Sooooo now if you’re North African or Black you cannot wear a long dress at school anymore which extend to public servants jobs.
France really said “Wait we need to remind everyone of our Islamophobia”.
Basically the Abaya has been declared to be a religious garnement and as such it is now not allowed to wear it in schools. Given that they cannot differentiate a abaya from a long dress (because there’s no fucking difference) they will have to pick when it’s a abaya and when it’s just a long dress… and as everyone can already see it they will pick by deciding that Arab, Amazigh, North African and Black girls are automatically wearing a abaya.
Earlier this year a Muslim girl went to high school as usual. She was wearing a “kimono” on top of her clothes and a teacher started disagreeing with her about her clothes. The girl told him it was a “kimono” which is not religious and targeting her specifically for wearing one was an Islamophobic bias.
She was expelled from class and then expelled from school until her hearing with the school board to confirm her definitive (or not) expulsion.
Before and during the hearing teachers largely agreed that her clothes were not religious at all. The problem was that she called the teacher Islamophobic for targeting her specifically. The teacher then said that he couldn’t sleep anymore that he was just scared and it reminded him Samuel Paty. I won’t stay too long on the fact that it’s a piece of shit far right move to mention an actual victim of terrorism as a way to pass yourself as a victim when the situations have nothing to do with each other. This teacher put on the same level a Muslim girl wearing a kimono and an actual terror attack.
Just because the teacher mentioned Samuel Paty the girl was put in FUCKING POLICE CUSTODY and an investigation was open.
This is a kimono
Imagine ending in police custody because you wore this on top of your clothes and called out the teacher who made racists comments about what you were wearing.
The girl ended up being humiliated and being deprived of weeks of school the same year she was supposed to pass her high school exam.
Most “Educational professionals” need no training to be racist pieces of shit and to target young girl they perceive as Muslims.
They tried to ban freaking headbands. HEADBANDS. Saying that Muslim girls were wearing them to replace the hijab.
For french readers, this op-ed was published yesterday by Jean Baubérot, emeritus Professor of the “History and Sociology of Laïcité” Chair at the Ecole Pratique des Hautes Etudes.
He is the best French academic on this question of the interpretation of the law of 1905 which created the concept of Laïcité and separated the Church from the State. He has written many books that are definitely worth reading to understand how every government since 2004 (and the law that banned students from wearing religious symbols in school when neutrality was until then required only of teachers), whether they are right-wing governments or left-wing governments, have distorted this notion due to their drift to the far right.
Some important points that he raised in this article :
Le ministre a annoncé l’interdiction des abayas à l’échelle nationale. Certes, ainsi, il est mis fin aux incertitudes mais le périmètre établi en 2004 se trouve de nouveau élargie par décision du prince. Et une autre tenue risque de ne pas tarder pas à devenir problématique ! Rappelons que la plupart des autorités musulmanes, notamment les instances comme le CFCM et la Fondation pour l’islam de France (censée conseiller le gouvernement en la matière) ne considèrent pas l’abaya comme étant un « vêtement religieux ». Pour l’institution scolaire, en revanche, elle le devient. L’école, au nom de la laïcité, s’institue donc en instance qui fabrique du religieux ! Elle gémit, se plaint que des prédicateurs extrémistes en profitent. Ceux-ci « testeraient » l’école républicaine et Attal a repris cet argument. Mais c’est l’institution elle-même qui décide qu’il s’agit d’un « test ».
The minister (of Education : Gabriel Attal) announced a nationwide ban on abayas. Admittedly, this puts an end to the uncertainties, but the perimeter established in 2004 is once again widened by the act of the Prince (norms that are purely arbitrary). And another outfit might soon become problematic! Remember that most Muslim authorities, including organisations such as the CFCM and the Foundation for Islam in France (which is supposed to advise the government on the matter) do not consider the abaya to be a "religious garment". For the school institution, on the other hand, it becomes so. The school, in the name of Laïcité (separation of the Church and the State), therefore establishes itself as an authority that manufactures religion! It moans, complains that extremist preachers are taking advantage of it. These would "test" the Republican school and Attal took up this argument. But it is the institution itself that decides that it is a "test".
Actuellement, quand on demande aux élèves une définition de la laïcité, ceux-ci vous donnent un catalogue d’interdits et, sauf très rares exceptions, ils ne mentionnent pas la liberté de conscience. Pourtant celle-ci constitue la finalité primordiale de la laïcité. Significativement et volontairement, la loi de 1905 débute par : « La République assure la liberté de conscience ». Le reste en découle : le « libre exercice des cultes » dans le cadre d’un ordre public démocratique, le fait que « la République ne reconnait, ne salarie et ne subventionne aucun culte », sauf dans le cadre « de services d’aumôneries » pour garantir, précisément, dans des lieux fermés (prisons, hôpitaux, armée, …), « le libre exercice des cultes », qui est inclus (sans être exclusif) dans la liberté de conscience (suite de l’article 1 et article 2 de la loi).
Currently, when students are asked for a definition of laïcité, they give you a catalog of prohibitions and, with very few exceptions, they do not mention freedom of conscience. Yet this constitutes the primary purpose of laïcité. Significantly and intentionally, the 1905 law begins with: "The Republic assures freedom of conscience". The rest follows from this: the "free exercise of worship" within the framework of a democratic public order, the fact that "the Republic does not recognize, pay or subsidize any worship", except within the framework of "services of chaplaincies to guarantee, precisely, in closed places (prisons, hospitals, army, …), "the free exercise of worship", which is included (without being exclusive) in the freedom of conscience (continuation of article 1 and article 2 of the law).
Je propose que l’on étudie dans les différentes classes, dès la journée de rentrée, les deux premiers articles de la loi de 1905 et les propos d’Aristide Briand, rapporteur de la Commission parlementaire, présentant cette loi : il s’agit, indiquait-il, de proclamer « solennellement que, non seulement la République ne saurait opprimer les consciences ou gêner dans ses formes multiples l’expression extérieure des sentiments religieux, mais encore qu’elle entend respecter et faire respecter la liberté de conscience et la liberté des cultes. »
I suggest that we study in the different classes, from the first day of school, the first two articles of the law of 1905 and the words of Aristide Briand, rapporteur for the Parliamentary Commission, presenting this law: it is a question, he indicated, to proclaim "solemnly that, not only can the Republic not oppress consciences or hamper in its multiple forms the outward expression of religious sentiments, but also that it intends to respect and ensure respect for freedom of conscience and freedom of worship."
Quand au vêtement, Briand s’est montré, à ce sujet, on ne peut plus clair : il a refusé l’interdiction du port de la soutane pour deux raisons : d’abord, fondamentalement, parce que la loi de 1905 est une « loi de liberté » et qu’en conséquence, elle ne doit pas « interdire à un citoyen de s’habiller de telle ou telle manière » ; ensuite, parce que le résultat serait « plus que problématique » : la soutane interdite, on pourrait compter sur « l’ingéniosité combinée des prêtres et des tailleurs » pour créer un « vêtement nouveau ». La loi de 1905 = la liberté de conscience + le refus de jouer au chat et à la souris. Intelligence des principes et intelligence de la stratégie.
When it comes to clothing, Briand was very clear on this subject: he refused the ban on the wearing of the cassock for two reasons: first, fundamentally, because the law of 1905 is a " law of freedom" and that, consequently, it should not "prohibit a citizen from dressing in such and such a way"; second, because the result would be "more than problematic": once the cassock was banned, one could rely on "the combined ingenuity of priests and tailors" to create a "new garment". The law of 1905 = freedom of conscience + the refusal to play cat and mouse. Intelligence of principles and intelligence of strategy.
