France Bans Hijabs for Under 18s

[Kilobugya]

Nah, most girls choose to wear it.

Oh boy, right off the bat I know I'm not talking to a particularly smart perrson. The question is not if they are "choosing" to wear it, the question is if they could choose not to wear it. Obviously it's easy to indoctrinate kids to go along with their own oppression.

You disagreeing with Insaanistan is no reason to insult him.

And you're factually wrong. Most Muslim girls don't wear it, and those who do, in the overwhelming majority of case, do it of their own volition. Perhaps they were "advised" or "convinced" to wear it, but they are definitely not "forced" to do it, and many actually do it against the advise of their parents.

They are teenagers after all, and being provocative and affirmative is part of what being a teenager is. When I was a teenager I was often wearing openly leftist or anti-racist or anti-militaristic or similar tshirts and symbols, even when my parents (who were leftists too and agreed with the message) advised me to be more careful and not push it too hard. Many youth Muslisms in France are in the same position - their parents are Muslims, but wanting their teenaged children to blend in the crowd and not stick out too much, for fear of them being harassed, bullied or assaulted, while the teenagers want to affirm themselves and show to the world they are proud of their beliefs and opinion. Perfectly normal at that age.

[Kilobugya]

It’s a bad understanding of child psychology I’d say. Children emulate behavior, if they see adults wearing hijabs and are told it’s good then they almost certainly will do it simply because it’s what they were trained to do. This applies to much more than just clothing too, it’s why kids from violent households are much more willing to use violence to solve problems for example. It’s not really a choice so much as it is conditioning in your formative years.

That's true but mostly for younger children. Teenagers are often more into a "rebel" phase, in which they are more likely to either oppose or overreach from what their parents do.

[Kilobugya]

Isn’t banning head religious head coverings going against Laïcité because it is involving government in religious affairs and choices?

Yes, it is. But the party pushing that law never has been fond of laïcité anyway. They are mostly a bunch of Christian conservative after all. They just dislike Muslims and most importantly want to shift public discourse and media attention away from economical issues and the disastrous handling of the pandemics.

[Kilobugya]

I don’t think it is far-right Christians in France pushing for Hijab bans. These are mostly hardline secularists

LR ? Hardline secularists ? No way. They are the ones refusing to cancel Concordat in Alsace-Loraine. They are the ones pushing against LGBT rights since decades, mostly for religious reasons. They are the ones opposing the right of terminally ill and greatly suffering people to receive euthanasia is they want for religious reasons. They are the ones who send their children to expensive private Catholic schools.

[Deacarsia]

Isn’t banning head religious head coverings going against Laïcité because it is involving government in religious affairs and choices?

Laïcité is stupid anyway. Vive l'église!

[The Alma Mater]

And you're factually wrong. Most Muslim girls don't wear it, and those who do, in the overwhelming majority of case, do it of their own volition. Perhaps they were "advised" or "convinced" to wear it, but they are definitely not "forced" to do it, and many actually do it against the advise of their parents.

They are teenagers after all, and being provocative and affirmative is part of what being a teenager is. When I was a teenager I was often wearing openly leftist or anti-racist or anti-militaristic or similar tshirts and symbols, even when my parents (who were leftists too and agreed with the message) advised me to be more careful and not push it too hard. Many youth Muslisms in France are in the same position - their parents are Muslims, but wanting their teenaged children to blend in the crowd and not stick out too much, for fear of them being harassed, bullied or assaulted, while the teenagers want to affirm themselves and show to the world they are proud of their beliefs and opinion. Perfectly normal at that age.

The hijab however represents the message "men (especially muslim men) are animals who cannot control their sexual impulses, and therefor it is my duty as a woman to not provoke them".

A way of thinking France rightly does not want. If a man cannot control himself when he sees a pretty ladies hair, he can pluck his own eyeballs out.

[A m e n r i a]

Once again, we see France target Muslims in the name of Separatism.
You can no longer wear a hijab if you are under 18, cannot wear a burqini in public pools, and cannot accompany children on school trips if you are an adult who wears a hijab.

While they will not yet become law, they reflect the views of the body that will vote them into existence.

Can you all just imagine if Turkey forced all women to wear hijab until they were 18? Or if they banned crop tops and short shorts until they were 18?

France calls this secularism, but as it’s more and more apparent each day. Just a reminder, this is a country that allows kids of any age to drink alcohol at home, but it won’t let girls choose to wear hijab to school. Not ever Muslim girl wants to wear hijab. But I know many who have fought their parents because they want to wear the hijab but their parents don’t want them to.

