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.
Totally support this. This will prevent Muslim parents from forcing their children to wear hijab.
Should just outright ban them to be honest.
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.
It is so much better to be forced what to wear or not wear by the fucking government. Do you hear yourself?
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.
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.
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.
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 ?
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
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.
I’ve been to a few countries, and every one of them have had public dress codes for many decades.
And businesses have their own rules in addition. No masks here. Masks there. No sunglasses. No nudity. Nude beach. No shirt, no shoes, no service. No thongs. Suit jacket required. Collar shirt required. No offensive t-shirts.
If they wish to a be a part of a society, do it; if they don’t like the rules there, they can always live somewhere where they find the dress codes appropriate.
If you know of a country with no legal dress codes, please share where that is.
I know a couple countries that tried to change legal dress codes which clearly targeted minorities. It did not end well.
Also
And businesses have their own rules in addition. No masks here. Masks there. No sunglasses. No nudity. Nude beach. No shirt, no shoes, no service. No thongs. Suit jacket required. Collar shirt required. No offensive t-shirts. No jeans.
What kind of a sentence is this are you a chatbot?
So can we ban the Kippah? Is that cool? Or is banning that particular religious symbol offensive to you? Either people have a right to religious expression or they don’t. We don’t get to pick and choose favorites.
And for that matter, I can tell you of at least one country that does not ban religious garb in schools: America. For all our faults, we still have a freedom of religion.
If dress codes are hunky dory then why is it necessary to ban this one?
They ignore other society dress codes citing “religious freedom” as a reason. Essentially becoming a shadow society, wrt this comment thread.
In other words: no social contract for those that ignore the social contract
You sound like an asshole, you know that right?
Dress Codes in general are stupid in most cases. And this law is specifically discriminating against ONE religion, which is why I think it will be ruled unconstitutional by the constitutional court
But there was no society dress code banning this dress code until now. They were following the rules. So why did the rules need to be changed?
Many society dress code rules are not codified. There is no law requiring people to not wear hats in professional settings, or inside places, but people naturally don’t, because it’s polite. Wearing a headscarf in a semi professional setting for a white christian in a semi-professional setting would maybe also be seen as impolite, as you’re obscuring who you are. Professional/casual dress code is also sometimes fairly fluid, so doesn’t help the conversation.
However, in this case, again, they ignore all these society rules citing religious freedom. Hence, no social contract for those who ignore it. Codification of rules always follows egregious disrespect to social norms and/or misunderstandings.
And, most likely, they are getting fed up with the shadow society that is getting built by immigrants. It is completely allowed to be fed up by that as a society (the country can do whatever rules it wants for its inhabitants, especially democratically agreed to by the general population). You are welcome to move around, but ignoring customs will not make you friends. Just as if a white christian went into a mosque in the middle east wearing shorts and no headscarf. Although probably jail time would follow there.
You keep talking about how headscarves are disrespectful, but frankly I don’t see how. Disrespectful to Austrian culture?
Generally this is a whataboutism argument.
For one: no Austrian elderly dress like that, most likely for 50< years. Times have changed. And no, most likely that is not appropriate attire in a professional or semi-professional setting.
Secondly, it’s not like the reason headscarves are being used here is to be respectful of Austrian customs and culture. Mostly exact opposite: ignoring common local customs, and being themselves.
For one: no Austrian elderly dress like that, most likely for 50< years. Times have changed.
It’s not a crime to be unfashionable.
And no, most likely that is not appropriate attire in a professional or semi-professional setting.
It’s not a crime to have a face tattoo.
Secondly, it’s not like the reason headscarves are being used here is to be respectful of Austrian customs and culture. Mostly exact opposite: ignoring common local customs, and being themselves.
The horror!
Codification of rules always follows egregious disrespect to social norms and/or misunderstandings.
Yeah, all rules are 100% put in place with good intentions. Like the rules that prevented people from harboring runaway slaves. Such egregious disrespect! Or was that an “oopsy, just a misunderstanding” rule?
Sorry, not trying to come off aggressive, but it’s a naïve take to assume all rules are put in place with good faith. It’s also naïve to assume that “social norms” are all appropriate, and should never be challenged. History shows that isn’t the case, and it’s worth it to look around at our own societies and rules with a skeptical lens.
Okay, you’re right. I was indeed writing under the assumption of good faith.
