Burkini banned in France

[LifeIsGoodish]

Instead of teaching people to behave with respect to each other.

Burkini banned in France

For many the burqua is a symbol of oppression which has no place in a modern, equal society. In my area of London there are men walking around the high street on a Friday dressed exactly like the Taliban. The Taliban's clothes are suitable for herding sheep in a hot dusty climate and cool nights of the Afghan mountains. I don't think the outfit is necessary or appropriate in zone 2 of one of the most enlightened and cosmopolitan cities of the Western world. It is a statement. I read it as a rejection of Western values, a wish to shock and to marginalise themselves. Afterall, you don't have to wear this outfit to be a Muslim. All around the world there are Muslim men going to mosque in shirt and trousers. There are Muslim women who wear 'Western clothing'. The burqha is a statement.

Have you got any evidence any of them were burkini-clad women?

What an odd thing to ask I don't personally have any details, but since the PP told us what all the attackers seemed to be, it appeared she might - which is why I asked about evidence

But then, I imagine you knew that ...

I agree with MrsTerryPratchett on pg 4. "What it represents to me is two sexist male structures arguing about how they want women to dress. Neither is right, but the French should know better, what with thinking they're shiny liberal westerners.

I lived in France in the 90's and 2000's. Taught English in a French school in the 90's. What struck me was how simarly the children dressed (teenagers). No school uniform but all wore jeans in a self imposed denim or double denim uniform.

The French aren't like the Brits in their eclectic dress sense. They have rigid societal norms. Stray from that and you risk ostracism and alienation. This is another part of the issue with the burkini in France. I think head covering was banned in French institutions in the early 90's.

Banning the burkini was a ridiculous decision. The women involved in forcibly stripping must feel completely violated. 3 armed police. Shameful.

The women who have been banned from the beach so far don't seem to have been wearing 'burkinis' - just a head scarf and a light top and trousers.

Appropriate beachwear for countries that believe in 'slip, slap, slop' is covered, with a hat.

The line of thought seems to be that all muslims are responsible for the attacks in France and therefore muslim clothing is provocative and muslims should hide.

That is terrifying.

I think that as somebody who is pale skinned and clearly of Northern European ancestry, I would get away with going on a French beach in a long sleeved rash vest and board shorts, and my children could wear UV suits and hats. With darker skin it looks as though I would be in trouble.

Of course recent events in Paris are tragic and nobody 'deserves' that.

However, looking at the comments below the line on the papers reporting this, it is clear that for many people the oppressive rules of an Islamic state would be quite welcome, just as long as the oppression has a European flavour.

The women who have been banned from the beach so far

Nobody has been banned.

A country in a state of emergency has banned a certain type of provocative religious garment as they have every right to do.

It's a choice to wear it. Apparently.

So choose to comply with the law of the land in which you live, as Muslims are instructed to do by their religion.

I fail to understand the hyperbole and bandwagonning about this.

They have been banned from the beach if they aren't allowed to wear leggings and a long loose top or cover their heads on the beach.

This really is not hyperbole. The clothes they have been wearing have not been provocative, just clothes that identify you as Muslim if you dont look Caucasian.

Being Muslim is not provocative unless you identify all Muslims as potential terrorists.

And a burkini isn't religious dress

They have been banned from the beach if they aren't allowed to wear leggings and a long loose top or cover their heads on the beach

But that just isn't true, is it? The clothing has been banned, but surely that only involves banning the user if they have no choice but to wear it - which we've been repeatedly assured isn't the case. Most of us make decisions about what clothing will be appropriate every day of our lives, so why should this case be so very different?

And for the third time: If the burkini really is just a freely adopted "fashion item", what was to stop the lady concerned from simply choosing something else? While abroad I've covered up in situations where I otherwise might not, simply because I didn't want to offend and preferred to avoid any unpleasantness. It's true I might not have agreed with local views on female dress, but I certainly didn't consider it my place to strike attitudes about it

Isn't that just common sense?

Diana - agree with you.

Were they simply given their male relatives’ blessing to go have a paddle? From what I understand, veiled women rarely have much say over their daily activities so it’s unlikely they went on a whim. Or could it be they were they sent out by those very menfolk by way of a provocation? A visible presence? A reminder of the “modest” values of Islam?

From an interesting article by Judith Woods in The Telegraph.

I wondered the same.

