clairobscur, who is closer to the action, has indicated that this may in fact be an act of pandering to those who’d rather not have visible presence of Muslims (immigrant or native) than deal with root causes. Tied in with a rather “fundamentalist” conception of laicisme as a cover excuse, ISTM. I find that credible.
It is a conundrum, isn’t it, if the conclusion is that the only way of making sure no one is being forced to wear/say/do something, is to forbid everyone from doing so* even if they wanted* to…
This is a good point. Historically, state actors haven’t been particularly successful at changing people’s behavior by making it illegal. They’ve done much better with nudges and incentives.
Maybe France should sponsor some free sunscreen giveaways to women wearing scant clothing, or tax beachwear by weight.
It’s not even desirable to suppress the burqini or the hijab, in my view. The burqa, sure, but if someone wants to wear something like a wetsuit or a headscarf, that’s not evidence that they’re being dehumanised and oppressed - maybe they just don’t want to get sunburned.
No, I’m with Ataturk on this one. For example requiring soldiers to not be uniform ally attired is NOT the same as requiring soldiers to be in uniform. And the burqa/burqini has specific significance as a uniform, which the French are, for historical reasons, more in tune with than are Americans.
France, like Turkey, went through a secularization process demanding that people be treated equally regardless of religion, and demanding that people not wear religious uniforms when interacting with the state,
I have read a very clear and attractive exposition of the right of women to wear whatever clothing they want, and to do so without any implied meaning. But the argument falls down when confronted with the fact that some people do wear clothes with implied meaning, and that the implied meaning is sometimes destructive of civil society.
I’m thinking specifically of two cases: the wearing of gang colors in school, and the wearing of the Burqa/Burkini/Hajib. Since I have listened to a statement of meaning about the Hajib, from an uneducated working class muslim woman, and since she agreed with Ataturk, I’m going to go with that meaning: the veil is a specific threat to civil society, and shoold be banned.
I think burquinis are absurd. But what’s more absurd is a prohibition against too much coverup on a beach or anywhere else. But that’s just my opinion, Man, and I think you should wear what you want.
When I first heard about the French beach burquini ban, I thought it was because a weapon could be so easily concealed under copious clothing, so…security. Makes sense, doesn’t it? But nowhere do I hear that now, so it’s merely some asshole wanting to impose his religious idea of costume on someone else.
I just think once the state crosses the line into telling people what they can’t wear things get weird very quickly.
I recall a while ago it was suggested people shouldn’t wear motorcycle crash helmets when not on a motorcycle (aimed at couriers making deliveries) - the state just shouldn’t go there.
Fwiw, the French also have a law which requires men to wear speedo’s and not swimming trucks/shorts, but that’s a health issue.
No, I don’t. Maybe there’s a comparison between the burqa and a yellow Star of David, since some may be forced to wear it against their will. But I’m pretty sure that people in burqas don’t commit hate crimes very often.
You could be Indian. Moreover, we’ve already been through this in this thread with Klan robes. Despite German swastikas and Klan robes being a much clearer intention of ones thoughts (to understate the matter), people here have already said that a law banning Klan robes would be equally stupid. I’d assume they’d feel the same about a law banning swastikas, while reserving the right to call the swastika bearer a literal Nazi. And yes, I know there are places where the Swastika is banned, but I don’t think American Dopers unreservedly back those laws, either.
I’ve been following this and for the moment, depending on what sources you check, the versions of how the brawl started are very different. The Muslim families said the local youths were taking pictures of them without their authorization and insulting them while the latter claim that they were pelted with stones because the families considered their outfits too revealing and offensive.
Personally, I’m against the ban as it’s idiotic and discriminatory but I’m also concerned with prospect of having various communities trying to chase others out of their territory, which is happening on both sides, I’m afraid.
