The way to keep burkini's off the beaches

[Coyote]

"‘I am commanded by Allah to be modest’

I enjoy wearing the burkini. As a Muslim woman I am encouraged by the Qur’an not to wear the same as non-Muslims and to remain identifiably Muslim at all times. Anyone who says otherwise is either putting their love of the dunya (or their culture first. As a Muslim, we believe this world is a temporary pleasure trap. It will seduce you from your akhira (our rewards in the afterlife). I am also commanded by Allah to be modest (hayaa) and observe hijab at all times. So I am covered up from legs to neck and my lower arms are on display when there are women or family members present. I’m white British, and a revert Muslim. "

Why we wear the burkini: five women on dressing modestly at the beach

Such is the life of someone who follows their faith.

They are not commanded by Allah to wear the burkini, the abaya, the hijab, etc.

According to the woman who wears it she is commanded as such.

That's her interpretation. There are Muslin women all over the world who do not cover. The Koran does not say to cover head to toe. It says to dress modestly.

I agree. No where is a burka mentioned - most of it is cultural.

 

[StLucieBengal]

"‘I am commanded by Allah to be modest’

I enjoy wearing the burkini. As a Muslim woman I am encouraged by the Qur’an not to wear the same as non-Muslims and to remain identifiably Muslim at all times. Anyone who says otherwise is either putting their love of the dunya (or their culture first. As a Muslim, we believe this world is a temporary pleasure trap. It will seduce you from your akhira (our rewards in the afterlife). I am also commanded by Allah to be modest (hayaa) and observe hijab at all times. So I am covered up from legs to neck and my lower arms are on display when there are women or family members present. I’m white British, and a revert Muslim. "

Why we wear the burkini: five women on dressing modestly at the beach

Such is the life of someone who follows their faith.

They are not commanded by Allah to wear the burkini, the abaya, the hijab, etc.

According to the woman who wears it she is commanded as such.

That's her interpretation. There are Muslin women all over the world who do not cover. The Koran does not say to cover head to toe. It says to dress modestly.

I agree. No where is a burka mentioned - most of it is cultural.

You can agree that the burka is a foul and oppressive garmet though right?

 

[Coyote]

Precisely because we ARE NOT those countries we can allow women to choose to wear what they want. We don't impose irrational standards on them. Why do people seem to think we should be like those countries?

Who says it's irrational? It's a matter of perspective, and culture is alI about perspective. Is preserving and protecting one's culture irrational? Is allowing a dominant minority of immigrants to refuse to adapt to the culture rational?

How many free, pluralistic and democratic countries such as France or the US mandate standards of clothing other than minimal required coverage?

How is choosing a more modest swimsuit style for ONESELF - refusing to adapt to a culture that has, up to now, imposed no standard on beachwear other than minimal coverage?

If the dominant culture prefered wearing thongs and you were highly uncomfortable wearing them - should you be forced to? Maybe in Saudi Arabia where there are no individual rights (subsitute Burka) - but in a country like the US?

This is not about clothing. As I have said, thie issue is not strictly the burkini per se. This is aobut a refusal to adapt to the culture. I have spent a lot of time in France and a have been noting the impact of the large population of Muslims there. They are mostly poor, uneducated, religious people who come to France for economic reasons. They don't embrace the culture nor do they adapt to it. They scorn French customs and perspectives. They take advantage of the freedoms (such as wearing whatever you want) and better economic conditions but do not embrace or love the country itself. That is the statement the burkini makes. The French are offended by this and quite rightly.

Then perhaps the thing to do is not to ban an article of clothing that allows these women to enjoy the beach - banning it will do nothing to encourage integration into French society and will more likely have the opposite effect, creating increased isolation and division because they won't go out.

I'll give you a parallel. In Minnesota (I think) is a significant community of Somali immigrants - refugees resettled there. Their community is in an area with many lakes and bodies of water, and drowning deaths are not uncommon. Most people know how to swim, and there are many town programs sponsoring swimming lessons. The problem is that the Somali women and girls don't know how to swim, and there had been a number of drowning deaths. Because their religion forbids them from uncovering themselves around strange men, they were not able to take part in any of these programs. The local police department together the YMCA put together an ingenious program. They set up an hour one night a week for women/girls only swimming - no men. It was open to all women and girls, in any style of swimwear, not just the Somali's. They learned how to swim, but more than that - they met new people, and made friends in the community. These people had been through a lot of trauma The girls were becoming more confident, and making new friends in school. It was a win-win for the town, for the Somali refugees and for successful integration into the community.

It wasn't all lightness and honey though - there were those who protested, who claimed it was giving in to "creeping Sharia" etc. They could have just said - screw those girls and women, if they don't want to accept our culture and swim with men and wear western style swimwear - then they can stay at home. What would that have accomplished? Better integration? Or more isolation?

It seems in France, a burkini is a means of allowing women who might otherwise not go out and mingle on a holiday beach or in the water just like any French person, a chance to do so and the more they mingle, the more they are going to learn about each other. If France has an integration problem - banning the burkini is not going to solve it.

Saving lives became a serious problem, so the local community was forced to adapt to the immigrants. But my position is that immigrants should adapt to their new country; the country they choose to live in should not have to adapt to them. When in Rome...adapt, accept, embrace your new country.

I don't disagree with that, other than I think it needs to be a 2-way street. There is nothing wrong with reasonable accommodations to incourage integration. For example, banning burka's and face veils, in a culture where being able to see one's face is very important (for security reasons as well) would be reasonable, particularly since there is no religious justification for a burka. But banning burkini's seems unreasonable to me - you can see her face, it's no different than modest swimwear other religious groups choose and it's a means to allow these women to get out and socialize. Forcing a more revealing style of dress on a woman against her will, without a reasonable justification is wrong imo.

I know France's immigrant population is different than ours and is comprised of mostly poor rural people from former colonies, where you might have entire villages uproot themselves and move to one community in France, even bringing their own Imams (another problem). Unemployment is extremely high among immigrant youth, which adds to problems.

 

[Coyote]

"‘I am commanded by Allah to be modest’

I enjoy wearing the burkini. As a Muslim woman I am encouraged by the Qur’an not to wear the same as non-Muslims and to remain identifiably Muslim at all times. Anyone who says otherwise is either putting their love of the dunya (or their culture first. As a Muslim, we believe this world is a temporary pleasure trap. It will seduce you from your akhira (our rewards in the afterlife). I am also commanded by Allah to be modest (hayaa) and observe hijab at all times. So I am covered up from legs to neck and my lower arms are on display when there are women or family members present. I’m white British, and a revert Muslim. "

Why we wear the burkini: five women on dressing modestly at the beach

Such is the life of someone who follows their faith.

They are not commanded by Allah to wear the burkini, the abaya, the hijab, etc.

According to the woman who wears it she is commanded as such.

That's her interpretation. There are Muslin women all over the world who do not cover. The Koran does not say to cover head to toe. It says to dress modestly.

I agree. No where is a burka mentioned - most of it is cultural.

You can agree that the burka is a foul and oppressive garmet though right?

Yup - if it's forced on her. However- if a woman freely chooses it without coercion, then it's her choice - even though it seems crazy to me that any woman would choose it. I value choice and I won't take that choice from her. But in this country - covering that much leads to security concerns, it's impossible to do most jobs, our culture requires an ability to see peole's faces, and there are even safety concerns being out in public and not being able to see clearly. There are a lot of reasons not to allow burkas that make sense.

 

[Coyote]

Don't know guys. The RIGHT burkini looks good to me.

When you grew up with women in wetsuits out sharing the waves ---- THAT ^^^^ bothers me less than some of the horrors I can't UNSEE from my beach days.

I'm not going to ask I'm not going to ask I'm not going to ask even if it involves thongs on broadsides I'm not going to ask

 

[Mindful]

 

[Coyote]

A French woman's perspective:


Why should France accept the burkini? Its time to debate integration head-on

• MURIEL DEMARCUS

30 AUGUST 2016 • 1:36PM

The burkini ban in my home country (I am a French woman living in London) has made headlines for most of August. Despite the fact that it has eventually been overturned by the highest French court, the debate is far from over. Journalists have had a field day mocking what they see as an attack against personal freedoms, and keep mentioning that the rightwing in France still supports the ban. What a simplistic view of the situation!

According to various polls, two thirds of the French population supported the ban, and this included the socialist French Prime Minister, Manuel Valls, who famously said that that the full-body swimsuit symbolised the enslavement of women. So what is this really about? I got tired of reading analysis that, in my view, only gave a partial side of the issue, so here is my (very French) take on it.

First of all, France is a secular country. Obviously, France is not the only Western country to insist on the separation of church and state – but I believe that it does so more militantly than any other. To an extent, you could say that secularism is the closest thing we French have to a state religion. It underpinned the French Revolution and has been a foundation of the country's progressive thought for centuries. The law of separation meant strict official neutrality in religious affairs. The Republic has always recognised individuals, rather than groups: this means that you are supposed to be French first, then Muslim, or Catholic, or whatever your religion or ethnic minority might be. You therefore need to comply with the law even if it goes against your religious beliefs, because secularism prevails in all circumstances. Although it can be carried to extremes that other countries don’t understand, this view of citizenship is fundamentally non-discriminatory and inclusive. It’s all about finding a common ground, whatever your religion. Burkini bans must be viewed in this context, and are nothing new.

