French Police force woman to remove clothes on beach

And this is neither a race nor an ideology issue. It's a totalitarian government forcing people to dress a certain way, even though the way they're already dressed is not vulgar or offensive in any way, issue. I don't understand how this even became a thing. It's a fucking style of swimsuit. Who the **** cares? Why does it matter? Why are people scrambling to defend blatant fascism?

France's real aggression against Muslims is couched within the country's foreign policy, whose application has frequently resulted in the reduction of Muslim-majority nations to beggar status. Libya and Syria are but two recent examples.

What's strange, though, is that here in OT I've seen far more outrage directed against the burkini ban than I've ever seen directed at France's role in the ruin of Libya.

So it was totally OK to reduce the African nation that boasted the highest standard of living on the continent to just another battlefield for Islamist warlords, but banning the burkini crossed a line, man.

:-/

I think it's because getting mad about the ruin of Libya would require at least reading something about, and having a basic understanding of international politics. But when you see police officers forcing women to remove their clothes in what it supposed to be a civilized nation, you don't need to know any specifics to know that that is disgusting and heinous authoritarianism, and any attempt to rationalize or defend it is equally disgusting and heinous.

What goes around comes around. Supporting an Islamic dress code is an ideology issue.

If major parties didn't address this perceptive issue by inaction like in the early 1930s, it would lead to stronger extreme right wing response.

While I disagree with banning particular clothing (apparently people with bathing caps and wetsuits are not subject to this ban) those cops were merely enforcing the law. All the scorn should lie with the politicians who made the law in the first place.

People should be allowed to wear what they wish so long as their faces remain uncovered (I can't just walk around wearing a balaclava at all times, it's unreasonable attire and obscures my identity). That said, I wish more Muslim women would start recognizing their faith's stranglehold on their sexuality.

Oh they only forced her to remove "some" of her clothes?

That's ok then

A religion that forces women to wear specific clothing where they get killed if they don't. Religious freedom ! And you call people dumb rofl.

There are Muslim women who wear the Hijab, Nijab, or even the Burqa. Likewise, there are Muslim women who don't wear anything to cover their head. Also, if you visit any conservative Christian countries (Armenia, Georgia) they will, for the most part, make you wear a modest scarf if entering a church but it depends. I don't agree with it but to assume that only Muslim countries force women to wear a scarf or whatever dress is false.

That said, you're confusing freedom of choice with being forced to do so. If a woman wants to cover her head, she is free to do so and likewise, if a woman chooses not to cover her head, she is also free to do so. That's what being free is, especially in the United States, Europe, some Arab States, and so on. Note, I didn't specify religious affiliation because, again, it's their choice.

Yes, I'm calling people dumb for supporting the ban and making idiotic statements like, "BUh BuH SAUDI ARABIA BANS CHURCHES AND FORCES ALL WOMEN TO WEAR BURQAS!" We're not Saudi Arabia. We shouldn't be like Saudi Arabia. It's like justifying being an asshole because another person is being an asshole. It's childish and idiotic. I don't know why this concept is hard to understand but then again, these forums are filled with faux patriots who lean on authoritarianism.

Well apparently they repealed the ban. Good, because it was silly to begin with.

"We're not Saudi Arabia. We shouldn't be like Saudi Arabia."

Can't you see the irony in those sentences? :-/

The very application of the principles of "freedom" and "tolerance" by which you hope to elevate "The West" above countries like Saudi Arabia is making Europe look more and more like Saudi Arabia with each passing year.

In the name "freedom" and "tolerance", Europe is expected to embrace an absurdly one-sided multiculturalism that entails rejecting its own cultural homogeneity (as though it were something to regard with shame and self-loathing) and accommodate every cultural idiosyncrasy that is being imported into Europe by the migrants. Allah forbid that the migrants adapt to the local customs! Let the locals chide themselves for their "intolerance" and adapt to the migrants instead!

And who are those migrants? They're the same people who embrace the Wahhabi doctrines that Saudi Arabia cultivates with its state-funded madrassas!

Banning the burkini may seem like a petty matter to you. But the mindset that insists on making provisions for burkini-wearers is the same mindset that has led to enclaves in once-liberal European cities where the police dare not venture and where Sharia law is the de facto law of the land.

