Ever since the photograph of armed French Policemen surrounding and allegedly forcing a woman to take off her Burkini on a beach in Nice went viral, the social media is buzzing with reactions to #burkiniban.
Staunch supporters of the ban were seen underlining the supposed to be strict secular nature of French Republic.
Mayor David Lisnard of Cannes while banning Burkini has explained in the order that “access to beaches and for swimming is banned to anyone who does not have (bathing apparel) which respects good customs and secularism,” which is a founding principle of the French republic.
“Beachwear which ostentatiously displays religious affiliation, when France and places of worship are currently the target of terrorist attacks, is liable to create risks of disrupting public order (crowds, scuffles etc) which it is necessary to prevent,”
But soon the French double standards on secularism was exposed by many by uploading pictures of Christian nuns wearing outfits similar to Burkini enjoying the French beaches.
As long as the Christian nun outfits are not banned, no one can argue rationally that Burkini ban is to respect secularism by preventing display of religious symbols in public sphere.
The former French President Sarkozy strongly supports the ban. He said :
it is time to end the presence of burkinis on French beaches.
Wearing a burkini is a political act, it’s militant, a provocation.
If you agree with Sarkozy, how can you not agree with a Muslim who says drawing Mohammed is a similar provocative militant political act ?
I wonder what would happen if white christian males started wearing burkinis in solidarity with the muslim people?
There’s this thing we have called “context”.
Wearing a burkini on a beach in Saudi Arabia is not, as Sarkozy calls it, “a political act, […] militant, a provocation”, and nobody should expect any negative reaction to it.
Drawing Mohammed in France is not “a political act, […] militant, a provocation”, and nobody should expect any negative reaction to it.
Drawing Mohamed in Saudia Arabia definitely is a provocative act, because the negative response, regardless of how justified it is, is entirely predictable.
Wearing a burkini on a beach yards away from where dozens of people were killed in the name of militant Islam just weeks ago definitely is a provocative act, because the negative response, regardless of how justified it is, is entirely predictable.
Also, re: nuns: get back to me after someone driving a truck mows down seven dozen people in the name of the Pope. See how welcome they’d be on the beach after something like that.
sonofrojblake, Christians are definitely more civilised, to be sure. Instead of truck driving killing of innocents they pilot remote control bombs into wedding parties from their air conditioned offices, then not report anything much in the media they own. So much nicer, eh what?
And don’t forget the bombing of hospitals, that’s extremely civilised by your standards I imagine, sonny. Or even the random shooting of dark skinned people on the streets of the US, nothing to be seen, just move along there.
What has that got to do with anything going on in the civilised world?
Cops are often fundy Xtians, are paid by fundy Xtians, and supported by fundy Xtian owned media. They are the terrorists in the US.
Now i get severely retraumatized – by having to click away all those nun pics!!!
I had them in school (first word of vaticanlobby “suffering” personnel shortage came in the year I left school) and was battered and blamed for THEM enforcing my existence with the abortionforbidding law, and…
and of course a veiled teacher/judge/civil servant of the other religion will not be better.
But when a woman who looks not unlike the men in the wetsuits is surrounded by uniformed men to order her what to wear and what not does not help either.
Obviously the vaticanlobby (and its copies/xtians with other labels) are DEEP inside the war against the most fanatical Islamist versions; crushing each little try of moderate religion and the atheists and antireligious people simultaneously.
But on this topic i do not see anything I could recommend to do for stabilizing or even beginning to get a secular state which DESERVES this label.
Giliell, professional cynic -Ilk- says
Because, as we all know, there are no Muslims in France. Especially no already marginalised and discriminated against Muslims who were formerly colonial subjects of France.
1. Actually that ban (now upturned by the highest French court) was implemented in dozens of towns along the Mediterranean coast, so that argument doesn’t hold water.
2. Muslims were over proportionally represented among the victims of the Nice attack. I ask you again: Do you want the sisters, wives, mothers, cousins, friends of those brutally murdered banned from the site because they wear religious muslim attire?
3. The provocation lies in the eye of the beholder. You’re the one barking like a dog on trash collection day. You’re the one turning every woman in a burkini into a Isis sympathiser with no evidence behind it but your own prejudices.
Just highlighting this for the victim blaming.
Well said , Giliel
It’s not victim blaming. It’s defining a political act. If there was no predictable negative consequence, it wouldn’t be a political act. People who chain themselves to railings or blockade public roads carrying banners and placards don’t do so in the expectation that they will be ignored. They do so in the expectation there will be a reaction from the authorities. Similarly, it is inconceivable that someone going to the beach in a burkini in defiance of the ban is doing so in the hope of being ignored.
And yes, duh, provocation is partly in the eye of the beholder. Tell me my mum’s a slut, and it’s up to me to see that as “fighting words” or simply shrug and observe you’ve never met her and that the sexist insult says far more about you than her. But it’s disingenuous to pretend that certain clothing choices aren’t made knowing the reaction they will predictably cause. I could choose to walk past my local mosque in a t-shirt that says “Allah fucks pigs” in Arabic, but you know what? I wouldn’t want to deal with the inevitable violent conflict that would predictably provoke in the eye of those beholding it. Any violence or hurt feelings would be their fault, right? But I’m not going to complain about that restriction on my liberty because I’ve a civilised person’s sensitivity to the feelings of others (and an awareness of the likely violent reactions of the religious to any perceived insult to their imaginary friend…).
Burkha is made not to provoke Caucasians, but to cover up women’s body as per the diktats of the Islamic fundamentalists. Rest of your arguments therefore become irrelevant.
Giliell, professional cynic -Ilk- says
Wrong. It’s the equivalent of me walking past the local mosque in a short dress with clevage because that’s what I wear on my way to the grocery on a hot day.
You keep insisting that those women deliberately wear a burkini to support Islamist terrorism and you do so without any shred of evidence.
It seems you are predicting reactions of Islamists and secular French citizens will be the same. As I said before I have much more expectations from French public. If one is really secular and rational, one will understand that a woman wearing Burkini is as much a victim of religious fundamentalism as those killed in terror attacks in France.
So like, do we legit have a long-time user on a primarily atheist/skeptic website legitimately arguing in favor of curtailing free speech in order to protect people from being offended?
sonofrojblake, do you legitimately not get how horrifically bad a precedent that would set (if the burkini ban hadn’t been rightfully struck down of course) if offense was treated like a legitimate reason to ban freedom of speech and expression?