Banning the Burqini...
Discussion
SilverSpur said:
This is the woman before the police turned up. Does anyone feel threatened by her? Doesn't look like it to me.
To me she's covering her modesty and protecting her skin. She isn't murdering anyone,
And yet three armed police feel the need to harass her? What is this, nazi Germany?
If you committed a driving offence in Nice (same area) I think the police who turn up to give you a few words of advice (or worse), will look exactly the same ...ie: armed.To me she's covering her modesty and protecting her skin. She isn't murdering anyone,
And yet three armed police feel the need to harass her? What is this, nazi Germany?
Would photos of you have appeared in the press, telling us the make of your car, etc?
The bits I've read about this, like 3 of the police aiming pepper spray at her face and other ludicrous suggestions, such as she said the 'racist' officers simply wanted to humiliate her in front of her children and other family members.
Looks like she was alone to me and the police 'strolled' down onto the beach.
All makes me feel this was a set up. Nice has a law now, like Cannes etc. You don't like it, don't do it.
Interestingly, the pics used are by a professional news agency. The pics in the Guardian say copyright 'provided by Guardian News'. Someone has made a mint out of these pics!
dandarez said:
All makes me feel this was a set up. Nice has a law now, like Cannes etc. You don't like it, don't do it.
Interestingly, the pics used are by a professional news agency. The pics in the Guardian say copyright 'provided by Guardian News'. Someone has made a mint out of these pics!
I hadn't thought of that but it could be correct.Interestingly, the pics used are by a professional news agency. The pics in the Guardian say copyright 'provided by Guardian News'. Someone has made a mint out of these pics!
I can understand someone taking photos once the coppers where in attendance but by before unless they were trying to "expose" the ridiculousness of this law.
If they have done then, then f
k 'em as it's done more harm than good.Andehh said:
I don't see why they don't use buy wet suits?
Because it's not the item of clothing. It's the reason it's being worn. e.g. "beachwear must be respectful of good public manners and the principle of secularism"If you were wearing a wetsuit to cover yourself for religious reasons, you'd be in breach of the law. If you were wearing it because the water is cold and you want to swim in it. That'd be ok.
Think of it like having a knife in public in the UK. It's totally legal, unless you do not have a legal reason for having it (part of a trade/legitimate hobby), then you'll be in a spot of bother.
So the physical item itself is not the issue. It's the purpose that's against the law.
(Not saying I agree with the law, but a lot of people seem totally confused about that aspect)
Munter said:
Think of it like having a knife in public in the UK. It's totally legal, unless you do not have a legal reason for having it (part of a trade/legitimate hobby), then you'll be in a spot of bother.
Or a cultural/religious reason, like kilt wearer or Sikh.King Arthur is also allowed to carry Excaliber due to religious reasons.
Munter said:
Because it's not the item of clothing. It's the reason it's being worn. e.g. "beachwear must be respectful of good public manners and the principle of secularism"
If you were wearing a wetsuit to cover yourself for religious reasons, you'd be in breach of the law. If you were wearing it because the water is cold and you want to swim in it. That'd be ok.
Think of it like having a knife in public in the UK. It's totally legal, unless you do not have a legal reason for having it (part of a trade/legitimate hobby), then you'll be in a spot of bother.
So the physical item itself is not the issue. It's the purpose that's against the law.
(Not saying I agree with the law, but a lot of people seem totally confused about that aspect)
The Burka is a cultural clothing item, not a religious clothing item, so I'm reliably told. No mention of it in the Koran or the requirement. If you were wearing a wetsuit to cover yourself for religious reasons, you'd be in breach of the law. If you were wearing it because the water is cold and you want to swim in it. That'd be ok.
Think of it like having a knife in public in the UK. It's totally legal, unless you do not have a legal reason for having it (part of a trade/legitimate hobby), then you'll be in a spot of bother.
So the physical item itself is not the issue. It's the purpose that's against the law.
(Not saying I agree with the law, but a lot of people seem totally confused about that aspect)
France, yet anther secular country that puts up Christmas lights and trees in its major cities in December.
