UKC

Forcing women wearing innocuous (if odd) clothes on the beach to remove them! What can this achieve but alienation of a group of people who have the potential to prevent future atrocities? It's hardly like arguments for showing your face etc with burkha bans

In reply to MG:

Yes, and we have spent a thousand years unsuccessfully trying to explain that to them.

In reply to MG:

Yes, they have. I can't conceive of any way that this could be a good idea.

In reply to MG:

In a word, yes.

I've got to admit, I had never seen a Burkini until a couple of weeks ago on a beach in Barcelona. I really struggle to see how they could offend anyone rational.

In reply to MG:

Doesn't appear to be their finest hour.

In reply to MG:


They're just sulking because they didn't get as many medals as GB in Rio...

In reply to MG:

Yes.

It's massively degrading, and appears to be a form of religious persecution.

In reply to MG:

This is horrendous

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-37173673

Ever notice that men never have their clothing monitored or banned?

In reply to MG:
It's in Nice, where an Islamic terrorist killed 84 people by mowing them down with a lorry just a few weeks ago and right next to that beach. Not a good place for overtly islamic clothing until things calm down a bit.

In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

Or not a good place for persecuting Muslims (not that there ever is a good place for it!)! It only serves to marginalise people and then they are more vulnerable to being radicalised.

In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

It's in several places and appears simply vindictive. Justifications given are absurd, "respecting morality" being one, which sounds.like something ISIS would come up with, not a.supposedly secular, liberal democracy.

In reply to girlymonkey:


I do. Mrs Abseil does this all the time

In reply to abseil:

A little different

In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

Which do you mean, that you think it's justifiable that people/women who are visibly Islamic are asked to dress differently, or that you just think it's understandable (if unfortunate) that people there may be having negative feelings towards Muslims at the moment - or something else?

It could be interpreted in more than one way...

In reply to girlymonkey:


Perhaps because men are not generally repressed and controlled as much by religious upbringings, their parents and their peers.

In reply to wintertree:

Quite!

However, many women choose these garments for themselves.

The French government are not stating that Muslim men may not wear their tunics with the loose trousers underneath (excuse my ignorance in not know what this outfit is called. I probably don't know because no one discusses what men wear!).

No one, religious or state, should be dictating how women (or men!) should dress.

In reply to girlymonkey:



Yes, but if someone is raised to treat themselves as a second class citizen, and that becomes normalised within a community, does that make it okay?


My understanding is that the government have enacted a temporary ban on inflammatory non secular clothing, not on the burquini. What the police enforce and what the government suggest that they enforce is another matter

For what it's worth I think the current situation is inflammatory and unhelpful.


I disagree. If a secular clothing rule can be used to de-normalise religious subjugation of individuals, especially when done with overt descrimination (against women in this case) I am all for it within the workplace and education system etc. Of course it's not that simple because perhaps you reduce oppressed minority engagement with systems that might help them get a better life.

In reply to MG:

Any of the five dislikes care to,explain why? Genuinely interested.

In reply to girlymonkey:




I'm thinking the only line which possibly should be drawn is against face covering, but just because men can't walk around in balaclavas out in public. There's nothing in a Koran about face covering, and with how some criminals dressed in face covering clothing to pretend to be Muslim women a year or a bit more ago, I guess there is a security reason why it could be a good idea to not allow people of any gender to cover their faces - I think it's got to be a good thing for us to be able to tell who each other are.

I agree entirely that it's wrong the way women are still pressured into dressing and not dressing in certain ways by men though.

In reply to wintertree:


Yes, it is still their choice! The minute we start dictating what they can't wear, we are as bad those dictating what they must wear. Let people choose for themselves rather than demeaning them further by suggesting they are not capable of choosing for themselves.


I wasn't aware that they had THEORETICALLY included other items of clothing. I suspect they will claim that no other non secular clothing is inflamatory


Agreed.


I presume you meant to write 'without' overt discrimination?

Of course it's not that simple because perhaps you reduce oppressed minority engagement with systems that might help them get a better life.

This exactly.

In reply to MG:

It sounds mentally deranged. I cant think of a single rational justification. It just comes across as punishing every member of a group of people for the behaviour of a few individuals.

In reply to girlymonkey:
The irony is that the Muslims in burkinis are almost certainly at the more liberal end of the spectrum, certainly in my limited experience they were happily sharing a beach with men and women who were not dressed modestly, in some cases,not dressed at all.

In reply to MG:

Glad we Brexited. I don't want to be associated with France.

In reply to Timmd:


Just to touch on that one point - in Islam whether something is or isn't in the Koran is not equatable to whether something is or isn't in the Bible or Torah. Clerics are able to issue fatwas and amend canon with relative ease. The equivalent in Catholicism (an encyclical) is much harder to do, and IIRC - can be reasonably 'uncanonicalized' by future Popes. IIRC of course. I'm not looking this stuff up again, I'm still technically at work now.

In reply to girlymonkey:


You assume everyone is in practical terms able to choose without fear of recrimination or judgement. I don't. As NickB says however the people on the beaches are not the ones to worry about.


Read into it. They didn' include or exclude any specific clothing in my understanding although I've not read the actual wording of the legislation.


Sorry I see now two very different interpretations to what I wrote. I mean that the subjugation and control of people by (multiple) religions is overtly discriminatory against women. I did not mean that the response to this should be descriminatory!

In reply to MG:

Quickly read through this and I'd like to ask the people on here who think that muslim women need to be liberated from conservative cultural dress codes whether a group of fully clothed armed male police forcing a woman to undress is also a form of liberation.

I've spoken to a few people about this today... the majority of them are apalled, but I'm curious that those who I've spoken to who are generally supportive of a ban on muslim head coverings in order to "protect women" from themselves and their culture are men, out of the small and unrepresentative sample I've chatted to. No woman has said to me, anything other than- a woman can wear what she wants. End of.

I am a non muslim woman who has always felt pretty uncomfortable about revealing my body to the extent as is normal on most mediterranean beaches, and I can totally understand why the burkini is a popular option. If it was culturally acceptable for me to wear one, I would. As it is I tend to go for a wetsuit whenever it is cool enough. For muslim women, the burkini actually provides some of that "liberation" that paternalistic westerners are so keen to press. It is a garment that has opened up swimming and other sports to a group of people who otherwise might not have felt comfortable taking part. Its heartbreaking that this option is being taken away.

Finally. She wasn't wearing a burkini. Just a pair of leggings, a shirt and a head scarf. She was targeted for her race.

In reply to Snoweider:


Not liberated from the dress codes but liberated from a social and religious grouping that normalises the process of sexually descriminatory dress codes - amongst other things.


I don't see anyone advocating that on here, do you? I also don't see any proof the woman was forced to remove clothes. Speculation but I imagine it was a choice - pay fine / leave beach / comply with (stupid) law.

Or do you and MG think the police said "undress or we shoot"?

In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:


Could you not say, from another point of view, that burkinis allow Muslim women to integrate into society, by doing normal everyday French things like enjoying good weather on the beach, while still paying heed to the rules of the religion they follow. And therefore it's liberating for them?

In reply to wintertree:

Blimey. I think three armed police standing round her and insisting that she undress while bystanders hurl racist taunts at her is pretty forceful no?

This whole "liberated from social and religious grouping that normalises the process of sexually discriminatory dress codes" thing is just weird. Nobody actually listens to muslim women when they make these statements. Its just a bunch of white people trying to impose their norms on someone else.

If you want to get upset about the cultural opression of women how about taking on the shrink it and pink it brigade, or if you prefer to focus on other cultures. FGM, or the use of rape as a weapon in war. These are the real issues facing women around the world right now.

In reply to Snoweider:

I really can't agree with that at all. No woman has the right to wear a t-shirt with the slogan "kill the Pakis" on it, just as she doesn't have the right to shout that through a megaphone. She doesn't have the right to walk into a shop bollock(?) naked, and nor, in my opinion does she have the right to walk into a shop in this country with her face covered. All of this, of course, applies equally to men.

You can't do whatever you like, your right to choose to your clothing is a qualified one that works within limits of what's acceptable in our society, the things we need to agree on in order to get along together.

The French policy is barking mad for a lot of reasons, but violating womens' right to "wear what she wants. End of." is not one of them.


Are you sure it wasn't her religion?

In reply to wintertree:


You don't think that's a problem.

Don't be silly.

In reply to Jon Stewart:

Actually there is no such thing as race, so I meant race as a cultural construct... Its blatant racial profiling. If I wore those clothes at that beach I would be unlikely to be accosted and forced to undress as I don't look like her.

In reply to Snoweider:


You do realise almost all police outside the UK are armed as a matter of course? I don't beleive any weapons were used or threatened? Feel free to post a link if I'm wrong.


Please do post a link with evidence that she was made to undress - until then you're speculating as much as me. If bystanders were being racist I'd hope the police intervened; again feel free to post a link.


Nonsense. Expecting women to dress more conservatively than men is fundamentally sexist. That it is normalised within a group does not make it okay.


Perhaps they do. To pick a more extreme example you can find physical abuse victims defending their abuser. Do you understand what I mean by "normalised"?

It's not about liberating individuals, it's about nudging society to abandon its prejudiced and sexist treatment of people.


Nothing to do with skin colour. You're showing your prejudiced views there with a throw away "white people" remark. We all in the whole world should have the same rights both legal and customary.


Ah the old "why aren't you chasing after rapists and murderers" line. What you raise here is of no relevance to my views on secular clothing and its potential role in combating normalised sexual descrimination within western society. Well, arguably it is relevant because it shows what happens when you let controlling, sexist religions become normalised...

In reply to Snoweider:

I'm not so sure. I think it was the headscarf that got their goat, since the policy bans clothing that £overtly manifests adherence to a religion at a time when France and places of worship are the target of terrorist attacks£. You might think that the colour of her skin made a difference, but there's absolutely no evidence nor even suggestion of that in what's reported. The policy targets Muslims.

In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:


It in quite a few places. This story is about a week/10 days old. Having been in France up until last week, I have seen it unfold in the French media. Originally, a swimming pool wanted to hold a women in burkini only session, but there was uproar* and they had to cancel it. Then a couple of days later, they was a mass brawl on a beach in Corsica that seems to have been sparked off by some locals objecting to some people wearing burkinis. It would seem that it goes against French tradition of what should be worn on a beach. My father in law felt particularly aggrieved that somebody would want to wear something like that on a beach. He didn't have a particularly coherent answer for what nuns would need to wear at the beach or for divers in wetsuits and hoods, but that didn't surprise me.

The banning of burkinis was then spreading from place to place.

Personally, I having spent the day on the beach in Scarborough yesterday and seeing a range of bodies (my legs aren't great) and clothing types, the less offensive in my eyes were those in Islamic dress.


* The justification for the uproar in theory was a hygiene one - you are only allowed certain types of swimming costumes in French swimming pools e.g. my swimming shorts which are fine in the UK and in Germany are not allowed in France, so in that respect they do have consistency of argument.

