately leads to religious discrimination outside of school.
France (and I'm including French people in this), all in all, does not care about your religion. We're not perfect but compared to most other countries, including many EU countries, we're just way waaaayyyy ahead on this and I completely believe the secularist school system is 99% of the reason why.
Both atheism, and freedom of religion, are very strong in France.
I feel that you could just as easily teach people to not be assholes about religion in school. I’m an atheist but I think even atheists have lots to learn from religion. Religion is a good way to...
I feel that you could just as easily teach people to not be assholes about religion in school. I’m an atheist but I think even atheists have lots to learn from religion. Religion is a good way to teach acceptance of differences to students.
The abaya is just a dress that loosely drapes over the whole body. It is not itself a face covering or head covering (though it's often paired with one). I'm for the most part fine with France's...
The abaya is just a dress that loosely drapes over the whole body. It is not itself a face covering or head covering (though it's often paired with one). I'm for the most part fine with France's flavor of secularism and I do think there's a sense in banning the niqab (the ninja head and face covering) and the burka (ninja head and face covering, with a veil even over the eyes), but banning the abaya makes literally zero sense.
There are cultural differences, but the abaya most often worn in Europe is not "just a dress". It is worn above street clothes, much closer in function and look to a cloak/coat than a dress....
The abaya is just a dress that loosely drapes over the whole body.
There are cultural differences, but the abaya most often worn in Europe is not "just a dress". It is worn above street clothes, much closer in function and look to a cloak/coat than a dress. Especially in summer, the difference between male and female street wear is stark. Men in shorts and flip-flops, women in black floor-length overdresses.
It is just a simple black dress, until wearing it becomes a symbol of religion, which is forbidden. People here are quick to forgive a swastika is just a simple shape, and that words are just...
It is just a simple black dress, until wearing it becomes a symbol of religion, which is forbidden.
People here are quick to forgive a swastika is just a simple shape, and that words are just simple groups of letters.
The concept of a long, loose black dress or robe is so basic that it's ridiculous to categorically associate it with religion. How are you planning to define this thing that you're trying to ban?...
The concept of a long, loose black dress or robe is so basic that it's ridiculous to categorically associate it with religion. How are you planning to define this thing that you're trying to ban? What if dreadlocks were banned because of their strong association with Rastafarianism?
đź‘Ś and the number 88 are both seriously associated with white supremacism, and they're super basic things. They're not getting banned anywhere, but when used as a dogwhistle, I've seen both result...
đź‘Ś and the number 88 are both seriously associated with white supremacism, and they're super basic things. They're not getting banned anywhere, but when used as a dogwhistle, I've seen both result in bans.
It's unreasonable to compare a neutral symbol correlated with religion to a neutral symbol correlated with white supremacy. The latter is banned because it can be used to covertly communicate with...
It's unreasonable to compare a neutral symbol correlated with religion to a neutral symbol correlated with white supremacy. The latter is banned because it can be used to covertly communicate with others in order to potentially undermine people's safety.
(Major edit a few seconds ago)
What's the ruling on turbans? Those are pretty non-negotiable for Sikh men to the point where you're considered sort of non-observant if you don't have one. Same with beards.
What's the ruling on turbans? Those are pretty non-negotiable for Sikh men to the point where you're considered sort of non-observant if you don't have one. Same with beards.
Yeah there are schools that have similar “no religious dress” rules in India but they tend to make exemptions for Sikhs specifically because it is such a strong part of the religious observance....
Yeah there are schools that have similar “no religious dress” rules in India but they tend to make exemptions for Sikhs specifically because it is such a strong part of the religious observance. There are perennial discussions about to what extent wearing the hijab is a non-negotiable part of being Muslim and whether it should be exempted or not.
I think the operative question usually ends up being, to what extent is the observance optional in a “you will be ostracized by peers for not doing it” sense.
I’m far from an expert but I think the age people start wearing a dastar (turban, apologies if the spelling is wrong) is pretty fluid and personal/familial choice. Since the ban is only in schools...
I’m far from an expert but I think the age people start wearing a dastar (turban, apologies if the spelling is wrong) is pretty fluid and personal/familial choice. Since the ban is only in schools perhaps they wait until past school age to begin?
The turban yes, but they never cut the hair so young men usually have it tied up in a top knot with a sort of short turban until they’re old enough to wear the real thing after going through an...
The turban yes, but they never cut the hair so young men usually have it tied up in a top knot with a sort of short turban until they’re old enough to wear the real thing after going through an induction ritual.
I was under the impression that this stage is not mandated or symbolic (and thus, could acceptably not be worn, as girls usually don’t) but perhaps I’m wrong on that? I am also of the impression...
I was under the impression that this stage is not mandated or symbolic (and thus, could acceptably not be worn, as girls usually don’t) but perhaps I’m wrong on that?
I am also of the impression that it’s not uncommon for sikhs to cut their hair and/or not wear a turban and still consider themselves to be of the faith (much like Christians not following every edict I suppose) especially in the west, but I might be wrong on that too
Yeah it’s fairly common to not, but it’s in that way where it’s common for Jewish people to not keep strictly kosher. They know they’re not being observant when they do it, it’s just not a big deal.
