Burkas in France

[Arawn-ap-Hywel]

and another twist on the same tale :-

French pool bans 'burkini' swim

BBC NEWS | Europe | French pool bans 'burkini' swim

French officials have banned a Muslim woman from swimming in a public pool while wearing a swimsuit that covers her entire body.

The woman had swum in July in the pool in Emerainville, east of Paris, in the "burkini" - a loose-fitting garment resembling a wetsuit with a hood.

But staff stopped her from swimming in August, citing hygiene concerns.

So are the French yet again correct in strong determination of what is chique and the items that are most definately not.

[The Bacon Guy]

Quote:
Now to address the argument 'it's the women's choice'.

Is it though, or is it something imposed on them by men in a deeply patriarchal society? People need to take a long hard look at how Wahabbism is practiced, in those countries where it is enforced by law. Women have virtually no rights or freedoms at all. In Saudi Arabia, a woman cannot drive a car. Women are not allowed in public unless accompanied by a male relative. If they are seen with a man who is not a relative, they are liable to be flogged. Rape victims, rather than the rapists, are often punished for 'fornication'. In the most notorious case, a 13-year-old rape victim was stoned to death in Somalia.

That is the background against which we must judge whether these women are freely partaking of this garb. Many of them do not even speak English - the menfolk discourage this as it keeps them dependant and unable to take part in wider civil society.

France =/= Saudi Arabia. Next.

Quote:
UK: Female Muslim doctors must remove veil
March 19, 2008 9:07 am

Female Muslim doctors must be prepared to remove their veil to treat patients effectively, under new guidelines issued yesterday.
Religious clothing must not present a barrier to building trust and communicating with patients, the General Medical Council said.

Doctors should be prepared to set aside personal and cultural preferences, advised the document, Personal Beliefs and Medical Practice.
The council also said doctors must be open about procedures they object to because of their beliefs, such as abortion.

No one said doctors working for the NHS, or for private practices which choose to ban it, should be allowed to wear the burka at work. Every job has a dress code. Still falls far short of banning the burka

Support for my argument that the burka impedes communication.

You don't have a right to be communicated with by every single person you happen across.

Guardian Unlimited | Archive Search

Extract: (Poly Toynbee)
Quote:
The pens sharpen - Islamophobia! No such thing. Primitive Middle Eastern religions (and most others) are much the same - Islam, Christianity and Judaism all define themselves through disgust for women's bodies. There are ritual baths, churching, shaving heads, denying abortion and contraception, arranged marriage, purdah, barring unclean women access to the altar, let alone the priesthood, letting men divorce but not women - all this perverted abhorrence of half the human race lies at the maggotty heart of religion, the defining creed in all the holy of holies.

Moderate, modernised believers may claim the true Bible/Koran does not demand such things. But it hardly matters how close these savage manifestations are to the words of the Prophet or Christ. All extreme fundamentalism plunges back into the dark ages by using the oppression of women (sometimes called "family values") as its talisman. Religions that thrive are pliable, morphing to suit changing needs: most Christianity has had to moderate to modernise. Islamic fundamentalism flourishes because it too suits modern needs very well in a developing world seeking an identity to defy the all-engulfing west.

And the burka and chador are its battle flags.

Just as the swastika was Hitler’s. Doesn’t mean banning the swastika would have changed anything.

One picture speaks a thousand words.

No it doesn’t.

Innocent people get arrested in the course of anti-terrorism operations - unfortunate, but inevitable by the nature of things if terrorism is to be countered.

The problem with both your arguments is that you recklessly assume that our peace and security won't be threatened if we adopt a passive stance... You aren't up against an 'enlightened' enemy, and all you will get for your pains are more bombings and contempt.

Same can be said for neglecting to ban rucksacks and jackets.

I agree that the burka is a relatively minor aspect of all this, but only a relative one. In the larger scheme of things its significance is that it highlights the West's over-eagerness to accommodate the intrusion of fundamentalist Islam into its midst, without requiring any concessions, even small ones, in return. This is seen as a signal of non-resistance by the terrorists

Prove it.