Laïcité is meant to protect secularism. Instead, it’s strict government control of religion, mainly non-Catholic ones, and especially Islam.
When they banned schoolchildren from wearing religion symbols, they included Hijabs, Sikh turbans, and kippahs altogether, but only “big” crosses.

And you can’t pretend France isn’t completely fine with an all out assault on Islam. Right ing politician Marie Le Pen called for a complete ban on the hijab, and was told she was being too soft on Islam.
This isn’t about terrorism, this is about hatred for Muslims, which has long been part of French history, despite Muslims making up the majority of the Free French Army in World War II.
It is not Islam that is in a crisis. It is France.
Sources:
https://5pillarsuk.com/2021/04/02/frenc ... under-18s/
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=aj4Hvk27A0M

Yet another loss for personal freedom. I'm not a fan of hijabs or burqas, but every woman has the right to wear anything they want, no matter how covered or revealing, and I'd personally defend that right.

[Kilobugya]

The hijab however represents the message "men (especially muslim men) are animals who cannot control their sexual impulses, and therefor it is my duty as a woman to not provoke them".

The message of a clothing item depends of who wear it. That might be the historical reason for the hijab, and I agree it's a pretty sick message. But that's not what many of the girls who wear it think. It's more "I'm a Muslim, I'm not ashamed of it and I don't want to hide it". And anyway even if it were a "sick message", banning it isn't the way to go.

[Northern Socialist Council Republics]

Really? How are hijabs different than non-religious headcovers? Should Audrey Hepburn style head scarfs be banned too?

I have already stated that I’m opposed to a hijab ban. I don’t believe that a ban is the appropriate way to go about this.

How are hijabs different from non-religious headcovers? Simple - that it is, in fact, religious.

There’s nothing inherently wrong with, for example, shaving all your hair off. Nobody will be bothered by it and plenty of people do it for perfectly legitimate reasons. But if you live in a neighbourhood infested with neo-nazis then you have every reason to be suspicious of people who do that.

If you happen to live in a neighbourhood filled with sexist religious traditionalists, similarly, then you have every reason to see women covering their hair as being symptomatic of a serious social problem. Not because what it is, because what it is isn’t significant, but because of what it represents.

[A m e n r i a]

The hijab however represents the message "men (especially muslim men) are animals who cannot control their sexual impulses, and therefor it is my duty as a woman to not provoke them".

The message of a clothing item depends of who wear it. That might be the historical reason for the hijab, and I agree it's a pretty sick message. But that's not what many of the girls who wear it think. It's more "I'm a Muslim, I'm not ashamed of it and I don't want to hide it". And anyway even if it were a "sick message", banning it isn't the way to go.

This, and that message has less to do with a hijab (which is literally just cloth over your head) and more with fundamentalist nutjobs. Nature is to be embraced, not repressed.

[Laka Strolistandiler]

As a far-right Christian, I am fully in support of this law. Yes, I am islamaphobic. Yes, I am not ashamed of that. Deus Vult.

[Vassenor]

As a far-right Christian, I am fully in support of this law. Yes, I am islamaphobic. Yes, I am not ashamed of that. Deus Vult.

Time to start banning nuns from wearing religious dress in public too then.

[Fahran]

Can you all just imagine if Turkey forced all women to wear hijab until they were 18? Or if they banned crop tops and short shorts until they were 18?

Turkey, oddly enough, imposed a partial ban on even the hijab after 1983. The goal in that case was not dissimilar to that of France, namely the suppression of a particular sort of religion expression. The sentiment in both cases broadly is that the wearing of the hijab perpetuates antiquated notions about modesty, the role of women in society, and about sexuality and that such notions are backwards and at odds with the society envisioned by those who hold such sentiments. While I value modestly, I can't say I especially disagree not having grown up in a society where women were expected to cover their hair, bodies, or faces. As for crop tops and short shorts, I imagine you'll face a good deal of social scrutiny if you wear those in Eastern Turkey.

France calls this secularism, but as it’s more and more apparent each day. Just a reminder, this is a country that allows kids of any age to drink alcohol at home, but it won’t let girls choose to wear hijab to school. Not ever Muslim girl wants to wear hijab. But I know many who have fought their parents because they want to wear the hijab but their parents don’t want them to.

