Skip Navigation
150 comments

  • Okay, let's look at several arguments that have been presented here in favor of this law:

    • "Display of religion must be banned for a secular learning experience": Firstly, how do you even define "display of religion"? If I say "Merry Christmas", is it a display of religion? If I grow my hair out, is that display of religion? If I wear a steel bracelet, is that display of religion? Because the last two actions are actually associated with Sikhism. If I wear the Mormons' holy underwear, is that display of religion? If I say "Jesus fkin Christ" when I hear about a fascist law like this, is that banned too now? Secularism is respecting all religious classifications and allowing them to coexist. Secularism is NOT forcing everyone to look and behave as if they are in the same religious classification.
    • "The abaya dress isn't even French/Respect the culture of the country that you are in:"

    Individuals who say this seem to have what is known as the "conventionalist" ethical framework. This framework has maaany problems. However, even if we look at this law from the point of view of this framework, it becomes unethical. The official national motto of France is "Liberty, Equality and Fraternity". This law seems to contradict all three of these principles.

    It contradicts "liberty", as it literally permits the government to tell its citizens what they can and cannot wear on their body. Abayas are not even inherently religious. It is like the government banning polo t-shirts because they are "Christian".

    The law contradicts "equality" as it unequally affects Muslims and Sikhs, as their religious expression involves the use of clothing more than other religions. Sure, harmful clothing must not be permitted (like the knives that Sikhs are supposed to carry according to their religion). Abayas are not harmful in any way. Hence, they do not fall into this category.

    Finally, this law contradicts "fraternity", as fraternity literally means "brotherhood" in this context. "No matter how different we are, we are still brothers with a goal to work for the people of France" is what this implies. Banning something as harmless as clothing attributed to a given religion is not a sign of brotherhood.

    • "Just have school uniforms": Clothing is one of the most important mediums of expression for humans. All humans have their own individual identities. The goal of schools should not be to make Stormtroopers. Rather, it should be to make students better versions of themselves. Having school uniforms goes strongly against this idea. One may argue that this also goes against the idea of "liberty".
    • "Did you know that Abayas and Hijabs are the result of an authoritarian religion?" Firstly, no. Abayas have nothing to do with religion. Sure, it is possible that a parent(s) may force their child to wear a particular type of clothing that aligns with their religious beliefs. In that case, the school can provide support to such students. However, what if a child themself wish to wear a particular type of clothing? What's the harm in that? This argument for the ban is similar to saying "some individuals are buttfucked without their consent. Therefore, let's ban buttfucking".

    I'm atheist and socialist. I'm sad to see some of my fellow socialists arguing for the ban as well. Atheists have and are presently being persecuted in many countries in the world. By supporting the persecution of other religious classifications, we are essentially doing exactly what is being done to us. There is no moral difference between us and the individuals persecuting us in this case.

  • Set against the 12 million school boys and girls who started term on Monday, the government believes the figures show that its ban has been broadly accepted.

    Lol the target was like 300 girls tp start with. What a pitiful way to call this a win.

150 comments