Fighting for the ‘Soul of France,’ More Towns Ban a Bathing Suit: The Burkini

I think the article is pretty factual even if there are some opinionated tones, some of which I disagree with (the veiled criticism of the 2004 law in particular).

However I'd like to point out something not mentioned, it's that these bans are not going to hold up on appeal. They're not even well written pieces of law, and what they seek to do is against the French constitution and European law.

What are your thoughts about this ?

"Fighting for the soul of France"? LOL! What? Topless beaches? Come on! Who cares? I hate all religions equally. But wearing more to cover up from the sun is probably the smarter choice.

From your link I liked this comment by the creator of the Hijab swimwear: Zanetti told Le Monde that she would like to ask a question: “Do French mayors and politicians want to ban the burkini, or just Muslims?” D'oh!

Interesting thing to know is that it (the "burkini") originated in Australia and was popularized by their lifeguard agency....
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wor ... e-burkini/

And also there are quite a few women wearing them for non-relgious reasons from, lets just say "body issues" to wanting total sun protection.

While I understand some of the issue, I don't agree with banning or stigmatizing people for wearing one.

Tugg

PacificBeach88 wrote:

"Fighting for the soul of France"? LOL! What? Topless beaches? Come on! Who cares? I hate all religions equally. But wearing more to cover up from the sun is probably the smarter choice.

There is no such thing as a topless beach in France, you can go topless on all of them. And there is no controversy about women feeding their children openly, or nipples on prime time free-to-air TV.

The burkini is not worn to protect from the sun.

Tugger wrote:

Interesting thing to know is that it (the "burkini") originated in Australia and was popularized by their lifeguard agency....
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wor ... e-burkini/

And also there are quite a few women wearing them for non-religious reasons from, lets just say "body issues" to wanting total sun protection.

From your article it's clearly designed for Muslims, invented by a Muslim, to "cover up" her niece. Since then the inventor has gone from not wearing the hijab to wearing it. I don't know if it's intentional from the author, but I find that extremely telling.

What a stupid law. Anyone who supports it can come clean and just say that its too "Muslim" instead of talking about how it protects the secularity of France. Burkinis have little difference from the almost full body swimsuits that women wore in the more conservative 50s-60s, those who of course were allowed to go to the beach or be dressed in any beachwear.

Same goes for headscarves. Look at grandmas in villages or even cities of the very christian Greece and Italy, their heads are fully covered, in black always if the women in question are widowed. Talk about double standards.

Burkas, ninja apparel or anything that fully covers the face is a different story though. Not being able to see the person you interact with is against all social norms in Europe and I have no issue to having those banned. Don't want people to be able to see your face at all, stay at home or go live in another country where that is acceptable.

As they don't seem to cover the face completely I don't see too much of a reason to ban them... But those forms of clothing that entirely hide your face, they should definitely be banned. I feel kind of uncomfortable whenever I see anybody wearing a full niqab or whatever, with just eyes showing. It's just so totally anti-woman, treating women as if they were dirty or mere property of men, and not getting any sunlight to your face is certainly unhealthy too.

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city ... 468505.cms

Indeed wearing a full burka & niqab with face covered is extremely unhealthy, and I don't think wearing a dress with just your face showing all time when you are outside is that healthy either. It's utter madness.

I'm Australian originally and have lived now nearly 14years in France. I don't think this latest spate of local council laws is smart of very useful, but most of you are missing the narrative that is going on behind the story. There is a large and growing muslim population in France and has been for a long time. What has changed in the last 20 years or so is the rise of Salafist and Wahhabist (extreme 7th century-like reform movements of Sunni Islam) indoctrination and influence, driven and heavily funded out of Saudi Arabia, Qatar and other oil rich gulf states. They are building communities new mosques across France and other countries and injecting their flavour of Islam which emphasises that the only people of dignity are muslims who must grow in number, that others are sub-human and must reduce in number until everything is a global caliphate. How the reduction in our number is achieved for these less PC forms of Islam is a matter of pragmatism: when you are a minority, separate yourselves totally and shun them, when you are in near equal numbers, ISIS style (or 7th century traditional Islamic) war; when you are a majority: marginalise and control them with fines and make them live as second class citizens unless they convert. This is just traditional Islamic expansionism, re-presented as a reform of Sunni Islam in our time.

