Athletes frustrated as France mulls Muslim headscarf ban in sport
On the outskirts of Paris, 44-year-old French Muslim weightlifter Sylvie Eberena concentrates hard and pushes 80 kilos of bar and weights clean over her veiled head.
The single mother made her four children proud when she became the French national champion in her amateur category last year, after discovering the sport aged 40.
But now the Muslim convert fears she will no longer be able to compete as the French government is pushing for a new law to ban the headscarf in domestic sports competitions.
"It feels like they're trying to limit our freedoms each time a little more," said Eberena, a passionate athlete who trains five days a week.
"It's frustrating because all we want is to do sport."
Under France's secular system, civil servants, teachers, pupils and athletes representing France abroad cannot wear obvious religious symbols, such as a Christian cross, a Jewish kippah, a Sikh turban or a Muslim headscarf, also known as a hijab.
Until now, individual national sports federations could decide whether to allow the hijab in domestic competitions.
But the new legislation aims to forbid the head covering in all professional and amateur competitions countrywide.
Backers say that would unify confusing regulation, boost secularism and fight extremism.
Critics argue it would be just the latest rule discriminating against visibly Muslim women.
- 'Symbol of submission' -
The bill passed in the Senate in February and is soon to go to a vote in the lower house of the French parliament.
Some proponents want to stop what they call "Islamist encroachment" in a country that has been rocked by deadly jihadist attacks in recent years.
But critics point to a 2022 interior ministry report finding that data "failed to show a structural or even significant phenomenon of radicalisation" in sport.
French Olympic judo champion Teddy Riner, a star of the 2024 Paris Games, last month said France was "wasting its time" with such debates and should think about "equality instead of attacking a single and same religion".
Right-wing Interior Minister Bruno Retailleau responded that he "radically disagreed", describing the headscarf as "a symbol of submission".
Eberena, who converted aged 19, said her head attire -- allowed by the weightlifting federation -- had never been an issue among fellow weightlifters.
She said the sport has even allowed her to make friends from completely different backgrounds.
"Sport brings us together: it forces us to get to know each other, to move beyond our prejudices," she said.
- 'Really sad' -
France's football and basketball federations are among those that have banned religious symbols, including the headscarf.
The country's highest administrative court in 2023 upheld the rule in football, arguing the federation was allowed to impose a "neutrality requirement".
United Nations experts last year called the rules in both sports "disproportionate and discriminatory".
It is difficult to estimate how many women might be prevented from competing if such legislation passes.
But AFP spoke to several women whose lives had already been affected by similar rules.
Samia Bouljedri, a French 21-year-old of Algerian origin, said she had been playing football for her club in the village of Moutiers for four years when she decided to cover her hair at the end of high school.
She continued playing with her team, but after her club was fined several weekends in a row for allowing her on the field, they asked her to take off her hijab or quit.
"That they ended my happiness, just like that, over a scarf made me really sad," she said.
France's brand of secularism stems from a 1905 law protecting "freedom of conscience", separating church and state, and ensuring the state's neutrality.
The country's constitution states that France is a secular republic.
Rim-Sarah Alouane, a researcher at University Toulouse Capitole, said the 1905 law, intended "to protect the state against potential abuses from religion", had been "weaponised" against Muslims in recent years.
French secularism "has been transformed into a tool in its modern interpretation to control the visibility of religion within public space, especially, and mostly, targeting Muslims," she said.
- 'Defend secularism' -
Sports Minister Marie Barsacq last month warned against "conflating" the wearing of a headscarf with radicalisation in sport.
But Justice Minister Gerald Darmanin said that if the government did not "defend secularism", it would empower the far right.
In the Oise region north of Paris, Audrey Devaux, 24, said she stopped competing in basketball games after she converted to Islam a few years ago.
Instead, she continued training with her former teammates and began coaching one of the club's adult teams, she said.
But when she goes to weekend games, she is not allowed onto the courtside bench with a headscarf -- so she is forced to yell out instructions from the bleachers.
"At school I learnt that secularism was living together, accepting everyone and letting everybody practice their religion," Devaux said.
"It seems to me they're slightly changing the definition."
ah/sjw/rmb/rjm
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
22 minutes ago
- Yahoo
ICE Refuses to Release Mahmoud Khalil in Violation of Court Order
Immigration and Customs Enforcement said Friday that it would not release green card holder Mahmoud Khalil, after a federal judge ordered him to be released. U.S. District Judge Michael Farbiarz of New Jersey had given the government a deadline of 1:30 p.m. on Friday to appeal his ruling, and in a last-minute filing, the government said that it didn't have to appeal the decision to keep detaining Khalil, a Columbia University graduate and leader of pro-Palestine campus protests The government claimed that the judge 'did not order' them to release Khalil, but said only that they could not detain him based on Secretary of State Marco Rubio's determination that he was a threat to U.S. foreign policy interests because allowing him to remain in the U.S. would create a 'hostile environment for Jewish students in the United States.' The government stated that it was well within its rights to detain Khalil on 'other grounds,' namely his removability as 'an alien inadmissible at the time of entry or admission, to wit.' 'And while the court made a factual finding that it was unlikely that Khalili would be detained on another basis… the court never held that it would be unlawful for Respondents to detain Khalil based on another charge of removability,' the filing stated. Last month, the U.S. government alleged that Khalil purposefully failed to divulge his work as an unpaid intern for the United Nationals Relief and Work Agency and 'withheld his membership of certain organizations' when applying for a visa, which was grounds for his removal. Khalil entered the U.S. on a student visa in 2022, and later applied for permanent residency in 2024. UNWRA is a U.S. aid organization in Gaza that Israel had long-sought to shut down. Israeli officials claimed that 12 of the organization's 32,000 staff members had been complicit in Hamas's deadly incursion into Israeli territory on October 7, 2023. A U.N.' investigation found that nine of them could have been involved. The U.S. government also claimed Khalil had failed to disclose his work with the Syria office in the British embassy in Beirut, as well as his involvement with Columbia University Apartheid Divest, a pro-Palestinian activism group at his school. But none of this would have likely prevented him from receiving his green card, and serve as weak pretext for his removal. Across the country, federal judges have ordered the release of multiple students and faculty detained as part of Donald Trump's crackdown on pro-Palestinian speech. Mahmoud has remained in ICE custody since March, and missed the birth of his child.
The Hill
38 minutes ago
- The Hill
A pro-family tax code is a pro-America tax code
The greatest joy in life is having children. Many in the developed world have drifted from this core value, and the evidence is seen not just in birthrates, but in a culture that no longer celebrates family. However, two decades of public service, the last eight in Congress, and six more as a college professor and youth mentor have made me an optimistic man. I believe young people are returning to what has been the bedrock value of American society for 250 years. Family and child-rearing is a source of meaning, responsibility and our economic future. As Republicans in Congress map out a tax code for the next American century, they should take tender care to ensure providing for children is as generously encouraged and welcomed as possible. With an expanded Child Tax Credit, the House-passed 'Big, Beautiful Bill' is an excellent first step. Now, the Senate must do its part. Many families say they are having one child fewer than they want due to financial pressure, with the average being 0.5 children fewer per couple. Childcare today costs more than in any other period in American history, rising over 200 percent in the last three decades and now outpacing college tuition in most states. Couples raising children usually require more space than those who are not, and so are more affected by the national housing crisis, too. Our culture makes it all worse — we all know couples who don't want to start families if they can't put them in the best daycare, the top schools, the safest neighborhoods, and all those costs are significantly higher than the baseline. 'Making perfect the enemy of the good' used to be a punchline for politics. Now, it's how we live our lives. From costs to social media-induced delirium, the pandemic only made it all worse. Congress can't solve all of this, but the least politicians can do is ease the financial burden of child-rearing, and help those that want kids, have them. In 2017, when I served in Congress during the first administration of President Trump, we doubled the Child Tax Credit to $2,000 as part of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act. We knew that if we were going to reshape the tax code to spur economic growth, we couldn't leave families behind. That expansion helped millions of working families breathe easier while maintaining incentives to work and contribute to the economy. President Trump recognized early that our economic growth is intimately tied to the strength of the American family. Without growing families, we lose the next generation of workers, innovators and taxpayers. Combine President Trump's crackdown on illegal immigration with Congress's inability to reform legal immigration, and our future workforce projections shrink unsustainably. Our need for homegrown population stability becomes even more urgent. Many developing countries today are either near a zero or negative population growth rate. Increasing the population of its citizenry sustains a growing economy. How can a nation survive if it does not encourage