Rightly or wrongly, French citizens are scared of the Islamisation of their society. Obviously the latest attacks in Nice have further polarised an already divided population. The population is still traumatised, and believes that things have become worse over the last decade or so: people see more veiled women on the street, and are shocked to see a few niqabs or burkas from time to time, despite a full ban. This is compounded by the fact that young women are more and more targeted by some members of the Muslim community on the issue of modesty. For instance, last year in Reims a young woman sunbathing in a public park was set upon by a gang of teenage girls. They objected to her bikini, and the town’s authorities were fast to insist there was no religious aspect to the attack. Nobody believed them.

I belong to a generation that never saw a burkini or a full-body swimsuit at the beach before this summer’s events. This is clearly a new occurrence. The French also are shocked to learn that France is now home to thousands of Islamic radicals. Citizens feel that enough ground has been ceded to minorities in general, and to the Muslim minorities in particular. They think that things have now come to a head, and learned the hard way that political correctness doesn’t work. Furthermore, the French don’t understand why their women should cover up when they visit some Muslim country, but let women wear a veil or a burkini when they visit France. In short, they don’t understand why they should compromise when other countries don’t. It’s all about "my country, my rules".

Then again, I keep reading that the burkini is empowering for Muslim women who wouldn’t be able to go to the beach otherwise. I am struggling with such a point. Just look at the 1950s and 1960s photos of women in modern, comfortable clothes in Afghanistan or Egypt. They clearly were not forced to succumb to the new wave of stricter Islamic dress code. What changed? Why should women suddenly cover up? Islam seems to have been hijacked, and women are, once again, the first hostages. Why should women sympathise with the hijackers? Isn’t this a classic case of Stockholm syndrome?

Egyptian leader Gamal Abdul Nasser with his family in the 1960s CREDIT: AFP/GETTY
And what’s next? Should we also allow FGM to be respectful of different cultural practices? What about polygamy? In short, Western societies need to define what’s acceptable for them, and what’s not. There is a need to draw a line, and maybe the French have drawn it at the burkini. Is it futile? Maybe. But at least a social debate is starting. It’s a debate that societies simply can’t avoid forever. Whether we like it or not, society must have a clear set of "inclusiveness principles", and it’s probably better to face the issue rather than ignore it.

Don’t get me wrong, if covering up was simply a matter of personal style I would be all for it. But let’s be honest: it’s fairly easy to see whether women cover up for religious reasons or not (for starters women would get a hat, not a veil). What makes me angry is when I am out in blistering heat, and I see a family at the beach with kids in bathing suits, the dad in swimming trunks, and the mum covered in black from head to toe. It’s modest and it’s for religious reasons, but those reasons clearly seem oppressive and unfair. I can’t understand why a husband would want his wife to wear this. And don’t even try to swim in such an attire.

In the end, the burkini and some other Islamic dresses are less innocuous than they seem. It has to do with an explicit inequality between genders, which is unacceptable under French law. Let’s face it: we already have far too many of such inequalities…So why should the French accept this one? And let’s not forget that Syrian women burnt burqas in celebration after being freed from Isil. In the meantime, in France, more Muslim women are peer-pressured to wear the veil or the burkini. This seems rather counter-intuitive.

In conclusion, it’s time to go back, understand and reinforce the principles that underpin our democracies. Integration is a two-way street. Was the ban the best way to deal with the issue? Probably not. But I sincerely hope that it will start a much-needed social debate, in France and anywhere else.

Why should France accept the burkini? Its time to debate integration head-on

Personally, I think it's shaky ground to allow "one pieces" or "modesty skirts". If I go to a French beach --- I want the entire French "experience" dammit !!!!

It's gonna be a generational thing.

It maybe that the next generation ends all of that. THey will marry more open-minded husbands, want to integrate into the workforce and STILL be a practicing Muslim. Besides tolerance -- there's patience. It's a HUGE cultural adjustment. FORCING adjustment does not seem productive. Just like FORCING tolerance out of the picture by replacing it with law may not be productive.

That's exactly how I feel about it and typically, the first generation is most traditional and old-country, with succeeding generations being more integrated.

The focus should be on NOT housing recent immigrants in LARGE closed govt housing where adaptation is NEVER likely to happen. And insisting on making French law dominant over religious law.. There's the priorities really. Focus on those.

EXACTLY. Creating, essentially culturally closed ghettos, plus - they have high umemployment rates among young adults, and there is a certain amount of discrimmination by the French as well, restricting them to the lower paying jobs. All that adds fuel to the situation.

 

[StLucieBengal]

They are not commanded by Allah to wear the burkini, the abaya, the hijab, etc.

According to the woman who wears it she is commanded as such.

That's her interpretation. There are Muslin women all over the world who do not cover. The Koran does not say to cover head to toe. It says to dress modestly.

I agree. No where is a burka mentioned - most of it is cultural.

You can agree that the burka is a foul and oppressive garmet though right?

Yup - if it's forced on her. However- if a woman freely chooses it without coercion, then it's her choice - even though it seems crazy to me that any woman would choose it. I value choice and I won't take that choice from her. But in this country - covering that much leads to security concerns, it's impossible to do most jobs, our culture requires an ability to see peole's faces, and there are even safety concerns being out in public and not being able to see clearly. There are a lot of reasons not to allow burkas that make sense.

No woman chooses to wear a burka. The only way any woman goes along with wearing one is if they are scared or have been brain washed.

A Burkini is just an extension of that .... It's men trying to keep a tight grip on women.

If they are in the west and want to rock one of those Jewish swim suits you posted then so be it.... They can also get a sun hat and properly fit in with the west. No one wants to see these women in a string bikini.

Wearing a burka or Burkini just keeps them seperate from society and if they are trying for that then there is no point on them being here.

This is yet another example of why I think Islam needs a reformation to adjust to the west. And until they do then they shouldn't come here unless they are willing to take steps to join us. If they are willing to take those steps then they should be welcomed as long as they are taking the legal immigration route.

 

[StLucieBengal]

A French woman's perspective:


Why should France accept the burkini? Its time to debate integration head-on

• MURIEL DEMARCUS

30 AUGUST 2016 • 1:36PM

The burkini ban in my home country (I am a French woman living in London) has made headlines for most of August. Despite the fact that it has eventually been overturned by the highest French court, the debate is far from over. Journalists have had a field day mocking what they see as an attack against personal freedoms, and keep mentioning that the rightwing in France still supports the ban. What a simplistic view of the situation!

According to various polls, two thirds of the French population supported the ban, and this included the socialist French Prime Minister, Manuel Valls, who famously said that that the full-body swimsuit symbolised the enslavement of women. So what is this really about? I got tired of reading analysis that, in my view, only gave a partial side of the issue, so here is my (very French) take on it.

First of all, France is a secular country. Obviously, France is not the only Western country to insist on the separation of church and state – but I believe that it does so more militantly than any other. To an extent, you could say that secularism is the closest thing we French have to a state religion. It underpinned the French Revolution and has been a foundation of the country's progressive thought for centuries. The law of separation meant strict official neutrality in religious affairs. The Republic has always recognised individuals, rather than groups: this means that you are supposed to be French first, then Muslim, or Catholic, or whatever your religion or ethnic minority might be. You therefore need to comply with the law even if it goes against your religious beliefs, because secularism prevails in all circumstances. Although it can be carried to extremes that other countries don’t understand, this view of citizenship is fundamentally non-discriminatory and inclusive. It’s all about finding a common ground, whatever your religion. Burkini bans must be viewed in this context, and are nothing new.

Rightly or wrongly, French citizens are scared of the Islamisation of their society. Obviously the latest attacks in Nice have further polarised an already divided population. The population is still traumatised, and believes that things have become worse over the last decade or so: people see more veiled women on the street, and are shocked to see a few niqabs or burkas from time to time, despite a full ban. This is compounded by the fact that young women are more and more targeted by some members of the Muslim community on the issue of modesty. For instance, last year in Reims a young woman sunbathing in a public park was set upon by a gang of teenage girls. They objected to her bikini, and the town’s authorities were fast to insist there was no religious aspect to the attack. Nobody believed them.

I belong to a generation that never saw a burkini or a full-body swimsuit at the beach before this summer’s events. This is clearly a new occurrence. The French also are shocked to learn that France is now home to thousands of Islamic radicals. Citizens feel that enough ground has been ceded to minorities in general, and to the Muslim minorities in particular. They think that things have now come to a head, and learned the hard way that political correctness doesn’t work. Furthermore, the French don’t understand why their women should cover up when they visit some Muslim country, but let women wear a veil or a burkini when they visit France. In short, they don’t understand why they should compromise when other countries don’t. It’s all about "my country, my rules".

