The way to keep burkini's off the beaches

[ChrisL]

If they don't want to wear one, then they shouldn't have to. If they do want to wear one, then that should be their own personal clothing choice.

 

[gtopa1]

Women should be able to wear what they want at the beach. As long as they aren't hurting anyone else, it doesn't matter.

Some of these women will not wear a bikini because it would go against their religious convictions. Whether or not YOU feel that they were brainwashed into this mindset is rather irrelevant because, while I don't doubt that might be the case in many instances, it is certainly not the case in all instances because there are some women have converted to the Muslim religion of their own free will.

To go onto a beach and to FORCE them to expose more skin than they feel comfortable exposing is just wrong! That is not any better than the men who would FORCE them to cover up!

That's basically how I feel. There are standards in every country for the minimum amount of clothing required and I don't see an issue with that - you just adjust to that country. But forcing a woman to expose MORE than she is comfortable with crosses a line imo - unless there is a good reason for it - security reasons or safety or ability to perform job. IMO - there isn't much difference between forcing a woman to cover up and forcing a woman to uncover.

Reminds me of that oaf Tommy Tainant singing "show the boys your t...s. " at football matches. Just downright wrong!!

Greg

 

[gtopa1]

"‘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?

Well I'll never wear one!!

Greg

 

[gtopa1]

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.

Sounds truish. My kids are totally Aussie; me and my other siblings copped the "wog" thing a bit but we were pretty much completely integrated. Dad was the immigrant; eventually "made it" accepted but there was a lot of exclusion in the 50s. There were cultural barriers; Dad was very 'old Europe"; Tsarist and all.

Greg

 

[ChrisL]

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?

Well I'll never wear one!!

Greg

What about a bikini? Will you wear one?

 

[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?

Well I'll never wear one!!

Greg

What about a bikini? Will you wear one?

 

[gtopa1]

So let's be clear; there is a huge difference between burkinis and the full deal.

Lovely.

Not so nice.

Greg

 

[gtopa1]

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?

Well I'll never wear one!!

Greg

What about a bikini? Will you wear one?

ChrisL; we really don't want to go there!! I am a mankini free zone!!

Greg

 

[ChrisL]

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?

Well I'll never wear one!!

Greg

What about a bikini? Will you wear one?

ChrisL; we really don't want to go there!! I am a mankini free zone!!

Greg

That one guy didn't even tie his bikini top! Indecent exposure!

 

[ChrisL]

So let's be clear; there is a huge difference between burkinis and the full deal.

Lovely.

Not so nice.

Greg

The Batman logo is perfect though!

 

[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.

Had Enough Therapy?: The Mind of the Muslim Refugee

Really most of that agi-prop is about CULTURE -- not about the Muslim religion. Especially the economic part. There MIGHT have been expectations from the migrants that the West just GIVES stuff to folks. There MIGHT be skills issues involved. Because in the OLD homeland --- jobs were largely built out of patronage or the worst kind of Govt "trickle-down". All those unmatched expectations dont have a lot to do with the religious side.

Except for the token effort the author makes to validate the concept of German women being whores compared to the chastity and modesty of "their" women. Who KNOWS what the expectations were. I don't. I just suspect that the migrants understanding of Western culture was based on cartoons,propaganda and satire and NOT a lot of real information.

Kinda explains the surprise Muslim women must be experiencing on the "clothing" issues. Probably they believed the West to be all multicultural and tolerant and celebratory of diversity. SURPRISE !!!!!

That's why you don't ALLOW these kinds of rates of migration. Because of the unknowns. And it's not HUMANE to pat yourselves on the back for being so altruistic and civil --- when the refugees themselves have NO CLUE what they are getting into.. .

BTW --- any form of Western psychology is gonna fail to add understanding to the problems. Western psychology is universally rejected in MidEast - Eastern cultures. You'd have to diagnose their failing home cultures as malicious behavior. THAT'S the disconnect. The culture/economic clash is SO severe, mass migrations like this need to be treated as a medical triage.

 

[ChrisL]

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

Really most of that agi-prop is about CULTURE -- not about the Muslim religion. Especially the economic part. There MIGHT have been expectations from the migrants that the West just GIVES stuff to folks. There MIGHT be skills issues involved. Because in the OLD homeland --- jobs were largely built out of patronage or the worst kind of Govt "trickle-down". All those unmatched expectations dont have a lot to do with the religious side.

Except for the token effort the author makes to validate the concept of German women being whores compared to the chastity and modesty of "their" women. Who KNOWS what the expectations were. I don't. I just suspect that the migrants understanding of Western culture was based on cartoons,propaganda and satire and NOT a lot of real information.

Kinda explains the surprise Muslim women must be experiencing on the "clothing" issues. Probably they believed the West to be all multicultural and tolerant and celebratory of diversity. SURPRISE !!!!!