In reply to MG:


Read my comments on the thread and tell me if I think this is a good or helpful law.

I think it's very different to being forced as you both insist. I don't know what happened, do you?


Well you both insist she was forced and the other poster is labouring the armed aspect. So you tell me, how was she "forced" to undress?

In reply to Snoweider:


Presumably there's no such thing as racism then.

What's the pink and shrink brigade btw?

In reply to Yanis Nayu:
Race is a social construct and as such racism exists. There's no such thing as race in biology: http://europe.newsweek.com/there-no-such-thing-race-283123?rm=eu

Pink it and shrink it was shorthand for the genderisation of childrens toys. https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2016/may/28/toys-kids-girls-boys-c...


Edit: I'm done here.

In reply to girlymonkey:


They do. For example 'no football colours' rules like this one http://talksport.com/football/team-colours-banned-corporate-areas-wembley-s...

The justification for 'no football colours' is pretty much the same as the Mayor of Cannes used i.e. in that location clothing which shows affiliation to a team (or in this case religion) would be provocative and likely to lead to a breach of the peace. There was already a riot on a beach in Corsica with locals against people in islamic dress.

Personally I don't have a problem with burkini and I wouldn't ban them but I can see why local politicians in Nice concerned with avoiding inter-community trouble that might scare the tourists might use their authority to regulate clothing on the beach.

In reply to MG:

I remember discussing this when they banned religious symbols and clothing in schools. One female commentator came out with something along the lines of "it's very French girl's constitutional duty to look sexy".

Plenty of countries encourage full body cover to protect against skin cancer...

In reply to MG:

Simple, a case of an over zealous municipal policeman having a go at an easy target. I won't speculate as to his motivations, but that isn't difficult to imagine.

The lady concerned was treated with a total lack of respect and will probably seek reparation and rightly so. The wearing of a head-scarf is a tradition and not a sure sign that the person is a practising muslim.

In reply to wintertree:


But the point is that if they choose to wear it, they have to fear recriminations, so they are screwed either way now.

I think, though, that we seem to agree that banning them is unwise, whatever the complexities of how much choice people have.

In reply to SenzuBean:


Ah, I didn't know that. Interesting.

In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

But the rule about football colours doesn't just target one gender. I know this also doesn't in theory, but it does in practice. I also suspect that a nun would be left in peace if she wore her Christian headscarf and tunic on a beach, so certainly the outworking of it is highly targeted and potentially very damaging.

In reply to girlymonkey:


Yes, I fear the women loose in this regardless. It has been argued (compellingly, I think) that the state is actually quite racist and sexist against these women as not enough is done to protect them for fear of being labelled racist.

In the UK there were 11,744 reported "honour crimes" in a recent 5 year window - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-33424644 - with a reasonable assumption that far more of these crimes go unreported, and that the crimes sit atop a much larger set of attitudes and behaviour, it's hard to see that the "choice" some women make is much of a choice at all against such a background.


In the context of beaches - agreed.

In reply to captain paranoia:


I'm not sure about that, but I know that in Paris at least, all resident women are required by law to look disgusted and cross.

In reply to MG:


Probably because you're generally a bit of a **** and they were just biding their time.

In reply to wintertree:



I wasn't talking about her specifically but the various bylaws.

In reply to girlymonkey:


not many terrorist acts or hate crimes have been committed recently by devote fundamentalist nuns though? So public perception of their attire and a muslims will always be different.

The only way forward is to say all religion is boll*cks, but western leaders are too wedded to the Christian church to move out the medieval era.

If you want a better example, motor bike helmets in shops or petrol stations, perhaps 90% are men, visible signs banning them, but would anyone dare put a sign up banning muslim attire that afforded the same level of visibility?

There is currently a move to ban this attire in Swedish schools as it's thought to not be aiding integration, making it harder for teacher and other pupils to read a pupils facial expression etc... so it's damaging their education and chances of making a non muslim friend. We will see, it will probably just be another excuse for them to complain about how hard done by they are with their free house, pin money and education.. they'll head off and burn out a few more cars in protest.

In reply to MG:


Do they sanction forcing women to remove clothes?

In reply to wintertree:

Yes, hence the thread. Links higher.

In reply to girlymonkey:

Yes, there are swimming pools that ban swim shorts and force men to wear speedos, "for hygiene reasons".

In reply to MG:

Publicly displaying your support of some nutter religion by wearing a Burquini at a beach not far from where someone else also invoking the same religion just killed dozens of people requires some chutzpah.

I used to be rather tolerant towards Islam, but this is clearly going too far, and the French have got it exactly right. If you want to live by rules that are clearly at least partially incompatible with western values, then go somewhere where you fit in better. The point about "honour" crimes raised above is extremely pertinent: There is no evidence that Muslim communities anywhere effectively do anything about this problem, just words would be too cheap anyway. I would like to see effective action, e.g. neighbours reporting parents forcing underage children into marriage reported to social service and police.

And before I get accused of anti-Islamism, I would demand the same of, say, the Catholic church with respect to child abuse, or of communities where sectarianism aligns along non-religious, e.g. national lines.

CB

In reply to MG:

"The French" are probably no more or less culturally homogenous than "Muslims". The French have only responded to continued and extremely violent provocation by a few sporadic counter-attacks that are only aimed at symbols associated with the attacking group. When I consider the level of imbalance that's going on there, I'm inclined to wonder why you ask if the French are mad, rather than asking if Muslims are mad? It's no more or less intolerant to associate all French people with the localised banning of burkinis than it would be to associate all Muslims with terror attacks.

Maybe the real insanity is to be found in the asking of questions such as the OP....

In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:


If this were Jews being forced to remove skull caps at the beach or catholic nuns being persecuted would you, could you even try to justify or excuse what is blatant and utterly counterproductive religious persecution by the French state?

Liberté, égalité, fraternité... but not for all at the moment.
jk

In reply to jkarran:


It's symptomatic of an elephant in a room that people focus on trivia rather than the real issue driving all this, which is the blatant and utterly counterproductive religious persecution of French citizens by Islamists that has been going on for several years now. Seen in that context, localised and limited symbolic counter attacks though regrettable are entirely understandable. The real madness lies in the studious avoidance of that particular elephant by people such as yourself, the OP, large swathes of the academic world and other sections of the chattering classes.

In reply to Andy Morley:


That isn't the point. The French state has policies, and those policies are a straightforward representation of "The French" - they voted for that government. States represent nations - that's what a nation is. One might just as well say "are the Brits thick? They're leaving the EU" and I wouldn't say that our policy is an unfair representation of us. We are, demonstrably, thick.

In reply to Andy Morley:


We should hold our states to significantly higher standards of behavior and judgement than we do our deranged, deluded and criminal individuals, whatever their motivations.

Targeting the dress of women is exactly the sort of behavior we've come to expect from those who wrap themselves in the banner of religious extremism. I'd be fascinated to hear why you think that this is an appropriate reaction on the part of the state, especially when targeted at a group bearing only superficial similarities to those who've killed in France as you clearly yourself acknowledge. In reality this is just theater played out as a sop to the far right.

Religious freedom and the prohibition of collective punishment exist for very good reasons, I'm surprised at France for forgetting this so soon.


No, the question is quite valid.
jk

In reply to Andy Morley:


Don't be ridiculous. No one is ignoring attacks on France or elsewhere. However, absurd restrictions on clothing of those almost certainly against such attacks is entirely counter productive,

In reply to MG:


No. Nobody has as far as I can tell posted any evidence that anyone has been forced to remove their clothing. Edit: most likely they were given a choice - remove or leave beach. I'm speculating, you're speculating, snoweider was speculating. Post some evidence or drop the unqualified assertion that people are being forced to remove clothes.

You also claimed you were taking about "various bylaws" and not individual cases. Make your mind up and then come back and show me proof that wonen are being *forced* to remove their clothing.

Crap and unhelpful law? Almost certainly. Women being forced to undress? Erm...

In reply to MG:

Frances' stance on religion is fairly well stated and well know. Rightly or wrongly. This can't come as surprise to these burkini bathers.

If you go to Saudi Arabia, Qatar or some other developed middle eastern countries/states western women would not be allowed to wear short sleeve tee shirts or shorts and will be asked to cover up.

This whole religious sensitivity thing goes both ways. Religions need to start respecting the values of the countries they are living in, even if it goes against their religious values.

In reply to JuneBob:

Again though, this is not just men. I prefer to wear shorts over my swimsuit when swimming, and if outside then a t-shirt too. I have suffered awful sunburn due to these French swimming pool rules not allowing me to cover up in the pool. (actually, the burkini sounds like a great idea for Scottish skin!!). These rules are ridiculous, and I do object to them, but they do not target men.

In reply to cb294:


I don't think you're seeing the whole picture there. If you were a Muslim woman, after such an attack, you're faced with a dilemma don't you think? You have a strong personal identity that's massively tied in to your religion and then this becomes a symbol of the most appalling violence and hatred because of the actions of others. (I know it's fashionable to blame "Islam" for such attacks, but it's *people* that do things, not religions - and no, that doesn't mean that you can't criticise the ideas of Islam, it's just that it's stupid to say that Islam, rather than the perpetrators of a crime is responsible). So now, do you accept that you have to hide your identity?

I don't think it's right to say, yes, all Muslims must now go below the radar, if you wilfully go out dressed like a Muslim, then you get what's coming to you.


I would much rather live in a genuinely secular society, but the way the French have gone about it hasn't worked out terribly well for them, has it?

In reply to wintertree:

I'm not sure what.you are disputing. There are well reported by laws in various towns banning certain types of clothing, apparently aimed at "burkinis" particularly. There are further reports of these being enforced. Are you quibbling over physical force rather than enforce.of.law?

In reply to wintertree:


Oh, I'm not saying all of them have a choice as free as I might have, absolutely some of them have the choice of don't go out or go out covered. I am not saying that Islam is always fair to women. Although, not all 'honour crimes' are committed by Muslims, and we have plenty of domestic violence in the UK too. None of this is relevant to whether we allow women to cover their heads if they want to (even if that desire is purely in order to placate the men of their community).

In reply to Andy Morley:

Are you honestly describing Islamist terrorism as an "elephant in the room". Who are you saying is completely stark raving bonkers?

In reply to MG:


I give up. You piled in to my reply to Snoweider saying this:


I said I doubt anyone was forced to undress. Neither you nor that poster have since proved that anyone has been forced to undress, let alone by armed police.

Having a choice between undressed and not using a beach is not being forced to do anything.


No. I've spelt it out several times but you don't seem to be reading it. I am asking for evidence that anyone is being forced to undress. None has been provided. This is an entirely relevant and important distinction to the conversation I was having with Snoweider and into which you joined - hence this reply. It's also an important distinction that you missed from your OP, leaving it quite ambiguous.

