Banning Burkinis (or Veils/Headscarves)

When last I looked at the relevant polls, they purported to demonstrate increasing tolerance over time among American Muslims, as the polls were taken twice with an interval of some years between them.

This seems to support either the theory that they are becoming more integrated, or the theory that they, along with the rest of US society, were evolving to become more tolerant (as increasing tolerance, particularly in respect of homosexuality, was noted among several other religious groups as well).

Except for the hood part (I wear a hat), I pretty much wear a burkini at the beach. Although I call it a rashguard, and wear it to protect my skin from the sun. Do the French enjoy sunburn and skin cancer? I can see a rational basis for requiring people to cover up at the beach, but requiring people to expose themselves to radiation hazard if they want to enjoy the sea is bizarre.

Next, maybe they’ll require all beach-goers to drink vodka and smoke cigarettes.

Because it seems obvious to me that the fact that a community is itself of fairly recent origin for the most part in a country, and is insecure and worried about the societal antipathy and intolerance towards them, would have a dampening impact on their own intolerance of others. So it would follow that if you remove that aspect, then - all else being equal - it would tend to increase their intolerance of others.

Well that’s good news if true. Do you have a cite for this?

Good question.

Who cares if you wore a small pendant, like so many christians, jews and turks wear? Not offensive. Also a statement, to be sure, but modest.
Who cares if you suck sheep eyes, in the privacy of your own home?

Not drinking wine with us? Then you’re not one of us, but okay, your choice. There’s more people that don’t drink. Not that big.

I guess that the real objection is to the in your face statement of a burqa or the beard and robes. It makes it clear that you will never be one of us, until you have made us one of you.

Okay. I believe that there’s a general, long-term trend throughout the world (and especially the West) of increasing tolerance and acceptance for things like homosexuality and other personal lifestyles. Further, I believe that the more a community feels integrated into the broader society in which they live, the more they will come to share values with that broader society. I think those two factors are likely to be much stronger than the possibility you mention, in general. Do you disagree that these two factors exist, or do you believe that they may exist but the factor you mention is likely to overpower them?

Why does that “make it clear”? It’s not clear to me. I don’t see why a person who wears a beard and robe and has an entirely peaceful and tolerant lifestyle can’t be “one of us”.

Here you go:

My previous post on the poll:

From: http://www.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=795583&highlight=muslim+religion&page=5

Here in Canada, there was a fellow who made an “in your face” statement of his commitment to his faith and his determination never to be “one of us” with his big beard and turban, which he insisted on wearing all the time.

He was so much a security risk, we made him Defence Minister! :smiley:

[Yes, Sikh and not Muslim … but the same idea applies]

I like this detail:

So, the rationale for banning the burkini is that it represents the enslavement of women. If that’s the case, I guess I’m having trouble getting over the sheer Pythonesque-ness of the punishing of the victim here.

“My dear lady, I can see by your attire that you are enslaved. There’s a law against being enslaved at this beach. Please stop being enslaved, or we will ask you to leave. Thank you.”
“Well, officer, I think the term ‘enslaved’ implies that I’m not exactly doing it voluntarily…”
“In France, we now believe that being enslaved is a person’s own choice. Therefore, we will fine you a large amount of Euros for being enslaved. Have a nice day.”

Also, there’s the frivolousness about the front line of a cultural clash being beach attire. I mean, if you’re opposed to violent extremism, that’s one thing. If this is a conflict with two sides, there’s still kind of room to meet in the middle. You can tell the other side to knock off the extreme stuff, and then you can haggle your way further in the direction of the more mundane. But when you go directly for the swimwear, you’re already starting at the mundane end. There’s not much more room for the two sides two approach each other. It kind of says something about what you really feel about the entirety of the culture and religion of the other side. The message seems to be: “Fuck *all *y’all, and your bathing suits.”

I don’t disagree that the two factors exist. I’m not sure whether the factor I mention will overpower them.

That’s why I keep qualifying my prediction by saying things like “if those things are kept constant” - I don’t know if those things will be kept constant. I wouldn’t be completely sanguine about the prospect, though.

That’s a very good cite. Thank you.