Then again, I keep reading that the burkini is empowering for Muslim women who wouldn’t be able to go to the beach otherwise. I am struggling with such a point. Just look at the 1950s and 1960s photos of women in modern, comfortable clothes in Afghanistan or Egypt. They clearly were not forced to succumb to the new wave of stricter Islamic dress code. What changed? Why should women suddenly cover up? Islam seems to have been hijacked, and women are, once again, the first hostages. Why should women sympathise with the hijackers? Isn’t this a classic case of Stockholm syndrome?

Egyptian leader Gamal Abdul Nasser with his family in the 1960s CREDIT: AFP/GETTY
And what’s next? Should we also allow FGM to be respectful of different cultural practices? What about polygamy? In short, Western societies need to define what’s acceptable for them, and what’s not. There is a need to draw a line, and maybe the French have drawn it at the burkini. Is it futile? Maybe. But at least a social debate is starting. It’s a debate that societies simply can’t avoid forever. Whether we like it or not, society must have a clear set of "inclusiveness principles", and it’s probably better to face the issue rather than ignore it.

Don’t get me wrong, if covering up was simply a matter of personal style I would be all for it. But let’s be honest: it’s fairly easy to see whether women cover up for religious reasons or not (for starters women would get a hat, not a veil). What makes me angry is when I am out in blistering heat, and I see a family at the beach with kids in bathing suits, the dad in swimming trunks, and the mum covered in black from head to toe. It’s modest and it’s for religious reasons, but those reasons clearly seem oppressive and unfair. I can’t understand why a husband would want his wife to wear this. And don’t even try to swim in such an attire.

In the end, the burkini and some other Islamic dresses are less innocuous than they seem. It has to do with an explicit inequality between genders, which is unacceptable under French law. Let’s face it: we already have far too many of such inequalities…So why should the French accept this one? And let’s not forget that Syrian women burnt burqas in celebration after being freed from Isil. In the meantime, in France, more Muslim women are peer-pressured to wear the veil or the burkini. This seems rather counter-intuitive.

In conclusion, it’s time to go back, understand and reinforce the principles that underpin our democracies. Integration is a two-way street. Was the ban the best way to deal with the issue? Probably not. But I sincerely hope that it will start a much-needed social debate, in France and anywhere else.

Why should France accept the burkini? Its time to debate integration head-on

Personally, I think it's shaky ground to allow "one pieces" or "modesty skirts". If I go to a French beach --- I want the entire French "experience" dammit !!!!

It's gonna be a generational thing.

It maybe that the next generation ends all of that. THey will marry more open-minded husbands, want to integrate into the workforce and STILL be a practicing Muslim. Besides tolerance -- there's patience. It's a HUGE cultural adjustment. FORCING adjustment does not seem productive. Just like FORCING tolerance out of the picture by replacing it with law may not be productive.

That's exactly how I feel about it and typically, the first generation is most traditional and old-country, with succeeding generations being more integrated.

The focus should be on NOT housing recent immigrants in LARGE closed govt housing where adaptation is NEVER likely to happen. And insisting on making French law dominant over religious law.. There's the priorities really. Focus on those.

EXACTLY. Creating, essentially culturally closed ghettos, plus - they have high umemployment rates among young adults, and there is a certain amount of discrimmination by the French as well, restricting them to the lower paying jobs. All that adds fuel to the situation.

Doesn't the numbers bear out that the second generation is most likely to be radicalized?

I swear I saw that when they discussed the Orlando shooter. His mosque pretty close to me:

 

[Coyote]

According to the woman who wears it she is commanded as such.

That's her interpretation. There are Muslin women all over the world who do not cover. The Koran does not say to cover head to toe. It says to dress modestly.

I agree. No where is a burka mentioned - most of it is cultural.

You can agree that the burka is a foul and oppressive garmet though right?

Yup - if it's forced on her. However- if a woman freely chooses it without coercion, then it's her choice - even though it seems crazy to me that any woman would choose it. I value choice and I won't take that choice from her. But in this country - covering that much leads to security concerns, it's impossible to do most jobs, our culture requires an ability to see peole's faces, and there are even safety concerns being out in public and not being able to see clearly. There are a lot of reasons not to allow burkas that make sense.

No woman chooses to wear a burka. The only way any woman goes along with wearing one is if they are scared or have been brain washed.

I think it's possible some could freely choose - as an extreme example of "piety", the way she was brought up etc. The thing is - we have no right to remove that choice from her without good reason.

A Burkini is just an extension of that .... It's men trying to keep a tight grip on women.

If they are in the west and want to rock one of those Jewish swim suits you posted then so be it.... They can also get a sun hat and properly fit in with the west. No one wants to see these women in a string bikini.

The modest swimwear that the Orthodox Jewish women wear is not much difference - you see a little more of the lower calf and ankles, a little more of the forearms, if she is unmarried you see her hair and face, and if she is married, her hair is covered. It is not even remotely close to what you consider standard French beachwear so thrying to claim it's acceptable as such while the burkini, which it more closely resembles is not seems a stretch imo. A burkini is no more an extension of men trying to keep a tight grip on women then the outfit the Jewish women were wearing - in both cases you're talking about women who observe traditional religions and who likely feel their choices in modesty reflect their feelings towards God (at least that is how I've heard it phrased).

Wearing a burka or Burkini just keeps them seperate from society and if they are trying for that then there is no point on them being here.

This is yet another example of why I think Islam needs a reformation to adjust to the west. And until they do then they shouldn't come here unless they are willing to take steps to join us. If they are willing to take those steps then they should be welcomed as long as they are taking the legal immigration route.

If that is what you feel then you're going to have issues with Orthodox Jewish women, and a good many Christian sects as well who don't hold with baring a lot of skin or form fitting clothing.

 

[Coyote]

A French woman's perspective:


Why should France accept the burkini? Its time to debate integration head-on

• MURIEL DEMARCUS

30 AUGUST 2016 • 1:36PM

The burkini ban in my home country (I am a French woman living in London) has made headlines for most of August. Despite the fact that it has eventually been overturned by the highest French court, the debate is far from over. Journalists have had a field day mocking what they see as an attack against personal freedoms, and keep mentioning that the rightwing in France still supports the ban. What a simplistic view of the situation!

According to various polls, two thirds of the French population supported the ban, and this included the socialist French Prime Minister, Manuel Valls, who famously said that that the full-body swimsuit symbolised the enslavement of women. So what is this really about? I got tired of reading analysis that, in my view, only gave a partial side of the issue, so here is my (very French) take on it.

First of all, France is a secular country. Obviously, France is not the only Western country to insist on the separation of church and state – but I believe that it does so more militantly than any other. To an extent, you could say that secularism is the closest thing we French have to a state religion. It underpinned the French Revolution and has been a foundation of the country's progressive thought for centuries. The law of separation meant strict official neutrality in religious affairs. The Republic has always recognised individuals, rather than groups: this means that you are supposed to be French first, then Muslim, or Catholic, or whatever your religion or ethnic minority might be. You therefore need to comply with the law even if it goes against your religious beliefs, because secularism prevails in all circumstances. Although it can be carried to extremes that other countries don’t understand, this view of citizenship is fundamentally non-discriminatory and inclusive. It’s all about finding a common ground, whatever your religion. Burkini bans must be viewed in this context, and are nothing new.

Rightly or wrongly, French citizens are scared of the Islamisation of their society. Obviously the latest attacks in Nice have further polarised an already divided population. The population is still traumatised, and believes that things have become worse over the last decade or so: people see more veiled women on the street, and are shocked to see a few niqabs or burkas from time to time, despite a full ban. This is compounded by the fact that young women are more and more targeted by some members of the Muslim community on the issue of modesty. For instance, last year in Reims a young woman sunbathing in a public park was set upon by a gang of teenage girls. They objected to her bikini, and the town’s authorities were fast to insist there was no religious aspect to the attack. Nobody believed them.

I belong to a generation that never saw a burkini or a full-body swimsuit at the beach before this summer’s events. This is clearly a new occurrence. The French also are shocked to learn that France is now home to thousands of Islamic radicals. Citizens feel that enough ground has been ceded to minorities in general, and to the Muslim minorities in particular. They think that things have now come to a head, and learned the hard way that political correctness doesn’t work. Furthermore, the French don’t understand why their women should cover up when they visit some Muslim country, but let women wear a veil or a burkini when they visit France. In short, they don’t understand why they should compromise when other countries don’t. It’s all about "my country, my rules".

Then again, I keep reading that the burkini is empowering for Muslim women who wouldn’t be able to go to the beach otherwise. I am struggling with such a point. Just look at the 1950s and 1960s photos of women in modern, comfortable clothes in Afghanistan or Egypt. They clearly were not forced to succumb to the new wave of stricter Islamic dress code. What changed? Why should women suddenly cover up? Islam seems to have been hijacked, and women are, once again, the first hostages. Why should women sympathise with the hijackers? Isn’t this a classic case of Stockholm syndrome?

Egyptian leader Gamal Abdul Nasser with his family in the 1960s CREDIT: AFP/GETTY
And what’s next? Should we also allow FGM to be respectful of different cultural practices? What about polygamy? In short, Western societies need to define what’s acceptable for them, and what’s not. There is a need to draw a line, and maybe the French have drawn it at the burkini. Is it futile? Maybe. But at least a social debate is starting. It’s a debate that societies simply can’t avoid forever. Whether we like it or not, society must have a clear set of "inclusiveness principles", and it’s probably better to face the issue rather than ignore it.