In reply to cap'nChino:



Well, yes, when it comes to wearing something that's inappropriate in our culture, i.e. covering your face. It's wrong to dress like that, because in our culture, we expect to talk face to face (e.g. in a shop or institution), and to be identifiable when in public. Wearing a headscarf on the other hand is no one else's business, and my version of western values says "you have the freedom to dress as you like, within limits of what's appropriate" - and "you're allowed to express your identity, so long as that's not infringing the right of others".

When you start legislating about what you can and can't wear because of what identity you're expressing (not because it violates some basic social contract like showing your face), you've gone bonkers. That's a stupid, counter-productive, invasive extension of the power of the state over the individual.

In reply to wintertree:

Well ok, probably no one has been forced to strip. I really don't think that was seriously implied by anyone though.

In reply to Jon Stewart:


What is the point then?

In reply to Jon Stewart:


That's your version of western values.

Frances version of their country's values asks that religious garments and items are not worn in public. This is the point, it is France we are talking about and not our values.

If you choose to live in France then you must accept that you will only have access to French wine, their bread and your religious freedom is curtailed.

Same way if i choose to live in Saudi I accept I cannot drink french wine have sex with my girlfriend (not married) and that she cannot wear T-shirt without attracting negative attention.


It isn't about identity it is about religion. Or identity through religion to put it better. France does not want you expressing your identity through religion. If you don't like this then you shouldn't move to France. It isn't fair that you should expect a country to change their laws to accommodate your religion, IMO. I know a lot will rightly disagree with my opinion on this.

In reply to cap'nChino:


What, objectively is the difference between someone swimming in a 'burkini' and someone swimming in a wetsuit/rashvest? If you can't differentiate from a practical perspective then what we're looking at is religious persecution and that's not cool.


Personally I expect more of a once great liberal secular democracy than authoritarian absolute monarchies propped up by oil money and fundamentalist religious sects. I'd prefer to see Saudi and Quatar liberalise than see France racing to join them at the bottom of the barrel.


I see nothing disrespectful in a woman (or man) covered up at the beach. I don't in winter when it's raining and windy and everyone is, I don't in summer when the sun's shining and some prefer to go naked. Big deal, it's not my place to judge them for their choices or to infer their motivations and it sure as hell isn't the French state's.
jk

In reply to cap'nChino:

France is a secular state. There are two aspects to that. One is the strict separation of religion from the state, the other is the protection of both religious and non-religious. They seem to be failing on both counts in this case.

In reply to Jon Stewart:


Yes. We've become victims of our own openness to the extent that some sections of the intellectual Establisment are tolerant of intolerance, as long as it's someone else's intolerance and not our own.

The obvious example is Feminist theory, some flavours of which support the wearing of the burka because not to do so would be 'cultural imperialism' or some such, whereas they famously burned bras in the past because bras are deemed representative of male oppression of women. I'm not keen to explore the contortions of feminist thought but it does typify other similar contortions, which is where the real madness lies.

In reply to jkarran:


'Persecution' is a fairly hysterical way of describing being told if you don't conform to a bye-law about clothing on the beach you will get a ticket. I don't agree with a burkini ban, I could even be persuaded that swimming costumes that cover up a bit are sensible to prevent sunburn. However I see where the French politicians are coming from with the ban in that location and at this time. It is exactly the same principle as 'no football colours' rules restricting a clothing item which might provoke others into breach of the peace. It is a tourist town and they don't want trouble on that beach.

In reply to Jon Stewart:


I do agree with this to a degree and I think it is a very valid point. But the other side of the face is going against a country's laws and rules is just as counter productive.

In reply to cap'nChino:

But it's not about religion in general, it's about Islam. No French police are going to object to nuns sitting on a beach in their Christian headscarves and tunics. So it is singling out Muslims, which will only increase animosity and decrease integration in society (which is already hugely lacking in French society).

In reply to jkarran:


This isn't about individuals, it's about conflicting ideologies.

In reply to jkarran:

Perhaps a good counter-measure would be for everyone to strip-off naked in the presence of 'burkini' wearers; they would prmptly disappear from the scene !

In reply to girlymonkey:


Yup!

In reply to Deviant:


My recent experience is that isn't the case.

In reply to The New NickB:


Care to expand ?

In reply to cap'nChino:


This isn't true though. There is no policy on not wearing anything religious; if it was a consistent principle you would have a good point. As I understand it, headscarfs aren't illegal in France - there's certain contexts in which you're not allowed to show conspicuous religious symbols (schools, etc) but it's just little rules about this and that, here and there, not a "value" or a "principle" that your religious freedom is curtailed and that you must conform to western dress in public.


Muslims have not been told upfront: if you live in France, you can't wear a headscarf. That's a complete misrepresentation of the situation. The Saudi example is not analogous.


Where is the example of the Muslim woman expecting France to change its laws to suit them? This is not what's going on.

In reply to cap'nChino:


I don't think that's correct. There are plenty of French nuns and priests, for example.

In reply to jkarran:


Might not be cool, but it is the French law. It has been since 2004. It's not cool going against a countries law because you don't like it.
Again I harp back to Qatar and Saudi. I don't think its cool my Girlfriend has to cover when in public or that I can't have a beer at the end of a days work. But that is their law of the land and I have to respect it or face the consequences.


Absolutely. But I would expect any educated person to realise gods, prophets and religions are complete bull crap. But this doesn't seem to be the case.


I wouldn't judge a person wearing a burkini in a country where it is permitted, the UK for example. I judge them for wearing one in a country which has clearly stated policies on such matters. Even if said country is a supposed western liberal one.

In reply to Deviant:

As explain earlier on this thread, I was recently in Barcelona and saw quite a few burkinis on the beach, the wearers quite happily mingling with assorted beach users, including in a couple of cases on the fringes of Mar Bella beach, which is Barcelona's clothing optional beach.

In reply to Jon Stewart:




Genuine question, but how do you not think it is analogous?


There is no example of this. That was taking my point a little too literally. I suppose it is like knowingly driving over the speed limit and when being pulled over by police you get up in arms and question the problem.

In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

No it's not, not if that bylaw is specifically targeted at and enforced against a particular minority.

If I as a local councilor took against you (suspend your disbelief) and passed a bylaw stating men called Tom could only be on the beach in tiny pink speedos then had it enforced it against you only you and frequently, not even other Toms and even when you're just running your dog in February and nobody else is out in their speedos would that constitute a reasonable enforcement of a bylaw or persecution?


If they don't want trouble on the beach then they should be protecting those most likely to be targets of abuse, not driving them away or forcing them to hide in plain sight. That is the key responsibility of the state, to protect its people.

I'll ask you again, would you be defending this if it were a Jew being told to remove their skullcap or leave the beach? In any other year since the early 40s it would sound ludicrously, unbelievably Orwellian to be discussing this in the context of France but this is where we've got to, where this seems normal and accepatable. Where do we go from here?
jk

In reply to cap'nChino:


Generally France is a decent, modern country. SA isn't. I don't think defending this on the basis that Saudis do it too is very convincing!

In reply to Jon Stewart:


I kind of interpret it different to you it seems. I genuinely don't know who's interpretation is correct.

I am going off the ever faithful Wikipedia. I suspect the actual ruling is long winded and in french.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_law_on_secularity_and_conspicuous_reli...

In reply to The New NickB:

OK thanks. However not quite the same as 40 or 50 people stripping-off !

In reply to MG:


I see. But this leaves the argument open that SA isn't a decent and modern country because of its steadfastness to Islamic values.Why should a decent and modern country accept such (misinterpretations of?) Islamic vales which has held such a rich country back?

France isn't saying don't follow a religion and don't do all the good things religions preach. It is saying don't bring all the paraphernalia which seems to come with religions these days.

In reply to cb294:


Are you sure you were ever that tolerant?

In reply to Deviant:


They are filthy perverts like the rest of us, I am sure they would want to stand and gorp just as much as me and you

In reply to Deviant:


No, in the case of Mar Bella Beach it was a probably a couple of hundred.

In reply to Deviant:

Why do we want burkini-wearers to go away again?

In reply to girlymonkey:


We don't know the facts on this one. For all we know Nuns might be going to the beach but not in nun attire. Or nuns may be being told to strip off, but because it is Christianity and not Islam the news story simply won't sell and we don't hear of it.

In reply to The New NickB:


But were the 'burkini' wearers actually on the naturist beach or just in it's proximity ? Just close enough 'to see' if you get my meaning

In reply to Deviant:


They pointed and laughed. He wished he could've expanded...

In reply to cap'nChino:


Muslims in burkinis are likely of the pick and mix variety, who probably wouldn't be to happy with some of the "Islamic values" of SA. Much like the large numbers of Christians that ignore the properly bat shit mental bits of the bible.

In reply to girlymonkey:


Again, why is the onus on the state to help integration. It could equally be argued by wearing religious items in a country where it is frowned upon (I am stepping back from it being Law) is not aiding integration. It goes both ways.

On a lighter note - why is that us men have to wear 'budgie smugglers' when we go for a dip in the pool in Cham?

In reply to Jon Stewart:

I think I do see the wider picture, and it is not about clothes. If you identify as a muslim (man or woman is irrelevant) by definition you share a reasonable fraction of your belief with a movement that is responsible for the vast majority of current terror attacks.

The least the rest of society can expect from you is to visibly distance yourself from the radicals, and even more, to actively show that you respect the society that surrounds you. Wearing a head scarf, never mind a burqini at a beach in Nice is exactly the opposite, it is a deliberate provocation.

So, yes, I would expect muslims in Europe to either wear secular clothes in secular contexts (by all means, they should be free to wear religious clothes in religious contexts) or move to a muslim country (regardless of what their passport says).

Similarly, I would never complain that not being able to wear shorts in a muslim country infringes on my freedom. Their country, their rules (although am happy to argue that many of their rules are idiotic and immoral, especially as far as women´s rights are concerned).

As for your last sentence I am really baffled. Should 21st century western states give up our hard won rights (especially women´s rights!) due to the threat of muslim terrorism? If anything, France has been guilty of being too tolerant for too long.

Why do we (Germany) still allow Saudi to fund schools like the King Fahd Academy in Bonn that has repeatedly produced islamist agitators and terrorists?

CB

In reply to MonkeyPuzzle:

Well, as I ' swing both ways' I would feel a little cheated if I could see all the fit young guys in bulge enhancing Speedos and the girls completely covered in a garment that doesn't even tempt the mind to wonder what lies beneath !

In reply to Deviant:

They were on Mar Bella Beach, the whole beach is clothing optional, there is a section that is particularly naturist, but there will be a minority of naked people all along the beach.

In reply to cap'nChino:


The Saudis have a bunch of stupid medieval rules about all kinds of things, that make it a very unattractive place to visit (let alone emigrate to). I don't know much about the western community within Saudi Arabia, but I imagine it's very insulated, with its own schools etc, from the Saudi population? Saudi Arabia is by and large standing by its ridiculous legal system with any movement being towards liberalisation, as far as I know.

