Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    Offline

    6
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by The_Internet)
    That's exactly what the French mayor wants - for women not to be able to choose
    Should women be able to choose to walk around naked, which is currently illegal?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Grand High Witch)
    Should women be able to choose to walk around naked, which is currently illegal?
    apologies - didn't see your reply in context! I now agree.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Grand High Witch)
    Should women be able to choose to walk around naked, which is currently illegal?
    Being naked has a certain sexuality surrounding em, which is why we make people wear something. How many people would want stark naked people around their kids?If you're on a nudist beach do whatever
    Offline

    6
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by The_Internet)
    Being naked has a certain sexuality surrounding em, which is why we make people wear something. How many people would want stark naked people around their kids?If you're on a nudist beach do whatever
    So we accept a country's moral and societal principles in banning nakedness - that's fine. But we cannot accept a country's moral and societal principles in banning "burkinis"?
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Grand High Witch)
    So we accept a country's moral and societal principles in banning nakedness - that's fine. But we cannot accept a country's moral and societal principles in banning "burkinis"?
    /thread
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Grand High Witch)
    So we accept a country's moral and societal principles in banning nakedness - that's fine. But we cannot accept a country's moral and societal principles in banning "burkinis"?
    Via that route we can accept them to ban any form of clothing items they want including: crucifixes, kippahs, even jeans, watches, hats etc?

    EDIT: We most likely accept a country's moral principles because we agree.
    Offline

    6
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by champ_mc99)
    Via that route we can accept them to ban any form of clothing items they want including: crucifixes, kippahs, even jeans, watches, hats etc?
    Yes, that's the point - the state already does ban items of clothing (or lack of clothing) - if you walked down the street with an incredibly racist comment on a t-shirt I am sure you would be arrested.

    You either say the state cannot ban any item of clothing (or lack of clothing), including nakedness, or you say it can based on social and moral considerations. If it's the latter, then why should the state be entitled to ban nakedness based on social and moral considerations but not the "burkini"?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Grand High Witch)
    Yes, that's the point - the state already does ban items of clothing (or lack of clothing) - if you walked down the street with an incredibly racist comment on a t-shirt I am sure you would be arrested.

    You either say the state cannot ban any item of clothing (or lack of clothing), including nakedness, or you say it can based on social and moral considerations. If it's the latter, then why should the state be entitled to ban nakedness based on social and moral considerations but not the "burkini"?
    Well of course they would. Because it's racist. We all unanimously agree it's right to ban it. But my point is, with your logic, you could go on a banning spree and ban anything and everything and just make up some sort of moral justification for it.

    I agree. They can ban it on moral considerations and justifications, but only if they aren't retarded. There's a reason why many people would applaud the ban of a racist t-shirt opposed to a regulat t-shirt: we agree with the moral justifications.

    According to your logic...

    "T-shirts are sexist so from now on they are banned. Don't agree? Bring back public nudity."
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Grand High Witch)
    So we accept a country's moral and societal principles in banning nakedness - that's fine. But we cannot accept a country's moral and societal principles in banning "burkinis"?
    And what was the "moral" reasoning? That women who wear burkinis show an affiliation with terrorists. Do you agree with that?
    Offline

    6
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by champ_mc99)
    Well of course they would. Because it's racist. We all unanimously agree it's right to ban it. But my point is, with your logic, you could go on a banning spree and ban anything and everything and just make up some sort of moral justification for it.

    I agree. They can ban it on moral considerations and justifications, but only if they aren't retarded. There's a reason why many people would applaud the ban of a racist t-shirt opposed to a regulat t-shirt: we agree with the moral justifications.

    According to your logic...

    "T-shirts are sexist so from now on they are banned. Don't agree? Bring back public nudity."
    This sounds like a straw man. I haven't said I agree with a particular standpoint; I have said that society bans being nude in public based on moral/social grounds, and society (France) is now deciding to ban burkinis based on moral/social grounds. You need to provide a pretty good reason why you think society should be allowed to ban nudity on moral/social grounds but not burkinis on moral/social grounds.
    Offline

    6
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by WBZ144)
    And what was the "moral" reasoning? That women who wear burkinis show an affiliation with terrorists. Do you agree with that?
    I presume (and don't necessarily agree with the following):

    1) Burkinis represent a symbol of misogyny which goes against French culture.

    2) Burkinis represent conservative Islam, the offshoot of which (extremist Islamism) has been responsible for recent attacks in France.

    3) Burkinis represent the ingrained social problem of a failure to integrate and adapt to the host culture - a problem which the French government are trying to address.

    I don't actually have a problem with burkinis on libertarian grounds (I think nudism should be legal too), but I imagine the above is the reasoning behind it.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Grand High Witch)
    I presume (and don't necessarily agree with the following):

    1) Burkinis represent a symbol of misogyny which goes against French culture.

    2) Burkinis represent conservative Islam, the offshoot of which (extremist Islamism) has been responsible for recent attacks in France.

    3) Burkinis represent the ingrained social problem of a failure to integrate and adapt to the host culture - a problem which the French government are trying to address.

    I don't actually have a problem with burkinis on libertarian grounds (I think nudism should be legal too), but I imagine the above is the reasoning behind it.
    What's next then? Ban Muslim women from all religious attire, which would mean taking away the same freedom that is afforded to Sikh and Jewish men? Is it appropriate for a country that identifies as a democracy to discriminate like that?

    Chances are that a sizeable portion of women will be restricted from daily activities because of a ban that was completely unnecessary. That certainly will not encourage integration, it does the opposite. Nor will telling women that they are terrorist enablers by wearing clothing that has been a part of their religion for centuries, which is more or less what the mayor was saying.

    Even if you personally have nothing against women wearing burkinis, this, as well as the justifications used is unjustifiable.
    Offline

    6
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by WBZ144)
    What's next then? Ban Muslim women from all religious attire, which would mean taking away the same freedom that is afforded to Sikh and Jewish men? Is it appropriate for a country that identifies as a democracy to discriminate like that?

    Chances are that a sizeable portion of women will be restricted from daily activities because of a ban that was completely unnecessary. That certainly will not encourage integration, it does the opposite. Nor will telling women that they are terrorist enablers by wearing clothing that has been a part of their religion for centuries, which is more or less what the mayor was saying.

    Even if you personally have nothing against women wearing burkinis, this, as well as the justifications used is unjustifiable.
    That's all great - like I said those are the justifications I imagine have been used in this instance. The question is: do you think France should be allowed to ban nakedness on moral/social grounds but not the burkini on moral/social grounds, and if so why?

    Chances are that a sizeable portion of women will be restricted from daily activities because of a ban that was completely unnecessary.
    I do have to address this - how will banning the burkini restrict a "sizeable portion of women... from daily activities"? Who goes to the beach everyday?
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Grand High Witch)
    That's all great - like I said those are the justifications I imagine have been used in this instance. The question is: do you think France should be allowed to ban nakedness on moral/social grounds but not the burkini on moral/social grounds, and if so why?

    I do have to address this - how will banning the burkini restrict a "sizeable portion of women... from daily activities"? Who goes to the beach everyday?
    Nudity has been banned in France for centuries, the ban was not enforced for the purpose of targeting a religious group. Moreover, there are several reasons why the majority of the public would not want people being nude in public spaces (exposure to children, hygienic reasons and so forth) so yes, the ban on nudity seems reasonable enough. On the other hand, who is a woman in a burkini harming? There are other full body swimsuits which cover the hair and are still allowed, attire associated with other religions is allowed, which makes this look more like an attempt to further exclude Muslim women. Saudi Arabia bans women from leaving their homes without wearing abayas on the grounds of "morality", and this is a country that every knows is not in the least bit democratic.

    I meant that this will happen if Muslim women are outright banned from religious attire. Banning burkinis for reasons such as claims that they represent "an affiliation with terrorists" is a step towards that.
    Offline

    6
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by WBZ144)
    Nudity has been banned in France for centuries, the ban was not enforced for the purpose of targeting a religious group. Moreover, there are several reasons why the majority of the public would not want people being nude in public spaces (exposure to children, hygienic reasons and so forth) so yes, the ban on nudity seems reasonable enough. On the other hand, who is a woman in a burkini harming? There are other full body swimsuits which cover the hair and are still allowed, attire associated with other religions is allowed, which makes this look more like an attempt to further exclude Muslim women. Saudi Arabia bans women from leaving their homes without wearing abayas on the grounds of "morality", and this is a country that every knows is not in the least bit democratic.

    I meant that this will happen if Muslim women are outright banned from religious attire. Banning burkinis for reasons such as claims that they represent "an affiliation with terrorists" is a step towards that.
    So we have a situation where:

    - Banning nudism: to "protect" children, hygiene reasons, to stop people seeing something icky or sexual, etc.
    - Banning the burkini: to stop a symbol of misogyny proliferating, to promote integration, to ban a symbol of conservative Islam, etc.

    All subjective reasons.

    And then you have both Muslims and nudists claiming they are being discriminated against and targeted directly by these policies. Objectively, a nudist feeling they should be nude based on ideological reasons (perhaps because they feel that's how nature intended it) is in no way inferior or superior to a Muslim feeling the burkini is necessary to follow the modesty doctrines of their ideology.

    So, I still struggle to see how there is not a blatant hypocrisy in saying nudism should be banned for moral/societal reasons, but burkinis should not.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Grand High Witch)
    Should women be able to choose to walk around naked, which is currently illegal?
    More naked ladies is good.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Grand High Witch)
    So we have a situation where:

    - Banning nudism: to "protect" children, hygiene reasons, to stop people seeing something icky or sexual, etc.
    - Banning the burkini: to stop a symbol of misogyny proliferating, to promote integration, to ban a symbol of conservative Islam, etc.

    All subjective reasons.

    And then you have both Muslims and nudists claiming they are being discriminated against and targeted directly by these policies. Objectively, a nudist feeling they should be nude based on ideological reasons (perhaps because they feel that's how nature intended it) is in no way inferior or superior to a Muslim feeling the burkini is necessary to follow the modesty doctrines of their ideology.

    So, I still struggle to see how there is not a blatant hypocrisy in saying nudism should be banned for moral/societal reasons, but burkinis should not.
    I never said that nudism should be banned, but that I understand why it is and that the ban on it cannot be compared to this one. If it had been legal until recently because a mayor decided to target a specific group for political purposes, I would say the ban was discriminatory (like this one clearly is). You fail to address the fact that no other religious symbols have been banned.

    Not to mention that misogyny was not cited as the reason for banning burkinis, rather these women were slandered with suggestions that they are affiliated with terrorists due to the way they dress.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Grand High Witch)
    This sounds like a straw man. I haven't said I agree with a particular standpoint; I have said that society bans being nude in public based on moral/social grounds, and society (France) is now deciding to ban burkinis based on moral/social grounds. You need to provide a pretty good reason why you think society should be allowed to ban nudity on moral/social grounds but not burkinis on moral/social grounds.
    Yes of course. These moral grounds (which I disagree with) need to be analysed rather than just accepting that they are there. In each case, on nudity and burkinis, we need to know what they are.

    And nudity and burkinis aren't the same so do not have the same moral grounds l. I would think they're the opposite.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    This is a stupid law.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by KingBradly)
    More naked ladies is good.
    Does that include overweight or unshaven women?
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: August 18, 2016
Poll
Who is your favourite TV detective?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.