Both Sides Are Wrong in the Burkini Wars

Aug 28, 2016

By Maajid Nawaz

UPDATE, 4:00 P.M, 26 August 2016: On Friday, the highest administrative court in France suspended the controversial ban on “burkinis” in a test case brought by human-rights organizations. Officials say the suspension will likely set the precedent for other areas seeking to prohibit burkinis via mayoral decrees. In its ruling the court described the edict passed August 5 by the resort town of Villeneuve-Loubet as a “serious and plainly illegal” infringement of “fundamental freedoms.”

LONDON — That great French Republic has banned another piece of cloth. The origins of this burkini (or burqini) ban furor are alarming. A Muslim group in Marseille wanted to have an all-burkini day, and the mere notion provoked a storm of controversy. Then the all-over bathing suit was banned in the Riviera resort of Cannes, where a French official rather absurdly described it as displaying “an allegiance to terrorist movements that are at war with us.”

One Corsican village called Sisco banned the full-body swimsuit following a darkly comical mass brawl involving French-Muslim men of North African origin who took offense at photographers taking snaps of burkini-clad women on a local beach. Some of the brawlers reportedly were armed with hatchets. Five people, including a pregnant woman, were injured. One man’s wounds were caused by a harpoon.


Continue reading by clicking the name of the source below.

44 comments on “Both Sides Are Wrong in the Burkini Wars

  • It’s just a piece of cloth when it suits you, and oppression when it suits you, and merely a symbol of oppression when it suits you.

    I guess it’s a good thing you’re finding it difficult to reconcile permitting oppression under freedom of choice with your sense of responsibility to help the oppressed.

    I also think it’s difficult to draw a clear distinction between this abuse by religion and other abuses we wouldn’t hesitate to support banning.



    Report abuse

  • It’s just a piece of cloth when it suits you, and oppression when it
    suits you, and merely a symbol of oppression when it suits you.

    All of the above yes!



    Report abuse

  • Over 100 years ago, Annette Kellerman was arrested for “indecency”; we’ve come a long way, baby?

    Nigella Lawson made waves with her burkini, saying it was to protect her skin.



    Report abuse

  • It’s just a piece of cloth when you don’t support banning it, oppression when you want to talk about how bad it is, and a symbol of oppression when you’re trying to have it both ways.

    Does that clear it up for you Olgun?

    I guess the greater evil here is telling women what to do. Oh, what an absurd world.



    Report abuse

  • Sean_W #1
    Aug 29, 2016 at 3:37 am

    I guess it’s a good thing you’re finding it difficult to reconcile permitting oppression under freedom of choice with your sense of responsibility to help the oppressed.

    I think there are elements of culture clashes here!

    While Muslim women are likely to be “daringly” wearing burkinis, they are also likely to be accompanied by those Muslim men who go bananas at the sight of a woman’s hair!

    How well these will integrate on the topless beaches of the South of France, is a real issue! – bearing in mind the immigrant rampages in Germany wrecking a welcoming party atmosphere!

    https://www.jihadwatch.org/2016/07/germany-changes-definition-of-rape-to-makes-deportations-easier
    Less than a year ago, a New York Times article described Germany’s benevolent welcome of Muslim refugees: “Germans waving welcome signs in German, English and Arabic came to the train station….to greet the first group of what is expected to be about 8,000 migrants to arrive…”

    In a quick turnaround, the picture presented by many such articles now looks nightmarish, with the escalation of crime and assaults in Germany since the mass arrival of Muslim refugees. Now the German parliament has voted to change the definitions of sex assault and rape to make it easier to deport “foreign perpetrators” (aka Muslim refugees).

    Muslim migrants have now displayed to Germans (and other Western countries) that many of them adhere to a belief system involving Muslim supremacy over infidels and also male supremacy over females. Such religious and cultural norms are completely incompatible with Western civilization, and Westerners are increasingly finding it out about them the hard way.

    It is a pity that so many Western women had to suffer assaults in the first place. But also it’s good news that the German government has decided to scramble to try to clean up the mess.

