Muslim women defy ban to swim in burkinis at French pool 24 June 2019

[guillaumeb]

From the article:

In a protest inspired by US civil rights pioneer Rosa Parks, they bathed in suits covering their entire bodies - apart from the face, hands and feet - in the city of Grenoble on Sunday.
The Jean Bron swimming pool is among many in France that ban burkinis....

"We must fight against discriminatory policies and prejudice in France, as we are actually deprived of our civil rights of access to public services and city-owned infrastructures."

To read more:

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-48744153

Liberté, égalité, et fraternité, a l'exception des Mussulmans?

Are liberty, and equality, and brotherhood reserved for the European citizens of France? It certainly seems as if many in France take this position.

[guillaumeb]

1. This may have no bearing on the situation, however,

Irreligion and atheism have a long history and a large demographic constitution in France, with the advancement of atheism and the deprecation of theistic religion dating back as far as the French Revolution.
In 2015, according to estimates, at least 29% of the country's population identifies as atheists and 63% identifies as non-religious.[1]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irreligion_in_France

So it might seem, to the untrained eye, that lack of religion does not in any way correlate with a lessening of intolerance for difference.

Discuss?

[trotsky]

6. You're absolutely right. It has no bearing on the situation.

Good on you for recognizing that, and not pushing anti-atheist prejudice this time.

[guillaumeb]

10. And what about analysis based on facts?

France is a very irreligious country. And the intolerance of these self described irreligious citizens is overt.

[trotsky]

13. There are facts and there is speculation based on prejudice.

Your post is quite sparse with the former.

[guillaumeb]

19. We agree that anti-religious prejudice is behind the burkini ban.

Progress.

[trotsky]

22. Nope.

Nice try, but you fail again.

[MineralMan]

14. You have not demonstrated that it is the nonreligious who are objecting

to burkinis in the pool. Not in any way. Your conclusion is unsupported.

[guillaumeb]

28. The ban itself, and the political support for it,

refutes your attempt at rebuttal.

Observation and analysis are essential to understanding the "why" of political actions MM.

[MineralMan]

29. You have not demonstrated that at all.

But, you keep trying, don't you?

[guillaumeb]

30. And this further attempt at avoidance

demonstrates something.

[MineralMan]

31. It demonstrates that I disagree with you.

How much you take that into consideration is up to you, of course. You have not made your case. The ban was passed almost unanimously in France, as someone else pointed out.

It is not a ban created or passed by only the non-religious. It was almost universally wanted.

My opinion is that it is a stupid thing to ban. That will always remain my opinion.

My opinion of your logic, however, is not positive.

[AtheistCrusader]

61. You don't mind if I bookmark your post here for future use do you?

You know, in case I encounter the same alleged behavior from you.

[guillaumeb]

63. Bookmarks are free here.

I too have more than a few.

[AtheistCrusader]

64. A dossier, I hope?

[guillaumeb]

66. Are dossiers also free?

I had no idea.

[AtheistCrusader]

16. Facts.

The bill was passed by the National Assembly by a vote of 335–1. The sole vote against the ban in the National Assembly was cast by Daniel Garrigue, who warned that "to fight an extremist behavior, we risk slipping toward a totalitarian society."[3] It was passed by the Senate by a vote of 246–1, with 100 abstentions.

"French Secular Values" certainly factor into it, but the issue is bigger than that, for them.

[Act_of_Reparation]

24. You're probably pretty familiar with French history.

Maybe it is worth exploring why modern France has been, at times, openly hostile towards religion.

[AtheistCrusader]

56. The phrase "I was plenty provoked, thank you." springs to mind.

Doesn't make it right I guess, but it's not like it came out of nowhere, or came out of 'atheism'. It's a reaction, not a dogma or commandment.

[MineralMan]

2. Well, good for them for asserting their rights.

That ban is a stupid one, and religion-based. Why would anyone care what clothing women wear while bathing in a public pool? It is pure prejudice, of the sort only religious people seem to feel.

As an atheist, I have no concerns about bathing attire for men or women. It seems to me to be a completely artificial issue, based on religious grounds.