No, banning the burkini won't place Europe on the same level as countries that stone women for reporting rape and push gay men off buildings for being gay. But sustaining one-way multiculturalism will eventually transform Europe into a place where women are stoned for reporting rape and where gay men are pushed off buildings for being gay.

Europeans have a lot to learn from Japan and apparently, it is automatically understood that if one visits or lives in Japan, he/she must learn and follow Japanese customs and tradition and foreigners do try their best. If one visits or lives in Europe though, European customs and traditions be damned go ahead do whatever you want. I see here a double standard.

P.S. The amount of Muslim refugees/migrants Japan accepts is just around less than 10 or 5 I think in a year. Take note, Europe. Don't forget that the Japanese government has ruled spying on all Muslims in Japan. It helps.

There are literally millions of women and girls in America who are not allowed to wear pants due to their Christian denomination.

When I was a Band Director in Kentucky, we had to order a special band Uniform because one of our female students was not allowed religiously to wear pants.

Ah, yes. Good parallel. And it gets, I think, to the heart of the disagreement: Children aside (who typically have to abide by the rules their parents set), can that really be considered a forced decision? There is no law stating that they must not wear pants. It is a choice made by them, just as adhering to their religion at large is a choice.

While some may consider that to be "like Saudi Arabia" in forcing women to wear certain clothing, it really isn't. It's just a social norm of a certain subsection of society that those individuals choose to follow.

Evidently you don't know how to read. Let me repeat myself: Freedom of choice. If a woman wishes to cover herself because of her religious convictions, she is free to do so. She can't force others to do so, nor should the government force her to cover/uncover herself, likewise she can't use her religious convictions to justify violence towards a group of people for any reason. This goes for anyone regardless of race, color, or creed.

What part don't you comprehend?

Also, assuming that all migrants are Wahhabist? Seriously? What the **** are you smoking? Have you met any Muslims in any of the Islamic countries or in your country? I have. It's a mix. You do have conservative Muslims and liberal Muslims who follow Islam in their own way that they see fit. Muslims aren't a hive mind. Also, most migrants are coming from North African and Middle Eastern countries that tend to have different forms of governments.

Why does it matter for you if a woman wishes to wear a burkini? How does it affect you personally?

Again, a government (or people of any type) forcing people to dress a certain way is, being straight/gay, or whatever is wrong.

"We should also spy on the Jews. I heard they're withholding money and are infiltrating our government with their communist socialist evils. I think the Nazis should do something about that too."

Lol that's your comeback? The US government has been reported to spy on its citizens going by the leak of Snowden. Spying is common within all governments. At least it is clear that Japan is watching Muslims very closely to avoid any chance of terrorism. Belgium seems to have no control at all in Molenbeek. This isn't restricted to Belgium. Some places within Europe have become lawless and in complete control by the Muslims. Police don't go to those places anymore.

It's cultural capitulation.

And cultural capitulation is a slippery slope that leads to cultural suicide.

• Today it's just tolerating a burkini.
• Before long it will be a mosque, built with tax-derived funds.
• Then there will be local "sharia" courts that are "just for Muslims".
• Next there must be inclusion of Islamic conservatives in parliament, because "parliament must be representative of the people" and, gosh, the percentage of Muslims is getting larger every year.
• Then national law will have to "adapt" to accommodate "Islamic values". First, the concessions will be minor and largely cosmetic. But as the percentage of Islamic conservatives in parliament grows to match changing demographics, the concessions will become ever grander.
• Eventually entire swathes of the host country are populated by people who never had any intention of being European or adopting European values.

The burkini apologists are like the poor fools holding the "Refugees Welcome" signs in this video:

• First we allowed religious freedom.
• Then we let women vote.
• Before long the gays will be sleeping with our children and marrying our dogs.
• Then national law will have to adapt to accommodate the cultists summoning Cthulhu.
• Eventually our pathetic human minds will be destroyed by our inability to comprehend the awesome power of the great old ones.

Islamic Sharia law calls for punishment or death for gays. You can't have both. Either you allow Sharia law within your borders to adhere to Islamic beliefs thereby stripping the rights of LGBT and women for the sake of religious freedom or keep egalitarian and LGBT rights and ban Sharia law. There's no other way around it.

