Since 1 September, Austria has banned headscarves for female pupils under 14 at state and private schools. Repeated breaches of the rule could lead to fines of €150 to €800 for parents.
Since the start of the 2026/27 school year on 1 September, female pupils in Austria under the age of 14 have been prohibited from wearing any headscarf at school that “covers the head in line with Islamic traditions.”
Teachers’ representatives say the new rule has generally been implemented calmly and respectfully. At the same time, some schools have reported conflicts and, in some cases, aggressive reactions.
The new law was already controversial before it came into force, with critics questioning whether it was compatible with freedom of religion and the principle of equality.
While religion itself is a disaster, this is unambiguously targetting one religion in particular and will not have positive effects.
I don’t think decisions made in this manner have a very simple correct answer. For example, the commandment in Islam for women to cover themselves is intended for after women reach adulthood. But suppose this person has a religion, and this religion requires girls to wear a headscarf from birth. In that case, this situation may be compatible with equality but contrary to freedom. But if persons who are not yet of legal age are under their parents’ responsibility while also being under the state’s responsibility, then in this case will they be subject to two separate legal systems: the rules in state buildings and the rules at home and in public space? In this situation, it is difficult to choose a side.
Just let women decide what the fuck they want to wear. These laws do the opposite of that, and they are fully aware, because it has never been about women’s rights to begin with. It has always been racism.
Read the article. It only applies to under 14 year olds so they are old enough to decide and not forced by they’re patents superstition.
Yeah, I get OP’s point, but here in the Midwest we have our own “headscarf” wearing people, we call them Amish. There ain’t no way in hell those kids wear those tight bonnets in the summer by choice.
I would hope these are more comfortable to wear since they come from hotter climates, but I don’t think asking people to put off forcing religious clothing onto their kids is too much to ask.
It is so much better to be forced what to wear or not wear by the fucking government. Do you hear yourself?
This will only help to marginalize different parts of the society. It is no different to pitting them against each other.
I am not a fan of headscarf on children, the whole philosophy of it is quite sickening to be honest. But I have seen enough to know this won’t help girls become independent individuals who can think for themselves and don’t submit all their life to other men.
What about other traditions? Why single out Islam?
Continued singling out of Islam will lead to Christofascism, as Christianity will seem like an exceptional religion, incapable of anything bad.
Seriously, just blanket ban all religious symbols and references—crosses, yarmulkes, star and crescent, head coverings, etc.—and call it a day. You go to school to learn, not to indoctrinate.
Yes the traditional headdress of Christians should be banned as well.
You’re joking, but an equivalent ban would be on wearing crosses, or removing distinct Christian architectural features like church and cathedral towers/bells.
Not really. The original intention of the head scarf isn’t religious expression like wearing a cross is. It would be more like banning religious dress that forbids any exposed skin beneath the neck besides the hands like some christian cults do. The original reasoning for wearing a cross was to signal to other christians that you were a christian. What is the original reasoning for girls to cover their hair?
If you’re looking at original reasoning for allowing or banning religious practices, you’d have to ban it all because there’s no logic to any of it. This is about religious freedom.
If you are concerned that religious communities are controlling or oppressive, the thing to do is to provide access to education and wealth opportunities, not try to force them to change their behaviors with laws that will only make them more insular and resistant to liberal cultures. Let them be free to practice their religion how they see fit, but also expose them to different ideas so they can actually have a choice.
Religious freedom doesn’t include the freedom to oppress. I’m perfectly fine banning all oppressive religious practices.
Idk have u ever thought Austria isn’t a Muslim country ? Or that islam isn’t on par on human value with other religions. I ask a christian if rape is bad he will agree A Muslim can simply said my religion comme before your law. Still havent saw one Muslim condamn Mohamed cause he raped a 9yo. Won’t even start on his military conquest and his religious law that allow you to out the vainquish in slavery and sexual exploitation. Which happened quite a lot. 60% of french Muslim said their religious law prevail on country law.
The Christian extremists in the White House are much worse, thanks to the aforementioned Christian exceptionalism.
Many Christian fundamentalists might say “Rape is bad”, but then define rape as something done by perverted men in dark back alleys, in masks, everything else is not real rape and the woman deserves it. This conveniently gives them a free pass, but can be used against immigrants.
Muslim fundamentalists are the same. It’s the same fucking religion. The Abrahamic religions are all terrible. Islam deserves the same criticism as Christianity. Yes Muslims shouldn’t be discriminated but that doesn’t mean you have to defend Islam by calling Christianity a worse religion, they both suck.
