Why are the French scared of burkinis? - Page 3 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Political issues and parties in Europe's nation states, the E.U. & Russia.

Moderator: PoFo Europe Mods

Forum rules: No one line posts please. This is an international political discussion forum, so please post in English only.
#14713129
Some people do look better in burkini than in bikini.


True

The habit of frying one's skin in full sunshine is also very unhealthy.


Irrelevant but true.

I do think there is a bit of ironic sexism here on the part of the french. Dont get me wrong, I hate burkinis, bukhas and the rest. Banning them is both illiberal and counter productive though.
#14713174
layman wrote:I do think there is a bit of ironic sexism here on the part of the french. Dont get me wrong, I hate burkinis, bukhas and the rest. Banning them is both illiberal and counter productive though.

France is in an identity crisis. They don't know how to treat their Muslim co-citizens who are a legacy of colonialism and the Algerian war. French citizens of Algerian, Moroccan, Tunisian origin are now part of France. There is no way of changing that.

The burkini does not become a political symbol unless the French want it to become a political symbol. I can understand that women who are not used to exposing their body may want to wear a burkini, which on many women is more aesthetic than a bikini. Wearing a burqa or niqab is a different matter. I think it is spooky and an obstacle to integration. It should be banned in public wherever identification is an issue.

And the health issue is not irrelevant. The habit of sun-bathing is a very recent phenomenon. It has led to a drastic increase skin cancer in all Western countries. A close friend has been diagnosed with Melanoma, which is one of the most deadly cancers. She has to cover herself in the sun. When I see young people frying their skin in the sun, I want to tell them that they are signing their own death warrant. The skin is one of our most important organs that does not forget anything. A single sun-burn today can kill you in 30 years time. And cancer is not a pleasant way to go. The Western habit of sun-bathing should not pass unquestioned. Exposing your skin in the burning sun is not cool, even if everybody is made to believe that.

The group pressure that makes people want to have sun-tanned skin is no better than the group pressure of having to cover your body, in fact, the latter may be more sensible, especially in sun-scorched places in the ME and North Africa.

PS: The French even partially banned the headscarf. My grandmother who was a protestant farmer's woman wore a head scarf all her life, like many other women of her status did at the time in the North of Europe. Why should we now start to ban it?


Edit: It is even worse than that. The burkini ban is outright racism because it presupposes that everybody wearing a burkini is a terrorist suspect. That's like saying that everybody wearing a suit is suspect of being a bankster. We'll be back to witch hunts next.
#14713180
Banning burqinis is pointless. Muslims in Europe should be allowed to practice their religion to the fullest extent.

It is ridiculous to invite Muslims to live in France and then tell them not to be Muslims.

If the French do not like Muslims exercising their right to practice their religion then they would be better just ending the multicultural experiment and stopping mass immigration altogether.

The mere fact that this is being made into an issue reveals the inherent problems of multiculturalism.
#14713191
quetzalcoatl wrote:What has changed is that stable autocratic regimes have been continuously and effectively subverted. As Trump noted about Saddam,
:lol: Saddam's regime stable? You're joking right? Saddam started his rule by arresting a third of the party leadership and then getting the other two thirds to shoots them. In a year he was at war with Iran, a war that was only brought to an end because it threatened to close off Gulf oil supplies. Some stability. He had conflicts with the Kurds including the use of poison gas. Then he invaded Kuwait managing to ally virtually every regime in the world democratic or not against him. He had an uprising, which he only managed to put down by slaughtering between one hundred and four hundred thousand of his own people. Iraq was then under sanctions, the murder of over a million people through sanctions fuelled the rise of Al Qaeda. This Mr stable of your's even murdered his own son in laws and put his daughters under house arrest. Stable? For God's sake get real.

And nor were the regimes that preceded Saddam in Iraq stable. The Ottoman empire was not stable. The Ottomans had endless conflicts with Iran, over its European subjects and in its provinces. The hard truth is that Islam is the problem, Muslims are the problem, no matter how much people want to pin it on their pet demons: Capitalists, Imperialists, Democratic crusaders, Liberals Jews. Of course Jewish supremacist domination of Western foreign policy is not helpful, but the problem is still at bottom Islam, it not the creation of some evil Jewish conspiracy.
#14713194
The burkini does not become a political symbol unless the French want it to become a political symbol.


I can understand that women who are not used to exposing their body may want to wear a burkini,


Yes I basically agree. The burkini is a sort of stop gap that was invented literally to integrate muslim women. It is not traditional Islamic dress but allows them to attend mixed beaches and pools. In France in this case.

which on many women is more aesthetic than a bikini. Wearing a burqa or niqab is a different matter. I think it is spooky and an obstacle to integration. It should be banned in public wherever identification is an issue.


Covering ones face crosses the line in my opinion.

And the health issue is not irrelevant. The habit of sun-bathing is a very recent phenomenon. It has led to a drastic increase skin cancer in all Western countries. A close friend has been diagnosed with Melanoma, which is one of the most deadly cancers. She has to cover herself in the sun. When I see young people frying their skin in the sun, I want to tell them that they are signing their own death warrant. The skin is one of our most important organs that does not forget anything. A single sun-burn today can kill you in 30 years time. And cancer is not a pleasant way to go. The Western habit of sun-bathing should not pass unquestioned. Exposing your skin in the burning sun is not cool, even if everybody is made to believe that.


Western sun worshiping is an issue but not relevant to this particular discussion because this garment will have no effect on the problem. Having said that, Nigella Lawson (brit celebrity chef) was seen wearing one a couple of years back for just that reason.

Edit: It is even worse than that. The burkini ban is outright racism because it presupposes that everybody wearing a burkini is a terrorist suspect. That's like saying that everybody wearing a suit is suspect of being a bankster. We'll be back to witch hunts next.


I am not sure racism is the correct term but there is no doubt they are targeting a specific minority group which is understandable. There has been a less than subtle cycle of distrust between the mainstream and mulsim minoritys since the 1970s’ at least. The accelerated with 911 and the war on terror of course.

Both laws like this and the increased inward-looking conservatism (including clothing) from the minority’s shows us moving further apart. In both directions. You and other liberals, the muslims will focus on the increasing distrust and dislike/scrutiny of them while mainstream conservatives and natives will focus on the minority extremist and (increasing) inward-looking said conservatism of the muslim mainstream.

Which action are a reaction to which becomes mostly academic.
#14713235
Rich wrote::lol: Saddam's regime stable? You're joking right?

"Stability" in the modern world can only be analyzed on a relative basis. Saddam's 24 year rule was stable compared to the bombed out hellhole that replaced it.

Eventually Saddam would have been replaced by another Ba'athist dictator, with electrical, water, energy, and food infrastructure intact. Now, instead we have a country that literally cannot recover to a state where its citizens have access to minimal services.

How does this achieve any sane objective? It doesn't, not from any realpolitik point of view. It is simply the creation of chaos as an organizing principle, with no thought for the future.
#14713241
Atlantis wrote:The French haven't said if the burkini ban only applied to Muslimahs or if Christian nuns had to change their dress code too. :lol:

Image


The affected French sea-side municipalities obviously need a change in the constitution of their nation.
But, there could be solution. If simply the police undresses the nuns equaly.
Imagine the extra profit from tourism. :lol:
#14713255
Rich wrote::lol: Saddam's regime stable? You're joking right? Saddam started his rule by arresting a third of the party leadership and then getting the other two thirds to shoots them. In a year he was at war with Iran, a war that was only brought to an end because it threatened to close off Gulf oil supplies. Some stability. He had conflicts with the Kurds including the use of poison gas. Then he invaded Kuwait managing to ally virtually every regime in the world democratic or not against him. He had an uprising, which he only managed to put down by slaughtering between one hundred and four hundred thousand of his own people. Iraq was then under sanctions, the murder of over a million people through sanctions fuelled the rise of Al Qaeda. This Mr stable of your's even murdered his own son in laws and put his daughters under house arrest. Stable? For God's sake get real.

And nor were the regimes that preceded Saddam in Iraq stable. The Ottoman empire was not stable. The Ottomans had endless conflicts with Iran, over its European subjects and in its provinces. The hard truth is that Islam is the problem, Muslims are the problem, no matter how much people want to pin it on their pet demons: Capitalists, Imperialists, Democratic crusaders, Liberals Jews. Of course Jewish supremacist domination of Western foreign policy is not helpful, but the problem is still at bottom Islam, it not the creation of some evil Jewish conspiracy.

And when was the last time two Islamic sides started a war that spanned the globe with repercussions still felt to this day?
#14713257
layman wrote:Western sun worshiping is an issue but not relevant to this particular discussion because this garment will have no effect on the problem. Having said that, Nigella Lawson (brit celebrity chef) was seen wearing one a couple of years back for just that reason.

Western sun worshiping is not relevant to this debate if we assume that wearing a burkini is an expression of political Islam. It is exactly this point that I'm contesting.

Firstly, most ordinary Muslims are not particularly interested in political Islam. Secondly, traditional wear covering most of the body is used in many hot climate zones. It is a common sense response to climatic conditions and not a religious expression. It is a feature of traditional society that is not directly linked to Islam.

It is said that migrants culturally enrich the host countries. Other than culinary features, we usually have difficulty imagining that migrants from underdeveloped countries could possibly contribute anything to the culture of developed countries. But there are many different forms of cultural contributions. Setting a new trend in beachwear could be one such contribution.

Cloths are like a uniform. They are subject to fashion dictates. The introduction of the miniskirt and the bikini was a liberation from the previous fashion dictates. The burkini could be one factor for liberating us from the current fashion dictate of maximum bare flesh and sun worshiping. Perhaps one day, people won't feel obliged to have a sun-tanned skin and it will again become fashionable to have white skin.
#14713259
It amazes me that people in power in France are apparently so autistic that they can't see how getting armed police to force a woman to undress on a beach, in full view of the world's media, will make them look bad. :lol:

On a more serious note, the ban is spiteful, pointless, and will do absolutely nothing to prevent terrorism. It is a good thing that it was repealed.
#14713262
As far as I'm concerned this issue isn't about Islam and western culture, it's an attack on the freedoms of all citizens. The security services cannot be allowed to dictate what people may wear as long as the attire doesn't offend public decency.

We are to be protected and served not dominated and controlled and this is a clear overstep of the mark and must not be tolerated.
#14713265
It is French liberal racism and cultural imperialism. French liberals think they can homogenise the whole world and make it like theirs. They think that they can somehow mystically transform an observant Muslim woman into a liberal Westerner who supports same sex unions and dresses in mini skirts.

The world does not work this way and it is time Westerners learnt that there are other types of people on this planet. We have to be realistic about what to expect when we try to construct multicultural societies. Muslims are not going to Westernise unless they want to. It is impossible. We cannot coerce them, nor is it our right to do so.
#14713272
Political Interest wrote:It is French liberal racism and cultural imperialism. French liberals think they can homogenise the whole world and make it like theirs. They think that they can somehow mystically transform an observant Muslim woman into a liberal Westerner who supports same sex unions and dresses in mini skirts.

The world does not work this way and it is time Westerners learnt that there are other types of people on this planet. We have to be realistic about what to expect when we try to construct multicultural societies. Muslims are not going to Westernise unless they want to. It is impossible. We cannot coerce them, nor is it our right to do so.


We can still make life in the West a nuisance for them though (the burqa ban is one such example), reminding them every day that France is French while encouraging them to fix their own societies instead of becoming a parasite on someone else's.

If Islamic morality is that important to Muslims, they should avoid migrating to Western countries in the first place.
#14713277
Donald wrote:We can still make life in the West a nuisance for them though (the burqa ban is one such example), reminding them every day that France is French while encouraging them to fix their own societies instead of becoming a parasite on someone else's.

If Islamic morality is that important to Muslims, they should avoid migrating to Western countries in the first place.


Why bother?

The best solution might be to just stop inviting unchecked scores of people into France. It is not even a logistical issue. You simply limit the amount of working visas you grant to foreign citizens. If I go to China without a visa I will immediately be put on a plane back to where I came from.

I've always maintained that we should not blame immigrants for the stupidity and racism of our own political class. This whole issue began when the elites decided to enact their hair brained immigration policies after WWII.
#14713329
Western sun worshiping is not relevant to this debate if we assume that wearing a burkini is an expression of political Islam. It is exactly this point that I'm contesting.

Firstly, most ordinary Muslims are not particularly interested in political Islam. Secondly, traditional wear covering most of the body is used in many hot climate zones. It is a common sense response to climatic conditions and not a religious expression. It is a feature of traditional society that is not directly linked to Islam.


Why do you believe this to be the case? Whenever I have seen interviews with burkini wearers they talk about it being a statement of ‘modesty’. A religious choice that need not be political though we know that the increased wearing of muslim religious clothing is a political statement for some.

Cloths are like a uniform. They are subject to fashion dictates. The introduction of the miniskirt and the bikini was a liberation from the previous fashion dictates. The burkini could be one factor for liberating us from the current fashion dictate of maximum bare flesh and sun worshiping. Perhaps one day, people won't feel obliged to have a sun-tanned skin and it will again become fashionable to have white skin.


Burkinis not bikinis. You gay or something?

Seriously though, i do not beleive it is for the reasons you say it is.

The best solution might be to just stop inviting unchecked scores of people into France. It is not even a logistical issue. You simply limit the amount of working visas you grant to foreign citizens. If I go to China without a visa I will immediately be put on a plane back to where I came from.


If Islamic morality is that important to Muslims, they should avoid migrating to Western countries in the first place.


I agree with both of you I think. The cultural gap is the problem and importing from certain countrys should be avoided. This is why I have always supported discrimination in terms of country of origin. I do not however support the deportation of legal citizens and so france has an integration job ahead of it. The point is how best to covert such people to true Frenchmen and women.

Laws and behavour like this is certainly not the way.
#14713336
quetzalcoatl wrote:Eventually Saddam would have been replaced by another Ba'athist dictator, with electrical, water, energy, and food infrastructure intact.
After the mass murder of many of Iraq's better mangers and technicians, the war with Iran, the war against the Kurds, the war over Kuwait, the southern uprising and years of sanctions Iraq's infrastructure was anything but intact.

Iraq has not stood still the economy has grown, oil production is up after years of decline, but most important large areas of central and Kurdish Iraq have been cleansed of Sunni Muslim terrorists, laying the foundation for a brighter future. We must get rid of this beta-cuck thinking. Our task is not not to stabilise Sunni Muslim terrorism but to annihilate it. The Twelevers can be dealt with later. As a temporary measure it may be necessary to confine Sunni Muslim populations to reservations, where they can't harm Infidels, Secular led Sunni Muslim peoples like the Kurds or Twelvers.
#14713368
layman wrote:Why do you believe this to be the case? Whenever I have seen interviews with burkini wearers they talk about it being a statement of ‘modesty’.

Even a statement of 'modesty' doesn't have to relate to Islam, or do you think that non-Muslims have to be immodest?

I already explained the case of my grandmother, who was born in the 19th century and wore a headscarf all her live as part of her traditional wear, just like millions of other protestant farm women throughout the North of Europe. She would have felt naked going out without the headscarf. Therefore, I can well understand that people from traditional societies (like ours still was not so long ago) who are not used to exposing their body would rather wear a burkini than a bikini, even if they don't feel any particular affinity towards religion.
#14713370
layman wrote:I agree with both of you I think. The cultural gap is the problem and importing from certain countrys should be avoided. This is why I have always supported discrimination in terms of country of origin. I do not however support the deportation of legal citizens and so france has an integration job ahead of it. The point is how best to covert such people to true Frenchmen and women.

Laws and behavour like this is certainly not the way.


There is not really any need to discriminate by country. If you reduce immigration to a certain rate then you can take in any immigrants from any part of the world without any problems. The main issue is simply the scale of the immigration that Europe has been experiencing since the 1950s.

The best thing that Europe can do is promote development in the global south. If people have opportunities in their own countries they will not feel compelled to migrate to a foreign land. Allowing the Islamic world self-determination will help it to develop. Interventions, sanctions and toppling dictators will not help this at all. There is every possibility that many of those immigrants in Europe will happily return to their ancestral homelands when they become safe and feasible places to live in.
#14713371
PI wrote:There is not really any need to discriminate by country.
Yes, there is, if you continually get bad immigrants from there. Determining what a bad immigrant, however, is another problem.

That, at least, is not discriminating against people based on religion, race, etc.
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 9

It is implausible that the IDF could not or would[…]

Moving on to the next misuse of language that sho[…]

@JohnRawls What if your assumption is wrong??? […]

There is no reason to have a state at all unless w[…]