    It is a mistake to tolerate the intolerable in the name of tolerance!!!



    Report abuse

  • Burkini is a nifty semantic conflation.

    But I have a slight difficulty with the concept of a secular Muslim; probably just something I’ll have to get used to.

    Everything else evolves, so I suppose I’ll have to as well.

    What a drag.



    Report abuse

  • It is perfectly legal to wear your street clothes at the beach, so why this fuss?
    I want to spank people who think they have the right to micromanage the affairs of others on matters that don’t concern them.



    Report abuse

  • Sean #4

    I wasn’t confused before….. I agree with you!

    Our last two visits to North Cyprus saw two occasions with women wearing these things, the second one being a full on burka and enough material for three people spreading with the waves. I was offended by the first because she was with her cousins (a bit of eavesdropping) who had bikinis and tattoos and the second, well, I don’t know who I was offended by the most, her with yards of black cloth or her fat hairy husband in a Speedo. Offended by the indoctrination of religion but stifled by her right to wear it.

    Stafford

    My family are secular Muslims and nearly all Turkish Cypriots and many more in Turkey. Erdogans main problem was with the secularists until a religious break up with the Gulen movement. Now there is hope that a new understanding could come about in Turkey between the first two who clearly see the latter as part of the western idea of what Turkey should be. I too am pinning my hopes on something good coming out of all the interference.



    Report abuse

  • Alan

    In my lobbying, I see myself as a Brit lobbying my government on foreign issues that I am not happy with. The head of desk at the FCO seems to change by the minute and the last one or so, I can’t keep up, asked me as we were heading for the exit, how long I hag been living in the UK, after we gave him a hard time, and when I told him it has been nearly fifty years he just raised his eyebrows at me. In other words; ‘you are not allowed to question what your English hosts do you bloody foreigner’.

    The Muslim culture has been with the Germans for a long time now with nearly three million Turks at the moment. The French are not new to it either. The newer refugees could have been integrated with these communities but even their cultures clash.



    Report abuse

  • As with other aspects of restrictive female muslim attire, the target is not or should not be the unfortunate woman herself, but what the clothing represents.

    I could easily go to the beach to enjoy the sun and swim in full KKK garb, white robes, pointy hat and all. It’s a free country and I can wear what I like, no? Except, of course, such attire resonates with the utter offensiveness of bigotry and oppression. So too does the (male) islamic mandate for women to conceal, to be ‘modest’, to be regarded as nothing but objects of lust to be controlled, which leads in this case to the emergence of the burkini. Bans are not the answer, but education and a convincing counter-narrative leading eventually to eradication of the underlying cause.



    Report abuse

  • @Olgun, Phil, others—

    No, both sides are not wrong, Mr. Nawaz, you deep thinker. These are two separate issues you are conflating.
    So you yourself are wrong again, like you were when you attacked the Democrats for not mentioning an ISIS-related murder at the convention.
    You don’t tell people what to wear, unless there is a dress code at work or something. (There are other situations where self-covering might be improper.)
    If you think they should free themselves that is fine; I agree; but that doesn’t make them “wrong.” We all need to free ourselves. Telling them to undress is horrible. Telling them they’re wrong is as easy as it is empty and counterproductive. They don’t think it is. Nor are they obliged to.
    Every single article, Olgun, that I have read, without exception, by this fellow Nawaz, has struck me as petty, false, and – dare I say it – stupid. I am sure he is not stupid, but his articles are not thoughtful.
    What about an orthodox Jew in his robe or the Pope taking a stroll on the beach in full garb, or a soldier in uniform? Does that soldier represent all soldiers? (And many soldiers throughout the ages have engaged in acts of barbarism at the behest of others.) Should pacifists rise up in protest? (Maybe so.) Does the lady in the burkini pose a threat? Why single her out? She’s not hurting anyone.
    Why are the damned French telling people what to wear now? I don’t get it. What is the justification?
    They wear burkinis. So what? We wear clothes. Sometimes more, sometimes less. What the hell’s the difference? Both hide the body. We in the West have our fig-leaves in the form of clothes; they have theirs.

