French pool bans 'burkini' swim

Originally posted by Ushgarak
Look, regardless of any irrelevant notions of Islamophobia, and regardless of what your opinion on the hygiene situation is, the situation is actually simple as this- there are laws about what both men and women can and cannot wear in French swimming pools. The lifeguards have an obligation to enforce those laws and can lose their jobs and even be held legally accountable if they do not. Her outfit broke those laws.

If you think the law is silly, fine. But the ridiculous conclusions being drawn from this are sorrowful.

Is there actually a law that forbids it, because the article just stated that the staff forbid her from wearing it citing hygiene reasons. It would be interesting to know whether there is really a law, or what basis their decision had.

Furthermore it would be interesting to consider what is viewed as clothing. Since that item seems to be designed for being used in water I am wondering whether it should be considered in the same way a dress or shirt might be.

In another article on the same topic I read that the pool also didn't allow shorts either, though. If that's true, It's surely not an oppression of one specific group.

My understanding of the matter is yes, there is a law that is very specific about what you have to wear in French pubic baths. Indeed, that same law does not allow men to wear shorts. There's quite a lot it prohibits, in fact. Actually, I think the law is more about what IS allowed than what is not; it says what you can wear and nothing else is permitted.

What I find disturbing is that there will be no outcry about a man who wants to wear shorts and is not allowed. No inimalist claiming violation of expression- simply because the desire is not religious.

This special treatment of desires simply because they are religious should be fought. It is simple bias and immoral preferential treatment.

Basically the arguement boils down to this....We have our laws in our nations and they have their laws in their nations. So when they pull stupid shit with their laws we should STFU and accept it...just like they have to accept our stupid shit.

We vs. They...

Yes, except in this case it's not a major social matter like the death penalty or holding women responsible for their own rapes or gay rights or any number of such issues. It is as utterly triviall as the law about what you can wear at a swimming pool.

The woman claims it is segregation. The ONLY thing it is is self-segregation.

She's entitled to her opinion and if she feels segreated...then....acknowledge her free speech. We can agree on this part. Now, we to be fair WE don't have to agree with her opinion...so it works both ways.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Is there actually a law that forbids it, because the article just stated that the staff forbid her from wearing it citing hygiene reasons. It would be interesting to know whether there is really a law, or what basis their decision had.

Furthermore it would be interesting to consider what is viewed as clothing. Since that item seems to be designed for being used in water I am wondering whether it should be considered in the same way a dress or shirt might be.

In another article on the same topic I read that the pool also didn't allow shorts either, though. If that's true, It's surely not an oppression of one specific group.

Dabbling around Google, France doesn't allow loose garments in swimming pools, only "figure hugging" wear is permitted. So there's that.

Also something about the woman wearing the suit in public and then wearing it to the pool, where the cross-contamination would occur. This seems like an after the fact thought.

To me, it seems the lifeguard(s) made a [bad?] call thinking the outfit was inappropriate and now France is scrambling to cover itself for fear of an anti-Muslim sentiment backlash.

In the end, there's always the public beach for her and her body-wrap.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
As I say, you wouldn't allow people to go nude.

I wouldn't?

Originally posted by Ushgarak
What I find disturbing is that there will be no outcry about a man who wants to wear shorts and is not allowed. No inimalist claiming violation of expression- simply because the desire is not religious.

few religions have such clothing requirements for men

were a Mormon not allowed to swim, provided they had specific bathing underwear, because of their religiously mandated attire, I would say the same.

I don't really think its fair that you are trying to assume what violations of personal expression don't offend me. I can pretty much assure you I'm going to come down on the side of free expression in 99.999% of the issues you might bring up.

What I find disturbing is that you think the only laws which could possibly be in violation of a person's expression as those which are made with that specific intent, as if someone being oppressed as a consequence of a law isn't the exact same thing.

So the issue is that exceptions should be made in someone cries "religion, religion", yet no, if someone just happens to like dressing a certain way? I find that odd, if so.

the issue, as in, what I wanted to discuss in this article, was a woman who was refused a public service because she was wearing what was described as inappropriate bathing attire. The context being that, as a Muslim, she feels it necessary to cover herself, and thus, was refused access to a public service because she was acting in accordance with her religious beliefs.

I have yet to see a logical case put forward for any hygienic concern, though if what you mentioned about her wearing it to the pool is true, fair enough. Safety concerns about diving boards, while I think they may be unnecessary, are somewhat more valid, though not to refuse her access to the pool itself. Because of this, it is clear that her wearing that suit did not provide any issue for the establishment or society which would justify the restriction of her right to free religious expression in this way.

Do I think laws which needlessly restrict attire are wrong. Yes. So, no, the fact it is religion is not necessarily important. I think there is a broader "clash of civilizations" context here which makes this issue more interesting than just saying "people should be allowed to wear swim trunks", but no, if it is absolutely necessary for me to condemn those laws for me to be taken seriously in condemning the actions of the pool staff in this specific case, sure, restrictions on bathing attire that pose no risk to society at large are wrong and should be revoked.

Originally posted by inimalist
the issue, as in, what I wanted to discuss in this article, was a woman who was refused a public service because she was wearing what was described as inappropriate bathing attire. The context being that, as a Muslim, she feels it necessary to cover herself, and thus, was refused access to a public service because she was acting in accordance with her religious beliefs.

I have yet to see a logical case put forward for any hygienic concern, though if what you mentioned about her wearing it to the pool is true, fair enough. Safety concerns about diving boards, while I think they may be unnecessary, are somewhat more valid, though not to refuse her access to the pool itself. Because of this, it is clear that her wearing that suit did not provide any issue for the establishment or society which would justify the restriction of her right to free religious expression in this way.

Do I think laws which needlessly restrict attire are wrong. Yes. So, no, the fact it is religion is not necessarily important. I think there is a broader "clash of civilizations" context here which makes this issue more interesting than just saying "people should be allowed to wear swim trunks", but no, if it is absolutely necessary for me to condemn those laws for me to be taken seriously in condemning the actions of the pool staff in this specific case, sure, restrictions on bathing attire that pose no risk to society at large are wrong and should be revoked.

Like you I see nothing wrong with her wearing it, but to be fair, at least France is equally oppressive to everyone.

And like you probably agree with me and many other here, the argument "My Religion wants it" is not a valid one, though often justified by personal liberties.

Originally posted by Bardock42
I agree with you in that I find such rules odd and probably not warranted , I think the article that you posted though made it out to be a Islam vs. west kind of thread (as there are others) and so many people responded in that vein.

Its not that I didn't expect that, or that it wasn't half the reason I wanted to post it, but it got into some crazy place almost instantly. I think there are overarching issues of west v islam sort of at the root of this, but I think rather than shedding light on them for thoughtful discussion, I rather stirred the pot.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Like you I see nothing wrong with her wearing it, but to be fair, at least France is equally oppressive to everyone.

yes and no. Equal as in, there is no specific portion of the law which singles out any particular group, but certainly not in its implementation, nor in its effects.

For people who do not self identify with rules of proper attire, the law is an inconvenience at best. Most people aren't making personal statements with their bathing trunks, and probably don't mind the imposition.

For someone who attire is a highly personal and important issue, regulations about these things impact them more, and it becomes an issue of personal identity when they are restricted from normal citizen behaviour because they wish to wear what they feel is religiously important.

the net effect is that, by restricting certain forms of attire, for arbitrary reasons, the state is saying what things are and are not acceptable for religion to deem important OR they are saying that free religious expression is secondary to arbitrary cultural rules.

Originally posted by Bardock42
And like you probably agree with me and many other here, the argument "My Religion wants it" is not a valid one, though often justified by personal liberties.

Of course it isn't. Why does defending the personal rights of someone who is religious constitute saying "my religion wants it"?

EDIT: also...

BARDOCK!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Originally posted by inimalist
Its not that I didn't expect that, or that it wasn't half the reason I wanted to post it, but it got into some crazy place almost instantly. I think there are overarching issues of west v islam sort of at the root of this, but I think rather than shedding light on them for thoughtful discussion, I rather stirred the pot.

Perhaps. Well, the Islam issue moves many people, so the reaction is understandable.

Originally posted by inimalist
yes and no. Equal as in, there is no specific portion of the law which singles out any particular group, but certainly not in its implementation, nor in its effects.

For people who do not self identify with rules of proper attire, the law is an inconvenience at best. Most people aren't making personal statements with their bathing trunks, and probably don't mind the imposition.

For someone who attire is a highly personal and important issue, regulations about these things impact them more, and it becomes an issue of personal identity when they are restricted from normal citizen behaviour because they wish to wear what they feel is religiously important.

the net effect is that, by restricting certain forms of attire, for arbitrary reasons, the state is saying what things are and are not acceptable for religion to deem important [b]OR they are saying that free religious expression is secondary to arbitrary cultural rules.[/B]

That assumes that the laws were put in place with Muslims in mind, which I am not sure they were. Either way I do think that there are reasons why and places where Burkas and similar could reasonably be banned for a multitude of reasons, and whether there is a personal feeling involved should be disregarded, so in that case I guess I'd say that laws maybe should say that some things religions deem important are not allowed. I don't think this is a good law, but it doesn't seem aimed at Muslim oppression. Though, yes, it does hit them harder than many others, though, I know lots of guys who feel rather uncomfortable wearing speedos (probably cause they don't have an adonis-like figure as I do)

Originally posted by inimalist
Of course it isn't. Why does defending the personal rights of someone who is religious constitute saying "my religion wants it"?

It's not about you defending it. Your stance is understandable and valid in my opinion. Hers though is based solely on her having the right to do what her Religion says, which is not generally a good argument.

Originally posted by inimalist
EDIT: also...

BARDOCK!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Hi

Originally posted by Bardock42
I know lots of guys who feel rather uncomfortable wearing speedos (probably cause they don't have an adonis-like figure as I do)

Awesomet. In my eyes now, you do have adonis-like figure. Because of that comment.

I have an Adonis-like figure; I'd never wear a speedo though. They mash your junk together and push your unit towards/into your ***hole. All very gay and uncomfortable.

i still find this image funny

😂
ts interesting seeing how this threads changed...from burkini debate, to mods bashing islam for no reason, to a discussion of overweight people in thongs..... 🙄

Its not that I didn't expect that, or that it wasn't half the reason I wanted to post it, but it got into some crazy place almost instantly. I think there are overarching issues of west v islam sort of at the root of this, but I think rather than shedding light on them for thoughtful discussion, I rather stirred the pot.

😂

I'd never seen a burkini before until about 30 seconds ago. No offense to any Muslims, but how does dressing a woman up like a giant, uncut penis with a ribbed durex condom on it protect her modesty?

Doesn't show skin.

Extreme form of common nudity taboos.