France is a western country with principles of freedom and tolerance, and large immigrant communities who depend on the state institutions and education system. French policy, it seems, is to incrementally ban little things in certain contexts, without any clear cultural principle about what's allowed and what isn't. Muslim women in France - who might well be French (unlike westerners in SA who are unlikely to be Saudis?) have not "signed up" to a way of doing things: the rules about what they can and can't wear on the beach are being changed (for some unfathomable, mental reason) in response to Islamist terror attacks. Cracking response to the terror threat guys, bravo!

The two simply aren't similar.

In reply to cap'nChino:


Because it's good for prosperity and security.


Religious attire frowned upon? Perhaps we're talking about a different France to the pretty old school Catholic one I know outside of the metropolitan centers.
jk

In reply to Snoweider:


Well that kind of goes against what we can all clearly see with our own eyes; there are clear visible markers between races. Whether there is any point in dividing people by race is an entirely different question - I can't see the point personally, but I suppose there are medical reasons for doing so, with certain racial groups being more likely to contract certain conditions.

In reply to 1poundSOCKS:

Yes, my stance has hardened considerably over the last years. As I become older I grow more and more intolerant of idiocy in general, and religion, especially islam, ranks rather high on that list. A few years ago I even financially supported building a mosque in my home town. Now, I would rather like too first see a church built in Istanbul and Riyadh before having another mosque around here. We should stop being tolerant towards intolerant countries, parties, or beliefs, and we have tolerated a religion that disrespects a large fraction of what makes our modern, secular societies worth living in for much too long

Don´t get me wrong, though. I a fully aware that the West shares a large responsibility for the problems in the middle East, from Sykes-Picot to the Palestine/Israel mess to illegal wars to arms sales, and I still believe that Schröder´s best decision was to keep us out of Iraq, and that Bush and Blair should be tried for their crimes.

CB

In reply to cb294:

That's all fine but I don't see how wearing odd swimming costumes is in any way intolerant, while banning them would seem highly intolerant.

In reply to cb294:


How do you visibly distance yourself from white supremacists? And who are you to judge the motivations of a woman you've never met yet you confidently pronounce her choice of clothing to be a deliberate provocation?


Would you expect Jews to wear secular clothes in secular contexts or rastafarians or christian clergy?
jk

In reply to Snoweider:


That conclusion is in the words of Wolfgang Pauli "not even wrong"

CB

In reply to cb294:



I just can't see how the premises lead to the conclusion here. We want Muslims to say that they don't support the terrorism: yes, I get it. This means that they should not wear a headscard in public: no, you've lost me.

You see an association with Islamic dress and Islamic terrorism that I expect most Muslims and most liberal-minded people would want to break rather than reinforce. Your argument relies on an unstated premise that wearing Islamic dress implies support for Islamic terrorism - it's weird and a bit nasty.


This expectation that Muslims conform to western dress is following the last decade or so of terrorist attacks, yes? Not a principle in general that you shouldn't go out in religious get-up? So the Muslim community have a duty to hide because of the terrorists? I don't get it.


But western countries never made any rules about not dressing religiously: France is just banning this and that, here and there. You're shifting the goalposts: is it right to respect the rule of law, yes. Is the policy of burkini ban a good one is a separate question - and no, it's a shit idea. And I think the actual case reported was one of a woman in a headscarf who was not flouting any ban that she was aware of.


I don't know what you're on about, I'm afraid.


Where has this come from.

Can't carry on with this, sorry, got to go out climbing!

In reply to Andy Morley:



I'm lost, sorry.

In reply to jkarran:

Easy. I live in a city that has a large fraction of Nazi scum, and an even larger fraction of people who tolerate them. So, I would never wear military boots or bomber jackets. Also, I don£t have much hair left anyway, so for a while I used to shave the rest off, but not here (not that anyone would mistake me for a neo nazi with my sandals and John Lennon glasses anyway)


Ideally yes, unless they are on their way to or from church/synagogue, or performing a religious ritual in someones private home. However, they would have a right to argue that they were here before us secularists, and I completely accept that my country (and my own attitudes, knowledge, and culture!) is shaped by its christian history.

I would definitely be unhappy about a monk wearing a habit while teaching at school.



edit: forgot the following: the provocation is in the eyes of the beholder, intention does not come into it.

In reply to cb294:


The question here is not how you personally would choose to dress, it's whether it would be a good policy for the council to bad bits of clothing it regarded as associated with Nazis.

Would that be a good policy?

In reply to cb294:


So you want the religious to hide, either in plain sight or behind closed doors? Fair enough, I personally don't think that's a good idea or more to the point I don't think a world in which people feel pressure to hide who they feel they are (however that is defined: christian, muslim, secular, queer, straight, communist, tory, climber, hippy...) is a desirable one but you're welcome to your opinion and at least you're open about it.


We're talking about someone sitting on a beach, not teaching in a school though why one would take offense at a monk in traditional garb teaching is beyond me. That isn't to say I support religious schools, I don't but I see no reason why a monk of any variety couldn't teach say maths as well as anyone else similarly qualified and able.


You said 'deliberate provocation' yet now you claim basically anything can be perceived as a provocation, how can something in the control of one be deliberate on the part of another?
jk

In reply to jkarran:


If someone called Tom had just murdered 84 people right next to the beach then I could see why the local council would think that it could lead to breaches of the peace if people lay on the beach wearing T-shirts with "I am Tom" written on them in large letters .

The problem with your argument about Jews/Nuns or people called Tom is you aren't addressing the context of the ban i.e. the spate of terrorist attacks and the riot on the beach in Corsica. In Scotland we have a law about sectarian behaviour at football matches which many people goes too far in restricting freedom of speech but although I am against it in principle I can see why it was introduced given the history of sectarian trouble around Rangers/Celtic.

In reply to jkarran:

religion and schools are polar opposites, the world of fiction and the world of facts. They should share neither personnel or premises. (imho). If the whole world moves away from any religion, there can only be less people being killed in the name of fictional characters in the future. If the UK for example gets rid of all religion in mainstream UK schools, no more affiliation, funding, morning assemblies etc... it puts the UK on a better footing to justify wiping out the more extreme religious madrasses, or those kids who are home taught but then discreetly sent to various religious school set up out of sight, out of mind. It's only be targeting the next generation will things improve in the future, the current one are a lost cause, set in their ways.

In reply to MG:


That's because you don't understand French culture and history.

In reply to Andy Morley:
Have you got anything worthwhile to say, or are you just going to oscillate between sniping and incomprehensible nonsense?

In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:


Right, let's get this absolutely, totally clear: the man that killed all those people is NOT the woman in a scarf on the beach. To infer that she supports the appalling actions of that man because they nominally (and presumably) shared a belief is stupid in the extreme. By suggesting ordinary Muslims should hide their faith or withdraw from society in this febrile environment lends credence to this utterly f***ing stupid idea that they're all somehow responsible for the actions of a few.

If she were lying on a big black IS beach towel you'd have a point but she wasn't and you don't.

If the police believe she is at risk in modern France then their clear duty is to enforce the laws that protect her, not to remove or disrobe her.


I presume rioting is a serious crime in France, they should be dealing with the f***wits rioting, not people quietly enjoying the summer sun.
jk

In reply to MG:


At least he's taken to brevity for his sniping.
jk

In reply to MG:


Your points demonstrate that you don't understand French culture. Surely even you must understand that statement!

In reply to Andy Morley:

Which bit of French culture and history doesn't MG understand? I have no idea what you're alluding to.
jk

In reply to jkarran:


Do you know what 'laic' means? Or 'anti-clericalism'..?

In reply to cb294:


By "no evidence" do you just mean "I don't know about it". The two statements mean something quite different you know. Anyhow, how about these people:

http://www.haloproject.org.uk/board-of-directors-W21page-8-

http://www.southallblacksisters.org.uk/

http://www.sharan.org.uk/

In reply to cb294:


Hmmm. I think that might have already happened.

In reply to Andy Morley:

While the state may be (at times fiercely) secular the population isn't. The state also has a responsibility to uphold the principals of religious freedom and freedom of expression. What we see here is the state not only failing to do so but actively (and counter productively) engaged in violating those rights.

A woman wearing a scarf on a beach is not campaigning for a re-connection of church (term used loosely) and state nor for special privileges for religion, she's dressing as she sees fit presumably informed by her faith. Personally I find that faith as incredible as you appear to but unlike you apparently I see a very slippery dangerous slope where there is significant public support for state oppression of religious minorities or majorities for that matter. The right, decent and safest thing to do in this position is erode the public support for repression, not to appease or worse, stoke it.

It's not an act of sedition. It's not incitement. It's not an attack on the founding principals of the French state. It's a f***ing scarf!
jk

In reply to cb294:

What about the muslim victims in Nice?

Presumably any English women wearing crucifixes in the 80s in the style of Madonna were celebrating the IRA?

In reply to marsbar:


I genuinely don't know, does CoE, Anglian etc.. not have crosses?

In reply to Jon Stewart:

Yes, it would be good, and is in partially in force (no clothing by the nazi brand Thor Steinar fro public servants, wearing Lonsdale sweaters in a way that only the NSDA... shows counted as nazi symbol.

CB

In reply to seankenny:

Of course, but the training college for orthodox priests remains closed.

CB

In reply to MG:

I was appalled.

Just been for a 2 week holiday in Boston USA with my family and you can rest assured there were Muslim women wearing burkinis on the beaches and other head scarves. Nobody seemed to be upset about it.I was quite surprised how nobod was at all bothered about it, you would have though some Trump supporter would have given them grief.

Mind you Boston is pretty liberal.

In reply to Deviant:


If I stripped off naked, the whole beach would disappear. I expect the police would ask me to leave shortly after that. Or look studiously at the ground while insisting that I get dressed. Then I'd put my burkini on, yay! If I still hadn't had my fill of civil disobedience, I could go promenading round the town in my not at all saucy burkini to see who started rioting first, the Muslims or the non-Muslims. Anyone want to underwrite my hospital bills?

In reply to seankenny:

Too little and too late, especially when you consider that the Paris attackers could first prepare and the surviving member then hide for weeks in his old community.

The only acceptable measure that would show that muslim communities are doing enough for integration would be disappearance of honour killings of women and a massive drop in the number forced marriages. AFAIK neither is happening, or even if it were, it certainly is not happening fast enough. By definition the muslim communities overall are therefore not doing enough, even if commendable initiatives like the ones you list do exist. I am not even interested in what they do, only the outcome.

This is not singling out muslims. I hold East Germans responsible for tolerating neonazis in mainstream life (we have the same idiots at home, but it mean social death and quite likely get you sacked acting your ideas out in public). Again, there are local anti fascist initiatives, but overall it is not enough, and the rest has to carry the blame.


