To burkini or not burkini, that’s the question.

[Imperializt Russia]

Well, I don't know about France, but in the United States, laws can be illegal.

In the US, laws can be unconstitutional, but not illegal.

Being unconstitutional makes them illegal to have imposed.

[Jolthig]

Well, I don't know about France, but in the United States, laws can be illegal.

In the US, laws can be unconstitutional, but not illegal.

That statement kind of contradicts itself.

[Wallenburg]

Laws cannot be illegal, and officers are sworn to enforce the law.

Your argument is with the French courts, not me.

Of course laws can be illegal. Say that Nice imposed a law saying that, in light of the Nice attack, anyone in traditional Middle Eastern or otherwise "Muslim" dress were to be shot on sight.
Would you disagree that this local law was "illegal"?

Yes. The severity and despicability of a law has no bearing on its status as a law. Law cannot break the law.

[Galloism]

Well, I don't know about France, but in the United States, laws can be illegal.

In the US, laws can be unconstitutional, but not illegal.

Unconstitutional is a form of illegal, but even discounting that, laws can be illegal too - when a state or local law disagrees with a federal law or regulation, then that state or local law is illegal and set aside.

[Wallenburg]

In the US, laws can be unconstitutional, but not illegal.

That statement kind of contradicts itself.

http://politics.stackexchange.com/quest ... titutional

Generally speaking, in the U.S. actions are said to be "illegal" whereas laws are said to be "unconstitutional." I think a confusion arises because in the U.S. the term "Constitution" (capital C) refers specifically to the written document, whereas in countries like the UK without such a document the term "constitution" (lowercase C) refers to the entire body of principles and laws that define the government. In the U.S., laws passed by Congress are not considered to be part of the Constitution; indeed, the Constitution places limits on the types of laws they can pass to begin with.

[Nariterrr]

That statement kind of contradicts itself.

http://politics.stackexchange.com/quest ... titutional

Generally speaking, in the U.S. actions are said to be "illegal" whereas laws are said to be "unconstitutional." I think a confusion arises because in the U.S. the term "Constitution" (capital C) refers specifically to the written document, whereas in countries like the UK without such a document the term "constitution" (lowercase C) refers to the entire body of principles and laws that define the government. In the U.S., laws passed by Congress are not considered to be part of the Constitution; indeed, the Constitution places limits on the types of laws they can pass to begin with.

Yeah, you cannot call a law 'illegal' because law sets legal precedence, but you can call it unconstitutional, because it would violate the Constitution, which takes precedence over all laws.

[Jolthig]

That statement kind of contradicts itself.

http://politics.stackexchange.com/quest ... titutional

Generally speaking, in the U.S. actions are said to be "illegal" whereas laws are said to be "unconstitutional." I think a confusion arises because in the U.S. the term "Constitution" (capital C) refers specifically to the written document, whereas in countries like the UK without such a document the term "constitution" (lowercase C) refers to the entire body of principles and laws that define the government. In the U.S., laws passed by Congress are not considered to be part of the Constitution; indeed, the Constitution places limits on the types of laws they can pass to begin with.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_St ... nstitution

The United States Constitution is the supreme law of the United States of America.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supremacy_Clause

No matter what the federal government or the states might wish to do, they have to stay within the boundaries of the Constitution. This makes the Supremacy Clause the cornerstone of the whole American political structure.

[Imperializt Russia]

Your argument is with the French courts, not me.

Of course laws can be illegal. Say that Nice imposed a law saying that, in light of the Nice attack, anyone in traditional Middle Eastern or otherwise "Muslim" dress were to be shot on sight.
Would you disagree that this local law was "illegal"?

Yes. The severity and despicability of a law has no bearing on its status as a law. Law cannot break the law.

Yes it can. Because France has international and national obligations to fair treatment, the rights of individuals and so forth. In order for a law like that to be legal, France has to remove half of its civil protections and withdraw from both the UN and the ECHR. And even then, not being a member of the UN doesn't mean one can ignore UN provisions.

[Nariterrr]

http://politics.stackexchange.com/quest ... titutional

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_St ... nstitution

The United States Constitution is the supreme law of the United States of America.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supremacy_Clause

No matter what the federal government or the states might wish to do, they have to stay within the boundaries of the Constitution. This makes the Supremacy Clause the cornerstone of the whole American political structure.

Again, that would make the law unconstitutional, not illegal.

[Galloism]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_St ... nstitution



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supremacy_Clause

Again, that would make the law unconstitutional, not illegal.

What is the constitution?

[Minoa]

I am a staunch supporter of secular governments, but I am fully confident that we do not have to tell people what not to wear in public just to achieve that. What matters the most is that the government nether endorses nor opposes any religion or faith group.

[Olerand]

And finally, as I predicted, this stupid issue dies, the Council of State has nullified the municipal bans.

The vast majority of the French left (outside of the Islamogauche of the far-left desperate for Muslim votes) have come out on the right side too, the bans are wrong and illegal, the burkini is a disgusting view of womanhood and women's cultural and societal position. Even Jean-Luc Mélenchon, the leader of the radical left has taken this position too.

This was ultimately an utter waste of time, but reading the Guardian and the NYT, it is good to see that we have presented this issue to the Anglo-Saxon public, who have mostly supported us and seen the hypocrisy of their publication's positions.

But mostly a waste of time.

[Imperializt Russia]

And finally, as I predicted, this stupid issue dies, the Council of State has nullified the municipal bans.

The vast majority of the French left (outside of the Islamogauche of the far-left desperate for Muslim votes) have come out on the right side too, the bans are wrong and illegal, the burkini is a disgusting view of womanhood and women's cultural and societal position. Even Jean-Luc Mélenchon, the leader of the radical left has taken this position too.

This was ultimately an utter waste of time, but reading the Guardian and the NYT, it is good to see that we have presented this issue to the Anglo-Saxon public, who have mostly supported us and seen the hypocrisy of their publication's positions.

But mostly a waste of time.

I'm really struggling to work out what your opinion on the matter is from this post. It seems highly contradictory.

[Olerand]

And finally, as I predicted, this stupid issue dies, the Council of State has nullified the municipal bans.

The vast majority of the French left (outside of the Islamogauche of the far-left desperate for Muslim votes) have come out on the right side too, the bans are wrong and illegal, the burkini is a disgusting view of womanhood and women's cultural and societal position. Even Jean-Luc Mélenchon, the leader of the radical left has taken this position too.

This was ultimately an utter waste of time, but reading the Guardian and the NYT, it is good to see that we have presented this issue to the Anglo-Saxon public, who have mostly supported us and seen the hypocrisy of their publication's positions.

But mostly a waste of time.

I'm really struggling to work out what your opinion on the matter is from this post. It seems highly contradictory.

The bans are illegal, as proven true, the burkini is a disgusting view of women and women's rights in modern France. We cannot ban it, we will not defend it.

[Gauthier]

I'm really struggling to work out what your opinion on the matter is from this post. It seems highly contradictory.

The bans are illegal, as proven true, the burkini is a disgusting view of women and women's rights in modern France. We cannot ban it, we will not defend it.

So you're sad the ban was overturned.

[Olerand]

The bans are illegal, as proven true, the burkini is a disgusting view of women and women's rights in modern France. We cannot ban it, we will not defend it.

So you're sad the ban was overturned.

And finally, as I predicted, this stupid issue dies, the Council of State has nullified the municipal bans.

The vast majority of the French left (outside of the Islamogauche of the far-left desperate for Muslim votes) have come out on the right side too, the bans are wrong and illegal, the burkini is a disgusting view of womanhood and women's cultural and societal position. Even Jean-Luc Mélenchon, the leader of the radical left has taken this position too.

This was ultimately an utter waste of time, but reading the Guardian and the NYT, it is good to see that we have presented this issue to the Anglo-Saxon public, who have mostly supported us and seen the hypocrisy of their publication's positions.

But mostly a waste of time.

[Aggicificicerous]

This was ultimately an utter waste of time, but reading the Guardian and the NYT, it is good to see that we have presented this issue to the Anglo-Saxon public, who have mostly supported us and seen the hypocrisy of their publication's positions.

Really? Most of the Anglo-Saxon public I've seen have been contemptuous of the ban and mocked France for even trying something so idiotic and contradictory.

[Equestria and Griffon]

Please disregard this.

[Olerand]

This was ultimately an utter waste of time, but reading the Guardian and the NYT, it is good to see that we have presented this issue to the Anglo-Saxon public, who have mostly supported us and seen the hypocrisy of their publication's positions.

Really? Most of the Anglo-Saxon public I've seen have been contemptuous of the ban and mocked France for even trying something so idiotic and contradictory.

Have you read the comments on the NYT ('s 10 and counting articles on this, you would think this is the issue of the summer, or that the Times are based in Paris and not NYC) and the Guardian's stupid "the burkini liberates me, I am a feminist who believes in the inherent sinfulness of women's bodies, hear me roar!" articles?

I see the public supporting us, the journalos/editors not. I care for neither, really, but it is good to see that the public in the English speaking world agrees with us, at least. Even the upvoted comments who decry the ban (as many of us do), make clear that the burkini is reprehensible, and not some Orwellian tool for women's liberation (as we do).

[Gauthier]

No.I would ban hillary through.(Also,this isn't baiting,this is my real opinion)

I WOULDNT BAN BURKINIS

Muslim women wear Hillary now?

[Gauthier]

Really? Most of the Anglo-Saxon public I've seen have been contemptuous of the ban and mocked France for even trying something so idiotic and contradictory.

Have you read the comments on the NYT ('s 10 and counting articles on this, you would think this is the issue of the summer, or that the Times are based in Paris and not NYC) and the Guardian's stupid "the burkini liberates me, I am a feminist who believes in the inherent sinfulness of women's bodies, hear me roar!" articles?

Just like how racial and sexual minorities reclaiming slurs aimed specifically at them are stupid. *nod*

[Imperializt Russia]

I'm really struggling to work out what your opinion on the matter is from this post. It seems highly contradictory.

The bans are illegal, as proven true, the burkini is a disgusting view of women and women's rights in modern France. We cannot ban it, we will not defend it.

This is built on the fundamental assumption that muslim women uniquely have no agency on account of being muslim women, and are forcibly dressed by patriarchs.

If this were true, do you think they'd bother going to the beach in the first place?

[Imperializt Russia]

Really? Most of the Anglo-Saxon public I've seen have been contemptuous of the ban and mocked France for even trying something so idiotic and contradictory.

Have you read the comments on the NYT ('s 10 and counting articles on this, you would think this is the issue of the summer, or that the Times are based in Paris and not NYC) and the Guardian's stupid "the burkini liberates me, I am a feminist who believes in the inherent sinfulness of women's bodies, hear me roar!" articles?

I see the public supporting us, the journalos/editors not. I care for neither, really, but it is good to see that the public in the English speaking world agrees with us, at least. Even the upvoted comments who decry the ban (as many of us do), make clear that the burkini is reprehensible, and not some Orwellian tool for women's liberation (as we do).

Comment sections are representative of nothing but the most extreme left and right wing views.

[Olerand]

Have you read the comments on the NYT ('s 10 and counting articles on this, you would think this is the issue of the summer, or that the Times are based in Paris and not NYC) and the Guardian's stupid "the burkini liberates me, I am a feminist who believes in the inherent sinfulness of women's bodies, hear me roar!" articles?

Just like how racial and sexual minorities reclaiming slurs aimed specifically at them are stupid. *nod*

Well, considering that the very purpose of these coverings is theologically that women's bodies are sinful, and that women themselves commit a sin towards God by having men look at them, I don't see how one can "reclaim" this idea. In fact, I've heard an attempt, like I've said before, on that stupid info-tainment show once hosted by whomever that guy is, when a woman said she wears the hijab to privatize her sexuality and have men listen to her intellect (and applauded of course, because that's so feminist, covering up to have men respect you, yay, you go girl!), but I found that argument lacking too, unfortunately.

I also don't quite understand the phenomenon of reclaiming words that were meant to denigrate a certain community by making them subhuman and making those words colloquial versions of referring to one another, I don't get that either. Those words would be punishable by law in France, and reclaiming them would be a little, difficult anyway, from this position.

[Aggicificicerous]

Really? Most of the Anglo-Saxon public I've seen have been contemptuous of the ban and mocked France for even trying something so idiotic and contradictory.

Have you read the comments on the NYT ('s 10 and counting articles on this, you would think this is the issue of the summer, or that the Times are based in Paris and not NYC) and the Guardian's stupid "the burkini liberates me, I am a feminist who believes in the inherent sinfulness of women's bodies, hear me roar!" articles?

I see the public supporting us, the journalos/editors not. I care for neither, really, but it is good to see that the public in the English speaking world agrees with us, at least. Even the upvoted comments who decry the ban (as many of us do), make clear that the burkini is reprehensible, and not some Orwellian tool for women's liberation (as we do).

Hanging out on media comments sections is your first problem. You might as well be sourcing Youtube comments. I would take a forum like reddit (where the ban was mostly opposed) as far more sacrosanct.

But then again, it's a moot point. Relying on popularity is generally an admission that your ideas don't have a logical basis.