Cannes burkini ban triggers outrage

[ucrdem]

Source: Times of London (subscription)



August 13 2016, 12:01am, The Times

The French Riviera resort of Cannes has banned women from wearing burkinis, otherwise known as full-body swimsuits, because they “symbolise Islamist extremism”. The decision has prompted a backlash from mainstream Muslim groups who say that it is discriminatory.

David Lisnard, the mayor of Cannes, signed a bylaw saying: “Beachwear which ostentatiously displays religious affiliation, when France and places of worship are currently the target of terrorist attacks, is liable to create risks of disrupting public order. We are not banning the veil, nor the [Jewish] kippa nor crosses. I am simply banning a uniform which is the symbol of Islamic extremism.”

{snip}

Very few women have been seen in burkinis at the resort, he acknowledged. Those who do wear them now face on-the-spot fines of €38 (£33). Officials said that offenders would first be asked to change or leave the beach.

Muslim organisations criticised the ban, calling it discriminatory because strict French laws enforcing secularism do not outlaw the wearing of religious dress in public places, other than full face coverings. A lawsuit is to be brought against Cannes by the Collective against Islamophobia in France.

Read more: http://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/cannes-burkini-ban-triggers-outrage-v7db5nz57

---

Women wearing the cover-all burkini on the beach at Cannes will face a fine of £33 under a new bylaw (AP)

[elleng]

1. Posted earlier. Thought it might get some 'attention.'

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10028094078

[ucrdem]

2. Thanks! just heard it in the car . . .

and they wonder why there's a problem.

[katsy]

103. Telling women what to wear is monumentally wrong.

But in no way justifies terrorist attacks in France. There is no justification to murder. I can go in public & declare my hatred for X. So you think it's justified for X to come kill me?

Do you also believe the associates at Charlie Hebdo "deserved" murder? Maybe "no wonder" they were slain?

This law is an ignorant knee jerk reaction to the attacks. But, they'll work through it and overturn this stupidity. The people killed by terrorists don't have a 2nd chance.

[msongs]

3. wow all those men wearing these will no doubt protest. oh wait.... nt

[ck4829]

4. So a non-Muslim man is telling Muslim women what they can and can not wear?

Goes to show how the border between "Islamic extremism" and "non-Islamic extremism" is all but socially constructed.

[randome]

8. The mayor can't do anything about not being Muslim.

[hr][font color="blue"][center]Meredith McIver approves of this post.[/center][/font][hr]

[oswaldactedalone]

5. What is the

terrorist about to do in the picture? Hope those kids are safe.

[romanic]

6. Thosr burkinis are ugly and look uncomfortable.

Might as well just stay out of the water and not even swim. :/

[randome]

7. If a White Nationalist group frequented beaches, might the same kind of ban apply?

IOW, don't flaunt your ideology in a setting that should be ideology-free.

I don't think it's discrimination based on religion (does Islam mandate swimwear?), but based on how others might react. In order to tamp down potential conflict, it's best not to provide such an easy outlet.

That may be the type of thinking that goes into something like this.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Meredith McIver approves of this post.[/center][/font][hr]

[NanceGreggs]

31. When did it become appropriate ...

... to base laws on "how others might react"?

When did it become appropriate to fine women for covering too much, as opposed to covering too little? Both behaviours will result in "reactions" from those who find one or the other objectionable.

And when did the beach become some sacred ground that should be "ideology-free'? Who decided such a thing? If that's the case, then the wearing of a crucifix, religious medallion, or a star of David should be equally prohibited, as they all represent the wearer's ideology.

"In order to tamp down potential conflict, it's best not to provide such an easy outlet."

IOW, let's just give in to those whose personal biases should be accommodated, rather than recognizing that what any woman chooses to wear at the beach is no one else's fucking business.

The swimming costumes that religious Muslim women wear strike me as uncomfortable at best. But guess what? It's NOT MY CALL if they choose to dress the way they do.

How does how a woman dresses at the beach interfere with anyone else's rights? Or do you believe that people going to the beach have a "right" to see only swimwear they personally approve of?

Denying any woman's right to wear what SHE chooses to wear in order to "tamp down potential conflict" means one thing only: that the "rights" of these women are secondary to the "rights" of others - rights that are in NO WAY affected by how Muslim women dress.

[randome]

36. But are they the garments of a religion? I doubt the Koran dictates swimwear.

They are a symbol of subjugation. Should that be 'encouraged' by turning a blind eye? Hey, it's none of my business and anyways, I can't prove anything.

And don't Muslim countries ban clothing worn by foreigners that they disapprove of?

You will never know if a woman chooses to wear restrictive, uncomfortable clothing on the beach. But that's sort of the point, too. Not knowing and doing nothing means not caring. You can't go into every Muslim home and determine for yourself if a relationship is without abuse. But you can ban a symbol that is far too often seen as a red flag of abuse.

These two worlds will never, I think, be integrated. It's why Europeans basically conquered the world. A very different mindset. Not perfect by any means. But mandating small changes like this, however, at least sends a message that change is inevitable. And as I said elsewhere in this thread, other symbols of religion (which burkas are not, I believe) are not as in-your-face. There is a difference. If conflict will inevitably arise because of one symbol, we can do nothing and hope for the best. Or we can do something and hope for the best.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]This post was approved by Meredith McIver.[/center][/font][hr]

[NanceGreggs]

57. No, the Koran does not dictate swimwear.

And Judaic law does not dictate that one is forbidden from operating an elevator or flipping a light-switch on the sabbath. That doesn't change the fact that Orthodox Jews adapted ancient teachings to include circumstances that changed over time.

The fact that you think any woman's mode of dress is "a symbol of subjugation" is your problem, not hers.

"You will never know if a woman chooses to wear restrictive, uncomfortable clothing on the beach. But that's sort of the point, too. Not knowing and doing nothing means not caring."

What bullshit. Minding your own fucking business is not equivalent to not caring about what others do - it is a recognition that what others do is none of your fucking business. Assuming that all Muslim women are being subjugated or abused based on their garb is no different than assuming all Orthodox Jewish women are being subjugated or abused because they cover their hair and shoulders in public.

"But you can ban a symbol that is far too often seen as a red flag of abuse." If you want to assume that a woman covering herself on a beach is a sign that she is being abused, that's on you. What you see as a "symbol" is what she sees as an appropriate way to dress.

How is a law mandating what ANY woman wears - on a beach or elsewhere - any different than her being mandated to do so by her religion, or by her husband? The end result is the same: "You, woman, WILL OBEY and do as you are told to do by others."

"But mandating small changes like this, however, at least sends a message that change is inevitable."

Change is all things is inevitable. Mandating change is never successful in bringing it about, especially mandating things that have to do with people's religious beliefs, and the observance of those beliefs. What you are promoting here is that other people change to suit your whims, and accommodate your biases. Fuck that.

[randome]

58. I just think it's a very interesting conundrum.

I don't at all think it's as simple as "Islamophobia" as some claim. I doubt that Cannes and surrounding villages that are in favor of banning all full-body swimwear just woke up one morning and decided to "stick it" to one particular faith.

And as you said, a burka is not a religious garment. There are certainly many other ways to "dress modestly".

As I said elsewhere, I don't think the Middle Eastern world and the West, as they are now, will ever be integrated. There is too much divergence of the cultures. They are still stuck in a prior century. The Western world, for all its flaws and sins, is much more progressive -for women and minorities. Conflict is inevitable.

And actually, no one is mandating what to wear. But it's now the law in Cannes that one may not wear full-body swimwear. It makes some people uncomfortable and it makes it more likely that bullying or attacks will occur.

I'm sure the change in Cannes was not primarily to protect Muslim women but that is one of the effects, I think.

Look at the other link in this thread about attacks on North Africans. One may say, "Well, those people will have to pay the price." And sure, that's true, but it is probably seen as much easier to lessen these kind of attacks if a group of people aren't "advertising" their religion in the first place.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Meredith McIver approves of this post.[/center][/font][hr]

[NanceGreggs]

65. "I doubt that Cannes and surrounding villages ...

... that are in favor of banning all full-body swimwear just woke up one morning and decided to "stick it" to one particular faith.'

Surely not. No doubt there has been an ongoing problem caused by non-Muslim women wearing full-body swimwear at the beach.

[randome]

70. No, there's been a problem with repeated terrorist attacks in France.

Full-body burkas make others uncomfortable AND they increase the odds of physical altercations as happened with North Africans in Corsica. France can pretend that nothing needs to be done and simply keep arresting more and more violent assailants.

Or the Mayor of Cannes and surrounding villages can make a small law to lessen the odds of this happening over and over again.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Meredith McIver approves of this post.[/center][/font][hr]

[NanceGreggs]

71. Of course.

Can there be any doubt that fining Muslim women who cover-up on a beach in Cannes will curtail violent altercations?

I'm sure this "small law" will go a long way in doing just that.

[randome]

72. It might reduce the odds, that's all. I doubt anyone thinks it's a cure-all.

What else can be done if violent altercations are a real concern? Like I said, business as usual, arrest more and more people and let more and more Muslims be injured? Armed guards policing the beaches?

IF the consensus was that something needed to be done, this seems like the least that could be done. France is not the melting pot that America prides itself on, but it is a multicultural country. Can "multicultural" mean anyone can come in and not adopt similar views on multiculturalism? Welcome with open arms those who want no part of multiculturalism?

It's a paradox in all Western societies. France feels that more than most, I think.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Meredith McIver approves of this post.[/center][/font][hr]

[NanceGreggs]

77. And mandating that all women wear burqas ...

... could reduce the odds of women being raped.

Do you really want to go there? Quite frankly, I'm not seeing much of a difference between the two schools of thought.

And yet again, I'm not seeing any restrictions on how Muslim men dress, at the beach or elsewhere. Why is that? Have Muslim women at the beach proven to be a particular threat to anyone? If not, why are they the ones being targeted as opposed to Muslim men?

Thinking that disallowing full-body swimsuits at the beach is "the something that needed to be done" is as dumb as thinking that disallowing women from drinking in bars is "the something that needs to be done" to reduce the odds of drunken barroom brawls, or drunk-driving fatalities. How about not allowing women to vote in order to reduce voter fraud?

"Multiculturalism" is just that - the freedom to wear the clothing that reflects one's adherence to the dictates of their religion, their culture, their ethnic roots and traditions. It is NOT the abandonment of one's culture - it is the embracing thereof, and the freedom to do so.

"Can "multicultural" mean anyone can come in and not adopt similar views on multiculturalism? Welcome with open arms those who want no part of multiculturalism?"

How can multiculturalism exist if people are expected to adopt one specific culture? Isn't that the exact opposite of multiculturalism?

[randome]

87. It's a paradox that will persist in Western societies.

Being welcoming to all-comers means welcoming those who are not welcoming of all-comers.

But that's an American point of view. France is under no obligation to behave like America. And if you disagree with that, then you should be equally adamant that Muslim societies start behaving like America as well.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Meredith McIver approves of this post.[/center][/font][hr]

[NanceGreggs]

120. France can do ...

... whatever it wants to do. And I can comment on the stupidity of it.

I'm sure that keeping women off the beach who wear full-body swimsuits will go a long way in accomplishing sweet fuck all.

[Arazi]

102. France rejects multiculturalism. They have great pride in their French culture

They're not the United States

[okasha]

108. You do realize that your argument here

is just a variation of "she wouldn't have been raped if she hadn't been wearing provocative clothing."

[randome]

109. I can see that point of view.

But rape and a minor public beach rule are hardly in the same category, imo. See post #96. Apparently this rule applies to all attire that advertises religious affiliation. Who are we to say that France must behave according to American norms? They are the ones that are dealing with terrorism more than we have. Don't they have the right to go their own way? So long as it doesn't descend into fascism or genocide, of course, or anything close to that. This doesn't even come close to that, imo.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Meredith McIver approves of this post.[/center][/font][hr]

[okasha]

111. Deflection

Part of the rationale given by the perpetrators of this law, and supported by you, is that it will protect Muslim women from harrassment. Presumably French citizens are unable to control themselves, so Muslim women must be prevented from "asking for it."