Don’t get me wrong, if covering up was simply a matter of personal style I would be all for it. But let’s be honest: it’s fairly easy to see whether women cover up for religious reasons or not (for starters women would get a hat, not a veil). What makes me angry is when I am out in blistering heat, and I see a family at the beach with kids in bathing suits, the dad in swimming trunks, and the mum covered in black from head to toe. It’s modest and it’s for religious reasons, but those reasons clearly seem oppressive and unfair. I can’t understand why a husband would want his wife to wear this. And don’t even try to swim in such an attire.

In the end, the burkini and some other Islamic dresses are less innocuous than they seem. It has to do with an explicit inequality between genders, which is unacceptable under French law. Let’s face it: we already have far too many of such inequalities…So why should the French accept this one? And let’s not forget that Syrian women burnt burqas in celebration after being freed from Isil. In the meantime, in France, more Muslim women are peer-pressured to wear the veil or the burkini. This seems rather counter-intuitive.

In conclusion, it’s time to go back, understand and reinforce the principles that underpin our democracies. Integration is a two-way street. Was the ban the best way to deal with the issue? Probably not. But I sincerely hope that it will start a much-needed social debate, in France and anywhere else.

Why should France accept the burkini? Its time to debate integration head-on

Personally, I think it's shaky ground to allow "one pieces" or "modesty skirts". If I go to a French beach --- I want the entire French "experience" dammit !!!!

It's gonna be a generational thing.

It maybe that the next generation ends all of that. THey will marry more open-minded husbands, want to integrate into the workforce and STILL be a practicing Muslim. Besides tolerance -- there's patience. It's a HUGE cultural adjustment. FORCING adjustment does not seem productive. Just like FORCING tolerance out of the picture by replacing it with law may not be productive.

That's exactly how I feel about it and typically, the first generation is most traditional and old-country, with succeeding generations being more integrated.

The focus should be on NOT housing recent immigrants in LARGE closed govt housing where adaptation is NEVER likely to happen. And insisting on making French law dominant over religious law.. There's the priorities really. Focus on those.

EXACTLY. Creating, essentially culturally closed ghettos, plus - they have high umemployment rates among young adults, and there is a certain amount of discrimmination by the French as well, restricting them to the lower paying jobs. All that adds fuel to the situation.

Doesn't the numbers bear out that the second generation is most likely to be radicalized?

I swear I saw that when they discussed the Orlando shooter. His mosque pretty close to me:

Being radicalized is a different scenario I think, then immigrant integration. Not sure though so I'd like to see some actual statistics.

My understanding is first generation is most likely to retain traditional values and habits that succeeding generations rebel against but they are also the ones who chose to immigrate to a new country and adopt it as their own. In many cases they've likely fled bad situations. It may be in some cases the second generation or those who immigrated as young children, are caught in the not quite belonging in either camp situation, and that leaves them more vulnerable to radicalization?

In the US second generation and forward are usually well integrated - but it could be France's dynamic is different. France also lags far behind US and Canada in integration of immigrants.

 

[StLucieBengal]

A French woman's perspective:


Why should France accept the burkini? Its time to debate integration head-on

• MURIEL DEMARCUS

30 AUGUST 2016 • 1:36PM

The burkini ban in my home country (I am a French woman living in London) has made headlines for most of August. Despite the fact that it has eventually been overturned by the highest French court, the debate is far from over. Journalists have had a field day mocking what they see as an attack against personal freedoms, and keep mentioning that the rightwing in France still supports the ban. What a simplistic view of the situation!

According to various polls, two thirds of the French population supported the ban, and this included the socialist French Prime Minister, Manuel Valls, who famously said that that the full-body swimsuit symbolised the enslavement of women. So what is this really about? I got tired of reading analysis that, in my view, only gave a partial side of the issue, so here is my (very French) take on it.

First of all, France is a secular country. Obviously, France is not the only Western country to insist on the separation of church and state – but I believe that it does so more militantly than any other. To an extent, you could say that secularism is the closest thing we French have to a state religion. It underpinned the French Revolution and has been a foundation of the country's progressive thought for centuries. The law of separation meant strict official neutrality in religious affairs. The Republic has always recognised individuals, rather than groups: this means that you are supposed to be French first, then Muslim, or Catholic, or whatever your religion or ethnic minority might be. You therefore need to comply with the law even if it goes against your religious beliefs, because secularism prevails in all circumstances. Although it can be carried to extremes that other countries don’t understand, this view of citizenship is fundamentally non-discriminatory and inclusive. It’s all about finding a common ground, whatever your religion. Burkini bans must be viewed in this context, and are nothing new.

Rightly or wrongly, French citizens are scared of the Islamisation of their society. Obviously the latest attacks in Nice have further polarised an already divided population. The population is still traumatised, and believes that things have become worse over the last decade or so: people see more veiled women on the street, and are shocked to see a few niqabs or burkas from time to time, despite a full ban. This is compounded by the fact that young women are more and more targeted by some members of the Muslim community on the issue of modesty. For instance, last year in Reims a young woman sunbathing in a public park was set upon by a gang of teenage girls. They objected to her bikini, and the town’s authorities were fast to insist there was no religious aspect to the attack. Nobody believed them.

I belong to a generation that never saw a burkini or a full-body swimsuit at the beach before this summer’s events. This is clearly a new occurrence. The French also are shocked to learn that France is now home to thousands of Islamic radicals. Citizens feel that enough ground has been ceded to minorities in general, and to the Muslim minorities in particular. They think that things have now come to a head, and learned the hard way that political correctness doesn’t work. Furthermore, the French don’t understand why their women should cover up when they visit some Muslim country, but let women wear a veil or a burkini when they visit France. In short, they don’t understand why they should compromise when other countries don’t. It’s all about "my country, my rules".

Then again, I keep reading that the burkini is empowering for Muslim women who wouldn’t be able to go to the beach otherwise. I am struggling with such a point. Just look at the 1950s and 1960s photos of women in modern, comfortable clothes in Afghanistan or Egypt. They clearly were not forced to succumb to the new wave of stricter Islamic dress code. What changed? Why should women suddenly cover up? Islam seems to have been hijacked, and women are, once again, the first hostages. Why should women sympathise with the hijackers? Isn’t this a classic case of Stockholm syndrome?

Egyptian leader Gamal Abdul Nasser with his family in the 1960s CREDIT: AFP/GETTY
And what’s next? Should we also allow FGM to be respectful of different cultural practices? What about polygamy? In short, Western societies need to define what’s acceptable for them, and what’s not. There is a need to draw a line, and maybe the French have drawn it at the burkini. Is it futile? Maybe. But at least a social debate is starting. It’s a debate that societies simply can’t avoid forever. Whether we like it or not, society must have a clear set of "inclusiveness principles", and it’s probably better to face the issue rather than ignore it.

Don’t get me wrong, if covering up was simply a matter of personal style I would be all for it. But let’s be honest: it’s fairly easy to see whether women cover up for religious reasons or not (for starters women would get a hat, not a veil). What makes me angry is when I am out in blistering heat, and I see a family at the beach with kids in bathing suits, the dad in swimming trunks, and the mum covered in black from head to toe. It’s modest and it’s for religious reasons, but those reasons clearly seem oppressive and unfair. I can’t understand why a husband would want his wife to wear this. And don’t even try to swim in such an attire.

In the end, the burkini and some other Islamic dresses are less innocuous than they seem. It has to do with an explicit inequality between genders, which is unacceptable under French law. Let’s face it: we already have far too many of such inequalities…So why should the French accept this one? And let’s not forget that Syrian women burnt burqas in celebration after being freed from Isil. In the meantime, in France, more Muslim women are peer-pressured to wear the veil or the burkini. This seems rather counter-intuitive.

In conclusion, it’s time to go back, understand and reinforce the principles that underpin our democracies. Integration is a two-way street. Was the ban the best way to deal with the issue? Probably not. But I sincerely hope that it will start a much-needed social debate, in France and anywhere else.

Why should France accept the burkini? Its time to debate integration head-on

Personally, I think it's shaky ground to allow "one pieces" or "modesty skirts". If I go to a French beach --- I want the entire French "experience" dammit !!!!

It's gonna be a generational thing.

It maybe that the next generation ends all of that. THey will marry more open-minded husbands, want to integrate into the workforce and STILL be a practicing Muslim. Besides tolerance -- there's patience. It's a HUGE cultural adjustment. FORCING adjustment does not seem productive. Just like FORCING tolerance out of the picture by replacing it with law may not be productive.

That's exactly how I feel about it and typically, the first generation is most traditional and old-country, with succeeding generations being more integrated.

The focus should be on NOT housing recent immigrants in LARGE closed govt housing where adaptation is NEVER likely to happen. And insisting on making French law dominant over religious law.. There's the priorities really. Focus on those.