The sudden popularity and adoption of the burkini, mens shaved heads and uncut beards and many other trappings are the outward signs of this inward movement that is implanting itself in recent decades. The challenge for the West and for France is, how do we respond? Where do we push back against a movement that makes no bones about pushing back on us and our civilisation? The question takes some deep reflection, lest we create a Western fascism to meet Islamic fascism... The government at a national level is trying to build an French Islamic Alliance of Imams and government to moderate the radicalisation of mosques and teachings that are openly hostile to the French civilisation. This is a step. There must be many others.
Burkini's may not be the front line, but now you have the backstory.

(BTW - I was on the street on the 13th Nov 2015 when 600 people were shot and 130 of them died (including family members of my team at work). This is not an academic subject to me).

pvjin wrote:

Banning them is the right thing to do, those pieces of clothes are inherently anti-equality as their sole purpose is to cover women while at the same time Muslim men can wear pretty much whatever they want. That kind of sexism doesn't belong to a modern western society, people who think like that will never integrate properly.

I don't have any issue with it as long as it's the woman's free choice. What's the difference between that and a woman sitting on the beach in long trousers and a head scarf (as my Mother often did)?

Jesus just ban Muslim from Europe already and stop all this pissing around

ozglobal wrote:

BTW I was on the street on the 13th Nov 2015 when 600 people were shot and 130 of them died (including family members of my team at work). This is not an academic subject to me.

Not sure what this has to do with the price of rice in a Shanghai market, but whatever.

Here's the deal. If you want to support the social safety net, you need a growth of people. People that the French are not birthing. No new people, no way to pay your retirement benefits. Don't want Muslims? Fine. Ban them. But you will lose your social safety net and become a shrinking country like Japan and Russia. *shrug*

Kiwirob wrote:

Jesus just ban Muslim from Europe already and stop all this pissing around

Well, you and Mrs KiwiRob need to get busy having an additional 2 children then. If not. Sorry. More Muslims for you.

PacificBeach88 wrote:

Kiwirob wrote:

Jesus just ban Muslim from Europe already and stop all this pissing around

Well, you and Mrs KiwiRob need to get busy having an additional 2 children then. If not. Sorry. More Muslims for you.

Sorry, it is not exactly like that. European families choose not to have as many children because it is a financial burden and little assistance comes from the government for native families that need it. Instead of spending millions - billions of Euros for the welcoming, housing, schooling and educating of fresh waves of immigrants, why not use the same funds to make it easier for native families to actually have more children. Having few to no children is not exactly a lifestyle choice as media in Europe portrays it, it is a financial necessity.

PacificBeach88 wrote:

ozglobal wrote:

BTW I was on the street on the 13th Nov 2015 when 600 people were shot and 130 of them died (including family members of my team at work). This is not an academic subject to me.

Not sure what this has to do with the price of rice in a Shanghai market, but whatever.

Here's the deal. If you want to support the social safety net, you need a growth of people. People that the French are not birthing. No new people, no way to pay your retirement benefits. Don't want Muslims? Fine. Ban them. But you will lose your social safety net and become a shrinking country like Japan and Russia. *shrug*

1/ I think I was quite clear that I was explaining the back story to why this somewhat trivial burkini issue is generating a lot of heat. That back story is the real issue. I explained that. I then explained how for most people here, me included, it is not an 'academic' subject, but one we confront and deal with in the back of our minds on a daily basis. Please don't trivialise us like that.

2/ Where did I say we didn't want any muslims? I was very specific in explaining that it was the influence of Salafist and Wahhabist doctrines that we don't want. Please re-read my post.

3/ As for birthrates, it is better to fact-check before being emphatic: France has the highest birth rate in Europe, between 2 and 3 children per couple, as does Ireland, and is the only country with a organically growing population in Western Europe.
http://blog.mapsofworld.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/europe-top-ten-countries-with-highest-birth-rate.jpg

lewis wrote:

What a stupid law. Anyone who supports it can come clean and just say that its too "Muslim" instead of talking about how it protects the secularity of France. Burkinis have little difference from the almost full body swimsuits that women wore in the more conservative 50s-60s, those who of course were allowed to go to the beach or be dressed in any beachwear.

Same goes for headscarves. Look at grandmas in villages or even cities of the very christian Greece and Italy, their heads are fully covered, in black always if the women in question are widowed. Talk about double standards.