That's why you don't ALLOW these kinds of rates of migration. Because of the unknowns. And it's not HUMANE to pat yourselves on the back for being so altruistic and civil --- when the refugees themselves have NO CLUE what they are getting into.. .

BTW --- any form of Western psychology is gonna fail to add understanding to the problems. Western psychology is universally rejected in MidEast - Eastern cultures. You'd have to diagnose their failing home cultures as malicious behavior. THAT'S the disconnect. The culture/economic clash is SO severe, mass migrations like this need to be treated as a medical triage.

Definitely. Culture clash. Good point, Mr. Flacaltenn.

 

[flacaltenn]

So let's be clear; there is a huge difference between burkinis and the full deal.

Lovely.

Not so nice.

Greg

The Batman logo is perfect though!

Got a beach tip for all y'all fashion critics. All those open tops and skirts are gonna FILL with sand. Which will be uncomfortable. But will also help drag your pretty ass out into run-outs. Pretty much look like a jellyfish while you're getting pulled offshore and calling for help..

 

[Mindful]

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

Really most of that agi-prop is about CULTURE -- not about the Muslim religion. Especially the economic part. There MIGHT have been expectations from the migrants that the West just GIVES stuff to folks. There MIGHT be skills issues involved. Because in the OLD homeland --- jobs were largely built out of patronage or the worst kind of Govt "trickle-down". All those unmatched expectations dont have a lot to do with the religious side.

Except for the token effort the author makes to validate the concept of German women being whores compared to the chastity and modesty of "their" women. Who KNOWS what the expectations were. I don't. I just suspect that the migrants understanding of Western culture was based on cartoons,propaganda and satire and NOT a lot of real information.

Kinda explains the surprise Muslim women must be experiencing on the "clothing" issues. Probably they believed the West to be all multicultural and tolerant and celebratory of diversity. SURPRISE !!!!!

That's why you don't ALLOW these kinds of rates of migration. Because of the unknowns. And it's not HUMANE to pat yourselves on the back for being so altruistic and civil --- when the refugees themselves have NO CLUE what they are getting into.. .

BTW --- any form of Western psychology is gonna fail to add understanding to the problems. Western psychology is universally rejected in MidEast - Eastern cultures. You'd have to diagnose their failing home cultures as malicious behavior. THAT'S the disconnect. The culture/economic clash is SO severe, mass migrations like this need to be treated as a medical triage.

In the early days, when we were watching on TV, footage of the migrants walking, or travelling by bus or train, almost every one of them when interviewed by reporters as to where they were headed, the answer was Germany.

And we wondered why.

 

[ChrisL]

So let's be clear; there is a huge difference between burkinis and the full deal.

Lovely.

Not so nice.

Greg

The Batman logo is perfect though!

Got a beach tip for all y'all fashion critics. All those open tops and skirts are gonna FILL with sand. Which will be uncomfortable. But will also help drag your pretty ass out into run-outs. Pretty much look like a jellyfish while you're getting pulled offshore and calling for help..

I live on the East Coast (Massachusetts) so I know all about undertow.

 

[Carla_Danger]

They aren't a major thing but We volunteer a lot time helping victims of domestic violence. So I know when someone is being dominated and how hard it is to break the mental chains and spell people can be under.

I see a lot of parallels between women of Islam and DV victims.

Yes, well some women may just be modest about their bodies. My friend had big boobs and hated how men stared at them. She wore a T-shirt and shorts whenever she went to the beach.

Being modest isn't a problem at all.

The photos coyote posted trying to be pro burka. They are just modest where we can still see face, neck, head. And most of time we can see below the knees. Other than the surfboard girl.

If Muslims are that worried then why don't just wear a full wetsuit?

Who cares? If they try to make me wear one, then we can talk.

They have a long history of being vocal towards non Muslim women once they feel like their nonsense is accepted.

It wasn't that long ago that a Muslim man stabbed a mother and her children at a French holiday resort because they weren't dressed "modestly' enough for his liking - they were wearing T shirts and shorts and the youngest girl was only 8 yrs old. They were all hospitalised.
Also, women were verbally attacked and threatened by Muslim men and women somewhere else in France for wearing bikinis.
Not to mention the Corsican beach where Muslim men decided the beach where they were with their wives was off limits to non Muslims - a riot broke out.
The burkini is just another tool in their arsenal and part of the uniform of Islamism - the men are by and large pushing it and the women are happy to oblige. There are plenty of modest types of clothing one can wear to the beach without advertising your religion - something France is very tetchy about.

And that thread of yours was debunked.

 

[Alex.]

"‘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.

Are you an expert on the Koran or that religion?

 

[Alex.]

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.

Of course we do

 

[Coyote]

We have dress codes for minimum coverage. Keep the naughty bits out of sight. That's as far as public areas are concerned. Or perhaps I should say pubic areas. Private establishments can have what ever dress codes they like.

 

[ChrisL]

Sure, we have laws against nudity and uniforms, things like that, but not actual government interference in what article of clothing we can wear to the beach. I think that is going too far.