Challenging social norms is fine. What’s not fine is applying a minority social norm on the majority, and trying to be protected by the government (that should represent the people), while antagonizing the same majority you want to accept you.
I love opening these posts to see a wave of garbage europeans who would turn around and claim they have best free speech and nonsecularist nations in the world.
For all of America’s insane faults, it is ironic that the first amendment is still something a majority of the EU has failed to match, and is often surpassed by plenty more third world countries and actual warzones.
These same people were defending France’s pool swimwear law banning full cover swimwear and water proof headscarves.
Free speech means you are free to debate about decisions, and has nothing to do with the freedom to believe in whatever pleases you.
And speaking of freedom of worship, there are many ways to implement it, from the US where you can do anything in the open - including blatant proselytism - to France where on the contrary, you don’t have the right to do anything religious in the public space - arguably not ideal either.
So, because no law is perfect and you are free to express yourself on the subject, you are free to tell us garbage Europeans how you think it should be done 😉
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
They wanna increase that to 70%
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.
Obviously in terms of freedom of religion, no child should be part of religious institutions.
However in terms of public safety there are much easier ways to hide the child your kidnapping.
“You can’t wear those clothes here!! This an open and free society! Here in Austria we follow The One True Dresscode.”
As a non Muslim who was born and lived in a Muslim majority country, I 100% agree with this ban. Children shouldn’t be forced or indoctrinated into that oppressive way of life. When they grow up, they can wear it if they want.
There are millions, possibly hundreds of millions of women and girls around the world that are forced to wear that (or even more extreme versions of it) against their will. Just because we have some anecdotes of women wanting to wear it (after being brainwashed their whole lives with it) doesn’t mean that banning it would infringe on anyone’s rights.
Believe me there are entire countries where if you as a woman went there you would be forced to cover up 😢.
Then again should we be policing how women dress in an open and free society? Because, you know, that’s what Muslim countries do, so maybe if you don’t like Muslims then don’t emulate them?
Or are you in favor of this sort of let’s call it Cultural Marxism, where the state dictates couture? Coutoural Marxism, as it were.
That s paradoxe of tolerance. Why should we tolerate a tradition that isn’t even considered a religious practice by the majority of Muslim that directly put women under man in every way concevable at the first glance. Have you ever thought why it s only women who had te put it ? It s because they are dirty and could be tentation for other men. Like litteraly the argument of saying what where you wearing at a women that report an agression or worse. Also litteraly what a terrorist who make the attack on “promenade des anglais” said in tribunal regarding the fact he killed other Muslim. Only time in the trial he show any emotion. We dont have to tolerate the intolerable
Denying girls basic education is surely the best way to encourage them to be independent and think for themselves. Because that is what will happen, people won’t relocate, they will just try not to send their girls to school or try to find other ways around it.
Why not instead make sure these people get courses on basic sociology, philosophy, international culture and humanities so that when they are of age they are in a better place to think for themselves and refuse this culture if they find it abusive?
Who deny girl basic education ? The gouvernement that want every pre 14 child to be on the same lvl or islamist capture parent that want to force their belief on their children ? Nice inversion
Your whole next paragraphe is just a profound naive view of humanity. Why can t we just be all friend ? Kinda same level. But to be short, cause it doesn’t work. If it work that issue would have never arrived in the first place right ? Also they can refuse the culture if they find it abusive… U have no idea how family is far stronger powerful societal cercle on individual than any other. The opportunity to refuse isn’t something than most can obtain.
The goverment that knows that if you pass a law like this, there will be parents who will first try to cut their kids from education rather than to try comply with it. Worse the kids will grow up to think that the state is their enemy not their ally. It has been like this in every country that had tried this approach. You have no idea how dynamics work with in these families. Like most children, when small, they look up to their parents and they want to emulate their style, culture behaviour. It may be their dad/mother that are telling them to cover their head, but at that age they don’t resent this. So they don’t view a state banning them this right as the saviour, they see it as opression and they shy away from education. That is why the correct approach to this through education not laws.
For the second part, there have been countries that tried this route in the past. It cost them decades of internal conflict that is still going on today. It is naive to think that banning something will magically fix problems associated to it. No, it will make it worse, it will marginalize and isolate those kids from the society. They will grow up resenting the state and cling even harder to their cultural norms.
Have u any source regarding what u advance? Causrnin my research on how Muslim country fight extremism they dont employ only one type of solution. It s a pix of solution where u always find one wich is kinda everything they can. But mostly they enforce the study of their version of islam. Which they can cause they it s culturally implemented in their country from a long time.
So do u prefer the state enforce law on believer or on the religion itself ?
Also it s part of the Islamic brotherhood propaganda that in any circonstance Muslim are persecuted for any and all reason. And it s always give hand got the arm eaten. So no we dont have to be tolerant toward thoses.
Societal isolation of extremism is a good strategy and it will give result in the long run.
But yeah alone this decision won’t fix all issue. But I dont see how a liberal western society can rule what islam is practice. But yeah going to mosque, religious gathering and event having a 0 tolerance policy toward extremism is also necessary.
Tldr the veil ban alone isn’t enough. It isn’t a perfect policy like most are but its definetly better than doing nothing.
I like how you first downvote and then ask for references. Shouldn’t it go the other way, ask for references and downvote if not provided? I really don’t think you are here for the discussion aspect but anyway in case someone wonders to this corner of the topic here is a useful summary:
For effect of headscarf/religious symbols ban on various aspects of life from work to education, you can look at couple of prototypical examples: Turkey (education, public service), France,Belgium,Netherlands (education), Canada (public service). I don’t know all of them to the same depth but know that they have been the topic of numerous studies related to this. Some that I can refer to:
A general article but focusing on the law in France:
We find that the law reduces the secondary educational attainment of Muslim girls and affects their trajectory in the labor market and family composition in the long run. We provide evidence that the ban operates through increased perceptions of discrimination and that it strengthens both national and religious identities.
Per the findings in the report, Muslim women are experiencing heightened levels of stress and discriminatory treatment from colleagues due to the legislation, in ways that leave many facing a difficult decision between their religious beliefs and their professional careers.
Germany This is not religion based, it is language based (right wing government also love language banning as an assimilation technique, so it relates to the topic)
Do forced assimilation policies always succeed in integrating immigrant groups? This article examines how a specific assimilation policy—language restrictions in elementary school—affects integration and identification with the host country later in life. After World War I, several U.S. states barred the German language from their schools. Affected individuals were less likely to volunteer in World War II and more likely to marry within their ethnic group and to choose decidedly German names for their offspring. Rather than facilitating the assimilation of immigrant children, the policy instigated a backlash, heightening the sense of cultural identity among the minority.
Turkey This is a page from hrw presenting multiple links. It is too long to give a summary, but the headline is discriminatory effects of head scarf ban on societal level. And in Turkey, headscarf ban has never erased that identity. It in fact strengthened it and was likely a contributing factor in AKP’s (the current religious oppressive goverment of Turkey) rise to power (this is my interpretation, not written here).
Societal isolation of extremism is a good strategy and it will give result in the long run.
These bans are coming from a place of extremism. So even if one were to assume they were banning extremism in all cases (and they are not always banning extremism in all cases), you are trading individual level extremism with state sponsored extremism. Ofcourse if you have right wing tendencies you won’t view this as extremism the same way someone who wants their four year old daughter to view a headscarf won’t view that as extremism. However state sponsored extremism is often much more dangerous. But it is funny that for all this talk about assimilation, right wing even really fails at this because all their techniques of assimilation end up strengthening the identities they want to suppress. Guess why? Because they don’t actually want these people to be invisible. They want them to be more visible then before, but they want this in a way which creates societal tension so that they can leverage this tension. It is the right wing government supporters who think these policies propagate their national identity and world-view to their country where as it is quite literally doing the opposite. Even more funny is that in countries where religious parties and right wing parties co-exist, both of the groups actually benefit from this polarization. I can only laugh at how nicely they are being deceived in this regard. And in effect a state which bans religious symbols from schools is the same as one that forces it.
Tldr the veil ban alone isn’t enough
You got this wrong, veil ban isn’t just not enough. It does not achieve any of the intended effects, It is just a tool to the right-wing politics for driving a wedge between communities. A state deciding what people should do with their religious identities is there only for one reason, create political tension in a country and then use that tension as potential to strengthen their grip.
Have u any source regarding what u advance?
Ok your turn, do you have references for any of the things you advance?
Ideally we shouldn’t, but practically we must, only to prevent religious oppression and abuse, and the spread of such things.
Oh calm down. You’re preventing the wearing of hats. Because you don’t like the culture it represents. Try and dress it up more than that and you just look foolish.
why would we call that cultural marxism?