[randome]

114. What's the alternative? Armed guards along the beach?

I'm only guessing at some of the thinking that went into this. Maybe I'm wrong. But here in America we have "No shirt, no shoes, no service." I'd rather that went away, too, but it's such a minor restriction it doesn't keep me awake at night. And I sincerely doubt it's going to lead to fascism.

You are not allowed to wear certain clothing in certain Muslim countries. Look at the posts in this thread that say, in essence, "Well, they're Muslim, what do you expect?"
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Meredith McIver approves of this post.[/center][/font][hr]

[okasha]

115. "No shirt, no shoes, no service'

is the policy of individual restaurants, not a legal restriction. Some actually require a jacket and tie--but again, that's the dress code for clients at particular establishments, not something mandated by law, not something subject to fine.

The alternative is for French beachgoers to exercise the very modest amount of self-control necessary not to harrass their fellow beachgoers. It's not that hard.

[randome]

118. Some are state and county laws.

Apparently Charleston, SC and New York City have these laws on the books. I'm sure there are others.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Meredith McIver approves of this post.[/center][/font][hr]

[Jazzgirl]

56. Thanks Nance!

I totally agree. A woman's dress should not be decided by some "law". This is one of the stupidest things I've seen besides the wearing of burkas. Why do they get to decide what someone should wear?

[patsimp]

69. I'd like to wear a bikini in Saudi Arabia.

[randome]

75. Well, first, they might allow women to drive. So...maybe in a few centuries.

But hey, let's respect that kind of culture, okay?
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Meredith McIver approves of this post.[/center][/font][hr]

[Bucky]

9. It breaks my heart to see Shariya Law imposed on a new generation of women

a seen in this picture.




Bravo to France for standing up for women's rights by telling all them chicks what they can and cannot wear!!

[Coyotl]

10. "Sorry, no more cruxifix necklaces on the beach," said the police officer

NEVER.

[name not needed]

11. Good.

[eissa]

23. I see your good and raise you a great

Hideous symbols of primitive oppression.

[Person 2713]

12. Seems like a legal garment . Certainly nothing can be "hidden "and resembles a diving wet suit

No hygiene concerns like with a pool so what up? Now a women can not choose their own level of comfortable modesty? So a woman can be topless at this beach but not have covered arms and legs.
Things that make you go Hmmmmmm

And I have nothing against topleas or nude beaches or Muslims - it's a beach not really seeing why a dress code would be required although there are places with nudity laws but Cannes allows topless
. I've seen people in their underwear at USbeaches , tacky yes, unlawful probably not
http://www.riviera-beaches.com/Cannes/Rules.html

[randome]

13. I think it's viewed as a promotion of religious ideology in a space that should be ideology-free.

A full burka is a more in-your-face promotion than a relatively obscure crucifix necklace or what-not. Religious clothing divides us. Always.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Meredith McIver approves of this post.[/center][/font][hr]

[NanceGreggs]

81. And who appointed YOU ...

... as the arbiter of what places (i.e. a beach) should be ideology-free?

I am a Jew, and I wear a small gold Star of David necklace. Is that okay with you? At what point does my jewelry become "in your face" promotion of my religion? What constitutes "a relatively obscure crucifix"? Does it depend on size, or weight? Is a half-inch Star of David acceptable? How about a three-inch long crucifix? What is the cut-off size/weight of acceptable religious paraphernalia according to YOU, oh great self-appointed judge of such things?

A burqa is a mode of dress adopted by certain Muslim women. It is not a "promotion" of their religion, any more than an Orthodox woman covering her hair and shoulders is a "promotion" of Judaism.

Perhaps if you stopped thinking of the world in terms of what you deem acceptable or not, you might begin to understand that it's NOT your world, and the universe doesn't revolve around YOU.

Just a serving suggestion.

[randome]

85. The Mayor of Cannes was appointed to make those kind of decisions.

Who are we to say he must be American in his outlook and behavior?
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Meredith McIver approves of this post.[/center][/font][hr]

[NanceGreggs]

122. It has nothing to do with "being American".

It has to do with blatant discrimination against women of a certain faith.

[PoindexterOglethorpe]

28. There's a very loose garment covering everthing. Not exactly something that

resembles a diving wet suit.

You might need to look at that picture again.

I'm certainly not suggesting the wearer has something nefarious hidden. But to repeat myself, it's not at all like a diving wet suit.

[PersonNumber503602]

14. How does this help?

Obviously any religion that makes women cover up in such a way is not something I agree with personally, but they are presumably living a free country now and are making these choices willing. Laws like this will just drive them away from society and that that will likely give rise to resentful attitudes that will be exploited by terrorist groups.

Creating strong support networks that can help these woman escape abusive or oppressive families seems like it would be a much more effective solution than this because this just seems authoritarian.

[randome]

15. Are bikinis banned in Muslim countries?

[hr][font color="blue"][center]Meredith McIver approves of this post.[/center][/font][hr]

[DetlefK]

101. Only on public beaches...

https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20110305144107AAxWjT4

[randome]

106. So the precedent regarding public beaches is already accepted.

If you're in a Muslim country. And we're okay with that, aren't we? It's quite the paradox.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Meredith McIver approves of this post.[/center][/font][hr]

[Rustyeye77]

16. Quick drying

[packman]

17. That is just dumb - as dumb as--

Victorian bathing suits



1900's catalog of "acceptable" bathing suits

[Rustyeye77]

18. I'm a 'Live and Let Live' person

You want to be miserable in an outfit , go for it.

[Skittles]

27. brainwashing and cultural pressure will do the trick

don't have to consciously "want" it

[awoke_in_2003]

21. I, too, think it's dumb...

however, who am I to say what she may or may not wear? Is her husband making her wear it? I do not know- it is not my business. While I oppose covering of the face for identification reasons, I really don't have much of an issue with this. Like I said- it's not my business.

[mahina]

25. As a water aerobics fan

It's not that far off from our sun shirts and pants.

[Arazi]

20. That flowery design in front just makes me look at her boobs so yeah, not modest

[awoke_in_2003]

22. I am saying this as a boob man...

but that is more on you than on her. Would you rather her wear a wooden barrel?

[LeftyMom]

33. It's probably there to break up her silhouette.

Women can't fucking win.

[LeftyMom]

32. Other than the hood and the tunic-y bit I'd be totally interested in one of those.

I burn just thinking about the sun.

[FigTree]

19. I look at it the other way:

I like to swim naked. To me, wearing something in the water feels like swimming with socks. Unpleasant, pointless and even goofy. However, I will wear shorts if I happen to be in a place where people could get pissed at me for enjoying the water without barriers. That's just to conform to the local rules and avoid useless confrontation or fines or jail time. Of course, I prefer to find places, or times, where I can enjoy the water the way I want.

[Judi Lynn]

24. When did "minding your own business" ever become forbidden?

Why don't they focus upon what brings sane people to the beach, the water, and sacrifice breathing down everyone's neck they see about how that person looks or doesn't look?

Why have so many people refused to grow up, anyway? It's not fun being around social perverts.

[Hoyt]

26. The white wingers here are all giddy about this.

[Judi Lynn]

35. Great term, never heard it. White wingers. Tremendous.

[Hoyt]

39. I saw someone use it here months ago and thought it was perfect.

[randome]

40. You think this springs up out of nowhere?

France has paid dearly for terrorism. Like it or not, it is a fact of life that people in that country are uneasy around those who 'advertise' for the culture that is responsible for so many killings.

The burka has nothing to do with religion, does it? But it is a symbol of divisiveness. Telling people to suck it up, too bad, does a disservice to those who have legitimate fears.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]This post was approved by Meredith McIver.[/center][/font][hr]

[NanceGreggs]

82. Wearing a burqa ...

... is not an "advertisement for a culture that is responsible for killings" - any more than wearing a kippa is an "advertisement" for Jews killing Palestinians, or wearing a crucifix is an "advertisement" for Christians killing pagans.

Assuming that people who dress a certain way are "advertising" a culture that is responsible for killings is truly beyond ridiculous.

[randome]

86. Rightly or wrongly, that's how people see it.

All religious clothing is an advertisement, imo. It's a way of saying, "I belong to this group." Which then has the effect (intentional or not) of adding the corollary, "You don't."

If all religions are equal in nature, then why belong to one in the first place? It's madness, imo.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Meredith McIver approves of this post.[/center][/font][hr]

[NanceGreggs]

121. I think you've made it clear ...

... that you have a problem with religion. As far as I see it, people are free to believe what they wany to believe - that's their call, not mine.

I DO have a problem with women being discriminated against based on their religion. And that's what this bylaw is really all about.

[marybourg]

29. People (predominately women) with lupus

and maybe other autoimmune conditions need to be completely covered up in the sun. Stores that cater to such sun sensitive people sell beach outfits similar to this, although without the loose top covering. See:

http://www.sunprecautions.com/product/26000

Will such bathers need a doctor's note to go to the beach?

[treestar]

47. True, the bikini came into style

in an era when a suntan was considered an asset to attractiveness. Now that we are aware of the dangers, it's actually likely we would develop suits that are comfortable but protect your whole body from the sun.

[mwrguy]

30. Straight up racism and Islamophobia

[LeftyMom]

34. Women don't owe anybody an unobstructed view of their t&a.

[mwrguy]

52. Well said!

[snooper2]

99. I think everybody is usually just interested in seeing belly buttons

inny or outy

[Lunabell]

37. This is really a sad situation,

The only law I support is not covering face in public. Other than that, wtf?

[Quantess]

38. The recent spate of terror attacks in europe

Has taken an understandable toll on the favorability ratings of muslim extremism and its cultural trappings.

One more example of the rise of nationalism in europe.

[Rustyeye77]

42. Ya think ?

For some reason they seem to show less and less tolerance to terrorism.

The nerve of some people.

[treestar]

41. Collective punishment

that's just plain penalizing people due to group affiliation. How does it stop a terrorist? Why should anyone fear a woman in a burkini because some other Muslim committed terrorism?

[randome]

43. But they DO feel uncomfortable. The Mayor of Cannes can ignore that and hope everything is okay.

Or he can make a small rule change that benefits the majority.

This is not religious clothing. It is a cultural symbol of "man's inherent superiority to woman".
[hr][font color="blue"][center]This post was approved by Meredith McIver.[/center][/font][hr]

[treestar]

44. I don't know why they would feel uncomfortable

those women are not terrorists. If they are uncomfortable being reminded of Islam by seeing those women, that's a problem that cannot be solved for them. A lot of western women's clothing, any women's clothing, symbolizes man's inherent superiority - men's clothes are functional and now some women's clothing might be, but a lot of it is to show off her sexual attractiveness. That a lot of women "choose" to wear it shows how pulled in they are to social pressures.

That's just oppressing Muslim women from living their way because some other Muslims did a bad thing.

Maybe young men should be forbidden from wearing haircuts that remind people of Nazis or other white supremacists. And it can go on.

[randome]

45. Aren't Nazi symbols and promotion of Nazi-ism still banned in France?

There are all sorts of laws and rules that apply in Europe that don't apply here. There are all sorts of laws and restrictions in Muslim countries about what a foreign visitor may or may not wear.

I am not strictly in favor of the Mayor's decision but I think I understand it. It's a different, smaller country that has been hard hit by terrorism. Not only does this rule benefit those who may feel uncomfortable around this type of mindset, but it also lessens the chance that Muslim women will be targeted by haters.

It's a complicated issue and ignoring it and doing nothing probably is not the best course.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]This post was approved by Meredith McIver.[/center][/font][hr]

[treestar]

46. It also feeds into the Muslim feeling they are

disliked and with that aspect might contribute to more terrorism. They need to be careful with that kind of thing in modern times in any event. Thank the stars our Constitution would not allow for it.

[randome]

48. I get what you're saying but if you were to visit a Muslim country...

...I bet you'd simply nod and go on your way when told what you may or may not wear in that country.

As presently constituted, I don't think the Middle Eastern world and the West will ever be fully integrated. Change must occur. And it will be in small, glacial rules like this, probably.

Let's be as objective as we can possibly be: our form of Democracy is better than oppressive, religious-based forms of rule.

I'm reading a history book called After Tamerlane (recommended by Josh Marshall) that attempts to identify why Europe -not the Asian and Ottoman empires- ended up pretty much conquering the world while those two regions are still struggling to catch up.

