The thing is they are not even pretending that this is somehow a policy to liberate women. That's what makes this so bad, the fact that it's so openly and proudly xenephobic.

Yeah its all about it not fitting in with their culture. Which is a disgusting notion in and of itself. A French monoculture. Well how about we ban berets and blue and white hooped shirts everywhere else, how would they like that?

tbf that'd be pretty excellent.

Just got around to reading this thread, and I'm glad there isn't a column of OMITTers who think this shit's ok.

Fuck this law, it's authoritarian racism in a form that oppresses women. Truly odious prejudice.

The reasons for the burkini ban, the disgusting treatment of that lady on the beach, the forces of the state being deployed to compel women to take their clothes off in public, are unjustifiable on any grounds - but that does not mean that any man, or some form of religious authority that forces a woman to cover herself from top to toe, to hide her face against her will, is not equally odious.

If women choose to cover themselves, their feminine form and features, because they believe in being modest - fair enough.
If women choose to expose whatever they want - fair enough too.
We should be free to choose what we wear or what we do not wear.
Either way the choice of one of those "extremes" will lead to women being subjected to some form of abuse.

y va marquer wrote:

The reasons for the burkini ban, the disgusting treatment of that lady on the beach, the forces of the state being deployed to compel women to take their clothes off in public, are unjustifiable on any grounds - but that does not mean that any man, or some form of religious authority that forces a woman to cover herself from top to toe, to hide her face against her will, is not equally odious.

If women choose to cover themselves, their feminine form and features, because they believe in being modest - fair enough.
If women choose to expose whatever they want - fair enough too.
We should be free to choose what we wear or what we do not wear.
Either way the choice of one of those "extremes" will lead to women being subjected to some form of abuse.

Not being a woman or a muslim, i think this (e: the ban, not Y'va's post!) is completely wrong from a humanist perspective.
Is there a powerful religious authority in France forcing that woman to cover herself from top to toe?
Is a burkini an acceptable dress for extremists like isis or the taliban?
Does the law make police to ask nuns and  sikh males to remove religious clothing or head gear?
The correct answers to these questions contradict many arguments of the most vociferous proponents of this law who tend to be far right hypocrites who are never heard on other women's rights. 

y va marquer wrote:

The reasons for the burkini ban, the disgusting treatment of that lady on the beach, the forces of the state being deployed to compel women to take their clothes off in public, are unjustifiable on any grounds - but that does not mean that any man, or some form of religious authority that forces a woman to cover herself from top to toe, to hide her face against her will, is not equally odious.

If women choose to cover themselves, their feminine form and features, because they believe in being modest - fair enough.
If women choose to expose whatever they want - fair enough too.
We should be free to choose what we wear or what we do not wear.
Either way the choice of one of those "extremes" will lead to women being subjected to some form of abuse.

Agree, except that this issue is not just about women's rights and feminism, even though it's entirely unsurprising they're being trampled upon in pursuit of really disgusting state racism. 

Before this ever happened we discussed French bans on religious dress. They seem to always be designed or organically selected to fall disproportionately on Muslims, and to come from a deeply bigoted place, with a gamut that runs from the left to the far right in the French establishment.

Bold Tone wrote:

the most vociferous proponents of this law who tend to be far right hypocrites who are never heard on other women's rights. 

I find most of the anti-burqa crowd are generally anti-feminist too. Its hilarious to hear them talking about this as a womens issue. Massive hypocrites.

I oppose the burqa personally and I am openly critical of it but that doesn't mean it should be legally banned.

The focus of these debates shouldn't be on the Burqa but on the men (or local laws) that enforce it against a woman's will.

That story from Pakistan is so disgraceful.

But as I've harped on about before, we do need to acknowledge the complicity of western powers, especially the historical governments of the US, UK and France in the proliferation of conservative political Islam in the last half century.

Note I said complicity, not responsibility …

They are still doing it, the US has just returned to arming Al-Qaeda in Syria / JAN / JFAS.

As for France, in one breath Francois Hollande will sign a multi-billion euro deal to sell two dozen military helicopters to the Saudi Arabian regime, and in the next he'll declare he would not reverse the burqa ban.

Burnwinter wrote:

Note I said complicity, not responsibility …

It's direct responsibility often enough. Don't think I need to tell you this but there were a number of secular governments in the Middle East that would've propagated societal concepts that are in line with what we call enlightenment ideals; said governments however are bombed back into the middle ages as soon as they fall out of line with Western political interests as is happening in Syria or Libya, as happened in Iraq or Iran and numerous other countries.

For the NATO Islamist rulers in the Middle East are much more convenient partners than secular ones as sectarianism won't allow them to pool their resources and powers; at the same time it's the perfect pretence for the West to intervene whenever they feel like it

That's a wonderful train of thought. Religious book which is taken as the literal word of God tells women to cover themselves --> said command is observed by majority of religious community for 1400 years --> West deposes a few secular governments with no religious power who may have wanted to liberate women --> West responsible for persistence of religious oppression.

More like a train crash of thought. Leaving aside that you don't know nearly as much about the history of Islam as you seem to think Gurgen - you're using the exact same vocabulary as Valls, Hollande or Sarkozy talking about "liberating women" or "religious oppression". You'll find most of these women have little interest in being liberated by the West.

I think it's pretty funny though that you believe the West "deposing of a few secular governments" has no bearing on what happens to the societal makeup of a country or region. Imagine if the USSR had won the Cold War and disposed of the US administration funding the Westboro Baptist Church and KKK in the process; would you also claim it's the US' reactionary nature that's responsible for whatever happened instead of the Russians?

Jesus Christ. Wtf is going on over there? US seems like a functioning society in comparison!

That has to be the worst idea they could come up with