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

    6
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by WBZ144)
    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.
    I don't think history makes any difference to the logic being put forward here. The absence of gay marriage was no less discriminatory despite it being forbidden for hundreds of years.

    No other religious symbols have been banned in this context no, but what other religious symbol would be applicable here in the sense of a women-only garment for the beach? As I have said, nudists could also argue that they are specifically being targeted for their ideological beliefs. So why are people engaging in double standards?

    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.
    Burkinis are associated with conservative Islam, an offshoot of which is Islamist extremism which has motivated the recent attacks against France. The French authorities obviously feel that there is a societal need to ban symbols associated with the ideology which has motivated the recent attacks. From a libertarian standpoint this is not good, but it's hardly surprising.
    Offline

    6
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by champ_mc99)
    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.
    The (commonly-quoted) grounds are all subjective and based on moral/social justifications, so there is no objective reasons why one should be banned and not the other.

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

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Grand High Witch)
    I don't think history makes any difference to the logic being put forward here. The absence of gay marriage was no less discriminatory despite it being forbidden for hundreds of years.

    No other religious symbols have been banned in this context no, but what other religious symbol would be applicable here in the sense of a women-only garment for the beach? As I have said, nudists could also argue that they are specifically being targeted for their ideological beliefs. So why are people engaging in double standards?



    Burkinis are associated with conservative Islam, an offshoot of which is Islamist extremism which has motivated the recent attacks against France. The French authorities obviously feel that there is a societal need to ban symbols associated with the ideology which has motivated the recent attacks. From a libertarian standpoint this is not good, but it's hardly surprising.
    Hindus in India could also claim that dastars represent the extremists of the Khalistan movement, responsible for various attacks in their country, thus banning dastars. Iraqis could claim that crosses represent the extremist who invaded country and claimed that it was God's will, thus banning crosses. That would make just about as much sense as this ban (which is none).

    Pretty much any religious symbol can be worn on the beach, including the men-only garb that I referred to earlier. These were not banned.

    It's not history, it's the context in which the ban was introduced and the intention behind it, which is evident in the reasons cited in favour of it.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Grand High Witch)
    The (commonly-quoted) grounds are all subjective and based on moral/social justifications, so there is no objective reasons why one should be banned and not the other.

    See above.
    Hmmm... I see what you mean now. A certain criteria would need to be set to decide. The number of people that agree/disagree with a ban might be one for example. So in some way you could make it objective. Some criterion we already have set such as any action physically harming another is wrong and more likely to be banned than any other.

    This is too deep anyway.
    Offline

    6
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by WBZ144)
    Hindus in India could also claim that dastars represent the extremists of the Khalistan movement, responsible for various attacks in their country, thus banning dastars. Iraqis could claim that crosses represent the extremist who invaded country and claimed that it was God's will, thus banning crosses. That would make just about as much sense as this ban (which is none).

    Pretty much any religious symbol can be worn on the beach, including the men-only garb that I referred to earlier. These were not banned.

    It's not history, it's the context in which the ban was introduced and the intention behind it, which is evident in the reasons cited in favour of it.
    Your argument is still weakened by the fact that the French ban nudism. The context and intention behind it is to discriminate against nudists and their ideological beliefs, and not other ideologies - yet this is accepted (presumably by most arguing against the burkini ban in this thread given they are against "immodesty"). So people against the burkini ban need to accept that their argument logically requires them to be against the ban on nudism - I presume many of them will struggle with this.

    So, I get that you're saying this is a clothing ban specifically targeting followers of a certain ideology, but the State already does this - so I don't see why people are suddenly kicking up a fuss now.
    Offline

    6
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by champ_mc99)
    Hmmm... I see what you mean now. A certain criteria would need to be set to decide. The number of people that agree/disagree with a ban might be one for example. So in some way you could make it objective. Some criterion we already have set such as any action physically harming another is wrong and more likely to be banned than any other.

    This is too deep anyway.
    Basing it on the numbers who agree/disagree would be a big mistake. I imagine most people would vote to abolish tax altogether if given the chance...
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Grand High Witch)
    Basing it on the numbers who agree/disagree would be a big mistake. I imagine most people would vote to abolish tax altogether if given the chance...
    It was an example. Like democracy. You get what I mean.

    (Abolishing tax isn't completely subjective comoared to public nudity I don't think :/)
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 1010marina)
    You consider a person's body sexual only because it is not the norm to see boobs everyday. If you watch a documentary showing tribespeople, the reporters and men don't pop a boner seeing topless women - why? Because that is their life.

    You have been taught that a woman's body is sexual. The only times you're going see breasts day to day is either the breasts of a girl you're intimate with, just before sex or in porn videos. So you think it is perversion to see part of a person's body. If you see a mans pecs, it is not sexual - he is probably topless because it is too warm. In day to day life you are more likely to see a man topless so you are desensitised to it.

    Stop objectifying our bodies. It is not "perversion" for women to wear clothing that shows you a glimpse of something you don't normally see. It is not sexual. It is just a body.

    You can choose to wear a bikini. One day you might wear a swimming costume, the next a sarong or wet suit. But the choice is there.

    On the other hand, forcing a woman to keep herself covered up because she is threatened with hell or rape is demeaning. It gives her no choice. And considering France is being attacked by the same people promoting that kind of hardcore Islam, it is easy to see why this could be taken as an act against the secular nature of France.
    I'm aware of such tribal existence, but here in the west we are not tribes roaming the jungles breastfeeding....

    Why are you wearing clothes? take them off this instant. Become a nudist, let all those who appose the right for them who choose to cover,take off their clothes and roam the streets naked? no? why? the law states it's illegal. you'd get done for indecent exposure, why? only bits of dangling flesh we all have a ****, arse, tits, pussy?? you have no justification to ban something which is the world over legal and accepted as normal to cloth oneself or it's immoral, disgusting.

    You and this Mayor are Al Fraqueda, another version of the terrorists oppressing non white/Christians from being allowed to wear what they choose, just like some of them being brainwashed, you are to by the media and so called quotes from Quran saying the only women who cover thier bodies are those forced to wear it, as God forbid women be self thinking that they want to cover their dignity out of choice. You and those who agree are vile hypocrites saying how you despise such behaviour yet seen no wrong it implementing bans on things you can't fathom.

    You are so absorbed in this thinking there is no capacity for you to think rationally. You have never seen men in Arabia covered head to toe? Turban, long sleeved top? bottoms covering legs? they to do this because they fear being raped! :rolleyes:

    God give me strength, I need it for closed minded individuals like you. If people like you were rational thinkers instead of banning this, that & the other due to hatred of anything non white you'd have said the CHOICE to cover, and not cover should be of the individual, but no, go forcing your will on others like the terrorists.

    Cretins of such high level can never fathom....

    Some quotes might give you an idea {doubtful}


    "In Victorian times swimmers would wear long baggy trousers, full tops and swimming caps and no-one blinked an eye!

    ''Why is it necessary for us to show off our bodies when we don't want to?''

    "When did it become a crime to cover yourself?''

    "I think it's outrageous that you would effectively be asked to uncover some flesh or leave,"


    Ban Nuns from covering up too, they cover the head, legs, body, thisis being forced by white terrorists! The Chistianists :rolleyes:

    Look how they are told to cover by their Scriptures, they are FORCED....{maybe the sarcasm might be fathomed}
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SMEGGGY)
    I'm aware of such tribal existence, but here in the west we are not tribes roaming the jungles breastfeeding....

    Why are you wearing clothes? take them off this instant. Become a nudist, let all those who appose the right for them who choose to cover,take off their clothes and roam the streets naked? no? why? the law states it's illegal. you'd get done for indecent exposure, why? only bits of dangling flesh we all have a ****, arse, tits, pussy?? you have no justification to ban something which is the world over legal and accepted as normal to cloth oneself or it's immoral, disgusting.

    You and this Mayor are Al Fraqueda, another version of the terrorists oppressing non white/Christians from being allowed to wear what they choose, just like some of them being brainwashed, you are to by the media and so called quotes from Quran saying the only women who cover thier bodies are those forced to wear it, as God forbid women be self thinking that they want to cover their dignity out of choice. You and those who agree are vile hypocrites saying how you despise such behaviour yet seen no wrong it implementing bans on things you can't fathom.

    You are so absorbed in this thinking there is no capacity for you to think rationally. You have never seen men in Arabia covered head to toe? Turban, long sleeved top? bottoms covering legs? they to do this because they fear being raped! :rolleyes:

    God give me strength, I need it for closed minded individuals like you. If people like you were rational thinkers instead of banning this, that & the other due to hatred of anything non white you'd have said the CHOICE to cover, and not cover should be of the individual, but no, go forcing your will on others like the terrorists.

    Cretins of such high level can never fathom....

    Some quotes might give you an idea {doubtful}


    "In Victorian times swimmers would wear long baggy trousers, full tops and swimming caps and no-one blinked an eye!

    ''Why is it necessary for us to show off our bodies when we don't want to?''

    "When did it become a crime to cover yourself?''

    "I think it's outrageous that you would effectively be asked to uncover some flesh or leave,"

    Ban Nuns from covering up too, they cover the head, legs, body, thisis being forced by white terrorists! The Chistianists :rolleyes:

    Look how they are told to cover by their Scriptures, they are FORCED....{maybe the sarcasm might be fathomed}
    #triggered

    Son, as others have dutifully pointed out on the thread, supporting nudity and supporting the public wearing of religious dress go hand in hand. If nudity or even scantily clad people offend you because it is "immoral", then you must concede the point that other people can view the burkini or burka as immoral too - if not, you are placing your specific religious beliefs above anybody else's. Freedom, as many people have pointed out, does not work one way only.

    That's quite interesting. I'm actually going to deflect your comments about my supposed terrorist nature with a quote from the Kyrgyz president:
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/blogs-trending-36846249
    Enjoy

    You can still cover yourself up. Don't get hysterical. There are other options out there. Just don't throw your religion in the face of the world's media. I've asked plenty of times on this thread for reasons to be selective about the burkini vs other styles and never got an answer so I refuse to accept that you have to leave the beach if you cannot wear a burkini.

    Throwing low jabs calling people cretins and terrorists just shows that you cannot handle civil debate about something. You care so much about it that is has made you angry. You would rather insult people with opposing views than speak to them. If you don't see the irony here, perhaps you should take a few steps back away from the keyboard... lol.

    The French courts have upheld the ban, anyway (though there is plans for an appeal). The BBC said "The judge noted the ban came "in the context of the state of emergency and recent Islamist attacks, notably in Nice a month ago"." There is also a French law that is used to defend it. Since July, nobody has been apprehended for wearing one, so either people have found other beaches to go to or other ways to cover up.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    The sooner Europeans get out this false ideology of multiculturalism and diversity the better. What exactly is diversity? a clever tactic dreamt up by racists, who justify replacing our population. Ethnic cleansing.

    We have a right to protect our people, our heritage despite what the so called anti-fa anti-racist social justice warriors want to tell you.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ribbit1234)
    It won't work so the French president can go f himself. They banned the burka too, but subhanallah, praise be to God, it didn't stop Muslim women from wearing it. Bless the French Muslim sisters in France x
    (Original post by Ribbit1234)
    I believe the French president is racist and discriminates Muslims. Like how is wearing the Burkini harming other people. If women are allowed to show off what they want, why shouldn't they be allowed to cover if they want.
    1) Islam is not a race.
    2) You are quite literally the perfect example of Muslim arrogance. If the law bans religious clothing, you stick to it. If not, run off to the Middle East. You don't see Arab countries bending the rules for Westerners that live there.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MrsSheldonCooper)
    1) Islam is not a race.
    2) You are quite literally the perfect example of Muslim arrogance. If the law bans religious clothing, you stick to it. If not, run off to the Middle East. You don't see Arab countries bending the rules for Westerners that live there.
    If the ban was extended to all religious clothing or symbols, then you'd perhaps have an argument. However, it's been made clear that the ban wasn't a prohibition of religious signs in general, but rather was a prohibition of a form of clothing that signified support of terrorist groups.
    Don't know how people can defend such a bigoted and illogical ruling
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MrsSheldonCooper)
    1) Islam is not a race.
    2) You are quite literally the perfect example of Muslim arrogance. If the law bans religious clothing, you stick to it. If not, run off to the Middle East. You don't see Arab countries bending the rules for Westerners that live there.
    Why bring Arab countries into the discussion? This is a direct attack, anchored by anti muslim *bigotry, on both personal liberty and religious freedom in a supposedly free secular state.*
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MrsSheldonCooper)
    You don't see Arab countries bending the rules for Westerners that live there.
    UAE permits wearing the bikini on most beaches and also the sale of Alcohol to non-Muslims.
    ...Tunisia
    ... Lebanon
    ... Egypt

    Etc etc.

    This makes you sound like the perfect example for Western bigotry - not letting facts get in the way of you slamming someone. But naturally the Middle East = Saudi Arabia in your eyes.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Zamestaneh)
    UAE permits wearing the bikini on most beaches and also the sale of Alcohol to none Muslims.
    ...Tunisia
    ... Lebanon
    ... Egypt

    Etc etc.

    This makes you sound like the perfect example of Western bigotry - not letting facts get in the way of you slamming someone. But naturally the Middle East = Saudi Arabia in your eyes.
    Women’s clothes should cover the legs and upper arms.


    Homosexuality is a criminal offence in Tunisia and sexual relations outside marriage are also punishable by law.

    Sure. Just don't forget to cover your shoulders and not to wear """"""""""Revealing""""""""" " Clothes out on the street.

    You couldn't wear short shorts out in the street, you could not wear a short skirt in the street could you?
    and tank tops for men are normally a no go.



    Another thing to add, my mother has been harrassed by a bunch of muslims when we went into london, they shouted at her for having shorts on and were approached by many men.
    Take your bigotry out of this country before you complain about us having negative views of The middle east and Islamic countries, but the thing is most of our "bigotry" is based on facts that these countries are no where near as socialy advanced as most western countries.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by R£SP£CT)
    Why bring Arab countries into the discussion? This is a direct attack, anchored by anti muslim *bigotry, on both personal liberty and religious freedom in a supposedly free secular state.*
    Because these Arab countries encroach on personal liberty and religious freedom... We keep going round in circles here that apparently it is perfectly acceptable for Islamic countries to do x but if a Western country does x then we have a huge problem? Nobody, no nation and no religion is above criticism. That would set a dangerous precedent.

    If you dislike one attack on freedom then you must hate the converse example or you are proving yourself to be incredibly egotistical, and your argument is thus invalid.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 1010marina)
    Because these Arab countries encroach on personal liberty and religious freedom... We keep going round in circles here that apparently it is perfectly acceptable for Islamic countries to do x but if a Western country does x then we have a huge problem? Nobody, no nation and no religion is above criticism. That would set a dangerous precedent.

    If you dislike one attack on freedom then you must hate the converse example or you are proving yourself to be incredibly egotistical, and your argument is thus invalid.
    Arab countries are far from our purportedly free secular standard. All if not most are quasi-autonomous immature remnant nations, yet to fully recover from decades of oppressive regimes. This, in addition to the natural corollaries following thousands of years of religious conservatism, renders any comparison to such nations quite foolish. I would be very sceptical if any Arab country claimed to be free and tolerant.

    I agree that no religion/country is above criticism, but what we're discussing is an objective example of liberties being eroded in a nation that prides itself in being a bastion of such principles. Our beliefs and values, and consequently our actions should not be haphazardly determined by the behaviours of broken countries in a volatile region of the world. It gives rise to bigotry. I.e. wearing a Burkini is not reflective of any terrorist organisation.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    When in Rome, do as the Romans do
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AperfectBalance)
    Women’s clothes should cover the legs and upper arms.

    Homosexuality is a criminal offence in Tunisia and sexual relations outside marriage are also punishable by law.

    Sure. Just don't forget to cover your shoulders and not to wear """"""""""Revealing""""""""" " Clothes out on the street.

    You couldn't wear short shorts out in the street, you could not wear a short skirt in the street could you?
    and tank tops for men are normally a no go.



    Another thing to add, my mother has been harrassed by a bunch of muslims when we went into london, they shouted at her for having shorts on and were approached by many men.
    Take your bigotry out of this country before you complain about us having negative views of The middle east and Islamic countries, but the thing is most of our "bigotry" is based on facts that these countries are no where near as socialy advanced as most western countries.
    You are attacking a straw man - she claimed Arab countries do not bend religious rules, and I showed obvious cases where they did; if you happen to disagree with other rules or social norms, then I frankly don't care because I wasn't talking about that.

    And my uncle got called a Paki and was threatened, but you do not see telling you to go back to a council estate in a scummy area of a British city for criticing cultural views of various communities - it is the pinnacle of ignorance and bigotry to say 'go back to...' because you got a flustered with your mum being pestered by bigots; if you don't like people having other opinions, how about you leave the country? Because as British citizens and former colonial subjects who were ravaged and oppressed by the British, we have equal if not more right to be in this country than you do.

    Btw, given the topic of conversation, it's interesting that countries are 'socially advanced' based upon how little they allow their constituent members to dress (or so it would appear you claim) - perhaps you would agree that African bushmen are the models for mankind?
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Zamestaneh)
    You are attacking a straw man - she claimed Arab countries do not bend religious rules, and I showed obvious cases where they did; if you happen to disagree with other rules or social norms, then I frankly don't care because I wasn't talking about that.

    And my uncle got called a Paki and was threatened, but you do not see telling you to go back to a council estate in a scummy area of a British city for criticing cultural views of various communities - it is the pinnacle of ignorance and bigotry to say 'go back to...' because you got a flustered with your mum being pestered by bigots; if you don't like people having other opinions, how about you leave the country? Because as British citizens and former colonial subjects who were ravaged and oppressed by the British, we have equal if not more right to be in this country than you do.

    Btw, given the topic of conversation, it's interesting that countries are 'socially advanced' based upon how little they allow their constituent members to dress (or so it would appear you claim) - perhaps you would agree that African bushmen are the models for mankind?
    The rules do not state Non muslims are allowed to Wear X on the beach They state everyone her point was perfectly justified, we should not be giving any extra clothing rights, I do not agree face veils should be allowed, in banks, schools or hospitals.



    if you don't like people having other opinions, how about you leave the country?


    You are very very wrong, you can have your own opinions you can say them but when you start harassing or physically attacking people. Ie following my mother and telling us to get out Yeah I have a problem with that.
    I would not follow a Person around a bank going hey take that face veil off hey take it off now get out of here. I would be happy to debate about it but I would only in a appropriate area.


    Because as British citizens and former colonial subjects who were ravaged and oppressed by the British, we have equal if not more right to be in this country than you do.
    I will respond to this later I am currently doing something
 
 
 
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.