France’s Prime Minister backs burkini swimsuit ban, saying they are based on “enslavement of women" - Polidicks

[QUOTE=Jon MadN;50905165]The only thing stopping them from going to the beach is themself[/QUOTE] All that's changed is now they have to weigh the risk of going to the beach without wearing a burkini and being found out by those forcing them to wear them OR they have to simply abstain from the pleasure of going to the beach and not risk anything? Seems like a clear choice to me.

Good. I see nothing wrong with France's actions.

When can we ban people wearing clothes at all on beaches.

[QUOTE=Matrix374;50905336]When can we ban people wearing clothes at all on beaces.[/QUOTE] If anyone would do that, it's the French.

[QUOTE=Boilrig;50905263]Good. I see nothing wrong with France's actions.[/QUOTE] The basic gist of what's wrong with is that it's an oppressive action by definition that does not only fail to accomplish what it's supposed to but in fact makes it worse, now if you want clarification just read the posts above yours.

If they ban the burkini all that will do is make it so women who are forced to wear it are unable to go to the beach because whoever is forcing them to wear it won't let them. Banning hijabs will just make it so women who are forced to wear it won't be let outside by whoever is forcing them to wear it. Fucking stupid, enslavement of women my ass. [editline]18th August 2016[/editline] And apart from that all it does is make whoever wants to wear it angry.

tbh I think hijabs are actually really nice looking and I have a feeling most of the women who wear them think the same

[QUOTE=DiBBs27;50902741]Agreed. But what if your nation is threatened by the liberties you give to those who want to do harm, to those who hate your liberties? Again, I'm only speaking in terms of ideology. Furthermore why is it okay for people who value their own liberties to defend and try to preserve an obvious reign of oppression. Again I refer back to Iran in the 1970s. [IMG]https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/84/27/c7/8427c72a4e649c57f4cfb62cfa73f510.jpg[/IMG][/QUOTE] I love when ignorant people post pictures like this trying to tout it as proof that they're correct. If you ever read anything at all about Iranian history past what you see on Breitbart or the Fox News comments section, you would know that the Shah's ban of hijabs was massively unpopular, and rejected by millions across the country. The shah tried forcing secularization across a country that didn't want it, and the revolution in 1979 was the result. Even Iranian women living abroad choose to don hijabs as a conscious way of being part of their culture and showing their faith. Don't talk down to other posters about not caring about other people's liberties when it's blatantly obvious the only thing you care about is your own anti-Islamic prejudice.

[QUOTE=phaedon;50902155]Assuming French values are objective to interpretation and set in stone, the state has no place in telling people how to dress, or to enforce conformism to current cultural trends legislatively. [/QUOTE] Why does anyone assume that Europeans have freedom of speech?

[QUOTE=space1;50906260]Why does anyone assume that Europeans have freedom of speech?[/QUOTE] apologies, government mandate 57 dictates that i am to serve you with a notice that you are disturbing the peace on an internet website controlled by a UK citizen, and expressing an opinion that is not government sponsored i am also required to provide you with a state sponsored cork, so that you can use it to block your ass in case any more of your posts fall out of it

i posted this in the other thread about this and im going to post this again stop thinking that these women cannot make a decision for themselves, that they are forced to wear this at gunpoint, that they will be killed if they decide they dont want to be muslim just stop, they are adults in a first world country EDIT: imagine if someone banned a clothing item from the jewish community or a regular clothing item. everyone would be calling it retarded, right?

So they're trying to stop religious oppression, by implementing religious opression... Wait what the fuck?

