- cross-posted to:
- europe@feddit.de
- cross-posted to:
- europe@feddit.de
Pupils will be banned from wearing abayas, loose-fitting full-length robes worn by some Muslim women, in France’s state-run schools, the education minister has said.
The rule will be applied as soon as the new school year starts on 4 September.
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.
It’s still targeting ethnicities. There’s no denying that these bans have a racial component to it.
I’d say it’s cultural rather than racial. Putting one culture above others is not the same as putting one race above others.
Especially since one culture refuses to assimilate when they migrate to a new country. Yeah I’m an American, but if I moved to France or Japan I wouldn’t try to change the local culture, I’d try to fit in. If I visited Saudi Arabia, not that they’d let me, my pasty white ass is putting on a turban and some robes so that I don’t die of sun exposure. I’d be the first person in history to get a 4th degree sunburn. I’m not gonna wander around in short pants, and flip flops bare chested the way I could here in SoCal.
oh no it’s the assimilation police, dictating how and when people give up their culture!
Yeah, no.
If someone comes to my country I’d expect them to adapt.
No homophobic abuse, no sexist abuse, no telling women what they can and can’t do.
Cultures aren’t all equal. If your culture is built on bigotry, I have zero respect for it. According to some cultures, I should be stoned to death for being a bisexual man. Fuck those cultures.
What the heck country are you living in where those aren’t already part of the culture?
What makes you think that because it goes on in some parts of a country that it defines all people in that land and from that land?
Check your own fucking privilege, or better yet, your bias. You make broad generalizations about people that you literally haven’t ever spoken to.
Obviously bigots exist everywhere, but you have your head in the sand if you don’t think some cultures are far worse than others.
If you go to a country in the middle east, and are openly gay, there’s a good chance the state will murder you. That’s not hyperbole. That’s a statement of fact.
Personally, I don’t find that tolerable.
When did I ever generalise a whole group of people? I’m not in the slightest. I recently helped organise the wedding of my friend with the wife’s father - he (and his daughter) are Muslim and he’s one of the most wonderful, warm-hearted, welcoming, generous people I’ve ever met.
Guess what? He fucking hates a lot of islamic culture and was happier about his daughter marrying a non-muslim. Because he knows that most Muslims unfortunately aren’t as progressive as he is.
Over 50% of Muslims in the UK think being gay should be illegal. If you genuinely don’t think that’s a cultural issue at play then you’re crazy, and you’re just letting people off with homophobia.
Again. You are not the one who risks death by being yourself. Check your fucking privilege.
While you’re debating the finer points of whether it’s moral to call out homophobia if the perpetrator of it is Muslim (spoiler - it is, and nobody gets in a huff about saying Catholics or Russian orthodox often hold homophobic views, leading me to believe that you’re actually being racist), I’m here in the real world, where I know that some cultures unfortunately have a huge amount of people that want to see me harmed.
Those cultures are not compatible with a free and progressive society.
If they want to be accepted they need to change. And I have zero obligation to be welcoming of them until they do. They want me dead. Get to fuck with that “turn the other cheek” crap. If a culture calls for my destruction, that’s not a culture that I’m going to like.
If you go to someone’s country which does have anti LGBT laws, are you going to “adapt”?
We can stand against bigotry in other could cultures without creating a blanket ban against those cultures.
I’d have to, otherwise I’d be killed. Stop for a second and think about that. I’d be murdered by the state.
Obviously I wouldn’t set foot in any of those shitholes though.
Letting those hateful cultures and attitudes be accepted isn’t standing against bigotry.
Tolerating intolerance will just lead to intolerance gaining foothold and then your society won’t be a tolerant one at all.
There are cities and towns I can’t be myself in now because I fear for my safety, and I’m in a first world, progressive country.
It’s all well and good just telling me to be warm and accepting to people with homophobic, misogynistic, backwards beliefs, but they want me dead.
Check your damn privilege, you’re not the one who risks their safety when being around these people.
I’m in a similar boat in a lot of these countries. I have Indian heritage, and at least in Pakistan that could go very, very poorly for me. But I don’t think we should ban any traditionally Pakistani clothing. I don’t shun all Pakistani people because I would be unsafe in their country. And because of that, I’ve made friends who are Pakistani who also find that hatred ridiculous.
Now, I’m not telling you to go into a mosque and try to make friends with people after announcing you’re bi, just like I wouldn’t tell you to do that in a church or cathedral or any gathering of Republicans. That’s the thing – this isn’t exclusive to Islamic extremism. I see no reason then to judge them more harshly than I would any other homophobes, and I have no reason to assume they’re all bigots, just like I don’t assume all Christians or white people are. And it is very notable that the French law has an exception that lets small crosses still be worn, which is the majority of Christian expression, but no such exception exists for the majority of Islamic expression.
I made my initial point poorly, which is that it’s wrong to force people to adapt to your culture, no matter where in the world you are. You can still be completely intolerant of their bigoted beliefs and make it clear those are unacceptable and cross the line, but not restrict someone’s self expression because they share a religion with bigoted idiots. France should be outright outlawing churches if we’re going to target association by religion/culture, not granting exceptions that disproportionately benefit them.
I’m sincerely sorry if my comment came across as “respect the people who want to kill you”, that’s completely my fault and I made my point very poorly. I hold no respect for racists, and I don’t expect anybody to respect their bigots. All bigotry needs to be chased out and ostracized from society.
Change isn’t going to come from treating everyone of a religion or culture as bigots, and killing every bigot isn’t a solution either. If we want to eliminate bigotry, it’s going to come from people rejecting the bigotry of others in their religion/culture and making friends with them. And that’s only possible if we take a harsh stance against bigotry, and only bigotry. Nothing by association.
