Burkini banned in France

[LifeIsGoodish]

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

Burkini banned in France

Sikhs aren't killing hundreds of French people. Is that not obvious?

as far as I know, sikhs can't wear turbans in schools.

Patience for accepting violent religions is wafer thin.

However, so far in the UK most people have been able to tell the difference between being a Muslim and being a member of Isis. I really hope that situation never changes.

(I agree that looking at discussions on social media, there is no reason for complacency)

And who gets to decide what this unity looks like, how is it enforced, how is free will and creativity curbed so that 'unity' is upheld?

In an ideal world (which of course it isn't) there probably wouldn't be any need to impose unity. Better minds than mine have already posted about this, but for me unity mostly hinges on the thoughts and beliefs which happily most of us share - family values, working hard, following democratically created laws, treating others with respect and consideration, etc.

I accept that stronger measures are necessary when a few are seen to be threatening the whole, but honestly don't feel this necessarily needs to impact the vast majority of people who'll no doubt go right on leading normal, decent lives as they've always done

Patience for accepting violent religions is wafer thin.

we shouldn't accept them. We should challenge them, and see if there is any ideological support for such groups through the religion. We should discuss it their religious leaders.

And how does forcing women to strip in front of police achieve that?

And who gets to decide what this unity looks like, how is it enforced, how is free will and creativity curbed so that 'unity' is upheld?

Actually, no-one needs to enforce anything because we are already living it. This is already happening, part of a long tradition characterising Western values ( which, as others have pointed out, comprise democracy, the rule of law, equality in human rights, little State intervention, freedom of expression and individualism on a personal level, the separation of religion and State, etc.) developed in the 17thC and ongoing since then. The 'enforcement' comes partly from the formal institutions, which we have set up such as the legal system, education system, etc., and partly from the more informal system of the social contract, the tacit agreement among social members about what constitutes social cohesion.

The only reason to ask this question is if you don't like what is currently in place - is this the case?

Four, It's very commendable of you to be so passionate about this topic, this is not meant sarcastically but genuinely.

However, you do seem incredibly rigid in your argumentation and stuck in the past during which a select few people benefitted from the Enlightenment period whilst millions of others suffered abuse, ill-health and extinction as a result of enlightenment, industrialisation, colonisation and the various Holocausts.

Don't get me wrong I love the Enlightenment period and I wish organising social life were a simple matter of imposing those values. .

We now live in a global digital post post-modern era (whatever exactly that means). Let's not be hypocritical and let's acknowledge that our lovely Western European bubble of relative peace, happiness and prosperity that we (or at least I) have been fortunate to experience whilst growing up and into adulthood has always come at a cost of others around the world. The arms deals, slave labour for lovely cheap clothes, climate change etc. etc. etc.

We don't live in the 17th century anymore and there were many disadvantaged people in Britain and the rest of Europe during this time who did not benefit from any of the reformations of the time!!!

"The only reason to ask this question is if you don't like what is currently in place - is this the case?" With all due respect that is such a naive question and you couldn't be further off the mark. It seems to me that you look at the world in a rigid, black and white way and that if something doesn't match your expectations of how this unitary society should be seems sort of unfathomable to you. I get this sense based on your posts. Again I find it commendable that you want everything orderly and all but it reflects a restricted outlook and understanding of how today's world operates. Please don't take offence at this, it is just that your argumentation does not take into account that we live in a complex, interconnected world and have long moved on from the era of colonisation and cultural dominance.

Sadly, the row is far from finished:
www.theguardian.com/world/2016/aug/26/frances-highest-court-suspends-burkini-ban-in-test-case

"Many of the bans are due to expire in the next couple of weeks. They do not explicitly use the word burkini but instead ban “beachwear which ostentatiously displays religious affiliation”, citing reasons such as the need to protect public order, hygiene or French laws on secularism."

By their reasoning, nobody should be able to wear any clothes that could indicate religious affiliation outside their own homes.

NotExactly No offence taken. I have spent years working my way through postmodernism, poststructuralism, post-blah, blah, blah, "complex, interconnected world" to get to this point . Being interested in postructuralist politics, 'complexity', 'nuanced understanding', 'interconnected', post-[insert reference of choice here], 'flexible', 'ecologically valid', 'difficult to define', 'multifaceted', 'pluralistic', 'constructed', 'deconstructed', 'always-already', etc. used to comprise a large part of my thinking. Once you find a hook that will give you the vocabulary to say that something is better than something else, rather than merely 'equal but different', then you can move on again. For me, that was feminism.