EXACTLY. Creating, essentially culturally closed ghettos, plus - they have high umemployment rates among young adults, and there is a certain amount of discrimmination by the French as well, restricting them to the lower paying jobs. All that adds fuel to the situation.

Doesn't the numbers bear out that the second generation is most likely to be radicalized?

I swear I saw that when they discussed the Orlando shooter. His mosque pretty close to me:

Being radicalized is a different scenario I think, then immigrant integration. Not sure though so I'd like to see some actual statistics.

My understanding is first generation is most likely to retain traditional values and habits that succeeding generations rebel against but they are also the ones who chose to immigrate to a new country and adopt it as their own. In many cases they've likely fled bad situations. It may be in some cases the second generation or those who immigrated as young children, are caught in the not quite belonging in either camp situation, and that leaves them more vulnerable to radicalization?

In the US second generation and forward are usually well integrated - but it could be France's dynamic is different. France also lags far behind US and Canada in integration of immigrants.

I will have to find the details but it was my understanding that the immigrants did what they could to fit but were a bit awkward. Then the second generation will grow up in the new culture but will feel isolated not being part of their immigrant parents life. The third generation is where hey finally see themselves and feel like the new culture/home.

 

[Coyote]

A French woman's perspective:


Why should France accept the burkini? Its time to debate integration head-on

• MURIEL DEMARCUS

30 AUGUST 2016 • 1:36PM

The burkini ban in my home country (I am a French woman living in London) has made headlines for most of August. Despite the fact that it has eventually been overturned by the highest French court, the debate is far from over. Journalists have had a field day mocking what they see as an attack against personal freedoms, and keep mentioning that the rightwing in France still supports the ban. What a simplistic view of the situation!

According to various polls, two thirds of the French population supported the ban, and this included the socialist French Prime Minister, Manuel Valls, who famously said that that the full-body swimsuit symbolised the enslavement of women. So what is this really about? I got tired of reading analysis that, in my view, only gave a partial side of the issue, so here is my (very French) take on it.

First of all, France is a secular country. Obviously, France is not the only Western country to insist on the separation of church and state – but I believe that it does so more militantly than any other. To an extent, you could say that secularism is the closest thing we French have to a state religion. It underpinned the French Revolution and has been a foundation of the country's progressive thought for centuries. The law of separation meant strict official neutrality in religious affairs. The Republic has always recognised individuals, rather than groups: this means that you are supposed to be French first, then Muslim, or Catholic, or whatever your religion or ethnic minority might be. You therefore need to comply with the law even if it goes against your religious beliefs, because secularism prevails in all circumstances. Although it can be carried to extremes that other countries don’t understand, this view of citizenship is fundamentally non-discriminatory and inclusive. It’s all about finding a common ground, whatever your religion. Burkini bans must be viewed in this context, and are nothing new.

Rightly or wrongly, French citizens are scared of the Islamisation of their society. Obviously the latest attacks in Nice have further polarised an already divided population. The population is still traumatised, and believes that things have become worse over the last decade or so: people see more veiled women on the street, and are shocked to see a few niqabs or burkas from time to time, despite a full ban. This is compounded by the fact that young women are more and more targeted by some members of the Muslim community on the issue of modesty. For instance, last year in Reims a young woman sunbathing in a public park was set upon by a gang of teenage girls. They objected to her bikini, and the town’s authorities were fast to insist there was no religious aspect to the attack. Nobody believed them.

I belong to a generation that never saw a burkini or a full-body swimsuit at the beach before this summer’s events. This is clearly a new occurrence. The French also are shocked to learn that France is now home to thousands of Islamic radicals. Citizens feel that enough ground has been ceded to minorities in general, and to the Muslim minorities in particular. They think that things have now come to a head, and learned the hard way that political correctness doesn’t work. Furthermore, the French don’t understand why their women should cover up when they visit some Muslim country, but let women wear a veil or a burkini when they visit France. In short, they don’t understand why they should compromise when other countries don’t. It’s all about "my country, my rules".

Then again, I keep reading that the burkini is empowering for Muslim women who wouldn’t be able to go to the beach otherwise. I am struggling with such a point. Just look at the 1950s and 1960s photos of women in modern, comfortable clothes in Afghanistan or Egypt. They clearly were not forced to succumb to the new wave of stricter Islamic dress code. What changed? Why should women suddenly cover up? Islam seems to have been hijacked, and women are, once again, the first hostages. Why should women sympathise with the hijackers? Isn’t this a classic case of Stockholm syndrome?

Egyptian leader Gamal Abdul Nasser with his family in the 1960s CREDIT: AFP/GETTY
And what’s next? Should we also allow FGM to be respectful of different cultural practices? What about polygamy? In short, Western societies need to define what’s acceptable for them, and what’s not. There is a need to draw a line, and maybe the French have drawn it at the burkini. Is it futile? Maybe. But at least a social debate is starting. It’s a debate that societies simply can’t avoid forever. Whether we like it or not, society must have a clear set of "inclusiveness principles", and it’s probably better to face the issue rather than ignore it.

Don’t get me wrong, if covering up was simply a matter of personal style I would be all for it. But let’s be honest: it’s fairly easy to see whether women cover up for religious reasons or not (for starters women would get a hat, not a veil). What makes me angry is when I am out in blistering heat, and I see a family at the beach with kids in bathing suits, the dad in swimming trunks, and the mum covered in black from head to toe. It’s modest and it’s for religious reasons, but those reasons clearly seem oppressive and unfair. I can’t understand why a husband would want his wife to wear this. And don’t even try to swim in such an attire.

In the end, the burkini and some other Islamic dresses are less innocuous than they seem. It has to do with an explicit inequality between genders, which is unacceptable under French law. Let’s face it: we already have far too many of such inequalities…So why should the French accept this one? And let’s not forget that Syrian women burnt burqas in celebration after being freed from Isil. In the meantime, in France, more Muslim women are peer-pressured to wear the veil or the burkini. This seems rather counter-intuitive.

In conclusion, it’s time to go back, understand and reinforce the principles that underpin our democracies. Integration is a two-way street. Was the ban the best way to deal with the issue? Probably not. But I sincerely hope that it will start a much-needed social debate, in France and anywhere else.

Why should France accept the burkini? Its time to debate integration head-on

Personally, I think it's shaky ground to allow "one pieces" or "modesty skirts". If I go to a French beach --- I want the entire French "experience" dammit !!!!

It's gonna be a generational thing.

It maybe that the next generation ends all of that. THey will marry more open-minded husbands, want to integrate into the workforce and STILL be a practicing Muslim. Besides tolerance -- there's patience. It's a HUGE cultural adjustment. FORCING adjustment does not seem productive. Just like FORCING tolerance out of the picture by replacing it with law may not be productive.

That's exactly how I feel about it and typically, the first generation is most traditional and old-country, with succeeding generations being more integrated.

The focus should be on NOT housing recent immigrants in LARGE closed govt housing where adaptation is NEVER likely to happen. And insisting on making French law dominant over religious law.. There's the priorities really. Focus on those.

EXACTLY. Creating, essentially culturally closed ghettos, plus - they have high umemployment rates among young adults, and there is a certain amount of discrimmination by the French as well, restricting them to the lower paying jobs. All that adds fuel to the situation.

Doesn't the numbers bear out that the second generation is most likely to be radicalized?

I swear I saw that when they discussed the Orlando shooter. His mosque pretty close to me:

Being radicalized is a different scenario I think, then immigrant integration. Not sure though so I'd like to see some actual statistics.

My understanding is first generation is most likely to retain traditional values and habits that succeeding generations rebel against but they are also the ones who chose to immigrate to a new country and adopt it as their own. In many cases they've likely fled bad situations. It may be in some cases the second generation or those who immigrated as young children, are caught in the not quite belonging in either camp situation, and that leaves them more vulnerable to radicalization?

In the US second generation and forward are usually well integrated - but it could be France's dynamic is different. France also lags far behind US and Canada in integration of immigrants.

I will have to find the details but it was my understanding that the immigrants did what they could to fit but were a bit awkward. Then the second generation will grow up in the new culture but will feel isolated not being part of their immigrant parents life. The third generation is where hey finally see themselves and feel like the new culture/home.

That could be - I'd be interested in seeing what you find.

 

[StLucieBengal]

That's her interpretation. There are Muslin women all over the world who do not cover. The Koran does not say to cover head to toe. It says to dress modestly.

I agree. No where is a burka mentioned - most of it is cultural.

You can agree that the burka is a foul and oppressive garmet though right?

Yup - if it's forced on her. However- if a woman freely chooses it without coercion, then it's her choice - even though it seems crazy to me that any woman would choose it. I value choice and I won't take that choice from her. But in this country - covering that much leads to security concerns, it's impossible to do most jobs, our culture requires an ability to see peole's faces, and there are even safety concerns being out in public and not being able to see clearly. There are a lot of reasons not to allow burkas that make sense.

No woman chooses to wear a burka. The only way any woman goes along with wearing one is if they are scared or have been brain washed.

I think it's possible some could freely choose - as an extreme example of "piety", the way she was brought up etc. The thing is - we have no right to remove that choice from her without good reason.

