Kiwirob wrote:

TheFlyingDisk wrote:

I too agree that face covering veils should be discouraged.The hijab is necessary, but a burqa or a niqab is not - this is strictly a cultural aspect of clothing limited to the Middle East, where the niqab logically serves a purpose, covering their faces in the event of a haboob/dust storm event.

What make the hijab necessary in Europe? I've yet to see a dust storm in Norway and they don't keep the rain off.

The hijab is the veil covering the hair & neck. This is necessary everywhere because for Muslim women dressing modestly meaning covering themselves from head to toe with the exception of the FACE & the palm of their hands. It's the niqab - the veil covering just the bottom part of the face, that's unnecessary. HOWEVER, this doesn't mean that they can't wear Western fashions like jeans, shirts & skirts - just no plunging necklines, body-hugging clothes or short skirts.

As for the picture - you can't see it? It's coming out OK on my screen.

No it's not necessary everywhere, just like not all jewish women dress like that either, despite fundamentalists doing it.

Aesma wrote:

No it's not necessary everywhere, just like not all jewish women dress like that either, despite fundamentalists doing it.

Well, technically you're right - it's not necessary at home with your family. But as a Muslim it is necessary for a woman to wear a hijab if they want to mingle with non-family members i.e. going out for a Sunday stroll to maintain modesty. Granted there are plenty of Muslim women who don't wear the hijab (I know many who do so), but the requirements as a Muslim is as such.

Now, Westerners need to learn the difference between a hijab, a niqab & a burqa:

She's wearing a hijab



They are wearing a niqab



And this woman is wearing a burqa



I find it very difficult that people are objecting to wearing the hijab which actually only covers the hair & neck and does not preclude the person wearing it from also wearing stylish clothing.

To be honest, FlyingDisk, I doubt whether a great many westerners actually care about the difference.

Despite the old motto, "Vive la difference!" the mayors of these towns, Sarkozy (possibly for electoral gain as he will need to regain votes from Le Pen) and many in this forum are actually opposed to difference. They abhor the notion of diversity. They demand uniformity and conformity. Women wearing a burkini threatens that comfortable mediocrity in which they feel secure.

I assume a nun wearing her habit will no longer be allowed to take a stroll along the beach?

scbriml wrote:

I assume a nun wearing her habit will no longer be allowed to take a stroll along the beach?

She may have to give up her habit of strolling altogether or do it in the altogether.

Only some interpretations of Islam mandate the hijab. Cue what happened in Iran with the revolution.

In a few hours at most we'll get an answer from the Conseil d'Etat on one of the mayors' ban.

As for defining what would be banned in a law, nobody has proposed even a hint of something workable. Banning the covering of the face was straightforward in comparison, and was already a long, complicated, drawn out process. Even if we only talk about the piece of clothing burkini, it seems if would be fine to wear in the street, so how can you ban something only on the beach ? The reverse is done though, bikinis and nude torsos are routinely banned from beach towns' streets.

And so the ban is found to have "seriously and clearly illegally breached fundamental freedoms to come and go, freedom of beliefs and individual freedom"

Liberté still means something to some French citizens.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-37198479

From purely practical standpoint: How can one swim in this piece of garment? So much weight and drag...
Drying time must be horrible too.

TheFlyingDisk wrote:

And so the ban is found to have "seriously and clearly illegally breached fundamental freedoms to come and go, freedom of beliefs and individual freedom"

Liberté still means something to some French citizens.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-37198479

Doesn't surprise me in the slightest, I'm really not sure how the court could have come to any other conclusion. While the ban is currently only suspended, I expect the court to eventually rule the ban illegal.

I had to laugh at the mangled BBC title : France burkini highest court suspends ban

TheFlyingDisk wrote:

The hijab is the veil covering the hair & neck. This is necessary everywhere because for Muslim women dressing modestly meaning covering themselves from head to toe with the exception of the FACE & the palm of their hands. It's the niqab - the veil covering just the bottom part of the face, that's unnecessary. HOWEVER, this doesn't mean that they can't wear Western fashions like jeans, shirts & skirts - just no plunging necklines, body-hugging clothes or short skirts.

