Burkini problem or opportunity?

I feel the French government's support for a burkini ban is a natural reaction against attempts to import a less free culture. A solution is at hand, use the burkini issue to promote a clothing optional culture everywhere. Remove ALL dress code requirements for clothing on beaches and everywhere else. Couple this with a 'clothing freedom advertising campaign with people bathing naked, in full business suits and everything in between. Extend this to everywhere on the grounds that anything else is an unwarranted intrusion on liberty.
Western. Most people will not object but of course some Christian and other groups, will complain but this will show up their own authoritarian outlook.

152 thoughts on “Burkini problem or opportunity?”

  1. In my opinion, there should be no laws or religions telling people what to wear. It's wrong to tell people they have to cover up or wear certain things to please their god or religious leaders. Why would a being who created the human body care if it was uncovered? Men made those rules to control people, not the creator. I think laws telling people they have to uncover are also wrong.

    • @Don Beard, I think you will have a hard time with your "no laws or religions telling people" what to do. I was going to reply just from my own pov when I remembered seeing a list of definitions of religion. We can't even agree there. The whole thing was invented by humans and even seems to have an evolutionary benefit. In an age of atomic bombs I don't know if that is still the case.

      Anyway the God I worship does not care if we are nude or not. First He gave us totally dirty,ignorant nomads ten commandments on what not to do to each other.After a few thousand years of learning He gave us a model of how to live explaining the purpose of the "nots" was to grow into the "do's" of the Beatitudes or as @CherBear Houston so eloquently put it
      " Therefore it is up to the individual humans to shine their natural light out, or be the common selfish, destructive, evil murdering fools! You make that choice on each person you come in contact with everyday. But not by what they wear or do not wear on their bodies, . . . But how they treat ALL other living things, whether close or afar.
      That is what religion is and is for, imho.

    • Indeed, "laws telling people they have to uncover are also wrong". But in an officially by Law controlled environment, other forces telling and silently coercing people to cover up, might need to be fought by laws. It takes a lot of practice for a ballerina to elegantly get out of a split, especially on a high wire. If that's where the training appears to occur, not seeing a safety net worries me.

    • Would like to see all beaches and most pools, parks, saunas, spas and gyms be made clothing optional. When that becomes "normal", allow full or partial nudity in other places such as museums, libraries, theaters, stores, etc. at least some of the time.

      • To keep with the pace of this conversation, I must set an alarm to notify me to reply in four months time with something pithy about a nation completely devoid of riots and fires and any murders. I must also remember to seek clarification as to the word in scare quotes because I do not know what it means and I suspect Bob Doesn't either if he feels the need to put it in scare quotes. The next response to that clarification will be scheduled for February 2018.

        • Fascinating that you should mention "a nation completely devoid of riots and fires and any murders". I just read an article linking lowest violent crime rates to lack of immigration: Japan, Sweden (before the refugee influx) were the two lowest. The 4 lowest US states for violent crime were Wyoming, Vermont, New Hampshire and a fourth, all of which had a white population of +93%.

          The point being that homogenous populations have less violent crime, and heterogeneous populations must form a common culture. This is very hard to do. The "melting pot" of American identity in the early 1900's still had racial discrimination.

          Since the 60's, the focus on multiculturalism has had the benefit of recognizing diversity but the detriment of increasing identity politics between different ethnic groups, and subsequent loss of a common identity.

          Islam has that identity that crosses ethnic and racial lines, and religious fervor to motivate the radical elements. It will not, as a community, relenquish its identity as ultimate authority to be assimilated into another culture.

  2. Hello, Humans are a very "F'ed up species" & a plague on our Mother Earth IMHO! Therefore it is up to the individual humans to shine their natural light out, or be the common selfish, destructive, evil murdering fools! You make that choice on each person you come in contact with everyday. But not by what they wear or do not wear on their bodies, . . . But how they treat ALL other living things, whether close or afar ; )

  3. The idea that women wearing burkinis are somehow comparable to Nazis would be laughable were it not that some people believe it. If you demonise women in burkinis because of terrorists, do you demonise nuns because of the homophobia of the Christian right or the acts of the Christian fundamentalist terrorist Anders Breivik? No? Why not? They are both equally far removed from the terrorists or power wielding bigots you claim to hate.

