'Burkini' swimsuits banned on Cannes Riveria beaches by French mayor - Polidicks

[QUOTE=Headhumpy;50872476]it's almost as if liberals value individual rights including the right to religious freedom and the right to wear whatever you want on a fucking beach[/QUOTE] Would I be able to go naked on a non nudist beach? No. I accept that this is how it is. The same as I accept that my wife needs to dress conservatively in Muslim countries. I don't keep bleating on about fucking oppression and prejudice. The sooner Muslims accept the difference of culture in the West the sooner they will be accepted. [editline]15th August 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=Silly Sil;50889285]Calling a ban of certain clothing by one French major a [B]cultural norm[/B] is very dishonest.[/QUOTE] the cultural norm is to wear bikinis.

[QUOTE=Headhumpy;50872476]it's almost as if liberals value individual rights including the right to religious freedom and the right to wear whatever you want on a fucking beach[/QUOTE] there's nothing liberal about permitting a patriarchal religion to oppress women

[QUOTE=Conscript;50889339]there's nothing liberal about permitting a patriarchal religion to oppress women[/QUOTE] To stop the oppression of women you're going to stop them from wearing clothes they want?

[QUOTE=TheBloodyNine;50889358]To stop the oppression of women you're going to stop them from wearing clothes they want?[/QUOTE] Are we back to pretending they have free choice in socially conservative communities again? The burka is nothing more than an attempt to control female sexuality, which yes, is something women have always played a role in and is consistent with an Abrahamic religion. Every woman that 'chooses' (as if this happens in a vacuum) to wear one only increases the conformist pressures on the rest that don't. It deserves the same treatment as the dress vs pants debacle in our societies. It's just yet another example of the contradiction between the liberal West and a place that never, ever liberalized and actually hardened in response to modernity, which we continually enable through our ties to Sunni reactionaries (some of the last places on earth to not even claim to be democratic) and a foreign policy opposed to more modern Arab regimes. I find it little coincidence that while we simultaneously stoke Sunni sectarianism that creates everything from ISIS to Muslim brotherhood types and 'moderates', we receive their populations in the form of refugees and pretend the enforced modesty on their women is either a choice or a form of empowerment. This is why islamic feminism is a joke. A ban is haphazard, but a better alternative than just allowing an ascendant community that rejects liberalism to maintain its traditions unabated, especially when its newer generations can be even less integrated and liberal than their parents (thus the ISIS volunteers). That's vulgar liberalism, and more of an excuse to not deal with the issue out of multiculturalism (i.e. a desire to maintain the stability of an increasingly heterogeneous society rather than preserve the liberal values it was founded on).

[QUOTE=Conscript;50889339]there's nothing liberal about permitting a patriarchal religion to oppress women[/QUOTE] "We can't let muslims tell wemen what to wear! [I]We[/I] should be the ones telling them!"

[QUOTE=karlosfandango;50889288]the cultural norm is to wear bikinis.[/QUOTE] I've been on the beach few times in full clothing and nobody was offended. No one even noticed. [B]There is no norm in the west about your clothing on the beach that will offend people when you break it by wearing [U]too much clothing[/U].[/B] Whereas you will offend people in Morocco by wearing too little. No amount of mental gymnastics is going to change this.

[QUOTE=Mining Bill;50889420]"We can't let muslims tell wemen what to wear! [I]We[/I] should be the ones telling them!"[/QUOTE] Western liberals in 2016 lmao. Boy have we come a long way since the sexual revolution It's almost as if not all cultures are equal and liberal ones are better for the individual, especially the woman. It's almost as if it isn't a coincidence feminism came out of the West. It's almost as if some things are progressive and others are backwards. Also nobody on the left is telling women what to wear, however we are, in liberal tradition, breaking the oppressive bondage of reactionary cultures. Like it or not wearing the burka is not a free choice by design and it was prescribed by an obviously sexist male prophet from a backwater even the Romans didn't have an interest in, and doing so reinforces conformity and control of women's sexuality which (especially older) women have always played a crucial part in across civilizations. Until you can separate the burka as a woman simply defining herself as part of a non-Western culture from the social conservative pressures of an un-integrated, ghetto-ized community from a place that is notorious for difficulties with modernity (read: equality), a ban is fundamentally better than a laissez faire attitude from a liberal standpoint. One helps more women than the other.

[QUOTE=Silly Sil;50889431]I've been on the beach few times in full clothing and nobody was offended. No one even noticed. [B]There is no norm in the west about your clothing on the beach that will offend people when you break it by wearing [U]too much clothing[/U].[/B] Whereas you will offend people in Morocco by wearing too little. No amount of mental gymnastics is going to change this.[/QUOTE] Well obviously not, hence the ban. It's better to offend a minority. And when I say minority, I mean mathematically.

[QUOTE=Conscript;50889397]Are we back to pretending they have free choice in socially conservative communities again? The burka is nothing more than an attempt to control female sexuality, which yes, is something women have always played a role in and is consistent with an Abrahamic religion. Every woman that 'chooses' (as if this happens in a vacuum) to wear one only increases the conformist pressures on the rest that don't. It deserves the same treatment as the dress vs pants debacle in our societies. It's just yet another example of the contradiction between the liberal West and a place that never, ever liberalized and actually hardened in response to modernity, which we continually enable through our ties to Sunni reactionaries (some of the last places on earth to not even claim to be democratic) and a foreign policy opposed to more modern Arab regimes. I find it little coincidence that while we simultaneously stoke Sunni sectarianism that creates everything from ISIS to Muslim brotherhood types and 'moderates', we receive their populations in the form of refugees and pretend the enforced modesty on their women is either a choice or a form of empowerment. This is why islamic feminism is a joke. A ban is haphazard, but a better alternative than just allowing an ascendant community that rejects liberalism to maintain its traditions unabated, especially when its newer generations can be even less integrated and liberal than their parents (thus the ISIS volunteers). That's vulgar liberalism, and more of an excuse to not deal with the issue out of multiculturalism (i.e. a desire to maintain the stability of an increasingly heterogeneous society rather than preserve the liberal values it was founded on).[/QUOTE] no, a ban just forces them back into their regressive communities, unable to participate in an activity that encourages gradual integration

[QUOTE=Headhumpy;50889481]no, a ban just forces them back into their regressive communities, unable to participate in an activity that encourages gradual integration[/QUOTE] can you elaborate? sounds like you have an idea of reaching the same ends Also, I mean, Albania went from having tons of beards because it was poor and backwards as fuck to having a shit ton of atheists and, well, this: [quote]In August 2012, Pew Research study found out that only 15% of the Muslim population for example, consider religion as a very important factor in their lives, which was the lowest percentage in the world amongst countries with significant Muslim populations.[2] Another survey conducted by Gallup Global Reports 2010 shows that religion plays a role to 39% of Albanians, and lists Albania as the thirteenth least religious country of the 114 surveyed.[3][/quote] [quote]According to other older sources, up to 75 percent of the population in Albania declared no religious affiliation since the early 1990s.[36][37][38][39][/quote] [url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_Albania[/url] [url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irreligion_in_Albania[/url]

[QUOTE=Headhumpy;50889481]no, a ban just forces them back into their regressive communities, unable to participate in an activity that encourages gradual integration[/QUOTE] Yeah cos they are only regressive because of others, blah blah

[QUOTE=karlosfandango;50889473]Well obviously not, hence the ban. It's better to offend a minority. And when I say minority, I mean mathematically.[/QUOTE] What are you talking about? Who's going to get offended in the west if you wear too much clothing on a beach? What? One mayor? Well then that's not a cultural norm at all then.

[QUOTE=Conscript;50889397]Are we back to pretending they have free choice in socially conservative communities again?[/QUOTE] nice question dodge, im sure hillary or trump would be proud how you didn't answer that at all, because guess what? this limits freedom, no matter how you look at it. I await your next round of mental gymnastics to escape that reality [QUOTE=Conscript;50889397] It's just yet another example of the contradiction between the liberal West and a place that never, ever liberalized and actually hardened in response to modernity[/QUOTE] [IMG]http://4.bp.blogspot.com/__e2VLp6gwyk/SeWT-PY8qJI/AAAAAAAADFQ/OE_IOypofH0/s320/BR9.jpg[/IMG] [IMG]https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/564x/df/a4/25/dfa4250a376ae1c749a7c2904a84443e.jpg[/IMG] do you see these images? of women wearing dresses freely? it was quite in style in the west during the 1970s. oh wait, these pictures are from Iran. contrary to your belief, the middle east can change, and has. the reason why Iran isn't like this now (officially) is because of their "revolution" in 1980, which is eerily similar to trumps rise today, in which the media is controlled and essentially brainwashed the citizens into accepting their new fate. They also closed down higher education, which certainly did not help. However, there are plenty of signs pointing toward a westernized Iran once again in the near future. Every country in the middle east, given enough time and opportunities, will follow the same path. saying otherwise is defeatist, and leaves no other viable option. [QUOTE=Conscript;50889397] A ban is haphazard, but a better alternative than just allowing an ascendant community that rejects liberalism to maintain its traditions unabated, especially when its newer generations can be even less integrated and liberal than their parents (thus the ISIS volunteers). That's vulgar liberalism, and more of an excuse to not deal with the issue out of multiculturalism (i.e. a desire to maintain the stability of an increasingly heterogeneous society rather than preserve the liberal values it was founded on).[/QUOTE] And this is the point where I can confidently say you have no clue what you are talking about. If you look at history, you will see that real social change, is slow. Do you think MLK changed Jim Crow laws over night? No, it took DECADES. This Burkini swimsuit was a step in the right direction. it was a stepping stone that allowed conservative muslims to be more exposed to western culture and integrate further more. This burkini doesn't hurt anyone, whats the need to be upset? Isn't that what we are fighting for? But no, people like you decided to screw it up. You show up on your moral high horse, and decided that the change was too slow for your taste and set everyone back to square one. Good job, truly, eliminating free choice is the most liberal thing you can do. Social change will come slowly, please, do you best to understand that. we should do our best that no one comes under harm from violent attacks or any ideals that do cause harm, but when it comes to harmless things like this swimsuit, it does far more good than bad. do not destroy it out of ignorance and haste.

People advocating for the forced removal of some garment aren't recognizing the historical actions that took us here. To the present day. Creating legislation to stop stuff like this hardens opposition and makes the persecuted more stead fast in their beliefs.

I disagree with the ban but agree with criticism of the religious/cultural codes that made the burkini necessary in the first place. if someone chooses to wear such clothing of their own accord, good for them, but I will always have questions regarding the meaning of the clothing. don't ban shit but keep the conversation going, basically [editline]15th August 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=Araknid;50876523]Obviously my sister who converted when she was 22 was brainwashed aswell amirite [editline]13th August 2016[/editline] You don't have to be brainwashed to willingly believe in a religion.[/QUOTE] no matter the religion, I would have some trepidation for anyone converting to a new religion. of course you should be open and accepting but keep an eye out for any concerning behavioral differences and don't be afraid to confront her if you have any concerns. not saying islam is a cult but some religious leaders may use cult-like tactics to proselytize new members, which anyone can fall to given circumstances in their own lives. I say this because my mom had ended up joining a Christian cult in her early twenties only to later figure out she hadn't been in as much control of it as she thought. she thought she was willingly a part of it but later realized the tenets of the faith and the community around it were changing the way she thought to make her dedicated only to the faith and that she should cut people out of her life that weren't believers like her. thankfully she realized before she got too deep and still had the will to distance herself from it, but some people get so fully absorbed into it that they completely change as a person. specifically, look out for her distancing herself from family and friends, as that is a classic technique. if she seems to be doing well and you aren't noticing any concerning behavioral changes, great, I am happy she has found something meaningful in her life. religion can be a beautiful thing that helps people through their life and gives them community if they feel they are lacking that. however, you have a duty to protect those you love and should keep an eye out to be certain she is in full control.

hey that was a nice post [quote]nice question dodge, im sure hillary or trump would be proud how you didn't answer that at all, because guess what? this limits freedom, no matter how you look at it. I await your next round of mental gymnastics to escape that reality[/quote] Right, in the same vein the shah, soviet afghanistan, and the various arab nationalist states limit the 'freedom' of various backwards clerics "As you will understand, it is possible for a dictator to govern in a liberal way" - Hayek [quote]oh wait, these pictures are from Iran. contrary to your belief, the middle east can change, and has. the reason why Iran isn't like this now (officially) is because of their "revolution" in 1980, which is eerily similar to trumps rise today, in which the media is controlled and essentially brainwashed the citizens into accepting their new fate. They also closed down higher education, which certainly did not help. However, there are plenty of signs pointing toward a westernized Iran once again in the near future. Every country in the middle east, given enough time and opportunities, will follow the same path. saying otherwise is defeatist, and leaves no other viable option. [/quote] Iran had to be forced to be this way. Remember we invaded during WW2 and overthrew Mosaddegh later The middle east has moved backwards since the 20th century, in part thanks to us and our foreign policy. The rise of sunni islamists can be traced back to us and Israel using them against the arab far left and far right. It was Britain that first supported Arab nationalists then, out of oil interests, encouraged Saudi Arabia to form which has become a regional power, US ally, and sponsor of a backwards form of Islam that serves as a bulwark against Iran, Russia, Assad etc. They are what primarily reins in the Sunni tribes wherever we overthrow Arab nationalists, whether Iraq, Syria, or Libya. At this point in time, unlike the cold war era, the state of the middle east's progress is heavily dependent on an economic incentive permitting it. Ideology is a thing of the past. Globalization and neoliberalism has only meant the success of Sunni reactionaries and the death of secular Arab nationalist regimes as the US, the sole superpower, tries to finish off its formerly soviet-sponsored enemies in the middle east, and Iran. Since we fundamentally depend on sectarianism and use of sunni majorities, the refugees to come out of the wars we start are just as likely to be 'moderate' as Erdogan or some syrian rebel group. [quote]And this is the point where I can confidently say you have no clue what you are talking about. If you look at history, you will see that real social change, is slow. Do you think MLK changed Jim Crow laws over night? No, it took DECADES. This Burkini swimsuit was a step in the right direction. it was a stepping stone that allowed conservative muslims to be more exposed to western culture and integrate further more. This burkini doesn't hurt anyone, whats the need to be upset? Isn't that what we are fighting for? But no, people like you decided to screw it up. You show up on your moral high horse, and decided that the change was too slow for your taste and set everyone back to square one. Good job, truly, eliminating free choice is the most liberal thing you can do. Social change will come slowly, please, do you best to understand that. we should do our best that no one comes under harm from violent attacks or any ideals that do cause harm, but when it comes to harmless things like this swimsuit, it does far more good than bad. do not destroy it out of ignorance and haste.[/quote] History really does tell us that doesn't happen though. As we go eastward reforms become less and less an option and the slow change never happened. The conservatism of the central powers and Russia, having defeated liberalism in the 19th century, had to be obliterated in a war. China never modernized peacefully. Arab nationalism had to overthrow the Ottomans with British support and modernized with radical, un-democratic European ideas like socialism. MLK and Gandhi worked to the background of radicalism, held radical opinions themselves (MLK was an anti-capitalist and Gandhi admired Lenin), and essentially offered their governments a peaceful way out. De-colonization didn't happen naturally, peacefully, and without threats from radicals. The 60s themselves were a time of upheaval and radicalism. All the third world countries forcibly modernized by communists speaks for itself. The only reason I can see that we're coddling illiberal cultures in the West is because we're globalized, so we have multicultural societies that depend on foreign trade and immigration to sustain our eternal growth. We just can't afford to enforce our own liberal values, however it's obviously an entirely different story when it comes to dealing with the domestic far right.

[QUOTE=Silly Sil;50889621]What are you talking about? Who's going to get offended in the west if you wear too much clothing on a beach? What? One mayor? Well then that's not a cultural norm at all then.[/QUOTE] Unless you have not seen the news lately, I would suggest that the Mayor is not alone. If you are going to argue, stop making stupid comments. [editline]16th August 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=Conscript;50891828]hey that was a nice post Right, in the same vein the shah, soviet afghanistan, and the various arab nationalist states limit the 'freedom' of various backwards clerics "As you will understand, it is possible for a dictator to govern in a liberal way" - Hayek Iran had to be forced to be this way. Remember we invaded during WW2 and overthrew Mosaddegh later The middle east has moved backwards since the 20th century, in part thanks to us and our foreign policy. The rise of sunni islamists can be traced back to us and Israel using them against the arab far left and far right. It was Britain that first supported Arab nationalists then, out of oil interests, encouraged Saudi Arabia to form which has become a regional power, US ally, and sponsor of a backwards form of Islam that serves as a bulwark against Iran, Russia, Assad etc. They are what primarily reins in the Sunni tribes wherever we overthrow Arab nationalists, whether Iraq, Syria, or Libya. At this point in time, unlike the cold war era, the state of the middle east's progress is heavily dependent on an economic incentive permitting it. Ideology is a thing of the past. Globalization and neoliberalism has only meant the success of Sunni reactionaries and the death of secular Arab nationalist regimes as the US, the sole superpower, tries to finish off its formerly soviet-sponsored enemies in the middle east, and Iran. Since we fundamentally depend on sectarianism and use of sunni majorities, the refugees to come out of the wars we start are just as likely to be 'moderate' as Erdogan or some syrian rebel group. History really does tell us that doesn't happen though. As we go eastward reforms become less and less an option and the slow change never happened. The conservatism of the central powers and Russia, having defeated liberalism in the 19th century, had to be obliterated in a war. China never modernized peacefully. Arab nationalism had to overthrow the Ottomans with British support and modernized with radical, un-democratic European ideas like socialism. MLK and Gandhi worked to the background of radicalism, held radical opinions themselves (MLK was an anti-capitalist and Gandhi admired Lenin), and essentially offered their governments a peaceful way out. De-colonization didn't happen naturally, peacefully, and without threats from radicals. The 60s themselves were a time of upheaval and radicalism. All the third world countries forcibly modernized by communists speaks for itself. The only reason I can see that we're coddling illiberal cultures in the West is because we're globalized, so we have multicultural societies that depend on foreign trade and immigration to sustain our eternal growth. We just can't afford to enforce our own liberal values, however it's obviously an entirely different story when it comes to dealing with the domestic far right.[/QUOTE] So Imams are falsely translating the Quran because of UK intervention in the 20th century.

Probably also wants to minimize the appearance that there are lots of Muslims there (for several reasons), given the social climate in France at the moment. [editline]16th August 2016[/editline] not that it's right

What's especially amazing about this is how just decades ago headscarves and kerchiefs were par for the course, and hell, still are, in some areas of Europe, for older women. It's scary how strictly and how fast conformism is pushed, how effortlessly it's becoming mandatory, and how many people essentially support the state in becoming a sort of fashion police, so long as it doesn't directly affect them. When you have a nanny state that gets involved in how you personally choose to live your life, you kill personal liberty. It's laughable to whine about the state interfering with your internet privacy or whatever when you applaud this kind of ruling.

[QUOTE=phaedon;50895442]What's especially amazing about this is how just decades ago headscarves and kerchiefs were par for the course, and hell, still are, in some areas of Europe, for older women. It's scary how strictly and how fast conformism is pushed, how effortlessly it's becoming mandatory, and how many people essentially support the state in becoming a sort of fashion police, so long as it doesn't directly affect them. When you have a nanny state that gets involved in how you personally choose to live your life, you kill personal liberty. It's laughable to whine about the state interfering with your internet privacy or whatever when you applaud this kind of ruling.[/QUOTE] I couldn't help notice how you chose to completely ignore mentioning any reasons why this decision was made, like it was just some random nanny state decision.

[QUOTE=karlosfandango;50895617]I couldn't help notice how you chose to completely ignore mentioning any reasons why this decision was made, like it was just some random nanny state decision.[/QUOTE] It was made to oppress the muslim faith. It was made to give women freedom, but has ironically probably stripped more freedom from those women, and even made them more confident in their decisions in the face of government intervention. You know what I fundamentally don't understand about your political mindset? You lack empathy of the most basic kind. [B]Not one of you[/B] would appreciate government intervention into your [B]own[/B] personal lives. Not one of you would take it lying down, you'd all get further entrenched in your own views and be [B]sure[/B] the government was wrong and you were right. But you can't, and won't, and utterly refuse to even try, to apply that logic to the people you want to subjugate. You expect them to take it lying down, but you wouldn't.

[QUOTE=karlosfandango;50895617]I couldn't help notice how you chose to completely ignore mentioning any reasons why this decision was made, like it was just some random nanny state decision.[/QUOTE] I do apologize for dismissing it as a mere nanny state decision, which this would suggest: [quote]Mayor David Lisnard signed off on the ruling that "access to beaches and for swimming is banned to anyone who does not have (bathing apparel) [b]which respects good customs and secularism[/b]", which is a founding principle of the French republic. "Beachwear which ostentatiously displays religious affiliation, when France and places of worship are currently the target of terrorist attacks, is liable to create risks of disrupting public order (crowds, scuffles etc) which it is necessary to prevent," it says.[/quote] Literally forcing conformity to personal clothing preferences, describing them as "good customs" and appealing to "muh secularism". Literal fashion policing. Nope, it's worse than that: [quote]"We are not talking about banning the wearing of religious symbols on the beach ... but ostentatious clothing which [b]refers to an allegiance to terrorist movements which are at war with us," he said.[/b][/quote] He describes burkas, which are usually worn by Muslims and Arabs as supporting terrorism. First rate trash, clearly unqualified for holding even the most minor public office or exercising any amount of power at all. Here's the thing; "secularism" to which this guy casually appeals to, isn't synonymous with state atheism. It actually goes hand in hand with freedom of religion and tolerance/co-existence of various beliefs. So this scumbag populist move of his directly clashes with secularism.

[QUOTE=phaedon;50895914]Here's the thing; "secularism" to which this guy casually appeals to, isn't synonymous with state atheism. It actually goes hand in hand with freedom of religion and tolerance/co-existence of various beliefs. So this scumbag populist move of his directly clashes with secularism.[/QUOTE] The problem with secularism in France is that the interpretation of the term in politics has evolved from a celebration of religious freedom to a form of absurd taboo regarding the display of religion [I]anywhere public[/I]. For instance there is a law voted in 2004 that completely bans the presence of "religious signs of ostentatious quality" in public schools, including primary, middle and high schools. This means that nobody in public school, neither teachers nor students, are allowed to wear crosses, Yarmulkes, or a Veil in any form. The problem with the law, on top of being fairly oppressive, is that it is straight up biased against certain religions - it is very easy to wear a cross around your neck but under your shirt, which I saw kids do all the time when I was in school. It's not so easy to hide a kippah or a hijab. Not to mention that the way school personnel would enforce the law was often very biased against muslims in particular, who would frequently be told off, yelled at and expelled for wearing a veil whereas a Christian kid would just be told to hide the cross under their shirt. It also assumes that anyone wearing an article of clothing that is part of their religion's surrounding culture is doing so to show off, and not just because it's cultural. I think the UN's human rights committee pointed fingers at France because of this whole thing when a Sikh student was [I]permanently expelled[/I] from his school for refusing to take off his turban, which causes a really bad legal precedent since everyone under 16 is not only entitled to public school access but [I]obligated[/I] to go to school, and the state had basically locked him out of what is considered a basic human right in France.

This just isn't something the government should have the right to dictate. It's despicable when people are told how they must dress and express themselves, regardless of who's doing it.