The French government actively wants to cultivate a society where children can drink alcohol at home with parental supervision and where religious expression is confined solely to the home and the church/mosque/synagogue in much the same way as the Muslim Brotherhood actively wants to cultivate a society where women wear the hijab in public and alcohol is illegal for sale or consumption to Muslims. These are ideological objectives.

Laïcité is meant to protect secularism. Instead, it’s strict government control of religion, mainly non-Catholic ones, and especially Islam. When they banned schoolchildren from wearing religion symbols, they included Hijabs, Sikh turbans, and kippahs altogether, but only “big” crosses.

It bans all conspicuous religious symbols and I would argue that laïcité is more about imposing secularism in the public sphere than about protecting multipluralism or maintaining separation of church and state. The only religious symbols spared were small crosses and small Magen Davids, though I imagine smaller Muslim symbols would be excluded as well. The disparity in this case is that Muslims and Jews tend to have more visible and ostentatious religious symbols than Christians at the moment. But, given the ECHR won't intercede, I don't imagine the law is going anywhere. We should expect Islam and Judaism to be as thoroughly Gallicized as Christianity and Judaism if nothing changes and people respect the laws. I'm not a fan of laïcité, but I get why a country might want to impose this sort of uniformity.

This isn’t about terrorism, this is about hatred for Muslims, which has long been part of French history, despite Muslims making up the majority of the Free French Army in World War II.

I would say it's about a hatred for a particular sort of worldview, namely any worldview that is religious, conservative/traditionalist, or non-atheistic/secular. Which, given the history of these policies, isn't at all surprising. It would be interesting to see traditionalist Catholics, Orthodox Jews, and Muslims team up on this one.

It is not Islam that is in a crisis. It is France.

I would argue both are in crisis. Islam's is a bit more serious than France's given the Dar as-Salaam is perpetually on fire and Salafism seems to be growing in popularity.

[Fahran]

So how does secularism translate to "need to protect people from seeing religion exists"?

Laïcité, whether practiced in France or Mexico, has always been a rather heady imposition on religious practice and expression, and among the lionhearted and pious has always created much resentment. It provoked the Cristero War in Mexico after all. Turns out people don't like it when you make practicing their religion with fidelity impossible.

Time to start banning nuns from wearing religious dress in public too then.

Vass, I don't think the person shouting De-s Vult is interested in religious equality or multipluralism.

More to the point, nuns have been discouraged from wearing habits in public institutions. But, yeah, Catholicism is still privileged for a number of reasons, principally that it is the majority religion of France, and a lot of this is about suppressing the religious expression of conservative Muslims.

[A m e n r i a]

As a far-right Christian, I am fully in support of this law. Yes, I am islamaphobic. Yes, I am not ashamed of that. Deus Vult.

*Confused screaming at the sight of this living paradox*

[Fahran]

*Confused screaming at the sight of this living paradox*

It's not really a living paradox unless he wants to take habits off nuns as well. It's literally just the more mild-mannered Christian version of what the Taliban did in Afghanistan. And, frankly, France's "secularism" is the mild-mannered atheist version of both of those things.

[Kilobugya]

So how does secularism translate to "need to protect people from seeing religion exists"?

Laïcité, whether practiced in France or Mexico, has always been a rather heady imposition on religious practice and expression,

No, as I explained a few times above, laïcité is absolute neutrality of the State towards religion - it imposes neutrality to representative of state, official buildings, laws, ... but not to private citizen, who are free to believe, worship and express their beliefs as they wish (with a very few exceptions, such as apology or denial of genocide being illegal).

This has nothing to do with laïcité, but with dogwhistles (poorly hidden xenophobia) and political maneuvering from right-wing parties to switch the public debate to "Islam"/"immigration" themes rather than socio-economical ones (on which the voters massively support left-wing parties).

[Kilobugya]

But, yeah, Catholicism is still privileged for a number of reasons, principally that it is the majority religion of France, and a lot of this is about suppressing the religious expression of conservative Muslims.

Actually the "majority religion" of France is atheism/agnosticism.

[Fahran]

No, as I explained a few times above, laïcité is absolute neutrality of the State towards religion - it imposes neutrality to representative of state, official buildings, laws, ... but not to private citizen, who are free to believe, worship and express their beliefs as they wish (with a very few exceptions, such as apology or denial of genocide being illegal).

This has nothing to do with laïcité, but with dogwhistles (poorly hidden xenophobia) and political maneuvering from right-wing parties to switch the public debate to "Islam"/"immigration" themes rather than socio-economical ones (on which the voters massively support left-wing parties).

