Religion and Ethics Forum
General Category => General Discussion => Topic started by: Nearly Sane on August 25, 2016, 01:15:05 PM
-
Very interesting article on the burkini ban on some French beaches.
http://www.theexmuslim.com/2016/08/24/burkini-bikini-false-equivalence-disproportionate-outrage/
-
I think the point it makes is unassailable. If you live in a household where the men will not let you go out without covering up or swim without a burkini, then the ban will only restrict you further because you will not be allowed out of the house.
Also, the image of three policemen standing over a seated woman on the beach effectively forcing her to get undressed is really nauseating.
-
Hi everyone,
Here is a news item about the burkini ban inn France.
http://edition.cnn.com/2016/08/25/opinions/burkini-ban-france-theocracy/index.html
**********
If you look at the headlines coming out of France, you might conclude that the country's famous brand of "laicite," or secularism, is now being defended by a theocracy that would give Iran a run for its money.
Pictures of a Muslim woman surrounded by armed police on a beach in Nice have rightly caused an outcry. The images show the condescending way law enforcement officers forced the women to undress, while her children watched.
France seems to have completely turned against Western liberal values -- and there's a danger that France no longer looks any different from Iran or any other theocratic state, where religious police patrol the streets, monitoring women in public places, and checking whether or not they are following the rules.
The only difference is that France is suffocating individual freedoms in the name of "protecting secularism," while Iran and others do so to "protect religious identity." Both have a distinct absence of liberal pluralism that the Western world has so far taken for granted. Extreme secularism in France looks no different to extreme Shia ideology in Iran.
But we are at a fundamental crossroads -- one that is causing those of us who care about upholding these values to worry that this may no longer be the case in the future.
This isn't a problem only in France and Iran. Left and right, we're seeing a growing polarization of the political sphere, from Donald Trump in America to Jeremy Corbyn in Britain.
**********
Any views?
Cheers.
Sriram
-
Yes, that photo was truly sick-making. It reminded me of photos of Nazis surrounding Jews.
I can see that the French are traumatized by various terrorist incidents, but this is insane. You are actually saying that women have to display a minimum amount of flesh. WTF?
Well, those photos will go round the world, and will be used by IS, I would think as recruitment tools.
-
I forgot to say that my sister-in-law has had skin cancer, and she goes on the beach with leggings, a loose shirt, with long sleeves, and a very big hat. You get the idea, no sun must touch her. But of course, she is white, and she is not a murdering Muslima. Phew, what a relief.
-
... well, as the French authorities have decided what is appropriate to wear on a beach and what not, she will also be forced to undress, as will nuns ...
I suppose men wearing wet suits are still allowed?
-
Well, Catholic wet suits are OK, but Muslim wet suits, no way.
-
I do not condone the behaviour of French officialdom, but don't forget this is a country which has suffered seriously from islamic extremism. Only a month ago 85 people were mown to death during a national celebration just around the corner from those beaches. I think that the article Sriram quotes has failed to acknowledge the context.
To a significant extent France is on "red alert" for any hint of terrorist aggression and a burkha could conceal a bomb.
I think the point that Jeremyp is making is quite important. Moslem women are trapped between intolerant husbands and a state whose tolerance is now dangerously low.
So-called islamic clothing is - of course - nothing of the sort. It is merely a device used in patriarchal societies to keep women in "their place". A recent BBC 2 series of the history of the treatment of women showed that such clothing existed long before the coming of islam and that, in fact, it was used by the ancient Greeks. It would seem that the flowering of democracy was a male-only achievement!
-
So-called islamic clothing is - of course - nothing of the sort. It is merely a device used in patriarchal societies to keep women in "their place". A recent BBC 2 series of the history of the treatment of women showed that such clothing existed long before the coming of islam and that, in fact, it was used by the ancient Greeks. It would seem that the flowering of democracy was a male-only achievement!
That's my understanding of the matter. Purely a cultural thing; the Koran itself simply requires women to 'dress modestly' (though admittedly, that concept can be pretty well culturally determined). There is also a text about the 'Wives of the Prophet being concealed behind a curtain, when approached for advice'.
Of course, later Hadith reinforced the complete cover-up idea, and made it 'holy'.
-
I do not condone the behaviour of French officialdom, but don't forget this is a country which has suffered seriously from islamic extremism. Only a month ago 85 people were mown to death during a national celebration just around the corner from those beaches. I think that the article Sriram quotes has failed to acknowledge the context.
To a significant extent France is on "red alert" for any hint of terrorist aggression and a burkha could conceal a bomb.
I think the point that Jeremyp is making is quite important. Moslem women are trapped between intolerant husbands and a state whose tolerance is now dangerously low.
So-called islamic clothing is - of course - nothing of the sort. It is merely a device used in patriarchal societies to keep women in "their place". A recent BBC 2 series of the history of the treatment of women showed that such clothing existed long before the coming of islam and that, in fact, it was used by the ancient Greeks. It would seem that the flowering of democracy was a male-only achievement!
Well yes the point that jeremyp makes is important but it is the point made in the link in the OP. The idea that a bomb is hidden in a burkini is ludicrous.
-
... well, as the French authorities have decided what is appropriate to wear on a beach and what not, she will also be forced to undress, as will nuns ...
I suppose men wearing wet suits are still allowed?
Well, in the photo, one of the police officers is completely covered except for his head and bare arms.
-
I do not condone the behaviour of French officialdom, but don't forget this is a country which has suffered seriously from islamic extremism.
No it hasn't. There is a perception that it has, but this perception is false. If you want "suffering from Islamic extremism" go to Syria.
Only a month ago 85 people were mown to death during a national celebration just around the corner from those beaches.
Which is a tragedy but more people than that are mown down on French roads every fortnight.
The French are panicking and they are lashing out in the wrong direction.
To a significant extent France is on "red alert" for any hint of terrorist aggression and a burkha could conceal a bomb.
And yet the terrorists seem to prefer things like rucksacks for their bombs.
-
The ban on berkinies, looks like a French own goal to me.
There's some form of justification to rule out the face covering, security etc and though I dont like the bits of old rag these people wrap around their heads, that's no reason to start banning people from wearing their garb just because some of us don't like it.
Having said that it might be an idea to ban American baseball caps here in the U K and introduce heavy fine for those that do insist on wearing them in public places, unless of curse, they have a good medical reason for wearing one.
ippy
-
No it hasn't. There is a perception that it has, but this perception is false. If you want "suffering from Islamic extremism" go to Syria.
Which is a tragedy but more people than that are mown down on French roads every fortnight.
The French are panicking and they are lashing out in the wrong direction.And yet the terrorists seem to prefer things like rucksacks for their bombs.
As I said earlier, I do not condone the actions of the French authorities on the beaches. To the best of my understanding, these are local initiatives ordered by local maires rather than central government. That one of them should be the action of the maire of Nice - having to face a traumatised and angry electorate - should not be surprising.
In the past couple of years, France has experienced Charlie Hebdo and the Jewish shop (17 dead), Stade de France and Bataclan (130 dead), Nice (85 dead) sundry individual attacks - including a priest while saying mass, and you come up with a trite and patronising comment about road deaths. No doubt on 7/7/2005 you considered the 52 people killed in the London tube bombings a mere handful compared with the carnage on the roads and that we should not have got worked up over it.
One death from terrorism is one death too many.
I have said that I do not condone the actions taken on the French beaches but was attempting to put it into some context so that, for example, Sriram could see that his newspaper cutting was not presenting all of the appropriate information.
-
More on this.....
https://in.style.yahoo.com/burquinis-000000512.html
*********
In the wake of recent terror attacks in France, a few French towns have adopted a ban on the burkini, or the full-body swimming costume some Muslim women wear at the beach to keep covered. Most notably, the mayor of Cannes, David Lisnard, banned the swimsuit earlier this month, saying “access to beaches and for swimming is banned to anyone who does not have [bathing apparel] which respects good customs and secularism.”
Lisnard argued that the burkini “ostentatiously displays religious affiliation” and “is liable to create risks of disrupting public order (crowds, scuffles, etc.) which it is necessary to prevent.” He explained that the ban isn’t meant to violate the liberties of Muslim people. “We are not talking about banning the wearing of religious symbols on the beach … but ostentatious clothing which refers to an allegiance to terrorist movements which are at war with us.”
None of this sits well with Rachid Nekkaz, who is fighting the ban by taking out his checkbook. The businessman, who is of Algerian descent, has so far paid the fines of three women who violated the ban and has also offered to help other people who are victims of this law.
Nekkaz has a history of standing up for women affected by these laws, which includes the bans on full-face veils. Nekkaz, who started a fund to help, has spent €245,000 (about $277,315) over the years footing the bill for these women, even though he personally is not a fan of burkinis or the niqab, a cloth that covers a woman’s face with an opening for the eyes. “I am like the philosopher Voltaire,” he said to the Telegraph. “Once I do not agree, I will fight to the death to give the possibility to these people to express their opinion or to dress as they please. That is freedom. It is a question of principle.”
He also argues that this kind of extreme legislation might provoke people to embrace the very kind of radical thinking and behaviors they’re hoping to curb. “This sort of politics, these types of decisions, which do not respect fundamental liberties, will create new clients for the Islamic State [ISIS],” he said.
What is most confusing about the ban, or at least Lisnard’s explanation of it, is the notion that wearing a burkini is an automatic reference to an “allegiance to terrorist movements.” That’s akin to saying wearing a “Make America Great Again” hat means you’re broadcasting support of the Ku Klux Klan, which we know isn’t necessarily true.
Maybe Muslim women want to enjoy the beach in whatever attire they feel most comfortable in? Shouldn’t they be allowed to do so in a country that considers liberté, egalité, and fraternité as its national values?