    @10

    Absolutely spot-on, rogeroney.



    Report abuse

  • Dan

    You always pick on the person. I’m only interested in what is being said. I have said before that banning is not the way but we can be realistic about what it means to different people.



    Report abuse

  • Whats wrong with a wet-suit? Or am I missing something?

    As for suitable outfits for appearing in public, anything that doesn’t interfere with facial recognition should be ok all round. Many people (irrespective of creed) don’t like exposing flesh to sunlight, but still like to get in the sea. I wear a hat — even when swimming — else I’d get badly sunburned really quickly.

    I see my “facial recognition” line allows the headscarf but not the burka. So, it’s not specifically aimed at a particular religion. There, I can feel pleased with myself for not being bigoted.



    Report abuse

  • I just looked at a google image of a burka. I have to say that I wasn’t quite sure what it was.

    That’s pretty sick. That has to end. It’s wrong. But my saying, or anyone other than the people who have to wear them, saying “it’s wrong” accomplishes nothing.

    Burkinis being banned is also sick. And wrong.—Taking that position can accomplish something.



    Report abuse

  • I just looked at a google image of a burka.

    Dan,
    I went to the Trafford Centre yesterday, and in among the colourful and (sometimes) revealing garb of all the local girls and women (and men) there were women dressed head to toe in black – just a slit for their eyes to peep out. Like Rogeroney says – If I went dressed as a Klansman (equally absurd) or even in a full Waffen SS dress uniform – I would possibly be arrested! What would be the difference?



    Report abuse

  • M27Holts #16
    Aug 30, 2016 at 3:26 am

    If I went dressed as a Klansman (equally absurd) or even in a full Waffen SS dress uniform – I would possibly be arrested! What would be the difference?

    There is a ghetto-segregation tribal aspect, an “in-your-face” ideology statement, and a group uniform aspect, all of which are counter to integration in a society with a Western tolerant culture.

    We should also be aware that where a large proportion of the population is Muslim, the theocracies or individual busy-bodies take it upon themselves to enforce their “in-a-bag” dress requirements on others.
    There could well be riots spoiling seaside relaxation, if those in burkas made snidey remarks about other bathers, or repressed males with bigoted attitudes, could not restrain their behaviour as in the German situation linked @#5!

    There is of course a very real difference between a burkini and a wet suit!

    A wet suit is designed to aid the performance and safety of the swimmer.
    The bukinis (particularly loose fitting ones) are a handicap to swimming, and are worn for socially enforced prudery!

    People wear baggy garments like these in survival and lifeguard training courses, to make them aware of the difference between swimming wearing a costume, and trying to swim fully clothed after falling overboard.
    Learning to take off unsuitable clothing in deep water, is also part of these courses, although clothes with tight fitting sections are almost impossible to remove when wet if treading water.

    The linked article is apologist ideology, but the pictures tell the story of baggy garments poorly suited to swimming, and probably a risk to swimmer safety in the sea!

    http://news.nationalpost.com/full-comment/ashley-csanady-back-off-the-burkini-the-state-has-no-place-in-the-wardrobes-of-a-nation



    Report abuse

  • Hi, M27Holts,

    I may have misinterpreted Rogeroney’s point. You might or might not be arrested for wearing an SS uniform. You might be, but that’s because an SS uniform suggests the real possibility of clear and present physical danger. They would certainly question you. They would try to ban that if it caught on.
    The Muslim women are just ordinary people wearing their weird outfits; it’s just custom and habit.—Do I like it? Of course not; there is a strong element of coercion as well. It’s annoying, pathetic and sad. But these people are not threatening our safety in any way. If there was an official “terrorist” outfit then that would be different.



    Report abuse

  • -lol- You’re joking Dan.

    When did women decide they should wear tents to hide themselves from men? You’re also trying to have it both ways, it’s just clothes that are also pathetic and sad. What’s pathetic and sad about them? If they are just clothes, then nothing, nothing more than what might make a half windsor sad and pathetic. Nope, it’s oppression, and that’s what makes us call it sad.