Yeah it’s fairly common to not, but it’s in that way where it’s common for Jewish people to not keep strictly kosher. They know they’re not being observant when they do it, it’s just not a big deal.
And you seem to be projecting your own culture onto France’s culture of secularism in schools (as some others are doing in this thread). I really want to stress this: Most people writing here are...
And you seem to be projecting your own culture onto France’s culture of secularism in schools (as some others are doing in this thread).
I really want to stress this: Most people writing here are unfamiliar with how important secularism in schools is in France and have absolutely no business telling France how to do things. Opinions are cheap, and pushing yours on others without understanding the cultural context is … well, incredibly hypocritical, for one.
Consider that if you think something so deeply controversial is simple, it’s probably not. And that without learning said context, you do not hold the magical answer to a complex problem just because you managed to simplify it.
I don't really think we can apply the "it's France's business if they want to be racist not ours so we shouldn't get involved" as letting other people be is decidedly a very anti-French value. For...
I don't really think we can apply the "it's France's business if they want to be racist not ours so we shouldn't get involved" as letting other people be is decidedly a very anti-French value. For example, ask the Algerians or more recently Mali, Niger, etc.
I do think it's quite simple to be honest – France is a deeply racist country where you have figures such as Eric Zemour who are popular and allowed on national television. The Abaya is transparently not a religious symbol (and rather a cultural one) and the fact that many white people in France pretend that it is, is a sign of their hostility towards non-whites.
I flagged your comment "malice" because it's not merely wrong, it's actively harmful, full of misinformation, and seriously messed up. Calling secularist rules "racist" is exactly the kind of crap...
I flagged your comment "malice" because it's not merely wrong, it's actively harmful, full of misinformation, and seriously messed up. Calling secularist rules "racist" is exactly the kind of crap I'm calling out. Secularist rules were put in place at a time where they 99% affected white christians. Nowadays, they affect more muslims than they used to, because France has significant and growing muslim population - by far the largest by capita in Europe. Which, as with all changing population trends, is of course a source of conflict and racism. It doesn't have to do with France being a "deeply racist country".
You're shitting on the first article of our national constitution, one of the three core values of our country's motto. Talk about xenophobic.
The Law on Conspicuous Articles was only passed in 2004, so it doesn’t have the same history as Laicite more broadly does in French society. And at the time it was passed: There was already a...
The Law on Conspicuous Articles was only passed in 2004, so it doesn’t have the same history as Laicite more broadly does in French society. And at the time it was passed:
There was already a large Muslim population and controversy over what Muslim women wear.
Christian women weren’t wearing conspicuous symbols (headscarf, rosary) like they would’ve in 1905.
Do I think Laicite is inherently racist? No. Do I think it is racist as applied now? Yes. Total exclusion of religion from the public sphere affects certain faiths more than others, and that, in turn, disproportionately impacts certain ethnic groups more. Ironically, this law hurts ethnic integration more, because Muslim parents are pulling their kids out of public schooling, and putting them in private institutions; and also because it doesn’t give girls a chance to rebel, they are forced to do it.
Citation needed rather than guesswork. Yeah Muslim integration in France is shit. Whether this is helped or hurt by this is up for debate. I was still in school in 2004 when this stuff was heating...
Ironically, this law hurts ethnic integration more
Citation needed rather than guesswork. Yeah Muslim integration in France is shit. Whether this is helped or hurt by this is up for debate.
I was still in school in 2004 when this stuff was heating up, I remember what happened. Yes the law put it in more explicit words, but the guidelines were present long before. This was being actively broken by certain Muslim families and the idea of the law was two-fold:
Give schools an explicit government backing to enforce the pre-existing guidelines
Give young Muslim women who don’t want to wear the headscarf at school the ability to do so (when confronted with a family forcing them to wear it)
If anyone here wants to genuinely learn about the current state of things, and the thoughts of our president / his role in this, here’s a very recent interview which goes over the nuances of the subject (among many subjects):
Is there a distinction here from a dress that makes it more acceptable to ban it? I’m unclear on how this matters. It is some loose clothing that doesn’t impact anyone’s ability to identify the...
Is there a distinction here from a dress that makes it more acceptable to ban it? I’m unclear on how this matters. It is some loose clothing that doesn’t impact anyone’s ability to identify the individual wearing it.
In case you're not being obtuse deliberately: the distinction is the cultural baggage that connects the dress to a subset of Muslims. Nothing about those French laws was about identifying...
Is there a distinction here from a dress that makes it more acceptable to ban it?
In case you're not being obtuse deliberately: the distinction is the cultural baggage that connects the dress to a subset of Muslims.
Nothing about those French laws was about identifying individuals, it was always about keeping religion out of public institutions.
Religion isn't "in" public institutions, though. It's not as if the religious iconography is part of the institution that the state runs and owns - it's just on the personage of an attendee (an...
it was always about keeping religion out of public institutions.
