[Albert]

CBC
Aug 26, 2016 9:49 AM ET

France's top administrative court has overturned a town burkini ban amid shock and anger worldwide after some Muslim women were ordered to remove body-concealing garments on French Riviera beaches.

The ruling by the Council of State Friday specifically concerns a ban in the Riviera town of Villeneuve-Loubet, but the binding decision is expected to set a legal precedent for all the 30 or so French resort municipalities that have issued similar decrees.

Lawyers for two human rights groups challenged the legality of the ban to the top court, saying the orders infringe basic freedoms and that mayors have overstepped their powers by telling women what to wear on beaches.

Mayors had cited concern about public order after deadly Islamic extremist attacks this summer, and many officials have argued that burkinis oppress women.

Lawyer Patrice Spinosi, representing the Human Rights League, told reporters that the decision should set a precedent, and that other mayors should conform to it.

He also said women who have already received fines can protest them based on Friday's decision.

Also

Liberalism does best what it does best, destroy culture and ones own nation.

[The Sabbaticus]

It won't be considered a precedent, as each mayor used different reasons to ban the burkini. Instead more mayors should follow suit and press the issue.

[mikema63]

What next? They'll decide that the planned government dress code of grey jumpsuit is unacceptable?

Damn you liberalism!

[Decky]

I love it how right wingers claim to be pro free market right up until someone buys and wears something they don't like and then they become the most authoritarian people in the world.

Anyway the burkini is a symptom not the problem itself. Stop importing people from the most right wing parts of the world and it would not be an issue. They are only here causing this issue as the capitalists have imported them to depress wages, weaken unions, and reseed Europe with right wing religious values that the left crushed in the native population.

[ThirdTerm]

The burkini ban has become a national embarrassment for France. The burkini was only recently invented by an Aussie Muslim woman, who defied anti-Muslim bigotry that surfaces in a variety of public forms in the country. It's a feminist statement rather than a symbol of oppression or extremism.

[Zagadka]

Liberalism does best what it does best, destroy culture and ones own nation.

The significant part is that it creates more than it replaces... otherwise you'd be sucking British monarch penis.

[Godstud]

Why does there need to be a law about what people wear at the beach? Is there some sort of security risk involved?

Are they going to ban wet-suits? They look similar to burkinis.

The burkini ban has become a national embarrassment for France.

THIS.
That the ban was overturned shows that there are still intelligent people in France.

[Frollein]

The nice thing about this court decision is that the court only ruled that the communities don't have the right to ban certain clothes - which prompted a response by Valls that France is opposed to the "deadly Islam". Now instead of having some isolated communities banning the burka/burkini, you'll see an initiative to create a law that will ban it wholesale in the country. Well done!

[Albert]

Human Rights courts should be burned to the ground. Its judges tried for treason.

[Istanbuller]

The burkini ban has become a national embarrassment for France. The burkini was only recently invented by an Aussie Muslim woman, who defied anti-Muslim bigotry that surfaces in a variety of public forms in the country. It's a feminist statement rather than a symbol of oppression or extremism.

Burkini is very popular among Arab women.

Just three days ago, i saw an Arab family whose women and their African servants are fully covered all of their bodies. Almost all Arab women tourists are like that.

It leads to a serious identification and security problem here as they might be suicide bombers.

[Godstud]

Right, as those beaches are just full of women blowing themselves up. No wait. Since when is identification an issue at the beach? Hogwash!!!

[Prosthetic Conscience]

Burkini is very popular among Arab women.

Just three days ago, i saw an Arab family whose women and their African servants are fully covered all of their bodies. Almost all Arab women tourists are like that.

It leads to a serious identification and security problem here as they might be suicide bombers.

What "identification problem"? Do you identify someone by the wrinkles on their neck, so that you require the neck to be uncovered? Do you not realise that hair grows, and people can cut it, or colour it, so that it is not a reliable form of identification? Have there been people hiding explosives in their hair, so that a headscarf is a "security problem"?

The rest of the burkini - full length sleeves and leggings - covers nothing more than a shirt and trousers do.

The idea that a burkini is "a serious identification and security problem" can only come from someone whose entire life has been spent in a laboratory with their head shaved every day and no contact with humans in normal clothing. Are you part of some bizarre experiment where the only contact with the outside world is via internet forums with pictures blocked?

[Godstud]

If identification is an issue, and we all know that that's a big fucking lie, then they should ban people from putting zinc on their noses, wearing sunglasses, and hats, at the beach, as well.

People can conceal bombs in their duffle bags, beach towels or beach bags, too. Are you going to start searching everyone? This is complete rubbish, and it's obvious discrimination under the pretext of "security".

OK, so where's she hiding the bomb? Identifying her seems quite easy, as well, or aren't women allowed to conceal their hair?