It isn’t. Islam is the worst and by far. Your statement simply tell anybody that you dont know anything on the subject
They both suck. Fuck all Abrahamists.
Which one tell u to rape and enslave the non believer ?
Its unreal that u try to say the two are equivalent
Dont care didn’t ask. We r talking about Austria, America isn’t the center of the world. Also american christian aren’t european christian. So you can keep your whataboutism
I didn’t know PiS and Fidesz were Obama-liberal Christians…
Looking at your original comment IR seem u gonna be mad for a long time. So let’s do do this quickly
Human value
Christian > islam
Respect of ppl that doesn’t believe in the same faith
Christian > Islam
Not my fault if the pedophile of the desert that invented a religion to justify having a harem and slave wasn’t as altruist as other. Cope
“Obama said «Love thy neighbor» meant «freedom of religion», so that means the NSDAP 2.0 claiming to be Christian is pro freedom of religion, when they say they’ll force Christianity into schools it means they’ll put more freedom of religion there! Obama was a Christian, therefore every Christian is a liberal! If they’re not, then they’re fake Christians! We don’t need secularism, we need Super Obama, who is even more liberal and more Christian (therefore supporting more freedom of religion), I am a very politically literate person!”
Jokes aside I know just as many Christians who interpret the “turn the other cheek” part as a call to nonaggression, as those who think it means the people below them (this line came from the context of slavery) have to immediately surrender the moment they’re attacking them.
How many Muslim do u know that condamn the fact that their prophet was a pedophile? Or that it s litteraly written that u must submit non believer by force. That u can take all they have rape them and put them in slavery?
I’m not arguing Christianity is perfect but fucking hell how can u refute that islam is worse by every metrics ?
Totally support this. This will prevent Muslim parents from forcing their children to wear hijab.
Should just outright ban them to be honest.
They wanna increase that to 70%
If the ban is intended to stop children from feeling pressured to dress in a way that conforms to their family’s religion, why does it only target islam and not extend to other religious garments or accessories (e.g. kippah, turban, crucifix)?
Yup, I agree.
That said, even if it’s only one religion being targeted now, it’s better that some are free from misogynistic religious oppression rather than none, in my view.
Because headscarves are the most oppressive, by far. None of the other things cover you up that much and prohibit you from expressing yourself. Also, how many Christan parents force their kids to wear a crucifix? Barely any, so no debate necessary.
The most oppressive hat. Take a pill.
so no debate necessary.
People only say stuff like this when they have a weak argument that won’t stand up to scrutiny. What about a trans kid with Christian parents, do you think they’re allowed to dress how they want? Do you think they’re also facing oppression even if it isn’t so readily apparent? Other religions also dictate how you’re supposed to dress, how to cut your hair, and how you can express yourself so they should all be included too.
If this rule change isn’t going to affect that many kids because their parents dont force them to wear religious attire, then it should be a no-brainer to include them too since there would be little pushback.
I will add that other groups, like trans women from middle eastern backgrounds for example, do also wear head covering to feel more feminine and in line with their real gender too.
I myself still wear black covid masks because it hides the 5-o’clock shadow and feels more feminine. This would be illegal in Austria under “Prohibition on the Covering of the Face” (originally targeting niqabs)
Overall governments placing rules on what people can and can’t wear is a red flag. The only exception I understand is nazi tattoos.
Nazi tatoo totally understandable. The ideology responsable of 95% of religious terrorism nan bro that s too far. Have u any idea how you sound to real person ?
Muslim majority countries are targeted by Islamic terrorists overwhelmingly more than any.
And ? Religious terrorism is acceptable when it target Muslim? What are u trying to say
Also source for your number since it s totally fabricated and take into account military conflict that aren’t qualify as terrorism yet the number is 70%.
Wait, I haven’t been 16 for a long time, I can read peoples’ post history and block troll accounts now!
I thought girls weren’t required by Islam to wear headscarfs until that age anyway?
This is an assumption, but I guess this depends on exactly what Islam branch is being followed. Some are more extreme than others, so I guess those might force it.
Some will say they aren’t requires at all other will put it around the age of 3.
Yes
The government says the main goal is to protect children’s development and their freedom to develop as individuals, arguing that girls should be protected from potential family or social pressure to wear a headscarf.
If that is really the objective, then make domestic religious coercion liable to incur fines and institute mechanisms for kids to safely report coercion and for protecting and defending the choices of girls. You force your daughter to wear something against her will? She reports it to a safe adult at school and you get a visit from child services. The same mechanisms of course should be in place for protecting kids from bullying, domestic violence, atheist kids, queer and trans kids, kids whose parents are far right extremists, kids who support a different football team than their dads, metalhead kids, etc. Protecting kids is uncontroversial.
Such a great idea. Already in place regarding genital mutilation which is far simpler to rule cause it s de facto illegal and concmsent is impossible at that age and yet this type of precaution does nothing for one simple reason. Theses people are Muslim citizen before being citizen of the place they live. All their social life happen inside Muslim ideology. It s litteraly grooming
Watch the average Liberal agree with far right parties because they are racist again.
Head scarves laws/rules are not “racist”, please try again.
100% of users called Mulligrubs are racist. That is not a personal attack.
Not necessarily, but in practice, almost always. There is no other motivation. They don’t want parents to be able to indoctrinate children into the parent’s own culture and instead want the children to be indoctrinated with their own culture. That’s not just racism, it’s a form of cultural genocide. We know a lot about that here in Canada.
Once again, how about banning the Kippah, and uncut locks? Or would banning Jewish religious symbols suddenly be problematic to you? The state doesn’t get to pick favorites. Public education must be neutral to all faiths, and provide a secular curriculum. That’s the only viable and just path towards a free and fair secular society.
“You can’t wear those clothes here!! This an open and free society! Here in Austria we follow The One True Dresscode.”
You know theres also the solution of just making sure theyre not forced to wear it. The problem is not a fucking piece of clothing but systematic oppression. The west happily does systematic oppression so long as it doesnt look bad. The only difference in other places is that it looks bad from the outside. You shouldnt change the looks of it but what actually happens. And on top of that, if you have a child in a school that is visibly distressed because theyre forced to wear something thats a sign of something not being right. If the government bans it youre removing a sign of abuse. Its like making having bruses illegal in public, youre not solving abuse just making everybodys life randomly a bit worse and hiding the signs of some abuse. Stupid ass law
“You know theres also the solution of just making sure theyre not forced to wear it.” Just honest curiosity, but how? This sounds really difficult in any case, let alone with young children.
I mean our whole social system is based on that. Teachers, doctors, coaches, etc already have the job of being the substitute parents or friends of children so this is just the extension of that existing job. The actual role of school, especially middle and high school, isnt really about shoving a shit ton of bullshit down the throats of kids but to expand their worldview, train their social skills, and yes, notice and report abuse when necessary. Forcing a child to wear a certian religious garment is abuse. But the child participating in it willingly shouldnt be illegal, i think thats ridiculous. I know there are a lot of reddit atheists here on lemmy but the same way any other choice is someones, religion should be too. Of course organized religion used to spread hate is different but as someone who lives in a city in sweden where religion is something that helps organize community rather than something that is used to spread hate, makes me think theres a world where everyone can believe in whataver they believe.
So u live in the country where political figure make Ads in Arabic language for their elections and u think u will have a say on can u remove ilsmaic veil from a child even if the child is strong enough to go against anything he was raise into and claim it was impose against his will ? U delusional.
Your entire block of text there just mostly skips everything. Children are very easily manipulated, and if you’d ask a teacher to figure out if a child is doing something voluntarily, or is being put up to it by an adult… I’m sure they’ll tell you that that is really hard to figure out. And it also raises the question of how voluntary something can be if you hear older family members talking about people without a hijab being terrible people because of that. I’m sure the child will then “voluntarily” wear one…
That’s of course the big issue with religuous upbringing, if you look at it from the outside, it all seems very predatory and problematic…
They are also told that girls and women who “choose” not to wear hijab can go to hell, which they strongly believe in. There are also some cases in many countries of girls being abused or even killed for taking off the hijab despite it theoretically being a choice. So you’re spot on, a child can be easily convinced to voluntarily participate in their own oppression, you just need to paint the alternative in a bad enough light.
If not for religion, banning a scarf would be universally seen as inane.
Update: I somehow misunderstood ‘inane’ as ‘mundane’. So ignore my comment.
IDK… I think banning a regular scarf, without religious meaning is weird. There may be any reasons for wearing them. Cold weather, covering up something that might look bad, or just because it looks cool.Banning shoes indoors or on carpets because of dirt, fine, but otherwise, its like reverse indecency laws…I think that’s the point he’s trying to make