Lets not make out Muslim women living in France don't have choices and are at the mercy of the men in their families

Many are choosing to live a life of what many see are a purer Islam that doesn't mean they answer only to the men in their family they are making their own statement

The religion (as all are) itself is deeply misogynistic (that doesn't mean all Muslims are)

I don't understand how the police stood over that woman and got her to take her tunic off. She was lucky she had the camisole on underneath. There was a guy near with full length jeans and a tee shirt. Simply adding long sleeves (and a hat), he would have been dressed similarly to her without fear of arrest. And he was videoing the whole show.

She was not as covered up as I would be if I was mad enough to lie baking on that strip of gravel. I wouldn't be exposing a square inch to that hot sun.

No I don't think she was sent out a provocation or was making a statement. She would have worn an actual burkini then. The woman in the photos wore a tunic, leggings and a turban not even a full headscarf. She probably went there thinking I'm not wearing a burkini so why would I get bothered. If she was trying to get a reaction why would she take her kids and risk causing them huge upset? Why would she just be snoozing on the beach instead of swimming or doing something else to call attention to herself? Why didnt she just leave the beach if she was there to protest? I dont know whether they gave her the option though of leaving with her top on.

Honestly it's just a fantasy, supporters of this ban are making up to feel better about a woman being publicly humiliated by police forcing her to take her top off in front of a beach of people who were jeering at her to go home. Doesn't look pretty does it because it's coming from an ugly place.

I assume they will be banning Catholic women from wearing headscarves and modest clothing at religious beach festivals like the one at Saint Maries de la Mer?

It's interesting reading the comments of supporters of this ban. I get the impression from their words that they support punishing Muslim women because of the actions of Muslim men. Or that because they disagree with some of the practices of Muslims they think it's legitimate to strip freedoms and rights from Muslim women in particular.

The funny thing is this dehumanisation of the other is exactly what terrorists do to the innocent people they kill. They have a grievance against Western governments for:

1. supporting dictators in the middle east (for example France signing a 13 billion dollar deal to supply arms to the Saudi regime);

2. military interference in the region (i.e. Iraq war and bombings of Syria, Yemen etc) that has lead to the death of hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians and also destabilisation of the region

3. ignoring atrocities committed against the Palestinians by the Israel government and unfair stance in that conflict e.g. allowing Israel to violate several UN resolutions supplying them with arms, indirectlt supporting building of illegal settlements on Palestinian territories

Etc

So what do terrorists do. They think that legitimises punishing, attacking innocents civilians in the West because of their 'affiliation' to their governments. Now they don't care like many of those who support the ban about what individuals actually think. Whether they support the actions of their government or were against them? Whether they supported causes sympathetic to them and campaigned against supporting dictators? They have lumped us all in to the same boat and think of everyone as a legitimate target.

Now supporters of the ban and other measures which specifically target Muslims are not as bad in that they don't call for killing or physical attacks on Muslims as a whole (for now but whenever these attacks happen you do find violence being incited by some). However they do mimic that type of thought that politicises everyone loosely connected with the other side and sees them as legitimate targets for some sort of vengeance/retaliation. That's why you see so many posts on this thread along the lines of well I can understand why France would do that considering what happened there. It is horrific what has been happening to France and I am deeply saddened for all those effected and all those left terrified by these attacks. However the people who should be blamed or targeted for these attacks are the perpetrators and their supporters not Muslim women.

It's interesting as well that none of these bans have impacted Muslim men directly in any way. No bans on beards or middle eastern male dress (thobe). Probably because it would effect European companies business dealings with rich Arab Sheikhs if they couldn't swan around European capitals dressed as they like. Much easier to target women.

Honestly the types of men who would force their wife/daughter to cover are really not bothered by this ban or even the humiliation inflicted on that poor woman. Like moonstruck said earlier their response would be similar to supporters of the ban. Why was she on the beach in the first place?

Great post needabreak I couldn't agree more.

Love the solidarity shown here with women supporting each others choices.

www.theguardian.com/world/2016/aug/25/protesters-throw-beach-party-protest-in-london-against-burkini-ban

Also agree with the points made in this article that the ban targets the Muslims who are trying to integrate and participate in society. The women fined in the photos for example wore a fashionable turban rather than an overt headscarf, though even if she did wear a full headscarf there is still nothing wrong with that.

www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/aug/25/burkini-french-muslim-isis

For those saying well if it's a choice then they can just choose not to wear it. Well why should they? Being a vegetarian is a choice but does that mean if they are in an environment where no meat free dishes are served they should eat meat? More likely they wont eat anything there or will be forced to leave and eat somewhere else depending on how committed they are to their choice. They are excluded from that place based on the decision they have made according to their conscious and beliefs to live their life a certain way. Saying well you can choose not to wear it after you have already banned it and made it a crime for them to wear is not a choice anymore it is coercing them to dress in the way you like or be excluded from the beach.

In fairness, Needabreak, ISIS and similar don't need a specific reason to have a grudge or launch horrific torture and bloodshed against someone. They are only on the side of their own empowerment and enrichment. Not a movement for fairness and justice in any way.

It is enough you are not a muslim or fellow traveller with their agenda. Their psychopathic followers can simply live out their sadistic fantasies because they want to and they can.

The Yazidis didn't arm Saudi. Or the archeologists who wouldn't give up the loot from Petra so it could be plundered and didn't seem to be so blasphemous it shouldn't be stolen and sold onwards.

Also, ISIS are a sunni sect/org. Far from worrying about the illegal settlements, unfairness and lack of justice for the population, their beef with Palestine would be that the Shia population, who they tar as apostates, are still alive.

They wouldn't be condemning the atrocities against the Palestinians. They would be committing them.

Pangurban1

Who on earth are ISIS? Do you know? I don't.
They actually greatly resemble the nastiest Mexican drug gang, the Zetas, who were trained by the US military, while none of their practice resembles any Islam I have ever heard of.

So I don't think they are a justification for stripping Muslim women in this case literally of their clothes and in general of their rights.

I fail to see what ISIS have to do with a woman wanting to cover her body on the beach.

Apart from the French are angry with ISIS and therefore pick an easy target to sort out as some kind of example. While the real problems they are completely powerless to influence.

Not much has changed.

Where did I say ISIS have anything to do with the women being banned from wearing a burkini?

I was just exploring a few points from Needsabreak's post saying how terrorists have a grievance against western governments for ignoring atrocities carried out in Palestine etc.

Just pointing that ISIS (who I think are quite a bit in the news lately re terrorism and people committing terrorist acts in Europe, giving allegiance to them) wouldn't give a damn about the Shia Palestinians or any injustice or human rights violations anywhere really. Goodness knows, they carry them out with a bloodthirsty appetite.

Am I allowed to do that? Or am I being banned like the burkini?

It is a matter of debate whether the vile practices of ISIS or Daesh have nothing in common with Islam ever. Wasn't it spread by the sword? And they do refer to things in their Koran. Maybe all these religious books would be a reference for vile acts if people took all their contents literally. Why their adherents should kill someone and specify how to do it. The old testament contains stoning diktats too. Nobody does it though (I don't think).

If you mean it is different from the way it is practiced by people who don't take it literally, but use it as a philosophical/spiritual guidance that is different.

But this about the burkini ban, not religion as such.

But this about the burkini ban, not religion as such.

Actually, I see this very much as being about religion, but not Islam or Muslims in particular. Think about how we respond to nuns or priests. Anyone who has 'given themselves to god' to such a degree is an anomaly now, here, in this part of the world. We don't have a normal conversation with nuns, we give them a wide berth and we don't engage with them as such on any level. This ban is symbolic, to say that we don't want to be dragged back to articulating our world through religion and it's also fundamentally dishonest to allow certain groups to continue doing exactly this. Western Liberalism encourages us to engage with all ideas ('communism', 'Fascism', etc.) but not religion because religion is the one ideology that makes truth claims that other ideas don't. You can't argue with religion on the same footing as with all other ideas. For these reasons, we are wary of religiosity, especially that which is overt and obvious. This is from an excellent work by science writer Margaret Wertheim entitled "Pythagoras' Trousers: God, Physics and the Gender wars":

"Most cultures articulate their world picture through mythology or religion, but since the seventeenth century the Western world picture has been articulated through science, above all by physics [...] Indeed, I suggest knowledge of a society's world picture is essential for psychological integrity within society. Without such an understanding an individual becomes, in a profound way, an outsider. As long as our culture continues to refract reality through the lens of science there is an obligation to make science accessible to everyone. What is at stake here is not just individual sanity, but ultimately social cohesion. By binding people into the same cosmological framework, a shared world picture becomes one of the primary glues that holds communities together".

It doesn't get any clearer than that.