7 hours ago, jj3 said:

 

This issue is not about fashion. This is about culture. France, and UK or USA have a huge difference of view about the spot of the religions in the public square.

People don't have to forget the context. This is matter of limits, red lines. Religions need limits, red lines. 

For me, this new tendency, on the beach or in the street, is only a provocation. 

 

 

My understanding of the burkini is that it was designed as a means for Muslim women to integrate with western society by joining them at the beach and at swimming pools, where Muslim women perhaps wouldn't typically go otherwise. Not to the extent of revealing their bodies of course, but as far as sitting unaccompanied and surrounded by non-Muslims, many of whom are men. That's a move forward and one that I personally would prefer to see encouraged, not attacked.

 

If that protest in Iran was made to challenge the culture of forcing people to wear a hijab, then it was also in response to women being dictated to by male officials. Which is exactly what's happening in this instance.

15 hours ago, jj3 said:

Plus, in the south of France, in summer, it's strictely not allowed to go "topless" in the streets, not on the beach, but in the streets, or at the mall, etc... Many men did that before. Many tourists. Now they changed the rules, some years ago, no one protested. No men, when a policman or a policewoman asked them to put on a teeshirt or such, called the media or a lawyer to make lawsuit, or screaming at the oppression. 

Everything is matter of Law and Rule, to make the everyday life, easier, for everybody. The law and the rules are the same for everybody. 

 

But this law was specifically made to target one specific religious group.

 

This is a mixture of bigotry and misogyny. Nothing more.

And laïcité is a two-way street. In this particular case, it is the state which is not keeping up its end of the bargain.

 

The opinion piece JJ shared is vile bigotry under the guise of secularism.

Also: why does she put the onus on Muslim women if it is indeed the men who make them wear the hijab/burka/burkini?

3 hours ago, SympathysSilhouette said:

The opinion piece JJ shared is vile bigotry under the guise of secularism.

Also: why does she put the onus on Muslim women if it is indeed the men who make them wear the hijab/burka/burkini?

 

Do not insult me. That's my opinion. You have an opinion. We both have an opinion, allow me to express my opinion.

It's just two differents visions. You're not more right than i am. Don't start to oppress me lol 

13 hours ago, Michael* said:

 

My understanding of the burkini is that it was designed as a means for Muslim women to integrate with western society by joining them at the beach and at swimming pools, where Muslim women perhaps wouldn't typically go otherwise. Not to the extent of revealing their bodies of course, but as far as sitting unaccompanied and surrounded by non-Muslims, many of whom are men. That's a move forward and one that I personally would prefer to see encouraged, not attacked.

 

If that protest in Iran was made to challenge the culture of forcing people to wear a hijab, then it was also in response to women being dictated to by male officials. Which is exactly what's happening in this instance.

 

These municipal bylaw has been voted by a municipal council. Made of women and men, together. It has been confirmed by a courthouse. 

Plus, my vision is clear. It's to them to make an effort to get integrate in the society. And not to the whole society to make efforts to do that. 

My vision, my opinion. 

I agree with you jj3, but i think this burkini question is just the surface of the problem.

3 minutes ago, 17 Moments of Spring said:

I agree with you jj3, but i think this burkini question is just the surface of the problem.

 

100% agree. A symbol. 

 Deux Français sur trois opposés au burkini
 Le Conseil d'État doit dire s'il est légal d'interdire le burkini. En attendant, seuls 7 % des Français approuvent cette tenue. Et 30 % s'en fichent.

>> http://www.lepoint.fr/societe/deux-francais-sur-trois-opposes-au-burkini-25-08-2016-2063657_23.php

Quote

 

Nearly two out of three French (64%) are opposed to the very controversial Burkini on beaches. The remaining third (30%) says is "indifferent". And only 6% of the population supports the wearing of full swimsuit. This is the conclusion to an Ifop poll for Le Figaro * Thursday. "We are on a similar level to what we measure overall last April about the veil or headscarf in the street (63% opposed). The beach does not appear as a public space to share and is equated with street spaces in which wearing ostentatious sign is also rejected by two thirds of the French, "says Jérôme Fourquet of Ifop.

Note, however, that the institute has not asked his sample he approved the ban this Islamic swimsuit on the beach. Indeed, one can condemn an outfit synonymous with an archaic vision of women, without wanting the ban by the police.

 

 

33 minutes ago, jj3 said:

 

Do not insult me. That's my opinion. You have an opinion. We both have an opinion, allow me to express my opinion.

It's just two differents visions. You're not more right than i am. Don't start to oppress me lol 

 

1. Modesty norms inspired by religious doctrine are sexist and one of the multitude of ways that the patriarchy controls women

2. A state-imposed dress code on women's attire is equally sexist

 

It is thus a classic case of two wrongs not making a right.

 

19 minutes ago, jj3 said:

 

100% agree. A symbol. 

 

How exactly is this going to fix anything?

If the implication that these women are only wearing the burkini because the men in their life make them is true, then the burkini ban just means they will no longer be able to go to the beach. It won't make those men turn around and say "actually now that the burkini is banned, feel free to just wear a bikini".

Conversely, for those women for who it is a religiously inspired personal choice, there is even less of a justification for they are effectively being banned from the public sphere.

2 minutes ago, SympathysSilhouette said:

 

1. Modesty norms inspired by religious doctrine are sexist and one of the multitude of ways that the patriarchy controls women

2. A state-imposed dress code on women's attire is equally sexist

 

It is thus a classic case of two wrongs not making a right.

 

 

You don't know me. Don't judge me. 

Just now, jj3 said:

 

You don't know me. Don't judge me. 

 

Who is judging anyone? I am stating my opinion.

Just now, SympathysSilhouette said:

 

How exactly is this going to fix anything?

If the implication that these women are only wearing the burkini because the men in their life make them is true, then the burkini ban just means they will no longer be able to go to the beach. It won't make those men turn around and say "actually now that the burkini is banned, feel free to just wear a bikini".

Conversely, for those women for who it is a religiously inspired personal choice, there is even less of a justification for they effectively being banned from the public sphere.

 

Same laws and rules for everybody. No nudism, no burkini. 

4 minutes ago, SympathysSilhouette said:

 

1. Modesty norms inspired by religious doctrine are sexist and one of the multitude of ways that the patriarchy controls women

2. A state-imposed dress code on women's attire is equally sexist

 

It is thus a classic case of two wrongs not making a right.

 

 

Wow, that's huge. As i said, here, men are not allowed to show their balls in the street or on the beach. Same rules for the rest. Same rules for everybody. Men and women. 

19 minutes ago, jj3 said:

 

Wow, that's huge. As i said, here, men are not allowed to show their balls in the street or on the beach. Same rules for the rest. Same rules for everybody. Men and women. 

You are going to have to explain to me how that is equivalent to a burkini ban.

16 minutes ago, jj3 said:

 

Same laws and rules for everybody. No nudism, no burkini. 

 

How is this a valid analogy??

Under that logic then "no nudism -> no jackets on the beach"

You both don't understand the principle of laicité in the way that France is using it : No sign of god in the public square. No matter the religion, the sex, or the color of skin. 

Could you say burkini is a simple outfit like another one ? 

 

I repost this, and i stop to talk about it. 

 

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

 

I would suggest everyone interested in this debate to read this woman's post in its entirety.

I think she is spot on both in terms of the counter-productiveness of a burkini-ban and the issues with oppressive modesty norms and our (the West) various reactions to them.

As is almost always the case with issues at the heart of a cultural mine-field, the reality isn't as black and white as some (most) would want you to believe.

Staying out of this debate but that burkini is awesome and I'd wear one! The idea of  my porcelain skin getting tanned is a big no no, and I do like the beach so this is a win win for me... Pair that with adorable Parasol and sunscreen and we're good to go!.. I gonna get one (not even kidding).

 

I also like 1920's style swimsuits. I am Modern Women hear me roar.

1 hour ago, jj3 said:

You both don't understand the principle of laicité in the way that France is using it : No sign of god in the public square. No matter the religion, the sex, or the color of skin. 

Could you say burkini is a simple outfit like another one ? 

 

I repost this, and i stop to talk about it. 

 

 

 

 

The same "laicité" Kiki mentions you're not understanding?

So I have to conclude from it that people can't wear those necklaces with a cross in the street?

Laicism is about not affiliating with any particular religion or set of beliefs; not about banning them.

 

And most of us here don't speak French so there's little point in reposting that unless you take the time and common courtesy to translate it.