Tolerance simply isn't a word in their vocabulary, let alone one they respect, and the fact is, they see us in the West as fools to be intimidated and attacked at will.

So the West allowing women to choose freely whether they wear a certain item of clothing is the same as saying Islamic terrorists are free to kill people? I'd have thought all the laws against terrorism might have more of an impact.

All that is required is for us to treat the Muslims in our midst with all the consideration extended to everybody else, but to make it clear at the same time that certain cultural habits are incompatible with the customs and laws of the host country, especially ones that degrade women or mis-treat animals. And as the burka indisputably degrades women,

Again, degradation requires some emotional input from the degradee. The opinions of onlookers mean nothing if the woman herself doesn’t feel degraded. Her choice isn’t affecting them in any way.

(as educated women generally agree, as I have shown)

Uh, no. You’ve shown that three or four allegedly educated women would find it degrading if they were to wear it. Luckily they don’t have to so their opinions mean nothing.

Is that a burqa on the bedroom floor?

Three short extracts from an interesting article written by a LIBERTARIAN woman, Bacon.

Seems that it IS possible to be a Libertarian and despise the burka...

No one said it wasn’t. It’s impossible to be a libertarian and support banning the burka. Next strawman?

Re. Jewellery theft:
Concealed-Identity Theft: Want Bling in India? Leave Your Burqa at Home - SPIEGEL ONLINE - News - International

ps.

Shoplifting
A woman was caught on video in saudi arabia shop lifting at a mall. Police are looking for a female with brown eyes...

And More...

What’s your point? Two examples of burkas being used in crimes proves that they are a significant security threat?

Now, are you planning on responding to any of the posts addressed to you directly, or are you just going to keep posting other people's arguments? Some would call that spam. At the very least it's discourteous to make no effort whatsoever in responding to someone.

[grandpa]

France =/= Saudi Arabia.

Well, in a way:
"The Saudi government last week agreed to purchase a total of 142 helicopters from France, in a deal that will modernize its military helicopter fleet at a single stroke and that, together with additional contracts to follow, firmly establishes France as the kingdom’s main weapons supplier....
French companies, along with contractors from China, Russia, the UK and
the US, will compete for Saudi Arabia's Miksa program, an ambitious
border control network comprising up to 225 radar stations to monitor
the kingdom's ground borders, coasts and airspace. While this was
negotiated directly with France's Thales Group for several years,
Saudi Arabia earlier this year decided to launch a competition;
responses to its Request for Information are due in late August, to be
followed by a Request for Proposals with a deadline of late December.
The project's value is estimated at 7 billion euros."
Saudi Arabia Launches Huge Arms Buying Spree; France to Net Most Orders

Another example of hypocrisy at its very finest. I mean, this stuff never ceases to amaze me.

Grandpa h.

[GeminiBrian]

Now, are you planning on responding to any of the posts addressed to you directly, or are you just going to keep posting other people's arguments? Some would call that spam. At the very least it's discourteous to make no effort whatsoever in responding to someone.

Since when were quotes irrelevant?

I think a lot more research, thinking and effort go into my posts than go into your sparse, dismissive, automatic-pilot responses Bacon. As always, you always pick and choose the points you think you can win, and completely disregard everything else. . . for instance, you have all but ignored the viciously sexist aspect I keep drawing your attention to.

That is far more lazy and discourteous in my book.

[The Bacon Guy]

Since when were quotes irrelevant?

Quotes may not be, but the ones you have posted are. You had already made all of the points made in these quotes yourself, and I have responded to them in some detail already. If you want more detailed responses, read over the posts you've negleted to respond to.

I think a lot more research, thinking and effort go into my posts than go into your sparse, dismissive, automatic-pilot responses Bacon.

I don't see where intellectual effort comes into googling something then copying and pasting the results.

As always, you always pick and choose the points you think you can win, and completely disregard everything else. . .

Actually, if we're keeping count, I respond to every post you make. You, on the other hand, have disregarded countless posts in this thread and others.

for instance, you have all but ignored the viciously sexist aspect I keep drawing your attention to.

I’ve not ignored it; I’ve asked what banning the burka would do to counter this sexist minset, You have failed to answer numerous times.

[barnhardt2010]

Ok, no burkas if you guys promise no more assless leather chaps.

[GeminiBrian]

Ok, no burkas if you guys promise no more assless leather chaps.

More your secret taste in clothing than mine, I suspect.

[GeminiBrian]

[QUOTE]

Quotes may not be, but the ones you have posted are. You had already made all of the points made in these quotes yourself, and I have responded to them in some detail already. If you want more detailed responses, read over the posts you've negleted to respond to.

If I've already made all these points myself I fail to see how you can call me intellectually lazy. . . and I assure you that there is not a single post of yours that I haven't read. I may have decided not to answer them for two reasons -- a/ I hate to repeat the same argument and -- b/ my heart sinks at your sheer arrogance and personal remarks, so bad at times it takes my breath away. Why should I answer that?

I don't see where intellectual effort comes into googling something then copying and pasting the results.

It broadens the debate: besides, the fact that people whose views are widely respected have a similar difficulty to mine re the social significance of the burka, and especially how negative it is for women, lends support my argument that it qualifies as a phenomenon that is not easily defended by your sort of stock, legalistic answers. Such quotes highlight the profound humanistic complexity of the issue in a way that usually escapes you.

Actually, if we're keeping count, I respond to every post you make. You, on the other hand, have disregarded countless posts in this thread and others.

Like I said - try not being so gratuitously offensive. My views might struggle for expression at times due to the complexity I just mentioned, and you are not interested in a creative exploration of the multiple factors involved, only black and white retorts. That's not my style, sorry.

[Primum non nocere]

Really, really the only question we need to ask ourselves is if we should tolerate sexism, racism, and bigoty just because its CLOAKED in religious values or content? Any religion or culture that makes use of said discrimitory values is not one worth having, nor one deserving of the freedom to practice it.

[The Bacon Guy]

If I've already made all these points myself I fail to see how you can call me intellectually lazy. . .

Because you fail to address my responses to these points. Instead you turn up a few pages later making the exact same points in the guise of new material.

and I assure you that there is not a single post of yours that I haven't read. I may have decided not to answer them for two reasons -- a/ I hate to repeat the same argument and -- b/ my heart sinks at your sheer arrogance and personal remarks, so bad at times it takes my breath away. Why should I answer that?

Because it's a debate forum and things don't get resolved if you ignore arguments.

It broadens the debate: besides, the fact that people whose views are widely respected have a similar difficulty to mine re the social significance of the burka, and especially how negative it is for women, lends support my argument that it qualifies as a phenomenon that is not easily defended by your sort of stock, legalistic answers. Such quotes highlight the profound humanistic complexity of the issue in a way that usually escapes you.

No they don't. Three or four people agreeing with you, without offering anything new of substance, does not lend support to your argument.

Like I said - try not being so gratuitously offensive. My views might struggle for expression at times due to the complexity I just mentioned, and you are not interested in a creative exploration of the multiple factors involved,

I'm perfectly willing to explore these if you'd only explain clearly what they are. Simply saying things like "Wider social context" and "Multiple factors" and "profound humanistic complexity" mean absolutely nothing if you don't define and explain the terms.

Really, really the only question we need to ask ourselves is if we should tolerate sexism, racism, and bigoty just because its CLOAKED in religious values or content? Any religion or culture that makes use of said discrimitory values is not one worth having, nor one deserving of the freedom to practice it.

While you may see the burka as a symbol of sexism, it's certainly not the cause of sexism. Banning it isn't going to affect any of these values you feel are so unwelcome in our society.

[Primum non nocere]

While you may see the burka as a symbol of sexism, it's certainly not the cause of sexism. Banning it isn't going to affect any of these values you feel are so unwelcome in our society.

No one said it was the cause of sexism, it certainally fuels the fire though. Banning it would show that we cannot tolerate these sort of things especially when their right in front of our faces.

[The Bacon Guy]

No one said it was the cause of sexism, it certainally fuels the fire though.

In what way?

Banning it would show that we cannot tolerate these sort of things especially when their right in front of our faces.

To whom would it show this?