Refusing to believe a woman could choose the headscarf or full hijab FOR HERSELF, is pretty oppressive to women, don’t ya think?
If it’s not ‘actionable oppression’ when you stop your 19 yr old from wearing a halter top, or the church has nuns dressed as penguins, then why is this garment alone considered oppressing women?
If they want to declare a ‘French’ National dress, then make EVERYONE abide, that’d fit in with the protecting French culture line. But to just select one group, one garment, it’s just cultural discrimination, straight up.
Well, France hasn’t banned these things. So far it’s a few beach cities after a fight broke out involving hatches, burning cars and requiring 100 riot police. Considering France is in a state of emergency and coming in the wake of the horrific Nice attack as well as a string of other attacks I’m not all that surprised local mayors would prioritize peace and security on their beaches. Come winter, it probably won’t as much of an issue.
The wearing of both Christian crosses and hijabs is banned in public schools, btw. One religion isn’t being singled out.
Jews are leaving France and Europe in record numbers. Funny I don’t hear much crying about that. Oh well, let 'em go, seems to be the attitude. A burkini gets banned? OMG, save the Muslims!
a gross distortion, there is one incident in the Corse reported after the actions taken first by the Maire of Cannes and then Villeneuve.
It is a gross distortion and a false assertion that in general these “beach cities” took action after the incident - unclear and hardly something that can be said to be about “burkini” … versus the actions of some stupid family, indeed no burkinis at all… juste ordinary vulgar people.
Yes, peace and security by promoting the bigotry and the direct amalgame of the conservative practitioners with the incident by the mentally ill non-practicing heavy-drinking terrorist of the Nice incident.
Of course the reality is that in these minds like many here Muslim=Terrorist=Minority to be Suppressed in ways like Alhabra decree. Of course one adds “extremist” as the plausible deniable adjective to this.
No it is not suprising the hateful bigots promote this.
A complete bullshit.
No action was taken on things like the crosses nor was it a problem until the promotion of the anti-Mahgrebine communities by the FN and others about the visbility of the minority religion. Then suddenly “neutral” laws whose enforcement is quite crafted and whose real focus is on the muslims - with just enough of the façade of the plausible assertion of “equality” of application to dupe the willing and for the bigotted types to have the hand-waving excuses to make.
And of course some how the France is not able to take any action at all on the long documented severe discrimination against the visibile minorities (born in the France but not with the French catholic names in access to the services, to the jobs, but MY GOD if they wear a head-scarf, then action can be taken… Laws and decrees made with great rapidity and supported by elaborate phony philosophising about the values of secularism.
It is pure bigotted anti-minority action
OMG the amalgam of the justifications for the hatreds and the haters of the religious minorities, the sly insinuations to amalgamate other issues and plausible-deniable assert pretended relations with the issues of the Middle east, foreign to the French muslim community historically.
So goes the ongoing sly justifications of the hatreds and the unreasoning prejudice against the visible minorities…
There is a large segment of the French electorate that is deeply racist and bigotted and whose vision of “assimilation” is anihilation of those who are different, so that there is no visibile minorities.
How nice of them to engage in the whitechristianheritagemansplaining to us, even nicer they can not find any conception of the actual ability of the muslim woman to have her own decisions or the grossly ironic lack of respect for our own abilities in making an amalgame of a** clothing invented itself by an independent woman entrepreneur** to meet her needs…
(it is not a practice or a need I agree with, but it is not a practice or a percevied need that is diminished by the bigotted attacks of outsiders we can sense well hate us and whose supposed concern is really about their hatreds and despising us)
Of only go in the water in the normal street clothes that are not banned or effected at all - making the logic of this very clearly simply reflexive anti-minority prejudice that in fact furthers the interests of the two extremist bigot camps, that of the seperationist Salafistes whose argument that we will never, ever be anything than the Dirty Arab to these people, and that of the Front Nationale neo-fascist racists - these two feedingon each other as each younger generation feels more separation:
God’s gender (and god’s existence) are matters for another debate. Regardless, in the religious context of the Islam, god may be masculine in nature, but he is also not tempted by lust.
No, you aren’t. You’re calling for depriving these women of having their choice of dress because you assume they think they want to kill you. You’re literally engaging in thought-police actions.
I’m not sure why everyone keeps saying they don’t know what you’re saying. I guess they assume you wouldn’t actually advocate for that? But it would fit your previous comments on the subject, which boil down to “any bigotry against Muslims is okay because they are homophobic.”
But that’s not how it works. I don’t get to be racist towards a black person because they are homophobic, and you don’t support laws that specifically target people of a certain religion.
False equivalency between race and religion. Race is a social construct and not a choice at that. Religion is a set of ideas and practices and assuming free will exists is a choice. Not all ideas and practices are equal. Thus it’s perfectly within a nation’s rights to prohibit practices they find abhorrent even if that disproportionately impacts certain religions.
Why repugnant ideas and practices get a pass because they come bundled in a package called “religion” is a mystery.
There’s a huge problem with this that I’ve not seen anyone else bring up. Maybe I missed it?
These are just the people in the previous paragraph. Blaming it on the law means nothing if their culture says it’s wrong. If they were already unwilling to go out before undressed before because of that approbation, why would they do so now?
That’s the problem with all of this. All the supposed reasons don’t hold up. The real issue is that some people are bigoted towards Muslims and will assume they are terrorists. And the government is accommodating those racist fears.
They don’t even try to hide it. If you read the articles, that is what they give as their reason. They cite the terrorist attacks and how people react to the burkhinis. Not something about forcing Muslims to change their beliefs. Even they know that’s not going to work.
It’s basically the same shit being proposed by Donald Trump, or by the people for the trans bathroom bans. It’s about ameliorating the fear of a bigoted group by discriminating against a minority.
There is no way by which preventing burkhinis makes anyone any safer from terrorists. That is just an excuse.
This is typical** american nonsense**, naive silly theory.
There is no false equivalence in a France where the mere attachment (required in the practice, naive americans) of the photo with a face showing the African or the Maghrebine visage - sees the rejection of the CV, where the mere non-catholic French name for the same exact profile born in France again sees the employment rejection rate rise 50-75%. Effects documented in the multiple rigorous studies over decades.
The naive American pretension of pure mutalability is bullshit in the wider world.
The great rise in the religious practice and observance of the French muslims over the past decades comes closely tied with the realization of the rejection, that it does not matter if you have parents born in the France and you are born in France, you remain the dirty “Arab”(muslim) immigrant…
Oh my the ***abhorent ***factor of the woman dressing in the light beach costume of the chilly water surfer! Oh My God what Oppression.
But of course there is nothing abhorent about the racial prejudices that see those of the Maghrebine (Muslim) African (particularly Muslim) profile see their employment, their various program entry chances drop by half for their mere name.
but my god, if the women do not show you their tits and their asses, my god they are oppressed.
There must be priorities after all about what is the truly important social issues that challenge and get action, what priorities these indeed are.
For the same reason repugnant neo fascist ideas get the pass when they get dressed up in the excuses of false equivalencies and the usage of gross and broad ethnico-religious steretypes justifiying hateful prejudices.
Because the human being is a hypocrite who lies to the self to pretend the nasty hateful side is not nasty and hateful but it is in fact the fault of the Other.
You can perhaps learn something about the political case of the France and the background of such policies being particularly promoted by the Neo Fascist Front National. That other Maires have adopted these measures does not change their origin, and does not change their nature, which is the fear driven suppressive, eradicationist Majority Supremacist instincts of the extreme nationalist bigots that represent the Front National and the sympathizing trends.
There is not one, the Race/Ethnicity is perfectly equivalent to the Religion in these contexts, it is the American naiveté that thinks they can be easily separated or changed. As the converted jews of Europe in the 1930s learned, as the muslims and the jews of the Iberia, converted and not, learned several centuries before, the racialism of the Europeans and their erradicationist tendencies run very deep.
And as the modern data generated on the profound discrimination in the France against those with the ‘wrong’ (that is the non-catholic) name and the ‘wrong’ ethnic physical appearance - unless one eradicates any sign of the appartenance to the ‘wrong’ ethnicity - ethnicity undifferentiated in social reality from the supposed religious appartenance - that sees changes of employment, of access to programs drop 50%+
It is a uniquely American pretension, a gross and typically american naiveté, one false outside of the US, that the religion and the ethnicity are changeable, they are not in most of the world changeable by an individual in her lifetime.
‘Democratic’ bans aimed at the minorities religious and ethnic have long, long been the favorite type of policy opening of the neo Fascists movements in the Europe. There is no “now” dear naive.
The mere fact of democratic popularity says nothing of its fascistic origines, as the very history of the fascistic movements in the Europe tell one, mostly democratically elected by the majorities instrumentalizing hateful language against “unassimilated” or “dangerous” minorities, instrumentalizing the presence of radicals from a certain ethnic origin to blame the entire minority.
It is some kind of incredibly naiveté of a gross ignorance to write the above, incredible in its lack of knowledge of both the history and the recent political development in the Europe and the policies pushed by these neo-fascist movements.
Of course what the full body surfer like suit with skirt, with a hair covering is supposed to be symbolic of is just a puzzle, being the modern invention of an independent woman entrepreneur…
but perhaps it is the call to the very Marxist idea of the ‘false consciousness’.
Ironic given your rebuttals to our weird marxist in the labor value theory thread…
Because it is. It is purely a reflexive attack on the ethnic-religious minority.
There is nothing oppressive about the burkini - I find it silly but it appeals to the conservative but independent women, which is its very origin, invented and initial types produced by a woman entrepreneur (who made a gross marketing error though in using the port-manteau of burkini as is clear here where people are making the stupid amalgame of the burqa and this).
The idea that this burkini concept is some how connected with an extremism is sheer ignorant stupidity if not in fact direct prejudice.
The Salafist and particularly the takfiri wing of them hate such things, ‘compromises’ with the liberal modernity, that are permissive to women’s independence (not restrictive, it is permissive, it already says that I am a woman who has rejected the Seperation ideas of the Salafists and only desires some cover in the “mixity” of genders at the beach or at the pool).
These measures are not fighting extremism, they are not fighting the Salafist takfiris that DAESH is the most extreme wing of, they are giving reason to them, they are supporting them.
I don’t believe that it has anything to do with stopping the oppression of women.
It’s not France that’s doing this, it’s a couple of beach resort towns. Think about that for a moment. My guess is a burkini or two turned up, then more, then more. Then perhaps the clientele began to remark. Perhaps on too many of ‘those type’.
Think of restaurants back during integration. The owners maintained they weren’t being racist, they just knew if black people were allowed in then their white clientele would go elsewhere. It wasn’t racism, just ‘business’. The argument being, don’t they have the right to protect their businesses?
I think that’s what’s really happening here. The current, mostly white clientele, are put off by too many of ‘them’. And if they are received warmly, then soon it could be all ‘them’, the regular clientele will go elsewhere! Effectively, they can be Muslim, but must not be visibly Muslim!
Because it’s off putting to the others. I think these resort owners are just hiding behind France’s religious laws, and trying to bend them to cover their racist asses!
Ok, you have a point. This particular policy may very well be racist or an expression of ethnic bigotry.
I still am not convinced all ideas need equal consideration and merely packaging an idea in a set and calling it religion should offer no special deference. And some religious practices are quite oppressive. Perhaps this is not the case here and if so I stand corrected.