Burkas, ninja apparel or anything that fully covers the face is a different story though. Not being able to see the person you interact with is against all social norms in Europe and I have no issue to having those banned. Don't want people to be able to see your face at all, stay at home or go live in another country where that is acceptable.

You really think that's what women wore in the 1950s & 60s? Certainly wasn't the case in NZ when my mum and dad, uncles and aunts grew up, kiwi families have been beach crazy for as long as anyone can remember.

1950's



1960's

Aesma wrote:

The burkini is not worn to protect from the sun.

OK so what is the difference between a full sun protecting swimsuit and a "burkini". A full wetsuit is essentially the same thing.

The name does not make it something different or bad.

As to not for protection from sun then what about this:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/picture ... Beach.html

Aesma wrote:

Tugger wrote:

Interesting thing to know is that it (the "burkini") originated in Australia and was popularized by their lifeguard agency....
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wor ... e-burkini/

And also there are quite a few women wearing them for non-religious reasons from, lets just say "body issues" to wanting total sun protection.

From your article it's clearly designed for Muslims, invented by a Muslim, to "cover up" her niece. Since then the inventor has gone from not wearing the hijab to wearing it. I don't know if it's intentional from the author, but I find that extremely telling.

So who cares? That women may want to cover up completely is up to them really. That something originated in one place to serve one population and then spread to other populations is the story of history. Are you implying that everything that started out "for Muslims" is bad?

In reading about the burkini, while it originated as something for Muslim women apparently about 15% of the sales are for non-religious purposes.

lewis wrote:

Burkas, ninja apparel or anything that fully covers the face is a different story though. Not being able to see the person you interact with is against all social norms in Europe and I have no issue to having those banned. Don't want people to be able to see your face at all, stay at home or go live in another country where that is acceptable.

I tend to agree with this. There needs to be strong push back on "you must cover everything or your are.... (whatever)". Social interaction is the most important aspect of a society, and to force someone to withdraw from interacting for fear of "losing their soul" or punishment, or something else is a major issue and needs to be addressed and opposed in my opinion.

pvjin wrote:

Banning them is the right thing to do, those pieces of clothes are inherently anti-equality as their sole purpose is to cover women while at the same time Muslim men can wear pretty much whatever they want. That kind of sexism doesn't belong to a modern western society, people who think like that will never integrate properly.

I get the "property" thing and concern (though many Muslim women will state it is not the case... just as you state you are not forced to support Putin... ) and that dictating what another adult can wear while you do not have to follow of it for strictly sexist reasons is not appropriate . But is forcing someone to do something YOU want any better? The key thing is the individual needs to be free to make up their own mind of what they want to wear without fear and free of lifetime oppressive policies (though again people will say that happens in all religions and all societies).

The truth is that people need to be free to decide for themselves what they want to wear outside but when that in due to conditioning or fear of consequences that is an issue to me. Just as forcing a women to undress at the beach (not allowing them to "cover up") is also an issue to me.

Tugg

PacificBeach88 wrote:

Kiwirob wrote:

Jesus just ban Muslim from Europe already and stop all this pissing around

Well, you and Mrs KiwiRob need to get busy having an additional 2 children then. If not. Sorry. More Muslims for you.

I've got my three, replacements for the wife and myself and a spare just in case. Btw Norway has the birth rate issue well sorted. I only know one Norwegian family with a single child all the rest have multiple kids.

ozglobal wrote:

3/ As for birthrates, it is better to fact-check before being emphatic: France has the highest birth rate in Europe, between 2 and 3 children per couple, as does Ireland, and is the only country with a organically growing population in Western Europe.
http://blog.mapsofworld.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/europe-top-ten-countries-with-highest-birth-rate.jpg

Not according to this: https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/bon-v ... kes-a-dive

Kiwirob wrote:

I've got my three, replacements for the wife and myself and a spare just in case. Btw Norway has the birth rate issue well sorted. I only know one Norwegian family with a single child all the rest have multiple kids.

Norway has one of the highest birth rates at 1.7 per woman, but still below a steady replacement rate of 2.1, much less high enough to grow the population. Your anecdotal evidence doesn't stack up to the facts. So as I said, you need to get cracking on 2 more kids to make up for all those slackers in Norway. That, or it's immigration. *shrug* Take your pick.

http://www.newsinenglish.no/2015/05/06/ ... o-decline/

PacificBeach88 wrote:

ozglobal wrote:

Here's the deal. If you want to support the social safety net, you need a growth of people. People that the French are not birthing. No new people, no way to pay your retirement benefits. Don't want Muslims? Fine. Ban them. But you will lose your social safety net and become a shrinking country like Japan and Russia. *shrug*

The French have about 2 children per women. How many by immigrants from the maghreb, I don't know as such statistics aren't allowed, but from having a large family, half in France and half in Italy, the French family has more than two children per women on average, the Italian family less than one.

As for paying for our retirement, the problem is that there aren't many jobs in France for people showing their cult/religion like that. I work in a very large company, with people of all origins and walks of life, but long "muslim beards" or headscarves are nowhere to be seen, and will not be accepted anytime soon.

PacificBeach88 wrote:

ozglobal wrote:

3/ As for birthrates, it is better to fact-check before being emphatic: France has the highest birth rate in Europe, between 2 and 3 children per couple, as does Ireland, and is the only country with a organically growing population in Western Europe.
http://blog.mapsofworld.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/europe-top-ten-countries-with-highest-birth-rate.jpg

Not according to this: https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/bon-v ... kes-a-dive

Fair point then, however your article even says, "To be sure, the net increase is still at a comfortable level: by the end of 2015, France had 250,000 more citizens than the previous year..."

The key thing is the individual needs to be free to make up their own mind of what they want to wear without fear and free of lifetime oppressive policies (though again people will say that happens in all religions and all societies).

Yes, and I don't believe for a second that in an average conservative and patriarchal Muslim family woman truly gets to choose whether to wear burkha. No amount of western legislation can truly protect Muslim women from pressure coming from their very own family and relatives, only integration, modernization and westernization of European Muslims can do that.

Well, you and Mrs KiwiRob need to get busy having an additional 2 children then. If not. Sorry. More Muslims for you.

The thing is that due to increasing automation in the future Europe actually needs less people working, not more. The youth unemployment rate is already very bad in many European countries, and in the future it will get only worse. The claim that Europe needs massive migration to fund lives of elders is a plain and pure lie, because there will be no jobs for those migrants or even for the native population.

More migrants mean even more unemployment, more burden on the welfare state and eventual downfall of European societies as we know them today.

ozglobal wrote:

Fair point then, however your article even says, "To be sure, the net increase is still at a comfortable level: by the end of 2015, France had 250,000 more citizens than the previous year..."

And 50,000 of those were immigrants. As the article states: "After having risen noticeably since the year 2000, when it reached 1.89 children per woman of child-bearing age, the upward trend of the total fertility rate capped at 2.03. In 2015, it reached a five-year low at 1.96. This is reasonably good compared with suicidal rates in many European countries, second only to Ireland. But the figure should exceed 2.1 children per women to guarantee a simple replacement of generations, and that has not been the case since 1974."

Once we get over the baby boomer hump birth rate won't be all that important.

Kiwirob wrote:

Once we get over the baby boomer hump birth rate won't be all that important.

That may be very true for Norway. (Not sure.) Plus, Norway has a massive sovereign wealth fund that should help. But the other 95% of Europe doesn't have that same luxury.

Any links to that by chance? Plus, how is New Zealand, your homeland doing in birth rate / immigration? I've visited there, but never had to manage too much of our companies economic output there.

The USA has a similar problem. Had the Baby Boomers not run massive deficits, the USA could have afforded to run $1 trillion deficits as the Boomers died off, but can't now. GenX behind it is much, much, smaller.

Aesma wrote:

As for paying for our retirement, the problem is that there aren't many jobs in France for people showing their cult/religion like that. I work in a very large company, with people of all origins and walks of life, but long "muslim beards" or headscarves are nowhere to be seen, and will not be accepted anytime soon.

And there's your problem, and why you have radicalization of Muslims. You're simply not used to accepting, admitting, and assimilating, other cultures, and hence the derision. The USA has lots of faults but assimilating new cultures, I think we're only 2nd to Canada in normalizing others.