As for the picture - you can't see it? It's coming out OK on my screen.

Who tells them it's necessary? There fathers, there husbands? My guess is it backwards controlling men who are telling them it's necessary.

There's a lot of Muslim women living in non Muslim countries or even Muslim countries who don't wear any of that garbage, if you go to any of the former soviet republics which are Muslim tight clothing, plunging necklines and short skirts are the norm. I've never seen woman in Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan or Turkmenistan in a headscarf let alone a full body job.

Kiwirob wrote:

TheFlyingDisk wrote:

The hijab is the veil covering the hair & neck. This is necessary everywhere because for Muslim women dressing modestly meaning covering themselves from head to toe with the exception of the FACE & the palm of their hands. It's the niqab - the veil covering just the bottom part of the face, that's unnecessary. HOWEVER, this doesn't mean that they can't wear Western fashions like jeans, shirts & skirts - just no plunging necklines, body-hugging clothes or short skirts.

As for the picture - you can't see it? It's coming out OK on my screen.

Who tells them it's necessary? There fathers, there husbands? My guess is it backwards controlling men who are telling them it's necessary.

There's a lot of Muslim women living in non Muslim countries or even Muslim countries who don't wear any of that garbage, if you go to any of the former soviet republics which are Muslim tight clothing, plunging necklines and short skirts are the norm. I've never seen woman in Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan or Turkmenistan in a headscarf let alone a full body job.

It's an edict from God, not from men.

Believe me, there are many Muslim women who chose to wear hijab.

And God told who? As most intelligent people know God does not exist, so again it's just men telling women what they should and should not do.

It's an edict from God, not from men.

Believe me, there are many Muslim women who chose to wear hijab.

Yesterday when I listened to the Soviet anthem while drinking vodka the ghost of Stalin spoke to me. He told me that he has risen into heavens to be the new God as the Abrahamic God reached retirement age, and that every man and woman shall wear a fur what with a hammer and sickle symbol on it whenever they go outside, and drink at least three shots of Russian vodka a day.

Those who refuse to comply go to hell.

Repent before you die, because after that it's too late as uncle Stalin is not merciful.

Kiwirob wrote:

And God told who? As most intelligent people know God does not exist, so again it's just men telling women what they should and should not do.

That's your problem. Fact is Muslims believe in a higher deity and that deity have set standards to live on.

You're nobody to judge Muslims just as I'm nobody to judge atheists such as yourself.

Scrolling through the last few replies on this, I decided to take to Google to look up which Christian sects have women wearing head coverings.

http://peacethought.com/hijab.htm

1st Corinthians 11:3-10

Kiwirob wrote:

Who tells them it's necessary? There fathers, there husbands? My guess is it backwards controlling men who are telling them it's necessary.

You might be surprised. It is quite common for girls to be brought up into what is regarded as modest behaviour not by their fathers and uncles but by their mothers, aunts or older sisters. That isn't to say that there aren't any Muslim men who are tyrants, just as there are plenty of men in the West who are responsible for domestic violence towards women and children. You might also be surprised to learn that women make up more than 70% of the student body at the public universities in the UAE.

The guidance given by women does not just exist in the private sphere in the home. In the UAE, for example, there is an iftaa that is completely composed of women. The women are highly educated and are able to issue guidance and fatwas on all sorts of moral, ethical and legal issues. They even have a dial-a-fatwa hotline run from the office of Awqaf in Abu Dhabi. Now whether or not people choose to believe that Islam is just so much BS as pvjin put it, this does challenge the notion that women under Islam are all passive victims.

*sigh* I was forced growing up to be a Jehovah's Witness. The more you try to force these people into your acceptable mold, the more they believe they are being persecuted, and therefore reinforces their beliefs. Why does it matter? If you want to wear a full wetsuit to the beach, including a hoodie, what does it matter? I hate cults. I hate extreme religions. But if you are going to try to "beat them at their own game", be smarter about it. *shakes head*

seb146 wrote:

Scrolling through the last few replies on this, I decided to take to Google to look up which Christian sects have women wearing head coverings.

http://peacethought.com/hijab.htm

1st Corinthians 11:3-10

And this is why fools and religious zealots are not to be trusted and should not be followed, and those who do are and/or become fools themselves:

- 7 a man indeed ought not to cover his head, for as much as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man.
- 8 For the man is not of the woman: but the woman of the man.
- 9 Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man.
Corinthians 11:7-10 King James Version (KJV)

Or more easily understandable, the New International Version (NIV):
- 7 A man ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God; but woman is the glory of man.
- 8 For man did not come from woman, but woman from man;
- 9 neither was man created for woman, but woman for man.

Women were created FOR men. That's it, they belong to man, to men. For man's use and glory. And man is apparently for God, created for God. Men are "glory", women are tools to be used.

And that friends is pure foolishness and nothing but men creating works they can use to control and suborn women, aka: half the population.

Of course the good thing is that apparently if the woman is shaven then it is OK for her to go without a head cover. And I am OK with a woman who is shaved....

Though I suspect the men that authored these religious texts weren't thinking of that kind of shaving, but whatever works!

Tugg

TheFlyingDisk wrote:

You're nobody to judge Muslims just as I'm nobody to judge atheists such as yourself.

Your attitude towards this is unfortunately not representative for an entire community. I am sure you read through the comments of ordinary Malaysians on Farah Ann Abdul Hadi's outfit. The problem with God is that he knows extremely well how to hide and it's allways people, most the time men who kowns what he wants you to do. French officials shouldn't be telling what this women at the beach has to wear, neither should other muslims be telling what Farah-Ann wears. That's her decision alone.

HGL wrote:

To be honest, FlyingDisk, I doubt whether a great many westerners actually care about the difference.

Despite the old motto, "Vive la difference!" the mayors of these towns, Sarkozy (possibly for electoral gain as he will need to regain votes from Le Pen) and many in this forum are actually opposed to difference. They abhor the notion of diversity. They demand uniformity and conformity. Women wearing a burkini threatens that comfortable mediocrity in which they feel secure.

The crux of the problem, for France but just as well for Malaysia and so many other nations.

Tugger wrote:

seb146 wrote:

Scrolling through the last few replies on this, I decided to take to Google to look up which Christian sects have women wearing head coverings.

http://peacethought.com/hijab.htm

1st Corinthians 11:3-10

And this is why fools and religious zealots are not to be trusted and should not be followed, and those who do are and/or become fools themselves:

- 7 a man indeed ought not to cover his head, for as much as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man.
- 8 For the man is not of the woman: but the woman of the man.
- 9 Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man.
Corinthians 11:7-10 King James Version (KJV)

Or more easily understandable, the New International Version (NIV):
- 7 A man ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God; but woman is the glory of man.
- 8 For man did not come from woman, but woman from man;
- 9 neither was man created for woman, but woman for man.

Women were created FOR men. That's it, they belong to man, to men. For man's use and glory. And man is apparently for God, created for God. Men are "glory", women are tools to be used.

And that friends is pure foolishness and nothing but men creating works they can use to control and suborn women, aka: half the population.

Of course the good thing is that apparently if the woman is shaven then it is OK for her to go without a head cover. And I am OK with a woman who is shaved....

Though I suspect the men that authored these religious texts weren't thinking of that kind of shaving, but whatever works!

Tugg

Right. And my whole issue is: the people who are outraged over other religions need to look at their own religion.

In France until a new law that will not take effect before next elections (and could be struck down depending on the results), you can have several political mandates at the same time (an unlimited amount).

So the mayor of the town who had its ban suspended, is also a member of the Assemblée Nationale, a legislator. His political group will draft a law banning the burkini.

Some in his party, the party of Nicolas Sarkozy, that he renamed "Les Républicains", in his admiration for US politics, and I guess because the current GOP is really a shining beacon of politics, are now proposing to ban all religious attire, everywhere. Only religious officials could wear their gear : priests, nuns, imams, rabbis. The kippah would be banned too.

