What are people's thoughts on the burkini ban in France?

[adolf hamster]

Have a quick read on honour killings. You'll soon realise they don't always have a choice.

that debate is going to lead down a lengthy road of internet argument, and my skyrim texture download doesn't have that much time left.

needless to say i disagree, there is always a choice and a way of doing things to minimise the consequences.

 

[Energize]

But you're happy to live in a society where people are forced to act in certain ways by religion?

How on earth do you come to that conclusion? I think religion should be consigned to oblivion, but the government should not be discriminating against religious people or interfering with clothing choices in general like that.

 

[spoffle]

So Muslim countries are free to impose clothing regulations ;

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/travel/advice/dress-code-guide-for-muslim-countries/

Yet when a Western country does the same, the Muslims oppose.

More double standards from the religion you will never please.

Are you seriously suggesting that they are somehow related?

 

[spoffle]

25% of British born Muslims would like to see Sharia Law implemented in this country. That worries me greatly.

Apparently...

 

[Safetytrousers]

But you're happy to live in a society where people are forced to act in certain ways by religion?

I'm certainly happy to live in a country where people are free to pursue the religion of their choice/inheritance, or no religion at all. Any alternative that is a chilling prospect.
If people are doing something illegal then that should be dealt with by the law, if it is discovered, and victims should have the support they need. If positive and affective challenges could be made to the worst pockets of cultural practice then that would be good.

I'd rather most religion didn't exist, but it does. You just have to live with that. Get over it.

 

[richthomuk]

Apparently...

Yea I couldnt find anything to back that up. The closest I came was some report done by Channel 4 (the leading autority on stats and surveys ) which says "almost" one in four, which still isnt 25%

 

[The Running Man]

Yea I couldnt find anything to back that up. The closest I came was some report done by Channel 4 (the leading autority on stats and surveys ) which says "almost" one in four, which still isnt 25%

Yeah almost one in four would say it on camera.

What about in mosque with no cameras around?

 

[Safetytrousers]

The figure on support of Sharia law I have found is:
''23% of British Muslims said Islamic Sharia law should replace British law in areas with large Muslim populations''. Published in April this year.
Which is rather different to simply saying 25% of Muslims want Sharia law.

77% of British Muslims apparently don't want Sharia law.

 

[RoboCod]

I see no harm in the burkini. She could just cover herself in a dressing gown and hat and no one would be any wiser, I don't see the issue.

What's more concerning is the lack of tolerance for something quite benign. Intolerance will just breed more hostility and inevitably more terrorism.

Sure, some people are clearly of the opinion that they've scored a point with this one. I think that's pathetic. You won't win that way.

 

[Safetytrousers]

Yeah almost one in four would say it on camera.

What about in mosque with no cameras around?

The figure is from a 615-page report of a survey conducted by ICM Research.

 

[snowdog]

I think it's a blatant disregard for freedom.

Government shouldn't care how people dredd, of they want to wear a Burkini, let them, of others want to walk around bare naked, let them.

**** rules regarding apparel.

Imo people who meddle in affairs of others that cause no harm whatsoever to others, don't belong in western Europe but instead should live in Russia, Turkey, Morocco, or some other country where there are like minded people who don't believe in freedom. All these idiots who say ''you should adjust to our values and norms'', ''our rules and habits are there because they've been around for generations'': **** off, backwards people. If one causes no (physical or financial) harm to another, what gives people the right to force their stupid beliefs, norms, rules, habits, etc. onto others? Forcing your views onto others in by definition unethical imo.

Wish there were more libertarians in the world.


The French response is obviously a knee jerk reaction towards recent events. The terrorists have won in a way. Causing more divide among people and sprawling fear... I can't imagine why one would be bothered by someone in a burkini on a beach, mind your own ****ing business ffs. If the view doesn't please you, look at the topless ladies further down instead . Don't get me wrong, I think religion is backwards (and especially Islam or Catholicism), but it doesn't stop me from having muslim mates or being a prejudiced bigot towards muslims in general.

People need to stop looking at others and mind their own business and lives, instead of forcing or demanding some crap on/of others. Treat others like you want to be treated and don't judge people immediately, observe the behavior first...

 

[Amp34]

I think it's irrelevant really. And I don't think that this ban will help those individuals at all. Trying to achieve equality by authoritarianism is not a society I want to live in.

It has little to do with helping anyone. The first ban was introduced soon after the Nice attack, using that as part of the reason. It's basically retaliation and revenge against a group of people deemed "responsible".

But you're happy to live in a society where people are forced to act in certain ways by religion?

How about dress certain ways due to government?

 

[Amp34]

Are you seriously suggesting that they are somehow related?

Apparently being more like middle eastern islamic countries is something we should be doing, according to a fair few people on this forum.

 

[asim18]

I don't think any religious clothing like this should be allowed, especially as it promotes oppression.

Unbelievable double standards.

If these women were oppressed they wouldn't even be at the beach, let alone even be able to plan going to the beach with their girlfriends which they would never even have if they were oppressed. These women want to go to the beach and they want to go in whatever they're comfortable in, which for them is a burkini, therefore why subject them to extra hardship which is the definition of oppress?

It is you who is oppressing people's freedom to wear whatever they feel comfortable in at the beach.

 

[Amp34]

I wonder that extends to banning Nuns from beaches when they are in their habits?

 

[asim18]

But what about the fact that these same women have been told they need to wear it in the first place?

So why did humanity even conceive clothing and why is EVERYBODY told to wear clothes? I'll tell you. Identity. Go back to tribal days and every tribe used style to clothing and jewellery to express their identity. It sounds like you're suggesting only Muslim women are told to wear, or expected to wear a certain type of clothing.

The difference in the type of clothing one tribe is told to wear is not pertinent to your argument that only one type of people are told to or expected to wear something of a particular style. There is absolutely no difference in wearing a bikini or burkini from the subject's perspective.

Go to Pakistan and go shopping in your pyjamas and slippers I guarantee you not a single person will give a ****. Go to Tescos in something you're 100% comfortable in, but which has 0% style to please random people and everyone will be judging you.

That is oppression.

Just look at how women used to dress a couple of decades ago. In the 90s a lot more women used to wear the comfortable **** and used to wear the kinds of t-shirts and jeans which today would be deemed absolutely ugly.

I mean why do women even wear high heels? Why do women have to leave their comfortable shoes in their cars and put on stilettos when they get out just so they look good? That is oppression by definition. It's absolutely zero comfort and the only purpose is to please the people who are looking at it and judging you (as well as make money for capitalists telling you what you need to wear in order to be judged positively and accepted in society).

That is oppression.

 

[awaybreaktoday]

No one has the right to tell a person what religion to follow or not to follow, no one has the right to the tell a person what to wear or what not to wear. I person is well within their rights to choose to dress according to how they believe their religion tells them to do so. However governments should not be enforcing any kind of dress code upon a society. What next do you want the government to enforce on us?

If a person burns the British flag in this country you should be celebrating the fact that a person has the freedom to do so. Just because other nations have backwards laws should not mean that we as a nation should follow another nation retard laws.

We should all celebrate what little democracy we have instead of finding ways to contain it more.

 

[Surfer]

Applies to all of burqa/hijab burkini etc etc

Reasons

1. If somebody/anybody wears clothing on a daily basis that hides them from being identified then yeah ban.

2. Also ban because religion imo is a private matter not a public one.

3. Also, by flaunting articles of religious clothing in the face of, and thereby the diametric opposite of western culture, IN a free western, democracy is disrespectful of that said western democracy.

4. True in such a so called free society they should be allowed to wear what they like? That will be the argument yeah? But if what they wear is a symbol that stands against such notions of freedom, liberty etc and is instead a symbol of oppression?

5. In france and germany portrayal of the swastika (display or on garments and such) is illegal. Spurious but you could argue this reasoning is down that same line of thought.

 

[asim18]

Applies to all of burqa/hijab burkini etc etc

Reasons

1. If somebody/anybody wears clothing on a daily basis that hides them from being identified then yeah ban.

Are you a bit mixed up? or are you really telling me you need to be able to see someone's cleavage in order to identify them? None of the three items you have mentioned are designed to hide your identity.

The niqab is what hides your face and it's got nothing to do with anything relating to this thread .

 

[Amp34]

Applies to all of burqa/hijab burkini etc etc

Reasons

1. If somebody/anybody wears clothing on a daily basis that hides them from being identified then yeah ban.

So you're not for a ban on burkinis then, as they don't cover the face, but are just "wetsuits" that cover the hair (which some have done for decades).

2. Also ban because religion imo is a private matter not a public one.

So nuns and Priests are not allowed to leave their churches/religions buildings in their religions clothing? Can a nun still cover her hair when outside, or is that still considered a religions item of clothing?

3. Also, by flaunting articles of religious clothing in the face of, and thereby the diametric opposite of western culture, IN a free western, democracy is disrespectful of that said western democracy.

So only things the majority support should be allowed? As an FYI head scarves have been around for centuries in the UK, and older people are well known for wearing them, heck, even the queen wears a head scarf every now and then.

Also does this include other religions like Sikhs with turbans (also, add list of banned in point 2)?

4. True in such a so called free society they should be allowed to wear what they like? That will be the argument yeah? But if what they wear is a symbol that stands against such notions of freedom, liberty etc and is instead a symbol of oppression?

But a burkini doesn't stand against the notions of freedom, liberty and is not a symbol of oppression (in fact the inventor pointed this out). What does stand stand against the notions of freedom and liberty is banning an item of clothing (exceptions could be made for point 1 - such as wearing a balaclava or full face veil around the streets, but a burkini does't cover the face so is not included in this).

5. In france and germany portrayal of the swastika (display or on garments and such) is illegal. Spurious but you could argue this reasoning is down that same line of thought.

A burkini is just a wetsuit with a hood, not a symbol of a geoncidal regime.

Some of these points may be different if this thread was about burqas and other face covering items of clothing, but it's not, it's about burkinis, which don't cover the face.