    If you try to tell a woman to remove her burkini then you're no better than those who force women to wear burkas. It seems controlling what women wear is a characteristic of many men across countless cultures.

    • Dear Stuart , first of all we would not occupy this platform with an irrelevant subject by endless discussions. We don't know what is your background, your knowledge about the subject and live life experience. But up to now you seem to be not familiar enough. Also generating ideas without doing the homework leads to misunderstandings. Without understanding what is sharia, what is its rules ( http://slideplayer.com/slide/1626246/ ) we can not reach to a compromise. You are thinking that bourka and its derivative burkini are simply a matter of fashion and wearing them simply a subject of personal freedom and human rights.
      But this subject is not so simple. You can laugh as much as you can no problem but this may not change the reality: burqa and burkini are the symbols of sharia, something like the flag of Nazizm . Similar to Nazizm shariah warriers also use salami tacticks to reach to their goals. You can tolerate them in the name of human rights and personal freedom, but as soon as they will get enough power whey will only oblige you.

      • And thus we have polarisation of discourse, with, I fear, no potential for finding middle ground. Personally, I question a faith which venerates an instrument of torture and regularly cannibalises its deity, but maybe that is just me.

      • I'm familiar with what's going on in Europe thanks very muchr. You on the other hand seem to be completely unfamiliar with Islam beyond that which you learn from the right wing press and seem to be under the impression it's one cohesive and homogeneous faith, which it isn't. If Islam was as you describe it then it would have taken over a long time ago. The simple truth is that most Muslims aren't western hating radicals, they just want to live their lives unhindered by the persecution that people like you want to inflict on them. They're human beings, just like you and me, not some army of robotic slaves, all ready to kill and die for their faith.
        And if we're going to do the Nazi comparisons, if we stand by and let burkinis be banned, it's only a matter of time before we take the next step and start making Muslims in Europe wear little yellow crescents so we can identify them. Personally I have no desire to treat my fellow human beings in such a disgraceful manner. Other might, but I will not fall for the bigoted, hate preaching words of men like Farage and Trump.

      • Stuart your statements above about islam are partly correct for every religion. We know them very well.
        Religions are like the Moon, they have a bright side and a dark side. You are talking about the bright side while we emphasized the dark side. Be careful, we did not compared a religion to Nazizm but we compared aplication of a fanaticism like shariah to Nazizm. In a semi democratic country veiling women may very easily become a strong tool of discriminating the voters as pro or contra to the Sharia dictatorship same as it was in Nazi era in a country. The women may be put out of social and business life, the men who don't oblige her wife and doughters to be veiled may lost their jobs and businesses. There may be a wealth transfer from modern families where women are not veiled towards families accepting to be militants of the dictatorship of fanatism which are discriminated by veils of their women.
        All this ignominies may be realised in the name of democracy and freedom.

        In nowadays world unfortunately there are such countries. If you look around you can see them.

        So clothings like veil, burka, burkini are not a fashion or a style of personel freedom. They are barely the signs, symbols, flags of the Nazi like fanatism. Be awake…

        PS: We always hated and were against to right wing and to their media.

        We will continue to look also at the dark side of the moon.

    • Start: We do not demonize women for wearing burkinis. Most Germans of Hitler's day were not Nazis but the Nazi party forced compliance once it gained power. Radical Islam is a male dominated social order that demands the Burka, Hijab and Burkinis just as the Nazis demanded Swastikas for Germans and Stars for Jews. It's all about subservience & subjugation. That is why we don't accept the burkini. Islam refuses to integrate but rather seeks to subjugate all other cultures. Nuns, however have a full choice whether to take vows and join a convent. Neither they nor the Catholic Church expect non-Catholics to wear a habit. Additionally, you see far less peace initiatives and far more terrorism justification by Imams than by religious leaders of any other religion.