TheFlyingDisk wrote:

Kiwirob wrote:

And God told who? As most intelligent people know God does not exist, so again it's just men telling women what they should and should not do.

That's your problem. Fact is Muslims believe in a higher deity and that deity have set standards to live on.

You're nobody to judge Muslims just as I'm nobody to judge atheists such as yourself.

Anyone who believes in a higher deity and lives there lives around it is only fooling themselves, especially a higher deity whose primary prophet was a kiddy fiddler.

Obviously these rules were laid down by men as men are not subject to these clothing restrictions, now if Muslim men were also wearing restrictive clothing and face coverings then most would see this in a different light, but that's not the case and females don't have the same standing in the religion as men.

seb146 wrote:

Tugger wrote:

seb146 wrote:

Scrolling through the last few replies on this, I decided to take to Google to look up which Christian sects have women wearing head coverings.

http://peacethought.com/hijab.htm

1st Corinthians 11:3-10

And this is why fools and religious zealots are not to be trusted and should not be followed, and those who do are and/or become fools themselves:

- 7 a man indeed ought not to cover his head, for as much as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man.
- 8 For the man is not of the woman: but the woman of the man.
- 9 Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man.
Corinthians 11:7-10 King James Version (KJV)

Or more easily understandable, the New International Version (NIV):
- 7 A man ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God; but woman is the glory of man.
- 8 For man did not come from woman, but woman from man;
- 9 neither was man created for woman, but woman for man.

Women were created FOR men. That's it, they belong to man, to men. For man's use and glory. And man is apparently for God, created for God. Men are "glory", women are tools to be used.

And that friends is pure foolishness and nothing but men creating works they can use to control and suborn women, aka: half the population.

Of course the good thing is that apparently if the woman is shaven then it is OK for her to go without a head cover. And I am OK with a woman who is shaved....

Though I suspect the men that authored these religious texts weren't thinking of that kind of shaving, but whatever works!

Tugg

Right. And my whole issue is: the people who are outraged over other religions need to look at their own religion.

With the possible exception of the religious right in America most people living in so called Christian countries no longer believe in God nor do they care for any of these restrictions, we've evolved beyond the dark and Middle Ages, we had an enlightenment and reformation, frankly the modern world has moved on from religion, it's just a shame that some (mostly in American from my observations) haven't moved with the times.

Kiwirob wrote:

TheFlyingDisk wrote:

Kiwirob wrote:

And God told who? As most intelligent people know God does not exist, so again it's just men telling women what they should and should not do.

That's your problem. Fact is Muslims believe in a higher deity and that deity have set standards to live on.

You're nobody to judge Muslims just as I'm nobody to judge atheists such as yourself.

Anyone who believes in a higher deity and lives there lives around it is only fooling themselves, especially a higher deity whose primary prophet was a kiddy fiddler.

Obviously these rules were laid down by men as men are not subject to these clothing restrictions, now if Muslim men were also wearing restrictive clothing and face coverings then most would see this in a different light, but that's not the case and females don't have the same standing in the religion as men.

As a Christian, this makes me rush to the defense of my Muslim brothers and sisters. It is very late here and I have to work very early.

What I will say is that I was raised to believe that only one can judge me: God. I live by the 10 highest laws. And I don't care what anyone else thinks. Only one can judge me. Those who live as they believe, at peace with everyone and everything, no matter what they call their creator, are blessed.

Yet you're gay, which is pretty much against gods laws, it makes you a hypocrite, and I suspect if there is indeed a god a one way trip to hell at the end of your life.

YokoTsuno wrote:

TheFlyingDisk wrote:

You're nobody to judge Muslims just as I'm nobody to judge atheists such as yourself.

Your attitude towards this is unfortunately not representative for an entire community. I am sure you read through the comments of ordinary Malaysians on Farah Ann Abdul Hadi's outfit. The problem with God is that he knows extremely well how to hide and it's allways people, most the time men who kowns what he wants you to do. French officials shouldn't be telling what this women at the beach has to wear, neither should other muslims be telling what Farah-Ann wears. That's her decision alone.