    –//–

    Here’s a challenge: give an example of religious abuse that isn’t supported by some of the abused?



    Report abuse

  • @Sean_W #19

    Hi,

    I may have contradicted myself a bit on this thread, or appeared to contradict myself. I don’t think the “birkini” should have been banned by the French and I am glad that the ban was lifted.

    I feel two ways. This is clothing we’re talking about. Let people dress the way they want. And it is indeed sad, and rather infuriating, that so many Muslims – men and women – are so repressed, oppressed and backwards. That is a separate but not an entirely separate issue.

    Some puritanical conservative Christian women disapprove of the western bikini, and many disapprove of nudity on the beach, which is illegal in most places. So let’s not judge so severely; oppression is relative and oppression may be be said to constitute a continuum. We can’t force people to think the way we do and we can’t force people not to be oppressed, especially when the oppressed do not feel oppressed. That itself would be oppressive, fascistic even.

    Do you consider hiding oneself a human rights violation and does that warrant intervention by force? Would that be effective? Then we would be obliged to force American and European Christian couples to have pre-marital sex and to use contraception; the so-called decisions not to were not “their decisions” either; it is religious indoctrination (“abuse”). Do you see my point? We have to be careful.

    Let me know, if you can, if you still think I am being inconsistent or if you disagree with anything I said. Thanks.



    Report abuse

  • Dan #20
    Aug 30, 2016 at 7:00 pm

    Do you consider hiding oneself a human rights violation and does that warrant intervention by force?

    Nobody is forcing anyone to wear anything! They are simply being banned from the beaches if they are wearing inappropriate clothing for the activities going on there.

    Most swimming pools also ban people from the pool, unless suitably dressed for the activities involved.
    Entering the water wearing baggy clothing is dangerous and can easily cause drowning or inability to swim to shore due to the drag.
    It can also involve expensive use of public rescue and medical services.
    Dressing children like that for swimming would be criminal!

    Have a look at the pictures of these garments @#17!



    Report abuse

  • Roedy #7
    Aug 29, 2016 at 1:23 pm

    It is perfectly legal to wear your street clothes at the beach, so why this fuss?

    Burkinis are not “street clothes”.
    They are allegedly swimming costumes, but the examples I linked @#17, show them to be generally unfit for the purpose of swimming, and potentially dangerous and disabling if worn in the water.
    They may meet some fashion and religious criteria but are not functional swimming or sea-bathing garments.



    Report abuse

  • Most swimming pools also ban people from the pool, unless suitably dressed for the activities involved.

    Yes, and correctly, for safety and also hygiene reasons. Following on that, it would also be sensible to apply the same rules where a beach has lifeguards or any kind of public safety effort. Reckless self-endangerment is not a right, as it wastes resources that might otherwise be available to rescue someone else.

    Wild beaches, where the public is allowed but no safety facilities are provided, are another matter, anyone is free to drown themselves in whatever garments they choose.



    Report abuse

  • Burkinis (chosen and/or imposed), worn as a sign of modesty and morality, by default communicate to all of the bikini clad ladies that the opposite is considered of them.
    The need for such dramatically overt way of announcing one’s own morality could be considered overdoing it a bit. It is somewhat sad that such morality prohibits any appreciation for the most natural that is the female form (and identity)
    I guess it largely boils down to the simple assessment of what exactly is the overlap between the values of Islam and Western secular France
    Or are French Muslims French and Muslim or Muslim and French?
    In the aftermath of death and fear the police are undressing women on beaches (right before heading for a nice ice cream) and courts decide, what is it exactly, that they should be undressed out off.
    What if some male lifeguard will need to administer CPR to an unfortunate burkini wearing poor swimmer? The president better be ready



    Report abuse

  • Why did France want to ban them? Was it a safety issue? The article doesn’t say. But Nawaz does say this:

    “France’s ban on it is a sad symbol of liberalism today going backward in reply.”

    Liberalism? Why is the ban about liberalism? What’s with this guy and liberalism and democrats?



    Report abuse

  • Yes Dan, you are contradicting yourself.

    Do you think there has ever been an instance of the oppression of women that has not been a cultural norm, and therefore defensible using exactly the same reasoning you’re applying above?

    Have we really never dismantled oppression through the use of law in the face of the genuinely held beliefs and grievances of the oppressors?

    Why is this different?

    On the question of human rights and the use of force. How seriously do you take the opinion of experts that the largest contributing factor to the backwardness of Islamic theocracies is the total inequality of women?

    –//–

    Sorry for the lack of depth here, I’m typing with one finger on a kindle. -biggrin-



    Report abuse

  • Sorry for my obtuseness, Sean.

    I am opposed to oppression too. But what precisely are you suggesting? It is not quite clear to me – on a practical level – what you want to dismantle, or how we would go about that.



    Report abuse

  • I didn’t realize we we’re being practical. This seems like a philosophical discussion to me. I’m mostly interested in the problem presented by our desire to end oppression, and a situation which appears to force us to protect it.

    I see the contradictions and attempts to minimize as evidence of our difficulty making peace with protecting oppressors, and the right –only an American could say that, hehe- to be oppressed.



    Report abuse

  • @dan

    “liberalism” seems to mean very different things on opposite sides of the Atlantic. FYI.

    There is no such thing as a “right to be oppressed”. Also FYI. It goes right along with the Tolerant being expected to tolerate intolerance.



    Report abuse

  • Swimming caps over the hair, are quite normal gear for long-haired swimmers, but wearing them in the sun after coming out of the water, to dry off, may well frazzle the hair and steam or boil the brain!
    Similarly I don’t think anyone uses wet-suits for sunbathing or participating in beach sports!

    Sean_W #28
    Aug 31, 2016 at 12:48 am

    I didn’t realize we we’re being practical.

    I think is is a feature of ideological and faith-based religious decision making, that practicalities are low or missing priorities!



    Report abuse

  • I too am puzzled by what on earth a secular muslim is. Islam is a religion and the fact that it has also spawned a culture is neither here nor there. All religions spawn cultures as do nations and even regions of nations but if you don’t believe in the tenets of the religion any more then surely you can’t keep calling yourself a member of it?

    As to the point of the topic, most nations impose a minimum coverage restriction (genitals and female breasts usually) in most public places but I fail too see how wearing more than this causes anyone any problems. Arguments about facial recognition are pretty thin. Lots of Japanese wear face masks in town, supposedly because of pollution, riot police cover up and remove ID so they can beat the shit out of people with impunity and that’s apparently “with” the blessing of the law. It’s a bit rich to then complain about anyone else wearing stuff over their face.

    However obviously this is not about the amount of coverage of the body per se but what it supposedly represents in the light of the rise of Islamic terrorism in recent years. If Hasidic Jews suddenly started blowing people up would we get snitty about their silly hats and hair styles?

    I personally don’t see the point of going to a sunny beach covered from head to foot against the sun but I’m sure people can invent many other reasons for wanting to be on a sunny beach than getting a tan. I doubt I’d be very convinced by them but hey, if someone wants to sunbathe inside a tent it’s no skin off my nose.



    Report abuse

  • This linked article rambles around offering various viewpoints – rational or otherwise, but this section covers relevant aspects!

    http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/chapman/ct-burkini-france-swimsuit-ban-muslim-perspec-20160819-column.html

    If some Muslim men employ violence or threats to control their wives and daughters, the target of government policy should be detecting and ending that sort of abuse.

    A ban on modest clothing will not emancipate tyrannized females but add to their oppression. A woman whose husband allows her to swim only in a burkini probably won’t respond to a ban by letting her venture forth in a two-piece. He will probably respond by not letting her swim at all. Instead of freeing the affected Muslim women, a ban will trap them in their homes.

    Marwan Muhammad, executive director of the Center Against Islamophobia in France, told The New York Times that burkinis are a marker of liberation, not repression. “In conservative Muslim countries,” The Times paraphrased, “women would never go to a beach with men, much less go swimming, since even in the burkini, the wet cloth sticks to a woman’s body, outlining her curves.”

    Muhammad said that “Muslim women who didn’t used to enjoy that day at the beach or at the pool are now taking part, they are socializing.” Yes — maybe even with people who wear more revealing garments, interaction that could be educational for everyone involved.

    It is a question of between which extremes the middle ground fudgists are suggesting a compromise should be made!
    While progression to swimming in a burkini in mixed company MAY be slight progress for repressed Muslim women, the French are quite happy with their beaches as they have been for decades!

    There is nothing inherently oppressive about this swimwear. Presumably some women don it only because men insist. But there are doubtless other French women who buy skimpy suits in submission to male coercion and social pressures.

    Really?? That sounds a bit like an asserted false-balance, false dichotomy, and a fallacious special pleading presumption, to me!
    I have to wonder if that journalist has ever been on a French beach?

    A beach in France is likely to feature some sights that would shock many Americans, such as bare-breasted women and paunchy middle-aged men in tiny Speedos. Lately it may also feature a sight that would shock many French people: females who cover up.



    Report abuse

  • OHooligan (29), Sean_W

    There is no such thing as a “right to be oppressed”

    I wouldn’t disagree. Context. I was responding to something. Banning the burkini. The burkini is a form of oppression, said someone. But forcing them not to wear it, when they want to wear it, is also oppression. So I said that people have a right to be oppressed, with a degree of irony and in a somewhat confused state of mind. I then added that Catholics around the world who refuse to practice birth control are, in a sense, oppressed in so far as they are indoctrinated. But their “religion” is our “indoctrination”. So punishing them for not using birth control would be seen by many as a violation of religious freedom.

    I thought this was a practical discussion, Sean. (28) That may be causing some misunderstanding.



    Report abuse

  • “Stockholm syndrome, or capture-bonding, is a psychological phenomenon described in 1973 in which hostages express empathy and sympathy and have positive feelings toward their captors.”

    Their hostage-takers.

    In every patriarchal society, I would by now consider the oppressed women to be suffering from this syndrome. This may be the case to a lesser degree in parts of Europe – and New Zealand, allowing women to vote in 1893, and Australia (except the Aborigines) in 1902 (and I decidedly exclude “other” parts of Europe and the US, a very divided country in so many ways). Asia, Africa, and Latin America remain very high in the Stockholm syndrome sickness prevalence, with Islam taking the unchallenged “gold” medal. I have read about it often enough. When the daughters rebel, the mothers are faced with the (for them intolerable) prospect that they might also have been able to rebel Nobody likes to be called a moron, no matter how right the description is. The “Stockholm syndrome” may have only been noticed by psychologists in 1973, but has probably been a dominating feature of human society for millennia.



    Report abuse

  • I don’t have an answer for this problem, but I do find it ironic that the outrage felt by those who see a woman wearing a burkini on a beach in France would probably be matched (if not exceeded) by the outrage felt by those who see woman not wearing a bikini top on a typical beach here in the U.S.

    If we here in the U.S. tend to find it “indecent” for a woman to walk around with her breasts exposed, are we just as bad (or almost as bad) in our repression of women as those in Arab countries who find it “indecent” for a woman to walk around with her hair exposed? Does it matter that most women in the U.S. probably prefer to keep their breasts covered when out in public? And, if so, how is that different from the fact that most Muslim women probably prefer to keep their hair covered?

    I remember thinking years ago how ironic it was that we here in the U.S. could look at women in Africa with their breasts exposed and women in Arab countries covered head to foot, and in both cases think, “What a bunch of ignorant savages!” Because, of course, we all know that we are the ones who have got it “just right”.



    Report abuse

  • It seems to French courts, the freedom to wear utterly unsuitable swimwear for religious reasons trumps sensible practicality!

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-37243442

    The city of Nice has lifted a controversial ban on burkinis – the latest French seaside resort to do so, in line with a national court ruling.

    Bans on the women’s full-body swimsuits have also been lifted in Villeneuve-Loubet, Cannes, Frejus and Roquebrune.

    French Riviera mayors imposed the bans, but they were overruled on Friday by France’s top administrative court.

    Critics see burkinis as a symbol of Islam and potentially provocative after the July terror atrocity in Nice.

    But on Friday, France’s Council of State ruled that the ban in Villeneuve-Loubet “seriously and clearly illegally breached fundamental freedoms”.

    Does anyone seriously think they could swim safely in the sea wearing that? (see the linked picture)



    Report abuse

  • The burkini was not banned because it was oppressive to women or because it is unsafe swimwear. It was banned because it visually reminded the French government of radical fundamentalist Islamist terrorism. The French people are presumably on edge due to the repeated horrendous attacks on their country. My assumption was the bans arose out of an impulse to protect the psyches of the French. In the same way that you probably would be arrested in the U.S. for casually wearing your KKK robes to a beach. Even if you had a picnic basket and a beach ball with you. The concern would be that your attire is so inflammatory that is a form of incitement to riot. Now, you might get released at the station, or a ban on KKK uniforms might get overturned on free speech grounds, but you would still probably be arrested.

    The “burkini” obviously differs because a non-terrorist/non-terrorist sympathizing woman might choose to wear it for a number of reasons that the secular government has to stay out of.

    I don’t think the burkini should be banned UNLESS, as Alan points out, they ban any swimwear that is dangerous to the swimmer/waders safety. Because his points are objectively valid.

    Personally, I can see a woman wanting an option that does not require expository guidelines her body on the beach. Either because she doesn’t want the criticism or attention, or because she wants to protect her skin. But the French should do what they do so well – come up with a fashionable, functional alternative. The best way to fight the burkini is to co-opt it.

    The issues of female oppression, religious oppression, patriarchies using women’s bodies as pawns – none of these will be won by the ban.



    Report abuse

  • godzillatemple

    The US has gotten it mostly right for a long time now. Abortion is legal, women are equal in law, and feminism enjoys a lot of support. Gay marriage enjoys majority support. Hell, the decriminalization of drugs is gaining traction in even the most staunchly conservative states e.g. Texas law makers are routinely looking at bills to legalize marijuana.

    Given our freedoms and equality are so goddamned obvious relative to Islamic theocracies, I can’t for the life of me figure out where comments like yours are coming from. We just don’t resemble them. Can you find a knucklehead who’ll be “outraged” at seeing breasts on a beach? Yeah, I guess. So what? It’s not going to be anything like the majority. You’ll find even fewer who’ll say something so stupid as naked Africans -christ, naked Africans, really?- are savages.

    That stupidity hasn’t been available to most of our children as anything other than a joke for ages man.

    Oh, and where it’s oppression it’s not a preference, it’s a requirement.

    bahhHhh! -shakes fist- 😉



    Report abuse

  • Picture – Burkini wearer and children @ link @#39

    As the burkini is specifically to hide a woman’s figure – even when wet, it is of necessity made up of thick material and/or several layers of fabric which will drag in the water.

    With the court ruling that burkinis must not be banned: it is probably only a matter of time before some unfortunate “liberated” Muslim woman, exercising court endorsed “fundamental freedoms” and publicly bathing (with her father’s or husband’s permission), drowns from being dragged under, – or out to sea, by waterlogged baggy clothing.
    Burkini wearers are also probably too unskilled (very doubtful if anyone could learn to swim effectively wearing that), or handicapped by unsuitable clothing, to be able to save an accompanied child who has got into difficulties.

    Religion and “rights ideologies”, are of course then unlikely to be blamed as probable causes responsible for such calamities, when such events are later reported by apologists!



    Report abuse

  • 44
    Pinball1970 says:

    @43
    Is going swimming haram anyway?
    Seeing guys semi naked, speedos, non halal, ice cream (don’t laugh ice has animal fats) guys drinking beer smoking pot listening to rock and roll and beat music?
    Shell fish all over the place, dogs? People kissing and being unislamic?
    It would be like a priest going to a brothel but making sure he wore the full cassock if it was a holy day of obligation.
    Come to think of it that does not sound too farfetched.



    Report abuse

Leave a Reply

View our comment policy.