There have been multiple accounts created with the sole purpose of posting advertisement posts or replies containing unsolicited advertising.

Accounts which solely post advertisements, or persistently post them may be terminated.

electrogamerman ,

Ironic the Muslims fighting for freedom, when they can’t accept homosexuality.

Takapapatapaka ,
@Takapapatapaka@lemmy.world avatar

The main problem with this subject is that the abaya is not a religious clothing strictly speaking. It is not enforced by any muslim sacred text, a lot of muslim women do not wear it, whereas non-muslim women wear it. It is rather typical from the arabic culture than from the muslim religion (it originated from bedouin culture in the first place).

Here in France people are mad about secularism because of an old hate of Christian Church, but nowadays it is rather used to discriminate jews and muslims. (At school, yarmulke and headscarf are banned, but christian crosses are allowed if they’re not too big. Every day i saw people in school with christian crosses around the neck or as earrings, and no one bothered them, while they were harassing girls with a headscarf.)

Imo here the government is just creating a new debate on a stupid question, just to scare people about muslims and give hard right politicians a bone to chew, as they always do. While everyone talks and is afraid about what teenagers could wear, people talk less about the other laws they are passing, for having more control over Internet or whatever they want.

magnor ,
@magnor@lemmy.magnor.ovh avatar

Yeah this is exactly what is happening. Use this as a talking point while the country rots from the inside thanks to Macron’s antisocial and ecocidal policies.

bobman ,

Yep. Make the masses squabble over social issues while the wealthy fucks them with monetary ones.

sheogorath ,

Bread and circus, my friend, bread and circus.

Although I’m not feeling so hot on the bread availability in the near future.

magnor ,
@magnor@lemmy.magnor.ovh avatar

“Let them have brioche” as they said.

bobman ,

“I don’t like this thing so therefore neither should anyone else.”

It’s really the default mentality for the vast majority of people I come across these days.

Akasazh ,
@Akasazh@feddit.nl avatar

Imo here the government is just creating a new debate on a stupid question, just to scare people about muslims and give hard right politicians a bone to chew

Good take, even I got riled up into a discussion on this, lately. It’s rather divisive and therefore a good tool to get people further apart, instead of working together…

archer ,

Vive la France!!! 🇫🇷🇫🇷🇫🇷⚛️⚛️⚛️

drmoose ,

Children shouldn’t have to uphold any religion imo. It’s tough here though as it’s also their freedom to wear whatever so I don’t think that ban is the best way to approach this issue here.

A_Toasty_Strudel ,
@A_Toasty_Strudel@lemmy.world avatar

This is correct. Even if we don’t necessarily agree with why they’re choosing to wear it, saying that they’re outright not able to is completely unacceptable.

TheBlue22 ,

They are not choosing shit. They are being forced to wear them by their parents. It’s indoctrination and abuse

andrewrgross ,

This is dumb. I grew up going to a mainstream private Jewish school. We had to wear yarmulkes.

Every child grows up in the guidance of parents, and everyone thinks someone’s lifestyle is abuse. Did you parents feed you meat? Yes? That’s abuse. No? That’s abuse.

rustydomino ,
@rustydomino@lemmy.world avatar

Sure, they key here being private school. They’re regulating public schools.

bobman ,

Funny, children don’t have a choice when they go to public school.

This means that they should be even more accepting of different cultures than private schools. You’re literally forced to go there if you’re poor.

andrewrgross ,

The point was about indoctrination.

You can’t call a Muslim upbringing indoctrination unless you also call Jewish, Christian, and secular agnostic upbringings indoctrination too. Which might be true, but then you’re just describing parenting.

bobman ,

What? None of them are choosing to wear it?

It’s all being forced upon them?

What about the government now literally forcing them to wear what is ‘acceptable’? That just gets a pass, huh?

18 upvotes

Lol, lemmyers. Can’t expect rational trains of thought from you, I guess.

TheBlue22 ,

So it’s okay to support a shit tradition meant to oppress women? Tradition that pushes inferiority of women over men?

bobman ,

You mean support people making decisions for themselves instead of having the government do it for them?

