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.

  • Tango@piefed.caOP
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    12 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
      ·
      11 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
          ·
          2 hours 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
            ·
            2 hours 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
        ·
        9 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
          ·
          9 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.