Religion isn't "in" public institutions, though. It's not as if the religious iconography is part of the institution that the state runs and owns - it's just on the personage of an attendee (an attendance that's mandatory, mind you).
Trying to keep "religion" off of individuals seems absurd. The reality is that religion and human culture are intertwined in history. The rise of secularism is a very recent thing. What's next, a ban on speaking Arabic between friends in "public institutions"?
It's worth mentioning a reason why the abaya can be understood as cultural and not religious. The sun is dangerously strong in the Middle Eastern desert and, traditionally, both men and women wear...
It's worth mentioning a reason why the abaya can be understood as cultural and not religious. The sun is dangerously strong in the Middle Eastern desert and, traditionally, both men and women wear full body robes to protect themselves from the sun. A black robe is just the more modest version of it. Black also protects you better from UV and is traditionally worn by both men and women, even though black does get hotter.
Because if you pass a law which says "no muslim clothing" then it looks really bad. Instead you can pass a law saying "no religious clothing" and then you enforce it very selectively – for...
Nothing about those French laws was about identifying individuals, it was always about keeping religion out of public institutions.
Because if you pass a law which says "no muslim clothing" then it looks really bad. Instead you can pass a law saying "no religious clothing" and then you enforce it very selectively – for example, laws against religious clothing are enforced zealously against muslims but much more liberally against Christian students.
In France the law on the separation of Church and State ("The Republic does not recognize, salute or subsidize any religion") dates back to 1905 (with updates e.g. 2004) and in no way targets any...
In France the law on the separation of Church and State ("The Republic does not recognize, salute or subsidize any religion") dates back to 1905 (with updates e.g. 2004) and in no way targets any particular religion.
I've already said it here, but anyway: In all my schooling in the south of France I have never seen Catholic, Jewish, Muslim, etc... clothing or signs on another student. Not even a small cross. People here understand the freedom to believe or not to believe and to keep that out of school.
Cultural, yes, I don’t disagree. Religious? I don’t know that it is. What is the religious requirement for wearing an abaya? I don’t see it covering hair or face, which is my, admittedly limited,...
Cultural, yes, I don’t disagree. Religious? I don’t know that it is. What is the religious requirement for wearing an abaya? I don’t see it covering hair or face, which is my, admittedly limited, understanding of Muslim religious dress codes.
I don't think there's anything in the Quran that specifically mentions an abaya but there is emphasis on "dressing modestly". My general sense is that the religion and culture have largely become...
I don't think there's anything in the Quran that specifically mentions an abaya but there is emphasis on "dressing modestly". My general sense is that the religion and culture have largely become one nebulous blob and it's often difficult to distinguish or separate the two.
There are plenty of modest outfits that aren't abaya, but for that percentage of girls that refused to change, I don't know how much compromise can be had. For that particular percentage, I worry about the outcomes if those with the decision making power are pushed to choose between a dress and their child's education.
I'm sure France isn't pursuing a ban on modest dress. As I said, there are plenty of modest outfits that aren't abaya. It does indeed feel targeted, but it's difficult to know how to address the...
I'm sure France isn't pursuing a ban on modest dress. As I said, there are plenty of modest outfits that aren't abaya. It does indeed feel targeted, but it's difficult to know how to address the issues that France seems to be trying to combat. As much as this is just an expansion of their ban on religious symbols there has been a distinct slant towards Islamic identity in recent years.
I guess part of this is related to the higher concentration of orthodox believers. I want to believe that if there were a larger population of more extreme/ orthodox Christians or Jewish people or other faiths then there would be a similar legislative response.
This is my point though — they aren’t going after Christians who are dressing modestly using their typical cultural attire because of their religion, but they are going after, let’s face it, brown...
This is my point though — they aren’t going after Christians who are dressing modestly using their typical cultural attire because of their religion, but they are going after, let’s face it, brown people, who are dressing modestly using their typical cultural attire.
In contrast, it’s perfectly legal for a Pentecostal Christian person to go about with long hair, floor length dress, no makeup, and a cross around their neck.
the Minister of Education will issue circulaires, or instructions for its services; it seems that large crosses, full hijabs or yarmulkes would be banned, while small symbols such as small Stars of David or crosses in pendants would not be;
Hugh Schofield The garment is being increasingly worn in schools, leading to a political divide over them, with right-wing parties pushing for a ban while those on the left have voiced concerns...
Hugh Schofield
The French education minister has said that nearly 300 pupils arrived at school on Monday wearing the abaya, the long Muslim robe which was banned in schools last week.
Under instructions laid down by the ministry, there followed in each case a period of dialogue with school staff. Most girls then agreed to dress differently and were able to start classes. However, 67 girls refused to comply and were sent home.
A further period of dialogue with their families will now ensue. If that fails, they will be excluded.
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.
The move comes after months of debate over the wearing of abayas in French schools.
The garment is being increasingly worn in schools, leading to a political divide over them, with right-wing parties pushing for a ban while those on the left have voiced concerns for the rights of Muslim women and girls.
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 on public education.
Reflecting its changing population, it has updated the law over the years to include the Muslim headscarf and Jewish kippa, but abayas have not been banned outright until now.
On Monday evening, he said such behavior led to the "worst consequences," citing the brutal murder of teacher Samuel Paty three years ago.
Paty was killed by an 18-year-old Russian Muslim refugee following a social media campaign against him in which he was criticized for showing caricatures of the Prophet Mohammed in a class on freedom of expression.
"We cannot act as if the terrorist attack, the murder of Samuel Paty, had not happened," Macron said in an interview with YouTube channel HugoDecrypte.
"School must remain neutral: I don't know what your religion is; you don't know what mine is," the president said.
From that DW article: That sounds very dystopian. I believe that constraints can absolutely provide freedom (you don't have to worry about xyz), and I believe the right to not wear an abaya is...
From that DW article:
Attal said those girls sent away were handed a letter to their families stating that "secularism is not a constraint; it is a liberty."
That sounds very dystopian. I believe that constraints can absolutely provide freedom (you don't have to worry about xyz), and I believe the right to not wear an abaya is important, but this feels different.
Macron's quote sounds like he's saying Paty's killing was at least partially due to Abayas and the Qamis? I fail to see what clothing has due to with it. Is he saying that because they have failed to integrate certain communities into French culture they only way to integrate them is cultural genocide? Because that's what I'm getting from that.
Honestly, I don't (in theory) have a problem with a country banning religious symbols. The reason we have different countries is to allow each country to act in its own way. But in practice, that just infringes on people's natural rights to religion.
Not that I particularly agree or disagree with your post at large, but I'm curious about your framing of religion as a "natural right". Is religion a natural right? Is that necessarily a given? I...
Not that I particularly agree or disagree with your post at large, but I'm curious about your framing of religion as a "natural right". Is religion a natural right? Is that necessarily a given? I dunno, maybe?
I'm not sure how there could be a right more natural than the right to believe. If you don't believe in religion as a natural right, I feel like you must have a different conception of humanity,...
I'm not sure how there could be a right more natural than the right to believe. If you don't believe in religion as a natural right, I feel like you must have a different conception of humanity, more akin to other animals. We are animals and there are over eight billion of us, so I can accept that some people don't think every single person should have self-determination just like how I don't necessarily think every ant needs to be allowed to run free. But I can also not agree with that viewpoint and, indeed, oppose it.
It’s not necessarily that religion is a natural right, but the component pieces are (usually). You are certainly free within your own head to think and believe whatever you want. You have freedom...
It’s not necessarily that religion is a natural right, but the component pieces are (usually). You are certainly free within your own head to think and believe whatever you want. You have freedom of speech and expression to express your ideas. Freedom of association to be with other religious members.
All opinions are welcome but specifically looking for perspective of a religious american (the most religious Christian country in the world). So does this law make sense? Is the French government...
All opinions are welcome but specifically looking for perspective of a religious american (the most religious Christian country in the world). So does this law make sense? Is the French government correct in implementing this? And is the French President's reaction proper or are the reasons used by him exaggerated?
He probably meant it as "the country with the most vocal Christians" instead "the country with the most Christians/the biggest Christian majority", which feels true because when Western media...
He probably meant it as "the country with the most vocal Christians" instead "the country with the most Christians/the biggest Christian majority", which feels true because when Western media covers Christians, it's either American Christians or the Vatican, but statistically it's probably false.
Right. It sort of depends on how specific you want to get with your definition. I think it's probably fair to say that Americans are the most vocal Christian group on the internet (because the...
statistically it's probably false.
Right. It sort of depends on how specific you want to get with your definition. I think it's probably fair to say that Americans are the most vocal Christian group on the internet (because the Internet is still predominantly culturally Western), but it's definitely not true in broader terms. As a very quick example close to home, wikipedia suggests that about 62% of Americans identify as Christian, while in Mexico that number is about 92%.
By total population it's the USA, by percentage of the country's population it's a lot farther down the list. The data Wikipedia links to is from Pew in 2010 and while I don't doubt the US is...
By total population it's the USA, by percentage of the country's population it's a lot farther down the list. The data Wikipedia links to is from Pew in 2010 and while I don't doubt the US is still on top by population in the world, a more recent study from Pew in 2021 says the percentage has dropped from 79.5% to 63% in that decade.
Even if it does have the highest Christian population, I would have a hard time equating that with being the most religious Christian country. For example, China likely has more Christians than...
Even if it does have the highest Christian population, I would have a hard time equating that with being the most religious Christian country. For example, China likely has more Christians than Canada and has at least four times as many Christians as Ireland's entire population (the US State Department even estimates that China has a higher Christian population than the entire population of France or the UK), but nobody is going to put China far above dead last in the world in religiosity rankings.
That's not true...the world includes more than just Europe, the Five Eyes, China, Japan, and Korea. Hell, Romanian is 98% Christian.
Edit: can't believe I responded to the original post instead of OP's comment 🤦
Seems slightly hypocritical to only ban large crosses but allow small Christian symbols.
Yep. But that's not surprising, since IMO it's really just not-so-thinly veiled bigotry and legalized discrimination being foisted on the public under the guise of "secularism". The same shit has been happening here in Canada with Quebec politicians having repeatedly attempted (and failing), but eventually (partially) succeeding in banning hijabs, abayas, yarmulkes, and turbans for government employees. Which, again just IMO, is terribly un-Canadian, and I absolute hate it and the asshole politicians pushing for it... especially since Canada has rather large Sikh and Muslim populations, a significant number of whom are public servants, military personnel, etc. It's also a legal/constitutional mess which is still working its way though the courts here. Eventually it will probably make its way to our Supreme Court and hopefully get struck down, but until it does a lot of people are essentially being persecuted for their faith in Quebec.
I would assume though, that in Canada it won’t matter if it goes to court because of the not withstanding clause?
IANAL, but AFAIK the notwithstanding clause is not a total free pass for laws to violate the Charter. And while so far the lower courts in Quebec have ruled in favor of allowing the current religious symbols ban to remain in place, the judges have also generally agreed that it likely violates the Charter, so it remains to be seen what the Supreme Court will think of all of this.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/notwithstanding-clause-secularism-law-religious-symbols-ban-1.5995738
Aside from this one exception,
It seems relatively cut and dry that the not withstanding clause covers this situation. I haven’t read any articles that suggest otherwise at least.
Again, IANAL, and the notwithstanding clause may indeed be inviolate when it comes to overriding particular sections of the Charter (section 2 or sections 7 to 15)... but that's precisely why other avenues of attacking the law have been taken recently. E.g. Section 28 (gender equality rights). But how far those challenges go remains to be seen.
Thanks for the link, I hadn’t seen that challenge before.
NP. And while I can't find the article anymore (although it may have only been a blog post somewhere), another potential avenue of attacking the religious symbols ban that I read about was under Section 27 (Preserving and enhancing the multicultural heritage of Canadians), since many "religious" symbols aren't actually strictly such, and are instead entangled as much with cultural heritage as they are religious doctrine. Section 27 is a bit of weird one though, since it's not so much a right in and of itself, but rather an overall ethos meant to generally be applied to the rest of the Charter. However it has been used by the Supreme Court as justification in the past to uphold the rights of women to wear the niqab while testifying in court, so there is precedence for it being used to decide on other conflicting areas of law already, and it's also not included in the scope of the notwithstanding clause.
The rule allowing small Christian symbols has context, which is that they must not be visible.
France is pretty consistent: no religion in school, period. This isn’t a ban on religious symbols, it’s a ban on spreading religion in a secular place. In other words, nobody cares if it’s not visible.
And from a French person to y’all … it feels like nobody here even attempts to understand this rule before calling it hypocritical or bigoted. Our “keep that shit out of school” is exactly how we respect religion: by preventing people from imposing it on one another, in a place filled with highly influenceable young people.
This system is what allowed me to choose my own religion and brand of spiritualism and, being part Greek, I know that if Christians got their way, I would have been branded a Christian de facto.
In some respects there's just no reconciling what an American considers acceptable for the government to mandate and what a frenchman would. But I'd note that many if not all, really, pieces of Western culture (clothing, iconography, etc.) have their roots intertwined at some level with Christianity.
You may say that they are no longer associated with Christianity after years of secular usage, and that's true, but if you ban items from Arabic cultures merely because they are associated with religion, when will they ever have the time to "launder" themselves of religious association? Does this not de facto bias towards Western culture just because it was the first to secularize?
Also I really doubt this is applied consistently. I'm sure there's many pieces of Daoist iconography I can come up with that no French school administration will have an issue with - probably wouldn't even know it was religious.
Well, yeah, and that's all there needs to be said about it…
Again, the rule isn't "no abaya". It's not even "no religious clothing". It's no display of religion.
Genuine question: how are uniforms / dress codes in France in schools, if not specifically in the schools in question? Can students wear clothing that is "modest" enough? Some students were fine with the rule and complied, so I imagine it isn't necessarily restrictive against their modesty requirements.
We don't have dress codes, and dress codes themselves are banned in public schools.
Fascinating, thank you.
I agree, especially given Macron's quote from another comment:
If that's the goal, then all symbols should be banned. I definitely know your religion if you're wearing a small cross.
Is that quote different out of context? It sounds crazy. Why shouldn't people know each other's religion?
I mean I sort of understand the logic, in theory you can't have religious-based discrimination and violence (which is a problem in France) if people don't know each other's religion. In practice that obviously doesn't work though, and it misunderstands why discrimination happens. Bigots are not going to see a clearly middle eastern looking person and think "well they could be Christian, there's no way for me to know, I better be respectful".
In the interview he's talking about a high school teacher that was murdered by an Islamic terrorist, and again this philosophy does not address that problem at all. Terrorists do not generally wait for hard evidence of someone's religion before attacking them.
Because that's how things are done in France. There may be an involved answer a historian could provide (I believe it goes back to the French Revolution) but the gist is that France just has a culture that thinks religion should be private.
