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

[Olerand]

Yes, we all do it. I believe you and I have had this discussion before, or someone else and I. All laws are subjective, even in the objective English-speaking world. Our laws are subjective, Germany's laws are subjective, Britain's laws are subjective, America's laws are subjective, everyone's laws are subjective. We all have an image of our nation, and we make our laws to reflect that image. Now, you might find yourself in a nation that does not share your image, and then you should find your personal growth somewhere more similar to your views. I find America against many of my views, and thus I visit it often for professional reasons, but do not live there. Women who want the niqab, burqa, burkini, etc. are more than welcome to do the same to France.

Yeah, we have had this discussion before. I just don't see the point in oppressing women who want to self hate themselves. Maybe it just comes down to the fact that we have very different values? Doesn't sound like a debate I want to have, honestly. So have fun in striving for your utopia, I guess.

Wonderful, we will.

By seeking to fight what oppresses them? No, I don't see it. No more than allowing Christian women contraception or any woman the right to work harms them either. We are trying to make them men's equals, even men of their own religions, hopefully in the eyes (or maybe even irrespective) of God himself.

The problem is that some Muslim women may choose to wear such garments as a display of faith or just because they like it, and banning them deprives them of that option. Should they be forced to wear it? No. Should they have the right to do so if they wish? Why the hell not?

My entire argument is that this isn't a choice, not one devoid of pressure, even latent ideological ones. If this wasn't mandated by the Ulama in some branches of Islam, no woman would choose to wear this in the heat of southern France.

Tourists took pictures, local children were taking selfies. The men responded with fists, a harpoon, and a machete. Who is at fault? The camera wielder, or the machete handler? A question for legal experts everywhere. Cameras are truly the 21st century's machete. Next time someone takes a photo of you you don't want, strike them with your machete, attempt to spear them with a harpoon. Argue that in court, you're guaranteed to win.

Who's at fault is, as far as I understand it, still being investigated. What is clear, however, is who is not at fault: The women dressed in burkinis. (If they even were dressed in burkinis, something which is still unconfirmed).

So we ask, was the guy with the camera at fault, or the guy who punched? And the answer is: Ban the woman's swimwear!
Because that makes sense!

And are those women being prosecuted? Charged? Criminally investigated? No. The issue of the burkini is being addressed, however. The prosecutor of Bastia has said that this was initiated by an attempt by the Muslim families on the beach to privatize the beach by preventing others from coming. Put up a sign, etc, all illegally of course. Those who came too close were threatened and yelled at. Source: http://www.leparisien.fr/faits-divers/corse-la-privatisation-de-la-plage-a-l-origine-des-incidents-a-sisco-selon-le-procureur-17-08-2016-6048517.php.

No, the reaction to this event and the burkini are separate. The women in this are not being charged with anything, the men with the harpoon and machete are. The burkini is being addressed separately, no woman involved here is being punished.

[Senkaku]

The only difference between a burkini and a full cover swimsuit is...

...

Well, there isn't any difference.

These are not banned, eh?
Speedo 2 Piece Full Bodysuit Swimsuit
Speedo 3 Piece Full Body Swimsuit

Wait, the difference is apparently that muslims wear burkinis, non-muslim wear full body swimsuits.

Yes, almost as if... context matters. But, that's right, what is context. Patriarchy, diving, same thing really.

So basically, let's ban this type of clothing for this specific group of people, because reasons.

[The balkens]

So...they attempted to privatize the beach and the locals got mad?

Seems justified to me.

[New haven america]

The camera wielder, he was invading other people's privacy.

And you're arguing that attempting to murder them with machetes and harpoons is an acceptable response then?

Because that's absolutely ridiculous.

No, I'm saying the the camera wielder shouldn't have been taking the pictures without the people's permission to begin with. That would've avoided the entire situation to begin with.

Does it give them an excuse for attempted murder? No. But they shouldn't have been taking those pictures.

Try being more thorough next time.

[Olerand]

Right... Because one is a fundamental right of women, rejected by many due to their religious beliefs. Another is a mandate placed on women by religious beliefs, negating their right to equality to men, who don't have to dress like this. Two things that are utterly different, exactly.