Oh, interesting four, it may well be me who is ignorant then

I will now very modestly (sorry no pun) ask you, if you have any lit you would recommend as I am firmly 'stuck?' in the phase of pos-post modernism (as i said whatever that may mean) and would be interested to thinking beyond to explore new ways of thinking. I remember from some years back that Karl Popper was (is?) a philosopher who argued in a fashion not unsimiliar to your pp seen in the light of your most recent post. (sorry not expressing myself too well as dc is having a wobble over something or other)

NotExactly There's loads of lit. (as I'm sure you know only too well), and it feels like I've waded through most of it (over a period of many, many years). I'll gather some things together and pm you. Won't be immediate though, as the blasted school holidays have done me in

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3761846/They-told-leave-Police-boat-swoops-officers-order-two-women-wearing-hijabs-leave-Nice-beach-despite-judge-overturning-controversial-burkini-ban.html

The women are clearly not wearing burkini but instead a maxi dress and another outfit. So much for those saying Muslim women are not being banned from the beach in France. None of the 3 women so far caught on camera being approached by police about the ban have been wearing burkini. So it doesn't seem to be a case of choose to not wear it and you can come to the beach. The first woman wore a turban not a hijab. These women wore hijabs but with large hats on top to disguise it and still got asked to leave the beach. None of them had men with them but were there with children. It seems like Muslim women are being told they cannot wear ANY kind of cover up on the beach. I would really like to see what would happen if non Muslim women wore the same outfits as them and went on the beach. It seems all you need to say to get to cover up a bit on the beach is that your not muslim. I don't know how anyone could not see this as clear cut discrimination.

I'm glad that the high courts overturned it but I think like lweji this is far from over.

Needabreaknow
How awful, so the children didn't get to play on the beach.

I was listening to Any Answers on Radio 4 today and the comments were so vile I couldn't bear it. And I'm not even a Muslim and I live thousands of miles away from Europe. But this blatant discrimation against a minority is appalling.

The argument that people shouldn't break laws reminds me of Nazi Germany. You have to wear a star, if you don't wear a star you are breaking the law.

Need that is truly shocking and disgusting. The women look beautiful, summery, stylish and happy. This is persecution. The people behind this 'policy; are steering up racial hatred and are incredibly callous.

The argument that people shouldn't break laws reminds me of Nazi Germany. You have to wear a star, if you don't wear a star you are breaking the law.

I said earlier that there is nothing wrong with peaceful disobedience, but apparently some people think "rules are rules" no matter how unjust. is it only ok when white people do it, because france has a very long tradition of angry protests.

It's interesting that peaceful disobedience is frowned upon, but local governments disobeying court rulings is a-ok.

what a lovely place France has gotten to. Boats filled with armed men ordering women to leave beaches because of garments. And an excellent use of limited police resources.

Even worse when this "law" is against the actual law.

It has been disallowed by the high court, which means it's the Mayors passing out these rules that are flaunting the law.

I havent had time to RTFT but this is just so horrible, a travesty of secularism, just yet again just men telling women how they can dress.

Can I ask, has anyone heard of any incidents of the French authorities throwing men off the beach for wearing 'religious clothing'?

It's interesting that peaceful disobedience is frowned upon, but local governments disobeying court rulings is a-ok

Where did anyone (at least on here) say this was okay? I confess I'm no expert on the French constitution and what powers local mayors have, but I imagine a lot of the French would agree with us that this is unacceptable

As I've said before, the right to protest against perceived injustice is extremely important, but those who'd drag good old Godwin into it might do well to consider what the alternatives to democratically framed law are. Personally I don't think they look pretty, but I'm open to persuasion ...

The rules is rules mentality is a weird mumsnet phenomenon imo.

It seems to be a deliberate policy to force Muslim families off the beach.

I can't imagine what they hope to gain from this.

Possibility 1) These are women who just want to take their children to the beach wearing the clothes that they like to wear: it's a completely pointless ban that will just increase dischord and bad feeling.

Possibility 2) the clothes are 'unhygienic': the police targeted women on the beach , not the sea, and if they were in the sea - well, it's the sea and what about wetsuits?