As I live here in Malaysia I've spoken with people on the ground, those who are as conservative as they come and many shares the same beliefs that I have. They're just aren't as vocal as the other side. If you base your arguments solely on comments online then you can't say that those opinions represent the entire community, especially if your information is taken from sources that are currently trying to wreak dissent for political purposes.

Kiwirob wrote:

Anyone who believes in a higher deity and lives there lives around it is only fooling themselves, especially a higher deity whose primary prophet was a kiddy fiddler.

They are no more fools than self-righteous atheists who's thinks they're the master of the world without realizing that they are not, not by a long shot.

Kiwirob wrote:

Obviously these rules were laid down by men as men are not subject to these clothing restrictions, now if Muslim men were also wearing restrictive clothing and face coverings then most would see this in a different light, but that's not the case and females don't have the same standing in the religion as men.

Just shows how much you know about Islam - men are subject to clothing restrictions too. That's why you don't see many Muslim men walking around beaches in speedos.

Kiwirob wrote:

we've evolved beyond the dark and Middle Ages, we had an enlightenment and reformation, frankly the modern world has moved on from religion, it's just a shame that some (mostly in American from my observations) haven't moved with the times.

Have you seen the world today? There are plenty of darkness from those who have forsaken religion & worship at the altar of lust & money.

Kiwirob wrote:

Yet you're gay, which is pretty much against gods laws, it makes you a hypocrite, and I suspect if there is indeed a god a one way trip to hell at the end of your life.

Not necessarily. But since you're too close minded, I'd think any attempt at explanation will be used as a source for further ridicule so I'm not going to do that.

They are no more fools than self-righteous atheists who's thinks they're the master of the world without realizing that they are not, not by a long shot.

I would say on average atheists are less likely to think that they are masters of the world, as atheism doesn't promote an idea where humans are seen as higher beings and center of the universe.

Have you seen the world today? There are plenty of darkness from those who have forsaken religion & worship at the altar of lust & money.

Plenty of religious people worship lust and money, after all God/Allah is forgiving according to Abrahamic religions. Besides, after studying religion and history on uni level it's absolutely clear to me that the most important function of religion is to control people, usually in favour of a rich, corrupt elite that worships altar of lust and money. Through the entire history of Christianity, Judaism and Islam leaders who have posed as devoted to their religion have been surrounded by wealth and money, Islamic leaders in particular have sometimes had plain insane amount of wives.

Not necessarily. But since you're too close minded, I'd think any attempt at explanation will be used as a source for further ridicule so I'm not going to do that.

If you go ask 100 Muslims whether homosexual activity is a sin in all likelihood more than 95 will say it is. And based on quran they are right.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-37201888

Some towns are apparently still going going to enforce this ban despite what the courts say. So what happens of a woman is ordered by police to remove her attire ? Can she tell them to buzz off or will she be arrested ?

Only one ban of one town has been suspended. There are 36 000 towns in France.

Now each time a fine is imposed, the woman can go to court, and she will win, with one more ban suspended.

pvjin wrote:

I would say on average atheists are less likely to think that they are masters of the world, as atheism doesn't promote an idea where humans are seen as higher beings and center of the universe.

I don't think it's the 'average' atheist or the 'average' believer is the concern, it's the outliers, and for that, the atheists have several 'masters of the world' to chose from, such as Hitler and Stalin.

alberchico wrote:

Some towns are apparently still going going to enforce this ban despite what the courts say. So what happens of a woman is ordered by police to remove her attire ? Can she tell them to buzz off or will she be arrested ?

It seems she can be subject to fines and/or arrest but sooner or later it'd all be sorted out in court.

Strange to consider that a male in a scuba outfit would be left alone but a female in the same outfit could be subject to punishment.

Kiwirob wrote:

Yet you're gay, which is pretty much against gods laws, it makes you a hypocrite, and I suspect if there is indeed a god a one way trip to hell at the end of your life.

And I will take that chance. Only He can judge me. All I can do is live the most peaceful life I can until then.

I am still waiting for the answer as to why it is anyone's business what someone else is wearing to the beach.

Aesma wrote:

Only one ban of one town has been suspended. There are 36 000 towns in France.

Now each time a fine is imposed, the woman can go to court, and she will win, with one more ban suspended.

I suspect the majority of those towns don't actually have beaches.

If France has actually got 36,000 beach towns, I'll move there.

I'm a white man, I'll be fine. I mean my partner who is quite dark skinned (as you would be at 50% Maori) might struggle a bit.

coolian2 wrote:

If France has actually got 36,000 beach towns, I'll move there.

I'm a white man, I'll be fine. I mean my partner who is quite dark skinned (as you would be at 50% Maori) might struggle a bit.

I'm not sure about 36,000 but I've spent plenty of time on French beaches, and they are SOOOOOOO much more civilized than American beaches I must say.

Now, about you and your partner.....maybe I could just take photos of you two. I like mixed racial couples be they str8 or gay, and photograph them. I find the differences to help make great photos, not to mention usually stunning looking children / adults.

I just texted my hubby pics of our neighbors having a party for their 16 year old son's birthday. It actually looks like a 1987 Benneton ad for racial diversity. What once was a fantasy is now my daily life, and I think America is better for it!

PacificBeach88 wrote:

coolian2 wrote:

If France has actually got 36,000 beach towns, I'll move there.

I'm a white man, I'll be fine. I mean my partner who is quite dark skinned (as you would be at 50% Maori) might struggle a bit.

I'm not sure about 36,000 but I've spent plenty of time on French beaches, and they are SOOOOOOO much more civilized than American beaches I must say.

Now, about you and your partner.....maybe I could just take photos of you two. I like mixed racial couples be they str8 or gay, and photograph them. I find the differences to help make great photos, not to mention usually stunning looking children / adults.

I just texted my hubby pics of our neighbors having a party for their 16 year old son's birthday. It actually looks like a 1987 Benneton ad for racial diversity. What once was a fantasy is now my daily life, and I think America is better for it!

I have a type - my last girlfriend was Samoan.

Mind you I might be a white M&M....

pvjin wrote:

If you go ask 100 Muslims whether homosexual activity is a sin in all likelihood more than 95 will say it is. And based on quran they are right.

Its likely those 95 are bisexual and pedophiles, trust me.

No Kiwirob no one will do anything to any Muslim man in any Muslim country if he wears shorts, unless ISIS or Taliban are ruling the place, in more conservative ones knee length is the limit, Afghan, Iranian and Saudi football teams wear those.

Don't worry many mayors of town without beaches will find a reason to ban the burkini if they think they will gain politically from it.

It's already banned from pools, for hygienic reasons (board shorts are also banned for that reason, so men must wear a speedo).

The noise over the burkini has been quite deafening and, in my very humble opinion, most posters have completely misunderstood what is at stake :
- For the liberals and fair minded netters, this is about “freedom” of dress for a group of women. The argument goes further by saying that the dress wouldn’t have looked out of place on a beach of the beginning of the 20th century.
- For the people defending civil liberties, the fight is an example of a semi-fascist state trying to impose on others’ beliefs and culture.
- On the opposite side, some do not believe in the *cultural* aspect of the dress… unfortunately, that position opens loads of xenophobic, or at the very least, excessive reactions which are not conducive to social harmony.
I think it is necessary to take a seat back and re-examine the subject :
1/- Muslims in France : A group close to 10% of the total population, hence in excess of 6 million , the immense majority coming from the immigration from North Africa, post the Algerian independence war and the economic boom in France. The rest comes from Western Africa : Mali, Senegal… and curiously are never considered *muslims* by the rest of the population.
So, one could say that Islam in France is mainly made of three generations of North Africa – originated persons who brought to France their customs, culture, including their dress fashions.
Let’s stop here for just an instant : the Algerian costume consisted of a *bouffant* pair of trousers, a jacket and a head scarf. The really traditional women would wear the *haik*, a piece of cloth that would cover everything, leaving just a hole for one eye… The younger girls very soon took on the western fashion .
The Moroccans had some of the most gorgeous garb worn by women : they invented the caftan in all sorts of shapes… to go out, they’d wear a very light *jellaba* over the caftan… or they’d wear a *gandurah*, a sleeveless robe…
It is to be noted that in the late sixties, only old / traditional women would wear the haïk, some Morroccan women would also wear a piece of cloth hiding the lower part of their head while wearing a blue thick jellaba.
I dare say that in the eighties and nineties, youngsters had achieved a great deal of cultural cross integration : witness the state of French pop music where female singers in particular could mix the scales and intonations of North African music, along with sounds and beats from thye Caribbean.
The culmination of that state happened at the 1998 world cup victory and France prided itself in being the “Black-Blanc-Beur” state ( Black / white / Arabic state ).
But another phenomenon had already started : Khomeini’s avent in Iran was saluted with glee ( after all who would have thought the Satan protected by the American devil would fall ? ).
That gentle islamisation of the muslim youth went basically un-noticed, except for one event in Creil, my next door town : three young students decided to wear a veil… the principal stayed on his republican position… clash. ( he became an MP ).
What really stirred the pot was the second GFulf war : in 2003 it was regarded and deeply resented as mistreating, shaming the whole muslim world, especially when some imbeciles in the US government called for a *crusade* with the awful connotations that term still possess for muslims.
That year is the beginning of the*Islamic veil / scarf*very rapid spreading in the whole country.
All the above point towards one phenomenon : the generalization of muslim garb has absolutely nothing to do with ancestral / cultural / ethnic customs… far from that it really is the onset of a new claim of a cultural identity based on religion : the young *beurettes* ( neologism based on *beur*-inverted aRABE – and the diminutive *ette* for little ) can now claim an identity, an apparently genuine identity based on their religious faith.
Unfortunately, and because most religions are male-dominated, they let themselves be taken by the dominant patriarchal social state and the veil is no longer the sign of a girl’s free choice but a return to father / brother / husband / son… superiority and who could – and – demand obedience.
That’s why defending a woman’s right to wear any Islamic garb is in fact accepting forced guilt ( their body is sinful and should be hidden), moral inquisition and psychological conditioning of muslim women.
Now for the *burkini* : that name, all by itself is terrifying to me : the original root is *burqah* which covers a woman from head to toe with a tent-like cloth, leaving only a 12 x 2 cm grilled hole for the eyes. Ask the Afghani women about comfort and freedom in wearing it.
The designer, thinking of a very catchy name in fact realizes that the dress is part of the same cultural make-up : It is about womens’ subservience. Nothing else.
There is one big fallacy : thin king that our grand mothers were wearing similar garb in the ealy 20th century… they did, but the huge difference is that their male friends / husbands / brothers were similarly outfitted.
By comparison, muslim males at the beach can show off their torsos and thighs and calves.
Someone as an argument said that no one would object to a wet suited male scuba diver on a beach… I’d say that no one would a similarly attired lady driver…. As a matter of fact, the Aussies invented in the early eighties the Lycra body suit / skin suit which were – still are as I can see on every dive trip I do- a very nice watersport costume for any woman ( and they’re UV proof, too ).
So what is my position on this subject?.. I find it quite hypocritical to ban the Islamic dress on the beach while accepting the niqab / veil… in the city.
There is a law against signs of religious proselytism. I want my country to apply them.
Fighting the roots of islamisation are something else. It should be done at the same time.

Aesma wrote:

It's already banned from pools, for hygienic reasons (board shorts are also banned for that reason, so men must wear a speedo).

WTF are you talking about. How is a "Speedo" any more hygienic than "board shorts"? Come on! Especially, at an ocean / Med beach? LMAO!

Look, I'm not a puritan but guys and gals should wear what compliments their body, and they feel comfortable in. Which looks better?

Middle aged guy in board shorts:


Wearing Speedos

I'm talking about pools. The hygienic reason is that you could be wearing your short all day then go into the pool. Supposedly you wouldn't do that with a speedo.