From the Italians, to the Irish, to the Chinese, to the Mexicans, to the soon to be next generation of Somalis, the USA considers most 2nd generation peoples / people born here as "American". Yes, sadly the USA still has a bunch of racist a**holes, but they are dying off quickly from old age and heroin overdoses.

PacificBeach88 wrote:

Aesma wrote:

As for paying for our retirement, the problem is that there aren't many jobs in France for people showing their cult/religion like that. I work in a very large company, with people of all origins and walks of life, but long "muslim beards" or headscarves are nowhere to be seen, and will not be accepted anytime soon.

And there's your problem, and why you have radicalization of Muslims. You're simply not used to accepting, admitting, and assimilating, other cultures, and hence the derision. The USA has lots of faults but assimilating new cultures, I think we're only 2nd to Canada in normalizing others.

From the Italians, to the Irish, to the Chinese, to the Mexicans, to the soon to be next generation of Somalis, the USA considers most 2nd generation peoples / people born here as "American". Yes, sadly the USA still has a bunch of racist a**holes, but they are dying off quickly from old age and heroin overdoses.

Somebody should tell PacificBeach88 to consider these two things as I believe he has me on my ignore list as truth hurts:

1. Muslims make up much, much smaller percentage of US population than they do in France, the UK and so on. So the situation isn't entirely comparable. Integration of non-Muslims has generally been rather easy here in the EU too.

2. Could it be that the US, with lower taxation and not so good welfare system, attracts different kind of people than Europe with very generous welfare system and high taxation? I wouldn't be surprised if an average Muslim migrant in the US had higher level of education and better socioeconomic background when they arrived there than Muslim an average Muslim migrant arriving to Europe.

PacificBeach88 wrote:

Aesma wrote:

As for paying for our retirement, the problem is that there aren't many jobs in France for people showing their cult/religion like that. I work in a very large company, with people of all origins and walks of life, but long "muslim beards" or headscarves are nowhere to be seen, and will not be accepted anytime soon.

And there's your problem, and why you have radicalization of Muslims. You're simply not used to accepting, admitting, and assimilating, other cultures, and hence the derision. The USA has lots of faults but assimilating new cultures, I think we're only 2nd to Canada in normalizing others.

Muslims have been in France for a long time and didn't start with such attire, they had no problem integrating back then.

There is racism in France for sure, but education is free, and anyone with a half decent qualification will eventually find a job. My boss is from Algeria, you'd never know he wasn't born here.

BTW the USA forced the Free French Forces to get rid of all their black troops before entering Paris, because you couldn't have that.

Why all this body shaming of women? If they wear "burquinis" they are bad. If they wear next to nothing, they are bad. Who the eff cares? Let them wear what they feel comfortable in.

seb146 wrote:

Why all this body shaming of women? If they wear "burquinis" they are bad. If they wear next to nothing, they are bad. Who the eff cares? Let them wear what they feel comfortable in.

Do you think these woman have any choice in what they wear anywhere? Yes I will say it Muslim women.

WarRI1 wrote:

Do you think these woman have any choice in what they wear anywhere? Yes I will say it Muslim women.

Quite clearly not. Whereas before they may have had, now they don't. The French state, in its infinite and infallible wisdom, has removed any element of choice. Wear what you want to and you will be arrested and fined.

Poor women. On the one hand we are told that they are forced by men (on the basis of religion) to wear something. On the other we see they are told by men (on the basis of opposition to religion but with the backing of the state) not to wear something. Clearly men are incapable of seeing women as free agents who are perfectly capable of making up their own minds and who are in need of chivalrous protection. How patronising!

Welcome to democracy where you can wear what you like unless the state says that you can't. Where you can say what you like, unless the state says that you can't.

I consistently feel insulted that just because I'm a man I tell women what to do. I especially hate it when other people actually make it look that way.

Poor women. On the one hand we are told that they are forced by men (on the basis of religion) to wear something. On the other we see they are told by men (on the basis of opposition to religion but with the backing of the state) not to wear something. Clearly men are incapable of seeing women as free agents who are perfectly capable of making up their own minds and who are in need of chivalrous protection. How patronising!

The whole problem would be solved if the vast majority of Muslim men in Europe started to treat women as free agents who are perfectly capable of making up their own minds, after which the state wouldn't need to ban burkas and others as wearing them would be truly up to the women themselves.

Again, incompatibility of traditional Islam with western ideas of gender equality is the issue here.

