Burkini vs Bikini

[Nearly Sane]

Very interesting article on the burkini ban on some French beaches.


http://www.theexmuslim.com/2016/08/24/burkini-bikini-false-equivalence-disproportionate-outrage/

[jeremyp]

I think the point it makes is unassailable. If you live in a household where the men will not let you go out without covering up or swim without a burkini, then the ban will only restrict you further because you will not be allowed out of the house.

Also, the image of three policemen standing over a seated woman on the beach effectively forcing her to get undressed is really nauseating.

[Sriram]

Hi everyone,

Here is a news item about the burkini ban inn France. 

http://edition.cnn.com/2016/08/25/opinions/burkini-ban-france-theocracy/index.html

**********

If you look at the headlines coming out of France, you might conclude that the country's famous brand of "laicite," or secularism, is now being defended by a theocracy that would give Iran a run for its money.

Pictures of a Muslim woman surrounded by armed police on a beach in Nice have rightly caused an outcry. The images show the condescending way law enforcement officers forced the women to undress, while her children watched.

France seems to have completely turned against Western liberal values -- and there's a danger that France no longer looks any different from Iran or any other theocratic state, where religious police patrol the streets, monitoring women in public places, and checking whether or not they are following the rules.

The only difference is that France is suffocating individual freedoms in the name of "protecting secularism," while Iran and others do so to "protect religious identity." Both have a distinct absence of liberal pluralism that the Western world has so far taken for granted. Extreme secularism in France looks no different to extreme Shia ideology in Iran.

But we are at a fundamental crossroads -- one that is causing those of us who care about upholding these values to worry that this may no longer be the case in the future.

This isn't a problem only in France and Iran. Left and right, we're seeing a growing polarization of the political sphere, from Donald Trump in America to Jeremy Corbyn in Britain.

**********

Any views?

Cheers.

Sriram

[wigginhall]

Yes, that photo was truly sick-making.   It reminded me of photos of Nazis surrounding Jews.   

I can see that the French are traumatized by various terrorist incidents, but this is insane.  You are actually saying that women have to display a minimum amount of flesh.   WTF?

Well, those photos will go round the world, and will be used by IS, I would think as recruitment tools.   

[wigginhall]

I forgot to say that my sister-in-law has had skin cancer, and she goes on the beach with leggings, a loose shirt, with long sleeves, and a very big hat.  You get the idea, no sun must touch her.   But of course, she is white, and she is not a murdering Muslima.   Phew, what a relief.

[Udayana]

... well, as the French authorities have decided what is appropriate to wear on a beach and what not, she will also be forced to undress, as will nuns ...

I suppose men wearing wet suits are still allowed?

[wigginhall]

Well, Catholic wet suits are OK, but Muslim wet suits, no way.   

[Harrowby Hall]

I do not condone the behaviour of French officialdom, but don't forget this is a country which has suffered seriously from islamic extremism. Only a month ago 85 people were mown to death during a national celebration just around the corner from those beaches. I think that the article Sriram quotes has failed to acknowledge the context.

To a significant extent France is on "red alert" for any hint of terrorist aggression and a burkha could conceal a bomb.

I think the point that Jeremyp is making is quite important. Moslem women are trapped between intolerant husbands and a state whose tolerance is now dangerously low.

So-called islamic clothing is - of course - nothing of the sort. It is merely a device used in patriarchal societies to keep women in "their place". A recent BBC 2 series of the history of the treatment of women showed that such clothing existed long before the coming of islam and that, in fact, it was used by the ancient Greeks. It would seem that the flowering of democracy was a male-only achievement!

[Dicky Underpants]

So-called islamic clothing is - of course - nothing of the sort. It is merely a device used in patriarchal societies to keep women in "their place". A recent BBC 2 series of the history of the treatment of women showed that such clothing existed long before the coming of islam and that, in fact, it was used by the ancient Greeks. It would seem that the flowering of democracy was a male-only achievement!

That's my understanding of the matter. Purely a cultural thing; the Koran itself simply requires women to 'dress modestly' (though admittedly, that concept can be pretty well culturally determined). There is also a text about the 'Wives of the Prophet being concealed behind a curtain, when approached for advice'. 
Of course, later Hadith reinforced the complete cover-up idea, and made it 'holy'.

[Nearly Sane]

I do not condone the behaviour of French officialdom, but don't forget this is a country which has suffered seriously from islamic extremism. Only a month ago 85 people were mown to death during a national celebration just around the corner from those beaches. I think that the article Sriram quotes has failed to acknowledge the context.

To a significant extent France is on "red alert" for any hint of terrorist aggression and a burkha could conceal a bomb.

I think the point that Jeremyp is making is quite important. Moslem women are trapped between intolerant husbands and a state whose tolerance is now dangerously low.

So-called islamic clothing is - of course - nothing of the sort. It is merely a device used in patriarchal societies to keep women in "their place". A recent BBC 2 series of the history of the treatment of women showed that such clothing existed long before the coming of islam and that, in fact, it was used by the ancient Greeks. It would seem that the flowering of democracy was a male-only achievement!

Well yes the point that jeremyp makes is important but it is the point made in the link in the OP. The idea that a bomb is hidden in a burkini is ludicrous.

[jeremyp]

... well, as the French authorities have decided what is appropriate to wear on a beach and what not, she will also be forced to undress, as will nuns ...

I suppose men wearing wet suits are still allowed?

Well, in the photo, one of the police officers is completely covered except for his head and bare arms.

[jeremyp]

I do not condone the behaviour of French officialdom, but don't forget this is a country which has suffered seriously from islamic extremism.

No it hasn't. There is a perception that it has, but this perception is false. If you want "suffering from Islamic extremism" go to Syria.

Only a month ago 85 people were mown to death during a national celebration just around the corner from those beaches.

Which is a tragedy but more people than that are mown down on French roads every fortnight.

The French are panicking and they are lashing out in the wrong direction.

To a significant extent France is on "red alert" for any hint of terrorist aggression and a burkha could conceal a bomb.

And yet the terrorists seem to prefer things like rucksacks for their bombs.

[ippy]

The ban on berkinies, looks like a French own goal to me.

There's some form of justification to rule out the face covering, security etc and though I dont like the bits of old rag these people wrap around their heads, that's no reason to start banning people from wearing their garb just because some of us don't like it.

Having said that it might be an idea to ban American  baseball caps here in the U K and introduce heavy fine  for those that do insist on wearing them in public places, unless of curse, they have a good medical reason for wearing one.

ippy
 

[Harrowby Hall]

No it hasn't. There is a perception that it has, but this perception is false. If you want "suffering from Islamic extremism" go to Syria.
Which is a tragedy but more people than that are mown down on French roads every fortnight.

The French are panicking and they are lashing out in the wrong direction.And yet the terrorists seem to prefer things like rucksacks for their bombs.

As I said earlier, I do not condone the actions of the French authorities on the beaches. To the best of my understanding, these are local initiatives ordered by local maires rather than central government. That one of them should be the action of the maire of Nice - having to face a traumatised and angry electorate - should not be surprising.

In the past couple of years, France has experienced Charlie Hebdo and the Jewish shop (17 dead), Stade de France and Bataclan (130 dead), Nice (85 dead) sundry individual attacks - including a priest while saying mass, and you come up with  a trite and patronising comment about road deaths. No doubt on 7/7/2005 you considered the 52 people killed in the London tube bombings a mere handful compared with the carnage on the roads and that we should not have got worked up over it.

One death from terrorism is one death too many.

I have said that I do not condone the actions taken on the French beaches but was attempting to put it into some context so that, for example, Sriram could see that his newspaper cutting was not presenting all of the appropriate information.

[Sriram]

More on this.....

https://in.style.yahoo.com/burquinis-000000512.html

*********

In the wake of recent terror attacks in France, a few French towns have adopted a ban on the burkini, or the full-body swimming costume some Muslim women wear at the beach to keep covered. Most notably, the mayor of Cannes, David Lisnard, banned the swimsuit earlier this month, saying “access to beaches and for swimming is banned to anyone who does not have [bathing apparel] which respects good customs and secularism.”

Lisnard argued that the burkini “ostentatiously displays religious affiliation” and “is liable to create risks of disrupting public order (crowds, scuffles, etc.) which it is necessary to prevent.” He explained that the ban isn’t meant to violate the liberties of Muslim people. “We are not talking about banning the wearing of religious symbols on the beach … but ostentatious clothing which refers to an allegiance to terrorist movements which are at war with us.”

None of this sits well with Rachid Nekkaz, who is fighting the ban by taking out his checkbook. The businessman, who is of Algerian descent, has so far paid the fines of three women who violated the ban and has also offered to help other people who are victims of this law.

Nekkaz has a history of standing up for women affected by these laws, which includes the bans on full-face veils. Nekkaz, who started a fund to help, has spent €245,000 (about $277,315) over the years footing the bill for these women, even though he personally is not a fan of burkinis or the niqab, a cloth that covers a woman’s face with an opening for the eyes. “I am like the philosopher Voltaire,” he said to the Telegraph. “Once I do not agree, I will fight to the death to give the possibility to these people to express their opinion or to dress as they please. That is freedom. It is a question of principle.”