the growth of families? How can a nation carry on the cultural traditions which are so crucial to its heritage? Today, that legacy is continued by the chairman of the powerful House Ways and Means Committee, Rep. Jason Smith (R-Mo.). Last year, against pressure from both sides of the aisle, he forged a real bipartisan compromise on the Child Tax Credit — one that rewarded work, supported children and reflected our shared commitment to the next generation. He has captured the spirit of that compelling vision for family policy with the Child Tax Credit expansion in the 'Big, Beautiful Bill,' growing the benefit to $2,500 per child and tethering it to inflation. We need more lawmakers like him — people who put policy before politics and families before partisanship. This is not a welfare giveaway. It's an investment. It pays off in both the short term and the long run. Research has shown that the Child Tax Credit increases labor force participation among lower-income families. That means more people working today, while the children who benefit from stable homes and better nutrition grow into healthier, smarter, more productive adults tomorrow. That's what I call a win-win for America. That's the kind of winning President Trump promised. The Senate will, of course, bring its own considerations to the 'Big Beautiful Bill.' That's how Congress works. But they must preserve or expand Smith's improvements to the Child Tax Credit, the furthest-reaching component of the 2017 tax reforms which touched tens of millions of parents. Republicans cannot leave behind the working class families that have flocked to them, and they must secure and expand this investment in the future of our country. The Child Tax Credit is common-sense policy that meets the moment. Let's build a tax code — and a country — that welcomes the next generation with open arms. Dennis Ross, a Republican, served in Congress from 2011-2019.
Forbes
43 minutes ago
- Forbes
How House And Senate Education Proposals Could Reshape Higher Education
Graduation mortar board cap on one hundred dollar bills concept for the cost of a college and ... More university education As Congress navigates the complex terrain of budget reconciliation, education policy has emerged as a major battleground between competing visions for America's higher education system. The House and Senate are advancing dramatically different approaches to federal education funding, with proposals that could fundamentally alter how millions of students access and pay for college. The House reconciliation bill targets higher education with what critics describe as unprecedented cuts, while the Senate is crafting its version that takes a different approach to similar goals. Both chambers face mounting pressure to address rising college costs and student debt, but their proposed solutions diverge sharply on fundamental questions about the federal government's role in education funding. The most significant differences between the House and Senate proposals center on Pell Grant eligibility, the cornerstone of federal student aid that serves nearly 7 million low-income students annually. The House version seeks to expand Pell Grant eligibility for short-term programs, a bipartisan initiative that would allow students to use federal aid for career training programs lasting as little as eight weeks. This expansion could benefit hundreds of thousands of students pursuing high-demand skills in healthcare, technology, and skilled trades. However, the House proposal also includes restrictions based on immigration status that would eliminate aid for specific student populations. The Senate takes a more restrictive approach to existing eligibility. Senate Republicans propose cutting off Pell Grant access for students who receive scholarships covering their full cost of attendance, including tuition, fees, living expenses, and course materials. This provision would primarily affect high-achieving students from low-income families who combine merit aid with need-based grants, potentially forcing them to choose between scholarship opportunities and federal aid eligibility. The impact of these competing approaches would be profound. The House expansion could democratize access to career training, potentially addressing workforce shortages in critical industries. However, the Senate's scholarship restriction could create perverse incentives, discouraging institutions from offering comprehensive aid packages to their neediest students. Both chambers propose significant changes to federal student lending but through different mechanisms. The House bill includes provisions for "risk-sharing" arrangements that would require colleges to assume financial responsibility for a portion of their students' loan defaults. This policy aims to incentivize institutions to improve outcomes and control costs by making them stakeholders in their graduates' financial success. The House approach represents a market-based solution that could drive down costs and improve program quality. Institutions would have strong incentives to ensure their programs lead to employment outcomes that enable loan repayment. However, critics argue this could push colleges to avoid serving higher-risk student populations or eliminate programs in fields with lower earning potential but high social value. Senate proposals focus more on tightening eligibility requirements and modifying repayment terms, though specific details remain under development as the chamber works toward its July 4 deadline for passage. The most controversial element of the House proposal involves new taxes on college and university endowments. The bill would expand existing endowment taxes and impose additional levies on institutions with substantial financial reserves. Supporters argue this addresses the disconnect between institutional wealth and student affordability, forcing well-endowed