An now, this just in, "Germany to impose partial ban on face veils, officials say..."

http://edition.cnn.com/2016/08/19/europe/germany-veil-ban/index.html


Looks like the phenomenon is not a French one.

Aesma wrote:

What are your thoughts about this ?

A step in the right direction!


Many muslims have no tolerance at all for homosexual people or jewish minorities so why should we give them endless amount of tolerance in return? They chose to come to Europe. So they should then follow the local way of life. If they wanna live under similar conditions as to where they came from, they are free to return back.

ozglobal wrote:

An now, this just in, "Germany to impose partial ban on face veils, officials say..."

http://edition.cnn.com/2016/08/19/europe/germany-veil-ban/index.html


Looks like the phenomenon is not a French one.

Good to see the Germans doing the right thing for once.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world ... 98991.html

Meanwhile conservative Muslims and their apologists complain about the ban some people actually have to fear for their lives in Europe because of the what they choose to wear.

WarRI1 wrote:

seb146 wrote:

Why all this body shaming of women? If they wear "burquinis" they are bad. If they wear next to nothing, they are bad. Who the eff cares? Let them wear what they feel comfortable in.

Do you think these woman have any choice in what they wear anywhere? Yes I will say it Muslim women.

Obviously they do have a choice. They can choose to wear a full burqa or they can choose to wear a burkini. Have you seen pictures of children in France with their mothers? They are not dressed "modestly." These children are seeing nearly naked women (and men in some cases) and their mothers wearing a burkini. Who cares? Why is this even an issue?

AirPacific747 wrote:

Many muslims have no tolerance at all for homosexual people or jewish minorities so why should we give them endless amount of tolerance in return? They chose to come to Europe. So they should then follow the local way of life. If they wanna live under similar conditions as to where they came from, they are free to return back.

This is a different issue.

In Saudi Arabia, gays are not tolerated. In France, they are. That is the difference. We are talking about a country who lets their people, and those who visit, make their own choices and live their own life. As opposed to Saudi Arabia who tell others what to do and how to live when those people enter their country.

And, besides, maybe some women do not feel comfortable showing nearly all their body. Let them wear what they want. It is not hurting anyone.

In Saudi Arabia, gays are not tolerated. In France, they are. That is the difference. We are talking about a country who lets their people, and those who visit, make their own choices and live their own life. As opposed to Saudi Arabia who tell others what to do and how to live when those people enter their country.

I don't think gays are very well tolerated in French Muslim communities. Government enforced law isn't everything you know.

And, besides, maybe some women do not feel comfortable showing nearly all their body. Let them wear what they want. It is not hurting anyone.

Maybe some women are afraid that if they show more of their body they will get beaten or murdered to protect their family's honour. Stuff like that happens regularly among more conservative Muslim communities of Europe.

pvjin wrote:

In Saudi Arabia, gays are not tolerated. In France, they are. That is the difference. We are talking about a country who lets their people, and those who visit, make their own choices and live their own life. As opposed to Saudi Arabia who tell others what to do and how to live when those people enter their country.

I don't think gays are very well tolerated in French Muslim communities. Government enforced law isn't everything you know.

And, besides, maybe some women do not feel comfortable showing nearly all their body. Let them wear what they want. It is not hurting anyone.

Maybe some women are afraid that if they show more of their body they will get beaten or murdered to protect their family's honour. Stuff like that happens regularly among more conservative Muslim communities of Europe.

So they are trying to find a balance between Western ways and keeping their Islamic faith. What is wrong with that?

When the brosband and I (we will not be getting married; a different topic for a different thread) visit my family in ultra conservative eastern Oregon, we are very careful not to sit too close or do anything to make it even more obvious we are gay. I know what *some* people there are capable of. So, we can still be gay and still make others around us less upset.

Apologists for removing the right of women to wear what they choose have done so on the basis of public order following altercations when women appeared on beaches wearing the burkini. Instead of protecting the women from criminal assaults they chose to punish them, passing laws restricting what they can wear, effectively siding with cowardly thugs.

Now that a Jewish man was attacked while wearing a kippah, will we see demands for laws being passed banning the wearing of the kippah in public? After all, his wearing it provoked a violent reaction. It was also an outward display of religiosity, the reason stated by mayors for banning the burkini. To be consistent one must ban the kippah as well.