SilverSpur said:
Munter said:
Because it's not the item of clothing. It's the reason it's being worn. e.g. "beachwear must be respectful of good public manners and the principle of secularism"
If you were wearing a wetsuit to cover yourself for religious reasons, you'd be in breach of the law. If you were wearing it because the water is cold and you want to swim in it. That'd be ok.
Think of it like having a knife in public in the UK. It's totally legal, unless you do not have a legal reason for having it (part of a trade/legitimate hobby), then you'll be in a spot of bother.
So the physical item itself is not the issue. It's the purpose that's against the law.
(Not saying I agree with the law, but a lot of people seem totally confused about that aspect)
The Burka is a cultural clothing item, not a religious clothing item, so I'm reliably told. No mention of it in the Koran or the requirement. If you were wearing a wetsuit to cover yourself for religious reasons, you'd be in breach of the law. If you were wearing it because the water is cold and you want to swim in it. That'd be ok.
Think of it like having a knife in public in the UK. It's totally legal, unless you do not have a legal reason for having it (part of a trade/legitimate hobby), then you'll be in a spot of bother.
So the physical item itself is not the issue. It's the purpose that's against the law.
(Not saying I agree with the law, but a lot of people seem totally confused about that aspect)
France, yet anther secular country that puts up Christmas lights and trees in its major cities in December.
After every Islamic attack we are told that islam is not the enemy - extreme Islam is.
We lock people up for having extremist views. Schools with a very narrow extreme religious syllabus and negative views on women are an issue and fall foul of regulators.
extremist Islam is the problem.
Women should dress modestly- how would you Interpret that ?
Dressing head to toe in black to go swimming when everybody else is in swimming gear seems quite extreme to me ?
Shorts and a t shirt ? Anything but a micro bikini would seem modest.
The burkini is taking dress modestly to the extreme and then some.
Extreme interpretation of their religious texts is either ok or it is not, it is not fair to either side to say it is ok but only for chapters 2,4 and 7.
Let them wear it, but let choudry out.
We lock people up for having extremist views. Schools with a very narrow extreme religious syllabus and negative views on women are an issue and fall foul of regulators.
extremist Islam is the problem.
Women should dress modestly- how would you Interpret that ?
Dressing head to toe in black to go swimming when everybody else is in swimming gear seems quite extreme to me ?
Shorts and a t shirt ? Anything but a micro bikini would seem modest.
The burkini is taking dress modestly to the extreme and then some.
Extreme interpretation of their religious texts is either ok or it is not, it is not fair to either side to say it is ok but only for chapters 2,4 and 7.
Let them wear it, but let choudry out.
Not sure why there's such a furore. The woman knew the law and chose to flaunt it. You can't blame the Nice French for the knee-jerk reaction of banning certain clothing after that awful terrorist attack. The new law is a bit unsubtle, but so is driving a lorry through hundreds of people.
del mar said:
Women should dress modestly- how would you Interpret that ?
Dressing head to toe in black to go swimming when everybody else is in swimming gear seems quite extreme to me ?
Shorts and a t shirt ? Anything but a micro bikini would seem modest.
The burkini is taking dress modestly to the extreme and then some.
Notwithstanding my misgivings about this particular series of events, are you seriously saying that this particular woman was dressed in an "extreme" manner?Dressing head to toe in black to go swimming when everybody else is in swimming gear seems quite extreme to me ?
Shorts and a t shirt ? Anything but a micro bikini would seem modest.
The burkini is taking dress modestly to the extreme and then some.
If she had a surfboard with her, would that be ok?
elster said:
Muntu said:
XitUp said:
All religions are stupid, but people are free to be stupid.
I am not convinced that I am the one who needs to get over something here. Introducing a strawman to the subject does not really add much TBHMuntu said:
Burqinis are mandatory for even non muslims in some UK swimming pools
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politic...
horpe sounds about right 
It's a few hours a week, get over it. Do you feel the same about mother and baby sessions/pensioners sessions/etc?http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politic...
Telegraph said:
British swimming pools are imposing Muslim dress codes in a move described as divisive by Labour MPs. UK councils running restricted swimming session for Muslims. Under the rules, swimmers – including non-Muslims – are barred from entering the pool in normal swimming attire. Instead they are told that they must comply with the "modest" code of dress required by Islamic custom, with women covered from the neck to the ankles and men, who swim separately, covered from the navel to the knees...
Croydon council in south London runs separate one-and-a half-hour swimming sessions for Muslim men and women every Saturday and Sunday at Thornton Heath Leisure Centre.
Swimmers were told last week on the centre's website that "during special Muslim sessions male costumes must cover the body from the navel to the knee and females must be covered from the neck to the ankles and wrists"
There are similar rules at Shorpe Leisure Centre, in North Lincolnshire, where "users must follow the required dress code for this session (T-shirts and shorts/leggings that cover below the knee)"...
SCroydon council in south London runs separate one-and-a half-hour swimming sessions for Muslim men and women every Saturday and Sunday at Thornton Heath Leisure Centre.
Swimmers were told last week on the centre's website that "during special Muslim sessions male costumes must cover the body from the navel to the knee and females must be covered from the neck to the ankles and wrists"
There are similar rules at S
horpe Leisure Centre, in North Lincolnshire, where "users must follow the required dress code for this session (T-shirts and shorts/leggings that cover below the knee)"...horpe sounds about right So I don't really see the problem with clothed sessions.
desolate said:
Notwithstanding my misgivings about this particular series of events, are you seriously saying that this particular woman was dressed in an "extreme" manner?
If she had a surfboard with her, would that be ok?
No if she had a surf board that would be gnarly not extreme !!!!!If she had a surfboard with her, would that be ok?
This is not about clothes, this is about Islamic extremism and interpretation.
The book says women should dress modestly, is this an extreme interpretation of modest yes I think it is. She is not wearing this because she is doing a sport, she is doing it because she has been brain washed into thinking this is how good Muslim women should dress.
The book makes reference to jihad and killing non Muslims, which a small percentage interpret that to mean In all circumstances wherever you find them. Do I think this is an extreme interpretation- yes I do. Again this is what these people have been brainwashed into thinking good Muslims should do.
Of course her dress is unlikely to want to kill people, but We either ban extremist interpretations or we don't.
del mar said:
No if she had a surf board that would be gnarly not extreme !!!!!
This is not about clothes, this is about Islamic extremism and interpretation.
The book says women should dress modestly, is this an extreme interpretation of modest yes I think it is. She is not wearing this because she is doing a sport, she is doing it because she has been brain washed into thinking this is how good Muslim women should dress.
The book makes reference to jihad and killing non Muslims, which a small percentage interpret that to mean In all circumstances wherever you find them. Do I think this is an extreme interpretation- yes I do. Again this is what these people have been brainwashed into thinking good Muslims should do.
Of course her dress is unlikely to want to kill people, but We either ban extremist interpretations or we don't.
OK I see your argument.This is not about clothes, this is about Islamic extremism and interpretation.
The book says women should dress modestly, is this an extreme interpretation of modest yes I think it is. She is not wearing this because she is doing a sport, she is doing it because she has been brain washed into thinking this is how good Muslim women should dress.
The book makes reference to jihad and killing non Muslims, which a small percentage interpret that to mean In all circumstances wherever you find them. Do I think this is an extreme interpretation- yes I do. Again this is what these people have been brainwashed into thinking good Muslims should do.
Of course her dress is unlikely to want to kill people, but We either ban extremist interpretations or we don't.
I just don't see how anyone could see what she is wearing as extreme. She didn't even have her face covered.
popeyewhite said:
You can't blame the Nice French for the knee-jerk reaction of banning certain clothing after that awful terrorist attack.
Oh, absolutely. Banning some clothing, in a knee-jerk reaction, as you put it, is perfectly reasonable. At the same time, perhaps it would be prudent to ban people with perma-tans driving vehicles. It's a nonsense reaction and deserves ridicule.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff