You were commenting that the burkini can only be banned by beach towns, and I answered that it can also (and is) already banned in pools, just like board shorts.

Kiwirob wrote:

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.

I still like his music, but not his choice of swim suits.

It's not only a french problem : for the first time I saw burkinis in South of Thailand where a majority of muslims live. It's more political than religious according to some local newspapers. Locals say it's a way to differentiate bad muslims (moderate ones) and good ones (radicals who want to force the law of Charia). It was actually muslims asking for the governement to not allow burkinis as they see other people trying to force them to accept the principles of Charia over the civil's laws. Radical muslims are using democratic/human rights law for their own objectives and if a country like France is resisting they will make it look bad.

So the big question could be : if in 1936 a country had the opportunity to stop the rise of fascism but could not because of its own democratic laws should this country have ignored its own laws to save millions of peoples?

See below

Why I am not against whole bodied suits for women, as a principle.
I do abhor, though, the religious meaning behind the so-called burqini, which is just the sign of women's subservience.
Our self righteous liberals and holier-than -thou freedom defenders better wake up and start reading history.

* For those too young to know, this is Cathy Freeman, the great aborigene Australian when she won gold at the 2000 Sydney Olympics.

*
Diving skin suits - generally unisex -. Great for warm waters, great for protection against medusas, potuguese men-o-wars...and help putting wet suits onjust like a body glove.

Aither wrote:

It's not only a french problem : for the first time I saw burkinis in South of Thailand where a majority of muslims live. It's more political than religious according to some local newspapers. Locals say it's a way to differentiate bad muslims (moderate ones) and good ones (radicals who want to force the law of Charia). It was actually muslims asking for the governement to not allow burkinis as they see other people trying to force them to accept the principles of Charia over the civil's laws. Radical muslims are using democratic/human rights law for their own objectives and if a country like France is resisting they will make it look bad.

So the big question could be : if in 1936 a country had the opportunity to stop the rise of fascism but could not because of its own democratic laws should this country have ignored its own laws to save millions of peoples?

Burkini isnt Islamic, just because a Muslim designed it as modest sport attire and Muslims wear it dosent make it Islamic dress, it contours the figure and thats a big No in Islam,

Those wearing the burkiii are actually modest Muslims suce its being worn by them in mix gender settings.

No conservative Muslim woman would wear a burkini nor swim in mixed gender beaches and pools, they might do so in an all female envroment or the privacy of their homes around un-marryable male relatives, but true conservatives wont even do that.

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

Funny that no one here had made a comment on at least two facts :
1/- The ban of the burqini has been upheld by a upper court as provoking in the town of Sisco ( Corsica ) where the riots started.
2/- day before yesterday, three couples were agressed in Toulon because the women were wearing shorts.
It is even funnier that neither the holier-than-thous on this forum and in the British or US press, or the league of human rights had even bothered to report the violence.
Fancy that !

What happened in Sisco had nothing to do with the burkini (according to the prosecutor) so this is beyond stupid, the only reason it hasn't been struck down is that doing this could cause racist riots. And the fact that it's Corsica, not really a civilized place to begin with.

Aesma wrote:

What happened in Sisco had nothing to do with the burkini (according to the prosecutor) so this is beyond stupid, the only reason it hasn't been struck down is that doing this could cause racist riots. And the fact that it's Corsica, not really a civilized place to begin with.

1/- For this administration, there has / is never been a problem with the extremist Islam : The origin, social background of the agressors is never mentioned, every instance is being toned down so it could be any-body, never people fdrom the muslim community. Moreover, all the newspaopers in the country have reported the incident except *le Monde*, THE socialist organ...

2/- What happened in Sisco has a lot to do with the burqini and the way these people of North African origin were dresssed, let alone the way they were behaving ( i.e taking over a public beach for their own exclusive private use ).
See above the toning down of reporting anything about Islamic violence tro read under the *procureur*'s declaration... and read instead the Midi papers ( any of them )

The real problem is that hiding these sorts of events doesn't help social peace, but it's honey to the FN, now seen especially on the mediterrannean coast as the only defence of the principles of the Republic ( whatever that means with this shitty group governing the country ).

3/- The gist of your posts is about liberties and freedom : Do you really think the way it is being treated is the best way to achieve social peace ?
BTW, the Villeneuve-Loubet decree - and a few others - has been upheld by the Nice Tribunal, so it's not all rosy for the holier-than-me's.

4/- Please make a very quick research about one of the main actors of the overturning of the local decrees : the CCIF. Its agenda is quite interesting, especially when one discovers that it is quite close to the muslim brothers. See for instance *Le Canard Enchaîné*, *Libération*, *le Figaro*...

5/-...and finally, it's these un-civilized Corsicans' fault !
What I see from my point of view is that some imbeciles cannot / have not the guts to apply the law drawn by an un-civilized Corsican ( I'm talking about one Napoleon Bonaparte ).

BTW, come here and call me *uncivilized*... your face would look very interesting...

Sorry to have offended you, but "solving" conflicts using violence is the definition of uncivilized.

The main problem in Sisco was that these people, yes muslims, and not even French if I read correctly, tried to prevent the use of the beach by others. Logical that it didn't work out that well, although in civilized places people would have simply called the authorities, instead of starting a fight and burning cars.

1/ what would doing differently achieve, aside from more anti-muslim sentiment, more anti-muslim crimes, and as a result, more radicalized muslims ?

3/ there is no gist to my posts, I don't like the burkini, I hate religions and would want their disparition from the public sphere, I will never call a priest "father", but I accept that in a free society, I can't impose my views on others, as I wouldn't like their views imposed on me.

4/ I don't care about the CCIF, I think those decrees are wrong, if they do too, should I change my mind ?

5/ while the Code Civil is much better than the anglo saxon justice system, I think it should be modernized to be more relevant. Certainly not like Sarkozy did, by copying the aforementioned anglo saxons, though.

A very strange post.
In Sisco, you seem to put all the blame on the Corsicans... Did you forget the use of a spearfishing gun by one of the men defending their takeover ?
1/- More anti-muslim sentiment, crimes resulting in more radicalised muslims ?
That's putting the shoe on the wrong foot : Cite a few examples of hate crimes against muslims, compared to the number of crimes commited by Islamic die-hards... To me, it seems that the whole population has been - is being - taken hostages by Islam... and the radicalisation is happening on that silent non-muslim majority ( we'll count them in April next year... )

3/- Their view is being imposed on you, and you take it because you're a nice guy : You think you're defending womens' rights to dress the way they want while in fact you are solidly supporting womens'subservience to male domination... which brings me to the following point :

4/- you should care about the ccif . They are here to take advantage of your democracy to push their agenda... When several serious papers and magazines start op-edding on that crowd, it's quite useful to know them and understand what is going on...and it's really not nice for your liberties.

Marre de l'angélisme des gogtos et des bobos.

Pihero wrote:

You think you're defending womens' rights to dress the way they want while in fact you are solidly supporting womens'subservience to male domination... which brings me to the following point .

That argument irritates me, because while it some basis in truth, certainly sometimes, it also denies that a woman's faith is personal to her and can be deeply held.

Other factors can play into it (such as peer pressure by other woman), but a woman who is a devout Muslim is told by her holy book that she should dress modestly and you either believe or you don't.

I don't "believe", but I try not to impose my views on those who do.

mariner

1/- Show me where in their holy book she is told to wear that sort of clothes.

2/- You should have a look at a poll (see part of it here in Pew research)
3/- In *Le Monde*, supposedly the top newspaper in this country, a very intersting article : the interview of a woman who is still a militant for the rights of women ; She has two main objections to the dress :
a - It is the public affirmation that her body is only shown ( i.e belongs to.. ) her husband. Ergo, any woman showing more skin shows that she belongs to everybody : therefore she is a whore. (That insult was the main verbal aggression in all the instances of violence against women in this country ).

b - the subject puts all the partisans of freedom and defenders of liberties in the same camp as the ultras of the muslim world... That thought only makes me cringe.
Of course you have every right to your own interpretation... and I undersatnd why you will always defend that society ( remember our brushes about life in the Gulf ? ).

There is also a final thought on the subject : Don't you think ... think for a second ... that wearing a religious / social /communautarian dress of this kind a month after the maiming and killing of dozens of people in Nice is not the most insulting provocation by the extremist Islam in this country ?

Is it locked ?

Pihero wrote:

1/- Show me where in their holy book she is told to wear that sort of clothes.

What sort of clothes? I only said that she is advised to dress modestly, nor have I mentioned the veil in any form.

For the rest, you have completely avoided my point, which is that a devout woman, and not just in Islam, may chose to dress modestly - and that, I believe, is her right. I don't see how wearing a sexy swim-suit proves she is not a potential threat, and I recall, within in my lifetime, when many western woman wore a veil attached to their hats.

Pihero wrote:

Of course you have every right to your own interpretation... and I undersatnd why you will always defend that society ( remember our brushes about life in the Gulf ? ).

No, sorry, I don't recall our brushes about life in the Gulf. I fully accept that I may have said things with which you disagree, because I'm disagreeing with you now - LOL.

The point being that I will condemn extremist Islamists as loudly as anyone, but I won't condemn non-extremist Muslims. I owe my life - literally - to a black Muslim who talked some over-excited teenage soldiers out of shooting me and I'm happy to live in a country where is there an extraordinarily harmonious relationship with the Muslim community.

Pihero wrote:

There is also a final thought on the subject : Don't you think ... think for a second ... that wearing a religious / social /communautarian dress of this kind a month after the maiming and killing of dozens of people in Nice is not the most insulting provocation by the extremist Islam in this country ?

If people can't differentiate between a woman having a swim and a killer on a rampage, I can only shrug. I agree with the Conseil d'Etat.

mariner

mariner wrote:

I'm happy to live in a country where is there an extraordinarily harmonious relationship with the Muslim community.

mariner

That's now. As far as I know the Muslim
Community in NZ is very moderate, we don't have hate preachers operating in NZ. Muslim women in NZ also live without head covering, but I would imagine if radicals arrived and Islamic dress became the norm, relations would change.

A similar example is one of my friends, he's Chinese kiwi, his family arrived in NZ back in the 1850's, he's as kiwi as I am, but his life changed in the 90's when mass Chinese immigration started, he was no longer seen as a kiwi but as Chinese, life became much harder.

Kiwirob wrote:

That's now.

Of course that's now. "Now" is where I live.

Kiwirob wrote:

As far as I know the Muslim Community in NZ is very moderate, we don't have hate preachers operating in NZ. Muslim women in NZ also live without head covering, but I would imagine if radicals arrived and Islamic dress became the norm, relations would change.

I imagine they would change, but they haven't yet, and I see no evidence of it happening. A few women wear head scarves in NZ - and some Muslim women do too - but I've never seen a burqa here. Which is not to say they don't exist here, simply that I've never seen them.

And these days, I think the chances of hate preachers getting through the immigration net are fairly remote. Anything "could" happen, of course, and if it does I'll let you know.

Kiwirob wrote:

A similar example is one of my friends, he's Chinese kiwi, his family arrived in NZ back in the 1850's, he's as kiwi as I am, but his life changed in the 90's when mass Chinese immigration started, he was no longer seen as a kiwi but as Chinese, life became much harder.

It's part of the pattern of migration. Maori originally welcomed white people to Aotearoa (Marsden, Kendall, etc.) but went to war with them when the numbers became overwhelming. Eventually a balance was found.

It happened in Australia after WW2 when the first migrants from Southern Europe (Italy/Greece) arrived. They were originally welcomed but as the numbers grew tensions rose. Nowadays, those with Italian and Greek backgrounds are part of the Australian tapestry.

mariner

Kiwirob wrote:

mariner wrote:

I'm happy to live in a country where is there an extraordinarily harmonious relationship with the Muslim community.

mariner

That's now. As far as I know the Muslim
Community in NZ is very moderate, we don't have hate preachers operating in NZ. Muslim women in NZ also live without head covering, but I would imagine if radicals arrived and Islamic dress became the norm, relations would change.

A similar example is one of my friends, he's Chinese kiwi, his family arrived in NZ back in the 1850's, he's as kiwi as I am, but his life changed in the 90's when mass Chinese immigration started, he was no longer seen as a kiwi but as Chinese, life became much harder.

And life has changed for Muslims and those of Middle Eastern and Middle Asian descent living in the United States and Europe since Sept 11. Where, before, they were seen as Muslim or Persian or Saudi, they are now seen as a terror threat. Just because of the actions of a few.

And life has changed for Muslims and those of Middle Eastern and Middle Asian descent living in the United States and Europe since Sept 11. Where, before, they were seen as Muslim or Persian or Saudi, they are now seen as a terror threat. Just because of the actions of a few.

Yes, but perhaps instead of blaming people for Islamophobia it would be wiser to do something to stop the terrorism? Preventing Wahhabi scum from entering Europe & The US, deporting / jailing existing hate preachers and adopting better integration policies would be a good start.

Western world has no problem with Islamophobia or racism, it however has serious issues with integrating Muslim migrants and preventing radicalization. Radicalization, crime and terrorism come first and any Islamophobia is ultimately just a natural reaction to those phenomenons.

If the problem with terrorism and radicalization was eliminated and most Muslims would find their place in our societies I would have nothing against Islamic migration to Europe. Moderate Muslims have many good values compared to secularized westerners, such as respecting traditional family values that are becoming increasingly rare among mainstream western population, which is precisely the reason why Muslim population grows much faster than the native one.

pvjin wrote:

And life has changed for Muslims and those of Middle Eastern and Middle Asian descent living in the United States and Europe since Sept 11. Where, before, they were seen as Muslim or Persian or Saudi, they are now seen as a terror threat. Just because of the actions of a few.

Yes, but perhaps instead of blaming people for Islamophobia it would be wiser to do something to stop the terrorism? Preventing Wahhabi scum from entering Europe & The US, deporting / jailing existing hate preachers and adopting better integration policies would be a good start.

Western world has no problem with Islamophobia or racism, it however has serious issues with integrating Muslim migrants and preventing radicalization. Radicalization, crime and terrorism come first and any Islamophobia is ultimately just a natural reaction to those phenomenons.

If the problem with terrorism and radicalization was eliminated and most Muslims would find their place in our societies I would have nothing against Islamic migration to Europe. Moderate Muslims have many good values compared to secularized westerners, such as respecting traditional family values that are becoming increasingly rare among mainstream western population, which is precisely the reason why Muslim population grows much faster than the native one.

A huge problem in the United States is that people can not separate the two (Islam from terrorism). Just like people here jump to conclusions when they hear people speaking Spanish. That is a huge issue that needs to be addresses. Along with stopping radicalization. Americans need education. I can not speak for Europeans, so I don't. I just say what I see happening in the United States.

mariner wrote:

... you have completely avoided my point, which is that a devout woman, and not just in Islam, may chose to dress modestly - and that, I believe, is her right.

...If people can't differentiate between a woman having a swim and a killer on a rampage, I can only shrug. I agree with the Conseil d'Etat.

mariner

What you refuse to understand is that, contrarily to the original costumes and dresses the muslim community has been wearing for more than sixty years in France, this new *fashion* of hijjab / veil ... has a mainly religious, i.e proselytist, meaning.
As for each woman's right to dress the way she feels, I'm a bit surprised nobody defends them when they live in SA, Iran, Kuwait, Yemen.....( fracking long list...)
See Campaigner asks why burkini ban was dropped in a month but enforced hijab law remains in Iran after decades (from the indy).

As for your happiness at the harmonious relations between muslims and the rest of the population in New Zealand, I find it quite ridiculously disingenious : with less than 0.8% of the population, they are just about invisible...

France does not have an exact figure for their numbers as it is unlawful to enquire / poll / ask about personal beliefs ( would you believe it is about personal freedom ? ), so one could only derive an estimation based on the origins of the population : with the four generations of North Africans and the people from west Africa, plus about 150 000 converts ( btw, that figure represents four times the total number of muslims living in NZ, which puts your allegation into perspective), the total is about 7 million, roughly 11% of France's to-day's demography.
Not exactly the same situation as in kiwiland, I guess.

Expect soon the dress laws to be a lot more harshly applied : four women - who had the right to wear islamic dresses - have just been arrested for preparing a terrorist attack. Only their amateurism and silliness - the poor things had not really studied the physics of fire - prevented a multiple gas bottle explosion near Notre Dame.

Contrarily to what you think, the problem of islamic integration in France is in fact made a lot more difficult by the rise of provocations from the more militant groups ( those you call *devout*, they come from now rather well known communities ).

Last thought : it looks reading the posts on this thread that this is a country-wide situation : Not so . Have you ever heard of problems in the bay of Biscay, Brittany or Normandy ?
As a matter of fact out of the 4170 km of coast line, only a very few, well identified areas were concerned, and these areas are not the places were we have the densest muslim population... just the Côte d'Azur where dozens of people were killed / maimed and where, in fact, after the attack there was a very moving sense of sticking together, both muslims and others...
That couldn't have pleased the extremists, could it ?

Pihero wrote:

What you refuse to understand is that, contrarily to the original costumes and dresses the muslim community has been wearing for more than sixty years in France, this new *fashion* of hijjab / veil ... has a mainly religious, i.e proselytist, meaning.

I don't refuse to understand anything, I'm just not sure what that has to do with anything I've said. If, as you claim, the burkini is only a fashion then let to be fashionable, because fashions change.

Nor do I consider religious and "proselytist" necessarily synonymous, although they may sometimes be.

Pihero wrote:

As for each woman's right to dress the way she feels, I'm a bit surprised nobody defends them when they live in SA, Iran, Kuwait, Yemen.....( fracking long list...)

This thread isn't about Saudi Arabia, or Iran, or Kuwait, or Yemen or any Muslim majority country. Having been brought up in Middle Eastern countries, I am much more surprised that not more is said about the rampant homosexuality in those countries, where homosexuality (or at least sodomy) is widely practised but is often punishable by death.

But I thought we were talking about France.

Pihero wrote:

As for your happiness at the harmonious relations between muslims and the rest of the population in New Zealand, I find it quite ridiculously disingenious : with less than 0.8% of the population, they are just about invisible...

Okay, you find it disingenuous, even ridiculously so. The fact remains that I live in a country that has a remarkably harmonious relationship with its Muslim communities.

Pihero wrote:

France does not have an exact figure for their numbers as it is unlawful to enquire / poll / ask about personal beliefs ( would you believe it is about personal freedom ? ), so one could only derive an estimation based on the origins of the population : with the four generations of North Africans and the people from west Africa, plus about 150 000 converts ( btw, that figure represents four times the total number of muslims living in NZ, which puts your allegation into perspective), the total is about 7 million, roughly 11% of France's to-day's demography.
Not exactly the same situation as in kiwiland, I guess.

But it was France who let - allowed, invited, encouraged or didn't discourage - all those Muslims to move to France.

Of course, it isn't the same situation at all as in "Kiwiland", but - I didn't make an allegation. I made a statement (that "I am happy to live in a country, etc....."). Just as I am I happy to go to France, as I am next month, a country where I have only ever had good times.

Pihero wrote:

Expect soon the dress laws to be a lot more harshly applied : four women - who had the right to wear islamic dresses - have just been arrested for preparing a terrorist attack. Only their amateurism and silliness - the poor things had not really studied the physics of fire - prevented a multiple gas bottle explosion near Notre Dame.

Then those women, if found guilty, should be punished to the full extent of the law, but I don't understand what that has to do with anything I've said.

Pihero wrote:

Contrarily to what you think, the problem of islamic integration in France is in fact made a lot more difficult by the rise of provocations from the more militant groups ( those you call *devout*, they come from now rather well known communities ).

Sure they do, although I object to you putting words - or definitions - in my mouth. In my experience not all devout people embrace extremism and not all extremists are actually devout.

Pihero wrote:

Last thought : it looks reading the posts on this thread that this is a country-wide situation : Not so . Have you ever heard of problems in the bay of Biscay, Brittany or Normandy ?
As a matter of fact out of the 4170 km of coast line, only a very few, well identified areas were concerned, and these areas are not the places were we have the densest muslim population... just the Côte d'Azur where dozens of people were killed / maimed and where, in fact, after the attack there was a very moving sense of sticking together, both muslims and others...
That couldn't have pleased the extremists, could it ?

Again, I'm not sure what point you are trying to make. I believe that the only way we can go forward is by joining together, both others and Muslims. But that joining together does not require that they abandon their religion nor that I abandon my non-belief.

mariner

Talk about total denial...

Pihero wrote:

Talk about total denial...

Oh, don't be silly.

Just because someone experiences life differently from you does not mean they are in denial.

mariner