A Burkini is just an extension of that .... It's men trying to keep a tight grip on women.

If they are in the west and want to rock one of those Jewish swim suits you posted then so be it.... They can also get a sun hat and properly fit in with the west. No one wants to see these women in a string bikini.

The modest swimwear that the Orthodox Jewish women wear is not much difference - you see a little more of the lower calf and ankles, a little more of the forearms, if she is unmarried you see her hair and face, and if she is married, her hair is covered. It is not even remotely close to what you consider standard French beachwear so thrying to claim it's acceptable as such while the burkini, which it more closely resembles is not seems a stretch imo. A burkini is no more an extension of men trying to keep a tight grip on women then the outfit the Jewish women were wearing - in both cases you're talking about women who observe traditional religions and who likely feel their choices in modesty reflect their feelings towards God (at least that is how I've heard it phrased).

Wearing a burka or Burkini just keeps them seperate from society and if they are trying for that then there is no point on them being here.

This is yet another example of why I think Islam needs a reformation to adjust to the west. And until they do then they shouldn't come here unless they are willing to take steps to join us. If they are willing to take those steps then they should be welcomed as long as they are taking the legal immigration route.

If that is what you feel then you're going to have issues with Orthodox Jewish women, and a good many Christian sects as well who don't hold with baring a lot of skin or form fitting clothing.

I should be able to see everyone's face and hair. The Jews wear a wig to cover their head and if Muslims wanna do that then ok.

The Amish women have it better than the Muslim women when it comes to clothing.

 

[Coyote]

I agree. No where is a burka mentioned - most of it is cultural.

You can agree that the burka is a foul and oppressive garmet though right?

Yup - if it's forced on her. However- if a woman freely chooses it without coercion, then it's her choice - even though it seems crazy to me that any woman would choose it. I value choice and I won't take that choice from her. But in this country - covering that much leads to security concerns, it's impossible to do most jobs, our culture requires an ability to see peole's faces, and there are even safety concerns being out in public and not being able to see clearly. There are a lot of reasons not to allow burkas that make sense.

No woman chooses to wear a burka. The only way any woman goes along with wearing one is if they are scared or have been brain washed.

I think it's possible some could freely choose - as an extreme example of "piety", the way she was brought up etc. The thing is - we have no right to remove that choice from her without good reason.

A Burkini is just an extension of that .... It's men trying to keep a tight grip on women.

If they are in the west and want to rock one of those Jewish swim suits you posted then so be it.... They can also get a sun hat and properly fit in with the west. No one wants to see these women in a string bikini.

The modest swimwear that the Orthodox Jewish women wear is not much difference - you see a little more of the lower calf and ankles, a little more of the forearms, if she is unmarried you see her hair and face, and if she is married, her hair is covered. It is not even remotely close to what you consider standard French beachwear so thrying to claim it's acceptable as such while the burkini, which it more closely resembles is not seems a stretch imo. A burkini is no more an extension of men trying to keep a tight grip on women then the outfit the Jewish women were wearing - in both cases you're talking about women who observe traditional religions and who likely feel their choices in modesty reflect their feelings towards God (at least that is how I've heard it phrased).

Wearing a burka or Burkini just keeps them seperate from society and if they are trying for that then there is no point on them being here.

This is yet another example of why I think Islam needs a reformation to adjust to the west. And until they do then they shouldn't come here unless they are willing to take steps to join us. If they are willing to take those steps then they should be welcomed as long as they are taking the legal immigration route.

If that is what you feel then you're going to have issues with Orthodox Jewish women, and a good many Christian sects as well who don't hold with baring a lot of skin or form fitting clothing.

I should be able to see everyone's face and hair. The Jews wear a wig to cover their head and if Muslims wanna do that then ok.

The Amish women have it better than the Muslim women when it comes to clothing.

Orthodox Jews wear headscarves and turban-type head coverings as well. I don't care what they wear on their heads or over their hair, it's a free country.

 

[flacaltenn]

A French woman's perspective:


Why should France accept the burkini? Its time to debate integration head-on

• MURIEL DEMARCUS

30 AUGUST 2016 • 1:36PM

The burkini ban in my home country (I am a French woman living in London) has made headlines for most of August. Despite the fact that it has eventually been overturned by the highest French court, the debate is far from over. Journalists have had a field day mocking what they see as an attack against personal freedoms, and keep mentioning that the rightwing in France still supports the ban. What a simplistic view of the situation!

According to various polls, two thirds of the French population supported the ban, and this included the socialist French Prime Minister, Manuel Valls, who famously said that that the full-body swimsuit symbolised the enslavement of women. So what is this really about? I got tired of reading analysis that, in my view, only gave a partial side of the issue, so here is my (very French) take on it.

First of all, France is a secular country. Obviously, France is not the only Western country to insist on the separation of church and state – but I believe that it does so more militantly than any other. To an extent, you could say that secularism is the closest thing we French have to a state religion. It underpinned the French Revolution and has been a foundation of the country's progressive thought for centuries. The law of separation meant strict official neutrality in religious affairs. The Republic has always recognised individuals, rather than groups: this means that you are supposed to be French first, then Muslim, or Catholic, or whatever your religion or ethnic minority might be. You therefore need to comply with the law even if it goes against your religious beliefs, because secularism prevails in all circumstances. Although it can be carried to extremes that other countries don’t understand, this view of citizenship is fundamentally non-discriminatory and inclusive. It’s all about finding a common ground, whatever your religion. Burkini bans must be viewed in this context, and are nothing new.

Rightly or wrongly, French citizens are scared of the Islamisation of their society. Obviously the latest attacks in Nice have further polarised an already divided population. The population is still traumatised, and believes that things have become worse over the last decade or so: people see more veiled women on the street, and are shocked to see a few niqabs or burkas from time to time, despite a full ban. This is compounded by the fact that young women are more and more targeted by some members of the Muslim community on the issue of modesty. For instance, last year in Reims a young woman sunbathing in a public park was set upon by a gang of teenage girls. They objected to her bikini, and the town’s authorities were fast to insist there was no religious aspect to the attack. Nobody believed them.

I belong to a generation that never saw a burkini or a full-body swimsuit at the beach before this summer’s events. This is clearly a new occurrence. The French also are shocked to learn that France is now home to thousands of Islamic radicals. Citizens feel that enough ground has been ceded to minorities in general, and to the Muslim minorities in particular. They think that things have now come to a head, and learned the hard way that political correctness doesn’t work. Furthermore, the French don’t understand why their women should cover up when they visit some Muslim country, but let women wear a veil or a burkini when they visit France. In short, they don’t understand why they should compromise when other countries don’t. It’s all about "my country, my rules".

Then again, I keep reading that the burkini is empowering for Muslim women who wouldn’t be able to go to the beach otherwise. I am struggling with such a point. Just look at the 1950s and 1960s photos of women in modern, comfortable clothes in Afghanistan or Egypt. They clearly were not forced to succumb to the new wave of stricter Islamic dress code. What changed? Why should women suddenly cover up? Islam seems to have been hijacked, and women are, once again, the first hostages. Why should women sympathise with the hijackers? Isn’t this a classic case of Stockholm syndrome?

Egyptian leader Gamal Abdul Nasser with his family in the 1960s CREDIT: AFP/GETTY
And what’s next? Should we also allow FGM to be respectful of different cultural practices? What about polygamy? In short, Western societies need to define what’s acceptable for them, and what’s not. There is a need to draw a line, and maybe the French have drawn it at the burkini. Is it futile? Maybe. But at least a social debate is starting. It’s a debate that societies simply can’t avoid forever. Whether we like it or not, society must have a clear set of "inclusiveness principles", and it’s probably better to face the issue rather than ignore it.

Don’t get me wrong, if covering up was simply a matter of personal style I would be all for it. But let’s be honest: it’s fairly easy to see whether women cover up for religious reasons or not (for starters women would get a hat, not a veil). What makes me angry is when I am out in blistering heat, and I see a family at the beach with kids in bathing suits, the dad in swimming trunks, and the mum covered in black from head to toe. It’s modest and it’s for religious reasons, but those reasons clearly seem oppressive and unfair. I can’t understand why a husband would want his wife to wear this. And don’t even try to swim in such an attire.

In the end, the burkini and some other Islamic dresses are less innocuous than they seem. It has to do with an explicit inequality between genders, which is unacceptable under French law. Let’s face it: we already have far too many of such inequalities…So why should the French accept this one? And let’s not forget that Syrian women burnt burqas in celebration after being freed from Isil. In the meantime, in France, more Muslim women are peer-pressured to wear the veil or the burkini. This seems rather counter-intuitive.

In conclusion, it’s time to go back, understand and reinforce the principles that underpin our democracies. Integration is a two-way street. Was the ban the best way to deal with the issue? Probably not. But I sincerely hope that it will start a much-needed social debate, in France and anywhere else.

Why should France accept the burkini? Its time to debate integration head-on

Personally, I think it's shaky ground to allow "one pieces" or "modesty skirts". If I go to a French beach --- I want the entire French "experience" dammit !!!!

It's gonna be a generational thing.

It maybe that the next generation ends all of that. THey will marry more open-minded husbands, want to integrate into the workforce and STILL be a practicing Muslim. Besides tolerance -- there's patience. It's a HUGE cultural adjustment. FORCING adjustment does not seem productive. Just like FORCING tolerance out of the picture by replacing it with law may not be productive.

That's exactly how I feel about it and typically, the first generation is most traditional and old-country, with succeeding generations being more integrated.

The focus should be on NOT housing recent immigrants in LARGE closed govt housing where adaptation is NEVER likely to happen. And insisting on making French law dominant over religious law.. There's the priorities really. Focus on those.

EXACTLY. Creating, essentially culturally closed ghettos, plus - they have high umemployment rates among young adults, and there is a certain amount of discrimmination by the French as well, restricting them to the lower paying jobs. All that adds fuel to the situation.

Doesn't the numbers bear out that the second generation is most likely to be radicalized?

I swear I saw that when they discussed the Orlando shooter. His mosque pretty close to me:

That was a truly weird case. The press never figured out the role of the father in that "radicalization". This guy was yanked of Afghan in the mid 80s after we supported the Mujahadeen and the Taliban against Russia. One of our LARGER mistakes. He was USED by State Dept and probably Intel Agencies as a liason to the Taliban. The father actually BELIEVED that the CIA would install him as a future leader of Afghan in exchange for his "service".

Now I believe in giving sanctuary in GENERAL to folks that have helped us in war zones. But in this case, we probably overlooked a lot of the fathers support and empathy for "radicals".

In general "adaptation" involves immersion in the new culture. If you house all your refugees in high density housing and allow madrasas instead of public education -- and allow religious law solutions to issues that no religion in a free society should handle --- you have FAR LESS of a chance of assimilation and putting them into safe and moderated practice of Islam. Like MOST of America's Muslim communities.

You just feed the very few RECRUITERS for Radical orgs and movements with a LOT of fresh young talent -- if you don't cut off the OLD cultural practices and associations.

 

[Mindful]

A French woman's perspective:


Why should France accept the burkini? Its time to debate integration head-on

• MURIEL DEMARCUS

30 AUGUST 2016 • 1:36PM

The burkini ban in my home country (I am a French woman living in London) has made headlines for most of August. Despite the fact that it has eventually been overturned by the highest French court, the debate is far from over. Journalists have had a field day mocking what they see as an attack against personal freedoms, and keep mentioning that the rightwing in France still supports the ban. What a simplistic view of the situation!

According to various polls, two thirds of the French population supported the ban, and this included the socialist French Prime Minister, Manuel Valls, who famously said that that the full-body swimsuit symbolised the enslavement of women. So what is this really about? I got tired of reading analysis that, in my view, only gave a partial side of the issue, so here is my (very French) take on it.

First of all, France is a secular country. Obviously, France is not the only Western country to insist on the separation of church and state – but I believe that it does so more militantly than any other. To an extent, you could say that secularism is the closest thing we French have to a state religion. It underpinned the French Revolution and has been a foundation of the country's progressive thought for centuries. The law of separation meant strict official neutrality in religious affairs. The Republic has always recognised individuals, rather than groups: this means that you are supposed to be French first, then Muslim, or Catholic, or whatever your religion or ethnic minority might be. You therefore need to comply with the law even if it goes against your religious beliefs, because secularism prevails in all circumstances. Although it can be carried to extremes that other countries don’t understand, this view of citizenship is fundamentally non-discriminatory and inclusive. It’s all about finding a common ground, whatever your religion. Burkini bans must be viewed in this context, and are nothing new.

Rightly or wrongly, French citizens are scared of the Islamisation of their society. Obviously the latest attacks in Nice have further polarised an already divided population. The population is still traumatised, and believes that things have become worse over the last decade or so: people see more veiled women on the street, and are shocked to see a few niqabs or burkas from time to time, despite a full ban. This is compounded by the fact that young women are more and more targeted by some members of the Muslim community on the issue of modesty. For instance, last year in Reims a young woman sunbathing in a public park was set upon by a gang of teenage girls. They objected to her bikini, and the town’s authorities were fast to insist there was no religious aspect to the attack. Nobody believed them.

I belong to a generation that never saw a burkini or a full-body swimsuit at the beach before this summer’s events. This is clearly a new occurrence. The French also are shocked to learn that France is now home to thousands of Islamic radicals. Citizens feel that enough ground has been ceded to minorities in general, and to the Muslim minorities in particular. They think that things have now come to a head, and learned the hard way that political correctness doesn’t work. Furthermore, the French don’t understand why their women should cover up when they visit some Muslim country, but let women wear a veil or a burkini when they visit France. In short, they don’t understand why they should compromise when other countries don’t. It’s all about "my country, my rules".

Then again, I keep reading that the burkini is empowering for Muslim women who wouldn’t be able to go to the beach otherwise. I am struggling with such a point. Just look at the 1950s and 1960s photos of women in modern, comfortable clothes in Afghanistan or Egypt. They clearly were not forced to succumb to the new wave of stricter Islamic dress code. What changed? Why should women suddenly cover up? Islam seems to have been hijacked, and women are, once again, the first hostages. Why should women sympathise with the hijackers? Isn’t this a classic case of Stockholm syndrome?

Egyptian leader Gamal Abdul Nasser with his family in the 1960s CREDIT: AFP/GETTY
And what’s next? Should we also allow FGM to be respectful of different cultural practices? What about polygamy? In short, Western societies need to define what’s acceptable for them, and what’s not. There is a need to draw a line, and maybe the French have drawn it at the burkini. Is it futile? Maybe. But at least a social debate is starting. It’s a debate that societies simply can’t avoid forever. Whether we like it or not, society must have a clear set of "inclusiveness principles", and it’s probably better to face the issue rather than ignore it.

Don’t get me wrong, if covering up was simply a matter of personal style I would be all for it. But let’s be honest: it’s fairly easy to see whether women cover up for religious reasons or not (for starters women would get a hat, not a veil). What makes me angry is when I am out in blistering heat, and I see a family at the beach with kids in bathing suits, the dad in swimming trunks, and the mum covered in black from head to toe. It’s modest and it’s for religious reasons, but those reasons clearly seem oppressive and unfair. I can’t understand why a husband would want his wife to wear this. And don’t even try to swim in such an attire.

In the end, the burkini and some other Islamic dresses are less innocuous than they seem. It has to do with an explicit inequality between genders, which is unacceptable under French law. Let’s face it: we already have far too many of such inequalities…So why should the French accept this one? And let’s not forget that Syrian women burnt burqas in celebration after being freed from Isil. In the meantime, in France, more Muslim women are peer-pressured to wear the veil or the burkini. This seems rather counter-intuitive.

In conclusion, it’s time to go back, understand and reinforce the principles that underpin our democracies. Integration is a two-way street. Was the ban the best way to deal with the issue? Probably not. But I sincerely hope that it will start a much-needed social debate, in France and anywhere else.

Why should France accept the burkini? Its time to debate integration head-on

Personally, I think it's shaky ground to allow "one pieces" or "modesty skirts". If I go to a French beach --- I want the entire French "experience" dammit !!!!

It's gonna be a generational thing.

It maybe that the next generation ends all of that. THey will marry more open-minded husbands, want to integrate into the workforce and STILL be a practicing Muslim. Besides tolerance -- there's patience. It's a HUGE cultural adjustment. FORCING adjustment does not seem productive. Just like FORCING tolerance out of the picture by replacing it with law may not be productive.

That's exactly how I feel about it and typically, the first generation is most traditional and old-country, with succeeding generations being more integrated.

The focus should be on NOT housing recent immigrants in LARGE closed govt housing where adaptation is NEVER likely to happen. And insisting on making French law dominant over religious law.. There's the priorities really. Focus on those.

EXACTLY. Creating, essentially culturally closed ghettos, plus - they have high umemployment rates among young adults, and there is a certain amount of discrimmination by the French as well, restricting them to the lower paying jobs. All that adds fuel to the situation.

Doesn't the numbers bear out that the second generation is most likely to be radicalized?

I swear I saw that when they discussed the Orlando shooter. His mosque pretty close to me:

That was a truly weird case. The press never figured out the role of the father in that "radicalization". This guy was yanked of Afghan in the mid 80s after we supported the Mujahadeen and the Taliban against Russia. One of our LARGER mistakes. He was USED by State Dept and probably Intel Agencies as a liason to the Taliban. The father actually BELIEVED that the CIA would install him as a future leader of Afghan in exchange for his "service".

Now I believe in giving sanctuary in GENERAL to folks that have helped us in war zones. But in this case, we probably overlooked a lot of the fathers support and empathy for "radicals".

In general "adaptation" involves immersion in the new culture. If you house all your refugees in high density housing and allow madrasas instead of public education -- and allow religious law solutions to issues that no religion in a free society should handle --- you have FAR LESS of a chance of assimilation and putting them into safe and moderated practice of Islam. Like MOST of America's Muslim communities.

You just feed the very few RECRUITERS for Radical orgs and movements with a LOT of fresh young talent -- if you don't cut off the OLD cultural practices and associations.