CB

In reply to jkarran:


No they are not directly responsible for the action of the murderers, but the motivation for the crimes came from the same faith (roughly). The woman on the beach therefore has a duty to demonstrate that they are willing to live by the rules of a modern, secular society. Wearing a burqini or even only a scarf just shows that you put the values of your religion over that of the society you live in. Making this visible through your clothing close to the site of a terror attack is a provocation like your IS beach towel.

CB

In reply to cb294:

Honour killings and forced marriages are not limited to muslims, nor are they responsible for all types of oppression of women or other groups of people.

France has gone mad - people should be able to wear what they want. Burkinis are not offensive. And it is not offensive to wear one near a place where a terror attack happened.

In reply to summo:



Who are "they" ?

In reply to MG:


Well, I'm afraid, the terrorists have won.

In reply to cb294:

So to integrate women who are used to covering their arms and ankles must be prepared to show their legs and cleavage?!. So uunnecessary.

As far as im concerned (with obvious common sense exceptions such as mentioned by Jon) women should be able to wear what they want to the beach. Someone tells me I cant wear a bikini they can f off. Someone tells my niece she cant wear a burkini, they can also f off. My niece doesnt tell me I shouldnt wear a bikini I dont tell her she shouldn't wear a burkini.

In reply to cb294:


What a load of bollocks!

In reply to RomTheBear: On a lighter note:

http://rochdaleherald.co.uk/breaking-news/outrage-as-women-flaunt-burkini-b...

The comments are facepalmingly fab...

In reply to andy:

I thought this headline was better

http://rochdaleherald.co.uk/breaking-news/french-beekeeper-stung-to-death-a...

In reply to RomTheBear:


non EU migrants, refugee, asylum seekers call them what you will, bit of a car burning phase going on at the moment. Let's just say considering they are living at taxpayer expense, setting cars on fire then stoning the police and fire service when they arrive isn't going to help their long term integration or improve their welcome into Swedish society.

In reply to cb294:

Well, they didn't seem to be killing or oppressing anyone, so I'd say ten out of ten on that front. If you want to enforce a "no honour killings or terror attacks on the beach" policy then I'm good with it, although I think there's probably already a law covering that one.


By and large, the values of modern secular societies include embracing freedom of expression (within certain fairly broad limits), not adherence to a predetermined dress code. Are they going to ban punks, goths and metalheads as well?

In reply to jkarran:


I disagree, let´s leave it at that,

CB

In reply to stubbed:

>... Burkinis are not offensive. And it is not offensive to wear one near a place where a terror attack happened.

I, and more relevantly the French, disagree.

CB

In reply to marsbar:

No, I guess a long sleaved swim suit and a separate sun hat would be fine, just not flaunting a clearly religious dress near the site of a religiously motivated terror attack.

CB

In reply to jkarran:


This thread isn't about France, it's about rather more home-grown bigotry and double-standards. It's about MG finding anything that requires a bit of thought and discussion 'incomprehensible', and then labelling anything he finds incomprehensible as 'mad'. It's about him sniping at the French by labelling them all 'mad' and then running crying to whatever most resembles his mum because he things I'm sniping at his sniping. But if you're really concerned about these issue, you do need to understand the whole context, not just the carefully selected bits that support your own particular flavour of prejudice.

In reply to cb294:

I rather enjoyed this reminder of better times, https://twitter.com/amyharvard_/status/768429319970357248

In reply to Mike Highbury:

The Algerian war and, more generally, the entire period of colonialism was not a high point of western civilization. However, I fail to see why this pertinent to the current situation (despite the obvious but superficial similarity).

CB

In reply to Mike Highbury:


Judging by the expression on their faces that really won hearts and minds.

In reply to Dave the Rave:


Unfortunately we are associated with the French fascist party Front National, most unashamedly anti-Islam, precisely because "we" did vote Brexit.
Farage has been over there helping Marine le Pen, now he's helping another,( but imbecilic) racist in the USA.

In reply to MG:
In the news today an royal marine arrested in something to do with real ira and a threat to mainland UK.

Will we be defrocking priests, monks and nuns in the event of an attack?

In reply to cb294:


Yes those British organisations probably don't do so much work in France.


You do realise these are issues for Hindu and Sikh communities too, right?

And why is this the only metric for integration?

AFAIK neither is happening, or even if it were, it certainly is not happening fast enough.

So if you don't know what the figures are, how do you know it's not happening fast enough?

By definition the muslim communities overall are therefore not doing enough, even if commendable initiatives like the ones you list do exist. I am not even interested in what they do, only the outcome.

Beating your wife is still pretty common in white communities too. Is that because the white community isn't doing enough? Does it matter what efforts the police, women's groups, politicians etc are doing as long as women continue to be beaten and murdered? I guess not - we can safely ignore it until the outcome is no women being beaten and murdered.

In reply to seankenny:
Sure, that it why readily accepted them as examples of many such organizations all over Europe

Sure, and white communities have different but similar issues


Certainly not the only possible metric, but maintenance of such medieval practises is an objective and unambiguous proof of failure of integration. FGM in African immigrant communitities or blood vendettas amongst Albanians in Germany would be similar examples.

Because it is still happening at all.


That misrepresents my point, note that I called these initiatives commendable. Since it is hard to impose a change of behaviour from the outside, the onus is on the various groups to change from within (or leave if their traditions are not compatible with their host society). I am just not interested in how a reduction in forced marriages and honour killings is achieved, results is what counts.

And you are totally correct, the fact that violence against women is also prevalent in white communities means that we also are not doing enough about it. Domestic violence must not be tolerated as some private issue we should not intrude upon. I have therefore not shied away from asking a colleague about her black eye. Even if in this instance she shrugged it off (but did not blame it on an accident either) it is important that both potential victims and perpetrators know that their neighbours don£t look the other way. Also, the efforts of the police are commendable (if possibly too little), but I would argue that e.g. courts are often too lenient (penalties are often much less than for cimes against property). As we elect the people that make the laws causing this situation, yes we are to blame.

CB

edited to insert a dropped word that changed the meaning

In reply to stubbed:


Offence is in the eye of the beholder. You cannot judge what others find offensive. Nobody can. How reasonable it is for them to take offence is a different matter.

It sounds like a lot of right wing shit stirrers in France are looking for things to hang offence on. Temporarily banning some of those things in the interest of public order? Probably self defeating for reasons already covered here and for emboldening the shit stirring brigade.

In reply to cb294:


As is a nun's habit, a priests robe, a jew's skull cap ?

In reply to GrahamD:

I addressed this above. Flaunting your association with a doctrinary form of islam (most muslimas I know do not wear a head scarf) in the aftermath of islamist terror attacks is a rather aggressive and unfriendly act, a big f*ck you to modern, secular, western society.

I could similarly imagine situations where wearing christian or jewish clothing would fall into the same class of provocation. For example, a monk wearing his habit when visiting a school where sexual abuse by clergymen had taken place may be taken as a provocation (depending on context, of course).

I am sure you could also find situations where wearing a kippa would become offensive. It is all about context and place. I would find wearing a burqini on a beach in Algeria just as idiotic, but would not think of suggesting a similar ban there. Their country, their rules.


CB

In reply to cb294:

What we are seeing here is the thin veneer of Europeans grudging tolerance of "visible" Islam disappearing due to recent terrorist events and sex attacks with the growing confidence in the anti PC brigade to shrug off the usual insult of "racist/bigot" as it has become so overused it's become almost impotent. None of which is remotely surprising to me and I suspect this is just the start . Maybe have a referendum on it...

In reply to GrahamD:

not really the same. Wonder what percentage of women given a free choice would decide to live that way and wear that clothing. It's medieval being told what to wearing in public by male religious preachers and / or husbands. I've seen kids 2 or 3 years old wearing them in the shops, it should be classed as child abuse to force kids to participate in totally unproven religions, more akin to a cult or sect, only it's more popular.

In reply to Bjartur i Sumarhus:

There is currently a relevant court case in Munich providing a rather extrem but, I believe, instructive example. The defendant was a Syrian refugee working at the kitchen of a refugee shelter. He was convicted of sexually assaulting a student volunteer teaching German to refugee children. He publicly stated at his trial that German women dress like sluts and islam allows every man a go any woman doing this.

To me, this raises two important points. First, we a MUCH too tolerant towards religious nutters. Unlike most refugees (the majority of whom actually are muslims) this guy will never fit into our society, and should be deported back home immediately. We are much too slow in deporting the perpetrators of the sexual assaults on new years eve. This would very much be in the interest of the majority of Syrian, muslim refugees who do their best to fit in and get tarnished by association.

Second, religious dress codes cannot be separated from underlying attitudes. Islam forces women to cover up, and declares any woman not adhering to this dress code as immoral. It is important to not allow this misogynistic idiocy to take root in our modern secular society. As part of this I support banning women from voluntarily subjecting themselves to such a dress code in public, when it can be read as a deliberate provocation.

CB

In reply to summo:


You don't know, clearly. Some people chose to wear artifacts of their faith because they feel devout in doing so.


It is not child abuse in any respect, just as school uniforms or even the societal pressures to make them wear jeans isn't. You've simply tried to make a case built on a complete strawman

In reply to cb294:

Funny, I didn't see the same outcry when people wore crucifixes in the aftermath of sectarian violence in NI.

Why are you deliberately wanting to force the people who are clearly integrating in society by enjoying normal western passtimes like going to the beach a particular type of clothing which demonstrates their faith into doing something you don't like ?

That thinking only happens when you make the ridiculous association that Muslims = Terrorist, or outward signs of their faith = support of terrorism.

How many terrorists actually wear a beach headscarf ?

In reply to GrahamD:

I have no idea why Orangemen are allowed to march through catholic neighbourhoods, IMO this kind of christian flavoured provocation should be banned, just as sectarian symbols rightly already are at some football matches.

Similarly, the confederate flag may not have been offensive as such, in the wake of a spate of racist murders of african americans it definitely became so. It is a good thing several US states have therefore discontinued its use, symbols are important.

These examples just illustrate that context is everything. The burqini would not be an issue without the terrorism. As much as you may deny it, both are linked by islam. Its use on a beach in Nice is a therefore a provocation western society should not have to tolerate.

CB

In reply to GrahamD:


You could argue that it is.

"Children from some communities need to wear particular clothing for cultural reasons and this may also limit their exposure to the sun. "
see: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/8570542.stm

I remember this happening back in the 70s.

In reply to summo:


Yes, but the crosses in question were very specifically Catholic.

In reply to GrahamD:


yeah I'm wrong, millions of women just love living repressed lives doing exactly as their male leaders tell them. What genital mutilation?


I disagree with school uniforms, or the UK cultural obsession that wearing a tie some how makes a person more capable or smarter.

Forcing a child who has yet to form their own ideas of the world to believe in 100% unproven mythical ideas is child abuse(imho), when it impacts with their day to day lives.

In reply to The New NickB:


I wouldn't know the difference.