Possibility 3) they are being protected from anti- Muslim abuse: not really, the ban gives people a licence to abuse Muslims.

Possibility 4) they are being protected from men who force them to wear hijab: and these men are now going to let them wear bikinis?

Possibility 5) these women are deliberately wearing hijab to be provocative: well that worked out well - they couldn't have hoped for better pictures of western men persecuting Muslim women to fly around the world.

Or, possibility 6, they are protecting and upholding the cherished French principle that all public spaces should be secular in principle and in practice. This article linked below explains it better than I can.

What it also does is set out the rank hypocrisy of the Left in their commitment (which I would say borders on the obsessive if a daily reading of the Guardian is anything to go by) to upholding the rights and freedoms of the conservative fringes of a religion that promotes social and cultural views that we would not put up with if expressed by our politicians, public servants, and certainly not our friends. So I see left wing atheist friends of mine cry 'islamophobia' whenever anybody (including prominent moderate Muslim critics such as Sara Khan and Maajid Nawaz) suggests that Europe might be on the cusp of its own jihad. In the end there's one reason and one reason alone why this has been allowed to happen and that's that Muslims have been designated the first oppressed amongst equals, without agency and in need of endless support and protection from the nasty western establishment.

And I wonder, just wonder, if the same degree of support would be offered to, ooh I don't know, a western girl in a bikini hassled on a beach in North Africa, or an ex Muslim who wants to get through life without death threats as an apostate. If not, if that same degree of fraternal support is not offered as it is so generously offered to Muslim women on beaches, then it's just another example of Chomskian post colonial not in my name guilt as far as I'm concerned.

thegerasites.wordpress.com/2016/08/29/france-the-left-and-the-burkini-ban-its-complicated/

What it also does is set out the rank hypocrisy of the Left in their commitment (which I would say borders on the obsessive if a daily reading of the Guardian is anything to go by) to upholding the rights and freedoms of the conservative fringes of a religion that promotes social and cultural views that we would not put up with if expressed by our politicians, public servants, and certainly not our friends.

actually, the problem with islam is that the conservative is not a fringe, and you are right we wouldn't put up with it from those people.

but that doesn't matter. if you support basic rights like freedom of religion, you don't have to agree with those views, just the right to hold and express them.

and we definitely should support women wearing bikinis on beaches, and apostate muslims. but that doesn't mean we should support stepping on the rights of other people.

The trouble with the french approach is that it allows conservative muslims to claim freedom of speech is limited in france. and it is. in this regard it is a less free society than both the UK and the US. and, as expression clearly has limits in france, why not muzzle those who blaspheme islam? why the double standard?

Or, possibility 6, they are protecting and upholding the cherished French principle that all public spaces should be secular in principle and in practice.

But how can it possibly be practical to do that? Muslim dress doesn't appear to have been banned from all public places - just women who want to take their children to the beach because they live near the sea and it is summer.

You don't have to think hijab is a good idea to be able to see that banning it is oppressive and counter productive.

And I wonder, just wonder, if the same degree of support would be offered to, ooh I don't know, a western girl in a bikini hassled on a beach in North Africa

I expect better from France.

And I expect better from France too. And I agree completely that the ban is counterproductive, silly, and anti democratic. I don't feel it is quite the thin edge of the wedge that some do though but there you go.

My point is that those first to come to the rescue to gallant oppressed Muslims are the often first to throw other minorities under a bus if they don't meet the standard of the downtrodden and state oppressed. Ex Muslims are derided, disregarded and harassed - usually by other Muslims. 'Cultural sensitivities' usually only work one way.

Anyway a good debate and I only hope that if/when there is an example of overreaction or extremist action demonstrated by the salafist element of the mainstream Muslim community we'll see the same degree of forensic rigour applied.

`Possibility 2) the clothes are 'unhygienic': the police targeted women on the beach , not the sea, and if they were in the sea - well, it's the sea and what about wetsuits

Dp when we last went to France, a few years ago, had to buy himself a pair of speedos. He wasn't swimming but wasn't allowed to sit there fully dressed. So why would women think they could abuse the dress code that everyone else has to adhere to.

Dp when we last went to France, a few years ago, had to buy himself a pair of speedos

To the beach? Why?
Are you sure it wasn't a swimming pool?
But these local laws specifically mention the religious aspect.
And why are the policemen allowed to be there fully dressed? That's unhygienic, surely.