Why is it ok to ban nudism but not the burkini?
Scroll to see replies
cos it's 2016 and everything offends me.
Original post by Josb
I don't think that Saudi have been able to express their opinions through a vote. Saudi government and mayors are not elected; there is no intellectual (and free) debate in the media about the issue. You cannot compare.
This is according to PEWResearch
http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/01/08/what-is-appropriate-attire-for-women-in-muslim-countries/
They may not be able to criticise their government but they are able to give an opinion on women's dress codes all the same. After all, those methods of dress are all allowed in Saudi, provided that the woman is wearing an abaya.
Original post by WBZ144
This is according to PEWResearch
http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/01/08/what-is-appropriate-attire-for-women-in-muslim-countries/
They may not be able to criticise their government but they are able to give an opinion on women's dress codes all the same. After all, those methods of dress are all allowed in Saudi, provided that the woman is wearing an abaya.
http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/01/08/what-is-appropriate-attire-for-women-in-muslim-countries/
They may not be able to criticise their government but they are able to give an opinion on women's dress codes all the same. After all, those methods of dress are all allowed in Saudi, provided that the woman is wearing an abaya.
A bikini isn't though is it?
Original post by alevelstresss
If you want to prove that hating something and wanting it banned are mutually exclusive, go ahead and try. It might be amusing.
For example, I hate far-right sympathisers in the UK who blame their problems on immigrants and Muslims, while ignoring their own damaging government. But I don't want them banned from the UK because that would be hypocritical and a violation of democracy, and illegal.
For example, I hate far-right sympathisers in the UK who blame their problems on immigrants and Muslims, while ignoring their own damaging government. But I don't want them banned from the UK because that would be hypocritical and a violation of democracy, and illegal.
Not in that order. If you want to ban something you necessarily hate that thing, or its consequences. People obviously don't want to ban everything that they hate.
Original post by alevelstresss
Similarly, I doubt the people who banned dangerous drugs like cocaine 'hated' the drug, they were just concerned about the social and health impacts of it.
Similarly, I doubt the people who banned dangerous drugs like cocaine 'hated' the drug, they were just concerned about the social and health impacts of it.
Do you have any sources for your claim that people who banned dangerous drugs didn't hate them?
Original post by WBZ144
This is according to PEWResearch
http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/01/08/what-is-appropriate-attire-for-women-in-muslim-countries/
They may not be able to criticise their government but they are able to give an opinion on women's dress codes all the same. After all, those methods of dress are all allowed in Saudi, provided that the woman is wearing an abaya.
http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/01/08/what-is-appropriate-attire-for-women-in-muslim-countries/
They may not be able to criticise their government but they are able to give an opinion on women's dress codes all the same. After all, those methods of dress are all allowed in Saudi, provided that the woman is wearing an abaya.
It's much more difficult to have an opinion in a dictatorship. If these people were allowed to ask questions, or read or watch diverging opinions, the result of such survey would be different. This is probably why the countries with (somewhat) free media and civil society have more relaxed views on the subject (Tunisia, Lebanon, and Turkey).
Unless there are free elections or a vote on religious clothes in Saudi Arabia, I won't believe that the majority of the population (including women) want women to be covered head to toes.
(edited 7 years ago)
Double post.
(edited 7 years ago)
Original post by MeYou2Night
I never said anyone's rights were being affected did I? Shouting "go home" isn't acceptable behaviour either. I just know a lot of French people and their view on the matter, with all religious garments.
I'd like to know whats not modest about wearing a bikini? My finance (she's 22) does all the time by the seaside and goes to the shops sometimes in one (a lot of girls do where she is from, Bournemouth). Nobody's rights are being infringed there so I'd like to know where all these campaigners for the Burkini are, when it comes to Saudi Arabia vs the bikini? If they truly support the freedom of choice l, they'd camp outside the Saudi embassy as well!
And before you stereotype, my fiancée is a solicitor.
I'd like to know whats not modest about wearing a bikini? My finance (she's 22) does all the time by the seaside and goes to the shops sometimes in one (a lot of girls do where she is from, Bournemouth). Nobody's rights are being infringed there so I'd like to know where all these campaigners for the Burkini are, when it comes to Saudi Arabia vs the bikini? If they truly support the freedom of choice l, they'd camp outside the Saudi embassy as well!
And before you stereotype, my fiancée is a solicitor.
You said that avoiding upsetting Muslims was being put "above all else", when in reality the Supreme Court simply ruled it unconstitutional to restrict a woman's freedom to choose her attire when it wasn't affecting anyone. Some feminists don't like the concept of white wedding dresses and view them as sexist but at the end of the day they don't get to decide what people can or can't wear.
Supporting a woman's right to wear a burkini /= not supporting her right to wear a bikini or even go topless. I support all 3, provided that it really was her choice to wear what she is wearing.
Since when was Saudi Arabia supposed to be a secular democracy that gives everyone the right to freedom of expression? It's hardly the shining example that all countries should aspire to and everyone knows this, so what will a protest achieve?
Original post by WBZ144
You said that avoiding upsetting Muslims was being put "above all else", when in reality the Supreme Court simply ruled it unconstitutional to restrict a woman's freedom to choose her attire when it wasn't affecting anyone.
The French supreme court agreed with the burqa ban, which didn't really affect anyone physically, but it judged that it went against the concept of society and living together.
In the case of the burkini bans, the main argument was that it was a measure of public safety, whereas the mayors who banned it were later forced to admit that they hadn't seen any burkini. The argument was weak. However if tomorrow a group of women in burkini insulted (or anything else violent or causing offence to) other people, then the ban would be justified and probably upheld by the Supreme court - for a temporary period.
Several politicians have also announced that they will make a bill on the subject. Normally, the Supreme court would reject it as well, unless it receives a supermajority. And I think that it might get one considering that many Socialist MPs want to be reelected. It's not over.
Original post by Josb
Not in that order. If you want to ban something you necessarily hate that thing, or its consequences. People obviously don't want to ban everything that they hate.
Do you have any sources for your claim that people who banned dangerous drugs didn't hate them?
Do you have any sources for your claim that people who banned dangerous drugs didn't hate them?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_on_Drugs
its blatant from any point of view that drugs were banned because of the social and health impacts, and not because the banners had a personal vendetta/hatred against the specific drugs
And nice dodge 'hating it OR the consequences'... Hating the consequences of something is not the same as hating the source.
Original post by WBZ144
Since when was Saudi Arabia supposed to be a secular democracy that gives everyone the right to freedom of expression? It's hardly the shining example that all countries should aspire to and everyone knows this, so what will a protest achieve?
Since when was Saudi Arabia supposed to be a secular democracy that gives everyone the right to freedom of expression? It's hardly the shining example that all countries should aspire to and everyone knows this, so what will a protest achieve?
Ah the liberal conflict again!
It must be hard being liberal when it comes to countries like Saudi, as criticising it would be "islamaphobic", but not to criticise it would be "illiberal towards women" I wouldn't want that conflict all the time in my brain .
Most liberals don't criticise Saudi however, as they don't want to be "racist" or "islamaphobic", even with Saudis very illiberal record.
(edited 7 years ago)
Original post by Josb
The French supreme court agreed with the burqa ban, which didn't really affect anyone physically, but it judged that it went against the concept of society and living together.
In the case of the burkini bans, the main argument was that it was a measure of public safety, whereas the mayors who banned it were later forced to admit that they hadn't seen any burkini. The argument was weak. However if tomorrow a group of women in burkini insulted (or anything else violent or causing offence to) other people, then the ban would be justified and probably upheld by the Supreme court - for a temporary period.
Several politicians have also announced that they will make a bill on the subject. Normally, the Supreme court would reject it as well, unless it receives a supermajority. And I think that it might get one considering that many Socialist MPs want to be reelected. It's not over.
In the case of the burkini bans, the main argument was that it was a measure of public safety, whereas the mayors who banned it were later forced to admit that they hadn't seen any burkini. The argument was weak. However if tomorrow a group of women in burkini insulted (or anything else violent or causing offence to) other people, then the ban would be justified and probably upheld by the Supreme court - for a temporary period.
Several politicians have also announced that they will make a bill on the subject. Normally, the Supreme court would reject it as well, unless it receives a supermajority. And I think that it might get one considering that many Socialist MPs want to be reelected. It's not over.