      • You do demonise them. You target them for harassment by the law for doing something that harms no one. And Islam does not refuse to integrate. I have know many Muslims that have fully integrated into western society, perhaps you need to broaden your horizons.

        • Individual Muslims do integrate, to a point, but radical Muslims terrorize those who do, and gradually Muslim communities become subject to Sharia law and as they grow, seek to change the greater culture to Islam. Leaving Islam means death threats. I know, I've had friends who did just that, and not only were they and their children threatened, but distant relatives in their home country. And these people lived in a small town without a significant Muslim population. Muslims have clearly stated their goal to conquer the West not by terror, but by Hizra, that is immigration and birth rates. Perhaps you need to open your eyes to larger trends.

  4. People seem to be equating radical Islam and terrorism with burkinis. Why is this? To me it makes about as much sense as equating a naked man on a beach with pedophilia. Actually, it makes even less sense as there's probably been a good few naked men on beaches that have been pedophiles, but I'm not aware of anyone committing a terrorist act while wearing a burkini.

      • A quote from someone like Erdogan (who has his own agenda) is not enough to justify equating women's choice of clothing with terrorism. It's dangerous nonsense that only serves to fuel the delusions of bigots.

      • Mentioning Turkey as a muslim country is wrong and very confusing. According its constitution "The Republic of Turkey is a democratic, secular and social State governed by the rule of law" and this article “shall not be amended, nor shall their amendment be proposed”. It has cultural heritage of almost all religions, in some locations there are mosque, synagogue and church side by side, at close quarters and open to worship. Perhaps the ruling party and elected president may have some dark agenda to rule the country by laws of the religion but they can not do this, it is a very serious constitutional crime subject to a sentence of lifelong prison.
        It is very frivolous to define a country with a religion unless it is ruled by religious laws. Even in some countries ruled by laws of a definite religion such as Iran, some arabic countries, Israel their people has every tones of grey in terms of faith, you can not categorize the people as black or white. Alevis of Turkey which are in our humble opinion a blend of islam and shamanism (ancient religion of Turkish people still practicised at middle Asian Turkic countries) can not be categorized as original islam.

        As an example being topless at beaches can not be discussed as in the link below in a country based on islam: http://turkishtravelblog.com/sunbathing-in-turkey/

    • Flawed comparison. If there were a political movement by males at the beach toward pedophilia, we would equate the group with the agenda. Islamic dress IS part of a political agenda, hence the equating any Islamic dress to the Sharia agenda, including hijra as a means of conquest and cultural change. Discovered this explicit description by a simple Google search: https://civilusdefendus.wordpress.com/2010/01/10/4-stages-of-islamic-conquest/

    • We are NOT equating burkinis with terrorism. We are equating burkinis with creeping Islamic influence and subsequent Sharia control in areas previously Western and liberal (in the classic use of the term).

  5. If religion required nudity, would it have to be allowed? Why does it dictate what people wear? I agree, the solution is to allow people to wear whatever they want in the name of freedom. A clothing freedom advertising campaign with nudity, business suits and everything in between is a great idea. Of course, some people would say the ads insult their religion.

    • Interesting that the article she wrote says, "As a European-Muslim woman, I don’t need men dictating how I should dress on the beach. In Saudi Arabia women are banned from driving by men. In Iran women still have to face ‘morality’ police if they don’t cover their hair. Similarly in countries such as Afghanistan, women are forced to cover their face. These directives have all come from men, dictating what is appropriate for women." "When will men stop dictating how women should dress? The Burkini…is a symbol of liberty for women in Hijab." She doesn't see the irony. Muslim men dictate to women how to dress forcing them to cover up with threats of violence.

      • According to her own profile in the internet she is not European but an Middle Eastern woman born in Erbil-Iraq. It is strange that why such people are agressively willing to regulate the life style of others countries instead of struggling first for reaching to human rights and woman's rights in their own countries.

        • She writes that "The Burkini, far from being a uniform, is in fact a symbol of liberty for women". there is not such a liberty in France for French women or for any women somewhere else all around the world. This is not a freedom as she states, but it is the result of the imposition by men over women. This is an uniform of bigotry invented in recent years. More political then religious, one of the tools used to bring back the society into the darkness of medieval times.

          • Eh bien, c'est très facile à comprendre.
            Well, it is very easy to understand.
            Search on google for "shariah pour la france" and see the result. This kind of cloathing is not a casual style. It is obviously the uniform of fanaticism, flag of radicalism. Would you like to see in your town, in your neighbourhood some people increasingly wearing Nazi style uniforms and performing menacing demonstrations with such uniforms. Freedom is not menacing the rights of others: http://novorossia.today/media/2015/08/sharia-for-france.jpg
            This is not religion nor freedom, women are not under the menace of violation in Franch beaches if they are not very tightly covered with burkinis. In recent years we have remarked at the beaches several couples coming to the beach, the woman in burkini, but opens her head and removes her burkini, remains with a very small bikini all day long and then at the end of the day return back by wearing the burkini.

            Also not to forget that some part of fundamantalism, radicalism and terorism of nowadays is mostly the result of interventions from USA and some European countries since more than hundred years to Middle Eastern, African and Asian countries. The world is mowing now what these countries sowed in the past.

          • I'm confused. Is the Burkini a sign of freedom from the total coverage that practically prevented female swimming? Perhaps in the same way the womens' suits of the 1920s represented greater freedom than the suits of the late 1800s??

      • Then I think you are missing her point.
        The women are not anti Islam.
        <<The Burkini…is a symbol of liberty for women in Hijab." She doesn't see the irony. Muslim men dictate to women how to dress forcing them to cover up with threats of violence.>>
        The burkini is a victory against that tyranny and it came in the face of violence.
        In her religion, men are to be obeyed. She does not want to give up her religion, she wants to go to the beach.

        • http://indiatoday.intoday.in/story/fatwa-al-azhar-university-cairo-women-swimming-in-sea-adultresses/1/326883.html

          If she is extremely religious in order to agressively act as burka-burkini activist she should also strictly obey to the fatwa (a ruling on a point of Islamic law given by a recognized authority) of Al Azhar University, one of the oldest and most prestigious Islamic institutes in Cairo as "Women who swim in the sea commit adultery, should be punished. When a woman goes swimming, as the word for sea is masculine, when the water touches the woman's private parts, she becomes an 'adulteress' and should be punished."

          She should also not purchase and eat cucumbers, bananas and eggplants because another fatwa from Al Azhar University is prohibiting women from "eating certain vegetables or even touching cucumbers or bananas", due to their phallic imagery which could lead women down the wrong path.

          Here we go…


          • Read again and seen once more nothing else than her hypocrisy about fundamentalism and freedom. That's normal, she says she is an activist, she does her job, she isn't an activist for women's freedom but she struggles to enforce men's fundamentalism. Obedience is not activism!
            We wonder how such people with radical fundamentalist mentalities are admitted to European countries while their victims poor Syrian refugees are not accepted to those countries in the name of humanity. May be this the attractiveness of petro-dollars? Who knows…


          • You seem unaware of the concept of "religious freedom." Plenty Christians do not follow the Bible 100%. Ditto Jews with the Torah. Are you so enthusiastic about policing them or are you just another person obsessed with telling women how to dress?

    • Agreed but what does this imply? The French have already banned head scarves and upset a lot of people in the process. As I see it defending one's culture by banning aspects of another's is a hiding to nothing. We need to always go back to fundamental liberties. Strictly enforce personal freedom by allowing anything that does not harm others and prohibiting anything that does. So genital mutilation, men or women should be totally banned for minors, and enforced.
      All clothing or none permitted as of right but sexual harassment, such as a naked man waving his dick in a woman's face, should be heavily censured. ETC.
      We, and the French, need to defend our free culture by emphasising and enhancing it not by attacking others wholesale.

Leave a Comment

New Report