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

    6
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by alevelstresss)
    The threat is individual hateful Muslims becoming radicalised through segregation, alienation and discrimination which stem from this ban, and the consequences of this ban, which include the legitimisation of Islamophobic feelings throughout Europe. NOT the collective Muslim community threatening to join ISIS in response to these things.
    Again, why should the threat of "individual hateful Muslims" becoming radicalised decide whether government makes policy or not? And how do we know such people would not become radicalised anyway? If you look at the countries of origin of ISIS fighters, many are highly accommodating of even conservative Islamic practices.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Grand High Witch)
    Again, why should the threat of "individual hateful Muslims" becoming radicalised decide whether government makes policy or not? And how do we know such people would not become radicalised anyway? If you look at the countries of origin of ISIS fighters, many are highly accommodating of even conservative Islamic practices.
    Because without the resultant discrimination, its likely that some of these people would not become radicalised. And that means less people dying, which I hope you're in favour of?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    6
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by alevelstresss)
    Because without the resultant discrimination, its likely that some of these people would not become radicalised. And that means less people dying, which I hope you're in favour of?
    So you think it's sensible to base government policy on the whims of extremists to stop them from being violent, when in all likelihood they would be violent anyway?

    Should we have not banned FGM because some extremists consider it a religious requirement and the "resultant discrimination" means it is likely that some of these people would become radicalised?
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Grand High Witch)
    So why is "gross" superior to "offensive" in the banning-of-things stakes, when both are entirely subjective?
    Oh, it isn't. I just came here to say that the reasons why nudity and burkinis are banned are completely different to each other, and the reasons in your OP are wrong.


    It implicitly will have included those things (unless you think the people behind the ban do not believe the burkini represents those things?), but okay - it was banned because it offended secularism rather than principles of women's equality. What difference does that make to the argument?
    Consider this:

    I'm a mayor of a town. I ban tax evaders because they do not pay anything back to the community which they live in. I also happen to think that tax evaders are rich middle class men. I did not ban tax evaders, because they are all rich and middle class and male.

    One mayor has already said that this is not a blanket ban on religious symbols in public places. So that includes religious symbols from Christianity's history of misogyny, crusades and homophobia, Jewish history's of "the chosen people" syndrome among many other religious symbols and connotations are still A-Ok. How does it make sense to ban a burkini for the reasons of misogyny - but not the hijab, the crucifix, or anything else?

    And... how do you offend a principle, or a lack of religion? You can't offend something that isn't another person!

    (Original post by SuperHuman98)
    This is probably a dumb question, but if nature intended us to be walking around nude why dont we have thick fur? Isnt it too cold in winter to be walking around nude?
    I suppose nature never intended for us to leave Africa. But then as soon as we made hides out of animal fur, we just spread across the globe into the freezing winters of the north

    (I like to believe this theory)
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Grand High Witch)
    So you think it's sensible to base government policy on the whims of extremists to stop them from being violent, when in all likelihood they would be violent anyway?

    Should we have not banned FGM because some extremists consider it a religious requirement and the "resultant discrimination" means it is likely that some of these people would become radicalised?
    Its perfectly sensible not to discriminate against the entirety of a religion because of the actions of a small handful of people who follow it on a different wavelength to everyone else.

    I don't appreciate your "OH SO YOU MEAN *inserts blatantly wrong interpretation*", the point is not to cause harm to the Muslim community. The violence that may result from some angry Muslims is a secondary effect, but still a consequence nonetheless.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Another)
    Oh, it isn't. I just came here to say that the reasons why nudity and burkinis are banned are completely different to each other, and the reasons in your OP are wrong.




    Consider this:

    I'm a mayor of a town. I ban tax evaders because they do not pay anything back to the community which they live in. I also happen to think that tax evaders are rich middle class men. I did not ban tax evaders, because they are all rich and middle class and male.

    One mayor has already said that this is not a blanket ban on religious symbols in public places. So that includes religious symbols from Christianity's history of misogyny, crusades and homophobia, Jewish history's of "the chosen people" syndrome among many other religious symbols and connotations are still A-Ok. How does it make sense to ban a burkini for the reasons of misogyny - but not the hijab, the crucifix, or anything else?

    And... how do you offend a principle, or a lack of religion? You can't offend something that isn't another person!



    I suppose nature never intended for us to leave Africa. But then as soon as we made hides out of animal fur, we just spread across the globe into the freezing winters of the north

    (I like to believe this theory)

    Countries in Africa do have rainy seasons though,wind and like deserts(not sure if right spelling) are extremely cold at night
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    Nudism itself isn't illegal in Britain, AFAIK. The law is slightly confusing in this area; I think it would depend on the situation.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by The Sexathlete)
    Nudism should not be a banned and neither should the burkini.


    The one caveat I would add however is that public transport companies should be allowed to ban nude passengers on the grounds of hygiene.
    A sensible response. I'm in favour of little to no state intervention when it comes to fashion and clothing.

    What are your thoughts on clothing that are deliberately provocative and have the potential to cause alarm and distress i.e. Nazi uniforms?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    6
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Another)
    Oh, it isn't. I just came here to say that the reasons why nudity and burkinis are banned are completely different to each other, and the reasons in your OP are wrong.
    Different yes, but neither is a superior reason because both are based simply on feelings. My point is that I believe it's hypocritical for people to express outrage at the burkini ban and sing about "freedom", yet be totally in favour of banning nudism. If you don't fall into that camp then fair enough.