*********
I agree with the Rachid guy. Wearing bikinis is no more secular than covering up is Islamic. How ridiculous!
-
It is a problem throughout the western world. There may not be a clash of civilisations but there is certainly a conflict, and how to deal with is becoming increasingly more difficult.
-
It is a problem throughout the western world. There may not be a clash of civilisations but there is certainly a conflict, and how to deal with is becoming increasingly more difficult.
That;s one of the reasons I liked the link in the OP as it doesn't fall into an either/or approach. It specifically callls out the issues. I think though it's easy to look on this as something different from past 'conflicts' when I'm not sure it is entirely.
-
Its the latest chapter in a sorry tale. A tale which nobody knows where it will go, or where it will end.
-
Hi everyone,
Here is a news item about the burkini ban inn France.
http://edition.cnn.com/2016/08/25/opinions/burkini-ban-france-theocracy/index.html
**********
This isn't a problem only in France and Iran. Left and right, we're seeing a growing polarization of the political sphere, from Donald Trump in America to Jeremy Corbyn in Britain.
**********
Any views?
Cheers.
Sriram
Overall the article lacks any real perspective, given that it notes France's special brand of 'laicite' as not a new thing, it then presents actions arising from iit as if it is a new thing.
However, I thought I would pick up the specific point about polarisation. I've seen this a lot, with causes many and sundry suggested. It was a common theme in both referendums in the UK, and I remain unconvinced. Things happen in cycles and I would say the politics in the UK was far more divided in the 70s and 80s than now. The causes or possibly symptoms change but the story overall remains much the same.
We see things differently and much more frequently now with rolling news. The emergence of social media has meant that the comments of those people having pub boor conversations in pubs we avoided are now seen. The 'below the line' comments section emerges frequently above the line. It may seem to be more obvious now and more clamourous but it's always been there.
-
Its the latest chapter in a sorry tale. A tale which nobody knows where it will go, or where it will end.
isn't that just a truism? I mean I am all for a bit of resigned acceptance on the unpredictability of life and that amongst it there will be conflict, joy, pain, sherbet, and a vague sense of ennui but surely part of seeing that as an ongoing story means you shouldn't see present conflicts as somehow different.
Revolutionaries always go big on the whole civilisations at war with each other. They like the black and white. That things are inevitably more complex than that is one of things that gives cause for hope
-
How is it essentailly different? Is it not just an extention of what has gone before.
Muslims still go to school despite a ban on Muslim headscarves and other "conspicuous" religious symbols at state schools which was introduced in 2004. I believe this was well received by the wider population and a BBC reporter in France covering the burkini story could not find anyone who disagreed with the latest change in the law.
-
How is it essentailly different? Is it not just an extention of what has gone before.
Muslims still go to school despite a ban on Muslim headscarves and other "conspicuous" religious symbols at state schools which was introduced in 2004. I believe this was well received by the wider population and a BBC reporter in France covering the burkini story could not find anyone who disagreed with the latest change in the law.
And? That something is either in line with something or agreed by people isn't an argument about it being right.
-
And? That something is either in line with something or agreed by people isn't an argument about it being right.
But it does suggest that is what the surrounding culture is all about.
If you go to a country, I believe you should try to fit in and adopt their culture.
Integration is the key. They are not forced into France nor forced to stay.
-
But it does suggest that is what the surrounding culture is all about.
If you go to a country, I believe you should try to fit in and adopt their culture.
Integration is the key. They are not forced into France nor forced to stay.
So if I regard something as wrong but more people don't I should just shut up?
In addition one of the tenets of a culture that allowa the bikini is a form of freedom, so shouldn't those who argued for that part of the culture also be recognised.
-
If a woman wants to wear a burkini they should be permitted to do so.
I don't think it should be permitted for anyone to walk around in public wearing the full burka, which also covers the face. Anyone could be beneath it, including someone who wishes to harm others.
-
If a woman wants to wear a burkini they should be permitted to do so.
I don't think it should be permitted for anyone to walk around in public wearing the full burka, which also covers the face. Anyone could be beneath it, including someone who wishes to harm others.
How goes that change if you can see someone's face?
-
So if I regard something as wrong but more people don't I should just shut up?
In addition one of the tenets of a culture that allowa the bikini is a form of freedom, so shouldn't those who argued for that part of the culture also be recognised.
You have to fit in with the culture.
If you don't it will cause friction.
If you want friction, then go to another culture and act against it, see how it goes.
-
How goes that change if you can see someone's face?
Fine if their face is completely uncovered, so they can be identified.
-
It can be argued about until the cows come home but France seems to be in a bad place right now and there is a struggle, not only in France, with how to deal / cope with the divides in society.
Celebrating difference and respecting others. How does that work then.
-
You have to fit in with the culture.
If you don't it will cause friction.
If you want friction, then go to another culture and act against it, see how it goes.
this seems an argumentum ad consequentiam. And again how dies one promote societal change, by your logic Wilberforce was wring to campaign against slavery.
Further you have ignored the point that part of the culture in Europe is freedom in such matters. Cultures are wide ranging things containing many often contradictory opinions.
-
Fine if their face is completely uncovered, so they can be identified.
But how does seeing someone's face stop that person from intending harm?
-
It can be argued about until the cows come home but France seems to be in a bad place right now and there is a struggle, not only in France, with how to deal / cope with the divides in society.
Celebrating difference and respecting others. How does that work then.
Are you suggesting we shouldn't respect others or have any differences?
-
t his does seeing someine's face stop that person from intending harm?
No of course not but anyone could be hiding under a full burka, including a guy. Some places in the UK discourage people wearing hoodies, which is a good thing.
-
Are you suggesting we shouldn't respect others or have any differences?
Up to a point yes.
Are you saying you would tolerate anything?
-
Are you suggesting we shouldn't respect others or have any differences?
Not at all, but this applies to everyone.
-
No of course not but anyone could be hiding under a full burka, including a guy. Some places in the UK discourage people wearing hoodies, which is a good thing.
then why did you make the point that someone wearing a burqa might want to harm people?
If anyone needs to see a face for identification purposes then I agree people need to show their face, other than that not bothered.
-
Not at all, but this applies to everyone.
I agree so we should respect the person's rights to wear a burkini.
-
Up to a point yes.
Are you saying you would tolerate anything?
No, where did you get that from. Respect others creates responsibilities so me killing you is not tolerated by such rules because it doesn't respect you.
-
I agree so we should respect the person's rights to wear a burkini.
Or respect the law about dress and religious symbolism.
-
The ban on berkinies, looks like a French own goal to me.
Unfortunately it's more of a secularists home goal.
-
Or respect the law about dress and religious symbolism.
So Wilberforce should have respected the law on slavery?
-
Unfortunately it's more of a secularists home goal.
Ah so all of what France does in the name of laicite is to be ascribed to all secularists? Does that mean that I can ascrube all of IS acts to you since you and they seem to be anti secularist?
-
No, where did you get that from. Respect others creates responsibilities so me killing you is not tolerated by such rules because it doesn't respect you.
And the French are not tolerating this form of dress as it is not in line with their culture, so what's the difference?
-
And the French are not tolerating this form of dress as it is not in line with their culture, so what's the difference?
again as pointed out thus idea of culture being a single position is incorrect. There is also a cultural norm in freedom to dress in Europe.
As to the specific question, again it's about respect for the individual in a liberal society. That a majority might want something doesn't make it right in western liberalism.
-
Respect works both ways.
-
again as pointed out thus idea of culture being a single position is incorrect. There is also a cultural norm in freedom to dress in Europe.
As to the specific question, again it's about respect for the individual in a liberal society. That a majority might want something doesn't make it right in western liberalism.
There is no right or wrong just accepted norms.
-
Ah so all of what France does in the name of laicite is to be ascribed to all secularists? Does that mean that I can ascrube all of IS acts to you since you and they seem to be anti secularist?
Are you or more to the point is Ippy saying that the achievement of secularism does not involve the removal of public religious symbolism?
You have already called me antisecularist on account of my opposition to this act.
-
There is no right or wrong just accepted norms.
what if acceptance is split 50-50?
-
what if acceptance is split 50-50?
Then you upset 50%
-
Ah so all of what France does in the name of laicite is to be ascribed to all secularists? Does that mean that I can ascrube all of IS acts to you since you and they seem to be anti secularist?
Oh so I'm an antisecularist now?
Mind you if being a secularist involves wearing a uniform these days.
-
Oh so I'm an antisecularist now?
Mind you if being a secularist involves wearing a uniform these days.
which is why I put seem in the post, you certainly seem to show dislike for secularists. Is it just like your Dawkins thing, that deep down you love them?
-
Respect works both ways.
Well yes, in this case the woman wearing the burkini needs to respect those wearing bikinis, and she was doing that, the authorities did reciprocate with the respect so your position in this post would support the woman.
-
which is why I put seem in the post, you certainly seem to show dislike for secularists. Is it just like your Dawkins thing, that deep down you love them?
What I disliked about secularist was the self righteous disdain for religion on the grounds that religion affected personal liberty while failing to see the same potential in their own movement as has been demonstrated on a beach in Nice.
-
Well yes, in this case the woman wearing the burkini needs to respect those wearing bikinis, and she was doing that, the authorities did reciprocate with the respect so your position in this post would support the woman.
The woman needs to respect the normal dress code of the culture she is in.
She can leave at any time.
-
There is no right or wrong just accepted norms.
In the sense of objective right and wrong then I agree. And I don't have any problems with the complete relativist position but if you take that any comments you make that include a 'should' are meaningless. In that sense there are no accepted norms as they include a should. There is merely behaviour. If that is your position then the woman wore a burkini, she was made to remove it is the entirety of what your position would allow on the subject.
-
The woman needs to respect the normal dress code of the culture she is in.
She can leave at any time.
'Needs' is a word involving right and wrong (even if subjectively) but you have said there is no right and wrong. Can you take a consistent position here?
And again did Wilberforce need to respect the slavery code he was in?
-
Well yes, in this case the woman wearing the burkini needs to respect those wearing bikinis, and she was doing that, the authorities did reciprocate with the respect so your position in this post would support the woman.
Why the fixation on bikinis. It isn't about respect for the wearing, or the not wearing of bikinis. I would wager there were other females on the beach who were wearing other, more traditional types of swimsuit or perhaps not even a swimsuit but leggings and a tee shirt and these would not be troubled by the police.
In addition I dont believe anyone expected the victom to wear a bikini of show copious amounts of flesh.
-
Why the fixation on bikinis. It isn't about respect for the wearing, or the not wearing of bikinis. I would wager there were other females on the beach who were wearing other, more traditional types of swimsuit or perhaps not even a swimsuit but leggings and a tee shirt and these would not be troubled by the police.
In addition I dont believe anyone expected the victom to wear a bikini of show copious amounts of flesh.
No fixation it's just the word association. And the woman was respecting all the other options as well. She just didn't get the respect to her way that you were arguing for in your 'Respect works both ways' post
-
Anyway to get back to the point of the article, I don't think this approach either achieves what it seeks to, and isn't really the pressing problem. Yes, I think the burkini ban is wrong (subjectively) but that's because I celebrate the freedom of western liberalism and condemn the oppression of women in our society by those who justify it in the name of their god, or male superiority or whatever idiocy. And the oppression of women in states founded on such idiocies
-
Anyway to get back to the point of the article, I don't think this approach either achieves what it seeks to, and isn't really the pressing problem. Yes, I think the burkini ban is wrong (subjectively) but that's because I celebrate the freedom of western liberalism and condemn the oppression of women in our society by those who justify it in the name of their god, or male superiority or whatever idiocy. And the oppression of women in states founded on such idiocies
What, in your opinion, is the pressing problem?
-
What, in your opinion, is the pressing problem?
in this area, the one that I went on to outline in the post you replied to and as outlined in the link in the OP
-
I'd have to say, and we've holidayed in France and spent time on French beaches over the last 30 years, that I find this move both silly and scary at the same time.
I can understand it is in part a reaction to atrocities but it is counter-productive by enhancing a 'them and us' mentality, and it also smacks of a 'we need to be seen to do something, and this is something we can be seen to be doing' approach, which in my experience is rarely a sensible strategy. Those behind this seem to have forgotten the 'liberte' element - and that what anyone chooses to wear on a beach in terms of clothing (or lack of) is surely a matter of personal choice.
I've been a regular on French beaches for years and, being a pale Scot who is also follically challenged, I have always worn T-shirts and hat even when swimming: that I could do so again and be left alone while muslim ladies are restricted is in my view deplorable and offensive.
There may well be wider issues in France but I doubt this is an effective way to deal with them.
-
Was your tee shirt and hat combination a religious statement / symbol?
Don't get me wrong, I am uncomfortable with the treatment of this lady however there needs to be some middle ground in life. If give only comes one way then there is bound to be something snap.
-
Anyway to get back to the point of the article, I don't think this approach either achieves what it seeks to, and isn't really the pressing problem. Yes, I think the burkini ban is wrong (subjectively) but that's because I celebrate the freedom of western liberalism and condemn the oppression of women in our society by those who justify it in the name of their god, or male superiority or whatever idiocy. And the oppression of women in states founded on such idiocies
You have seem to have cleverly avoided this as a secular act, in the name of of secularism and are now back onto religious oppression.
This is not in this instance a religious event but a secularising event
which secularism must own.
Religion says God sees hearts. Secularism on this occasion has practically just seen well bathing costumes. If it teaches secularists of the extremities of their position then lesson well learned.
-
Was your tee shirt and hat combination a religious statement / symbol?
Don't get me wrong, I am uncomfortable with the treatment of this lady however there needs to be some middle ground in life. If give only comes one way then there is bound to be something snap.
and the woman was perfectly happy with others dressed differently. That's her give. Where is the give from the police?
-
It is not about the individual.
-
You have seem to have cleverly avoided this as a secular act, in the name of of secularism and are now back onto religious oppression.
This is not in this instance a religious event but a secularising event
which secularism must own.
Religion says God sees hearts. Secularism on this occasion has practically just seen well bathing costumes. If it teaches secularists of the extremities of their position then lesson well learned.
Perhaps you need to read the link in the OP because this reads as if you are making this equivalent to honour killings. You need to stop with your naive misrepresentations about people's positions and engage because you have just equated this action, wrong as I think it was, to the murder of women just to suit your vacuous wummery. Grow the fuck up.
-
It is not about the individual.
it is from the viewpoint of the individual. And there are in the end only individuals
-
Seems selfish to me, not looking at the greater good.
-
Seems selfish to me, not looking at the greater good.
That's sort of what freedom is, and then there is the difficulty if establishing the greater good, though that is covered in the link in the OP as to why this isn't in their opinion in the interests of the greater good.
-
Perhaps you need to read the link in the OP because this reads as if you are making this equivalent to honour killings. You need to stop with your naive misrepresentations about people's positions and engage because you have just equated this action, wrong as I think it was, to the murder of women just to suit your vacuous wummery. Grow the fuck up.
You are doing it again with your yes this is bad but it is not as bad as religious killing of women.
Non fucking sequitur pal.
This swimsuit business is a secularist fuck up caused by not allowing religious people forum. Secularists have been caught up in their own dogmatism.
Hopefully lessons will be learned .
As for lying. You seem to have leapt on this Vlad loves Dawkins bit.
Vlad does not love Dawkins for reasons not totally unassociated with the Beach balls up.
-
Was your tee shirt and hat combination a religious statement / symbol?
Don't get me wrong, I am uncomfortable with the treatment of this lady however there needs to be some middle ground in life. If give only comes one way then there is bound to be something snap.
It was, of course, high fashion (not really) but why would that really matter?
That someone dresses in a manner that relates to their personal/family/cultural background isn't by default a political statement - I suspect that in many places there is a mix of populations of various cultural identities who dress in related ways.
If the beach attire issue was in any sense a significant threat to France then surely there would be beach patrols on every beach within France right now: but I doubt there are, or that there ever should be. To me this smacks of reactionary hysteria, and I can understand why this is the case in places like Nice, but I suspect their interventions on the beach are causing rather than solving problems.
-
The burkini ban has been suspended.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-37198479?ns_mchannel=social&ns_campaign=bbc_breaking&ns_source=twitter&ns_linkname=news_central
-
I think France is in a difficult place right now. I think that also understates the future battles that may need to be fought there and elswhere.
-
You are doing it again with your yes this is bad but it is not as bad as religious killing of women.
Non fucking sequitur pal.
This swimsuit business is a secularist fuck up caused by not allowing religious people forum. Secularists have been caught up in their own dogmatism.
Hopefully lessons will be learned .
As for lying. You seem to have leapt on this Vlad loves Dawkins bit.
Vlad does not love Dawkins for reasons not totally unassociated with the Beach balls up.
The Dawkins bit was a joke. Again grow up.
Read the link in the OP since all of your posting here indicates you didn't. And then you will realise why it isn't a non sequitur. I have been nothing but condemnatory of the actions taken
There are times when , if someone said you were a sock puppet of Shaker's trying to make theists look bad, I would agree. This is one.
-
I think France is in a difficult place right now. I think that also understates the future battles that may need to be fought there and elswhere.
eh?
-
France has a muslim population that is about twice that of the UK. For the most part, they live in the banlieue of large cities, often in ghettos.
Politically, France has difficulties. It has a President, Francois Hollande, who makes David Cameron look competent. The main opposition to him appears to be coming from the far right FN led by Marine Le Pen. She is acquiring the same kind of working class/lower middle class/late in life support that Farage managed to generate. Local elections last year saw a large number of FN local councillors being elected.
There is a presidential election due next April. There may be as many as a dozen candidates taking part. Under the French electoral system, in the event of there being no absolute majority for one of the candidates, the two best performing candidates submit themselves to a second poll. This could quite possibly see Miss Le Pen elected as president.
Were this to happen, just imagine the sort of populist policies that might emerge ....
As a secular state, France is not anti-religion, there is just no state involvement with religion. Most public holidays are important dates in the christian calendar.
In my commune, there are three churches. The are the property of the commune and are caringly maintained. They are available for use on request and largest church, in the village is used by both Roman Catholics and Anglicans.
-
eh?
Political and social. Le Pen and Sarkozy poll leaders in France, Wilders in the Netherlands, Norbert Hofer in Austria with Merkel losing her grip.
A great many people do not like, or are uncomfortable with what is happening in Europe and would like something done about it. Right wing parties are either right up there or in the lead.
-
Political and social. Le Pen and Sarkozy poll leaders in France, Wilders in the Netherlands, Norbert Hofer in Austria with Merkel losing her grip.
A great many people do not like, or are uncomfortable with what is happening in Europe and would like something done about it. Right wing parties are either right up there or in the lead.
which is true but tells me nothing about what battles you think will be in the future?
-
Political and social battles / campaigns / struggles / conflicts ....
-
http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2016/08/france-right-ban-burkini/
-
Political and social battles / campaigns / struggles / conflicts ....
The ironic thing is is that it is possible that when the UK is ready to leave the EU, when article 50 is completed and signed and sealed, there will be no EU to leave. The other thing is that due to the elections in France and Germany next year the people we will be negotiating with may not be Hollande and Merkel.
And what with the Italian banks on the verge of going bust how is the EU going to bail it out?
-
France has a muslim population that is about twice that of the UK. For the most part, they live in the banlieue of large cities, often in ghettos.
Politically, France has difficulties. It has a President, Francois Hollande, who makes David Cameron look competent. The main opposition to him appears to be coming from the far right FN led by Marine Le Pen. She is acquiring the same kind of working class/lower middle class/late in life support that Farage managed to generate. Local elections last year saw a large number of FN local councillors being elected.
There is a presidential election due next April. There may be as many as a dozen candidates taking part. Under the French electoral system, in the event of there being no absolute majority for one of the candidates, the two best performing candidates submit themselves to a second poll. This could quite possibly see Miss Le Pen elected as president.
Were this to happen, just imagine the sort of populist policies that might emerge ....
As a secular state, France is not anti-religion, there is just no state involvement with religion. Most public holidays are important dates in the christian calendar.
In my commune, there are three churches. The are the property of the commune and are caringly maintained. They are available for use on request and largest church, in the village is used by both Roman Catholics and Anglicans.
Sounds totally civilised to me.
ippy
-
Sounds totally civilised to me.
ippy
Even the non integrated Muslim ghettos and the historical way they have come about?
-
From what I've read about the issue, the ban was imposed as a result of the Nice attack, and the French fears of further attacks that could have weapons concealed by full-body costumes. I notice that the French court have overturned the ban. Will the cities concerned appeal that decision?
-
The Burkini is little different to a wet suit but with added headgear, a little more chic too imo*. Will every person wearing a wet suit and a swimming cap be asked to remove bits or be searched in case they are 'hiding' something?
*http://metro.co.uk/2016/04/02/now-everybodys-rowing-over-marks-and-spencers-new-burkini-range-5790628/
-
Even the non integrated Muslim ghettos and the historical way they have come about?
I should have been more precise J K, I was referring to the part that post that starts with, 'As a secular state', the rest of it well, I anyone wants to walk around in this weather with a load of old rags wrapped around their heads, good luck to them and the same with their berkinis.
ippy
-
I do not condone the behaviour of French officialdom, but don't forget this is a country which has suffered seriously from islamic extremism. Only a month ago 85 people were mown to death during a national celebration just around the corner from those beaches. I think that the article Sriram quotes has failed to acknowledge the context.
To a significant extent France is on "red alert" for any hint of terrorist aggression and a burkha could conceal a bomb.
I think the point that Jeremyp is making is quite important. Moslem women are trapped between intolerant husbands and a state whose tolerance is now dangerously low.
So-called islamic clothing is - of course - nothing of the sort. It is merely a device used in patriarchal societies to keep women in "their place". A recent BBC 2 series of the history of the treatment of women showed that such clothing existed long before the coming of islam and that, in fact, it was used by the ancient Greeks. It would seem that the flowering of democracy was a male-only achievement!
So could a bra, or it could be stuffed down someone's knickers, and don't forget the shoe bomber.
I'm not walking around nude for anyone :o >:(
-
I think the outfits are extremely fetching, not only protect the skin from too much sun but also protect head and hair.
As for those who say they are symbolic of male oppression, well, we are not living in Saudi and a vast number of young Muslim women in this country have decided for themselves to wear head covering, they speak openly about it in interviews. I've no doubt it is the same in other countries. What are we to do, stop people wearing what they feel is right for them?
I do understand how the French feel after what has happened and I sympathise but even they must realise that the majority of Muslim people are not terrorists and you can't hide a bomb under a bathing costume that easily - and go swimming with it. Reminds me of years ago when there were IRA terrorist attacks and people were going around being suspicious of anyone who was Irish.
-
Got a picture of the Statue of Liberty in a bikini with the caption...'The French were here folks!'
Says it all! :D
-
I'm someone who likes to cover up on the beach as I'm not interested in getting a tan and hate getting burnt.
On top of that I have scars that I am self conscious about.
I would be furious if I was told to bare any part of my anatomy I wanted to cover.
I think France is OTT, even if they have had some terrorist attacks.
How dare the police go around telling women to bare their arms and legs or be fined.
Not everyone wants to get burnt, albinos have to cover up. So do lots of red heads if they don't want to contract skin cancer.
People accept wet suits and the Burkini isn't very different.
At a pool where I swim regularly, we have a lady that wears one.
I wouldn't dream of objecting.
France isn't somewhere I would want to go on holiday tbh.
Police Insisting I strip off on the beach is as offensive as the ones in Saudi Arabia dictating what I wear.
Can't say either country appeals to me for a beach holiday for exactly the same reason.
I think the French have made a big mistake by dictating what can be worn on the beach.
If you don't apply it to surfers as well, it's just veiled racism/sexism.
I bet women surfers don't get told to strip off.
You can't hide much under a wet suit, tbh.
All the Muslim women need is a wet suit with semi transparent robes ( to hide their shape). Which is what the woman in my local pool seems to be wearing.
Plus as Wigginhall has already pointed out some people cover up due to cancer or as in my case scars.
It's all a bit silly.
IMO.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-37198479
According to that there is a good chance it will be overturned
-
I'm struggling to understand why some seem to think it justifiable to force Muslim women to remove certain items of clothing while also thinking unjustifiable to force Muslim women to wear certain items of clothing. It seems incongruous to me.
-
:o
Seriously?
Burkini ban: France threatens legal action against social media users for sharing photos of police enforcing law
‘I am denouncing a manipulation that undermines the local police,’ French official says
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/france-threatens-sue-social-media-users-sharing-burkini-ban-photos-nice-christian-estrosi-a7208646.html
So much for France being a free country. People can't even criticise without threats of legal action. >:(
::)
-
"Access to beaches and for swimming is banned to any person wearing improper clothes that are not respectful of good morals and secularism"
"Beachwear which ostentatiously displays religious affiliation, when France and places of worship are currently the target of terrorist attacks, is liable to create risks of disrupting public order"
The infringement is punishable with a fine of €38 (£33)
The ban remains in place until 31 August 2016
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-37173673
Respectful of good morals and secularism can mean anything from stopping topless bathing onwards.
Secularism to me, in regards to being respectful on the beach would be accepting different styles of dress or none ( example: some nudist beaches allowed) covering up ok. Each to his own.
Being respectful of secularism isn't what France is doing IMO.
-
I agree with you Rose but this will pass. It's horrible right now but a few years down the line and France will be back to how it was, at least in the big cities, ie cosmopolitan, multicultural. Those are virtues that the French once celebrated, more than we ever did here.
-
It's worth understanding that the French state version of secularism has often been thought to be a stronger version than many countries. Historically it is often linked to the anti clericalism of the Revolution, which I see as a stretch.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laïcité
-
Got a picture of the Statue of Liberty in a bikini with the caption...'The French were here folks!'
Says it all! :D
Why should that surprise anyone? The Statue of Liberty was a gift from France to the USA. ::)
-
I agree with you Rose but this will pass. It's horrible right now but a few years down the line and France will be back to how it was, at least in the big cities, ie cosmopolitan, multicultural. Those are virtues that the French once celebrated, more than we ever did here.
You reckon? If things remain the same it looks like France, amongst other countries, are about to move right in their choice of leader.
I disaree with you about France celebrating multiculturalism, and would also question whether we ever have here, other than in the minds of the supporters of such a mad idea. Fairly recently Merkel, Cameron and Trevor Phillips have all pretty much said it is a failure and I make no secret of the fact that it does nothing for me.
To me the French like to be, well French. I have travelled fairly extensively and apart from areas of minorities or mixed, the shops and restaurants are traditionally French. Carrefour and Auchan sell French stuff. Unlike Asda and other retailers here they do not have "make your own pizza" counters or anywhere you can get a curry. The French high street is still occupied by traditional french traders and 99% of the markets we have been to are, guess what, French traders.
In France, and throughout Europe, I cannot see it getting better. I think many people there have reached tipping point.
With regard to the beach thing, as I said earlier I disgree in part with the ban and also with the way it was handled, however I would question the motives of the individual being there, probably fully aware of the ban ( if she was not then she must be living in some sort of bubble) then choosing to undress when the better option giver her need to remain modest, would have been to get up and leave. The whole thing was just too nice for the photographer. Ask in this instance why did people applaud the police.
I see there was a brawl on a beach in Corsica as well. Non Muslim vs Muslim. Doesn't sound too good to me.
-
I don't have much sympathy for the Muslims involved in the beach brawl in Corsica.
Apparently they tried to stop people using the "public" beach by insults and attacking them.
This then escalated and the locals turned up.
It didn't really have much to do with burkinis but a bunch of thugs ( one of whom appears to be a drug dealer) trying to exclude people from a public beach.
The prosecutor’s conclusions play down the role of Islamic radicalism in the affair, but the fact that the women were not wearing burkinis but full Islamic dress is immaterial. There was a deliberate attempt by the family to take over a public beach and prevent others from using it through verbal and physical violence. There could not be a clearer demonstration that they are refusing to coexist with the local population and prefer to live apart. Such an attitude can only be driven by religious radicalism and hostility to France.
http://www.clarionproject.org/analysis/burkini-battle-what-really-happened-corsica
Anyone who is considered " a foreigner" who excludes the public from a public beach by being obnoxious is likely to meet resistance from the locals.
Religion doesn't come into it.
Even a local trying it, is likely to cause an uproar!
Can you imagine someone insulting people trying to go onto one of our public beaches?
It wouldn't end well.
The only beaches you can exclude people from, are privately owned ones.
It sounds like these people were criminals trying it on, who just happen to call themselves Muslim, who got reported that way because it's what papers and media want to see.
None of the women were wearing a burkini.
It all spreads intolerance.
However you can't have people turning up and excluding other people from public beaches, either like this or because they choose to wear a burkini.
The public should have access to public beaches regardless of how they dress, the minimum probably being a bikini.
Even then topless sun bathing doesn't hurt anyone else if done subtly.
And there are nudist beaches for those who want to let it all hang out ;)
-
Having said that it might be an idea to ban American baseball caps here in the U K and introduce heavy fine for those that do insist on wearing them in public places, unless of curse, they have a good medical reason for wearing one.
I have a good medical reason for wearing one - a sunburnt head is quite painful for me.
-
From what I've read about the issue, the ban was imposed as a result of the Nice attack, and the French fears of further attacks that could have weapons concealed by full-body costumes. I notice that the French court have overturned the ban. Will the cities concerned appeal that decision?
Exactly. Would we be having all this fuss over them if there hadn't been ISIS and terrorist attacks? Of course not. We'd be saying you can wear what you like. There's a context here. I think this Muslim thing will be France's 'immigration' straw that breaks the camel's back (elections coming up; Sarkozy using it fend off the FN), just as immigration was an issue for the UK.
-
Exactly. Would we be having all this fuss over them if there hadn't been ISIS and terrorist attacks? Of course not. We'd be saying you can wear what you like. There's a context here. I think this Muslim thing will be France's 'immigration' straw that breaks the camel's back (elections coming up; Sarkozy using it fend off the FN), just as immigration was an issue for the UK.
The fact that there is a context doesn't mean the measure isn't just panic, or more likely politicians wanting to be seen to be doing something rather than nothing.
Neither the Nice attack nor the Paris attacks would have been prevented by a Burkini ban. For a start, they were all perpetrated by men.
-
You reckon? If things remain the same it looks like France, amongst other countries, are about to move right in their choice of leader.
I disaree with you about France celebrating multiculturalism, and would also question whether we ever have here, other than in the minds of the supporters of such a mad idea. Fairly recently Merkel, Cameron and Trevor Phillips have all pretty much said it is a failure and I make no secret of the fact that it does nothing for me.
To me the French like to be, well French. I have travelled fairly extensively and apart from areas of minorities or mixed, the shops and restaurants are traditionally French. Carrefour and Auchan sell French stuff. Unlike Asda and other retailers here they do not have "make your own pizza" counters or anywhere you can get a curry. The French high street is still occupied by traditional french traders and 99% of the markets we have been to are, guess what, French traders.
In France, and throughout Europe, I cannot see it getting better. I think many people there have reached tipping point.
With regard to the beach thing, as I said earlier I disgree in part with the ban and also with the way it was handled, however I would question the motives of the individual being there, probably fully aware of the ban ( if she was not then she must be living in some sort of bubble) then choosing to undress when the better option giver her need to remain modest, would have been to get up and leave. The whole thing was just too nice for the photographer. Ask in this instance why did people applaud the police.
I see there was a brawl on a beach in Corsica as well. Non Muslim vs Muslim. Doesn't sound too good to me.
Pretty spot on post!
-
I have a good medical reason for wearing one - a sunburnt head is quite painful for me.
Well, it is very big.
-
The fact that there is a context doesn't mean the measure isn't just panic, or more likely politicians wanting to be seen to be doing something rather than nothing.
Neither the Nice attack nor the Paris attacks would have been prevented by a Burkini ban. For a start, they were all perpetrated by men.
The context is the symbolism of it being Muslim which is associated with ISIS et al. The ban was just a reaction to being bombed and French people being killed.
How would you have felt if you had seen on your British streets symbols that strongly supported the IRA?
-
And now French restaurants are not allowing women wearing hijabs! I told you these French restaurant guys are funny!!!
-
Seems you were right, Sririam. Sad.
-
Jack: The context is the symbolism of it being Muslim which is associated with ISIS et al. The ban was just a reaction to being bombed and French people being killed.
We know that Jack and that is the reason for the over reaction but, seriously, do most people associate Islam with ISIS? Muslims have lived in France for aeons, peacefully coexisting with everyone else. As they do here. Is it fair to be suspicious of our neighbours because of the behaviour of a few?
Certainly we wouldn't have been happy to see IRA banners or whatever during the 'troubles', but it wouldn't have been right to view every second Irish person with suspicion.
-
The context is the symbolism of it being Muslim which is associated with ISIS et al. The ban was just a reaction to being bombed and French people being killed.
How would you have felt if you had seen on your British streets symbols that strongly supported the IRA?
But just because some Muslims are extremists, that doesn't apply to the majority.
It is very wrong to make an excuse for people tarring them all with the same brush as you appear to be doing.
-
Let's ban men with little moustaches. Never trust em.
Also my personal experience in life leads me to suggest that tattoos of the old ink/needle variety - you know the ones that look like varicose veins rather than the beautiful full colour extravaganzas you get now, should also be banned.
Some people who have these tattoos have been violent towards me. Banning the tattoos should make it all better.
-
We know that Jack and that is the reason for the over reaction but, seriously, do most people associate Islam with ISIS? Muslims have lived in France for aeons, peacefully coexisting with everyone else. As they do here. Is it fair to be suspicious of our neighbours because of the behaviour of a few?
It isn't just about ISIS though. The recent mass murders and simply exacerbated what was a growing problem in the country. Seperate lives, seperate communities, different values, no shared identity. In 2011 Sarkozy was quoted as saying
multiculturalism was a "failure," warning that such a concept fostered extremism. "We have been too concerned about the identity of the person who was arriving and not enough about the identity of the country that was receiving him
Rest of it here... http://www.cbn.com/cbnnews/world/2011/february/frances-sarkozy-multiculturalism-has-failed/?mobile=false
-
Let's ban men with little moustaches. Never trust em.
Also my personal experience in life leads me to suggest that tattoos of the old ink/needle variety - you know the ones that look like varicose veins rather than the beautiful full colour extravaganzas you get now, should also be banned.
Some people who have these tattoos have been violent towards me. Banning the tattoos should make it all better.
Yes, mocking, thats a great way to solve it all.
-
That's an interesting article, JP.
In recent times I read a report by Trevor Phillips who also believes that multiculturalism doesn't work. I don't see why it shouldn't, perhaps because I always lived and worked in London which is multicultural; there have always been distinct communities but on the whole they get on well enough with everyone else.
I'll have to think about all this a bit more but going back to the burkini issue, there's nothing wrong with that in my opinion.
-
Yes, mocking, thats a great way to solve it all.
I'm not mocking - well maybe a little bit. But it bears repeating that a ban on the Burkini would not have prevented any of the atrocities thus far. Neither would a ban on tattoos have prevented me being beaten up 20 odd years ago. So not really mocking my old son - just trying to apply a little common sense and calm.
-
It isn't just about the burkini though, and it isn't about two women getting an earful from a restaurant owner, it is much, much more than that.
-
hmm .. then ... surely people should be engaging with the actual issues, not banning, or endlessly boring on about, various kinds of clothing or symbols.
-
Well, it is very big.
Just because your head is the size of a pin doesn't mean that is normal.
-
The context is the symbolism of it being Muslim which is associated with ISIS et al. The ban was just a reaction to being bombed and French people being killed.
Yes it was a reaction, but a futile one. Terrorists don't tend to wear burkinis. They tend to look like ordinary Western men perhaps with rucksacks.
How would you have felt if you had seen on your British streets symbols that strongly supported the IRA?
How is a Burkini supporting Islamic terrorists?
-
Yes, mocking, thats a great way to solve it all.
It's called satire.
-
Jack: The context is the symbolism of it being Muslim which is associated with ISIS et al. The ban was just a reaction to being bombed and French people being killed.
We know that Jack and that is the reason for the over reaction but, seriously, do most people associate Islam with ISIS? Muslims have lived in France for aeons, peacefully coexisting with everyone else. As they do here. Is it fair to be suspicious of our neighbours because of the behaviour of a few?
Certainly we wouldn't have been happy to see IRA banners or whatever during the 'troubles', but it wouldn't have been right to view every second Irish person with suspicion.
But where there is doubt in these type of circumstances there is fear, and fear breeds....
-
But just because some Muslims are extremists, that doesn't apply to the majority.
It is very wrong to make an excuse for people tarring them all with the same brush as you appear to be doing.
And what proof do you have for this?
And which ones are the good ones?
You don't know and that breeds fear and mistrust.
-
Let's ban men with little moustaches. Never trust em.
Also my personal experience in life leads me to suggest that tattoos of the old ink/needle variety - you know the ones that look like varicose veins rather than the beautiful full colour extravaganzas you get now, should also be banned.
Some people who have these tattoos have been violent towards me. Banning the tattoos should make it all better.
...and bow ties.
-
Yes it was a reaction, but a futile one. Terrorists don't tend to wear burkinis. They tend to look like ordinary Western men perhaps with rucksacks.
How is a Burkini supporting Islamic terrorists?
Your psychology, and understanding human nature, never was that good - you need a shrink for that big head of yours.
It is the symbolism! What evokes an emotional response like fear and so on...
-
It's called satire.
Trent said they were possibly mocking a little after I wrote my reply. Had it been satire perhaps Trent should have said it was satire. Nice to see you make a non contribution to a very serious matter.
-
And what proof do you have for this?
And which ones are the good ones?
You don't know and that breeds fear and mistrust.
I don't know know which men are violent but some are. That breeds fear and mistrust. Ban men.
-
Trent said they were possibly mocking a little after I wrote my reply. Had it been satire perhaps Trent should have said it was satire.
Why should he have to say it was satire when it obviously was?
Nice to see you make a non contribution to a very serious matter.
Nice to see you joining in with the sniping when the subject is so serious.
-
Trent said they were possibly mocking a little after I wrote my reply. Had it been satire perhaps Trent should have said it was satire. Nice to see you make a non contribution to a very serious matter.
If you can't recognise Trent's post as satire, then I suggest you need to buy a sense of humour. Satire is serious.
-
I don't know know which men are violent but some are. That breeds fear and mistrust. Ban men.
And that is what happens. We tend to live in denial and a naïve, innocent state of mind but when say a paedophile man rapes a child in a community all parents then become edgy about allowing their young kids out in that community. That's human nature. Every man is then looked upon suspiciously especially if he seems to be acting in a odd way.
-
Well you would know I suppose but from what I have read and heard, paedos generally blend in well and don't have obviously 'odd' ways.
Muslim dress identifies a person as a Muslim but nowt else.
Traditional Hindu dress does the same for Hindus, Orthodox Jews dress in a particular, uniform way.
So we know the above people adhere to a particular religion, I'm not scared of the religion of others.
-
And that is what happens. We tend to live in denial and a naïve, innocent state of mind but when say a paedophile man rapes a child in a community all parents then become edgy about allowing their young kids out in that community. That's human nature. Every man is then looked upon suspiciously especially if he seems to be acting in a odd way.
Sadly, the female equivalent tends to be ignored even more than usual when this happens.
-
Sadly, the female equivalent tends to be ignored even more than usual when this happens.
eh?
-
Sadly, the female equivalent tends to be ignored even more than usual when this happens.
You need to explain that, Hope. Though we are straying away from religious dress.
-
Know what you mean but RELIGIOUS DRESS ?!!!? Burkini??? And why always black !?!?!?
-
Not always black trippy. This one is a nice colour and they come in other colours. I think they are quite chic.
https://metrouk2.files.wordpress.com/2016/04/ad_201671569-e1459589338805.jpg?w=964&h=639&crop=1
-
So is it not really a 'shape' issue but skin visibility thing ?!?!?
-
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-3528329/Viewers-blast-One-s-burkini-versus-bikini-debate-models-parade-shopping-centre-swimwear.html
Further down in the article there are some bright and snazzy ones.
They would probably suit me because I hate getting sunburnt.
Nothing to do with Islam.
I like them.
-
So is it not really a 'shape' issue but skin visibility thing ?!?!?
Does it matter?
Why should women be forced to expose their skin if they don't want to?
Presumably if I wanted to cover up in France as a non Muslim who hates getting sunburnt I would get fined for doing so?
It's unreasonable IMO.
If I want to cover my skin up, that should be my choice.
I shouldn't have to bare my skin, just because other people want to.
In France then, what happens if a non Muslim wears it? Or leggings and a top?
Are the police going to let them off purely because they are white and non Muslim ?
It's prejudiced rubbish!
There isn't much difference between a burkini and someone choosing to wear leggings and a top that covers their arms on the beach.
So they might choose to swim in it, so what?
You can't fine people just because some of those people happen to be Muslim.
I'm annoyed to think if I went on a beach in France I could be fined for choosing to wear leggings and a top and that if I found I wasn't, then it's because I'm white, basically.
The whole thing is unreasonable. I'm not sure which is worse, being fined for leggings and a top on the beach, or not fined because I'm basically white.
Both scenarios offend me.
People telling women what they can or can't wear again! >:(
>:( >:(
I think I'd wear my top and leggings and tell them to stuff their fine up their arse!
As a non Muslim I think I'd make my point >:(
-
Just came across this
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/aug/23/burkini-bans-in-france-have-sales-of-full-body-swimsuit-soaring-says-designer
Lots of non Muslims like the idea of protecting skin from the Sun.
I think France might find it backfires.
-
Yes trippy, it is a covering up skin thing - which lots of people do!!
Rose, your posts are so sensible, thank you. I'm glad to see sales of the full body swimsuit going up, everyone nowadays knows the dangers of too much sun exposure. It's been a common thing for children to wear little wet suits and head coverings for years, about time adults caught onto it.
This is nice and quite simple, all one colour:
http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/AlHamra-Capri-Modest-Burkini-Swimwear-Swimsuit-Burqini-Muslim-Islamic-Sportwear-/161109344346?var=&hash=item2582dd805a:m:mI996JO2DWgU9E8uvsDIoZQ
I like this one, quite dramatic:
http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Islamic-swimsuit-swimming-costume-swimwear-Burkini-muslim-full-cover-women-girls-/381748593133?hash=item58e1fd41ed:g:29QAAOSwXj5XF0Tl
-
Why should he have to say it was satire when it obviously was?
Nice to see you joining in with the sniping when the subject is so serious.
Serious enough to suggest men with little moustaches should be banned and "Never trust em".
It is not about the burkini issue, that was only the latest saga in a long story. This is from a study in May I believe and the associated article in which the president of the French Council of the Muslim Faith seems to think (as usual) it is pretty much all about misunderstanding, conflating Islam and terrorism however director of the poll sadid the findings suggested the deterioration of Islam’s image in France wasn’t triggered by the attacks, that there are other factors, so while the attacks contributed, there is basically and quite simply a growing resistance within French society to Islam with common ground between both the political right and the left.
The study found that 47 percent of French people and 43 percent of Germans felt that the Muslim community poses a “threat” to national identity.
Almost two-thirds of the respondents in France also said that Islam had become too “influential and visible”, whereas just under half of participants said the same in Germany.
And there's more.....
The Ifop poll found that over two-thirds of respondents in both countries thought that Muslims had failed to integrate into society, a situation that 67 percent of French people and 60 percent of Germans blamed on a refusal to adapt to local values and customs.
http://www.france24.com/en/20160429-france-germany-unease-with-islam-rise-new-poll-finds
-
Yes trippy, it is a covering up skin thing - which lots of people do!!
Rose, your posts are so sensible, thank you. I'm glad to see sales of the full body swimsuit going up, everyone nowadays knows the dangers of too much sun exposure. It's been a common thing for children to wear little wet suits and head coverings for years, about time adults caught onto it.
Surly if you see someone in one of these berkinis you might think, a bit weird, but that's about it you'd then just get on with your own thing and forget about it?
Now bikinis are not quite so easy to put out of the mind, primal thoughts, so I'm told, etc, not for you Brownie, it's probably bread and bread in your case.
ippy
-
Never make assumptions ippy ;) :D.
-
Never make assumptions ippy ;) :D.
Never make assumptions ippy
Now bikinis are not quite so easy to put out of the mind, primal thoughts, so I'm told, etc, not for you Brownie, it's probably bread and bread in your case.
I didn't.
ippy
-
Gluten free ?
-
Gluten free ?
Could be, but I'm not saying.
ippy
-
Spoilsport.
-
Spoilsport.
How many more silly sods are we expected to deal with on this forum, as if there's not enough allready.
ippy
-
Hope you're not calling me a silly sod, ippy.
Anyway I'm hungry, off for a nice baguette with lots of salad and cheese.
C U latah!
-
Serious enough to suggest men with little moustaches should be banned and "Never trust em".
It is not about the burkini issue, that was only the latest saga in a long story. This is from a study in May I believe and the associated article in which the president of the French Council of the Muslim Faith seems to think (as usual) it is pretty much all about misunderstanding, conflating Islam and terrorism however director of the poll sadid the findings suggested the deterioration of Islam’s image in France wasn’t triggered by the attacks, that there are other factors, so while the attacks contributed, there is basically and quite simply a growing resistance within French society to Islam with common ground between both the political right and the left.
The study found that 47 percent of French people and 43 percent of Germans felt that the Muslim community poses a “threat” to national identity.
Almost two-thirds of the respondents in France also said that Islam had become too “influential and visible”, whereas just under half of participants said the same in Germany.
And there's more.....
The Ifop poll found that over two-thirds of respondents in both countries thought that Muslims had failed to integrate into society, a situation that 67 percent of French people and 60 percent of Germans blamed on a refusal to adapt to local values and customs.
http://www.france24.com/en/20160429-france-germany-unease-with-islam-rise-new-poll-finds
Yes, so essentially the issue is one of fear of culture change. Culture is always changing anyway, so why the extreme reactions? As people are so emotionally attached to arbitrary rules, symbols and attitudes surely the answer is just to take things slowly and let there be integration and evolution of culture and identity at a pace people can cope with and that is beneficial rather than destructive?
In the meantime we can deal with the global economic and environmental issues that provoke the poverty and wars causing mass migrations?
-
Following Jeremy's post I was wondering about Muslims not integrating into society and their "refusal to adapt to local values and customs", since which I have been trying to work out what that means, precisely.
Setting my religious beliefs aside, if I went to live in another country, one with an ethos that embraced freedom of religion, would I be expected to give up my cultural identity (whatever that is), and dress, speak and eat in the same way as the indigenous population? I'd be pleasant and open, probably socialise, make friends and work with them, my kids would go to school with theirs, but I'd still be me - an English person with 'foreign' ways.
Indeed the British took up residence in many countries and were renowned for imposing their way of living on the inhabitants.
I've come across many Muslims, and others, and never had any feeling that they were basically different to me, despite clothing, customs, religion. We got along fine. It would be appallingly arrogant of me to suggest to a Muslim neighbour or colleague that they should 'stop being so Muslim' and be more British because they live here.
Moving on a bit, I went to the dentist today and perused three red top newspapers in between the hygienist and dentist: apparently 57% of people in the UK would support a ban on the burqa.
If I was a young Muslim woman and believed a ban on the burqa was imminent, I would start wearing one if only to make a statement! That already happens with the hijab; lots of girls feel they have to wear something that shows they are not ashamed to be Muslim, even if their mothers didn't. What a world, aye?
Anyway, the 57% of Brits is only 57% of those surveyed, no-one has asked me.
-
I know where you are coming from, Brownie, and this may be part of the cultural divide - you as a reasonably intelligent, liberal minded westerner.
People also hear statements that seem to say that Islam is not a religion but a complete way of life that cannot tolerate any different system. These people therefore assume that their own culture will be destroyed and replaced by Islam. The behaviour os IS, destroying ancient cultural artefacts only appears to support their cause.
-
There is no great difference between peoples. You can find someone from an Amazonian tribe that has been separated from the rest of humanity for thousands of years, and within a few years they are likely to be wearing clothes, going to church, speaking Spanish, Portuguese and/or English and spending most of their waking life poking at a smartphone screen, just like the rest of us.
Whether they should or not, or whether or not we should be happy with people running up and down the high street dressed only in war paint is just a matter of preference and not of any profound significance.
As long as people can be trusted to treat others with consideration, why should there be any conflicts?
-
I know where you are coming from, Brownie, and this may be part of the cultural divide - you as a reasonably intelligent, liberal minded westerner.
People also hear statements that seem to say that Islam is not a religion but a complete way of life that cannot tolerate any different system. These people therefore assume that their own culture will be destroyed and replaced by Islam. The behaviour os IS, destroying ancient cultural artefacts only appears to support their cause.
Mostly this can be sorted out by discussion and just living alongside in a tolerant environment. Muslims are not the Borg attempting to assimilate everyone else.
Those such as ISIL /ISIS that have deliberately set about violently forcing their "system" on everyone and have no respect or consideration for human rights need to be stopped, probably by using deadly force, but also by countering their recruitment/conversion methods.
-
If anyone wants to hear a rational assesment of or about Islam, try listnening to Douglas Murray, on YouTube, he makes more sense to me about this subject than most, like anyone else I doub't he'100% correct with everything he says, even so over all I'll go with his P O V.
ippy
-
He's very anti, ippy. Right wing, neo-fascist (imo).
-
I know where you are coming from, Brownie, and this may be part of the cultural divide - you as a reasonably intelligent, liberal minded westerner.
People also hear statements that seem to say that Islam is not a religion but a complete way of life that cannot tolerate any different system. These people therefore assume that their own culture will be destroyed and replaced by Islam. The behaviour os IS, destroying ancient cultural artefacts only appears to support their cause.
For many people, the idea of 'liberal' seems to all about breaking free....! Its about freedom to be naked...not about freedom to cover up. Its about freedom to divorce and not about freedom to stay married. Its about freedom to take a job and not about freedom to stay at home. Its about freedom to deny God and his rules...but not about freedom to believe in God and his rules.
As I have said before...its a very adolescent idea of liberty.
-
The study found that 47 percent of French people and 43 percent of Germans felt that the Muslim community poses a “threat” to national identity.
Almost two-thirds of the respondents in France also said that Islam had become too “influential and visible”, whereas just under half of participants said the same in Germany.
And there's more.....
The Ifop poll found that over two-thirds of respondents in both countries thought that Muslims had failed to integrate into society, a situation that 67 percent of French people and 60 percent of Germans blamed on a refusal to adapt to local values and customs.
http://www.france24.com/en/20160429-france-germany-unease-with-islam-rise-new-poll-finds
The problem with surveys like this is people think they measure one thing when they are really measuring something else.
So French people are running scared of Muslims. Is the answer to try to hide Islam from view or to educate the scaredy cats so that they understand that there isn't a serious threat?
-
For many people, the idea of 'liberal' seems to all about breaking free....! Its about freedom to be naked...not about freedom to cover up. Its about freedom to divorce and not about freedom to stay married. Its about freedom to take a job and not about freedom to stay at home. Its about freedom to deny God and his rules...but not about freedom to believe in God and his rules.
As I have said before...its a very adolescent idea of liberty.
Could you give some examples of these many people? Make sure that they are real and not constructed from straw.
-
He's very anti, ippy. Right wing, neo-fascist (imo).
Whatever politic he is, is of no interest to me, all I think is that Douglas Murray sums up Islam in a nutshell.
ippy
-
For many people, the idea of 'liberal' seems to all about breaking free....! Its about freedom to be naked...not about freedom to cover up. Its about freedom to divorce and not about freedom to stay married. Its about freedom to take a job and not about freedom to stay at home. Its about freedom to deny God and his rules...but not about freedom to believe in God and his rules.
As I have said before...its a very adolescent idea of liberty.
What part of secularism is it that you are having difficulty with Sriram? Only I notice from the text of your post it's pretty obvious you don't understand it.
ippy
-
Sririam, for most of us being "liberal" doesn't mean doing just as we like at any given time regardless of consequences to ourselves and society. There are limits.
-
Sririam, for most of us being "liberal" doesn't mean doing just as we like at any given time regardless of consequences to ourselves and society. There are limits.
Yes...that is probably true for most people. But how these limits are defined could differ from person to person and community to community.
-
Yes...that is probably true for most people. But how these limits are defined could differ from person to person and community to community.
Indeed. And your idea of liberalism appears to be as culturally-bound as any. It is not the liberalism of the liberal democracies of Europe. You seem to confuse "liberalism" with "responsibility", posing the two concepts in opposition with each other.
That may be the way liberalism is perceived in the sub-continent, it is not so in Europe. I'm surprised you did not observe that on your recent visit here.
-
Indeed. And your idea of liberalism appears to be as culturally-bound as any. It is not the liberalism of the liberal democracies of Europe. You seem to confuse "liberalism" with "responsibility", posing the two concepts in opposition with each other.
That may be the way liberalism is perceived in the sub-continent, it is not so in Europe. I'm surprised you did not observe that on your recent visit here.
Ha..ha! Not really! When the French Govt. demands that a woman remove her clothing in a beach to fall in line with French culture and French way of life.......it is most irresponsible! No doubt about that.
-
Yes...that is probably true for most people. But how these limits are defined could differ from person to person and community to community.
Yes indeed Sririam and, following on from HH's post and your response, I'm sure you gleaned some very odd ideas about "liberalism" from your recent European tour :D, especially considering your cafe experiences in France.
Well, let's face it, wherever you live there will be liberal, illiberal and people in between, that's not rocket science.
-
Yes indeed Sririam and, following on from HH's post and your response, I'm sure you gleaned some very odd ideas about "liberalism" from your recent European tour :D, especially considering your cafe experiences in France.
Well, let's face it, wherever you live there will be liberal, illiberal and people in between, that's not rocket science.
What I am saying is purely from the French response to burkini. Nothing else. If that is liberalism....there is something wrong.
-
Too right!
On reflection, I think it is the opposite, quite censorious, but no doubt the French think they are promoting some kind of liberation in that situation.
-
What I am saying is purely from the French response to burkini. Nothing else. If that is liberalism....there is something wrong.
I agree. However, it wasn't a French government response (as you say in your contribution 163), but the response of a few French citizens.
There was a context: these incidents were happening only a short way along the Mediterranean coast from the place where 95 people had died just a few days before. And the incidents were initiated by individual maires not by the state. The French state eventually ended them.
-
If that is liberalism....
its not.
there is something wrong.
....time to move along to take your next pop at the 'west'. ::)
-
Sriram, it wasn't the French government that set up this silly Burkini idea it was whatever's the French equivalent of a local council is that decided to make this a local by law.
By the way I note you still haven't managed to get your head around secularism and what in fact it's all about; you have exposed your ignorance of the secular way in your posts several times, have a read up about secularism, it'll stop you from keeping on putting your foot in it.
One of the aims of secularism is to protect every bodies right to hold whatever religious belief they want without any kind of persecution, there's a lot more to it than that but you give the impression that you think secularism's aim is to persecute religions, why?
ippy
-
Just to point out for Sriram's benefit, that I have been called a Muslim loving liberal elsewhere for supporting the right to wear the burkini. The balance of freedoms has a long and interesting history and there is much good writing on it. Taking these incidents as representative of the political philosophy is extremely simplistic. Taking it as representative of all French people a lazy generalisation. Taking it as an act of the French govt plain wrong.
-
NS: ....I have been called a Muslim loving liberal elsewhere...
Join the club NS.
We are in good company, Barack Obama has also been so called.
Agree with the rest of your post too.
-
Just to point out for Sriram's benefit, that I have been called a Muslim loving liberal elsewhere for supporting the right to wear the burkini. The balance of freedoms has a long and interesting history and there is much good writing on it. Taking these incidents as representative of the political philosophy is extremely simplistic. Taking it as representative of all French people a lazy generalisation. Taking it as an act of the French govt plain wrong.
I agree with you N S.
ippy
-
I support the wearing of the burkini by people who want to wear it just as I support the right to wear nothing at all - if that is what they choose.
I do, however, have some unhappiness about the burkha (but whole heartedly support the right of people to wear it) and that is that, however its wearers may justify wearing it today, it had its origin - long before Islam - in the oppression, subjugation and ownership of women by men.
Did I read somewhere about an increase in the incidence of rickets? People with naturally dark skin find it less easy to synthesise Vitamin D and the cultural practice of wearing enveloping clothes make the process more difficult. (As also does using Factor 20 sun cream for people with pale skins.)
-
HH EXCELLENT points - these people that cover up so much of skin WILL suffer in the end.
We really should point out AGAIN how women have been kept 'in check' for many centuries & this is the modern version - the NIQAB or FULL face covering. Even a pet dog sees the light ?!!?!?
I have a very reliable english translation of The Quran from an 'approved by Muslims' author & I don't recall much more than 'dress modestly' ie 'Don't expose all your feminine flesh cos a man is WEAK !!! FACT !!!
Nick
-
HH EXCELLENT points - these people that cover up so much of skin WILL suffer in the end.
We really should point out AGAIN how women have been kept 'in check' for many centuries & this is the modern version - the NIQAB or FULL face covering. Even a pet dog sees the light ?!!?!?
I have a very reliable english translation of The Quran from an 'approved by Muslims' author & I don't recall much more than 'dress modestly' ie 'Don't expose all your feminine flesh cos a man is WEAK !!! FACT !!!
Nick
People who cover up will suffer in the end? Really? Given one of my closest dearest most loved friends died at 28 of skin cancer just permit me to find your post stupid and ignorant.
-
WTF are you on about ????
Humans generally need sunlight as our bodies can produce certain things only sunlight can give us.
What the hell this has to do with your poor friend is anyone's guess.
Now please reread my post.
-
WTF are you on about ????
Humans generally need sunlight as our bodies can produce certain things only sunlight can give us.
What the hell this has to do with your poor friend is anyone's guess.
Now please reread my post.
I have. You say people who cover up, without defining that will suffer. My friend died of not being covered up enough. You don't need to wear a bikini to survive.
-
YES I thought this was what you meant. Skin cancer I presume & I AM sorry about that.
It does happen to some...
-
YES I thought this was what you meant. Skin cancer I presume & I AM sorry about that.
It does happen to some...
Skin cancer, as I stated, no need to presume
-
I, too, am sorry to hear that. I lost a friend and colleague at the age 39 to malignant melanoma.
It does not alter the fact, however, that sunlight is essential - especially in children - for the synthesis of Vitamin D.
There are, apparently, children being diagnosed with rickets because they choose (or their parents prefer them) to play indoors with computers and the like rather than playing in the open air. And people with dark skin who live in the British Isles are at greater risk of rickets than people with fair skin. So-called "Islamic dress" increases that risk.
-
My wife and I had to to attend a series of lectures some 36 years ago where this subject was a part of the series.
We were informed then that the vitamin D issue was further back when the diet wasn't of the modern day standard, so now darker skined people don't now need the strong sunlight to be able to manufacture this vitamin.
I have to say that we have both been quite surprised where this subject has been brought to the fore over the last few years, in view of when we first heard about sunlight and vitamin D, were the authorities that badly informed those years ago, I havent heard of an out burst of rickits whithin the really black skinned people that have lived here for all or most of their lives.
Maybe black people living here have had vitamin D alined problems and we've not heard about it.
We usually notice anything about black issues as you would when you have black children; it tends to sharpen up your attention in this area.
ippy
-
I think the answer is moderate exposure to sunshine, ippy and HH. The sort you get when going for a short walk to the shops and back, in your back garden, washing the car. Children go out into the school grounds or playground at break times and ride their bikes at weekends and holidays. Half an hour or so a day minimum is recommended but certainly not hours of sun exposure to large expanses of your body, which some subject themselves to on the beach during holidays; that is a common cause of malignant cancer amongst other things.
Your comments about black people and Vitamin D are interesting, ippy.
There are several articles on the internet about that very subject and here is one of them (ten years old) :
http://jn.nutrition.org/content/136/4/1126.full
-
An interesting paper, Brownie.
However, most burkha wearers are not of sub-Saharan African stock but are of Arab or Indian subcontinent origin. These people are all Caucasian like the fairer skinned northern Europeans. It would seem unlikely that the adaptations which have evolved in Africans have also evolved in a section of Caucasians.
-
HH EXCELLENT points - these people that cover up so much of skin WILL suffer in the end.
We really should point out AGAIN how women have been kept 'in check' for many centuries & this is the modern version - the NIQAB or FULL face covering. Even a pet dog sees the light ?!!?!?
I have a very reliable english translation of The Quran from an 'approved by Muslims' author & I don't recall much more than 'dress modestly' ie 'Don't expose all your feminine flesh cos a man is WEAK !!! FACT !!!
Nick
You are so vague in your posts that it is hard to verify if you are lying/ misrepresenting or just incompetent.
Can you please post the Chapter and verse where it says dress modestly.
Can you also post the chapter and verse where it says "'Don't expose all your feminine flesh cos a man is WEAK"
-
Vitamin D deficiency.
Anyone can suffer from it.
I've known people who have suffered from it.
http://www.healthline.com/health/vitamin-d-deficiency#Overview1
The sun isn't the only way of getting it.
You can buy it at the chemist or it's found in these foods
fatty fish, such as mackerel, salmon, and tuna
beef
cheese
egg yolks
fish liver oils
mushrooms
However, food manufacturers often add or fortify foods with vitamin D. Examples include:
milk
breakfast cereals
yogurt
orange juice
margarine
Manufacturers also add vitamin D to some infant formulas to reduce the risk that infants will have low levels.
From above link
What you wear is not relevant if you eat the right foods and look after yourself.
All this fuss about what someone wears, just buy some from the chemist :o
-
Did you know that between October and March none of us gets any vitamin D from the sun? ( see link below)
http://www.nhs.uk/Conditions/vitamins-minerals/Pages/Vitamin-D.aspx
So women in burkas are only missing vitamin D from the sun between April - September anyway.
The answer is to eat healthy foods that contain vitamin D.
not fuss about what you wear, as far as vit D is concerned it's as if we all wear burkas for half the year anyway ;)
If you cover up, just eat more tuna and eggs etc.
-
I agree with you in principle, Rose, and it is what I would do if I didn't get out at all but the fact is a small amount of sunshine is beneficial to health and not difficult to achieve. Even a fair person will tolerate half an hour or so and I don't mean stripped down to swimwear, merely going about every day business. Kids benefit from being outdoors some of the time anyway.
Plus buying supplements costs money and not everyone is sufficiently clued up on correct dosage. Often different makes give different information. Best to go to Boots, Lloyds or somewhere reputable like that. Even then, individuals metabolise the vitamin at different rates and it is possible to have vitamin D toxicity. Sunshine however is free and the only expertise needed is to use sunscreen if you're likely to be in it for a long time. Sunscreen and high SPF lotions and creams do not stop the benefits of the sun.
-
I think the answer is moderate exposure to sunshine, ippy and HH. The sort you get when going for a short walk to the shops and back, in your back garden, washing the car. Children go out into the school grounds or playground at break times and ride their bikes at weekends and holidays. Half an hour or so a day minimum is recommended but certainly not hours of sun exposure to large expanses of your body, which some subject themselves to on the beach during holidays; that is a common cause of malignant cancer amongst other things.
Your comments about black people and Vitamin D are interesting, ippy.
There are several articles on the internet about that very subject and here is one of them (ten years old) :
http://jn.nutrition.org/content/136/4/1126.full
Several members of my immediate family are involved in the health profession and I do manage to keep up to date, but thanks anyway brownie.
ippy
-
I agree with you in principle, Rose, and it is what I would do if I didn't get out at all but the fact is a small amount of sunshine is beneficial to health and not difficult to achieve. Even a fair person will tolerate half an hour or so and I don't mean stripped down to swimwear, merely going about every day business. Kids benefit from being outdoors some of the time anyway.
Plus buying supplements costs money and not everyone is sufficiently clued up on correct dosage. Often different makes give different information. Best to go to Boots, Lloyds or somewhere reputable like that. Even then, individuals metabolise the vitamin at different rates and it is possible to have vitamin D toxicity. Sunshine however is free and the only expertise needed is to use sunscreen if you're likely to be in it for a long time. Sunscreen and high SPF lotions and creams do not stop the benefits of the sun.
I agree and have no intention of covering up except at the beach it's salty and windy and you burn even faster, but even then I nip in to the sea in a usual bathing costume.
Most people would probably be ok if they didn't bare their skin and took the one a day type multivitamins.
The other answer is to go to your doctor who can test your blood.
There can be conditions that can stop you from getting it, other than how you dress.
It's easier to eat foods with it in I guess 8)
-
Several members of my immediate family are involved in the health profession and I do manage to keep up to date, but thanks anyway brownie.
ippy
I wasn't patronising you ippy, just sharing what I know.
----------------
Rose, quite agree.
-
I wasn't patronising you ippy, just sharing what I know.
----------------
Rose, quite agree.
I didn't think you were patronising me for one moment Brownie, my brother's well acquainted with these sorts of details and translates them into a form of English that I'm able to understand.
ippy
-
You are so vague in your posts that it is hard to verify if you are lying/ misrepresenting or just incompetent.
Can you please post the Chapter and verse where it says dress modestly.
Can you also post the chapter and verse where it says "'Don't expose all your feminine flesh cos a man is WEAK"
You know damn well what I'm on about re the first comment as it's YOUR job to quote different. Anyone can find it on the net.
No need for the second one as it's not a quote - anyway The Quran was written BY & FOR men NOT women so we needn't go through all THAT again. See you've woken up, pyaar ?!?!!?
-
Trippy, going back to a previous post, Muslim women and men are directed to dress modestly and indeed, amongst practicing Muslims, that is the case. It gives them uniformity, particularly the men when they wear long white shirts, a small hat and have a beard. The women vary in their head covering, I've seen some beautifully coloured hijabs with intricate designs. Covering hair is not, however, a Q'ranic requirement.
It is quite fashionable atm for young Muslim women to take up wearing a hijab. Difficult for many non-Muslims to understand but those who do adopt the headgear say they want to be seen to be a Muslim. It's a kind of statement. I think I understand that sort of attitude having been inclined to make bold statements as a young person (before I became "wishy-washy"); were I a young Muslim woman I'd probably do the same.
(Niqab/burqa is a different matter, there's no real reason to go that far and there aren't many who do in this country but that's for another discussion.)
-
B
EX reply & thank you !!!!
Nick
-
I dunno about EX, I made the last bit enormous when I wanted to make it tiny, many blushes :-[. Changed it now.
-
AAH Come on you handsome devil you ?!!?!? LOL
MY beef or should it be PORK???? - is with the niqab !!! If a face is disfigured then that's another issue entirely. I have many Muslim friends here in the UK AND in India & will ask them - casually - about niqab & why it may be worn.
We'll see.......
Nick