Honestly, I don't see this kind of clothing-centered promotion of culture/religion as anything but a relic of the past. I see that in Jewishness, Catholicism, and all the rest. Cultural conflict -or simply uneasiness- is inevitable.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Meredith McIver approves of this post.[/center][/font][hr]

[MowCowWhoHow III]

49. Corsica brawl: Four hurt in clashes on French beach

Corsica brawl: Four hurt in clashes on French beach

...

French media report that the trouble began around 1815 (1615 GMT) when tourists took photos of women bathing - one report quotes a girl as saying the women were wearing burkinis.

According to the centre-right daily Le Figaro (in French), some of the older men in the bathing party attacked a group of local teenagers on the beach with hatchets.

When the teenagers' parents arrived from the village, two of them were injured with harpoons. Villagers allegedly then set alight cars belonging to the bathers.

...

On Sunday, hundreds of people held a protest in Bastia, the capital of Upper Corsica. According to local newspaper Corse-Matin, the demonstrators gathered outside the prefect's office before heading for a housing estate, where some of those involved in Saturday's brawl were said to live. Riot police could be seen pushing them back.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-37077837

[randome]

50. And from a link within your link, a fuller explanation of Cannes.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-37074601

Authorities in Cannes and nearby villages voted to ban full-body swimsuits or burkinis from the end of July.
The court said the ban was legal under a law which prohibits people neglecting common rules on "relations between public authorities and private individuals" on the basis of religion.

The judge noted the ban came "in the context of the state of emergency and recent Islamist attacks, notably in Nice a month ago".

But CCIF lawyer Sefen Guez Guez, said he would lodge an appeal with the Council of State, the highest administrative body in France.

"This decision opens the door to a ban on all religious symbols in the public space," he added.

But where does the Koran or any other religious text dictate swimwear?

And the ban extends to full-body swimwear to make it more equitable. So is a burka religious clothing or something else?
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Meredith McIver approves of this post.[/center][/font][hr]

[David__77]

51. I have mixed feelings about this.

I don't like the concept of the government impinging on clothing choices. At the same time, I absolutely do not want conservative Islam to become dominant or even a significant trend in my area. I would much prefer that it remain a counterculture, out of sight, or constrained to small numbers.

[Rustyeye77]

88. OMG !!!

"At the same time, I absolutely do not want conservative Islam to become dominant or even a significant trend in my area."

Those sentiments are bigoted Anti-multiculturalism !!!





edit
(sentiments, not you of course)

[David__77]

100. I get how that could occur to you as that.

And I don't contest that it is anti-multicultural, in the sense that I don't have interest in supporting the preservation of a conservative religious culture. I don't see all cultures as intrinsically valuable.

The society in which I live is quite liberal by historical and international standards, and I don't want it to become more conservative.

[YOHABLO]

53. I honestly don't think you could ever enforce such a law. But burkas do shame others.

[randome]

54. All religious clothing does.

If we hew to the idea that religion is a private matter, then why do some feel the need to 'advertise' their beliefs? And why should anyone need to be 'exposed' to someone's personal, private beliefs on -of all places- a public beach?

We strive to keep religion out of government. Shouldn't the same be applied to areas of public gatherings?

And is the burka a religious garment or not? No one seems able to answer that.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Meredith McIver approves of this post.[/center][/font][hr]

[NanceGreggs]

55. I don't get your hang-up ...

... about "of all places, a public beach". How is a public beach any different than a public sidewalk, or a public park? What makes a beach some sacrosanct place where religion, or any reflection thereof, should be banned?

"We strive to keep religion out of government. Shouldn't the same be applied to areas of public gatherings?"

We strive to keep religion from having influence over government, or input into its workings and its laws. We do not keep people of religion out of gov't . There IS a difference.

As for "areas of public gatherings", are you suggesting that observant Jewish men must remove their kippas when attending a concert in a public park, or that Catholic girls must remove their crosses when attending a county fair?

The burka is not a "religious garment" per se; it is a garment that was designed to adhere to the Koran's dictate that women should dress modestly at all times. Not all Muslim women wear them, just as not all Jewish women cover their hair and their shoulders in public, as their religion admonishes them to do. The burka is an extreme interpretation of the "modesty" rule, in the same way many religions have followers who adhere to extreme interpretations of the "rules" of their faith.

How anyone dresses in public is none of your business, whether their choice of dress is a matter of religious adherence or simply a matter of personal comfort or taste. I don't understand why that concept baffles you.

[randome]

59. Religion should be a private matter. I, for one, don't care if someone wants to advertise.

I just smirk and ignore them. But it obviously bothers others. You can let the conflicts continue or you can take a short-cut and stop at least part of the "advertising", which will, in turn, lessen the odds of physical altercations.

The ban in Cannes applies to all full-body swimwear. No one is telling women how to dress. It's a small change designed to stop some of the inevitable conflict between cultures. Let's face it: covering up one's body and face is not "dressing modestly". It's hiding oneself. Like it or not, philosophically opposed or not, that is not modesty. Not in the West, anyways.

I once pointed out that I didn't know how to speak to a Muslim woman I encountered in a mall. I couldn't see her face and it's only natural -I think- to feel offput by that. By the idea that she doesn't want to speak to me, anyways.

Multicultural melting pots are fine. They are what made our country great. But ignoring what divides us isn't going to do us any good.

Should Kim Davis of Kentucky be allowed to express her religious beliefs? I think we are in agreement that she should not.

Is there a difference because she's in a position of public trust? I can see that. But it also means Muslim women who dress "modestly" will never be allowed to hold those kind of public positions. And that's a good thing, IMO.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Meredith McIver approves of this post.[/center][/font][hr]

[NanceGreggs]

62. Mandating what women wear ...

... to "avoid inevitable conflict between cultures" is right up there with telling women not to wear mini-skirts to avoid rape. What needs to be addressed is people's reactions to how others dress, whether that reaction is to assume a sexual invitation, or to assume abuse and/or subjugation.

"The ban in Cannes applies to all full-body swimwear. No one is telling women how to dress." How does THAT work? We're not telling you how to dress - but you're subject to a fine if you DON'T dress the way we say you should.