In reply to summo:


Essentially, Catholics tend to wear crusifixes, and Protestants crosses. If the cross has got a bloke on it, the wearer is much more likely to be Catholic.

In reply to MG:
I think it is very easy to understand why they want to be seen to be doing 'something'. People are angry, people see it as if there was no Islam then these things would not have happened. People are sick of Islam, whether it be Islam or this terror cult that hides under the name of Islam. I get it, and I think it is right to do this for their own safety as much as to be seen by the public to be hitting back on something, in some way. At least they are doing something that will give the public the feeling that they are not just being allowed to be walked all over. Without this show then people do not believe anything is being done. Call it a 'show' as that is all it is.
People feel like their country and peace is compromised because Muslims have the freedom of their country, and they don't believe that is fair. They are on the brink of serious unrest and this is all a part of trying to keep a balance, keep the peace. And although some of you feel this will only stir up ill feeling and is counterproductive, people will be radicalised easier etc. On the other side this keeps those who are a threat against Islam from making the moves they might had there been no 'show'.

Like it or not, but the majority none Muslims that see signs of Islam around only recall bad memories of recent. And so for people enjoying themselves, I get why they would be told to keep a low profile. Their religion is important to them, but not at the expense of the majorities having memories pulled to the surface when they are trying to forget things.

It's a very difficult time for all, but I do think Muslims need to show a little empathy to their environment and realise people are fragile, frustrated, it makes sense for them to keep an Islamic low profile for the time being. Be it right or wrong, this is he situation and how people feel. This is all about the minorities dictating how the majorities need to go about life for the time being.

Not necessarily how I feel, I agree with some and not with some, but it is how it is.

In reply to Dominicandave:


So a Muslim born in Britain or France is not "of" the country of their birth?



The memory of a woman in a glorified wetsuit committing acts of terrorism?


>This is all about the minorities dictating how the majorities need to go about life for the time being.

Really? How are Muslims telling you or me how to live? Or indeed, dictating to the French state? It looks actually rather like a majoirty is dictating how minorities go about their business.


"Some folks say..."

https://www.the-pool.com/news-views/latest-news/2016/34/nice-police-fine-wo...

Its not religious wear that is being targeted. Women in leggings and t shirts are being asked to strip off by policemen.

In reply to seankenny:

Yes, obviously they are. But after what they have been through people do not see things as clearly as they truly are.


Lost me...............



I never mentioned Muslims telling anyone how to live, nor dictating anything to the French state. You really shoudn't make assumptions like this.


It would be helpful f people would accept the reality rather than keep on pushing this agenda driven ideal that we can all live in harmony while this is going on.

In reply to MG:

Maybe Muslim women should prove they have had a "Brazilian" before they're allowed on the beach, otherwise how can they be normal like us.

In reply to Pete Pozman:



Yeah... that's not as funny as I thought it was, Consider it deleted.

In reply to cb294:


Partly because: (1) for most of the traditional marches the neighbourhoods were not Catholic when the tradition started (and continuing traditions can be important to a community), and (2) there is a general right to walk down a public road.


There's a difference between banning something in a non-public place (a football ground or a pub) and the state banning it in public.

In reply to summo:

Did it occur to you, maybe once, that the vast majority does not set car on fire, does not stone the police, and just tries to go on about their lives ? That there is a very good reason as to why we are helping these people ? And that "they" are not all the same ? Or is too much for you to picture ? Probably is, I'm sorry.

In reply to summo:



What do we do then ? Do we send kids to school naked ? At the end of the day their parents decide what they wear, whether it is based on stupid religions, traditions, brands or fashion it's all pretty irrational anyway. Just let people do what they want as long as it doesn't prevent others doing what they want.

In reply to Dominicandave:




You wrote, with respect to Muslims:

"This is all about the minorities dictating how the majorities need to go about life for the time being."



But, erm, ppl do generally live in harmony. Do we have race riots in London? The reality is that tolerance works, but the kind of thing you write above is dangerous if accepted.

In reply to seankenny:
Err, yes!


The reality is that tolerance works, but the kind of thing you write above is dangerous if accepted.

I think DDs description of the perception of the situation by many is quite probably correct. Note Marine le Pens rise.

In reply to seankenny:



Erm, lets not lie here, I did not write 'with respect to muslims' "This is all about the minorities dictating how the majorities need to go about life for the time being." You have deliberately written that to try to make it sound like I was referring to Muslims as a whole when I said that. Don't put entries into my comments and try to pass it off as mine.

When I said (and I did say this) "This is all about the minorities dictating how the majorities need to go about life for the time being." I was referring to the minority of Muslims who are hiding behind Islam, the extremists, and the minorities of society that are afraid and want to cast a shadow over ALL Muslims and need to see some action against all in order to feel something s being done, be it right ot wrong. These two MINORITIES are the ones who are dictating how we are going about life, or life is being played out around us. The 'minority' extremists are forcing a reaction and this is what causes the government to make rash decisions such as this.

So you kind of got that completely wrong didn't you, and you just proved the exact point I was making by presuming as you did.

It is dangerous to make those kind of assumptions, read what is there and not what you want to see, otherwise you can end up looking rather silly.

And so you are completely wrong, need I say more.

In reply to RomTheBear:

I have a very good idea of their history, I did a Swedish for immigrants course with about 20 different nationalities when I was first here.

Even if only 5% want to cause trouble, that is a lot of people.

In reply to RomTheBear:


exactly, scrap school uniforms, it's a little Victorian to say the least. Plenty other countries, such as all the Nordic/scandic nations are close to zero school uniforms, their education hasn't suffered.

In reply to summo:

5%? Which orifice did you pull that number from?

In reply to Dominicandave:

Interesting post and kind of chimes with what I have been seeing 'down here'


For starters, those pointing out in horror that the police on the beach were armed it is worth noting that all French police are armed so it's not like some special Gallic SWAT team decended from helicopters and trained their MP5s at her. I think the way the way the police handled it was poorly executed but ultimately the women knew the burka ban existed and choose to ignore it so she can't complain about the law being enforced, even if it is done clumsily or you disagree with the law itself.

I write this post from the south of France and the level of security down here is very overt and visible. Even the little village I am currently staying had police in bullet proof vests and additional hired private security to monitor a 1945 liberation festival that takes place every year. Steel barriers were put in place, streets closed down and bags checked in and out of the festival area, all this for a village of about 300 people. I have been coming to Provence for the last 20 odd years and have seen nothing like this before, it's sad.

Locals here are very pissed off with the state of affairs and are wholly supportive of the police actions in Nice, put bluntly they see the wearing of a burka on Nice beach as not only being massively insensitive considering recent events there but as a massive 'f*ck you' to French principles in general. Many people here do not see this as a debate on the rights of an individual to wear what she pleases being infringed upon but as the collective responsibility of a religion to do more to integrate into wider society rather then expect the host nation to adapt to them. It's a very ugly climate here and many I have spoken to see the police actions on the beach as a timely 'push back' from the state. Those arguing that the burkhini is a good thing as it allows Muslim women greater freedom to go to the beach and mingle to begin with don't realise how utterly toxic this garment is viewed as. It's not some bit attire that protects you from sunburn or some outfit that prevents Nigella Lawsons arse being photographed by paparazzi but it is affront to very strongly held secular values. The Guardian ran piece the other day on how this garment is a tool of freedom for Muslim women as it 'protects their modesty' while simultaniously allowing girls to play sports or go for a swim, the implication that every women not in the garment were by default immodest or that girls and women should not have to cover up to begin with did not seem to register.

Strange days

In reply to MG:


It probably is pretty close to how a significant chunk of the population see the world but accepting that we have options: we can challenge those negative views or we can pander to them with petty acts of vindictiveness and division. So far as I can tell the two approaches put us on divergent paths.

It's also the only post on this thread that I've actually clicked dislike on because DD himself appears to recognise this fact yet apparently chooses petty vindictiveness targeted against the innocent as the better option.
jk

In reply to Coel Hellier:

But walking down a public road next to a synagogue while wearing Swastika T-shirts would rightly be considered as inciting racial hatred. Why not the sectarian marches? Also, AFAIK the bans on sectarian symbols IMO rightly not only apply to the match itself, but rather the entire city or at least the station and public roads leading to the stadia (please correct me if someone knows better).Freedom of expression is rightly not an absolute and unlimited right (else libel and slander or incitement to violence could not possibly exist as crimes!), the debate is only about where to draw the lines.

CB

In reply to C£ Chullain:
This, times one hundred. The burqini is a deliberate provocation and should be dealt with as such.

CB


edit: just to say that I am out of this discussion now. I made my views clear, and need to get some work done. Must finish early so I can go climbing!

In reply to summo:


Muslim women on the beach clearly aren't being repressed are they ? That is exactly the sort of behaviour that would be a attacked by IS or Taliban. So it should be a good thing to see muslim women standing up to that threat, no ?

What has genital mutilation got to do with anything here ? was the woman on the beach harrassed by security because she was genitally mutilated ? you know that she has been ? you aren't making sense. Or, again, are you just make a completely generalisation about what all muslims represent ?

As an example of how stupid that is: I really do not like the way that Isreal goes about its business. I'm not so stupid as to associate every skull cap I see with support of the actions of the Isreali army. Are you ?

In reply to cb294:


An obviously muslim woman flouting the 'values' of IS and the Taliban by appearing on the beach with the western infidels does not sound like provocation to me. To IS maybe.

An interesting and nuanced (and long) blog piece on the whole thing: http://www.theexmuslim.com/2016/08/24/burkini-bikini-false-equivalence-disp...

TL;DR

- 1) The "Burkini Ban" isolates and oppresses Muslim women further by removing them further from society. This also harms the cause of secularism by removing the social contact between the religiously-inclined and everyone else.
- 2) The Burkini-Bikini equivalence being touted by some (not here, I think) is nonsense until a woman's dignity, marriageability and very life are under threat the day she leaves the house *not* in a bikini.
- 3) Proportionately, western liberal outrage should be aimed far more at the oppression of women (often to the threat of rape and death) in the Muslim world than at the (still oppressive) coercion of women to take off the hijab on pain of not having a job at the local authority or having to leave the beach.
- 4) "...You can condemn a ban on a mode of dress while simultaneously acknowledging the presence of systemic constraints enforcing that dress, with their full gravity and ideological context. ...You can acknowledge mechanics of oppression surrounding how a mode of dress is sanctioned and enforced while consistently condemning a ban on that mode of dress."

The blog doesn't address the sense of being flipped off that some in France feel when they see a woman in a burkini, but surely that could be helped by some more grown-up public discourse rather than forcibly removing the visibility of a religion, the followers of which are blamed en masse for the acts of a handful of extremists. Of course the religion and its followers are still there of course, so all it is is an act of petty revenge - I hope the ban's supporters feel much safer.

