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.
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?
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.
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.
How would you ban religious architecture only for under-14 year olds?
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.
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 ?
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.
While religion itself is a disaster, this is unambiguously targetting one religion in particular and will not have positive effects.
They wanna increase that to 70%
I thought girls weren’t required by Islam to wear headscarfs until that age anyway?
Some will say they aren’t requires at all other will put it around the age of 3.
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.
Yes
Watch the average Liberal agree with far right parties because they are racist again.
Head scarves laws/rules are not “racist”, please try again.
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.
100% of users called Mulligrubs are racist. That is not a personal attack.
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.
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. No jeans.
If they wish to a be a part of a society or use a business, do it; if they don’t like the rules there, they can always live/do business 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?
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
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.
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.
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!
You sound like an asshole, you know that right?
Maybe you want to expand on how analysing the situation rephrasing from my perspective is being an “asshole”. Because you sure like to name-call instead of attacking an allegedly stupid idea.
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 😉
Every time I see a ban like this, I have to wonder how many families did the math and decided that their girls actually don’t need an education outside the home, or their wife doesn’t need a job or to go grocery shopping herself, and all of them will just have to rely on their male relatives their whole lives to take care of them. Policies that force people to dress outside of their cultural acceptability leads to isolation, not integration.
Should oppressive cultural traditions be tolerated?
Doesn’t that just reinforce that these veils are a form of oppression, if the girls and woman can be banned from leaving the home without them?
Except, in Europe it’s usually mandatory to take your kid to school until a certain age and home schooling is usually not an option.
I have quickly checked and unfortunately Austria does allow homeschooling. So the concern of isolation is sadly not entirely unjustified.
The conditions for that to be allowed are incredibly strict, effectively its not allowed
And guess what? This literally just happened last week in Flanders in Belgium.
Girls were rounded up and publically stripped in front of administrators.
Now they can’t go to school but it is illegal to stay home, but the schools are also completely full so they aren’t allowed to enroll I’m another school that doesn’t publically strip them.
It’s fucked. But of course, all other religions can wear whatever they want as long as they are not brown people.
Wait do you have a source for this? I tried looking for one but can only find something about a Muslim teacher who got fired for wearing a headscarf (also despicable, but a different story I think)
It’s illegal to not send your children to school so the cops can come and pick you up.
These laws encourage communities to establish their own private schools, so that their kids are no longer targeted by this kind of fascist intrusion by the state.
They can’t and if they do there are standards that the state controls.
This is not a fascist intrusion this is ensuring children a half decent chance to have a secular education with science, chance to get a job etc. What are you even on about?
Probably less than the number that decided enforcing an oppressive style of dress wasn’t worth the hassle when faced with minimal societal pressure.
But like, if it’s cold out and I wrap my scarf around my head, is that ok? Why not?
If you’re not Muslim, you can wear what you want.
If you’re wearing hijab to hide alopecia or chemotherapy-induced hair loss, that’s fine, so long as you’re not also brown. Hell, if you’re not Muslim, you can go ahead and wear hijab on a bad hair day.
The ban is for indoors
That’s fine under this law because it directly targets Muslim religious observance.
Why is the head scarf a religious observance? Like what’s the origin and purpose of it? What percentage of Muslims adhere to that particular observance?
Good points you raise there. Therefore further measures are required to prevent said isolating consequences.
The exact wording isn’t clear, but if it really is just Islamic clothing, then it’s a bad law.
If it were more generalized, such as “no one under 14 is allowed to follow religion enforced dress codes, such as…” Which also included dresses, skullcaps, head coverings of all kinds, etc. inside of a school, that would be a lot more reasonable.
But a law targeting one religion, and ignoring others, just reeks of bigotry.
Agreed.
Actually the law you described would suck ass as well.
I’d be for it, religious indoctrination and gas lighting kids is nothing but abuse. i’d raise the age to 18 though.
Ah yes, enlightened lemmy atheist reinvents American Indian Boarding Schools.
Oh wow, you’re so smart and edgy 😮
You support the religious indoctrination of children?
When removing the bigotry makes it a bad law, it’s a bad law.
If you disagree, you should say why you disagree, so that your comment is constructive to the discussion.
It was a destructive comment, a cliche. Feel free to ignore it.
deleted by creator
Writing vagueness into your law just allows for selective enforcement.
Guess what groups would be targeted?
The same ones that are currently being targetted…?
Bingo.
That law would also be terrible not to mention it would be like similar laws like French Laïcité be very discriminatory enforced to target minorities.
Sure. Although I would argue that hijabs are a bit more pronounced in terms of oppressive clothing than, let’s say a simple dress.
Therefore I count this as a win in my book. Leave superstitious habits where they belong: in private, at home.
Then they will wear them at home. And they will never leave the home, because the law prohibits them from leaving home in the garb required of their religion.
You and I can call this clothing oppressive, but in prohibiting her from wearing it, we are also her oppressers.
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!