"Covering up one's body and face is not "dressing modestly". It's hiding oneself."

That's your interpretation. Why should any woman be subject to your interpretation of what her choice of clothing represents? Again, it is no different than the "interpretation" of some men that a woman in a low-cut top is "dressing immodestly" in order to attract aggressive sexual advances.

A woman who dresses in traditional garb that covers her body is doing so in observance of the tenets of her faith. She is not doing so in order to send you a signal, any more than a woman who dresses in a tight skirt and six-inch heels is sending you a signal.

"Should Kim Davis of Kentucky be allowed to express her religious beliefs?"

Of course she should - that's what Freedom of Religion is all about. What she should NOT be allowed to do is infringe on the rights of others, based on her religious beliefs - or based on anything else, for that matter.

"But ignoring what divides us isn't going to do us any good."

People are not divided by differing religious beliefs. They are divided by intolerance of the religious beliefs of others.

[randome]

68. Religion ALWAYS divides us, imo.

Belonging to a group implies that others are unlike you, creating a schism, intentional or not. One group is apart from all others. Never mind that every group thinks that their way is the "only" way. It's madness, all told, this clinging to supernatural beliefs. But we're stuck with it for the foreseeable future.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Meredith McIver approves of this post.[/center][/font][hr]

[NanceGreggs]

73. Again we have your version of the world.

I ain't buying.

As I said, it is not religious differences that divide us - it is intolerance of the religious beliefs of others that accomplishes that division every time.

How sad for you that you are forced to live in a world where others are allowed to believe what they choose to believe, instead of just living their lives according to what you believe.

But try your best to muddle through.

[randome]

74. Anyone can believe what they want, no arguments from me.

And I have the equal right of looking at all religion as a pointless waste of everyone's time.

But the Middle Eastern world has a lot of catching up to do with the concept of respecting others' beliefs, women's rights, minority rights, etc. Societies ruled by self-appointed clergymen are something we should all have some disdain for. It flies in the face of multiculturalism.

And the symbols of that disrespect for multiculturalism are only too apparent in full-body burkas and other forms of "modesty".
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Meredith McIver approves of this post.[/center][/font][hr]

[NanceGreggs]

79. And societies that mandate ...

... what a woman can or cannot wear at the beach are different from societies that don't respect other's beliefs and women's rights in what way?

If I am a woman subject to being fined for choosing to cover my body at the beach, how are my rights to do so being upheld? They're not - MY rights are being denied.

What you see as a "symbol that disrespects multiculturalism" should not infringe on MY right to dress as I choose.

Last I heard, France is not ruled by "self-appointed clergymen". So why are they mandating what a woman can wear or not wear? And why are women subject to being fined for their choice of dress when men are NOT?

Respect for multiculturalism is exactly that - respect. It is NOT respect that is contingent on people of different cultures abandoning their culture.

You keep avoiding the bleedin' obvious here, randome. Why are WOMEN being told what to wear, while MEN are not? Muslim men are often easily identifiable by their garb, their unshaven faces, their adherence to certain rituals representative of their religious beliefs. Why are THEY not subject to fines for THEIR open displays of religious freedom?

[randome]

84. So France is now America's 51st state, is that how it is?

France does not need to conform to American standards.

And as for mandating what women can and cannot wear: you'll give a pass to Muslim societies but not a Western one? If any society refuses to respect a woman's beliefs, it is a Muslim one. Surely you can see that. That is the bleeding obvious paradox you are avoiding addressing.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Meredith McIver approves of this post.[/center][/font][hr]

[NanceGreggs]

123. Not at all.

Muslim countries that mandate what they feel is appropriate dress for women state their views (and laws) outright, and make it known that their idea of what is acceptable or unacceptable garb is based on their religious beliefs.

What is happening in Cannes is blatant discrimination against women based on their faith, and it is being peddled as "concern" over "problems that could arise", et cetera.

As I said, France can do whatever the fuck it wants to do - but they should at least have the balls to say what they mean - e.g. we don't want Muslim women on our beach - instead of cowardly couching it as something other than what it clearly is.

As I have also said, I see no such restrictions being placed on Muslim men, whose appearance and clothing often make them easily identifiable as Muslims. Why is that?

Well, anyway - now Mayor Lisnard can run for re-election on the I made our country safe by keeping full-body swimsuits OFF our beaches! platform. There's something to brag about.

[okasha]

112. Do you also "smirk" at a Native man with long hair?

[randome]

113. I smirk at religion and public demonstrations of such. It's who I am.

What else can I do if I believe that all religion is nonsense? Stop believing that?
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Meredith McIver approves of this post.[/center][/font][hr]

[okasha]

116. Strange. I know a number of atheists,

and none of them defines smirking at an "other" as "who they are."

You could learn to keep your nose out of other peoples' business, including their religions, hair styles and clothing choices. That's "what else" you could do.

[randome]

117. I do keep my nose out of other people's business. My opinion is unspoken.

Shouldn't others keep their religion out of public spaces? What a wonderful world it would be if religion was truly a private matter.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Meredith McIver approves of this post.[/center][/font][hr]

[okasha]

119. Why should others keep their religion out of public spaces?

How about their political alignment? How about Scout uniforms and bikers' vests? Pink ribbons?

You seem to crave assurance that no one disagrees with you. Not gonna happen.

[randome]

60. Many Muslim countries dictate what you can and cannot wear in their countries.

And we're okay with that, right?

"Modest" changes in multiculturalism in America is okay with me so long as it doesn't go too far. Muslim women wanting to hide themselves is not "modesty". It's a very visible symbol of how much divides us. As all religious/cultural clothing is.

And we're not even talking about America, we're talking about France, a country that has known more terrorism than we have.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Meredith McIver approves of this post.[/center][/font][hr]

[NanceGreggs]

63. Yes, many Muslim countries ...

... dictate what can and cannot be worn - because they are Muslim countries.

When did France become an anti-Muslim country that dictates what women can wear - and let's not forget we're talking about restrictions on women here, with no equivalent restrictions on what men can and cannot wear.

If this is all meant to avoid conflict between Muslims and non-Muslims, why the double standard?

[randome]

67. I don't see this as anti-Muslim. I see it as a way to avoid conflict.

If men were to voluntarily submit to 'modesty' (see how ridiculous that sounds?), I would think the restrictions would apply to them, as well.