That said, I would quibble a bit. There has been a pretty rapid change to societal attitudes towards homosexuality in the time-span of these polls, while the factor I’ve been discussing is a longer term process. So the fact that Muslim attitudes moved with the general population during that brief period is not necessarily a strong indicator that this will continue to be the case over the long term, when the community will feel more secure here.

Does it, though? I don’t see much fear of Sikhs. Actually, I don’t recall seeing *any *fear of Sikhs.

Sikhs sometimes get attacked by people who think they’re Muslims.

Certainly. What you’d need to nail this issue down, is regular polling over decades. As far as I know, that doesn’t exist yet.

All that can be said is that, contrary to much publicly expressed concern (not least expressed by the current Republican candidate for POTUS), Muslims in America as a group are not notably different from other Americans on this particular issue - according to the available information.

Thus, expressions of concern that Muslims as a group represent some sort of threat to the wellbeing of homosexual citizens cannot be sustained; it follows that measures taken to repress Muslim symbolism is dress and facial hairstyles, or to prohibit Muslim immigration, cannot be rationally justified on the grounds that Muslims as a group represent some sort of threat (even assuming that such measures were constitutionally valid).

That isn’t to say that individual Muslims in America may not be a threat, only that measures aimed at Muslims en mass are misplaced (again, ignoring for this analysis whether such measures are offensive or unconstitutional).

Sikh support for terrorism in Canada was a “thing”. In one incident, hundreds of Canadians were killed in the bombing of an airplane originating in Canada.

As a consequence, more Canadian civilians have been killed, to date, by Sikhs than by Muslims. This was the largest mass murder in Canadian history.

So for Canadians, appointing a Sikh as Minister of Defence is the equivalent of the Americans appointing a Muslim to a similar position, post 9/11.

I’ll be upfront and admit that I’m not really in favor of this law, because at its heart it runs contrary to “free expression”. But I have strong enough mixed feelings to give them voice here. For liberals like myself, censorship has always been a dirty word. Democracy must value the free flow of ideas and the opportunity to freely discuss the pros and cons of them. However, what about systems of thought that are in direct contradiction of free expression? Saudi Arabia won’t allow the women there to run around wearing bikinis, is France in the wrong to prevent women from visiting its beaches in burkinis for similar cultural reasons?

It just makes France no better than the Saudis they condemn, that’s all!

They shouldn’t do that ! Let’s do it too !

What the fuck does the Saudi arabia have to do with the French muslims?

What the fuck does the Australian invented ‘burkini’ which is just a full covering like a surfer wear have to do with the Saudis?

What the fuck does the ‘system of free expression’ have to do with the beach wear (see the photos) that is just a surfer type wear with a hood?

What are “French” cultural reasons can you tell me requires the woman to wear the “bikini” invented in the 1940s?

Or perhaps it was the contra-party for the French giving the women the right to vote in that same decade?

[QUOTE=Doubticus]
However, what about systems of thought that are in direct contradiction of free expression? Saudi Arabia won’t allow the women there to run around wearing bikinis, is France in the wrong to prevent women from visiting its beaches in burkinis for similar cultural reasons?
[/QUOTE]

Yes, exactly. Again, it comes down to choice. In Saudi they are wrong to not allow women to make the choice to wear a bikinis (or drive or myriad other things) and in France they are wrong to ban women who CHOOSE to wear burkinis, if that’s what they want to do.

Of course … and it will be fine until the moment someone thinks you are being Muslim and then it is Not Fine

but if you are Catholic and have a catholiuc reason, ah then it is Tradition. And no one says anything…

It is pure religious bigotry.

That is complete bullshits.

It is completely of course anti muslim, as of course there is no actoin taken against catholic sisters wearing their garmets, nor the catholic priests

Nor in fact in real practice any catholic associated symbols in the private sphere.

No, it is only the religious minority that gets this kinds of attack, it is purely majoritarian bigotry grasping at pseudo justifications to try to put a burqa on the prejudice.

Yes, having a dress code at the beach is just like being stoned, caned, having your arms or legs chopped off, having your eyes gouged out and being beheaded. France is JUST LIKE Saudi Arabia!

:rolleyes: