• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

French pool bans 'burkini' swim

Orius said:
That is the very question I'm asking. They cited hygiene but I wanted to know what the issue was specifically...
Click to expand...
Then I'm afraid you'll have to send them a message and ask them personally. :2razz:
 
bub said:
when you immigrate to a country you accept the customs of this country.

In France, men are equal to women and people are free. Therefore, bans on burqas and burkini (which symbolize oppression of women and submission to traditions) are justified.

There is another custom that says that people can't walk naked in the street, or that you can't swim naked in public swiming pools. Same principle.
Click to expand...

They symbolize oppression of women to you. There are plenty of women who wear their traditional Islamic clothing proudly.

And the term 'burkini' is totally misleading. It is not like a burka at all.
 
bub said:
Therefore, bans on burqas and burkini (which symbolize oppression of women and submission to traditions) are justified.
Click to expand...

It symbolizes choice.
 
mixedmedia said:
They symbolize oppression of women to you. There are plenty of women who wear their traditional Islamic clothing proudly.

And the term 'burkini' is totally misleading. It is not like a burka at all.
Click to expand...

Laila said:
It symbolizes choice.
Click to expand...

In too many cases, they are imposed

and even when they are "chosen" it still symbolises submission to tradition
 
Laila said:
It symbolizes choice.
Click to expand...
As far as I know those burkas, durkas or whatever were made in order to cover the woman's body so she wouldn't attract Muslim males.

Care to elaborate as to how this symbolizes choice?
 
As far as I know those burkas, durkas or whatever were made in order to cover the woman's body so she wouldn't attract Muslim males.

Care to elaborate as to how this symbolizes choice?
Click to expand...

Well, the burka serves a dual function of protection from the elements and covering up bits that they don't want just anyone to see. We have a similar custom here in America which we call clothing.

Now some women choose to dress in a fashion that is more revealing than others, often intentionally made to be provocative to men. Now there are many other women who choose to dress much less provocatively because they don't want to look like a slut.

The thing is that dressing like a slut is a relative concept. In America, someone who wears fishnets, ridiculously high heels and a too short miniskirt is generally considered to be dressed like a slut even though all of her bits are covered.

In a nudist colony someone wearing much less would not be considered a slut, so in order to dress like a slut in a nudist colony, a girl would have to paint the words "insert here" on her body with a arrow indicating the point of insertion.

To a woman who perceives her hair as being a very sensual part of her body that she doesn't want men ogling at, she might wear a burka in order to not feel like she is dressed in a slutty fashion.

A law forcing a woman to show off her hair is no more justified than a law forcing women to show off their tits.
 
Panache said:
Well, the burka serves a dual function of protection from the elements and covering up bits that they don't want just anyone to see. We have a similar custom here in America which we call clothing.

Now some women choose to dress in a fashion that is more revealing than others, often intentionally made to be provocative to men. Now there are many other women who choose to dress much less provocatively because they don't want to look like a slut.

The thing is that dressing like a slut is a relative concept. In America, someone who wears fishnets, ridiculously high heels and a too short miniskirt is generally considered to be dressed like a slut even though all of her bits are covered.

In a nudist colony someone wearing much less would not be considered a slut, so in order to dress like a slut in a nudist colony, a girl would have to paint the words "insert here" on her body with a arrow indicating the point of insertion.

To a woman who perceives her hair as being a very sensual part of her body that she doesn't want men ogling at, she might wear a burka in order to not feel like she is dressed in a slutty fashion.

A law forcing a woman to show off her hair is no more justified than a law forcing women to show off their tits.
Click to expand...

great point!

But with the same argument: certain ways to dress are considered as shocking and are forbidden (for example: nudity). Why couldn't the Burqa & Burkini be forbidden on the same ground?
 
bub said:
when you immigrate to a country you accept the customs of this country.

In France, men are equal to women and people are free. Therefore, bans on burqas and burkini (which symbolize oppression of women and submission to traditions) are justified.

There is another custom that says that people can't walk naked in the street, or that you can't swim naked in public swiming pools. Same principle.
Click to expand...

People keep calling it oppression, but there is a choice to wear it and she made that decision. It wasn't forced or anything, she wanted to wear it. Who are you to say that someone can't wear a swimsuit with a hood?
 
bub said:
In too many cases, they are imposed

and even when they are "chosen" it still symbolises submission to tradition
Click to expand...

Adults can make up their own minds.
 
bub said:
In too many cases, they are imposed

and even when they are "chosen" it still symbolises submission to tradition
Click to expand...

Shall we start banning any instances of women 'submitting to tradition?' Why don't we also ban the tradition of marriage?
 
bub said:
great point!

But with the same argument: certain ways to dress are considered as shocking and are forbidden (for example: nudity). Why couldn't the Burqa & Burkini be forbidden on the same ground?
Click to expand...

Because the burqa and the burkini are very different garments.

*edit*
 
Last edited:
great point!

But with the same argument: certain ways to dress are considered as shocking and are forbidden (for example: nudity). Why couldn't the Burqa & Burkini be forbidden on the same ground?
Click to expand...

Well, that is really in a sense what is going on. One group of people sees the Burqa as a symbol representing something they disagree with. People love to try and ban symbols that they disagree with.

In the same way, lots of people see nudity as representing sex, and since they are racked with guild regarding their own sexual nature, they try to ban such "shocking" symbolism.

Personally I think people who want to go around naked should be free to do so.

The thing is that the argument for the ban thus far is not that the people wearing the Burka are offending other people's delicate sensibilities, but rather that they need to be controlled for their own good. That they need to be "liberated" by being forced to comply with rules regarding how they dress.

A similar argument was used to justify slavery. The poor black "savages" were judged "irresponsible, immature, and childlike, hence needing white discipline for their own good"*

Its just as wrongheaded now as it was then.


*Unto a good land: a history of the American people, Volume 1 By David Edwin Harrell, Jr., Edwin S. Gaustad, John B. Boles, Randall M. Miller, Randall B Woods
 
I was at the lake today and thought of this thread. If the burqini is considered clothing and thus banned from the pool, what about the way this dude is dressed in his rash guard shirt? People wear those constantly for swimming so they don;t get sunburned (or so people don't see their flabby belly).

Rash%20Guard%20vermelho%20copy.jpg


Is that really so much better than the burqini? :confused:
 
mixedmedia said:
Shall we start banning any instances of women 'submitting to tradition?' Why don't we also ban the tradition of marriage?
Click to expand...

because nowadays marriage (in western countries only) is a choice, you can divorce
 
Ikari said:
Adults can make up their own minds.
Click to expand...

People in traditional (euphemism for "backwarded ultraconservative people") families don't have choices, especially women. They dress the way they are told, they do what they are told, they marry the husband they are told.

When they don't, they're killed.


They don't really have a private life, they live for the community. The main goal of their life is to have kids and transmit the tradition.


I'm not blaming the muslims only, such things have existed in Europe until a few generations ago
 
bub said:
because nowadays marriage (in western countries only) is a choice, you can divorce
Click to expand...

I can only assume that you are intentionally holding onto a generalized and convenient perspective and ignoring western religious traditions and the way many women CHOOSE to conform to them.
 
Panache said:
Well, that is really in a sense what is going on. One group of people sees the Burqa as a symbol representing something they disagree with. People love to try and ban symbols that they disagree with.

In the same way, lots of people see nudity as representing sex, and since they are racked with guild regarding their own sexual nature, they try to ban such "shocking" symbolism.

Personally I think people who want to go around naked should be free to do so.
Click to expand...

These are the rules of the society. It's important to be aware that they exist, and it's even very interesting to put words on them (because most of the times they're not "told", it's uncounscious)

But the point is that when you enter a society, you abid its rules. That's called "assimilationism" and it's criticized, but I support it.


The thing is that the argument for the ban thus far is not that the people wearing the Burka are offending other people's delicate sensibilities, but rather that they need to be controlled for their own good. That they need to be "liberated" by being forced to comply with rules regarding how they dress.

A similar argument was used to justify slavery. The poor black "savages" were judged "irresponsible, immature, and childlike, hence needing white discipline for their own good"*

Its just as wrongheaded now as it was then.
Click to expand...


That is a great point also!


But there are many cases where people are forced to comply with rules for their own good, like the ban on drunk driving
 
mixedmedia said:
I can only assume that you are intentionally holding onto a generalized and convenient perspective and ignoring western religious traditions and the way many women CHOOSE to conform to them.
Click to expand...

It was the case until the 60's but not anymore

Of course there are many social rules that we are "obliged" to follow, often unconsiously (the way you dress to go to the restaurant, for example) but you still have the choice not to obey, because we live in a modern society.

It's often not the case in traditional families


Let's take the example of mariage:
- modern society -> you marry the guy you love (even if there are uncounsious social rules, like choosing a mate who has got the same socio-economic characteristic than you), and if you don't like him anymore you divorce. The central element of marriage is love and you are free to chose your partner

- traditional society -> you marry the guy your parents have chosen. If you refuse, you're beaten, and if you want to divorce you're killed. The central element of marriage is to have kids and transmit them the traditions
 
These are the rules of the society. It's important to be aware that they exist, and it's even very interesting to put words on them (because most of the times they're not "told", it's uncounscious)

But the point is that when you enter a society, you abid its rules. That's called "assimilationism" and it's criticized, but I support it.
Click to expand...

Having cultural customs on how to dress, what to eat, what to say, or how to think is all fine and natural, but when there are legal consequences for not following the crowd, the enforcing entity I find to be oppressive and thus inferior.

That is a great point also!
Click to expand...

Thanks!

But there are many cases where people are forced to comply with rules for their own good, like the ban on drunk driving
Click to expand...

The ban on drunk driving is not for your own good, it is to protect other people from being killed by your recklessness.

A better example might be seatbelt laws, which are also oppressive, stupid and inferior.
 
bub said:
These are the rules of the society. It's important to be aware that they exist, and it's even very interesting to put words on them (because most of the times they're not "told", it's uncounscious)

But the point is that when you enter a society, you abid its rules. That's called "assimilationism" and it's criticized, but I support it.





That is a great point also!


But there are many cases where people are forced to comply with rules for their own good, like the ban on drunk driving
Click to expand...

Again, I think you must be intentionally ignoring how religion still holds a patriarchal sway over the lives of many women TODAY. In western culture.
Check: Catholicism. Check: Judaism. Check: Mormonism. Check: Pentecostalism.
I don't see anyone rushing to curtail the choices that these women make in conforming to patriarchal religious traditions. Let alone the greater sway patriarchal tradition still holds over western culture as a whole. That's getting into another conversation, though.

My point is, whether or not a woman wants to wear a hijab-like covering (not a burqa) to the swimming pool is not the problem. It's like punishing women who refrain from praying at the wailing wall because it is not orthodox. Are there any threads on DP about that oppression?

Catz brought up the real issue which is education and assimilation - not easily attainable in first generation immigrants, but moreso over time. Europe has a real issue with the immigration of fundamentalist Muslim families, but punishing women for wearing the hijab as a means of confronting it is petty and stupid. Not to mention, the hijab is worn by independent women - women who are doctors and lawyers and scholars. Maybe they aren't the only ones who need help moving forward.
 
mixedmedia said:
Again, I think you must be intentionally ignoring how religion still holds a patriarchal sway over the lives of many women TODAY. In western culture.
Check: Catholicism. Check: Judaism. Check: Mormonism. Check: Pentecostalism.
I don't see anyone rushing to curtail the choices that these women make in conforming to patriarchal religious traditions. Let alone the greater sway patriarchal tradition still holds over western culture as a whole. That's getting into another conversation, though.
Click to expand...

Religion doesn't play any role in Europe anymore (at least in the young generations)


My point is, whether or not a woman wants to wear a hijab-like covering (not a burqa) to the swimming pool is not the problem. It's like punishing women who refrain from praying at the wailing wall because it is not orthodox. Are there any threads on DP about that oppression?

Catz brought up the real issue which is education and assimilation - not easily attainable in first generation immigrants, but moreso over time. Europe has a real issue with the immigration of fundamentalist Muslim families, but punishing women for wearing the hijab as a means of confronting it is petty and stupid. Not to mention, the hijab is worn by independent women - women who are doctors and lawyers and scholars. Maybe they aren't the only ones who need help moving forward
Click to expand...

You're right, the real issue is the lack assimilation. I think that it is due to the number of foreigners, the fact that they all live together, and the fact that they are often poors and feel rejected. And yes, the ban on burqa doesn't solve any of these issues.
 
Just to be clear, it is my understanding that France (at least) has attempted to ban not the burqa, but the hijab and headscarves, from public schools.

Saying burqa

Burqa.jpg


when what we are really talking about is a bathing suit that resembles the hijab

hijab.jpg


is misleading.
 
France is almost as embarrassing to the world as California.

Dear god. What ****ing logic is there behind such a move? Cleaner pools? Bull****ing ****. The burkini is made of swimsuit material, iirc. The only other argument I've heard is that France is trying to "liberate" Muslim women by dictating what they can and cannot wear. How anyone could even attempt to defend such an asinine line of reasoning is beyond me.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom