Man harpooned during burkini race riot in Corsica

[Emperor Arcturus Mengsk]

This is disgraceful and sad. All this will achieve is that those women now can't go to the beach. So who is really oppressing women? The French authorities have decided that they can force women what to wear. Do you know what that reminds me of? The Taliban. This is a dark day for Europe and a dark day for the very idea of liberty, which France was founded upon: liberté, égalité, fraternité. This is not liberty, this is fascism.

Fascism: an authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government and social organization. (in general use) extreme right-wing, authoritarian, or intolerant views or practices.
Intolerant: not tolerant of views, beliefs, or behaviour that differ from one's own.

Taken to its logical conclusion, the mentality behind this ban will send Europe back to the Dark Ages.

The thing is European men don't want to go to the beach with the fear of getting ..."harpooned"..., because they were unlucky enough a covered up woman happened to be in their field of view either.

And you can't say it's not a legitimate fear, because apparently it can happen...

Young men especially in Europe often go to the beach with the sole goal of checking out women, and in a free country like France it's unacceptable to have women that you can't look or else. Isn't that the entire point of the Burqini anyway? To cover the woman so our infidel eyes won't spoil her?

If they are covered and we still can't look at them or include them in pictures then what's the point of them being in public?

This whole thing in general is completely absurd..

[Gäiten]

You might get the Impression that the Barbary pirates are active again.

[VINC.XXIII]

My house my rules. What if a western woman visits the an Islamic country? Don't they have to follow their rules?
This culture is a cancer

I know by advance the answer they will give you: expatriates living as Europeans in muslim countries. However, we have to keep in mind that proportions and quality matters. To have 50 000 high status/medium-class Europeans in such or such petro-monarchy or a maghrebian country(51 109 french peoples in Morocco e.g) is different from millions and millions of... well...they want you to believe that such guys will become Nobel Prizes. One day, Francis Huster(show bizz guy disconnected from reality) said in a public debate something like "There are future Montaigne within migrants..."

Nobody can buy it, thats neither future Montaigne, nor future Victor Hugo, and none Nobel Prizes will emerge from them. Thats the life.

[bigdaddy1204]

The umpteeth attempt to sell your House of Wisdom and other Andalusian Dream...its reminds me a sale representative who wanted to sell gardening tools to a granny who lived in an appartment block.

Yeah, its fascism, its bigoted, its back to Dark Ages, but thats also our home, now take back your oriental carpets nobody want it its just won't match with the Louis XV chest.

Why make this personal? Why make it about me? Can't you discuss an issue without making ad hominem attacks? Is that the best you can do? Is it because you don't have any logical argument so you resort to a childish strategy of insulting the other person?

So you're concerned about your home being changed in a way you don't like, that is a good topic for a discussion. You want to protect your home, that sounds fair. I think here the issue is really two things:

1. Immigration
2. Globalisation

AFAIK, the immigration to France goes back to the 50s and 60s but has continued ever since. This has changed the population, especially in some areas. I went to Paris last year and when I came out at Place d'Italie subway, I couldn't find any white French people. Everyone was either black African or Arabic. Some people probably don't like that; it's racism, but science says it's also human nature to dislike other races. (unfortunately). There could probably be a whole topic of discussion about integration of immigrants into the society. I don't know enough about France to comment, but I do know that in the UK there are different results depending on who is coming: Indian people have integrated successfully and achieved high professional and economic status. However, Pakistani people have ended up in the bottom part of society and in some places didn't integrate successfully at all; instead they made their own areas, which is causing conflict with the local people. It can be said immigration has failed in such cases.

I think issue 2. is quite important, because there is a single thread which is shared in common by many of the political debates today, and this is globalisation. Donald Trump is a reaction against Globalisation; so is the Brexit referendum and many other examples of populist politics and alternatives to the mainstream. Globalisation has changed countries and economic systems in a way which many people find uncomfortable. I think that unless the benefits of globalisation are more equally shared and unless vested interests are challenged, the world is going to see more problems caused by economic dislocation, political conflict and potentially voter rebellion against the establishment.

My house my rules. What if a western woman visits the an Islamic country? Don't they have to follow their rules?
This culture is a cancer

Yes they do.
I think intolerance in all its forms is a cancer. Westerners who become intolerant become no different from Wahhabists and other extreme ideologies. Ironic doesn't even begin to describe it. If you don't like something but start doing it yourself, it would make you a hypocrite.

The thing is European men don't want to go to the beach with the fear of getting ..."harpooned"..., because they were unlucky enough a covered up woman happened to be in their field of view either.

And you can't say it's not a legitimate fear, because apparently it can happen...

Young men especially in Europe often go to the beach with the sole goal of checking out women, and in a free country like France it's unacceptable to have women that you can't look or else. Isn't that the entire point of the Burqini anyway? To cover the woman so our infidel eyes won't spoil her?

If they are covered and we still can't look at them or include them in pictures then what's the point of them being in public?

This whole thing in general is completely absurd..

This is the most chauvinistic sexist post I have seen on the forums. Women do not exist solely so that you can stare at them. Women are not just a piece of meat that exists for your enjoyment. They are human beings.

[caratacus]

The thing is European men don't want to go to the beach with the fear of getting ..."harpooned"..., because they were unlucky enough a covered up woman happened to be in their field of view either.

And you can't say it's not a legitimate fear, because apparently it can happen...

Young men especially in Europe often go to the beach with the sole goal of checking out women, and in a free country like France it's unacceptable to have women that you can't look or else. Isn't that the entire point of the Burqini anyway? To cover the woman so our infidel eyes won't spoil her?

If they are covered and we still can't look at them or include them in pictures then what's the point of them being in public?

This whole thing in general is completely absurd..

Indeed, most Europeans would agree that it is absurd, but should it be banned!? Or more to the point, is banning it going to undermine the motives behind it, or just cause anger, resentment and division.

The incident on Corsica was about a group of three families of North African origin (I note the media aren't calling them French) using violence and weapons in a dispute about privacy. Had this dispute been simply a heated exchange of words, as it would normally, then no riot would have taken place. The state's priority, should be the maintenace of law and order and not administering a dress code. Everyone should be free to enjoy public beaches without fear of abuse, intimidation or violence.

In China, ladies enjoy the beach but wear masks to preserve their fair complexions. Given the increasing evidence of the dangers of exposure to strong sunlight the "Facekini" might become more common sight on European beaches. Might these also be banned I wonder. The issues run far deeper than what a muslim woman wears to a beach. Banning the "Burkini" is a populist reaction by politicians to these.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/purewo...b_7887162.html

[Emperor Arcturus Mengsk]

Well the look is horrific if you want my opinion

But anyway I'm not saying the ban is going to solve anything. But it works like the Swastika ban, the swastika was and is a symbol with a lot of meanings, but Hitler managed to destroy the symbol, perhaps for ever, at least in Europe, I hear it's quite popular in India.

The same applies to Muslim or should I say middle eastern clothing, a few terrorists have managed to destroy the reputation of people who choose to dress similar as they do, at least in Europe. ( The actions of these african whatever men certainly doesn't help either)

This is the most chauvinistic sexist post I have seen on the forums. Women do not exist solely so that you can stare at them. Women are not just a piece of meat that exists for your enjoyment. They are human beings.

...I don't think you understood what I meant, but ok :p

[bigdaddy1204]

But anyway I'm not saying the ban is going to solve anything. But it works like the Swastika ban, the swastika was and is a symbol with a lot of meanings, but Hitler managed to destroy the symbol, perhaps for ever, at least in Europe, I hear it's quite popular in India.

The same applies to Muslim or should I say middle eastern clothing, a few terrorists have managed to destroy the reputation of people who choose to dress similar as they do, at least in Europe. ( The actions of these african whatever men certainly doesn't help either)

This is an interesting point, I think it's a bit of a fallacious comparison though. A swastika is an overt symbol of Nazi ideology. Whereas a burkini is a symbol of someone attempting to live in accordance with their conscience and be a good person. A woman wearing a burkini isn't advocating anything to other people; she's just trying to enjoy the beach in peace like anyone else. Whereas a person wearing a Swastika is basically openly calling for violence and genocide. You or I may disagree with the burkini on the grounds that it isn't required as a religious act, or on the grounds that it doesn't fit in, but frankly it's not our business what a woman wears. Unless you want to start implementing Taliban style dress codes, which is what the mayor of Cannes has already done. But that just makes France look like a hypocrite state that doesn't follow its own ideology.

[PointOfViewGun]

My house my rules. What if a western woman visits the an Islamic country? Don't they have to follow their rules?
This culture is a cancer

It's not really your house though. It's the house of the French citizens in general. You can be part of it but that doesn't mean you own everything based on your personal taste. It's France, and it's the rules set by the constitution of France. Does that cover basic human rights and freedoms? Do you claim to be a modern democratic country or not?

[neoptolemos]

In China, ladies enjoy the beach but wear masks to preserve their fair complexions. Given the increasing evidence of the dangers of exposure to strong sunlight the "Facekini" might become more common sight on European beaches. Might these also be banned I wonder. The issues run far deeper than what a muslim woman wears to a beach. Banning the "Burkini" is a populist reaction by politicians to these.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/purewo...b_7887162.html

You may also add people with known photosensitivity or solar light related problems that want to enjoy the sea and the beach.
Hence I don't think IMHO that banning of a certain beach clothing has any meaning at all.
If people want to wear them it's their choice so let them wear them.

[PointOfViewGun]

Same with if you're surfing or diving and wanna wear a wetsuit.

[Dr. Chet Manley]

It's not really your house though. It's the house of the French citizens in general. You can be part of it but that doesn't mean you own everything based on your personal taste. It's France, and it's the rules set by the constitution of France. Does that cover basic human rights and freedoms? Do you claim to be a modern democratic country or not?

I have serious doubts that muslim women follow the guidelines of that religion willingly.
It is the most repressing thing in the modern world, therefore it has no place in "my house".

[PointOfViewGun]

I have serious doubts that muslim women follow the guidelines of that religion willingly.
It is the most repressing thing in the modern world, therefore it has no place in "my house".

What do you base this doubt on?

What makes a burqa the most repressing thing in the modern world but a miniskirt is ok?

[mishkin]

I have serious doubts that muslim women follow the guidelines of that religion willingly.
It is the most repressing thing in the modern world, therefore it has no place in "my house".

Our western world represses people and specially women in many ways daily. Moreover, this is not "your house", its the house of all its inhabitants (muslims included) and a house that can only be proud to enact things like respect and tolerance.

[Yayattasa]

I have serious doubts that muslim women follow the guidelines of that religion willingly.
It is the most repressing thing in the modern world, therefore it has no place in "my house".

You list your location as London, what the are you talking about?

[Svaamp]

Regarding the Burqa, most of if not all of the female Bosnian muslims that I know (and know off) does not cover themselves. The true extent of their faith may be up for debate, they do however refrain from eating pork. Which I suppose is a left-over from their culture rather than faith. Honestly I don't know I haven't actually asked them about why they don't. The fact of the matter is, when Sethek says that the Burqa is not something all muslim women wear, he is right. Niqabs and scarfs or other head-wear are more common (still not that common). More often than not the people wearing them seems to be middle-eastern (once again I have not asked them why they wear it or where they are from). You do see Burqas every now and then, but they are rare enough that they catch your eyes.

That being said. While the Burqa isn't a religious piece of clothing it is certainly seen as such by many "westerners". Which might render the argument moot.

Regarding the topic however, wouldn't the issue with this entire thing be the maghrebian cultural response rather than the Burkinis? The burkini ban certainly is in poor taste but I fail to see its connection with the response by the woman's family (since the situation did not arise from a fine). It feels like the entire situation could have been resolved by an apology and the removal of the picture rather than harpoons and baseball bats. Which begs the question, why did it escalate to such a degree?

[squirel]

Regarding the Burqa, most of if not all of the female Bosnian muslims that I know (and know off) does not cover themselves. The true extent of their faith may be up for debate, they do however refrain from eating pork. Which I suppose is a left-over from their culture rather than faith. Honestly I don't know I haven't actually asked them about why they don't. The fact of the matter is, when Sethek says that the Burqa is not something all muslim women wear, he is right. Niqabs and scarfs or other head-wear are more common (still not that common). More often than not the people wearing them seems to be middle-eastern (once again I have not asked them why they wear it or where they are from). You do see Burqas every now and then, but they are rare enough that they catch your eyes.

That being said. While the Burqa isn't a religious piece of clothing it is certainly seen as such by many "westerners". Which might render the argument moot.

Regarding the topic however, wouldn't the issue with this entire thing be the maghrebian cultural response rather than the Burkinis? The burkini ban certainly is in poor taste but I fail to see its connection with the response by the woman's family (since the situation did not arise from a fine). It feels like the entire situation could have been resolved by an apology and the removal of the picture rather than harpoons and baseball bats. Which begs the question, why did it escalate to such a degree?

Well yes, as I have seen it described, the tourist seems dumb which does not justify the other sides reaction. And yes, burqa is worn by a small minority and does not origin in religion.

What I dont understand is, why dont france ban hijab full stop ? why only ban the water version of it ?

Skickat från min Nexus 6 via Tapatalk

[squirel]

The thing is European men don't want to go to the beach with the fear of getting ..."harpooned"..., because they were unlucky enough a covered up woman happened to be in their field of view either.

And you can't say it's not a legitimate fear, because apparently it can happen...

Young men especially in Europe often go to the beach with the sole goal of checking out women, and in a free country like France it's unacceptable to have women that you can't look or else. Isn't that the entire point of the Burqini anyway? To cover the woman so our infidel eyes won't spoil her?

If they are covered and we still can't look at them or include them in pictures then what's the point of them being in public?

This whole thing in general is completely absurd..

So you are saying that these "young men" has the right to see any woman they want ? And you seem obsessed with "infidel" it is not even related to that.

So you are saying that you have no business being in public than for other people to see you ? interesting...

[Mithradates]

It feels like the entire situation could have been resolved by an apology and the removal of the picture rather than harpoons and baseball bats. Which begs the question, why did it escalate to such a degree?

Not all people is willing to humiliate themselves by apologising when they did nothing wrong.

in the UK there are different results depending on who is coming: Indian people have integrated successfully and achieved high professional and economic status. However, Pakistani people have ended up in the bottom part of society and in some places didn't integrate successfully at all; instead they made their own areas, which is causing conflict with the local people. It can be said immigration has failed in such cases.

UK Indians = 14% muslim
UK Pakistanis = 90%+ muslim

[caratacus]

Hence I don't think IMHO that banning of a certain beach clothing has any meaning at all.
If people want to wear them it's their choice so let them wear them.

The issue though, is that they don't actually choose to wear them as a fasion statement or health reasons, but rather that if they don't, others within their religious community will judge them. In fact this judgement of character may often extend to physical abuse. Given that the men amongst that group of North Africans in Corsica, were so quick to resort to physical violence against locals. Would it be at all surprising if physical harm was not a dominant factor, rather than criticism if you choose to remain uncovered.

However, banning the use of Burkinis, is more likely to lead to these woman becoming more culturally isolated and not visiting the beach, than wearing something more conventional. The ban may seek to prevent further conflict on France's beaches. It does not look to protect muslim women from physical and verbal abuse within their own communities or bridge the social and cultural gap.

[Mithradates]

The banning of the burkinis is just the beginning, France starts to get serious on the non-integrated muslims issue, more bans and restrictions will follow.