The French view is that religion is a matter for the private sphere, not to be flaunted or expressed in public. Civic life is meant to explicitly secular. It's not really something I'd buy into personally, but it's a pretty deeply engrained part of French national identity.
Obviously it has issues in the edge cases, like wearing small symbolic tokens. That's partly kind of like drawing a line between saying something normally and TURNING ON CRUISE CONTROL FOR COOL.
I already said it in another comment but : in France secularism is a principle of freedom, the freedom to believe or not to believe. It is one foundation of french society and french school that exists to protect students from ideological, economic and religious proselytizing.
Because religion is a private affair. Not just in France, in most of Western and Northern Europe too.
School in France is « laïque », in english the definition would be something like : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secularism
In all my schooling in the south of France I have never seen Catholic, Jewish, Muslim, etc… clothing or signs on another student. Not even a small cross.
I suppose a distinction must be made between a secular school and secular students. I would agree with a lack of religious symbols and endorsement by the school. I wouldn't agree with the forceful removal of religious symbols from anyone's bodies.
I see your point but here secularism is a principle of freedom, the freedom to believe or not to believe. It is one foundation of french society and french school that exists to protect students from ideological, economic and religious proselytizing.
The school system here is mostly free, even for many higher education courses, so it makes sense to me to have to follow certain rules in order to benefit from this. At home/outside school, you are free to believe in a religion or not.
Yeah, I got that from the article. I am respectful of French democracy, but to me this sounds profoundly authoritarian. In fact, this is to me just as authoritarian as the dress codes enforced by Islamic states.
One's freedom ends where the other's begin. We believe that people wearing religious symbols in schools encroaches on other people's own freedom of belief. I am a strong proponent of this system, as I am of the opinion that letting people wear (or not wear) religious symbols is what leads to the creation of in-groups and out-groups, bullying, and ultimately leads to religious discrimination outside of school.
France (and I'm including French people in this), all in all, does not care about your religion. We're not perfect but compared to most other countries, including many EU countries, we're just way waaaayyyy ahead on this and I completely believe the secularist school system is 99% of the reason why.
Both atheism, and freedom of religion, are very strong in France.
Yeah, sorry, I don't agree. But I do respect.
I feel that you could just as easily teach people to not be assholes about religion in school. I’m an atheist but I think even atheists have lots to learn from religion. Religion is a good way to teach acceptance of differences to students.
I mean, how is your comment any different from “If schools taught people to be nicer to each other, we would solve violence”?
The abaya is just a dress that loosely drapes over the whole body. It is not itself a face covering or head covering (though it's often paired with one). I'm for the most part fine with France's flavor of secularism and I do think there's a sense in banning the niqab (the ninja head and face covering) and the burka (ninja head and face covering, with a veil even over the eyes), but banning the abaya makes literally zero sense.
There are cultural differences, but the abaya most often worn in Europe is not "just a dress". It is worn above street clothes, much closer in function and look to a cloak/coat than a dress. Especially in summer, the difference between male and female street wear is stark. Men in shorts and flip-flops, women in black floor-length overdresses.
I’m not sure that really changes anything though. If you want to wear a long black dress, that’s your prerogative.
It is just a simple black dress, until wearing it becomes a symbol of religion, which is forbidden.
People here are quick to forgive a swastika is just a simple shape, and that words are just simple groups of letters.
The concept of a long, loose black dress or robe is so basic that it's ridiculous to categorically associate it with religion. How are you planning to define this thing that you're trying to ban? What if dreadlocks were banned because of their strong association with Rastafarianism?
đź‘Ś and the number 88 are both seriously associated with white supremacism, and they're super basic things. They're not getting banned anywhere, but when used as a dogwhistle, I've seen both result in bans.
It's unreasonable to compare a neutral symbol correlated with religion to a neutral symbol correlated with white supremacy. The latter is banned because it can be used to covertly communicate with others in order to potentially undermine people's safety.
(Major edit a few seconds ago)
Which is exactly what I said. It's just a simple black dress, until it's used for that purpose, to communicate the purpose.
An abaya isn't used as communication though. It's just dressing modestly as guided by a certain tradition.
What's the ruling on turbans? Those are pretty non-negotiable for Sikh men to the point where you're considered sort of non-observant if you don't have one. Same with beards.
And Sikhs wear them to cover their uncut hair. Wouldn't that make their hair a religious symbol?
Yeah there are schools that have similar “no religious dress” rules in India but they tend to make exemptions for Sikhs specifically because it is such a strong part of the religious observance. There are perennial discussions about to what extent wearing the hijab is a non-negotiable part of being Muslim and whether it should be exempted or not.
I think the operative question usually ends up being, to what extent is the observance optional in a “you will be ostracized by peers for not doing it” sense.
I’m far from an expert but I think the age people start wearing a dastar (turban, apologies if the spelling is wrong) is pretty fluid and personal/familial choice. Since the ban is only in schools perhaps they wait until past school age to begin?
The turban yes, but they never cut the hair so young men usually have it tied up in a top knot with a sort of short turban until they’re old enough to wear the real thing after going through an induction ritual.
I was under the impression that this stage is not mandated or symbolic (and thus, could acceptably not be worn, as girls usually don’t) but perhaps I’m wrong on that?
I am also of the impression that it’s not uncommon for sikhs to cut their hair and/or not wear a turban and still consider themselves to be of the faith (much like Christians not following every edict I suppose) especially in the west, but I might be wrong on that too
Yeah it’s fairly common to not, but it’s in that way where it’s common for Jewish people to not keep strictly kosher. They know they’re not being observant when they do it, it’s just not a big deal.
You seem to be saying that because humans assign meanings to specific material items these meanings must all be the same??
And you seem to be projecting your own culture onto France’s culture of secularism in schools (as some others are doing in this thread).
I really want to stress this: Most people writing here are unfamiliar with how important secularism in schools is in France and have absolutely no business telling France how to do things. Opinions are cheap, and pushing yours on others without understanding the cultural context is … well, incredibly hypocritical, for one.
Consider that if you think something so deeply controversial is simple, it’s probably not. And that without learning said context, you do not hold the magical answer to a complex problem just because you managed to simplify it.
I don't really think we can apply the "it's France's business if they want to be racist not ours so we shouldn't get involved" as letting other people be is decidedly a very anti-French value. For example, ask the Algerians or more recently Mali, Niger, etc.
I do think it's quite simple to be honest – France is a deeply racist country where you have figures such as Eric Zemour who are popular and allowed on national television. The Abaya is transparently not a religious symbol (and rather a cultural one) and the fact that many white people in France pretend that it is, is a sign of their hostility towards non-whites.
I flagged your comment "malice" because it's not merely wrong, it's actively harmful, full of misinformation, and seriously messed up. Calling secularist rules "racist" is exactly the kind of crap I'm calling out. Secularist rules were put in place at a time where they 99% affected white christians. Nowadays, they affect more muslims than they used to, because France has significant and growing muslim population - by far the largest by capita in Europe. Which, as with all changing population trends, is of course a source of conflict and racism. It doesn't have to do with France being a "deeply racist country".
You're shitting on the first article of our national constitution, one of the three core values of our country's motto. Talk about xenophobic.
The Law on Conspicuous Articles was only passed in 2004, so it doesn’t have the same history as Laicite more broadly does in French society. And at the time it was passed:
Do I think Laicite is inherently racist? No. Do I think it is racist as applied now? Yes. Total exclusion of religion from the public sphere affects certain faiths more than others, and that, in turn, disproportionately impacts certain ethnic groups more. Ironically, this law hurts ethnic integration more, because Muslim parents are pulling their kids out of public schooling, and putting them in private institutions; and also because it doesn’t give girls a chance to rebel, they are forced to do it.
Citation needed rather than guesswork. Yeah Muslim integration in France is shit. Whether this is helped or hurt by this is up for debate.
I was still in school in 2004 when this stuff was heating up, I remember what happened. Yes the law put it in more explicit words, but the guidelines were present long before. This was being actively broken by certain Muslim families and the idea of the law was two-fold:
If anyone here wants to genuinely learn about the current state of things, and the thoughts of our president / his role in this, here’s a very recent interview which goes over the nuances of the subject (among many subjects):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Z6HnUJ3hcw&t=51m
Is there a distinction here from a dress that makes it more acceptable to ban it? I’m unclear on how this matters. It is some loose clothing that doesn’t impact anyone’s ability to identify the individual wearing it.
In case you're not being obtuse deliberately: the distinction is the cultural baggage that connects the dress to a subset of Muslims.
Nothing about those French laws was about identifying individuals, it was always about keeping religion out of public institutions.
Religion isn't "in" public institutions, though. It's not as if the religious iconography is part of the institution that the state runs and owns - it's just on the personage of an attendee (an attendance that's mandatory, mind you).
Trying to keep "religion" off of individuals seems absurd. The reality is that religion and human culture are intertwined in history. The rise of secularism is a very recent thing. What's next, a ban on speaking Arabic between friends in "public institutions"?
It's worth mentioning a reason why the abaya can be understood as cultural and not religious. The sun is dangerously strong in the Middle Eastern desert and, traditionally, both men and women wear full body robes to protect themselves from the sun. A black robe is just the more modest version of it. Black also protects you better from UV and is traditionally worn by both men and women, even though black does get hotter.
Which is ironic as skin cancer is massively on the rise in Europe!
Because if you pass a law which says "no muslim clothing" then it looks really bad. Instead you can pass a law saying "no religious clothing" and then you enforce it very selectively – for example, laws against religious clothing are enforced zealously against muslims but much more liberally against Christian students.
In France the law on the separation of Church and State ("The Republic does not recognize, salute or subsidize any religion") dates back to 1905 (with updates e.g. 2004) and in no way targets any particular religion.
I've already said it here, but anyway: In all my schooling in the south of France I have never seen Catholic, Jewish, Muslim, etc... clothing or signs on another student. Not even a small cross. People here understand the freedom to believe or not to believe and to keep that out of school.
Cultural, yes, I don’t disagree. Religious? I don’t know that it is. What is the religious requirement for wearing an abaya? I don’t see it covering hair or face, which is my, admittedly limited, understanding of Muslim religious dress codes.
I don't think there's anything in the Quran that specifically mentions an abaya but there is emphasis on "dressing modestly". My general sense is that the religion and culture have largely become one nebulous blob and it's often difficult to distinguish or separate the two.
There are plenty of modest outfits that aren't abaya, but for that percentage of girls that refused to change, I don't know how much compromise can be had. For that particular percentage, I worry about the outcomes if those with the decision making power are pushed to choose between a dress and their child's education.
I can’t imagine we want to pursue a ban on “dressing modestly” though. And many Christians wear long dresses for precisely that reason.
https://www.christianityeveryday.com/why-some-christian-women-wear-dresses-or-skirts-and-long-hair/
This feels like pretty targeted discrimination.
I'm sure France isn't pursuing a ban on modest dress. As I said, there are plenty of modest outfits that aren't abaya. It does indeed feel targeted, but it's difficult to know how to address the issues that France seems to be trying to combat. As much as this is just an expansion of their ban on religious symbols there has been a distinct slant towards Islamic identity in recent years.
I guess part of this is related to the higher concentration of orthodox believers. I want to believe that if there were a larger population of more extreme/ orthodox Christians or Jewish people or other faiths then there would be a similar legislative response.
This is my point though — they aren’t going after Christians who are dressing modestly using their typical cultural attire because of their religion, but they are going after, let’s face it, brown people, who are dressing modestly using their typical cultural attire.
In contrast, it’s perfectly legal for a Pentecostal Christian person to go about with long hair, floor length dress, no makeup, and a cross around their neck.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_law_on_secularity_and_conspicuous_religious_symbols_in_schools
It's not clear what the takeaway is though. Mandate people to wear weather-appropriate clothing?
Very illiberal behavior from France, but unsurprising considering Europe's tolerance towards immigrants and integration.
Hugh Schofield
The garment is being increasingly worn in schools, leading to a political divide over them, with right-wing parties pushing for a ban while those on the left have voiced concerns for the rights of Muslim women and girls.
DW Germany reports
French President Emmanuel Macron has come out in defense of the ban saying there was a "minority" in France that "hijacks a religion and challenges the republic and secularism."
From that DW article:
That sounds very dystopian. I believe that constraints can absolutely provide freedom (you don't have to worry about xyz), and I believe the right to not wear an abaya is important, but this feels different.
Macron's quote sounds like he's saying Paty's killing was at least partially due to Abayas and the Qamis? I fail to see what clothing has due to with it. Is he saying that because they have failed to integrate certain communities into French culture they only way to integrate them is cultural genocide? Because that's what I'm getting from that.
Honestly, I don't (in theory) have a problem with a country banning religious symbols. The reason we have different countries is to allow each country to act in its own way. But in practice, that just infringes on people's natural rights to religion.
Not that I particularly agree or disagree with your post at large, but I'm curious about your framing of religion as a "natural right". Is religion a natural right? Is that necessarily a given? I dunno, maybe?
I'm not sure how there could be a right more natural than the right to believe. If you don't believe in religion as a natural right, I feel like you must have a different conception of humanity, more akin to other animals. We are animals and there are over eight billion of us, so I can accept that some people don't think every single person should have self-determination just like how I don't necessarily think every ant needs to be allowed to run free. But I can also not agree with that viewpoint and, indeed, oppose it.
It’s not necessarily that religion is a natural right, but the component pieces are (usually). You are certainly free within your own head to think and believe whatever you want. You have freedom of speech and expression to express your ideas. Freedom of association to be with other religious members.
All opinions are welcome but specifically looking for perspective of a religious american (the most religious Christian country in the world). So does this law make sense? Is the French government correct in implementing this? And is the French President's reaction proper or are the reasons used by him exaggerated?
He probably meant it as "the country with the most vocal Christians" instead "the country with the most Christians/the biggest Christian majority", which feels true because when Western media covers Christians, it's either American Christians or the Vatican, but statistically it's probably false.
Right. It sort of depends on how specific you want to get with your definition. I think it's probably fair to say that Americans are the most vocal Christian group on the internet (because the Internet is still predominantly culturally Western), but it's definitely not true in broader terms. As a very quick example close to home, wikipedia suggests that about 62% of Americans identify as Christian, while in Mexico that number is about 92%.
By total population it's the USA, by percentage of the country's population it's a lot farther down the list. The data Wikipedia links to is from Pew in 2010 and while I don't doubt the US is still on top by population in the world, a more recent study from Pew in 2021 says the percentage has dropped from 79.5% to 63% in that decade.
Even if it does have the highest Christian population, I would have a hard time equating that with being the most religious Christian country. For example, China likely has more Christians than Canada and has at least four times as many Christians as Ireland's entire population (the US State Department even estimates that China has a higher Christian population than the entire population of France or the UK), but nobody is going to put China far above dead last in the world in religiosity rankings.