The state does not oppress muslims, please stop making these ridiculous claims in all your comments.
The law as it stands is that no overly visible religious symbols can be worn in state schools and what has happened is that a minority of muslims have decided to challenge this by sending girls wearing hijabs to school. By law it is fine to wear a discrete cross, star of David, crescent, whatever as a necklace.
There is nothing oppressive or far-right there. It's not the attitude of the French state that has changed but the attitude of a minority towards secular French society.
In France, yes of course. And it's not exactly a new thing. In several colonies, the "indigenous" used to have a special non-citizen status such as "Français Musulman d'Algérie". As part of the colonial enterprise, France ran "unveiling campaigns" for muslim women [0].
Lately, the laws against religious symbols claim all religions are treated equally, but:
- they are advertised as a means to fight against islamic terrorism (apparently a piece of cloth is terrorist propaganda in some people's views), therefore explicitly targeting islam
- as another commenter pointed out, wearing a christian cross around your neck would very rarely if ever get you into trouble; many people in France will defend the idea that it's not the same, because France supposedly has judeo-christian roots [1]
Likewise, the laws against covering your face in public space voted under Sarkozy did not mention islam; however the entire campaign and debate around them was centered on veiled muslim women as islamist propagandist and potential terrorist. If you don't think that's a fair interpretation (???), the burkini case [2] is even more obvious and more widely documented in the english-speaking world.
The ban of young muslim girls from schools started in the 80s with "far-left" (marxist-leninist) teachers whose anti-religious ideas led them to battle for young girls to be kicked out of school. The excellent documentary "Un racisme à peine voilé" [3] from 2004 explains the roots of this topic uniting some parts of the far left and most of the far right, and the logical fallacy behind their reasoning:
- the teachers painted these young girls as victims of islamic indoctrination and male domination, so they need access to secular public education to become free individuals
- because they're refusing to remove their clothing, we'll get kicked them out of school so they don't receive education and remain "victims" of islamic patriarchy [4]
This also raises the question: who does our body belong to? By claiming to prevent muslim patriarchs from controlling women's bodies, we end up giving power to the police to control women's bodies. How is a morality police requiring you get more cloth (such as in Iran) any different from a morality police requiring you remove more cloth (like in France)? In both cases, the patriarchal establishment has empowered an armed force to dictate women's clothing.
In 2005, after the police hunted down two innocent teenagers (Zyed & Bouna, who were coming back home from a football game during ramadan) until they died in an electric power station [5], there were huge riots across France to denounce police brutality and racism. The population was upset because not only did the police generate this situation, but when they saw the young people climb into the power station, instead of calling for electrical/medical help (there were safety procedures available to shut down the station), they called for police reinforcements and made jokes about them dying on the radio with their colleagues; the two youngsters died 10 minutes later. Three days later, just as the riots were cooling down, the police in Clichy-sous-Bois threw a teargas canister inside a local mosque [6], triggering a new wave of outrage and riots.
We could take a long time to discuss the racist doctrines permeating french public life, the emergence of the "great replacement" [7] far-right narrative in public discourse and how it fueled terrorist actions across the globe [8], how public television gave tribune to Eric Zemmour for years to spill his racism over the air (until he defended the idea of deporting muslims from France [9]), how the attacks on Charlie Hebdo and Hyper Cacher fueled a new wave of islamophobic attacks and further entrenched the far-right ("riposte laïque") definition of secularism as absence of religion (not neutrality of State in matters of religion as was the original definition) in public State discourse and proposed laws, etc.
But i'm no historian and i've given you enough to read so let's just take a minute to mention recent developments. The french government has banned (without a decision from a judge) a french human-rights non-profit providing legal council and information of anti-muslim discrimination and hate crimes (CCIF) [10]. The government also closed down (without a decision from a judge) dozens of mosques [11] across France.
We've been here before in history. Please read about the 1930s in Europe and how Jews were treated, and take lessons from the past so we don't end up in a new genocide. In particular, you can see how left-wing anti-clericals were mostly insensitive to the oppression of Jews because it was about "religion not race". History repeats itself. The "Islamophobia in France" [12] page in Wikipedia is very incomplete. I hope we can find time to improve it.
[1] That's arguably true, if we put aside the fact that the catholic church systematically oppressed and eradicated all other cultures and religions for centuries (except for the jews, who apart from specific periods of extermination, were discriminated from most jobs but were not assimilated into christianity).
[4] I personally don't agree with this interpretation that all veiled women are victims of the patriarchy; it defies my experiences exchanging and engaging in political activities with veiled muslim women, many of whom identify with feminist politics
The law as it stands is that no overly visible religious symbols can be worn in state schools and what has happened is that a minority of muslims have decided to challenge this by sending girls wearing hijabs to school. By law it is fine to wear a discrete cross, star of David, crescent, whatever as a necklace.
There is nothing oppressive or far-right there. It's not the attitude of the French state that has changed but the attitude of a minority towards secular French society.