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.

  • Mulligrubs@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    7
    arrow-down
    17
    ·
    edit-2
    13 hours ago

    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.

    • Avicenna@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      11
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      9 hours ago

      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?

    • Zombie-Mantis@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      10 hours ago

      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.

    • Tango@piefed.caOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      11 hours ago

      If dress codes are hunky dory then why is it necessary to ban this one?

      • Eximius@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        7
        ·
        edit-2
        10 hours ago

        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

          • Eximius@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 hour ago

            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.

        • Daywim@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          9 hours ago

          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

        • Tango@piefed.caOP
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          10 hours ago

          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?

          • Eximius@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            5
            ·
            edit-2
            10 hours ago

            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.

              • Eximius@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                1 hour ago

                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.

                • Tango@piefed.caOP
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  28 minutes ago

                  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!

            • Whats_your_reasoning@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              4
              ·
              8 hours ago

              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.

              • Eximius@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                8 hours ago

                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.