Except that neutrality in this case takes the form of not being able to express yourself in public institutions only if you happen to be religious and that, more to the point, what you're saying would still effectively constitute what has customarily been known as a burqa ban both in Europe and else-where. There's a reason American and British students can wear hijabs and kippahs while French students can't. And one policy strikes me as far more neutral and equitable than the other.

[Fahran]

Actually the "majority religion" of France is atheism/agnosticism.

Wrong. 41% of the French population identifies as Catholic and 40% identifies as "no religion" (which doesn't necessarily mean atheist).

[Kilobugya]

No, as I explained a few times above, laïcité is absolute neutrality of the State towards religion - it imposes neutrality to representative of state, official buildings, laws, ... but not to private citizen, who are free to believe, worship and express their beliefs as they wish (with a very few exceptions, such as apology or denial of genocide being illegal).

This has nothing to do with laïcité, but with dogwhistles (poorly hidden xenophobia) and political maneuvering from right-wing parties to switch the public debate to "Islam"/"immigration" themes rather than socio-economical ones (on which the voters massively support left-wing parties).

Except that neutrality in this case takes the form of not being able to express yourself in public institutions only if you happen to be religious and that, more to the point, what you're saying would still effectively constitute what has customarily been known as a burqa ban both in Europe and else-where. There's a reason American and British students can wear hijabs and kippahs while French students can't. And one policy strikes me as far more neutral and equitable than the other.

But that has nothing to do with "laïcité", but everything to do with xenophobia and political maneuvering. The parties pushing such laws have always been opponents of laïcité. They are just abusing the concept to justify their ban without appearing too openly xenophobic.

[Fahran]

But that has nothing to do with "laïcité", but everything to do with xenophobia and political maneuvering. The parties pushing such laws have always been opponents of laïcité. They are just abusing the concept to justify their ban without appearing too openly xenophobic.

I doubt this to a significant extent given that, at the time the 2004 burqa ban was passed, 69% of French people supported it, 42% of French Muslims supported it, and 49% of French Muslim women supported it - with 43% of French Muslim women opposing it. We have Hollande pitching laïcité in the form of burqa bans and rhetoric about secessionists at the moment as well. We can explain it away as xenophobia, but I would go so far as to argue that laïcité, as the French know it, cannot exist without imposing on populations that haven't become exceedingly secularized. The very concept is going to be xenophobic the minute you introduce it to people who are religious and who want to express their religion at all times.

[A m e n r i a]

*Confused screaming at the sight of this living paradox*

It's not really a living paradox unless he wants to take habits off nuns as well. It's literally just the more mild-mannered Christian version of what the Taliban did in Afghanistan. And, frankly, France's "secularism" is the mild-mannered atheist version of both of those things.

> Far-right
> Christian
> Islamophobic

One of those doesn't belong in the same sentence with the other two unless the word "not" is in it.

[Fahran]

> Far-right
> Christian
> Islamophobic

One of those doesn't belong in the same sentence with the other two unless the word "not" is in it.

I'm going to go out on a limb and disagree given that Christians, often Christians far more devout, observant, and knowledgeable than our current crop, spent centuries actively warring against Muslims and had elaborate theological justifications for doing so. I think the notion that TRUE Christianity or Islam is multicultural and tolerant in a modern liberal sense is often overplayed given the textual documents and history we have. I don't think Richard the Lionheart, Saladin, Ferdinand and Isabella, or Aurangzeb were just using religion as an excuse or simply misunderstanding the tenets of their faiths.

[A m e n r i a]

> Far-right
> Christian
> Islamophobic

One of those doesn't belong in the same sentence with the other two unless the word "not" is in it.

I'm going to go out on a limb and disagree given that Christians, often Christians far more devout, observant, and knowledgeable than our current crop, spent centuries actively warring against Muslims and had elaborate theological justifications for doing so. I think the notion that TRUE Christianity or Islam are multicultural and tolerant is often overplayed given the textual documents and history we have. I don't think Richard the Lionheart, Saladin, Ferdinand and Isabella, or Aurangzeb were just using religion as an excuse or simply misunderstanding the tenets of their faiths.

And here I thought the meme that "Christian conservatives don't exist" would sell here.

Jokes aside, Islam in reality is indeed tolerant as another user has pointed out in the IDT, with the relevant verse included. I haven't seen the Bible verse that promotes tolerance (haven't read that far from my copy), but I try to see them positively as I do with every other religion until I see the verse that proves otherwise.