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
    8
    arrow-down
    18
    ·
    1 year ago

    No one ever was removed from school for wearing a Christian cross.

    Banning religion from public space is actually against the French constitution, and it’s not a fair fight against religion, it’s racism against Muslim.

    • sudneo@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      18
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      Christian crosses are actually forbidden in French school (from what I read). I don’t know if anybody ever got removed from school from it, but the rule is there. I can’t talk on what is against or not French constitution as I am not qualified to do so (not even for my own country), but I trust that if that’s the case, courts will determine that.

      A final remark, being Muslim is a choice, is not a birth condition nor a race (or ethnicity). This means that at most you can talk of religious discrimination, not racism. Coincidentally religious discrimination is very common in very religious countries (including Muslim countries), both towards other religions and even more against atheists or apostates.

      • bouh@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        No. The crosses banned are the big ones that the teacher would put on the wall. People are free to wear any pendant they like.

        The teacher need to not show any religious sign because it represent the state.

        Forbidding people to dress how they like or even show that they have a religion is fascism. It’s like forbidding same sex couple to show that they love eachother.

        And I can’t care less about Muslim theocracies, they are fascists and that is the problem. What I care about is that France is becoming fascist too, and I am ashamed of it. Becoming fascist to fight fascism is an irony that doesn’t make it better.

        • sudneo@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          Accprding to https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_law_on_secularity_and_conspicuous_religious_symbols_in_schools you seem incorrect. The point is exactly that of preventing religious displays in schools, and I wouldn’t call it fascism. In fact, fascist regimes have done exactly the opposite, giving huge visibility to religion and (the case in Italy) making Christianity religion of the state.

          The comparison with same sex couple showing displays of affection seems completely ridiculous to me, especially because Muslims are disproportionally affected only because Islam is a religion in which there are more symbols, but it is not targeted specifically against then.

          What is important is that people can, if they choose to do so, freely profess their own religion, or the lack thereof. This does not mean that this can be done in any space, and I am personally a big supporter for schools being very neutral spaces.

          • bouh@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            When a school ban children because of their religion it’s not really neutral.

            • sudneo@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              3
              arrow-down
              3
              ·
              1 year ago

              The school did not ban children though, nor because of their religion.

              The school complied with a law that forbids religious symbols/garments. Also the children were not banned, were asked to wear something else and most did.

              Muslim children are perfectly able to attend school, provided that they do so without visible religious symbols, exactly like everyone else.

              • bouh@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                We didn’t ban children, we merely told girls how they should properly dress, because that they were too modest to the liking of the racists.

                • sudneo@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  arrow-down
                  2
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  “We” actually told everyone what NOT to dress, because some dresses are actually not (only) garments but religious symbols. Again, if you use this argument I will play the devil’s advocate and support people going in KKK uniform to school. Wouldn’t we want to tell boys how to dress, no? Or a good ol’ SS uniform.

                  Clothes sometimes are more than pieces of cloth we cover ourselves with, and some of them have religious value, whether you acknowledge it or not. You can argue that for you schools should NOT be a neutral space (regarding religion), but you can’t make up argument such as religious clothing being worn for modesty.

                  • bouh@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    2
                    arrow-down
                    1
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    Except it’s not a religious dress. It’s a cultural marker. But yeah, sure just make it like all Muslims are fanatical terrorists, that will include them well in the society.

                    Do we ban metal heads then because they’re satanist worshipers?

        • bane_killgrind@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          Let’s not pretend children have a choice how they dress.

          The alienation that children feel when they are forced to look different from their peers is a strong point for school provided uniforms.

            • bane_killgrind@kbin.social
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              Being prevented from engaging in a social dynamic with your peers is a bit different from being forced to engage in a social dynamic, I’m going to consider uniforms the lesser evil.