Again, sorry about my very poor wording.
I didn’t say I’m accepting of other bigots. I’m not. At all.
I’m intolerant of intolerance and cultures built on intolerance.
Yeah. When you decide to join another culture, you don’t force yours on them. If your culture was so shitty that you had to flee to a different country, then maybe it was a shitty culture that shouldn’t be preserved
The majority of these people aren’t fleeing the culture, they’re fleeing the regimes. Wearing clothing that you wore your whole life isn’t “forcing” it on anyone, you are just being yourself. Would you tolerate a mostly-white school banning dashikis? What if the white principal said “Well the kid wearing it is getting bullied we’re trying to protect him!” Do you see how fucking backwards that is?
How does the style of clothes you’re wearing force anything on anyone? It’s cool if you want to embrace the new culture, but you wouldn’t be hurting anyone if you didn’t. Besides, it’s not like you have to choose one or the other; assimilating doesn’t have to mean you give up everything pertaining to the culture you lived in before.
Side note – shitty culture is far from the only reason for people to move. I’m no expert, but I’m guessing it’s not at the top of the list either, lol.
Kids are bullies. That’s one point of school uniforms. It takes away a potential bullying target
And?
Edit: I’m wondering how this relates to mine or any of the previous comments in this thread.
They outlawed wearing these clothes in schools. I gave you a good reason to have kids wearing the same thing. You’re being obtuse.
It’s pretty simple. Give up your culture for another if the other is superior. If your culture is bigoted, for whatever reason, religious or not, give it up.
self-report
I know what you assume, but lets ignore that, it’s nonsense anyways, stay with the point. You don’t think a progressive culture is to be prefered over one that is bigoted?
Splitting hairs. It’s still bigotry. Just because it’s bigotry towards something real rather than something we pretend is real doesn’t really change much.
It is not. It’s targeting religious signs. If your ethnicity can’t live with the same laws as others than it isn’t not you being ostracized, it’s you being dick by forcing everyone to follow your dogmas.
Not everyone who wears an abaya is religious or Muslim. And France doesn’t target religious signs equally, which is why the 2004 law banned hijab but allowed crosses.
And if you’re mad that others have to somehow “cater to your dogmas,” someone should tell the French who visit Algeria and other middle eastern countries and demand wine and pork.
It allowed crosses and other religious symbols, such as the islamic moon and star so long as they were hidden by clothing
A hijab isn’t hidden by clothing, it is the clothing.
So are turbans. Sikhs fought and died to protect france during world war 2, only for their children to be told they must now hide their religion and conform.
This is a badly written law and France is in the wrong here with their unique interpretation of laicite different than every other country’s secularism. As Thomas Jefferson said, other people’s beliefs and expressions “neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.”
Having died in ww2 should not give you full freedom to force your religion on your children
The fact that you blanket assume everyone forces their religion on their children is telling. Furthermore, the French government pressures ADULTS into taking off their religious apparel, so that debunks your argument. That’s not freedom, and it makes France no freer than Iran or Uzbekistan.
The fact that you blanket assume kids are going to spontaneously start wearing turbans withour their parents having anything to do with it is telling.
It debunks my argument about schoolchildren that similar rules exist for adults (when working in the government)?
If you think having to take off your religious uniform when you’re representing the government is the comparable to state oppression in Iran or Uzbekistan, I get a feeling you don’t know too much about life in those countries
You don’t know any Sikhs then. Talk to a few and get back to me. They proudly wear turbans because it’s part of their religion to break down social class barriers and their adornments are meant to symbolize their desire to help fellow man. Sikh kids WANT to wear it as a sign of maturity in their faith, not because anyone is pressuring them into dressing that way. And you want to hold them back from this?
Muslims and Arabs have similar ideas; men grow facial hair both to show manhood and to imitate their beloved prophets. Should France ban beards like China does against its Uighurs? Where does this oppression end, in the name of France’s phony “freedom”?
Plenty of religious people fought and died in WW2. That doesn’t mean they get the right to make religious displays in state schools.
I guess this is where we agree to disagree. I view people covering their hair (of either gender) as in keeping with the tenets of their faith and as part of their relationship with God, and you view this good intention as some effort to show off to other people around you. Get over yourself; the state taking this right away is no different than 20th century dictators who force men to shave or ban religious symbols that the ruling class dislikes.
K
So you’re saying the law is completely biased, since the exception fits how Christians commonly display their religion? How convenient.
That’s not completely biased in the slightest.
Man, we are in the discussion where literally first post saying that French government preventing people from wearing crosses. What is the point of your argument, if you ignore information given to you by others?
If a female goes to Saudi Arabia, she is forced to obey the laws of Saudi Arabia and cover parts of the body. If a female goes to France, why is it your problem that people should obey the laws of the France?
You are insane.
The first post incorrectly repeated the talking point that crosses are also banned. That’s misleading. They banned “large” crosses and the 2004 law explicitly allowed “small” crosses, but made no similar exceptions for minority religions in France.
You can’t have it both ways; either human rights apply worldwide or they don’t. If you believe that both Saudi and France have the right to take away rights for women, you’re the insane one not me.
Wear small abaya if you want to, dude. I just told ya that people should follow the laws of the country. I didn’t even gave you my opinion on it.
Will you advocate for France banning all crosses henceforth then?
Probably yes, but actually if they can be seen. After all it is about signs, things that can be seen. Now, please, don’t message me about this topic anymore.