New government ban on what it considers religious clothing. Abaya is worn by female muslims and the kameez by males will be barred from state classrooms. The french Education Minister says students wearing them to school wont be allowed into classes, but will be instead sent for a discussion on their choice of clothing. The ministerial decision is generating plenty of discussion, with widely differing views. Well be exploring many of them with our guests shortly. But what do people think in france . Heres our paris correspondent, natasha butler. Reporter well, theres been a lot of reaction to the french governments decision to ban abayas and kameez in schools. The Education Minister gabriel atal says the reason behind the ban is that he says that these garments reveal a religious identity, and religious signs and symbols have long been banned in French Schools under frances very strict secular laws. Well, politicians on the right and far right have welcomed the news, theyve long asked for the ban, one prominent farright politician says that wearing these sort of garments in schools is as far as hes concerned an islamic provocation he says. But politicians on the left have said that this is just another example of islamophobia, from president emmanuel macrons government, and this is just a pr stunt to try and distract from the real issues that there are, they say, in the education system. In terms of public opinion, well a recent opinion poll suggests that most people in france do support the ban. Teachers unions certainly say that they welcome the clarity on the issue. They say its going to make their life easier. But what we are seeing also is a number of young people on social media, on social networks talking about perhaps wearing long tunics, long flowing dresses when schools go back next week, because they say that as far as they are concerned, of abayas and kameez are just cultural and fashion statements and they should be able to wear what they want. Natasha butler, for inside story, paris. I think educational institutions are made for us to study and learn, and as long as its secular, it should be respected, then you can do whatever you want at home. Thats all. Ones freedom stop at the boundary of others. Theres no law about mens bodies. I can walk around in my pants if i want, or topless. No one will ever comment on me. I dont feel any particular moral pressure unless i start looking like a woman. But from a legal point of view, im not forbidden to do anything. I think there are more urgent issues to deal with at the moment. Weve been talking about it for 40 years. It started with a headscarf. Then it was the bikini. And now its the abaya. Folly well, lets look in a bit more detail into the background to all of this. France imposes a strict brand of secularism known as liceite for separation between the state and religion. A strict ban on religious symbols in schools began in the 19th century to prevent catholic influence in public education. In 2004, president jacques chiraqs government banned headscarves worn by muslims from state schools and buildings and dress associated with other faiths. They include jewish caps and large christian crosses. Six years later france became the first european country to bring in a ban on full face veils in public spaces. The European Court of human rights upheld the socalled burka ban. A year later, president Nicolas Sarkozys government banned the wearing of the hijab and sikh turbans in classrooms. In 2016, several french cities and towns banned burkinis, the full body bathing suit worn by some muslim women. Those bans were laid to were later overturned, however. Lets bring in our guests for todays inside story. Loubna reguig is the National President of the Muslim Students of france group. She joins us from rube. In the french port of saintmalo is jacques reland, he is a Senior Research fellow at the Global Policy institute. And in london is rainbow murray, shes professor of politics at Queen Mary University of london. A warm welcome to you all. Thank you very much for joining us. Loubna, let me start with you. The french Education Minister says the abaya has no place in our schools. What do you respond . Firstly, thank you very much. First to really grasp the sense of this controversy, a few insights need to be given. For the past 20 years, there was a constant pressure on muslim women to believe their bodies and what they decide to show of it. So, as it was shown, it was headscarf, then bikinis, then bandanas, and now its long dresses. So, lets use this word. Its about long dresses. Because when you look on the ground, what is stopped is long dresses, long coats, long skirts. Its not really about abaya. Abaya is one word that is used to talk about all these things. And that actually shows how its actually not about secularism. Because behind abaya, what is an abaya . Anyone who looks on the internet can see that an abaya is just a cultural government from the middle east. So its not a religious garment. So when he says that abaya has no place in schools, what is he really talking about . Is he talking about just a fashion statement, just a dress . All dresses not allowed in schools or is he talking about something religious . And again, its not the case. So i think it would be great and i emphasize on that, that what we are talking about right now is not about religious garments in schools, its about french controlling muslim women attire. Folly all right. Jacques, let me come to you. You are in favor of this ban, i understand. Why . Why . Because for the same reason as the ban on the headscarf in 2004, which is to respect the law of security in france, which states a clear separation between religion and the state. You have to understand, because i know many people in the world, i have friends in england and elsewhere that dont understand the french