As for myself, I am in favor of bathing naked. France is well-known for its clothing optional beaches. I think I would find a "burkini" to be oppressive and clingy when wet. I wouldn't think it would be very comfortable. But, to each his or her own, I suppose.

[guillaumeb]

5. Agreed. eom

[trotsky]

7. Yeah, strange that someone would be more outraged at this...

than at the conservative religious beliefs that slut-shame women into strict clothing options.

[MineralMan]

8. I just think the entire thing is utter nonsense.

One way or another, it's all about prejudice. Why anyone cares about what people wear in the pool escapes me.

Yes, some Islamic women are more or less forced into wearing such clothing. But also, the locals appear to be prejudiced against Muslims in general. Both are wrong. Let the women bathe in the pool, either way.

The whole thing is ridiculous, and now we have someone saying that it is the atheists and non-religious who are really the ones discriminating against burkinis in swimming pools. Well, this athiest doesn't give a damn, one way or another, what people wear. There are far larger concerns, frankly, regarding religious intolerance than that.

[trotsky]

9. It is all nonsense.

And it's brought here, of course, as a "counterpoint" as if making a clothing rule is the same thing as executing people for being homosexual.

That's what I object to.

"There are far larger concerns, frankly, regarding religious intolerance than that."

Exactly. But whataboutists gotta whatabout.

[guillaumeb]

11. What you mean is:

This article does not fit your personal criterion for what is acceptable to post in the Religion Group.

And we understand that.

[MineralMan]

12. He did not say that at all.

You're welcome to post any sort of thing. However, if it makes no sense, you can count on people to point that out in reply. Anyone can object to any post, as well, and state their grounds for the objection. For some reason, that seems to bother you.

You can post anything. We can reply in any way. It's an open forum about religion, you see. Most of us appreciate that openness, and embrace it.

[guillaumeb]

17. Yes, the open hostility to theists and theism.

Yes, some do embrace it.

[MineralMan]

18. Oh, my!

I'm out of this. It's gone all wacky...

[Major Nikon]

25. You just don't understand

[MineralMan]

26. Oh, I understand perfectly well.

You are correct.

That's the transparent, invalid strategy being used.

"What you really mean is...."

What nonsense, eh?

[trotsky]

15. That is a complete and utter falsehood.

You should retract this and apologize to me.

But you won't, because you're like that. Keep showing everyone how you think an admirer of Jesus should act, g. You're doing such a great job.

[MineralMan]

27. Please do not presume to tell others what they mean.

That is something you cannot discern. You should not try. Instead, please try telling us what you mean, instead.

[Major Nikon]

20. You are forgetting that Boston Atheists were once mean to a Trump supporter

So obviously this problem is far larger than you will acknowledge.

[trotsky]

23. ...

[Major Nikon]

21. France is not the US

The French Revolution had a lot to do with breaking away from the stranglehold the RCC had over them which was extremely oppressive. Religious freedom is not guaranteed in France and secularism is ingrained into their Constitution.

Judging France by American standards just isn’t all that valid. It should also be pointed out that the reason the burkini exists to begin with is because it comes from misogynistic cultures that compel modesty on women, but not men.

[MineralMan]

32. That is true, of course.

That's one reason I don't generalize about France and its politics.

I have an opinion regarding laws that restrict things like clothing. That opinion has nothing to do with nationalities or anything else. Are some Muslims misogynistic? Of course, but so are many Christians and uber-Orthodox Jews. Nevertheless, I am opposed to laws that regulate clothing or other religious symbols.

While France might not have religious freedom guarantees, I consider them to be important, as long as they do not impinge on the freedom of others who do not follow a particular religion.

That said, I also object to women being forced to wear a particular type of clothing by men on religious grounds. I consider religious freedom to be an individual right.

[Major Nikon]

33. Religionists typically have the expectation their "rights" trump everything else

The French consider it rude to wear your religion on your sleeve, so to speak. So are the French wrong for being so heavy handed with it? Debatable. However, I find it hard to be that concerned over something that is clearly misogynistic to begin with.

[MineralMan]

36. For me, individual expression is something I

want to protect. I have no doubt that some Muslim women feel oppressed by what they wear, but there are others who do not. I'm not able to discern which are which. So that's a difficult thing. Still, I don't think banning that clothing outright is the right approach, especially when those who impose such a ban are not Muslims.

It's a delicate balance. And that's just one issue. If I object to fundamentalists imposing their standards in public life, I also have to oppose imposition of other standards on fundamentalists.

So I oppose all imposition of "moral" standards in general. So, if a woman is required to dress a certain way, against her wishes, then I oppose that. By the same token, though, I would not prohibit a woman from choosing that type of clothing, independently. Both are wrong.

That's always the dillemma, isn't it?

[Major Nikon]

37. It's easy to consider such things in a vacuum

Would we impose such restrictions here? No, but we are not France and we don’t have the same laws and values.

[MineralMan]

39. We impose many things here.

I oppose many of them. Every society imposes things on some people. That's unavoidable.

Where I live, I see Muslim women in all levels of dress. Are all of them being oppressed? I do not know. Ilhan Omar wears head coverings. Is she being oppressed? Right wingers mock and insult her for it. I have met her, now. I doubt she wears them to satisfy anyone else.

My principles are simple: Do not impose your will on others. I can do that. I cannot force others to do that, though, in many cases. Often, I do not know it is happening, or cannot discern another person's wishes.

[Major Nikon]

40. I have a simpler way of looking at it

If your religion requires a different morality expectation on women vs men, your religion sucks.

[MineralMan]

41. I agree with that.

[Cartoonist]

3. Wrong venue

If they want to protest against discriminatory policies and prejudice, then they need to go to their Mosque. Are men required to cover themselves?

[guillaumeb]

4. The correct venue.

The ban applies to publicly funded pools. And these are citizens who pay taxes.

And in a country that identifies as irreligious, this blatant intolerance is revealing.

[Major Nikon]

34. Clearly some are more concerned with religious intolerance than gender intolerance

So much so they can’t even bear to acknowledge the underlying misogyny. Very telling that.

[trotsky]

35. Religious sect Z forces women to cover their bodies. Country X won't let them.

WhY iS coUNtRy X sO InTolErAnT??!!

[Major Nikon]

38. Isn't it wonderful when you can use tolerance to further intolerance?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance

[AtheistCrusader]

86. 'But I know a couple people who say they *want* to!'

[edhopper]

42. The burkini ban in some public pools is wrong

but the larger issue is the French ban of the full face veil.
Should we condemn the French for pushing against a religion that forces the subjugation of women, while at the same time remain silent about those countries that have made this religious subjugation the law?

[guillaumeb]

45. If freedom in France is restricted to European attitudes and behaviors,

it s not freedom.

[edhopper]

48. And the second part of my question

Last edited Fri Jun 28, 2019, 04:13 PM - Edit history (1)

about Muslim thocracies?

[trotsky]

49. You will not get a response to that.

Remember, for him this is all about creating a "counterpoint" to religious atrocities and bigotry. He has outright admitted it. He'll likely tell you to start a new thread so he doesn't have to discuss the reason why Muslim women are forced or coerced to cover their bodies.

[guillaumeb]

52. Your attempt at analysis fails on many levels.

But I understand that this allows you to frame me as "the enemy".

[trotsky]

53. No framing is necessary.

You have admitted your posts are intended to be a "counterpoint" to those critical of religion.

[guillaumeb]

54. I agree that your framing fails,

in large part because people here can read what I actually say, rather than depend on your attempts at framing.

[trotsky]

55. Yes, people CAN read what you actually say.

That's always been your downfall.

[guillaumeb]

51. Are all women who wear the hijab subjugated?

Over the last 3 years, I have worked locally with 3 different Arab organizations. Among the women, about 1/2 wear the hijab. None of them report feeling subjugated.

As to Muslim theocracies, they are run by patriarchal oppressors. And the citizens there are forced to follow their leaders.

[edhopper]

57. And women vote

to end all reproduction rights because they are Fundementalist.

But they won't tell you their religion is oppressive.

[guillaumeb]

59. Some vote in that way because they believe it.

But is their religion oppressive to them, or is it oppressive to you as an outside observer?

[edhopper]

70. So if subjugated people

are brainwashed into not thinking they are subjugated. Then it's all good?

Jeez!

[guillaumeb]

72. And now you are certain that they are brainwashed as well.

I understand that some non-theists feel that all theists are brainwashed.

[AtheistCrusader]

58. Maybe you can point me to a matriarchal or matrilineal society that employs face coverings.

I am aware of six such societies, one with 7.5 million members. While each has some form of head covering (top of head, or hair wrap), none obscure the face in any way. Most are the sort of working class covering for carrying heavy loads on the head, or keeping hair out of their manual work. Practical solutions.

Maybe I missed one, wherein we can find women actually voluntarily choosing a face covering, rather than, what appears to me, to be a patriarchal social artifact.


Your anecdotes are fun and all, but I looked, honestly, for a non-patriarchal enforced face covering-observing society, and find none. Maybe you know of one?

[guillaumeb]

60. My answer indicates that these Muslim theocracies are patriarchal. eom

[AtheistCrusader]

62. But does not address why some choose to keep wearing them when not embedded in that

Muslim theocracy. You know, after they've expatriated to somewhere that does not officially or generally socially enforce face coverings.

Why can't we find matriarchal societies that have employed the same accoutrement?

[guillaumeb]

65. The word "choose" is key here.

If the women freely choose to do so, that is their choice. It may not be your choice, but it is their choice.

[AtheistCrusader]

67. You seem to be dodging my question.

Are you unwilling to directly answer the question, or do you not understand the question?

Edit: If you feel you do not entirely understand the question, or worry that the question is crafted as a 'gotcha' or other trickery, please say so, and I will honestly elaborate. It is a honest/simple question, but I understand if it looks suspicious to you.

[guillaumeb]

68. Your question is not to the point.

The point here, the actual topic, involves intolerance for Muslims in France. So the "what about matrilineal societies" topic, while worthy of discussion, is not the topic here.

Some here might call it whataboutism in action. An attempt to divert from the topic of a mainly non-religious society being intolerant of expressions of religion.

[AtheistCrusader]

69. It is the point. You claim they need to be free to choose. Are they?

Social Enforcement is a thing. It can be overt, or subtle. It can be externally applied, or internal.

When you assert 'they should be free to choose', I agree, and ask, are they?

A litmus test for that would be, are there any non-patriarchal societies, that choose the same thing? I am specifically looking for an example that is not even (possibly) post-patriarchal baggage. If women are actually FREE TO CHOOSE, can we find examples where men or specific religions, did not impose and enforce it, and the same practice arose anyway?

[guillaumeb]

71. You are diverting from the topic, possibly in an atempt to minimize this example

of intolerance for religion.

[AtheistCrusader]

74. It's a simple question, that could be more easily answered than your gyrations in dodging it.

It is a direct response to your point that I agree with; they must be free to choose.

It raises the immediate question; are they?

[guillaumeb]

75. Are you?

Are any of us?

All of us are influenced, conditioned, by our environment. If you feel that you are not, that shows how subtle the conditioning can be.

If you are married, are you married because you have been conditioned to be so, and to see it as the best choice?

[AtheistCrusader]

78. Yes, it's called social enforcement.

I am influenced in many ways. And because I am aware of it, it's the basis for my challenging many of those social rules.

So again, are they free to choose?
And again, for comparison, are there any matriarchal societies that have, of their own volition/free will, chosen this kind of veil for themselves?

[AtheistCrusader]

73. Also, point of order, your own argumentation has drifted from the French situation.

French law does not ban the hijab, as you chose to focus on in post 51. The ' burkini' is not strictly a hijab. French law deals with the face covering, or niqab. These pool's policies about the 'burqini' are not related to French law.

[guillaumeb]

76. Which is why they closed the pool?

This is about group intolerance for non-European difference.

[AtheistCrusader]

79. Yeah, I suspect the government is going 'this is a bridge too far'.

There is undoubtably a nationalism, and anti-theism basis for the French people to so strongly reject veils, but there is also a legitimate communication and security component as well.

For the burkini in a pool, not so much of the latter as a justification. I don't anticipate the French Government will allow/endorse such draconian prohibition, because of the lack of security justification.

