You know, the solution to women being told what to wear is not to tell them that they cannot wear it.

"When you walk into a classroom, you shouldn't be able to identify the pupils' religion just by looking at them,"

Sir I'm sorry but a abaya doesn't prove someone is religious. You can wear one if you so please even if you're not Islam. It's just a dress.

The problem with religious clothing is that the more people who wear it, the more pressure can be put on children to wear it or stand out/be condemned. It gets worse when the clothing is gender-specific.

It also puts children in a situation where their religious background can be seen from afar, making them Christian/Muslim/Jew etc. first and citizen second, when in a secularised country it should always be the other way round.

It is twice as bad when teachers wear religious clothing, because how can you not wear it if your teacher is wearing it. And when children wear religious clothing and have to defend wearing it, they get into a situation where they may have to defend it and wear it and even be part of peer pressure because there is no way out, you are either pushed from one side or the other and many choose to then rather push themselves.

Religious freedom is a double-edged sword: Freedom to live your religion, but also the freedom to live without religion, and especially children who are brought up in a religious family need the school as a place where religion isn't a thing, so that they have a place to even think about what it feels like to live without it. Religion needs to be a personal choice and only if you have a place to check what it means to be without it you can choose.

If your religion can not give children a place to be without it so they can then freely choose, there is something severely wrong with that religion. Unfortunately I have yet to find a religion that does allow it.

So many people here either intentionally or not misunderstanding the point...

There's freedom of religion, but not in official governement settings. This is not to infringe on rights, it's just the opposite. Just for your religion you shant get treated differently. This is why you don't get to advertise your religion as a governement employee, nor as a citizen when appealing to the governement. This is exactly the inverse of authorianism, it's a reaction to a state forcing people from a certain religion to wear a distinct mark (star of david) by which they were discrimnated against and eradicated.

Furthermore there should be some norms in place for what can be worn in school. I'm no advocate for uniforms, but dressrules respectful of the institution can be demanded (e.g. not wearing headwear in church or covering ones hair when visiting a mosque)

I'm all for letting people wear whatever they want. What is the harm?

Here in Canada I've seen police officers wearing turbans. Works for me. Nude beaches? Sure thing. I've seen people in my neighborhood wearing Saudi-style niqabs and Afghan-style burqas.

Who am I to tell people what they should or shouldn't wear? How could it be my business?

I'm also for people burning the Qur'an if they so please. Or the bible, or the rainbow flag, or the national flag if that's how they want to protest. Ideas are there to be challenged.

I draw the line at threatening or harming people.

I did not know what an abaya is, but it did not matter to know this is a stupid ban. Just let people wear whatever the fuck they want to wear.

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 from public education.

It has been updating the law over the years to reflect its changing population, which now includes the Muslim headscarf and Jewish kippa, but abayas have not been banned outright.

So going by the article, some religious clothing is outright banned while crosses are allowed as long as they are not large?

Makes sense. Anyone who needs it probably needs integrate better, or possibly their male relatives.