He also argues that this kind of extreme legislation might provoke people to embrace the very kind of radical thinking and behaviors they’re hoping to curb. “This sort of politics, these types of decisions, which do not respect fundamental liberties, will create new clients for the Islamic State [ISIS],” he said.

What is most confusing about the ban, or at least Lisnard’s explanation of it, is the notion that wearing a burkini is an automatic reference to  an “allegiance to terrorist movements.” That’s akin to saying wearing a “Make America Great Again” hat means you’re broadcasting support of the Ku Klux Klan, which we know isn’t necessarily true.

Maybe Muslim women want to enjoy the beach in whatever attire they feel most comfortable in? Shouldn’t they be allowed to do so in a country that considers liberté, egalité, and fraternité as its national values?

*********

I agree with the Rachid guy.  Wearing bikinis is no more secular than covering up is Islamic. How ridiculous!

[JP]

It is a problem throughout the western world. There may not be a clash of civilisations but there is certainly a conflict, and how to deal with is becoming increasingly more difficult.

[Nearly Sane]

It is a problem throughout the western world. There may not be a clash of civilisations but there is certainly a conflict, and how to deal with is becoming increasingly more difficult.

That;s one of the reasons I liked the link in the OP as it doesn't fall into an either/or approach. It specifically callls out the issues. I think though it's easy to look on this as something different from past 'conflicts' when I'm not sure it is entirely.

[JP]

Its the latest chapter in a sorry tale. A tale which nobody knows where it will go, or where it will end.

[Nearly Sane]

Hi everyone,

Here is a news item about the burkini ban inn France. 

http://edition.cnn.com/2016/08/25/opinions/burkini-ban-france-theocracy/index.html

**********



This isn't a problem only in France and Iran. Left and right, we're seeing a growing polarization of the political sphere, from Donald Trump in America to Jeremy Corbyn in Britain.

**********

Any views?

Cheers.

Sriram

Overall the article lacks any real perspective, given that it notes France's special brand of 'laicite' as not a new thing, it then presents actions arising from iit as if it is a new thing.

However, I thought I would pick up the specific point about polarisation. I've seen this a lot, with causes many and sundry suggested. It was a common theme in both referendums in the UK, and I remain unconvinced. Things happen in cycles and I would say the politics in the UK was far more divided in the 70s and 80s than now. The causes or possibly symptoms change but the story overall remains much the same.


We see things differently and much more frequently now with rolling news. The emergence of social media has meant that the comments of those people having pub boor conversations in pubs we avoided are now seen. The 'below the line' comments section emerges frequently above the line. It may seem to be more obvious now and more clamourous but it's always been there.   

[Nearly Sane]

Its the latest chapter in a sorry tale. A tale which nobody knows where it will go, or where it will end.

isn't that just a truism? I mean I am all for a bit of resigned acceptance on the unpredictability of life and that amongst it there will be conflict, joy, pain,  sherbet, and a vague sense of ennui but surely part of seeing that as an ongoing story means you shouldn't see present conflicts as somehow different.

Revolutionaries always go big on the whole civilisations at war with each other. They like the black and white. That things are inevitably more complex than that is one of things that gives cause for hope

[JP]

How is it essentailly different? Is it not just an extention of what has gone before.

Muslims still go to school despite a ban on Muslim headscarves and other "conspicuous" religious symbols at state schools which was introduced in 2004. I believe this was well received by the wider population and a BBC reporter in France covering the burkini story could not find anyone who disagreed with the latest change in the law.

[Nearly Sane]

How is it essentailly different? Is it not just an extention of what has gone before.

Muslims still go to school despite a ban on Muslim headscarves and other "conspicuous" religious symbols at state schools which was introduced in 2004. I believe this was well received by the wider population and a BBC reporter in France covering the burkini story could not find anyone who disagreed with the latest change in the law.

And? That something is either in line with something or agreed by people isn't an argument about it being right.

[BeRational]

And? That something is either in line with something or agreed by people isn't an argument about it being right.

But it does suggest that is what the surrounding culture is all about.

If you go to a country, I believe you should try to fit in and adopt their culture.

Integration is the key. They are not forced into France nor forced to stay.

[Nearly Sane]

But it does suggest that is what the surrounding culture is all about.

If you go to a country, I believe you should try to fit in and adopt their culture.

Integration is the key. They are not forced into France nor forced to stay.

So if I regard something as wrong but more people don't I should just shut up?

In addition one of the tenets of a culture that allowa the bikini is a form of freedom, so shouldn't those who argued for that part of the culture also be recognised.

[floo]

If a woman wants to wear a burkini they should be permitted to do so.

I don't think it should be permitted for anyone to walk around in public wearing the full burka, which also covers the face. Anyone could be beneath it, including someone who wishes to harm others.