For most of the part the burqa doesn't affect anyone and while I wouldn't support the ban myself, I can understand it on the grounds of security reasons. Someone in a burkini can be identified, and that's why the same argument cannot apply.
I don't see how it has a negative effect on public safety, as most Islamists are against the burkini in the first place. They believe that a woman's place is in the home and that she should not be enjoying herself swimming on mixed beaches.
If these women's lives are being tampered with as some sort of political ploy then that is hardly something to admire.
(edited 7 years ago)
Original post by Josb
It's much more difficult to have an opinion in a dictatorship. If these people were allowed to ask questions, or read or watch diverging opinions, the result of such survey would be different. This is probably why the countries with (somewhat) free media and civil society have more relaxed views on the subject (Tunisia, Lebanon, and Turkey).
Unless there are free elections or a vote on religious clothes in Saudi Arabia, I won't believe that the majority of the population (including women) want women to be covered head to toes.
Unless there are free elections or a vote on religious clothes in Saudi Arabia, I won't believe that the majority of the population (including women) want women to be covered head to toes.
I have lived in that country; patriotic and religiously conservative is how most Saudis you would come across can be described. While religious conservatism is decreasing over there, it still remains the norm. And while their opinions are largely the result of intense brainwashing, those are their beliefs regardless. I'm not at all surprised by the results of this poll, but that still doesn't make their restrictive dress code on women acceptable.
Original post by alevelstresss
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_on_Drugs
its blatant from any point of view that drugs were banned because of the social and health impacts, and not because the banners had a personal vendetta/hatred against the specific drugs
its blatant from any point of view that drugs were banned because of the social and health impacts, and not because the banners had a personal vendetta/hatred against the specific drugs
I'm sorry, but can you point me how this article "proves" that politicians don't hate drugs?
Spoiler
Original post by alevelstresss
And nice dodge 'hating it OR the consequences'... Hating the consequences of something is not the same as hating the source.
And nice dodge 'hating it OR the consequences'... Hating the consequences of something is not the same as hating the source.
I'm gonna play the devil advocate like you do: anti gun groups don't hate guns, they just hate the fact that guns kill.
Original post by MeYou2Night
Ah the liberal conflict again!
It must be hard being liberal when it comes to countries like Saudi, as criticising it would be "islamaphobic", but not to criticise it would be "illiberal towards women" I wouldn't want that conflict all the time in my brain .
Most liberals don't criticise Saudi however, as they don't want to be "racist" or "islamaphobic", even with Saudis very illiberal record.
It must be hard being liberal when it comes to countries like Saudi, as criticising it would be "islamaphobic", but not to criticise it would be "illiberal towards women" I wouldn't want that conflict all the time in my brain .
Most liberals don't criticise Saudi however, as they don't want to be "racist" or "islamaphobic", even with Saudis very illiberal record.
It's very easy to criticise Saudi without resorting to anti-Muslim bigotry or xenophobia towards Saudi people, I never found it to be a conflict. Human rights organisations (which are often criticised and labelled "left-wing" by the Right) have repeatedly monitored and criticised Saudi on several issues such as the treatment of women and domestic workers and the bombing of Yemen. None of them have brought anti-Muslim bigotry into their criticisms.
(edited 7 years ago)
Original post by Josb
I'm sorry, but can you point me how this article "proves" that politicians don't hate drugs?
I'm gonna play the devil advocate like you do: anti gun groups don't hate guns, they just hate the fact that guns kill.
Spoiler
I'm gonna play the devil advocate like you do: anti gun groups don't hate guns, they just hate the fact that guns kill.
Showing two people hating drugs does not prove that 'many' hate it, which is what the point was originally about - long before you started going off on this absurd tangent.
You're yet to prove that many people hate the burkini. Some assumptive extrapolations about how 'people who want to ban things always hate them' is a poor method of working.
I think the underlying reason is because you want to promote the idea that the burkini is hated across the country, to back up your anti-Islamic views.
Original post by alevelstresss
Showing two people hating drugs does not prove that 'many' hate it, which is what the point was originally about - long before you started going off on this absurd tangent.
You said that politicians who waged the war on drugs didn't hate drugs. I showed you two examples of such leading politicians in this war on drugs that disproved your point. You decided to compare it with the War on drugs and now you are trying to escape this analogy by saying it's an "absurd tangent".
Original post by alevelstresss
You're yet to prove that many people hate the burkini. Some assumptive extrapolations about how 'people who want to ban things always hate them' is a poor method of working.
I think the underlying reason is because you want to promote the idea that the burkini is hated across the country, to back up your anti-Islamic views.
You're yet to prove that many people hate the burkini. Some assumptive extrapolations about how 'people who want to ban things always hate them' is a poor method of working.
I think the underlying reason is because you want to promote the idea that the burkini is hated across the country, to back up your anti-Islamic views.
The burkini is hated among the country, I showed you a opinion poll to back my claim. You decided to go in absurd lengths to say that when people want to ban something, they don't actually hate it.
Original post by Josb
You said that politicians who waged the war on drugs didn't hate drugs. I showed you two examples of such leading politicians in this war on drugs that disproved your point. You decided to compare it with the War on drugs and now you are trying to escape this analogy by saying it's an "absurd tangent".
The burkini is hated among the country, I showed you a opinion poll to back my claim. You decided to go in absurd lengths to say that when people want to ban something, they don't actually hate it.
The burkini is hated among the country, I showed you a opinion poll to back my claim. You decided to go in absurd lengths to say that when people want to ban something, they don't actually hate it.
Your opinion poll did not show that anyone hates the burkini, only that a few percent of a tiny sample size agree with it being banned.
Wanting to ban something does not mean you hate it. Some extrapolations of irrelevant scenarios means nothing.
Original post by alevelstresss
Your opinion poll did not show that anyone hates the burkini, only that a few percent of a tiny sample size agree with it being banned.
64% are "a few percent"?
Original post by Josb
64% are "a few percent"?
irrelevant, a percentage of a tiny, singular sample does not mean that 64% of frenchmen want it banned
not to mention the fact that it still doesn't prove that anyone 'hates' anything
Original post by Another
1) Well, 90% of the population would find it gross. At least.
1) Well, 90% of the population would find it gross. At least.
Really? Got a source for that?
Society would only deem it as "gross" because that's the way we've been encouraged to think. Think about it rationally, and there's nothing inherently gross about nudity at all. It's all social perception.
2) Nothing wrong with people taking a piss, taking a crap, or giving birth either. It's natural. It's still gross.
I don't see how nudity is comparable to taking a ****.
3) I don't agree with the burkini ban, and couldn't care less about the nudity one. The logic in OP's post was just bugging me.
Your logic bugs me too.
4) About the TV ban... no, just no...
5) Not wanting to see someone else's saggy tits and bush in public = being a Victorian Prude? Okay then.
5) Not wanting to see someone else's saggy tits and bush in public = being a Victorian Prude? Okay then.
Well, which is it? Either you're fine with it, which you're obviously not, or you accept that you've got the means with which to avoid it and are making a mountain out of a molehill.
(edited 7 years ago)
Quick Reply
Related discussions
- Eduqas A-level French Component 2 (12 Jun) and 3 (19 Jun 2023) [Exam Chat]
- I Need friends lol
- Number plate matches my name
- Should XL bully dogs be banned?
- Can I quit work for this?
- ✨Lexi's Daily Life Blog ✨❤️😈
- Integrating with fx 991es help
- thoughts on no phones at school
- Is the Casio classpad II CP400 allowed in an aqa exam?
- Debate Help!!!
- Does this still go on at Exeter University
- so i cant send pms/visitor messages yet but message me here if you want to talk.
- I turn 18 today! AMA (07/06/2023)
- UK governments to ban disposable vapes
- Children to no longer be prescribed puberty blockers, NHS England confirms
- Do you think universities should ban meat from their menus?
- Can I be a teacher with tattoos
- how do you delete your tsr account..?
- Rishi Sunak considering banning cigarettes for the next generation
- So will we be banned from driving petrol cars in 2030
Latest
Trending
Last reply 1 day ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 1 day ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 1 day ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?Trending
Last reply 1 day ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 1 day ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 1 day ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?