    Consider this:

    I'm a mayor of a town. I ban tax evaders because they do not pay anything back to the community which they live in. I also happen to think that tax evaders are rich middle class men. I did not ban tax evaders, because they are all rich and middle class and male.

    One mayor has already said that this is not a blanket ban on religious symbols in public places. So that includes religious symbols from Christianity's history of misogyny, crusades and homophobia, Jewish history's of "the chosen people" syndrome among many other religious symbols and connotations are still A-Ok. How does it make sense to ban a burkini for the reasons of misogyny - but not the hijab, the crucifix, or anything else?
    Again, even if it is secularism I don't think it alters what I am arguing in any material way (about the hypocrisy).

    And... how do you offend a principle, or a lack of religion? You can't offend something that isn't another person!
    It's a figure of speech, essentially meaning seriously going against something.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    Nudists are still getting better treatment than Muslim women in the towns which ban burkinis. Can you imagine the outcry if burkini beaches got introduced after the ban?

    Point is, nudists can go to the beach for a swim in all of those town, hijabis cannot.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Dima-Blackburn)
    A sensible response. I'm in favour of little to no state intervention when it comes to fashion and clothing.

    What are your thoughts on clothing that are deliberately provocative and have the potential to cause alarm and distress i.e. Nazi uniforms?
    I have a Nazi helmet in my bedroom. EDIT: It must be up the loft now given that my bedroom is being redecorated I also went into a shop being run by Neo-Nazis and told them their replicas would be excellent for my interracial BDSM sessions, there was literally nothing they could do about my cocky ****-eating grin.



    I'm not offended by stupid symbols, but if people wish to be overtly pro-Nazi it's their choice and everyone else will act accordingly towards them
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    6
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by alevelstresss)
    Its perfectly sensible not to discriminate against the entirety of a religion because of the actions of a small handful of people who follow it on a different wavelength to everyone else.
    How is this ban discriminating against the "entirety of a religion"? Is it even specifically a requirement in the Qur'an?

    I don't appreciate your "OH SO YOU MEAN *inserts blatantly wrong interpretation*", the point is not to cause harm to the Muslim community. The violence that may result from some angry Muslims is a secondary effect, but still a consequence nonetheless.
    It was applying your logic, and showing you the consequences of that logic.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    6
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by WBZ144)
    Point is, nudists can go to the beach for a swim in all of those town, hijabis cannot.
    Source?

    I also don't see your point, because on the flip side towns where nudism is banned, burkinis are permitted.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Grand High Witch)
    How is this ban discriminating against the "entirety of a religion"? Is it even specifically a requirement in the Qur'an?



    It was applying your logic, and showing you the consequences of that logic.
    Because the clothing that belongs to an entire religion is banned for some vague misconceptions about it being a 'symbol of oppression'.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    6
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by alevelstresss)
    Because the clothing that belongs to an entire religion is banned for some vague misconceptions about it being a 'symbol of oppression'.
    If it's not in the Qur'an how does it belong to an entire religion? It's merely associated with a religion.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Grand High Witch)
    Source?

    I also don't see your point, because on the flip side towns where nudism is banned, burkinis are permitted.
    Well, perhaps not all of them but Plage de la Batterie is a beach near Cannes and if the French sources I've been reading are anything to go by, nudity on some of the non-nudist beaches is tolerated, depending on the area. French law neither bans nor allows nudity on beaches either, unless the law on that has changed since 2014. The burkini was explicitly banned in certain towns.
    http://www.thelocal.fr/galleries/tra...-dos-and-donts

    And can you name one burkini beach? Would the public accept those?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Grand High Witch)
    If it's not in the Qur'an how does it belong to an entire religion? It's merely associated with a religion.
    its the cultural clothing worn by many members of the religion, stop trying to argue about how its technically not in the quran, you know exactly what I mean.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    6
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by alevelstresss)
    its the cultural clothing worn by many members of the religion, stop trying to argue about how its technically not in the quran, you know exactly what I mean.
    Well, it's a flaw in your argument because it's akin to saying it discriminates against all of Christianity to ban Amish communities for a side-practice that is not an express requirement of Christianity.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    6
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by WBZ144)
    Well, perhaps not all of them but Plage de la Batterie is a beach near Cannes and if the French sources I've been reading are anything to go by, nudity on some of the non-nudist beaches is tolerated, depending on the area. French law neither bans nor allows nudity on beaches either, unless the law on that has changed since 2014. The burkini was explicitly banned in certain towns.
    http://www.thelocal.fr/galleries/tra...-dos-and-donts
    French law is probably like British law in that nudism in public is banned not in theory but in practice through other laws such as decency and public order. Do you think you could walk around stark naked on a French beach with families and the police would ignore it?

    And can you name one burkini beach? Would the public accept those?
    Every beach is a burkini beach (except a couple in France); no beach is a nudist beach, apart from a few exceptions that are cordoned off.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Grand High Witch)
    Every beach is a burkini beach (except a couple in France); no beach is a nudist beach, apart from a few exceptions that are cordoned off.
    15 towns have already banned them in a short space of time, and the number will likely increase if this continues. Counting all of the beaches in those towns and cities, that's already way past a couple.

    If you look up the list of nudist beaches in France, there are much more than a few and that isn't counting the more isolated non-nudist ones where nudity is tolerated. On the other hand, there are no beaches specifically for burkini wearers, and even there was one, people would be coming up with conspiracy theories on how France is seeing the beginning of the implementation of Shariah law and it would be vehemently opposed.
 
 
 
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 20, 2017
Poll
Do you agree with the PM's proposal to cut tuition fees for some courses?
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.