In reply to Cú Chullain:

Also worth remembering that France is in the run up to next year's elections, and most (all?) of the mayors which have banned the burkini are from the right

In reply to jkarran:



I gave a description of how I believe society is feeling and reacting, and therefor why we are in the situation we are in. So could you please explain what exactly this above means. You write 'DD himself appears to recognise this fact yet apparently chooses petty vindictiveness targeted against the innocent as the better option'. Explain what it is you are insinuating here. I thought I had made it very clear that I agreed with some of societies sentiments and not others, very clear infact as I stated so. Now for you to assume knowing what I agree and disagree with is quite something and I'm interested to know where you got this from as I have not stated this myself.

It is dangerous to make those kind of assumptions, read what is there and not what you want to see, otherwise you can end up looking rather silly.

In reply to MG:

Well as far as I'm aware not since Britxon in 1984 which is over 30 years ago. This is like saying "yes, we have a nationalised railway system" in terms of accuracy surely? And I don't think you can really pass off the 2011 riots as anything to do with race - but of course fools have tried.


I'm perfectly aware it's a daily balancing act, but it's not as hard as the doom-mongers make out. They seem to believe that the very mixing of different people means violence will automatically follow, which is rubbish. Who knows, perhaps they'd even relish such an outcome...?!



I mean, it might be a correct description of how people are feeling, but we live in a world in which a substantial proportion of Americans believe they've been abducted by aliens so please let's not be afraid of calling out the non-reality based-community. I'd like to see us arguing against this worldview rather than accepting it blindly.

In reply to Cú Chullain:

>Many people here do not see this as a debate on the rights of an individual to wear what she pleases being infringed upon but as the collective responsibility of a religion to do more to integrate into wider society rather then expect the host nation to adapt to them.

If you're chatting to the locals en Provence, can you please ask them to explain - genuine question - what they are actively having to do to to adapt in this case? I mean, what adaptation are they actually having to do? I hear this argument a lot and don't understand it. Where's the effort? How is this changing people's lives?


I always thought it was more part of the deep well of conformism and misogyny of French society, but maybe I'm wrong...

In reply to Dominicandave:

No problem. You said:


You demonstrate an understanding of the situation, of the existence of alternative courses of action yet you clearly say you get it and think it (symbolic attacks/restrictions on visible Muslims) is the right thing to do. I don't. I find the idea of the state striking at innocent people as symbols/representatives of something else as a sop to the angry mob abhorrent. Strong leaders should rise above this populist urge to lash out at the innocent not just because they're innocent but because by doing so it reinforces in the minds of the wider public the idea that there is a connection between ordinary people going about their lives and the actions of a few angry, often deranged and deluded men. There isn't and that message should be coming across loud and crystal clear from the state.
jk
edit: awful spelling

In reply to summo:


Another made up number ? And so what ? Is that a reason to put them all in the same basket ?

In reply to Dominicandave:


Well I went back to see exactly what you did write and why there might be this confusion, but it appears you've edited it. Which is perhaps a good idea.


Is that really the case? I mean, we have CC's depressing report from Provence, but not so surprising given that it's the region with the highest proportion of Front National voters in the country - 45% of the votes were for a nearly fascist party, so is it any surprise that an intolerant minority want to lash out at a very visible minority during a long period of profound economic malaise? I'd say this is as much a problem of the majority.




Such statements would be more convincing if you hadn't edited what you'd written to make it clearer!

In reply to seankenny: "Well as far as I'm aware not since Britxon in 1984 which is over 30 years ago.....And I don't think you can really pass off the 2011 riots as anything to do with race - but of course fools have tried."

Why is one Brixton riot allowed, but the others not (1981,1995,2011) ? All started with a murder by police no?

In reply to Bjartur i Sumarhus:


No.

In reply to MG:

and now to compound ills the Nice officials want to prosecute anyone who distributes photos (media) of police officers doing their job - on the beach (Independent yesterday)

In reply to Bjartur i Sumarhus:

Care to tell me why 2011 was a race riot?

In reply to Doug:


That may well be true, but it's equally possible to make a coherent argument for this sort of action based on the kind of left-wing principles that are virtually built in to French political life. That doesn't mean it's right or wrong and I certainly think the action taken is a long way removed from common sense. However it is possible to make the case that it is consistent with French political philosophy (whether you share those views or not) and it certainly isn't a sign of any collective madness on the part of 'the French'.

In reply to Andy Morley:


If adhering to a political philosophy makes innocent people suffer and puts your population in increased danger, then yes, it is mad.

In reply to seankenny:


In that case, nearly all governments are 'mad', so the term 'mad' loses any real meaning. Winston Churchill was definitely 'mad' by your definition when he took on the fight against Fascism in 1940!

In reply to Andy Morley:


Reading your stuff makes me glad I don't climb Hard Severe. That's always the grade of people who write your kind of nonsense.

In reply to seankenny:

TBH, i'm just extrapolating how they all started, usually with a fight with the police over some injustice.
1981 - death of Michael Bailey (ok, not murdered by the police, but thought to have been )
1985 - Shooting of Mrs Groce by police
1995 - Death of Wayne Douglas in police custody
2011 - shooting of Mark Duggan by police

They all escalated into riots. Why is only one a race riot? Should any of them be? Should all of them be?

In reply to Cú Chullain:

France is never going to be a multi-cultural society as the British understand it. I hate to say this, but after over 30 years of living and working in France ( as opposed to those who just live the good life here in their second home) I know how much the French in general dislike 'arabs' whether they are born in France or originally immigrants. They are generally thought to be lazy, dumb, untrustworthy, dishonest. These are deep-rooted feelings and are not going to change in a hurry. Next years elections are going to show a massive move to the right. The French wish to remain French.

In reply to MG:


Are you sure? 2011 wasn't about race.

In reply to Bjartur i Sumarhus:







Perhaps none of them are. I'm not convinced we really do race riots here - clearly Bradford is different.

In reply to The New NickB:

It had an element of that at the start (protests outside Tottenham police station), but then turned into pure opportunism. I wouldn't call the 2011 riots 'race riots', but neither would I say that it didn't play a part.

In reply to Pyreneenemec:


The problem with this sort of comment, "the French wish to remain French" is that it's a very selective view of what counts as French. The likes of Camus or Satre or the soixante huitards might beg to differ, surely?

All this "will of the people" nonsense assumes that millions of people agree on anything much.

In reply to Pyreneenemec:

Agreed that racism is a huge problem in France, but I think you overstate the 'dislike' of 'arabs' in France, but then I've spent most of my time in France in & around Paris, including more than 10 years in Seine St Denis. As elsewhere, its the regions with relatively little immigration that seem most vocal - even down to thinking those from the adjacent valley are 'foreigners' at times (heard frequently in the Ariege).

And I see that Sarkozy is strirring things again, wonder what the ruling this afternoon will be?

In reply to The New NickB:

In part the were - Mark Duggan etc.,

In reply to Bjartur i Sumarhus:

Look at who was rioting, they were not defined by race in 2011.

The 2001 riots in Oldham, Bradford etc were.

In reply to MG:


If the mob is inter-racial, as they usuall are in London riots, surely that means the rioting is probably about something else?

In reply to MG:


He was Black, so it was a race riot. Very dubious logic indeed.

In reply to seankenny:


The scary thing about these forums is that you actually might not be joking when you say that. Either way, we all learn something new every day so they say and today, I've just read one particular flavour of prejudice that I can safely say I've never encountered before.

In reply to seankenny:


They might well beg to differ, but their demands were for social progress. Pandering to an Islamic minority is certainly not seen as progress, indeed it is social regression.


Millions of people do agree on something and that's why they will be voting massively for Marine LePen and whoever represents the traditional right. As with the Brexit vote, millions agreed on something, whether or not their point of view is well founded is another debate.

In reply to seankenny:


We know what Sartre would say as he's written about stuff like this extensively. He would say that since we are condemned to freedom, the choice is ours and ours alone. However, he would/ did also say that in making any choice that involves other people (nearly all choices do) then we choose that for the rest of humanity too. So, by his logic, choosing to remain French (if that option is available to you) affects both those who do and those who don't or can't make that choice.

In reply to Andy Morley:


It's not that I don't like people who climb Hard Severe, in fact some of my friends do, but...

In reply to Pyreneenemec:


Fair enough. Can you tell me what the "pandering" is: "gratify or indulge (an immoral or distasteful desire or taste or a person with such a desire or taste)". Is chosing to wear a head covering at the beach immoral? Distasteful?

One could always argue that a measure of civilisation is how well the majority treats its minorities. It seems to me that the state ordering people what to wear is something that is almost unimaginable for a member of this particular majority.


I think re Brexit, the Brexiters themselves might well be the first to admit that they didn't agree on what Brexit actually is.

In reply to seankenny:


Life is hard severe mate, with E numbers lying in wait for those who ain't so good at finding a route as well as for those who seek out such things.

In reply to C£ Chullain:


Isn't this placing the collective responsibility of a religion to change, or some symbolism relating to that, on the shoulders of those with the least agency to do anything about it, though, - in them being female within a context where if they don't wear it, they can be prevented from going out and mingling more widely, and within a religion (like all of them?) which has 'the rules' made by men.

It's a case of the women not having a lot of choice on whether they were it or not if they want to go to the beach, and then being pressured to remove it once they get there.

What did they do to deserve being in that kind of shit situation? They're damned if they're do and they're damned if they don't.

In reply to The New NickB:

Err no. Some of the black population were clear they felt.victims of police prejudice, hence rioting.

In reply to MG:

https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2011/dec/08/were-the-riots-about-race

In reply to seankenny:

Who? Name 'em and I'll kill 'em.

In reply to C£ Chullain:
Essentially, it's not really fair on them.

Edit: The women being asked to remove their burkinis, that is.

In reply to MG:

Ban overturned:

The ban "constituted a serious and manifestly illegal infringement of fundamental liberties, " the State Council said in its judgement.

In reply to MG:

Two different Muslim women on why they support the ban:

Egyptian:

http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/civil-rights/292335-burkini-toxic-ide...

Iranian:

https://inews.co.uk/essentials/news/world/iranian-womens-rights-campaigner-...

In reply to jkarran:





'Demonstrate an understanding'? Yes 20 years trying to keep people from killing each other for political and religious beliefs, for food and out of desperation will give someone that understanding.
You are trying your best, your very best to spin my intent, but you are making the mistake of falling into the moron debate of 'this is reality, but this is how it would be in a perfect world', which is immature and unrealistic. I personally don't waste my time with the argument you are making of what is right and what is wrong, I try to deal with the reality and see things for what they are, not what they should be.

When I say I get it, I do, I get the idea that the government needs to be seen to be doing something rather than nothing. To sit around and watch the fury in those citizens who are feeling annoyed and allow that to build up would be a massive mistake. This we know creates very hostile feeling and people take things into their own hands. For the sakes of Muslims as well as peace they need to be seen to be doing something, for the overall safety of the Muslim population it might not appear like it to you on the face of it, but on the grand scale this reduces ill feeling and settles the fire.