Yeah, it is okay to support that.

Not sure why you’re advocating suppressing their culture. Did you completely ignore the first question I asked?

Buffaloaf ,

deleted_by_author

    •
    Dremor ,
    @Dremor@lemmy.world avatar

    Crucifixes and yarmulkes (also known as kippas) are also banned, yes.

    bobman ,

    The other commenter was saying ‘crosses are allowed if they’re not too big.’

    Which is it?

    Dremor ,
    @Dremor@lemmy.world avatar

    Usually if it isn’t visible. Like a necklace worn under clothes. The idea being that you should not make your religious apparent.

    bobman ,

    He was saying that they would wear them around their necks and in their ears and nobody would bother them about it.

    Dremor ,
    @Dremor@lemmy.world avatar

    It is mainly up to the head of the school to define what is acceptable or not.

    In my case it wouldn’t bother me me if a Jewish, Muslim, or any other religion student wore a penny sized necklace under his clothes, but not if it is a ostensible one.

    That’s the problem with clothes, it shows ostensibly from which religion, caste or culture you are from.

    bobman ,

    Yeah, he didn’t make any mention of obscuring it with clothing or it being up to the ‘head of the school.’

    Dremor ,
    @Dremor@lemmy.world avatar

    The law is intentionally broad while leaving some space for interpretation in order to encompasse case that may not yet exist.

    Law is like an onion. Each layer encompasses the previous one with more precise definition, while not contradicting it. In this case, the constitution protect the freedom of religion, but also separate religion from the state. Thus you are free to have one, but not to ostensibly display it in public (by that I mean in state owned) spaces.

    From this point you have 2 way to say what is considered as ostensible according to said law. Application decrees, which is taken by the executive branch, and which is what was used in this case. And jurisprudence, which are the result of the judiciary branch.

    magnor ,
    @magnor@lemmy.magnor.ovh avatar

    They are banned but it is not exactly the same. Those are religious items. The abaya is a whole genre of clothing.

    andrewrgross ,

    This is fucked up. France scares me.

    Mr_Blott ,

    You’re probably a bit gullible then

    JustAManOnAToilet ,

    That or a baker. The French really don’t like bakers. Last person to suggest others eat cake had her head chopped off.

    bobman ,

    It’s not unique to france.

    All nations are controlled by petulant children who believe if they don’t like something, then neither should anyone else.

    Most adults are kids these days. It’s really sad, but the ruling class has been successful in keeping us as stupid as possible for as long as possible.

    Shialac ,

    Fuck that shit, forcing kids/women to wear whatever some nazis prefer

    Tb0n3 ,

    And what about what the pedophile rapist worshippers prefer?

    Shialac ,

    what?

    Tb0n3 ,

    You reference Nazis I reference Islam’s prophet Muhammad raping his 9 year old wife. At least mine is tangentially related to the topic.

    autotldr Bot ,

    This is the best summary I could come up with:

    PARIS, Aug 28 (Reuters) - The French government’s decision to ban children from wearing the abaya, the loose-fitting, full-length robes worn by some Muslim women, in state-run schools drew applause on Monday from the right, but also criticism.

    France has enforced a ban on religious symbols in state schools since 2004, to uphold its strict brand of secularism, known as “laicite”.

    “Our schools are continually put under test, and over the past months, breaches to laicite have increased considerably, in particular with (pupils) wearing religious attire like abayas and kameez,” Education Minister Gabriel Attal told a news conference to explain Sunday’s ban.

    The SNPDEN-UNSA union of school principals welcomed the decision, saying what it needed above all was clarity from the government, its national secretary, Didier Georges, told Reuters.

    They will, once again, feel stigmatised," said sociologist Agnes De Feo, who has been researching French women wearing niqab for the past decade.

    Riffi said there was a wider fashion trend among female high school students, who buy long dresses and kimonos online.

    The original article contains 510 words, the summary contains 172 words. Saved 66%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!

  • All
  • Subscribed
  • Moderated
  • Favorites
  • •
  • [email protected]
  • random
  • lifeLocal
  • goranko
  • All magazines
    •