[Istanbuller]

Hey, calm down. I am also muslim. But that doesn't change the fact that things like burkini cause "identification and security problem". Last year a Chechen woman in a full covered dress blowed herself up here.

[Doug64]

It's good to see that there are still some sane people in France. I mean, seriously, people want to promote women's liberation by limiting what they can wear to the beach? If some Muslim women want to wear burkinis to the beach, that's their business.

[Istanbuller]

Court's decision will only benefit to the nationalist party of France. Increasing number of French people do not want to see women in burkas and burkinis walking around.

If the current government does not meet people's demands, then it is going to lose and be replaced. This is called "democracy".

[Godstud]

It's hard to imagine that a country that has always prided itself on liberty is going to use democracy as an excuse to deprive people of those very liberties. In this case it's their freedom of choice and religion.

"People do not want to see people in burkas and burkinis..." - A lot of people didn't want to give women the right to vote, either. Fuck small-minded people who are ruled by fear!

Increasing numbers does not mean a majority, either. A majority of people are not assholes.

[Rich]

It's hard to imagine that a country that has always prided itself on liberty is going to use democracy as an excuse to deprive people of those very liberties.

Yes exactly as they did in 1945. Did France, or Britain, America or the Soviet union for that matter allow Germans to display Nazi symbols? Of course not, you couldn't allow people to openly identify with a deadly enemy. Not that I'm not totally opposed to the ban on Nazi insignia in 2016. Wearing the Burkini is open identification with extremist Islam. We are in a state of war with Islam, no matter how much people try and pretend we're not. I can assure if we are to save our civilisation from Sharia, much harsher measures than this burkini ban will be necessary.

[Doug64]

Wearing the Burkini is open identification with extremist Islam.

No, actually it is open identification with Islam, as taught by all the major schools. And almost the same code of modesty applies to both men and women. From The Rules of Modesty According to Five Islamic Schools of Law

3. Women and ‘stranger’: About the extent of the body to be covered by a woman in the presence of a ‘stranger’ (any male apart from the mahrim), the schools concur that it is wajib for her to cover her whole body except the face and hands (up to the wrists) in accordance with the verse 31 of Surat al-Nur:

...And reveal not their adornment save such as is outward; and let them cast their veils over their bosoms (Qur’an 24:31)

considering that ‘outward adornment’ (al-zeenah) implies the face and hands. The word ‘al-khimar’ (whose plural ‘khumur’ occurs in the verse) means the veil which covers the head, not the face, and the word ‘al-jayb’ (whose plural ‘juyub’ occurs in the verse) means the chest. The women have been commanded to put a covering on their heads and to lower it over their chests. As to verse 59 of Surat ‘Ahzab:

‘0 Prophet, say to your wives and daughters and the believing women that they draw their veils close to them..., (Qur’an 33:59)

the word ‘al-jilbab’ (whose plural jalabib occurs in the verse) means a veil covering the head; rather it is a shirt or garment.

4. Man’s ‘Awrah: The schools differ concerning the parts of man’s body which it is haram for others to see and for him to expose. The hanafis and the Hanbalis state: It is wajib for a male to cover the area between the navel and the knees before all except his wife. It is permissible for others, irrespective of their being men or women maharim or strangers, to look at the rest of his body when there is no fear of sin.

The Malikis and the Shafi’is say: There are two different situations for a male with respect to the extent he can expose his body:

the first, in the presence of men or those women who are his maharim; the second, in the presence of women who are not his maharim. In the former instance he is only supposed to cover the area between the waist and the knees, while in the latter it is, haram for a woman stranger to look at any part of a man’s body. Though the Malikis exclude the face and the arms if looked at without any sensual motive, the Shafi’is do not permit any exception (al-Fiqh ‘ala al-madhahib al’arba’ah, vol. mabhath satr al-’awrah).

The Imamis differentiate between the parts of other person body which can be looked at and those parts of one’s own body which ought to be covered. They observe: It is wajib for a male to cover only his rear and private parts, though it is wajib for women who are not his maharim to abstain from looking at any part of his body except his head and hands (up to the wrist).

To summarize the Imami opinion, it is permissible for a male to view the body of other men and his female maharim except the rear and private parts provided no sensual motive is involved. Similarly, a woman can view the body of other women and her male maharim excepting the rear and private parts provided no sensual motive is involved.

[Prosthetic Conscience]

Hey, calm down. I am also muslim. But that doesn't change the fact that things like burkini cause "identification and security problem". Last year a Chechen woman in a full covered dress blowed herself up here.

It's true, you must not have seen people wearing a long sleeved shirt and trousers before. What do they allow you to wear in your cell? Underpants only? Plus a bra?

Where was the woman's bomb - in her hair?