The bible also says that gays should be killed yet these countries that allow Christianity don't allow Christians to kill gays. Why do you assume religious freedom means being allowed to kill gay people?

Also you can't have libertarianism and a government that controls what religions you can or can't follow. What you want is authoritarianism

I got it wrong. Was meant to say "egalitarian" not libertarian. But anyway, that's the point. Islamic sharia law is a form of governing people and can be closely considered a form of authoritarianism which is why it should be banned in Europe. It is simply contradictory to the values, traditions, customs, and norms of the European people including the law of the land. Why do I assume religious freedom means being allowed to kill gay people? Well the question you should ask is why do Muslims adhere to Sharia law and want to "implement" it in Europe? Because that is what's happening within Muslim communities in Europe. And they use religious freedom as means of achieving this.

About Christianity, it may be written in the Bible but who cares? Does any Christian care? Is there actually quite a number of Christians who want to follow all of the Bible to the death? No. Do you see any Spanish Inquisition style of organization in Europe? No. Europe went through Renaissance.

So I'm assuming that quite a few people here wouldn't be in favor of France's new statue?

Religious freedom actually means Sharia law can't become national law as that would infringe on the religious freedom of non-Muslims. If a Muslim wants to follow sharia law and doesn't break any national laws, how is that any different to a christian following biblical law and not breaking any national laws?

Also again egalitarianism is not the correct word as personal and political freedoms such as freedom of religion are a important part of that. I already told you the word you're looking for, it's "authoritarianism"

france's highest court has overturned the burkini ban on the beaches of at least one town. precedent has been set to potentially overturn the ban countrywide.

this is literally a case of mayors/local government not liking the laws of the country they themselves live in. and then making laws that conflict with their own country's.

perhaps the mayors of these towns should leave france.

@lordlors:

who are you to decide what european values, traditions, customs and norms are?

the values, traditions, customs, and norms of the European people including the law of the land are being continuously changed since europe was settled, especially since western europe became democratic nation-states.

the whole point of a democracy is that people can choose for themselves.

why don't we take european laws back to those during the 18th century? why not the 15th or the 10th? how about when europe was first settled, by african hunter-gatherers?

@Kh1ndjal: Do you support the burka ban on beaches? For safety in a crowd of course. Also, do you support the burka ban for all areas in a country?

@iandizion713: irrelevant. The ban was never about safety.

It was created for safeguarding the secular values of the French state or some other nonsense. Safety was never even implied.

@Kh1ndjal: I know that, im asking do you support banning the burka in public areas.

@iandizion713: still irrelevant. It does not matter what I personally support.

I have no intention of giving you ammunition to make personal attacks.

You're wholeheartedly welcome to criticize my opinion.

These women should be admired for their modesty.

@Kh1ndjal: Thats fine, i was just wondering. I support the burka ban in public places.

@iandizion713: this thread is about the burkini ban on beaches.

It's not about a burka ban in public places...

@Kh1ndjal: Yeah, when i first read this thing i thought they were banning burkas and making them wear a tighter more visible version. I didnt know the burkini was the one being banned. So i was wondering what people felt about the burka. I actually like the burkini, would be cool to see them in USA, ive never seen one. They just wear regular burka at beach where i live.

But we must have different ones, cause our burka people dress just like some Hindu do here. I see many all the time but i have never seen one cover their face.

@iandizion713: the burka, as a full face covering, is a whole another topic.

The burkini is just a looser full body swimsuit that doesn't cover the face.

Democracy is where the majority wins. It is not about people choosing for themselves. People choosing for themselves alone, that's libertarianism close to anarchy. Just imagine a Brexit referendum style being done for every law being presented with smartphones as a way to vote yes or no. That would be pure democracy and it will be pure chaos. This is why there is no pure democracy.

Traditions, customs, etc. change yes but not to the point that it is completely changed in a blink of an eye. It takes time for these things to change and the way they normally change is not through being forced to change something. It is through small but significant interactions with people from other lands. If you do not ban Sharia law, that is equivalent to forcing the citizens to accept and follow Spanish Inquisition-style of laws. That would be taking European laws back to the Medieval Ages. So yes allow Sharia law into European lands if you want Europe to go back to the Medieval Ages. Do you honestly know what Sharia law is? Sharia law is about how to govern people that's why there's a word "law" in it but since only Muslims follow it and some Muslims are using religious freedom to try to implement it in Europe, it is similar to imposing the laws of your native land to a foreign one. Tell me, for the sake of your ill-informed democracy, the Muslims have the right to impose their laws on European lands because current traditions, values, etc. will change in the future anyway?

But executing Sharia law means opposing national law. So a Muslim man/woman isn't protected by national law? So you're saying that Muslims can kill a person as long as that person is Muslim and is known to be a gay? A woman can be stoned to death as long as that woman is a Muslim and is judged in Sharia law? So Muslims are excluded in some laws of France provided they are only implementing the murder and torture to fellow Muslims? So you want a different set of laws for Muslims from non-Muslims? Wow that's like giving Muslims a mini government within Europe.

Either you ban Sharia law in order to follow the national law or allow Sharia law to be implemented but only for Muslims thereby differentiating the laws between Muslims and non-Muslims.

Pretty sure that she can legally file a complaint or press charges in Malaysia, since there are no dress codes legally enforced in that country, and much of its law is based on British law. The difference here is that French resort towns are legally enforcing dress codes, basically becoming the French equivalent to Iran and Saudi Arabia.

"Sharia deals with many topics, including crime, politics, marriage contracts, trade regulations, religious prescriptions, and economics, as well as personal matters such as sexual intercourse, hygiene, diet, prayer, everyday etiquette and fasting."

Most of these things are not breaking national laws. And the things that are breaking national laws, are already banned by national laws. European legal systems already have that covered, since they've been dealing with backwards Biblical laws for centuries, including laws such as killing gays, stoning women, murder, torture, etc. Nearly all European legal systems, and the ECHR (European Court of Human Rights), uphold freedom of religion for people of all faiths, within the confines of national laws. Banning freedom of religion, which is what you're suggesting, would be constitutionally illegal for nearly all EU countries under the ECHR.

But some Muslims are trying to implement laws such as killing gays, stoning women, murder, torture, etc. That is what I'm talking about. Laws within Sharia law that goes against national law. You said it yourself Sharia law deals with many topics beyond religion so it should not be under religious freedom. Follow the law of the land. Simple as that.

Killing gays, stoning women, murder and torture are already banned under national law. You can't ban something that's already been banned.

Burkini Ban in French Beach Town Reversed by Supreme Court

France’s top court struck down a push by local governments to ban the “burkini” from the nation’s beaches, saying the Muslim-style full-body swimming outfits don’t create a public threat that justifies impinging on freedom of religion.

The decision dealt specifically with a law in Villeneuve-Loubet on the Riviera but sets a legal precedent against similar bans in at least 31 beach towns, mostly run by rightist mayors. The case was brought by a human-rights organization and a group that monitors anti-Islamic speech.

“The contested ban seriously impinged on the principle of equality of citizens before the law, freedom of expression, freedom of conscience and freedom of movement and was manifestly illegal,” the Council of State said in its ruling.

The local bans, as well as video footage of police standing over a woman on a beach as she removed a long-sleeved shirt, split the government and were widely covered -- and widely ridiculed -- by media around the world. The mayor of London, Sadiq Khan, and Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau were among leaders who criticized the prohibitions.

so you have no problem with change as long as it is slow, not "in a blink of an eye"? but then how slow? why should it be slow? if people want change, why wait? ironic when the modern french state's tripartite motto "liberte, igalite, fraternite" was born in a revolution.

and what is this about laws of the native land being imposed on a foreign one? reverse colonialism? because that's what Europeans did for a few hundred years, but that doesn't seem to be what's happening now.

regardless, your biggest problem seems to be confusing "Europe" "european" and "european laws" as being mutually exclusive with Muslim and Sharia, respectively.

The French women exercising their right to wear whatever they want on the beach are french citizens. they are french. they are european. this is not a foreign land for them and they are not foreigners. if they are muslim that doesn't make them any less french or european. sharia isn't even an issue here. this is french law for french citizens (and non-citizens inside france, as well, to be precise).

the only people being forced to obey "foreign" laws are french women exercising their right to dress however they want. The highest court of France seems to think so, too.

This---not the burkini itself---is what really pisses me off.

France has "human rights organizations" that protect the sensibilities of those who want to import their foreign culture into France. And France has groups that "monitor" any who would dare to protest the import of that foreign culture.

Does Saudi Arabia have human rights organizations that protect the sensibilities of French people who would like to import French culture into Saudi Arabia?

Does Saudi Arabia have groups that "monitor" anti-Christian, anti-atheist and anti-secularist speech?

It's not the burkini that's the problem. It's not even the multiculturalism per se that's the problem. It's the one-sided nature of the multiculturalism that's the problem.

Is it not obvious that if nation X makes one concession after another to the cultural demands of nation Y, while nation Y makes zero concessions to the cultural demands of nation X, then the culture of nation Y will eventually supplant that of nation X?

Why are European Gentiles the only people who are made to feel guilty about daring to safeguard their cultural homogeneity, while every other culture on the planet gets to safeguard its homogeneity without rebuke?

Seriously, WTF is behind the discrepancy? Is it White Guilt?

@Nuck81: Couldn`t agree more, .

It makes no difference who or what presented the case to the Supreme Court. The fact of the matter is that the Supreme Court, the law of the land, has ruled in favour of the human-rights organizations and against the right-wing nationalists. The Supreme Court has declared that, according to French law, banning the burkini is illegal.

Saudi Arabia is a nonsensical comparison. The vast majority of France's Muslim population have roots in North Africa, not Saudi Arabia. If any comparison should be made, it should be to North African countries, not Saudi Arabia. In North African beaches, it is entirely legal for women to wear bikinis. After all, tourism is a huge industry in North African countries, not to mention North African countries were former French colonies, and therefore have laws based on French law. If North African countries allow women to wear bikinis on their beaches, then why are French towns preventing French citizens of North African heritage from wearing burkinis on their beaches? According to your own logic, North African beach towns should start banning bikinis from their beaches in retaliation against French beach towns banning burkinis. And that would be equally silly.

Besides, the burkini itself is a Western invention, an Australian import, not a Middle-Eastern import. It was created by an Australian woman of Lebanese heritage, because she wanted more Australian Muslim women to integrate into Australian beach culture. The so-called "burkini" itself is just a standard wetsuit with a swimcap, but with a tunic on top. Take the tunic off, and it would be indistinguishable from a standard wetsuit with a swimcap. The name "burkini" itself is a misnomer, since it's not actually like the burka, where the face is covered. If there is any swimsuit that actually is like the burka, that would be the "facekini" that's popular in China:

And finally, the reason why there was mass immigration from Nation Y into Nation X in the first place was because Nation X colonized Nation Y. Throughout history, whenever an empire colonized other nations, it was always followed by mass immigration from those colonies into the capital. This happened in ancient times to Persia, Rome, and Baghdad, and it happened in modern times to Britain and France. Mass immigration from former colonies is always a consequence of imperialism. This was further exacerbated by World War II, which devastated France, leaving them no choice but to open their borders to mass immigration from African colonies in order to rebuild the nation. So the two things that led to mass immigration from Africa to France: French colonialism of Africa on the one hand, and the devastation of World War II on the other hand. The so-called "white guilt" in this case would be the fact that France colonized, looted and plundered Africa (not to mention other things, like atrocities in North Africa, or human zoos with African slaves).

Thank you for your detailed response, Jag85. I will be honest and say that this topic has been a very difficult one for me because it's forced me to try to reconcile two conflicting views, namely ...

1. the somewhat "right wing" view that no nation should have multiculturalism foisted upon it and
2. the rather "leftist" view that few nations are actually more deserving than France of having multiculturalism foisted upon them.

You're quite right: France was at the forefront of the 2011 depredation of Libya and has a long history of ugly and exploitative colonialism in North Africa and elsewhere. I have condemned that colonialism/imperialism in many other topics (and even mentioned it earlier in this one) so I certainly won't refute the final paragraph of your posting.

Again, thanks for your very well-reasoned and well-written response. I will concede defeat and declare that, IMHO, your post "wins the thread". :-)