The majority of burqa-wearing Muslims living outside of the Middle East and North Africa probably wear burqas by choice.

Is this the result of a study or an analysis? And this continues to ignore my argument that devoid of religious pressure, no woman would choose this outfit. Almost as if my whole argument is that religion is not a carte blanche for oppression.

Tourists took pictures, local children were taking selfies. The men responded with fists, a harpoon, and a machete. Who is at fault? The camera wielder, or the machete handler? A question for legal experts everywhere. Cameras are truly the 21st century's machete. Next time someone takes a photo of you you don't want, strike them with your machete, attempt to spear them with a harpoon. Argue that in court, you're guaranteed to win.


Who's stopping French men from wearing dresses? If you want to, you can. We are the first nation in the world to remove transgendarism from the list of mental disorders anyway, not that all men who wear dresses are transgender, but just as a little factoid.

The camera wielder, he was invading other people's privacy.

Please stop trying to defend the stupid things your county's doing, it just makes you look silly.

........ Right... Saying that striking someone with a harpoon because they took a picture is not reasonable... But I'm being silly.

Yes, almost as if... context matters. But, that's right, what is context. Patriarchy, diving, same thing really.

Which then means that the ban is directed at a specific religion/culture, because you dislike that particular religion/culture. Which means you're a hypocrite, since it really means you're fine with the dress itself, just not the people who dress that way. And that's why the ban is bullshit.

Are my posts invisible? Did I not say this multiple times, that we are fighting misogyny, even when defended and advocated for by Islam? The entire history of laws passed by the French Third Republic are exactly this too, but directed at Catholicism.

[Olerand]

Yes, almost as if... context matters. But, that's right, what is context. Patriarchy, diving, same thing really.

So basically, let's ban this type of clothing for this specific group of people, because reasons.

Again, for the nth time, I am not for the banning outside of cases where it actually does cause unrest. And I believe French courts will strike these municipal bans down, probably except for that of Sisco's. My position is fighting the ideology behind the burkini, with no compromise.

[Galloism]

Society. You think a man who wears dresses won't face backlash, from his friends, family, etc, even in France?

That's delusional.

Under YOUR logic, we should ban pants for men. There's too much pressure for men to wear pants. They should only be allowed to wear dresses and skirts.

Come to France, wear a dress. Your family/friends/etc. will ask why, but I can tell you that even my Catholic parents will accept it. There will be no backlash, but plenty of raised eyebrows and questions, it is after all unusual. But do it, this might be the beginning of the men's version of the women wearing pants movement too. Wear dresses, there is a yearly event of schoolboys coming to school in skirts out here in the west too, and I believe everyone is still alive today.

Of course they're still alive - women who don't wear burkas in France are still alive too.

I didn't say you'd be killed. I said you'd face societal backlash.

[Galloism]

For my entire high school career, we had a day when we went to school in skirts in support of girls' rights. Still here. Not many women who refuse the veil when the pressure is amped up on them to wear it can say the same, unfortunately.

Oh this I gotta see a source of.

How many women, in France, who have refused to wear the burqa have been murdered?

With a source, if you would please.

[Olerand]

Come to France, wear a dress. Your family/friends/etc. will ask why, but I can tell you that even my Catholic parents will accept it. There will be no backlash, but plenty of raised eyebrows and questions, it is after all unusual. But do it, this might be the beginning of the men's version of the women wearing pants movement too. Wear dresses, there is a yearly event of schoolboys coming to school in skirts out here in the west too, and I believe everyone is still alive today.

Of course they're still alive - women who don't wear burkas in France are still alive too.

I didn't say you'd be killed. I said you'd face societal backlash.

You will most assuredly raise eyebrows. Might garner a few comments, but I am sure, outside of certain locals, you will face no physical threat. If this is a cause some men want to fight for, do it! Women fought to wear pants, and now they can. Fight for your right to wear a dress, I'm for that right, it's not illegal, and if society might find it odd then society will have to change.

If you are a man wearing a dress in modern France, you will raise eyebrows, garner some comments, in some particular locations you might elicit physical responses, but by and large, you will get by, and it will be illegal to discriminate against you.

[Gravlen]

Who's at fault is, as far as I understand it, still being investigated. What is clear, however, is who is not at fault: The women dressed in burkinis. (If they even were dressed in burkinis, something which is still unconfirmed).

So we ask, was the guy with the camera at fault, or the guy who punched? And the answer is: Ban the woman's swimwear!
Because that makes sense!

And are those women being prosecuted? Charged? Criminally investigated? No. The issue of the burkini is being addressed, however.

What issue? You still haven't - nor have the French authorities - shown that there is an issue with this garment.

The prosecutor of Bastia has said that this was initiated by an attempt by the Muslim families on the beach to privatize the beach by preventing others from coming. Put up a sign, etc, all illegally of course. Those who came too close were threatened and yelled at. Source: http://www.leparisien.fr/faits-divers/corse-la-privatisation-de-la-plage-a-l-origine-des-incidents-a-sisco-selon-le-procureur-17-08-2016-6048517.php.

So no issue which warrants the banning of the "burkini".

No, the reaction to this event and the burkini are separate. The women in this are not being charged with anything, the men with the harpoon and machete are. The burkini is being addressed separately, no woman involved here is being punished.

So the French mayor is a liar, and the ban is being imposed for no good reason. Understood. It's worse, but it's understood.

[New haven america]

The majority of burqa-wearing Muslims living outside of the Middle East and North Africa probably wear burqas by choice.

Is this the result of a study or an analysis? And this continues to ignore my argument that devoid of religious pressure, no woman would choose this outfit. Almost as if my whole argument is that religion is not a carte blanche for oppression.

The camera wielder, he was invading other people's privacy.

Please stop trying to defend the stupid things your county's doing, it just makes you look silly.

........ Right... Saying that striking someone with a harpoon because they took a picture is not reasonable... But I'm being silly.

Which then means that the ban is directed at a specific religion/culture, because you dislike that particular religion/culture. Which means you're a hypocrite, since it really means you're fine with the dress itself, just not the people who dress that way. And that's why the ban is bullshit.

Are my posts invisible? Did I not say this multiple times, that we are fighting misogyny, even when defended and advocated for by Islam? The entire history of laws passed by the French Third Republic are exactly this too, but directed at Catholicism.

You are being silly, I never said the attackers had the right to do what they did, however, it was the people taking pictures of other people without their permission that caused to confrontation, wasn't it?

Hence, it makes sense that the confrontation was their fault to begin with. Does it give the attackers an excuse to do what they did? No, but the camera wielder/wielders should've been using common sense and either A. Asked for permission to take the pictures, or B. They shouldn't been taking the pictures.

So yes, you are being rather illogical and dense with this situation.

[Galloism]

Of course they're still alive - women who don't wear burkas in France are still alive too.

I didn't say you'd be killed. I said you'd face societal backlash.

You will most assuredly raise eyebrows. Might garner a few comments, but I am sure, outside of certain locals, you will face no physical threat. If this is a cause some men want to fight for, do it! Women fought to wear pants, and now they can. Fight for your right to wear a dress, I'm for that right, it's not illegal, and if society might find it odd then society will have to change.

If you are a man wearing a dress in modern France, you will raise eyebrows, garner some comments, in some particular locations you might elicit physical responses, but by and large, you will get by, and it will be illegal to discriminate against you.

Isn't it illegal to discriminate against a woman who refuses to wear a burqa?

[Gravlen]

Which then means that the ban is directed at a specific religion/culture, because you dislike that particular religion/culture. Which means you're a hypocrite, since it really means you're fine with the dress itself, just not the people who dress that way. And that's why the ban is bullshit.

Are my posts invisible? Did I not say this multiple times, that we are fighting misogyny, even when defended and advocated for by Islam? The entire history of laws passed by the French Third Republic are exactly this too, but directed at Catholicism.

Oh no, I see what you're saying. You're fighting fire with fire - you're fighting misogyny with misogyny. As I said, you have to destroy the village in order to save it.

[Galloism]

Are my posts invisible? Did I not say this multiple times, that we are fighting misogyny, even when defended and advocated for by Islam? The entire history of laws passed by the French Third Republic are exactly this too, but directed at Catholicism.

Oh no, I see what you're saying. You're fighting fire with fire - you're fighting misogyny with misogyny. As I said, you have to destroy the village in order to save it.

I've always hated the expression 'fight fire with fire'.

[Gravlen]

So basically, let's ban this type of clothing for this specific group of people, because reasons.

Again, for the nth time, I am not for the banning outside of cases where it actually does cause unrest. And I believe French courts will strike these municipal bans down, probably except for that of Sisco's. My position is fighting the ideology behind the burkini, with no compromise.

Well, you have provided a source which showed that the burkini didn't cause unrest in Sisco. So...

[Olerand]

For my entire high school career, we had a day when we went to school in skirts in support of girls' rights. Still here. Not many women who refuse the veil when the pressure is amped up on them to wear it can say the same, unfortunately.

Oh this I gotta see a source of.

How many women, in France, who have refused to wear the burqa have been murdered?

With a source, if you would please.

http://france3-regions.francetvinfo.fr/pays-de-la-loire/2014/05/16/nantes-la-journee-de-la-jupe-affiche-son-succes-478395.html

An article about Nantes in 2015.

I believe this started in Bretagne in 2006, popularized by a good movie in 2009. That was the first year we did it in my bourgeois school in the west, and we did not do it for another year after some protests from some Catholic families, and did it for the final year again (lycée is three years in France).

[Gravlen]

Oh no, I see what you're saying. You're fighting fire with fire - you're fighting misogyny with misogyny. As I said, you have to destroy the village in order to save it.

I've always hated the expression 'fight fire with fire'.

You're more of a "Fighting bullshit with sewage" kind of guy?

[Galloism]

Oh this I gotta see a source of.

How many women, in France, who have refused to wear the burqa have been murdered?

With a source, if you would please.

http://france3-regions.francetvinfo.fr/pays-de-la-loire/2014/05/16/nantes-la-journee-de-la-jupe-affiche-son-succes-478395.html

An article about Nantes in 2015.

I believe this started in Bretagne in 2006, popularized by a good movie in 2009. That was the first year we did it in my bourgeois school in the west, and we did not do it for another year after some protests from some Catholic families, and did it for the final year again (lycée is three years in France).

That wasn't what I asked you for a source of.

[Galloism]

I've always hated the expression 'fight fire with fire'.

You're more of a "Fighting bullshit with sewage" kind of guy?

No, I hate it because we actually DO fight fire with fire. We set controlled fires to create fire breaks where everything's been burned out which (usually) stops the fire from spreading past that fire break.

[Olerand]

Come to France, wear a dress. Your family/friends/etc. will ask why, but I can tell you that even my Catholic parents will accept it. There will be no backlash, but plenty of raised eyebrows and questions, it is after all unusual. But do it, this might be the beginning of the men's version of the women wearing pants movement too. Wear dresses, there is a yearly event of schoolboys coming to school in skirts out here in the west too, and I believe everyone is still alive today.

Of course they're still alive - women who don't wear burkas in France are still alive too.

I didn't say you'd be killed. I said you'd face societal backlash.

Much more mild than not covering up in certain parts of France, but yes, I agree, you will face raised eyebrows and comments. A reaction that is mild, in comparison to women who wear certain clothing items (or don't wear them) in certain places in our country.

And are those women being prosecuted? Charged? Criminally investigated? No. The issue of the burkini is being addressed, however.

What issue? You still haven't - nor have the French authorities - shown that there is an issue with this garment.

The prosecutor of Bastia has said that this was initiated by an attempt by the Muslim families on the beach to privatize the beach by preventing others from coming. Put up a sign, etc, all illegally of course. Those who came too close were threatened and yelled at. Source: http://www.leparisien.fr/faits-divers/corse-la-privatisation-de-la-plage-a-l-origine-des-incidents-a-sisco-selon-le-procureur-17-08-2016-6048517.php.

So no issue which warrants the banning of the "burkini".

No, the reaction to this event and the burkini are separate. The women in this are not being charged with anything, the men with the harpoon and machete are. The burkini is being addressed separately, no woman involved here is being punished.

So the French mayor is a liar, and the ban is being imposed for no good reason. Understood. It's worse, but it's understood.

There is an issue in what it is. Again, the affair in Corsica brought this to light internationally, but this started in late July when Cannes first made the decision to ban.

Is this the result of a study or an analysis? And this continues to ignore my argument that devoid of religious pressure, no woman would choose this outfit. Almost as if my whole argument is that religion is not a carte blanche for oppression.


........ Right... Saying that striking someone with a harpoon because they took a picture is not reasonable... But I'm being silly.


Are my posts invisible? Did I not say this multiple times, that we are fighting misogyny, even when defended and advocated for by Islam? The entire history of laws passed by the French Third Republic are exactly this too, but directed at Catholicism.

You are being silly, I never said the attackers had the right to do what they did, however, it was the people taking pictures of other people without their permission that caused to confrontation, wasn't it?

Hence, it makes sense that the confrontation was their fault to begin with. Does it give the attackers an excuse to do what they did? No, but the camera wielder/wielders should've been using common sense and either A. Asked for permission to take the pictures, or B. They shouldn't been taking the pictures.

So yes, you are being rather illogical and dense with this situation.

No, no. When you take a picture of someone without their consent, it does not open up the possibility of a physical confrontation. Had it not escalated there, the people who took the picture would have been in the wrong. But it did escalate, and their faults are not the main faults anymore.

[Olerand]

You will most assuredly raise eyebrows. Might garner a few comments, but I am sure, outside of certain locals, you will face no physical threat. If this is a cause some men want to fight for, do it! Women fought to wear pants, and now they can. Fight for your right to wear a dress, I'm for that right, it's not illegal, and if society might find it odd then society will have to change.

If you are a man wearing a dress in modern France, you will raise eyebrows, garner some comments, in some particular locations you might elicit physical responses, but by and large, you will get by, and it will be illegal to discriminate against you.

Isn't it illegal to discriminate against a woman who refuses to wear a burqa?

It is illegal to pressure women into wearing them. That would probably cover discriminating against them too.

[Galloism]

Of course they're still alive - women who don't wear burkas in France are still alive too.

I didn't say you'd be killed. I said you'd face societal backlash.

Much more mild than not covering up in certain parts of France, but yes, I agree, you will face raised eyebrows and comments. A reaction that is mild, in comparison to women who wear certain clothing items (or don't wear them) in certain places in our country.

I really don't believe you that the reaction is milder than the reaction to a woman refusing to wear a burqa.

Isn't it illegal to discriminate against a woman who refuses to wear a burqa?

It is illegal to pressure women into wearing them. That would probably cover discriminating against them too.

So the more you talk, the more similar it becomes. Ban pants.

[Gravlen]

You're more of a "Fighting bullshit with sewage" kind of guy?

No, I hate it because we actually DO fight fire with fire. We set controlled fires to create fire breaks where everything's been burned out which (usually) stops the fire from spreading past that fire break.

That's true. Well, sometimes it's better to light a flamethrower than curse the darkness.

[Galloism]

No, I hate it because we actually DO fight fire with fire. We set controlled fires to create fire breaks where everything's been burned out which (usually) stops the fire from spreading past that fire break.

That's true. Well, sometimes it's better to light a flamethrower than curse the darkness.

I've never heard that expression before, and I'm not quite sure what it means, but I like it.

[Olerand]

Are my posts invisible? Did I not say this multiple times, that we are fighting misogyny, even when defended and advocated for by Islam? The entire history of laws passed by the French Third Republic are exactly this too, but directed at Catholicism.

Oh no, I see what you're saying. You're fighting fire with fire - you're fighting misogyny with misogyny. As I said, you have to destroy the village in order to save it.

Sure, if acknowledging and dealing with religious misogyny is misogynistic, we are. The ultimate results of our misogyny are fortunately better for women than the other side's. It's better to be a woman in France than in any Muslim country today.