attitude to the ban, to religious symbols in schools. Its because at the base, france is a political construct, based on the principles liberte, egalite, fraternite. France is not an ethnic concept. Not a religious concept. And the french republic was established as a result of a fight against religion. Another principle, that the law of the people is more important than the law of god. Its at the core of the french identity, and the school is seen there as the church of the republic. The republic, the principles of the republic are a kind of religion, and the school, its its church, and it is church to respect certain rules. So i understand the fact that some people said the abaya, yes the abaya is not initially uh religious garment. How does it exactly violate the secular rules of france . Folly how does it exactly violate the secular rules of france . How does the abaya violate the secular rules of france . Because it has acquired a religious dimension. Its not initially religious. Even the the Museum Council says its not religious dress. But it has acquired a religious dimension, because it is worn exclusively or most exclusively by young muslim girls. Folly but who defines . Isnt it the role of religious authorities to define whether a garment represents a religion or not . Here in this case the Muslim Council as you said has said that the abaya is tied to arab culture, but is misrepresented as a muslim religious sign. That it isnt in fact a muslim religious sign. So who decides whats a religious sign . Themselves, because they see it as an attack on islam and muslim women. Folly okay. Let me ask loubna for her thoughts before i bring rainbow into the conversation. Just respond to what jack has just said, before i bring in rainbow to the conversation. I find that super funny. I think he never talked to any muslim woman, because as a woman, i never saw abaya as an islamic statement or as a religious garment. What we see is an attack on muslim women, on muslim girls, so 14, 15, 16 year old girls who are told by a white man what they have to wear and what they dont have to wear. Small young girls who are told, this dress doesnt show your curves enough, this shirt doesnt show your [expletive]. Thats what its about that why we are concerned is because its harassment. Im sorry. Its traumatizing when a guy comes, an old man comes and with his Authority Power tell you, youre not coming to school if your shirt is not short enough and i dont see your [expletive]. It exists. Its not about islam. Put it out of the the conversation. Folly yeah. I think we cant use the a word. Lets try and avoid using it. Rainbow, let me bring you into the conversation. France of course has been long preoccupied with the proper place of religion in public life. Is this new ban in your view justified . Does it align with the spirit of secularism, which as weve heard, is a very sensitive topic in france . I dont think it does. The spirit of secularism was to reinforce french identity and to protect it from external influence, initially for catholicism, to remove the papal influence from rome and focus on french identity. And since then, it has been used increasingly as a weapon. It was to protect french identity from a perceived internal threat of other religions, which have taken an increasing hold in france. But as was very fairly said, this is not religious stress. Not religious dress. This is a way of imposing yet another restriction on the way that muslim women are allowed to dress, which there is a long tradition of in france. Its often quite paternalist. Its sometimes a bit white savior. But its always about white men telling muslim women what they are and arent allowed to wear. And i dont think this is about secularism anymore. I think it is about culture wars. Folly jacques, your thoughts how do you enforce such a ban . How do you ask a school to decide what isnt abaya and what is a long dress . Thats a good question. And thats why actually the demand for a ban initially came for headmasters who in schools realized that there was a growing number of incidents of that kind, if you can call it incident, of a woman arriving mostly muslim women arriving wearing these very long garments, which to everyone else seemed to have a religious identity. Whether it is not an officially not official religion origin, it has a certain religious dimension. You cant deny it. And the number of incidents grew, has been growing the last in the last year. Increased by 120 . Okay. Its not a huge number. But the headmasters wanted to have a clear position to be able to decide whether this young girl is wearing it as a provocation or whether it is just part of fashion sense for now. The fact that now there will be a law, it will make it easier for teachers to enforce a ban on that and to promote before a dialogue, asking, i think the law will specify that, that you will have to have a dialogue and see what the motivation is. But it is quite obvious. You have to be that it is part of the fact that it is a growing trend. Its not just fashion trend. The french are very sensitive to the threat of islamism and radical islamism. Weve paid a heavy price for radical islamism. And therefore, we dont want anything which challenges islamist challenge to our basic principles and thats the end of it. Folly loubna, let me ask you for your reaction to what jack just said. What jacques just said. Saying that this ban has been welcomed by some School Unions who say theres been an increase in loose fitting full body robes and they cant decide whether these constitute ostentatious religious symbols. What do you respond to that . Firstly, welcomed by who . I would say right wing. Secondly, large outfit, i dont think he has instagram. But look into it. Its actually the fashion world nowadays. He said that its gonna make it easier for headmasters. But im sorry. Its going to make it worse. Because there are two dangers to this law. The first danger is racial profiling. Because you said it is a muslim woman who wears it. How do you know the women, that they are muslim . How are you going to know that . Unfortunately, the girls who are arrested, like stopped and harassed, are black, are arabs, turkish, asian, thats the girl that we are talking about. So, what is this gonna make . Its gonna make a racial profiling. Who do we perceive as muslims . Who do we think are muslim . And then, the dress is not okay on you, but on a white girl its gonna be okay because shes not muslim. You are. And then the second problem is the the law, as you mentioned earlier, it should be the religious authority who say what is religious and what is not. But now the government is opening a door where the government cant say. And its quite paradoxical to decide what is religious and what is not. So this is problematic. Because in the future, what is it going to be . Is it going to be, i dont know, earrings . Is it going to be, i dont know, moroccan slippers . Why not the tea as well . Theyre gonna be the one who decide what is religious and what is not. Its crazy. Folly jacques, your response to that . How do you deal with the issue of racial profiling, as loubna says, because this would give rise to racial profiling. How do you decide whos a muslim woman and whos not, and therefore, how do you address the concerns that the law may be discriminatory against muslim women . The law also forbids wearing big crosses. The law forbids wearing caps. Other religious signs. But this argument that the abaya is for me illfounded. It is worn by muslim girls and adults. I dont know any other cases. Abaya is a very light garment. You can wear it in the streets no problem. You can put it in your school bag. It doesnt take much space. When you are at school, you can take it off and show your other clothing. And then when you come out of school, you put it back on, no problem. Its just in school, it does, im afraid, in spite of what loubna was saying, it has a religious dimension or it has acquired a politically religious dimension. I would say more than a religious dimension, it has acquired a political dimension. It has become a way to gain a challenge by radical islam on the basic principles. Folly i dont know. Okay. I see you there shaking your head. I want to bring you back into the conversation. Jacques says the abaya has acquired a political religious dimension. I think thats paranoia. I think its a dress choice. And i think that theres a lot of men telling women what they can and cant wear. And i think its a little egregious actually to oblige a woman to undress, to remove clothing that she feels safe and comfortable in, especially in a context of sexual harassment, which is a real issue in france. Im not surprised that some people prefer to dress more modestly. And are we going to say to nonmuslim women now that they also cant wear a dress beyond a certain length or a skirt beyond a certain length . Because this isnt a religious symbol. Its a garment. And so, where do you draw the line . Folly right. And jacques, rainbow also mentioned the the context of recent contexts in france, and he talked about radical islam and the history of the recent attacks and so forth in france as perhaps a response and a reaction to such laws being enacted. What do you say to that . If the response is to make agreement wear less, that doesnt make sense. How does that address the issue . Folly jacques, how does it address the issue of what you described as radical islam . You were talking about the political context. And you have to take into account the political context. I watch television and i see how the right wing, the far right, the National Front and the hard wing of the republicans have been debating this issue for weeks. You have debates on c news and other channels, and it is a challenge to the governor. And dont forget. Folly is the government then doing all this all this also to appeal to rightwing voters perhaps . The rightwing voters would like it to be banned in the street. Like they wanted to ban the headscarf in the street. They wanted to ban all garments. But in france, its just in the school, and the government is making these principles quite clear. In the street, in university, you wear what you want, but when you are in a school, you have to adopt a certain code of behavior. In some british schools, they have uniforms. So thats why some people even are calling for the need of uniforms. And it is made on the principle of equality of all school pupils. Folly lets allow loubna to respond. There were so many things. I think firstly he never saw an abaya, because its just a long dress, and i dont understand why hes like, yeah you can put it in your bag or whatever. Its just a long dress. I dont know what is the problem. Secondly he kept talking about islamism. Im sorry, but like a ghost that right wing keeps like showing around, etc. There is no another history that france seems to forget and that we should all remember is that from 1935, the french army used as a methodology and one of its techniques and tactics to kill the rebellion, algerian rebellion, what we called invading campaigns. So what they did is, because they wanted to hit the Algerian Society in their context, they would do campaigns where they unveiled the women, and i think that, unfortunately, even if the motifs changed and they dont have the same intention anymore, the same tactics keep living. They keep using the woman, the Muslim Womens body as a battleground. I would like to add, in 2004, when the ban on the headscarf was pronounced, we had countless debates. Since then, theres been no problem with the headscarf. Everyone has come to accept these principles. And i think it will be the same thing. This law will bring a certain peace and will allow teachers to be able to act in the best interest of their pupils. Folly loubna, jacques says theres been no problem at all since the head scarf law was enacted. Thats not true. Because even i, i went to school right and i still remember the humiliation of having to get rid of my hijab each morning before going to school. So i dont think that it was simple. Or that it was easy. It is still to this day hard. I think its interesting that hes talking about 2004 because soon its going to be the 20 years anniversary, rather than creating new rules, maybe the government should think back on the decision he made, maybe he should come back to the law of 1905, the real city law that said that the state is separate from religion and that the public doesnt have to be neutral. It is the state that has to be. Folly loubna makes an interesting point when she says that there are people who say that this concept which was created in 1905 is changing. Where once it was more of a guarantee of freedom, freedom of conscious and religion, where the state didnt get involved, and now the state appears to be getting more involved and telling french citizens the way they should act, the way they should dress, and that france is becoming therefore more homogeneous rather than more diverse. Yes. And in some respects, its almost becoming authoritarian in a way that its controlling behavior, rather than emancipating people. And this amounts to what i would call a false universalism, that the idea is to put everybody on an equal footing, everyone conforming to the french universal citizen, but of course, the french universal citizen is christian, is white, is male. And so its not that everyones being treated the same. Its that everyone is expecting to conform to a single model, which forces some people to stray quite significantly from their own culture, while others expect everyone else to assimilate to theirs. And so, its quite a discriminatory model, and rather than including groups, it creates a sense of rejection and isolation. Folly okay, jacques, are they are there alternative solutions you think that could address the concerns being raised without infringing on individual rights and on Muslim Womens rights . Any alternatives, i mean, i dont know what the people were talking here. But challenging the law of 1905, i think thats out of the question. That is part of our identity along with our culture and our welfare system and our language. Folly but has the culture not evolved since 1905 . I agree theres a lot of discrimination in france or other problems. The universitys model is not perfect for minorities. We can see it as a result of dissatisfaction. There are problems in french society. We try to disguise the fact that there is racism and discrimination in our society. True. Yes. But there are other fields to combat it. Here we are talking about abaya in school. The French School must remain the hotbed, the rock on which the french basic republican principle are based. It is, as i repeat, our church. You dont go into religious establishments like this its the same for French Schools. There are socioeconomic problems which have to be dealt with. I think thats more important. I think making a big meal out of this this law, which i can understand why, is misplaced. The real issue for the young muslim woman and muslim man is the integration into society and the economy. And actually, in spite of what everyone says, integration is taking place. The situation is improving, in spite of, its still not fully satisfactory. Maybe the french model, i know that minorities prefer the english model. They can carry on with the same culture, but france has this tradition of assimilation, which was wrong, but integration with, france has always been a country of immigration. And weve integrated millions of immigrants over the years to work in religion. Folly were almost towards the end of our show here. Loubna, ill give you the last word. Jack says this is really a nonissue and that there are other more important more pressing issues like socioeconomic issues that should be talked about rather than this issue of abayas being banned in classrooms. What do you respond . Hes saying that because hes not affected by it. Its a white male old whos saying, oh, banning the controlling how women address is not a problem. Dress is not a problem. Yes, its not a problem for you, but it is for me. He said that there is racism and there is discrimination. How do you deal with it . Not by adding more. By trying to maybe communicate with the population, make it easier for them, not by adding more and more discrimination. Because this is just a pandoras box. Youre opening it for the dress, he opened it for the hijab, now youre gonna open it for something else. Its never ending. Its always the women body that the government, the french government is trying to dominate, to control. Maybe you should let go. Maybe thats how youre going to find a solution. Folly thank you so much. Well leave it there. Thank you so much. Well leave it there. Thank you for a great conversation. Thank you for your time. And thank you, too, for watching. You can always watch this program again anytime by visiting our website at aljazeera. Com. For further discussion, go to our facebook page, thats facebook. Com ajinsidestory. Of course you can join the conversation on x, formerly known as twitter. Our handle is ajinsidestory. From me, folly bah thibault, and the whole team, thanks for watching. Bye for now. Female announcer when it comes to coronavirus, sweden does it differently. No mandatory lockdowns here. The high Risk Strategy centers on not doing very much at all. The goal, to minimize social and economic damage. Its controversial, but swedens chief epidemiologist says it works. Male i think the swedish approach is at least as scientific as any countrys approach