[guillaumeb]

81. What liberties must one lose in the name of security?

That is a slippery slope.

[AtheistCrusader]

83. Walk into a bank with a ski mask on, in any country, and you tell me.

Go for it. Take a stand on principle. Let us all know how that works out for you.

[guillaumeb]

84. A bank is not a pool.

But we know that. have you ever been to New Orleans at Mardi Gras? So many masks.

[AtheistCrusader]

85. There are contextually appropriate circumstances. I view a pool and a bank as a public accomodation

and expect it to behave so. (Likely why the pools are now closed, as I suspect the French either do directly as well, or are observing UN rules. Like Mardi Gras, a ski slope is contextually appropriate, and if someone demands to see your face (like a police officer, which would be legal (Terry Stop)) you wouldn't have an affirmative defence of 'sorry man, it's mardi gras, so no'. Where a religious exemption is a bigger deal.

And as I mentioned, the face covering is not at issue at the pools. Nor is French law. (They should be free to wear those burkini's.)

In public spaces, when people conceal their faces, it engenders suspicion. Another social enforcement thing. Much like someone open carrying a firearm. It's unusual. It's out of place. Many will interpret it as a security issue.

[guillaumeb]

87. While I agree, in part, with your response,

the issue of freedom is key here, and in my view the freedom of certain Muslims is being infringed for no good reason. In my area, I have only seen a woman wearing the niqab twice. But when I did, I was not afraid of her.

[edhopper]

89. So it's never religion with you

is it? Human nature, patriarchy, culture...but never religion.

Your diversion from these theocracies doing things BASED ON THE MUSLIM RELIGION is dully noted.

[guillaumeb]

90. Religion is a part of all theists.

One part.

And there are many variants of Islam.

[edhopper]

50. What attitudes does that include

they shouldn't ban female mutilation?
Keeping women from leaving home or interacting with men other then there husband?
Should a free society allow people to completely cover their identity?

[guillaumeb]

77. Is there a free society?

If you love in a society, you are subject to rules.

[AtheistCrusader]

80. Well... some of us are subject to the consequences of those rules, to a degree.

(To be more specific, but they gotta catch me first)

[guillaumeb]

82. Nice.

In Illinois, for example, marijuana will be legal to possess January 1.

[edhopper]

88. Even if it includes

female mutilation and honor killings?
The execution of Gay people?

You know, rules are rules.

[Eugene]

43. Now the city has closed the pools.

French city shuts down public pools after two women wear burkinis (Agence France-Presse)

Despite the unprecedented heatwave sweeping across western Europe, lifeguards in Grenoble have shut down the city’s two municipal swimming pools after Muslim women went swimming in burkinis.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/jun/27/france-city-shuts-down-public-pools-after-two-women-wear-burkinis

https://www.democraticunderground.com/1224336

[MineralMan]

44. "See what you made us do, you filthy Muslim women?"

Say those in charge in Grenoble. Where have we heard that before?

[guillaumeb]

47. Very well said.

The response of subjugators everywhere to their victims.

[guillaumeb]

46. Thank you for the update. eom

[PassingFair]

91. My family went to a public pool in France.

My husband, and my two British cousins that we were vacationing with, had to purchase and wear “speedo” type suits because their “trunk” style suits were not acceptable. The reasoning behind this was that the trunks could easily be worn as street clothes and bring dirt, threads etc. into the pool. The men were DAMNED UNCOMFORTABLE in those speedos, but they wore them.

The pools and locker rooms were spotlessly clean. Apparently the pools accept “burkinis” if the garments are made from filter friendly materials.

What is hard to understand about a ban on potential STREET CLOTHES?

As an aside, in what remains one of the most hilarious moments of my life, the three men went into the village to buy their suits at separate times, and entered the pool areas at separate times. All three randomly chose identical blue, patterned speedos. I nearly drowned when the last guy showed up! My husband still has his speedo in his underwear drawer and occasionally puts it on for comic effect. 😂

[guillaumeb]

92. Burkinis are intended to be, and designed to be, swimwear.

And these bans, taken in the context of related bans on religious clothing, convey the clear intent of those passing the bans.