I'll also post this again from the other thread. In 2004, France voted a law that banned "conspicuous religious signs" in public schools. The logic was that, when an individual (student or teacher) is showing any sign of belonging to a religion on their person (a hijab, a kippah, a turban, a cross, whatever), they would be directly threatening others by overexposing their religion (thus oppressing other religions or lack thereof), and be directly threatening themselves because they would be putting themselves in danger of other people reacting negatively or attacking them (we're still talking about public school here, not including universities). The law was somehow adopted and lead to the suspending and expelling of several students across France, who would refuse to stop wearing cultural clothing. In one case, a Sikh boy was asked to remove his turban, and when he refused, he was [I]permanently[/I] expelled from public school because he was putting himself in danger of being attacked and was forcing his religion onto other people (by the law's logic, and the logic utilized by the school). The later case was denounced by the UN's human rights committee for being scummy as shit and unlawful to a good degree. Namely in the following ways : - It denied public school access to a boy in a country where every person below 16 years of age is both obligated to go to school and entitled to Public school access. - There was no given proof that the boy was threatening anyone by wearing a turban. - There was no given proof that the boy's life was in danger from wearing a turban. The law is still there and is still being enforced. Many people pointed out the absurdity of the law and especially the massive bias it has against certain religions due to how inherently obvious some of the cultural clothing and trinkets associated with some religions are compared to others (ie it's very easy to hide a Christian cross under your shirt whereas you can't hide a turban or a hijab or a kippah). In fact the law was further reinforced recently by the posting of several dystopian-tier "charts of secularism" in public schools that would tell Children how they were both allowed to believe and disbelieve in whatever they wanted while enjoying a mixed culture, but also how they weren't allowed to [I]show or say[/I] they believed in whatever they wanted and would have to hide their mixed culture to avoid bad behavior.

[QUOTE=LtKyle2;50902275]...And if they aren't being forced to wear them? What if they still want to wear them?[/QUOTE] If that was really what was going on then there never would have been a need for the ban. There are far more Muslimas that wear it because they have to then because they want to. hence the ban has merit. I still think its a bad solution to a real problem, but the problem IS real... [editline]18th August 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=Ganerumo;50906841]I'll also post this again from the other thread. In 2004, France voted a law that banned "conspicuous religious signs" in public schools. The logic was that, when an individual (student or teacher) is showing any sign of belonging to a religion on their person (a hijab, a kippah, a turban, a cross, whatever), they would be directly threatening others by overexposing their religion (thus oppressing other religions or lack thereof), and be directly threatening themselves because they would be putting themselves in danger of other people reacting negatively or attacking them (we're still talking about public school here, not including universities). The law was somehow adopted and lead to the suspending and expelling of several students across France, who would refuse to stop wearing cultural clothing. In one case, a Sikh boy was asked to remove his turban, and when he refused, he was [I]permanently[/I] expelled from public school because he was putting himself in danger of being attacked and was forcing his religion onto other people (by the law's logic, and the logic utilized by the school). The later case was denounced by the UN's human rights committee for being scummy as shit and unlawful to a good degree. Namely in the following ways : - It denied public school access to a boy in a country where every person below 16 years of age is both obligated to go to school and entitled to Public school access. - There was no given proof that the boy was threatening anyone by wearing a turban. - There was no given proof that the boy's life was in danger from wearing a turban. The law is still there and is still being enforced. Many people pointed out the absurdity of the law and especially the massive bias it has against certain religions due to how inherently obvious some of the cultural clothing and trinkets associated with some religions are compared to others (ie it's very easy to hide a Christian cross under your shirt whereas you can't hide a turban or a hijab or a kippah). In fact the law was further reinforced recently by the posting of several dystopian-tier "charts of secularism" in public schools that would tell Children how they were both allowed to believe and disbelieve in whatever they wanted while enjoying a mixed culture, but also how they weren't allowed to [I]show or say[/I] they believed in whatever they wanted and would have to hide their mixed culture to avoid bad behavior.[/QUOTE] Although the ban and the cases you name ARE real, the argumentation behind the ban is not as you describe. France has a really big problem with ghetto forming of cultures. They are trying to homogenize the population any way they can to let people live together better and solve cultural differences.

[QUOTE=Blizzerd;50906860]Although the ban and the cases you name ARE real, the argumentation behind the ban is not as you describe. France has a really big problem with ghetto forming of cultures. They are trying to homogenize the population any way they can to let people live together better and solve cultural differences.[/QUOTE] You don't solve cultural differences by forcing people to hide them in public spaces.