colleges to contribute more to the broader education system. The endowment tax provisions could generate significant revenue while pressuring wealthy institutions to increase student aid or reduce tuition. However, universities warn that such taxes could reduce their capacity for long-term investment in research, facilities, and student support services that benefit the broader academic mission. Small colleges, including Swarthmore, Pomona, and Grinnell, have banded together to oppose the tax because half or more of their operating income comes from the endowment revenue, and the tax would decimate their financial aid budgets. The Senate has not adopted endowment taxation to the same extent, instead focusing on spending reductions and eligibility restrictions to achieve fiscal goals. The House reconciliation bill extends beyond traditional education policy to affect healthcare access for students. Provisions related to Medicaid and other health programs could significantly impact the millions of college students who rely on these services. The bill's approach to social safety net programs would create additional barriers for students from low-income families who depend on multiple forms of federal assistance. This broader impact illustrates how education policy intersects with other aspects of social policy, making the stakes of reconciliation higher than traditional education legislation. The House takes Title I, II, III, and IV funds into state block grants based on the total student population (excluding the disabled and low-income populations) and allows students to use these funds for private schools. The Senate bill strengthens formulas to target the highest-poverty districts and schools better. The Senate bill generally rejects significant Title I portability beyond district public and charter options. The House bill eliminates federal mandates for state accountability systems (testing frequency, interventions). It proposes that states design their systems (standards, tests, improvement) with minimal federal approval. It maintains basic federal reporting (graduation, disaggregated data). The Senate bill takes the opposite approach, requiring a robust federal accountability system, annual testing in core grades, identification of low-performing schools, evidence-based interventions, public and transparent data, and disaggregated data. The federal requirements for teacher preparation and accountability would be transferred to the states under the House bill, with states setting their standards for certification, evaluation, and professional development. The Senate bill would maintain the federal role and would provide funds for evidence-based professional development in high-need districts. It also has provisions to require states to demonstrate that students have access to experienced and effective teachers. Charter school funding is increased in the House bill, as is access to vouchers to attend private schools. The Senate bill places restrictions on the use of vouchers or Educational Savings Accounts to fund private school tuition and places increasing accountability measures on these funds. The House bill similarly adds early childhood funds to state block grants. In contrast, the Senate bill provides significant new federal funding for universal, high-quality Pre-K programs with state quality standards. It may also expand childcare subsidies and improve quality. Evaluating these competing visions requires considering both immediate impacts and long-term consequences for educational access and quality. The House expansion of Pell Grants for short-term programs addresses a genuine need in the modern economy, where many high-paying careers require specialized training rather than traditional four-year degrees. This provision could significantly improve economic mobility for working-class Americans seeking career advancement through skills training. However, the House bill's overall approach prioritizes fiscal savings over educational access. The combination of aid restrictions, endowment taxes, and risk-sharing requirements could create a more constrained higher education environment where institutions focus primarily on financial metrics rather than educational missions. The Senate's more targeted approach to eligibility restrictions may preserve broader access while addressing specific concerns about the efficiency of aid. However, the scholarship restriction provision could undermine the very merit-aid programs that many institutions use to attract and retain talented students from diverse backgrounds. Both proposals face significant implementation challenges and political obstacles. The House bill's passage required narrow party-line votes, and similar dynamics are likely in the Senate. The fundamental tension between controlling costs and maintaining access will ultimately require compromise that neither chamber's current approach fully addresses. The most promising elements from both proposals involve targeted expansions of aid for career training and workforce development programs that directly address economic needs. However, the broader restructuring of federal education funding requires more careful consideration of unintended consequences. Effective education reform should expand opportunity while maintaining quality and access. The current reconciliation process, driven primarily by fiscal rather than educational considerations, may not provide the optimal framework for achieving these goals. A more comprehensive reauthorization of higher education policy, developed through bipartisan collaboration, would better serve both students and institutions. As both chambers work toward final passage, the ultimate measure of success should be whether these proposals genuinely improve educational outcomes and economic opportunity for American students rather than simply achieving short-term budgetary targets.