The intensive modesty "requirements" apply to women only. There's your double standard. Should France stand aside and say "Eh. So what?" Knowing that some belligerent group of hot-heads will inevitably create a hostile situation? Or can we try to understand the cultural dynamics at work here?

I do not applaud the Mayor of Cannes but I understand why some think a line has to be drawn.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Meredith McIver approves of this post.[/center][/font][hr]

[randome]

61. And what makes the burka different is that it not only is an extreme measure of Islam...

...it's an extreme measure of religious/cultural clothing altogether. Most other religious/cultural clothing does not go this far and that's what sets Islamic extremists apart from other Western religious extremists.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Meredith McIver approves of this post.[/center][/font][hr]

[NanceGreggs]

64. I guess you've never met ...

... Orthodox Jews who wear payot, or a kittel, a sheitel, or a tallit katan.

[randome]

66. Probably not. I am no expert on religion, that's certain.

I just find this topic to be extremely interesting from a philosophical point of view. Should Western societies allow everything with no restrictions? Europe has restrictions on Nazi symbols while we don't.

France has a different culture and a different outlook due to repeated terrorist attacks. I can't say I'm in favor of any restrictions but I think I understand where they come from. And we're talking about a very small restriction, too.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Meredith McIver approves of this post.[/center][/font][hr]

[NanceGreggs]

80. It was considered a "small restriction" ...

... when Jews in Germany were mandated to wear Yellow Stars, or were banned from certain restaurants or shops, or were told to keep their "in-your-face" religious observances out of public view.

It always begins with a "small restriction" ...

[randome]

83. I think raging moderate has it right just below.

When it's a Muslim country, we shrug and say, "Hey, they're just being Muslim. Everyone knows, that's just how they are." But when it's a Western country, we're like, "Conform to American standards right now! Conform!"

I don't think the double standard can be any clearer. (I've enjoyed the hell out of this thread, btw.)
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Meredith McIver approves of this post.[/center][/font][hr]

[Violet_Crumble]

89. No they didn't. They seem to think being French and Muslim are mutually exclusive...

Last time I checked there's a sizeable portion of the French population that's Muslim. And I don't know where you get the idea that it's 'American standards' to not have men dictating what women can and can't wear at the beach. Lots of countries treat women like human beings and allow them to wear what they feel comfortable wearing. That Mayor who you've spent so many posts supporting is every bit as much a wanker as any who pass laws that women can't wear a bikini to the beach. Why can't they mind their own fucking business? It's just a tad sexist, imo...

And for yr info, the burkini isn't a religious garment, nor is it a burqa. It was created by an Australian woman, and around 15-20% of women who order them aren't Muslim. They're popular in places like Australia and Israel, neither country taking the neanderthal stance that the mayor of Cannes does, and btw, the beach at Cannes looks pretty crappy anyway with no surf and very little in the way of beach...

The woman in the pic upthread is Nigella Lawson, who wore one when she went to Bondi Beach. She's not a Muslim, and her reasons for wearing it were her own and no-one elses. At least she didn't take the path of many German tourists, who head straight for the beach, strip down to barely nothing and then lie there without sunscreen and turn red as a lobster. I've worn equally covering stuff over my swimmers (long sleeved shirt and long shorts) when I've been at the beach coz I burn badly and when given a choice between pervy blokes being happy, and not getting melanomas and dying a nasty death when I'm older, I'll go with the self-preservation option every time. I'm comfortable and it's no-one else's fucking business what I wear.

[randome]

90. You're taking this too far. This is not against Muslims. No one is forcing anyone to wear something.

Cannes (we're not even talking about the entirety of France, you know) made a rule to outlaw a specific type of garment in a specific setting that makes some uncomfortable and increases the odds of an altercation occurring.

You're right, France has a sizable Muslim population. Does that mean they have to allow everything without restriction? They are not America.

No one is insisting that someone must wear a bikini or cannot take steps to protect oneself from the Sun.

But it's strange, isn't it, the amount of outrage leveled at France when similar outrage is not applied to Muslim countries where they DO tell women what they have to wear?

Isn't that a double standard?
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Meredith McIver approves of this post.[/center][/font][hr]

[Violet_Crumble]

91. I don't think you read my post properly, so a few clarifications and a few more points...

1. This is most certainly aimed at Muslims. Go back and read the OP. You yrself have constantly made the point that this one is about Muslims and linked it to terrorist attacks.

2. I don't recall saying anything about the Mayor of Cannes forcing women to wear something. It's about forcing them not to wear something.

3. As I made repeated mentions to Cannes, and not France itself, it should be clear that I do know that the law only applies to Cannes.

Now for the rest. Why is it that you think because a country has a sizeable Muslim population that there's a need to restrict stuff? What exactly do you feel needs to be restricted, apart from the burkini, which you seem to hate, but that's okay, coz no-one's asking you to wear one...

And the only double standard I'm seeing here is people who whinge and carry on because some Muslim countries place restrictions on what a woman can wear, but who support the Mayor of Cannes who also places restrictions on what a woman can wear. You might have missed the bit in my post where I pointed out both are complete arseholes, so no double standards on my part...

[randome]

94. The fine applies to full body swimwear, not just to a burkini.

I'm sure that was made to appear equitable when the point was to actually ban the burkini but again, it's up to Cannes to police its own beaches.

What would be the alternative to preventing altercations from arising? Armed guards patrolling the beaches? Simply do nothing and keep arresting hooligans and tend to the injured?

It's not up to me -nor America- to dictate to France how it should behave toward its Muslim population. Especially in the context of their terrorist troubles for the past few years.

Unless that behavior takes a turn toward fascism or genocide or something else. I don't see this as approaching that level by a long-shot. The two situations are not at all comparable, imo.

Of all the possible anti-Muslim restrictions that could be imagined, this seems to be about the least intrusive possible. It's a fine, not even an outright ban, although the effect is to promote a ban, obviously.