[QUOTE=Blizzerd;50906860]If that was really what was going on then there never would have been a need for the ban. There are far more Muslimas that wear it because they have to then because they want to. hence the ban has merit. [/QUOTE] Other civilized countries have no problem with people wearing religious clothing in public. Why exactly is France so anal about it to the point of expelling students over it? Just because a piece of legislation is being pushed doesn't mean there is a [i]need[/i] for it. [editline]18th August 2016[/editline] If France wants to be retarded, I'm all for it but they better actually be consistent about it and ban anything that doesn't resemble a bikini on beaches including full-body swimsuits, dresses with long skirts and other baggy-loose fitting clothing. Because as a lot of people have said, anything that's not a bikini is not Western Culture and therefore should be discouraged and removed :downs:

[QUOTE=Blizzerd;50906860]If that was really what was going on then there never would have been a need for the ban. There are far more Muslimas that wear it because they have to then because they want to. hence the ban has merit. I still think its a bad solution to a real problem, but the problem IS real... [editline]18th August 2016[/editline] Although the ban and the cases you name ARE real, the argumentation behind the ban is not as you describe. France has a really big problem with ghetto forming of cultures. They are trying to homogenize the population any way they can to let people live together better and solve cultural differences.[/QUOTE] well they definitely solved those cultural separations by effectively banning religious muslim women from going to the beach

[QUOTE=Blizzerd;50906860]Although the ban and the cases you name ARE real, the argumentation behind the ban is not as you describe. France has a really big problem with ghetto forming of cultures. They are trying to homogenize the population any way they can to let people live together better and solve cultural differences.[/QUOTE] maybe people wouldn't form ghettoes if they weren't shoved in a corner and marginalized.

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;50903333]Why are you? Traditional to who? Source? I'm not sure what you're arguing with this because I never stated "All muslims this, all muslims that". Grasping at the straws that you put in your mouth, eh? I mean, to me, that certainly seems like you're saying that it's all one thing that's responsible for all these things. Well, like I expected, you would actively disregard another human beings will, thoughts, personal agency and responsibility, to enact your power over them. You can't act like it's anything but that when you would ignore them, and say "Yeah, I don't care, you were indoctrinated". Who are you to decide what's in someone's "Right mind"? That's the thing, you're determining, on an objective scale that you've arbitrarily dreamt up, that you know what the "Right" thing is. You don't. I'm not going to claim I do, because I don't, but like I've stressed all thread, I don't want to disrespect someone elses agency and free will and put myself above them. Yeah, 16 year olds. I'm not talking about them. And persecuting them with legislation has historically what effect? Oh, you don't know? It causes them to further insulate themselves into far more insular communities. [B]THIS[/B] is why Canada has had so little trouble. Because we don't force them to be more insular. They're able to be free, see the benefits of freedom, and make that choice for themselves. No one, not a single fucking person on earth, needs you making this decision for them. Then why are you targeting all muslims? [/QUOTE] Wow, I was going to be done with this, but you really have no idea what you're talking about. It's quite transparent the way you didn't address any of my accusations to you, or stated facts, but instead just decided to reply to my statements with the exact same questions. How pathetic. Why did i even bother entering a debate with someone who clearly can't see past his own ultra liberal views. You're trying to stand up for something that is wrong to begin with. Its a bad look man.

[QUOTE=DiBBs27;50907508]Wow, I was going to be done with this, but you really have no idea what you're talking about. It's quite transparent the way you didn't address any of my accusations to you, or stated facts, but instead just decided to reply to my statements with the exact same questions. How pathetic. Why did i even bother entering a debate with someone who clearly can't see past his own ultra liberal views. You're trying to stand up for something that is wrong to begin with. Its a bad look man.[/QUOTE] Yup, call him an ultra liberal who can't see past his own views when you make it clear that you don't understand your own reasoning behind your views. Looking real good there, buddie!

[QUOTE=DiBBs27;50907508]Wow, I was going to be done with this, but you really have no idea what you're talking about. It's quite transparent the way you didn't address any of my accusations to you, or stated facts, but instead just decided to reply to my statements with the exact same questions. How pathetic. Why did i even bother entering a debate with someone who clearly can't see past his own ultra liberal views. You're trying to stand up for something that is wrong to begin with. Its a bad look man.[/QUOTE] As a proud super mega ultra double liberal, there is no definition of "liberty" that involves allowing the government to tell you what you're allowed to wear. That is not Liberty. That's authoritarian. It's incredibly embarrassing that France, effectively the second country in the world to embrace liberalism as a political ideology, is stripping people's liberty away like this.