Now you don't get it, I can see that, you want to rant on about what you feel is the right thing and how the reality is unfair. Well, that is all great but accomplishes nothing and we all know what is unjust and should not be going on, which is very different from what we have to deal with.

You have to put your mind on another level, maybe have experienced living day to day in hostile environments to understand that often the moral code has to go out the window to accomplish a balance. It would be nice if the world according to your ideals was a reality, but it isn't and so why live there, I don't get that at all. That is the void argument that accomplishes nothing at all.

Lets just say for example there was a mosque blown up and the Muslim community lost hundreds of people, lets say this was in the name of Christianity, some crazed Christian cult. Lets say this happened in one of the areas of one of the cities in the country where it is predominantly Muslim. Now what would your opinion be on groups of Christians getting together and going about having a real 'Christian' get together, bibles, cassocks, bread blessings n all while in a park surrounded by predominantly Muslims community? You would feel it would be fine as the majority of Muslims are not stupid. But there would be a minority that would get very heated about this, they would be feeling rather angry and quite possibly be a real threat to these individuals. That is just the reality of the situation, not how I feel or should feel, just how it would be.

Now for the sakes of all would it not be best that these people were approached and told to keep a lower religious profile as the situation is rather fragile. Be there, but lets not parade religion in the face of such a sad time, a time when people are on edge and really don't need to see symbols of religion in the face of what just happened.

Like I've said this is not 'making a difference' this is a show, this goes out to all those hot headed folk around the country who are feeling they need to rise up and deal with 'these Muslims' themselves, the ignorant people, those with a fight in mind, and they are many. This settles the fire if just for a little while, these little shows of balance, be they right or wrong, they all have a purpose on the grand scale. Like I've said over and over, finding that balance requires all moral ideals to go out of the window.

In reply to seankenny:


You are outright lying now (why I say now when you were lying in the first instance also), I have not edited anything in there from my initial edit which was well before your reply. Can you not just accept you got it wrong instead of this moronic desperation to prove a point that was never there. You even put entries into what I wrote to try to make your point, now you making claims I edited my post. I don't waste my time with the argument you bring to the table, it gets us nowhere. Deal with the reality and not what you have in your mind.


So what is your point. You accept what I said to be accurate, there needs not be any further exchange on this. Why you were so determined to discredit my observations as my personal opinions I have no idea.


And I had not edited what I wrote, I am not so pathetic as to need to win a point by making things up as are SOME people here.

And so we have arrived at a point where you are now just constantly lying, making tish up and not facing the fact you got it all wrong. And so I think we are done here, I have no time for such ridiculous immature exchanges. You got it wrong, must be hell to live in a head where this is unacceptable.

In reply to Dominicandave:

Basically, that's the agenda of every fascist from the 1930s.

In reply to Dominicandave:
I wonder if you're forgetting how after 9/11, in New York Muslims were touched by how many people made the effort to tell them that they didn't associate them with the people who flew planes into the world trade centre?

There was nothing official said about Muslims not wearing certain clothing after the death of 3000 plus people... (!)

In reply to Dominicandave:


What you're saying, is that we remove the rights of certain groups of people for things they didn't do. Then the next time a terrorist comes along, what then? Make a show again, remove some more rights. Then again, and again, and again - until they have no rights left. Where do you draw the line? Obviously very far along according to your last sentence. Unfortunately by that time, you have created far more chaos and hate than what you had to begin with (I don't need to acknowledge where it ends).

The place to draw the line is to not remove the rights of anyone until they are proven guilty. Thankfully, that's more or less the law - except for this unfortunate situation.

In reply to SenzuBean:

What a lot of nonsense. It's all got a purpose on the grand scale. The end justifies the means, comrade. We're just cleaning up the mess.

In reply to SenzuBean:



I am saying why these decisions are being made (am I wrong, is what I say not accurate of what is going on, the reality?), and not that they are the decisions I would make. I get it, in i get that they have to be seen to be doing something. They will never get it right as there should be none of it, in a perfect world.
What I am finding here is a serious lack of posters ability to differentiate between what is going on, and what is my personal opinion. I wish you would try to understand I am trying to lay down some realities here and not fight any corner.

If you want some of my personal opinions on this then this is as far as it goes.

Do they need to be seen to be reacting, doing something? Yes, they need to put on a 'show'.

Are they making good decisions? Probably not, but it's a difficult situation to try to make a good decision when all are morally wrong. In desperate times, desperate decisions are made.

In reply to seankenny:


It is the reality of where we find ourselves right now is what it is.

In reply to Dominicandave:

You'll know what came after that, then? After war - steps to try and safeguard human right (in Europe at least).

What about the USA not banning certain Muslim dress - surely they'd be certain to do that compared to France, why don't you think they did (if you seem to think it's a logical or reasonable thing to do in France)?

Could it have something to do with human rights and morals? :-/

I'm not usually snarky, but I'm from a minority which has been shat on in the West for centuries, and still is in many countries around the world, just take a look at what you're advocating - please!

Why don't we start by restricting what YOU can do? That's what it comes down to in the end - we're all equal and must accept this, we can't impose on others what we wouldn't want for ourselves.

In reply to Timmd:



I'd never seen a Burkah before 9-11 and I've spent most of my life in areas with large Muslim communities.
What's that all about?

Wally

In reply to Dominicandave:

Good effort trying to be clear in what you are saying. You mention a perfect world too. I remember a John Lennon song about a perfect world, it had the lines "no religion too," which I think is interesting. I wonder if this is what the French are promoting when they ban religious symbols from state schools? (Private schools can do what they want, so if anyone feels that strong they go to private religious school, not great as there is no integration.)

In reply to Dominicandave:



Lights, camera, action - send in the clowns. Be seen to be doing something. Smash a window, it makes a loud noise. Let's get together. Let's make this thing alright. It's not us, it's them, making us do it. Send out the boys. Let's show them what's what. Let's put on a show. Let's go out. Let's smash a window. Let's clean this mess up.

In reply to Dominicandave:
I'm not going to bother quoting in reply but I'll work through it in rough order:

I'm not spinning your intent, I'm reading what you wrote, I quoted the paragraph that clearly expressed a view you still appear to stand by. One that I find as odious as your justification for it is inadequate.

France is not Haiti. Abusing the rights of minorities might be how an authoritarian regime maintains order, it is not the only way to do so. Perhaps you've been living in shit-holes too long.

Your example regarding a blown up mosque is absurd. This isn't about hoards of people, separated by culture or religion gloating over losses inflicted on others. It's about people, individuals going about ordinary, reasonable lives.

What if the attacker weren't defined as religious, what if for whatever reason the state with the connivance of the media defined them instead as 'black' or 'arab'? Would it be reasonable to expect, demand even that in febrile times those people who may be also be identified as 'black' or 'arab' keep a low profile, withdraw from society because of how they look, to prevent offence being taken? No of course it wouldn't because it's nothing the fu*k to do with them when some evil inadequate blows himself up, or runs a truck into a crowd.

Any solution you alight at that requires the abandonment of our morals is not a solution. You have a very serious problem if you genuinely believe that because that way lies the justification for genocide, not a solution to the prevention of it!

edit: spelling as usual
jk

In reply to Bogwalloper:

It's fashion. Like flares before it, i'm sure they will look back at photos of themselves and go "what was I thinking?"

In reply to Timmd:




You appear to be selectively reading which makes having a discussion with you almost impossible. Remind me where I stated the burkini ban was logical or reasonable? Can't? that would be because I never did, that would be a lie then........... another one.

All we have written is here you know, you can't just make tish up about what others have said and pass it off as that, lol.

If you refer to me stating 'I get it' then please go back and understand what you are talking about in terms of what I wrote, until then I'd prefer you didn't bother me with this nonsense.

The US? What about the US, no they just want to ban Muslims as a whole, bypass the clothes and just get on with it. And if you claim to be certain of knowing what the US are likely to do then you are unstable. Not even the US know what they are likely to do, have you taken a look at the state of affairs there? I also think using the US as a gauge on how anywhere should conduct themselves is rather silly..................... well, I think we have come to an end of our exchange. Three very good reasons right there why I think it's pointless.

In reply to Dominicandave:
Hey DD, I fully understand what you have been saying and agree with your assessment of how and why it came to this in France . interestingly, now the ban has been lifted, I wonder how that will play to the Le Pen crowd and if we will see an increase in vigilantism (or should that be criminality?) as has started to be seen (and which the original ban was probably trying to keep a lid on, however hamfisted)

In reply to Timmd:



Are you retarded, how many times are you going to selectively read what I am writing. I am not usually snarky either but you are making it very difficult. I have explained why these decisions are made. I also explained that they can never get it right because that would be impossible. I understand it, I get it. Do I think the burkini ban was a great move? probably not, no, but if it was not that then it would be something else, something else for the show, what it is is irrelevant. You only see the small picture.

And so what is your plan, do you have one, how do we keep all sides calm, restrained? Don't have a plan? A plan that will in reality help the situation.............. didn't think so, it is testing times.

I guess the Burkini was the target as it was probably something they thought would not affect people so much, it would not make such an impact that it has. Possibly it has turned out to be the wrong move, but I can see where they were coming from to keep balance. I guess if they had to choose what is it going to be, hundreds of innocent Muslims attacked or a Burkini ban then they probably thought it was the right decision.

Yeh yeh, now you are going to say that I am exaggerating, hundreds of innocent Muslims attacked.............. well, no I'm not, this 'show' could quite well have defused an uprising and they obviously felt it needed to go out there or they wouldn't have done it.

In reply to Bjartur i Sumarhus:


It was always just a show, the ban was never going to be a removal of peoples rights, that is not the goal. The goal is defusal of a situation which requires balance, the manipulation of society. Some of the posters on here seem extremely reluctant to accept the reality, and will not even take on board when someone is trying to help them understand. I guess that is also part of the reason society is where it is right now.

In reply to Dominicandave:

You say I (and possibly others) have been selectively reading your posts, but you can't say that the ban was never going to be a removal of peoples' rights, because it actually most definitely would have been a removal of peoples' rights, whatever the goal might have been, it would always have been a removal certain rights. However one sees the ban, there's no escaping from that if people had been made to remove the burkinis.

Which is why I'v been going on about rights somewhat, and people being equal etc...

In reply to Dominicandave:


Rights have been removed. That's the 'reality that I'm trying to help you accept' (hahahahah, ahahah. hah. )

It does require balance. But doing something totally, and utterly pointless, something that will make the situation worse - is not only wrong (we can agree to disagree on that), but stupid too. If they need to do something for "show", then at least do something like turn the country into more of a police state that could theoretically (that's another topic for another thread) prevent more terror attacks. What they've done has absolutely no bearing on the safety of people, and 98% of people (my estimate) would agree if it was pointed out to them.