The real outrage should be directed toward Muslim countries. But we give them a pass because..."well, they're Muslim, what do you expect?"
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Meredith McIver approves of this post.[/center][/font][hr]

[Violet_Crumble]

96. Wrong. From the OP...

David Lisnard, the mayor of Cannes, signed a bylaw saying: “Beachwear which ostentatiously displays religious affiliation, when France and places of worship are currently the target of terrorist attacks, is liable to create risks of disrupting public order. We are not banning the veil, nor the kippa nor crosses. I am simply banning a uniform which is the symbol of Islamic extremism.”

What a dumb arsehole he is. The burkini was invented in Australia by someone who's most definitely not into doing the whole symbol of Islamic extremism. I dunno, must have missed all those attacks carried out by burkini wearing terrorists...

Altercations on a beach? If someone is so sick and creepy that they'd attack a woman for not showing enough flesh, then the cops need to lock them up. There's plenty of altercations here on beaches in Sydney and not one has involved burkinis. Most often it's really drunk backpackers who get into brawls. The lifeguards take care of that and bring in the cops if needed...

Also, since when has speaking out against bigotry been viewed as dictating how anyone should behave towards a Muslim population? Do you hold the same views about the laws in Nazi Germany against Jews? They started smallish and then accelerated...

The real outrage should be directed toward Muslim countries. But we give them a pass because..."well, they're Muslim, what do you expect?"

Yet here you are not only giving a pass to, but supporting restrictions on women wearing what they want when it's aimed at Muslim women. As long as it's not a Muslim country making the law, of course!

How about this for an idea? How about directing yr outrage at all those who bring in laws restricting what women can wear, and not just saving that outrage for only Muslim countries? It seems pretty simple to me. If those folk who get so very upset about what women wear to the beach that they have to resort to 'altercations' can't bring themselves to behave otherwise, then they should stay away. They remind me of the fuckwits here who stormed a Gosford church at the weekend and screamed anti-Muslim shit at the congregation because it was one of those interfaith ones that support refugees and other religions and stuff...

[randome]

92. So if the burkini is nothing but a fashion statement, the fashion can be changed, right?

There are places in America where you cannot wear a bikini or go shirtless. "No shirt, no shoes, no service." and the like. I grew up when that wasn't a concern. It's a little disturbing to see how conservative America has become.

But I'm not outraged by it.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Meredith McIver approves of this post.[/center][/font][hr]

[Violet_Crumble]

93. Who said it was nothing but a fashion statement? Who cares?

And why do you care so much about what women choose to wear that you've now replied twice to a single post of mine?

[randome]

95. I don't care. I simply find the subject intensely fascinating.

It's a conundrum without a clear exit. The kind of thread that always draws me in.

All I'm saying is that we don't seem to care what Muslims do in their own country but it seems like we shouldn't care when they come to one of "our" countries, either.

The Middle Eastern "habit" (coercion for most, I think) of women covering themselves from head to toe has little to do with 'modesty'. It's ingrained behavior that we should at the very least discourage since it has the effect of a Western society welcoming those who are not welcoming of others.

It flies in the face of the Western ideal of openness and I think this is part of what makes others comfortable.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Meredith McIver approves of this post.[/center][/font][hr]

[Violet_Crumble]

97. Sure. And something I forgot to mention about yr 'fashion statement' claim...

It shits me no end to encounter men who assume that women must be wearing something either because it's a fashion statement or they've been coerced into it. It should be obvious to anyone reading the thread that the reaction from a few women who replied was that they could see it was practical for women with sensitive skin, or that they'd feel comfortable in it. See, that's the thing. Women sometimes do wear things that they feel comfortable in. It's not up to you or anyone else to tell them they shouldn't wear it.

'We' don't seem to care? Who's we? Because you must have missed the many threads that sort of show that people do care what happens in Muslim countries. And don't make the mistake of thinking that if someone's a Muslim in France they must be a migrant. Again, it's that French and Muslim not being exclusive thing I was talking to you about in another post. To a French Muslim, France is their country, not 'ours'.

[randome]

105. But look at the vitriol this thread has 'inspired'.

Last edited Mon Aug 15, 2016, 02:49 PM - Edit history (3)

A hell of a lot directed at France and virtually nothing directed at Muslim countries that subjugate women. Where are these other threads about subjugation? I haven't seen one in a long time.

There are posts in this very thread that say the same thing: "Well, they're Muslim." As if they have a ready-made excuse.

It's an interesting paradox.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Meredith McIver approves of this post.[/center][/font][hr]

[NanceGreggs]

124. I have enjoyed the discussion as well!

[raging moderate]

76. My take on this: France gets to do this! US does not!

France has been France (or a reasonable version) for thousands of years! They have a long tradition and culture to carry on! Just as Saudi Arabia and Iran have! Thousands of years, the blood of their ancestors into that soil!

Does the US have a similar claim? My Native American bros would beg to differ! Europeans coming to this country CHOSE to be part of a multi-cultural experiment! Anybody who came to this country expecting to see only Europeans had rocks in their heads! Anybody with sense had to be coming to see new places, meet new people, and learn new ideas! I stand by my European ancestors' decision! Let the mixing roll!

E pluribus unum!

And leave France alone! If you don't want to be French, then go someplace else! That is the only place they have to be France!

[zipplewrath]

104. Your history is a tad weak

France hasn't been France for anywhere near thousands of years. You'd be hard pressed to say it is a thousand years old. And if you're talking traditions, you'd be hard pressed to say it's a quarter of that. And the region you're discussing, there's as much Persian history there as anything.

[forest444]

78. The mayor is a Sarkozyite hoping to score points among the far right.

Elections in France are a few months away, and Sarkozy is no doubt using his underlings to give his UMP the appearance of "getting tough" on the Muslim community.

Ça ne va pas, hein.

[harun]

98. Agree, stupid right wing political stunt.

[shireen]

107. Don't they have a right to wear what they want?

Yes, it can symbolize repression. Or it could be deeply cultural. Some women choose to wear full body cover swimsuits as a choice. This ruling denies them the right to enjoy the beach like everyone else. It's discrimination. A stupid law.

[JustABozoOnThisBus]

110. It would seem so ...

If I want to walk on that beach wearing board shorts, jeans, a tuxedo, a wet-suit, nobody would say anything (other than some comments about bellies).

I don't care for face coverings, but a "burkini" doesn't cover the face.