[QUOTE=DiBBs27;50907508]Wow, I was going to be done with this, but you really have no idea what you're talking about. It's quite transparent the wa[B]y you didn't address any of my accusations to you, or stated facts[/B], but instead just decided to reply to my statements with the exact same questions. How pathetic. Why did i even bother entering a debate with someone who clearly can't see past his own ultra liberal views. You're trying to stand up for something that is wrong to begin with. Its a bad look man.[/QUOTE] yes, he did. he rebutted every single one of your posts in fact, it was you who made some lousy arguments [QUOTE=RobL;50902647] [QUOTE]lets be fair, if you're still forced to cover most of your body you're still not dressing how you want[/QUOTE] And how does banning the burkini help with that?[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=DiBBs27;50902657]By removing the acceptance of an outdated prehistory barbaric tradition?[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=RobL;50902674]And how does banning the burkini help with that?[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=DiBBs27;50902714] Your answer is the very post you quoted..[/QUOTE] like what is this even, you just dodged the question with a recursive statement. there is really only one question you must be able to answer. will banning a piece of clothing actually help the situation of "oppression?"

[QUOTE=Matrix374;50906905]Other civilized countries have no problem with people wearing religious clothing in public. Why exactly is France so anal about it to the point of expelling students over it? Just because a piece of legislation is being pushed doesn't mean there is a [I]need[/I] for it. [editline]18th August 2016[/editline] If France wants to be retarded, I'm all for it but they better actually be consistent about it and ban anything that doesn't resemble a bikini on beaches including full-body swimsuits, dresses with long skirts and other baggy-loose fitting clothing. Because as a lot of people have said, anything that's not a bikini is not Western Culture and therefore should be discouraged and removed :downs:[/QUOTE] 12 % of France is Muslim, they also have some pretty extreme Muslim ghetto's. You cant legislate for just a neighborhood and if you have to choose between a human slave's shackles to their backwards culture of isolation and an upper suburbanite's fashion/culture statement the choice is easily made... [editline]18th August 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=TheBloodyNine;50907453]maybe people wouldn't form ghettoes if they weren't shoved in a corner and marginalized.[/QUOTE] History has taught us that you have the order wrong... only in places like Nazi Germany were ghetto's created because of marginalization. People want to be with people they consider 'their kind', Muslims have one of the lowest integration figures of all the major immigrant cultures yet they are also amongst the most cared for in Europe. If muslims did even the tiniest effort to fit in to the country they migrate to they avoid ghettoes all together. saying 'these people are marginalized' is first of all just wrong... and second of all even if it was true is not an excuse to bring over human slaves and isolate them from society to keep em obedient.

Would people here be okay if the Iraqi government banned Lederhosen? It's an outdated clothing choice that doesn't represent their culture - this is Iraq, not Germany. It promotes negative things, like excessive alcohol consumption, which is haram and makes other people uncomfortable and distances people from the proper Iraqi way of life. Would people here be okay if the French government banned Burkinis? It's an outdated clothing choice that doesn't represent their culture - this is France, not Saudi Arabia. It promotes negative things, like the oppression of women, which is immoral and makes other people uncomfortable and is incompatible with the French way of life. Would people here be okay if the Chinese government banned traditional Buddhist monk garb? It's an outdated clothing choice that doesn't represent their culture - this is China, not Tibet. It promotes negative things, like Tibetan nationalism and self-immolation, and makes other people uncomfortable and it should be stuck in the history books like the idea of an independent Tibet. It's so obviously bullshit from literally any other perspective. You can't be okay with this unless you're also okay with Middle Eastern government banning blue jeans because they're a symbol of lewd western values and sexual promiscuity that are incompatible with the values of the Middle East.

[QUOTE=.Isak.;50907821]Would people here be okay if the Iraqi government banned Lederhosen? It's an outdated clothing choice that doesn't represent their culture - this is Iraq, not Germany. It promotes negative things, like excessive alcohol consumption, which is haram and makes other people uncomfortable and distances people from the proper Iraqi way of life. Would people here be okay if the French government banned Burkinis? It's an outdated clothing choice that doesn't represent their culture - this is France, not Saudi Arabia. It promotes negative things, like the oppression of women, which is immoral and makes other people uncomfortable and is incompatible with the French way of life. Would people here be okay if the Chinese government banned traditional Buddhist monk garb? It's an outdated clothing choice that doesn't represent their culture - this is China, not Tibet. It promotes negative things, like Tibetan nationalism and self-immolation, and makes other people uncomfortable and it should be stuck in the history books like the idea of an independent Tibet. It's so obviously bullshit from literally any other perspective. You can't be okay with this unless you're also okay with Middle Eastern government banning blue jeans because they're a symbol of lewd western values and sexual promiscuity that are incompatible with the values of the Middle East.[/QUOTE] You are misrepresenting the argument. It makes sense in your head because probably you don't understand the arguments, seeing as how you focus on things that don't have anything to do with the reasons for banning it.

[QUOTE=Blizzerd;50907828]You are misrepresenting the argument. It makes sense in your head because probably you don't understand the arguments, seeing as how you focus on things that don't have anything to do with the reasons for banning it.[/QUOTE] People who wear wife-beaters often beat their wives, hence the name. Should we ban wife beaters to crack down on that oppressive behavior? Abusive men often force women to stay in their homes under threat of violence - should all households where mothers stay at home be suspected for domestic abuse? Women who are abused often use concealer to cover up bruises - should we ban concealer so that we can know for sure if women are being beaten? That's the argument being made. It's ridiculous. If an abused woman can't get concealer to cover up bruises, she just won't leave the house. Many women choose to wear concealer out of their own volition. Why should we assume that concealer is forced on women who are abused? That's exactly what people are saying about burkinis in this thread - sometimes (maybe even often), women who wear burkinis are forced to. Want to know the solution? Crack down on the domestic abuse instead of banning a certain style of cloth. Stop the crime instead of one potential symptom of the crime. It's not that hard to figure this out. It's embarrassing that people are defending the removal of [I]freedom to choose what clothing you want to wear[/I] because maybe the women are being forced to. You're removing the women's agency and restricting their freedom - because of a potential crime that may not have been committed.

[QUOTE=Ganerumo;50906896]You don't solve cultural differences by forcing people to hide them in public spaces.[/QUOTE] I agree. [editline]18th August 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=.Isak.;50907910]People who wear wife-beaters often beat their wives, hence the name. Should we ban wife beaters to crack down on that oppressive behavior? Abusive men often force women to stay in their homes under threat of violence - should all households where mothers stay at home be suspected for domestic abuse? Women who are abused often use concealer to cover up bruises - should we ban concealer so that we can know for sure if women are being beaten? That's the argument being made. It's ridiculous. If an abused woman can't get concealer to cover up bruises, she just won't leave the house. Many women choose to wear concealer out of their own volition. Why should we assume that concealer is forced on women who are abused? That's exactly what people are saying about burkinis in this thread - sometimes (maybe even often), women who wear burkinis are forced to. Want to know the solution? Crack down on the domestic abuse instead of banning a certain style of cloth. Stop the crime instead of one potential symptom of the crime. It's not that hard to figure this out. It's embarrassing that people are defending the removal of [I]freedom to choose what clothing you want to wear[/I] because maybe the women are being forced to. You're removing the women's agency and restricting their freedom - because of a potential crime that may not have been committed.[/QUOTE] You are attacking the wrong person here, i actually think the whole burka ban is a dumb idea. I merely made the statement that the [B]problem they are trying to fix is real...[/B] Muslim self imposed ghetto's and their cultural isolationist mentality. Also again, your arguments are not logical. People who wear guns all the time are the highest percentage of peple that kill people with guns. -> ban guns. Yea, ban guns, but not for that idiotic reasoning... ban guns because guns have a far higher mortality rate in any conflict and it leads to 'shoot first, ask questions later' responses from police...

You guys just miss the point entirely. Blizzerd gets it. you guys are just blinded by your own overly liberal ignorance. Remember, too much of anything is a bad thing.

I can't believe I was liberally ignorant all along

[QUOTE=Pascall;50908083]I can't believe I was liberally ignorant all along[/QUOTE] Pascall, you must at least understand what i'm saying. I mean sure you can make a mockery of me by being sarcastic, that'll sure show me, but What I'm saying does make sense. One can be overly anything, and that can make it a bad thing. There is a balance between right and wrong and different circumstances require different actions to be taken. While banning something may not be the final solution to an extremist problem, it is in a way a retaliation to it. It's not completely nonsensical in it's resolution.