It has been like that for at least 30 years all over the country.

Aesma wrote:

I'm talking about pools. The hygienic reason is that you could be wearing your short all day then go into the pool. Supposedly you wouldn't do that with a speedo.

It has been like that for at least 30 years all over the country.

So let me get this straight. Never mind, all of the arrests and problems have been at OCEAN beaches. But secondarily, you're going to claim that a male wasn't wearing his Speedo all day long under his clothing, while the board short wearing guy was????!!!!?????!! Seriously? LMAO! Stop! Really, just stop!

Someone who isn't going to shower before jumping in the pool, isn't going to shower regardless of what they are/were wearing. My god, next you'll be pissing and moaning about people pissing and then moaning in the pool. LOL!

There is one big fallacy : thin king that our grand mothers were wearing similar garb in the ealy 20th century… they did, but the huge difference is that their male friends / husbands / brothers were similarly outfitted.
By comparison, muslim males at the beach can show off their torsos and thighs and calves.
Someone as an argument said that no one would object to a wet suited male scuba diver on a beach… I’d say that no one would a similarly attired lady driver…. As a matter of fact, the Aussies invented in the early eighties the Lycra body suit / skin suit which were – still are as I can see on every dive trip I do- a very nice watersport costume for any woman ( and they’re UV proof, too ).
So what is my position on this subject?.. I find it quite hypocritical to ban the Islamic dress on the beach while accepting the niqab / veil… in the city.
There is a law against signs of religious proselytism. I want my country to apply them.
Fighting the roots of islamisation are something else. It should be done at the same time.

Contrail designer


I agree, the hypocrisy about this is amazing. I watch Joe College, the Muslim guy walking along and behind him comes the servant, wearing the rags of another century. I see it here all the time, it pisses me off royally. The children seem to dress ok, until a certain age for the girls I guess. I first noticed this years ago in Dearborn Michigan. Threes steps back and swaddled up. The people who condone this are fools, or Muslims who believe.

Middle aged guy in board shorts:


Middle aged guy in Speedo should be kicked in the ass and thrown off the beach for indecent exposure along with his gold and tats. I find that ridiculous. Maybe the speedo makes him swim faster?

While I can see some sense in restrictions at public swimming pools, we are talking about a beach. In a public pool there is a slight risk that loose clothing could get sucked into the filtration system. That is a safety risk (as slight as it is) but not a hygiene issue. But at a beach no such safety issue arises. As to hygiene, this is simply an attempt to make discrimination more respectable.

I would be less concerned about people wearing clothes (do people really believe that Muslims never wash themselves or their clothing?) than I would about the water quality before people go into it. Some countries have a history of pumping raw sewage into the Med and who knows what gets thrown overboard from shipping, quite apart from oil and/or other chemical spills.

With regards to the men in the two photos:

Who cares? No, I do not find the speedo man attractive, but if that is what he wants to wear, so what? When we go on vacation, I sometimes wear a speedo to the pool. And I look like a younger version of the speedo man shown here. So what?

HGL wrote:

While I can see some sense in restrictions at public swimming pools, we are talking about a beach. In a public pool there is a slight risk that loose clothing could get sucked into the filtration system. That is a safety risk (as slight as it is) but not a hygiene issue. But at a beach no such safety issue arises. As to hygiene, this is simply an attempt to make discrimination more respectable.

I would be less concerned about people wearing clothes (do people really believe that Muslims never wash themselves or their clothing?) than I would about the water quality before people go into it. Some countries have a history of pumping raw sewage into the Med and who knows what gets thrown overboard from shipping, quite apart from oil and/or other chemical spills.

As a former smoker and former dog owner, I don't even want to think what is in the sand.....

WarRI1 wrote:

Middle aged guy in board shorts:


Middle aged guy in Speedo should be kicked in the ass and thrown off the beach for indecent exposure along with his gold and tats. I find that ridiculous. Maybe the speedo makes him swim faster?

Rod Stewart has always had poor fashion sense.