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.
In Quebec we usually have to explain the difference between secularism and laïcité by mentioning that secularism is the separation of church and State by accommodating all religions equally while laïcité is the separation of church and State by excluding religion from the public domain. Quebec's take on laïcité is more relaxed than France's.
I think what’s so annoying about these laws is that they go à contresens, by strengthening religion in civic life. These girls are now forced to go to religious schools if they want to continue wearing their harmless cultural dress. In fact, religious schools have exploded in population since the laws on laïcité have passed in France. Many of those girls would have otherwise integrated into French society and become bored of religion, just like Catholic children do, if they went to a normal school. I remember listening to a French philosopher on a debate program say “Seuls les pays qui ont interdit le port du voile ont fini par l'imposer”. I don’t know if that’s literally true, but I think banning makes many muslims feel defiant and more passionate about their religious identity.
It’s especially galling in Canada, which has one of the most well-integrated and moderate Muslim minority populations in the world. A law like this is actively harmful to the goal of lessening “la pertinence de la religion dans la vie civile”. It goes against its own goals, to solve a problem that doesn’t exist.
Since you're mentioning Canada, at the same time in Quebec (the only place with a similar law) it's only for government employees in a position of authority so I don't think it's really an issue considering we already impose restrictions on the same employees when it comes to displaying political signs and it received support from many people that are part of the groups most affected because they don't want to have left a country where religion is part of politics only to go live somewhere where it's trying to do the same thing. Creating a barrier between the two where we say "If your religion is so important to you that you can't accept to remove the sign you're wearing while at work, it might mean you are not ready to represent a laïc State" isn't a bad thing. I wouldn't support a ban for students or all government employees and so on (like France is doing).
I’ve heard this argument that it’s “not so bad” in Quebec, but I don’t know why we need to accept any “badness” at all. What countervailing benefit justifies the cost? Students will not convert to Sikhism or Islam because they’re taught by a Sikh or Muslim teacher. It’s a non-issue.
Contrary to what you say, the affected groups are far from supportive. In fact, I would not be surprised one bit if, like in France, Muslims in Quebec have hardened their views, becoming more devout, in response to la loi 21.
I said it's not an issue and that it's not a bad thing, not that it's "not so bad" and that we're tolerating "badness".
It's not about conversion, it's about discrimination or the appearance of discrimination by an employee of the State.
How does a Jewish defendant feel when a judge that's visibly Muslim makes a decision against them? Well that judge represents the State and the State needs to be neutral and to have the appearance of neutrality in front of the people it has authority over.
And again, that judge couldn't have a hammer and sickle pin on their robe even though the freedom of political opinion and of expressing it is as protected as the freedom of religious expression. Can you imagine a visibly communist judge making a decision against a private business suing the government? Yeah, that wouldn't fly.
How does a non-white defendant feel when a visibly white judge, which are most judges, makes a decision against them? Or a man rules against a woman who is a rape victim? Such things happen all the time. People seem perfectly happy with state representatives being white, without quotas or positive discrimination to improve diversity. Why all this concern for "social justice" only when it comes to these minority religions?
Do you really think there is no "badness" at all... for anyone? Some people have had to make a difficult decision between career and identity. You might be blasé about that decision, but for some people it would be as difficult as being forbidden from speaking your native language, or forbidden from being openly gay.
The difference here is that skin color and gender aren't a choice, whereas wearing a religious sign, just like wearing a sign of your political allegiance, is a choice.
Unless you tell me that wearing a kippah isn't a choice for the wearer, which would be in direct violation of our charter or rights and freedom...
The people concerned also get affected if their religious sign can't be worn because of uniforms, they don't go and sue employers that tell them they can't wear a safety hat over a turban or that they can't drive a transport van while wearing a burqa that hinders their view. If their sign is so important that they can't satisfy the criterias for the job they just go work in another field and that's it.
The State doesn't have to guarantee access to jobs to people who don't fit the criterias for the job, including the responsibility to appear neutral. The perfect State employee in a position of authority would be a robot that looks nothing like a human with a gender neutral voice, since we can't have that we're stuck telling people that they need to adopt a neutral appearance to work certain jobs or they can go do the equivalent job in the private sector if it exists or they can take other tasks which don't put them in a position of authority, including some very good jobs for the State!
Laïcité should be the accommodation of all religion. Laïcité is tolerance. But the fascists are turning it into bullying religions.
That's secularism. It's as if you just didn't read what I wrote.
So what is the rebuilding of Notre-dame de Paris ? Secularism too ?
Fascism it is.
Is it getting rebuilt for it's religious importance or historical importance? Do they rebuild all churches that burn down?
Hint: Answers start with h and n
That's just hypocrisy here. The building is used for religious ceremonies. There's nothing more religious than this church.
Now mind you I'm not against rebuilding it, because I'm not an anti religion zealot. I'm merely pointing out the hypocrisy of hunting Muslims out of schools in the name of laicity while rebuilding a church with state money.
Funny how you skipped both questions
Well you should read this.
The state actually does pay for a big part of church maintenance.
https://www.bfmtv.com/economie/economie-social/finances-publiques/l-etat-et-le-financement-religieux-une-separation-loin-d-etre-absolue_AN-201608030105.html
Although it seems to be something that can apply to any religious buildings and especially the ones built before the law on laïcité came into effect (kind of a grandfather clause)... It could be argued that at this point they have an historical value that more recent buildings don't have...
Absolutely. But incidentally most religious buildings dating from before 1905 are catholic or protestant. So this is not neutral. And some of those buildings have no real historical value per se, at least not any more than any other random building from that era.
I don't think it's not neutral just because historically buildings of other religions didn't get built... The proof that it's neutral is that even for the pre-1905 non christian buildings the same law is applied instead of only paying for buildings of the majority's religion. Financing newer non-christian buildings to reach some kind of equilibrium wouldn't be neutral and would go against the spirit of laïcité... The older buildings have a patrimonial value as they're a representation of France's values before 1905...
We should not kid ourselves: this is, as you said yourself, a grandfather clause. This was meant to slightly appease religious people post 1905. The historical value argument is, in most case, rather moot. Plenty of non religious buildings are older and have arguably more cultural value and yet are not maintained with public money.
Besides, the spirit of laïcité is being completely subverted lately. I mean, on the one hand we hear discourse such as is quoted in this article, and on the other our president is still chanoine de Latran. You'd think such staunch defenders of the separation between church and state would take issue with holding a clergy title...
As an addendum, one should keep in mind that in 2017 Macron ran on a platform that heavily criticized the left's "obsession with laïcité". What is happening today is pure unadulterated opportunism.
So catholaïcité then! On a ça au Québec aussi 😂
Yup, exactly.
Actually the State does pay for a big part of church maintenance: link.
Definitely shouldn't be accommodating to ancient cults. I don't want people who never grew out of believing in Santa to decide how to educate children
That's Quebec's take, government employees in a position of authority (including teachers) can't wear religious signs, the rest is free to do what they want (unlike France's version where students can't wear religious signs either).