Please note, I am opposed to any ban on people wearing religious symbols or choosing how they dress in public. I just wish to see if those heroic and secular champions of women will be consistent. Is their concern really for women and/or public affirmation of faith or is it simply an excuse to target a group that they don't like?

pvjin wrote:

Maybe some women are afraid that if they show more of their body they will get beaten or murdered to protect their family's honour.

And your solution is to further isolate them?

If before they were frightened to go out undressed, they are now going to be punished if they go out wearing clothes. How does that help? You are constantly writing about integration and yet here you are supporting laws that may have the effect of further isolating people.

But the reality is that the number women who do choose to wear a full-face covering - and note the burkini does not even cover the face - is minuscule. Who would have thought that those few women could be such a threat to European manhood?

pvjin wrote:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/strasbourg-rabbi-jewish-stabbing-france-latest-attacker-knife-allahu-akbar-terrorism-a7198991.html

Meanwhile conservative Muslims and their apologists complain about the ban some people actually have to fear for their lives in Europe because of the what they choose to wear.

Of course, all this blather about freedom of Muslim women to wear what they want is laughable. The Muslin Women mostly do not have any freedom of choice in many things. All you sympathizers try going to a Muslim country and try to wear or say anything you want. Let me know where to send the flowers. Such bullshit.

WarRI1 wrote:

pvjin wrote:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/strasbourg-rabbi-jewish-stabbing-france-latest-attacker-knife-allahu-akbar-terrorism-a7198991.html

Meanwhile conservative Muslims and their apologists complain about the ban some people actually have to fear for their lives in Europe because of the what they choose to wear.

Of course, all this blather about freedom of Muslim women to wear what they want is laughable. The Muslin Women mostly do not have any freedom of choice in many things. All you sympathizers try going to a Muslim country and try to wear or say anything you want. Let me know where to send the flowers. Such bullshit.

It is a myth that Muslim women have no freedom of choice. In Arab countries perhaps, but the Arab Muslim population isn't exactly representing the majority Muslim community (don't forget, the most populous Muslim nation is Indonesia). There are many countries where Muslims are the majority outside of the Middle East.

Come to Malaysia & I'll show you Muslim women wearing skirts, shorts, tube tops, dresses with plunging necklines, see-through blouses, sleeveless shirts, bikinis among those wearing the hijab. None of them are harassed or have any legal action taken upon them. As a matter of fact, I can give you an example that befits this website: the CEO of Malaysia AirAsia, Aireen Omar. The picture below is her Twitter profile page. And she is a practicing Muslim.

WarRI1 wrote:

Of course, all this blather about freedom of Muslim women to wear what they want is laughable. The Muslin Women mostly do not have any freedom of choice in many things. All you sympathizers try going to a Muslim country and try to wear or say anything you want. Let me know where to send the flowers. Such bullshit.

It all depends on the Muslim country, I go to Azerbaijan and Kazakhstan every year, I've never seen a covered woman in either country, women dress just like any other sloot in Europe or North America. It's those middle eastern Muslim countries which are the problem.

Although the as a male you're not allowed to wear shorts, if you do the local jobs will assume you're gay and beat you up.

The issue really is with the radical and Wahhabi sects/teaching of Islam. It needs to be stopped but sadly in the USA at least wee can't get out of our own way with supporting Saudi Arabia and opposing Iran.

Tugg

WarRI1 wrote:

All you sympathizers try going to a Muslim country and try to wear or say anything you want. Let me know where to send the flowers. Such bullshit.

Depends where you go. You're painting lots of places with a broad brush there - far too much of a generalism.

My wife and I will be in a Muslim country in November. She'll be wearing a bikini on the beach and at the pool. I'll mainly be wearing shorts. We'll both be drinking alcohol and, depending which restaurants we chose, we may eat pork.

Tugger wrote:

Interesting thing to know is that it (the "burkini") originated in Australia and was popularized by their lifeguard agency....
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wor ... e-burkini/

And also there are quite a few women wearing them for non-relgious reasons from, lets just say "body issues" to wanting total sun protection.

While I understand some of the issue, I don't agree with banning or stigmatizing people for wearing one.

Tugg

It is interesting, the more people try to ban these things, the more popular they become for practical reasons that are quite different to the original idea for this garment.

People who don't feel comfortable wearing the traditional swim wear, or those who must remain covered up because of health issues.

So they are trying to find a balance between Western ways and keeping their Islamic faith. What is wrong with that?

I don't think a model where women have to obey their husbands and wear what they want is much of a "balance". What I see are a lot of people from conservative Muslim countries mostly just preserving their own values, keeping to themselves and never integrating properly. In long term this will lead to fragmentation of the society as multiculturalism without integration leads to something I would call voluntary apartheid.

I just wish to see if those heroic and secular champions of women will be consistent. Is their concern really for women and/or public affirmation of faith or is it simply an excuse to target a group that they don't like?

I think it's pretty natural that with all the problems related to Islamic radicalization and terrorism people draw their attention more easily to Islamic dress than Jewish one. I mean, I couldn't care less about what Muslim women wear if I thought burka and such weren't manifestations of the conservative Islam that in general is a problem, unlike Judaism.

And your solution is to further isolate them?

My solution would be following the old "In Rome do as the Romans do". Adapt or get out.

But the reality is that the number women who do choose to wear a full-face covering - and note the burkini does not even cover the face - is minuscule. Who would have thought that those few women could be such a threat to European manhood?

Their clothing itself isn't a threat, but what it represents it. It represents an ideology that is inherently anti-woman, anti-freedom and anti-democracy. Wearing a full niqab is a bit like wearing a sign saying "I hate western way of life and everything it represents".

It is a myth that Muslim women have no freedom of choice. In Arab countries perhaps, but the Arab Muslim population isn't exactly representing the majority Muslim community (don't forget, the most populous Muslim nation is Indonesia).

I've been on holiday in Muslim majority parts of Thailand several times and there things indeed were totally chill, with alcohol being sold everywhere and women wearing bikinis on the beaches. However Arab Muslims, and Muslims from countries heavily influenced by them (like Northern Africa) do unfortunately represent the vast majority of European Muslim community due to geographic reasons. And of course we have Saudis doing their best exporting the hateful Wahhabist ideology to more tolerant parts of the Islamic world by offering education to foreign imams and so on.

People who don't feel comfortable wearing the traditional swim wear, or those who must remain covered up because of health issues.

I think covering up is far more likely to cause health issues than to prevent them, mainly due to vitamin D deficiency mentioned earlier. I don't think physical exercise outside in a burka is very enjoyable either.

seb146 wrote:

This is a different issue.

In Saudi Arabia, gays are not tolerated. In France, they are. That is the difference. We are talking about a country who lets their people, and those who visit, make their own choices and live their own life. As opposed to Saudi Arabia who tell others what to do and how to live when those people enter their country.

And, besides, maybe some women do not feel comfortable showing nearly all their body. Let them wear what they want. It is not hurting anyone.

They should be able to wear what they want, the trouble is that they either have the choice forced upon them by their husbands or brothers or have been brought up that way and don't know better. I think that for too many women this is the case.

TheFlyingDisk wrote:

WarRI1 wrote:
pvjin wrote:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world ... 98991.html

Meanwhile conservative Muslims and their apologists complain about the ban some people actually have to fear for their lives in Europe because of the what they choose to wear.



Of course, all this blather about freedom of Muslim women to wear what they want is laughable. The Muslin Women mostly do not have any freedom of choice in many things. All you sympathizers try going to a Muslim country and try to wear or say anything you want. Let me know where to send the flowers. Such bullshit.


It is a myth that Muslim women have no freedom of choice. In Arab countries perhaps, but the Arab Muslim population isn't exactly representing the majority Muslim community (don't forget, the most populous Muslim nation is Indonesia). There are many countries where Muslims are the majority outside of the Middle East.

Come to Malaysia & I'll show you Muslim women wearing skirts, shorts, tube tops, dresses with plunging necklines, see-through blouses, sleeveless shirts, bikinis among those wearing the hijab. None of them are harassed or have any legal action taken upon them. As a matter of fact, I can give you an example that befits this website: the CEO of Malaysia AirAsia, Aireen Omar. The picture below is her Twitter profile page. And she is a practicing Muslim.

Malaysia has moved away from conservative Islam, a step in the right direction. But unfortunately they and Indonesia are a minority. Neighbours Brunei are atrocious for human rights and inequality, as are the influential and wealthy Gulf states.