beastsmen could get horny.
I wouldn't be against burkini if we didn't have laws banning nudity, or nazi and KKK suits, etc. Since it is deemed acceptable for government/mayors to make laws on clothing, I don't get why it would be unacceptable to continue to do that now, especially in the current context of growing Islamic extremism. You have said it yourself, some covering clothes already existed for the beach, why some Muslims need to wear a clothing that they know offensive to the overwhelming rest of the population and that didn't even exist 5 years ago?(Original post by chemting)
Maybe someone modified a wetsuit by a tiny bit and called it "burkini" as a marketing ploy to sell to unsuspecting, holier-than-thou Muslims: like Islamic nuts, Islamic honey, Islamic water bottles, halal student loans, halal credit cards and stuff for dem eye lashes. So Islam is already being commercialized in very stupid ways (but ironically it doesn't stop Muslims telling me how bad capitalism is ).
Anyway, I really don't see the difference and the ban isn't justified for simply just this reason imo.
Imo, the only acceptable argument against the ban is that now those who think they are waging a holy war will wear it just to make a point. The mayor of Cannes admitted that no burkini was spotted on the beach before the ban, but said today that 10 women have been asked to leave the beach since (three agreed to pay the fine of €38).
From GCSE to A level, it's all changing