Had Enough Therapy?: The Mind of the Muslim Refugee

 

[StLucieBengal]

A French woman's perspective:


Why should France accept the burkini? Its time to debate integration head-on

• MURIEL DEMARCUS

30 AUGUST 2016 • 1:36PM

The burkini ban in my home country (I am a French woman living in London) has made headlines for most of August. Despite the fact that it has eventually been overturned by the highest French court, the debate is far from over. Journalists have had a field day mocking what they see as an attack against personal freedoms, and keep mentioning that the rightwing in France still supports the ban. What a simplistic view of the situation!

According to various polls, two thirds of the French population supported the ban, and this included the socialist French Prime Minister, Manuel Valls, who famously said that that the full-body swimsuit symbolised the enslavement of women. So what is this really about? I got tired of reading analysis that, in my view, only gave a partial side of the issue, so here is my (very French) take on it.

First of all, France is a secular country. Obviously, France is not the only Western country to insist on the separation of church and state – but I believe that it does so more militantly than any other. To an extent, you could say that secularism is the closest thing we French have to a state religion. It underpinned the French Revolution and has been a foundation of the country's progressive thought for centuries. The law of separation meant strict official neutrality in religious affairs. The Republic has always recognised individuals, rather than groups: this means that you are supposed to be French first, then Muslim, or Catholic, or whatever your religion or ethnic minority might be. You therefore need to comply with the law even if it goes against your religious beliefs, because secularism prevails in all circumstances. Although it can be carried to extremes that other countries don’t understand, this view of citizenship is fundamentally non-discriminatory and inclusive. It’s all about finding a common ground, whatever your religion. Burkini bans must be viewed in this context, and are nothing new.

Rightly or wrongly, French citizens are scared of the Islamisation of their society. Obviously the latest attacks in Nice have further polarised an already divided population. The population is still traumatised, and believes that things have become worse over the last decade or so: people see more veiled women on the street, and are shocked to see a few niqabs or burkas from time to time, despite a full ban. This is compounded by the fact that young women are more and more targeted by some members of the Muslim community on the issue of modesty. For instance, last year in Reims a young woman sunbathing in a public park was set upon by a gang of teenage girls. They objected to her bikini, and the town’s authorities were fast to insist there was no religious aspect to the attack. Nobody believed them.

I belong to a generation that never saw a burkini or a full-body swimsuit at the beach before this summer’s events. This is clearly a new occurrence. The French also are shocked to learn that France is now home to thousands of Islamic radicals. Citizens feel that enough ground has been ceded to minorities in general, and to the Muslim minorities in particular. They think that things have now come to a head, and learned the hard way that political correctness doesn’t work. Furthermore, the French don’t understand why their women should cover up when they visit some Muslim country, but let women wear a veil or a burkini when they visit France. In short, they don’t understand why they should compromise when other countries don’t. It’s all about "my country, my rules".

Then again, I keep reading that the burkini is empowering for Muslim women who wouldn’t be able to go to the beach otherwise. I am struggling with such a point. Just look at the 1950s and 1960s photos of women in modern, comfortable clothes in Afghanistan or Egypt. They clearly were not forced to succumb to the new wave of stricter Islamic dress code. What changed? Why should women suddenly cover up? Islam seems to have been hijacked, and women are, once again, the first hostages. Why should women sympathise with the hijackers? Isn’t this a classic case of Stockholm syndrome?

Egyptian leader Gamal Abdul Nasser with his family in the 1960s CREDIT: AFP/GETTY
And what’s next? Should we also allow FGM to be respectful of different cultural practices? What about polygamy? In short, Western societies need to define what’s acceptable for them, and what’s not. There is a need to draw a line, and maybe the French have drawn it at the burkini. Is it futile? Maybe. But at least a social debate is starting. It’s a debate that societies simply can’t avoid forever. Whether we like it or not, society must have a clear set of "inclusiveness principles", and it’s probably better to face the issue rather than ignore it.

Don’t get me wrong, if covering up was simply a matter of personal style I would be all for it. But let’s be honest: it’s fairly easy to see whether women cover up for religious reasons or not (for starters women would get a hat, not a veil). What makes me angry is when I am out in blistering heat, and I see a family at the beach with kids in bathing suits, the dad in swimming trunks, and the mum covered in black from head to toe. It’s modest and it’s for religious reasons, but those reasons clearly seem oppressive and unfair. I can’t understand why a husband would want his wife to wear this. And don’t even try to swim in such an attire.

In the end, the burkini and some other Islamic dresses are less innocuous than they seem. It has to do with an explicit inequality between genders, which is unacceptable under French law. Let’s face it: we already have far too many of such inequalities…So why should the French accept this one? And let’s not forget that Syrian women burnt burqas in celebration after being freed from Isil. In the meantime, in France, more Muslim women are peer-pressured to wear the veil or the burkini. This seems rather counter-intuitive.

In conclusion, it’s time to go back, understand and reinforce the principles that underpin our democracies. Integration is a two-way street. Was the ban the best way to deal with the issue? Probably not. But I sincerely hope that it will start a much-needed social debate, in France and anywhere else.

Why should France accept the burkini? Its time to debate integration head-on

Personally, I think it's shaky ground to allow "one pieces" or "modesty skirts". If I go to a French beach --- I want the entire French "experience" dammit !!!!

It's gonna be a generational thing.

It maybe that the next generation ends all of that. THey will marry more open-minded husbands, want to integrate into the workforce and STILL be a practicing Muslim. Besides tolerance -- there's patience. It's a HUGE cultural adjustment. FORCING adjustment does not seem productive. Just like FORCING tolerance out of the picture by replacing it with law may not be productive.

That's exactly how I feel about it and typically, the first generation is most traditional and old-country, with succeeding generations being more integrated.

The focus should be on NOT housing recent immigrants in LARGE closed govt housing where adaptation is NEVER likely to happen. And insisting on making French law dominant over religious law.. There's the priorities really. Focus on those.

EXACTLY. Creating, essentially culturally closed ghettos, plus - they have high umemployment rates among young adults, and there is a certain amount of discrimmination by the French as well, restricting them to the lower paying jobs. All that adds fuel to the situation.

Doesn't the numbers bear out that the second generation is most likely to be radicalized?

I swear I saw that when they discussed the Orlando shooter. His mosque pretty close to me:

That was a truly weird case. The press never figured out the role of the father in that "radicalization". This guy was yanked of Afghan in the mid 80s after we supported the Mujahadeen and the Taliban against Russia. One of our LARGER mistakes. He was USED by State Dept and probably Intel Agencies as a liason to the Taliban. The father actually BELIEVED that the CIA would install him as a future leader of Afghan in exchange for his "service".

Now I believe in giving sanctuary in GENERAL to folks that have helped us in war zones. But in this case, we probably overlooked a lot of the fathers support and empathy for "radicals".

In general "adaptation" involves immersion in the new culture. If you house all your refugees in high density housing and allow madrasas instead of public education -- and allow religious law solutions to issues that no religion in a free society should handle --- you have FAR LESS of a chance of assimilation and putting them into safe and moderated practice of Islam. Like MOST of America's Muslim communities.

You just feed the very few RECRUITERS for Radical orgs and movements with a LOT of fresh young talent -- if you don't cut off the OLD cultural practices and associations.

Had Enough Therapy?: The Mind of the Muslim Refugee

History has shown that you can only push Germans so far until they take matters into their own hands and when they do its not a good deal for those causing trouble.

 

[Dogmaphobe]

I wonder how people would feel if a million klansmen arrived in their state and immediately set about to intimidate the locals by wearing their klan robes everywhere?

I imagine the same people who defend the islamonazis here would be all over it like shit on stink.

 

[ChrisL]

According to the woman who wears it she is commanded as such.

That's her interpretation. There are Muslin women all over the world who do not cover. The Koran does not say to cover head to toe. It says to dress modestly.

I agree. No where is a burka mentioned - most of it is cultural.

You can agree that the burka is a foul and oppressive garmet though right?

Yup - if it's forced on her. However- if a woman freely chooses it without coercion, then it's her choice - even though it seems crazy to me that any woman would choose it. I value choice and I won't take that choice from her. But in this country - covering that much leads to security concerns, it's impossible to do most jobs, our culture requires an ability to see peole's faces, and there are even safety concerns being out in public and not being able to see clearly. There are a lot of reasons not to allow burkas that make sense.

No woman chooses to wear a burka. The only way any woman goes along with wearing one is if they are scared or have been brain washed.

A Burkini is just an extension of that .... It's men trying to keep a tight grip on women.

If they are in the west and want to rock one of those Jewish swim suits you posted then so be it.... They can also get a sun hat and properly fit in with the west. No one wants to see these women in a string bikini.

Wearing a burka or Burkini just keeps them seperate from society and if they are trying for that then there is no point on them being here.

This is yet another example of why I think Islam needs a reformation to adjust to the west. And until they do then they shouldn't come here unless they are willing to take steps to join us. If they are willing to take those steps then they should be welcomed as long as they are taking the legal immigration route.

Some of them do in fact choose to wear it. I don't know what they do in France, but here in America, we don't have dress codes.