Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Should France Ban the Burkini?
#1
I ask the question here because I'v read somewhere that americans don't understand this ban, are against it, find it stupid and immoral to ban clothes which protect women's decency.

Do you also think so?

Are puritanist ideas more popular in the US than in Europe, especialy France?

Introduction to the topic by the Chicago tribune

[Image: gettyimages-590122088.jpg]
Reply
#2
First (or one of the first) police intervention to fine a muslim woman in burkini where it's forbiden.
(Only a few beaches banned it, by decision of the mayor. In most of France there is no burkini ban).

Everybody on facebook agree that it was staged: This woman came there to make provocation and lure policemen toward her, and then pause as a victim.
She didn't bring any of the item beach goers are usualy taking, even muslims. No bag, no towel, no sunglass... and a hidden photographer was there to shoot the sequences.

[Image: 14102304_1363225347038701_11646165425724...e=5848518D]

poeple on facebook Wrote:We are glad to see that finaly the police came to eliminate terrorist treath LOL
Reply
#3
You couldn't tell someone they cannot wear the clothes they want here. Not yet.

That is not going to help Europe avoid Islamic violence either. That's just a wrong headed way to handle a problem.
Reply
#4
I agree with you, Palladin. Poeple should be free to wear what they want.

However I'm not moving up into panic mode as all the media outlets do.
So far only 5 persons got fines ranging from 11 to 38€, no big deal.

About the same case, the Mail Online has published a completely false article.

Mail Online Wrote:She was left humiliated,
She knew that her dress style was forbidden on this beach. It was impossible not know that. She came like this with the intent to stage a police intervention with the complicity of the person who took the pictures.

It's very curious that those who publish these pictures in the media never mention the name of their authors as it's usualy the case.

It's obvious that without preparation nobody would have made such high quality photos. They were not taken with a smartphone, but with a professional camera, from far away. Had the photographer been closer the policemen would have asked him to delete the pictures.

Mail Online Wrote:with her children bursting into tears as the police made her strip off.

There were no crying children or family members with her. She was alone.
The picture shows that clearly.

Mail Online Wrote:even though she was not even wearing a burkini
What she wore (style, color, ensemble...) defines as burkini.

But the best (I always keep the best for the end) is how the article starts:

Mail Online Wrote:As baton-wielding police stormed a French beach and ordered a humiliated woman to remove her burkini, a very different scene was unfolding today on British shores.

Amid soaring temperatures of up to 33C, throngs of beachgoers flocked to Brighton beach to soak up the last of the sunshine before the washout Bank Holiday weekend.

Among the crowd at the popular beach was a group of women, happily playing in the surf while wearing full traditional Islamic dress.

Like it's 33C° (92F°) and you in the sea with head-to-toe burqa...

Can't we accelerate Brexit, please?

[Image: 378B04E700000578-3756764-Women_dressed_i...715238.jpg]
Reply
#5
Here is anohter, incedibly hypocritical useful idiot reporting from the Guardian.

There was a pro-burkini protest in front of the French Embassy in London.
(Let's remember that less than a dozen of women have been fined, and only symbolic amounts of money.)

Down the page, they call an incident one woman (quantity of persons: 1) being fined 11€ (10$) and asked to use her veil as a turban (if she wanted to keep it) and remove the banned burkini shirt.
Oh, terrible incident, as if hundreds of poeple had been jailed and harassed... poor muslims!

So these useful idiots are claiming that banning a dress designed to conceal the body of the woman from the view of others, ...is against liberties of women!

They don't see that the women who are wearing it are pushing for a radical form of Islam where you can't even swim in a normal swimming suit, where exposing her fat legs and belly is O shocking!, and where the veil is essential to preserve woman's purity etc.

And finaly, for the end, as always, the funniest is that most of the women there wear normal bikini! Only two of them wear a burkini whereas 20 others are half naked.
Well, first, practice what you preach. It's so easy when you don't have to do it yourself, isn't it? LOL
Reply
#6
Fred, this is not about rights and liberties.  Its about conquest by erosion.  Islam is taking advantage of the system to push its way to the front, whereupon it will take over and then reign supreme, according to Sharia Law.

Arabs have that parable about the camel, that got its head under the tent, only to keep going until it took over the entire tent.  That's how they think.

(08-26-2016, 05:50 PM)Fredledingue Wrote: And finaly, for the end, as always, the funniest is that most of the women there wear normal bikini! Only two of them wear a burkini whereas 20 others are half naked.
Well, first, practice what you preach. It's so easy when you don't have to do it yourself, isn't it? LOL

Yes, there are always Useful-Idiots/Fellow-Travelers, who lack the minimum degree of commonsense, i.e. wisdom, to be able use their brain properly. And they don't realize that they will be the very first ones, who will be exterminated, because they will realize that they have betrayed themselves, and want to undo what they helped do.

Too Late! SUCKERS!! Spiteful
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
"INSIDE EVERY PROGRESSIVE IS A TOTALITARIAN SCREAMING TO GET OUT" - David Horowitz

Reply
#7
Who cares whether some women cover more of their bodies than others? Some beaches in France are nude beaches. There might be some reasons to prohibit that--but if they are allowed, how could anything else be banned?
Reply
#8
Ron, nobody cares about the proportion of covered skin surface. But poeple care about a new practice, about yet-one-more muslim practice, which is a symbol of the advance of radical Islam.

Unfortunately, the islamic veil is only the tip of the iceberg.

John, erosion is the exact term to describe their strategy.
They are testing how far they can go and once they are allowed one step, they undertake the next one.

Another term, I'v seen is entrism. They enter organisation, NGOs, non-profits, Amnesty Int., political parties and so on in order to defend islam and accuse everybody who are against it of racism.

On Facebook a group called "force leftists and other collaborators to live in district 93" (where a lot of muslims live). that's just one among hundreds. Thousands of "likes".

Here is an excellent article. I copied pasted it to correct the most blatant translating mistakes...

journaldemontreal.com (translated) Wrote:Burkini: the world upside down

Monday, August 22, 2016 5:00
Certainly, the debate over Burkini is surreal.

"The burkini does not imprison Muslim, it releases them," she wrote a few days ago.
Why?
Because if the Burkini did not exist, Muslim women could not go to the beach or pool.
So long live the Burkini!

TWISTED LOGIC
It's like I congratulated racist Americans 1960s have created "places for blacks" on the back of the bus.
"Wow, that's cool to allow blacks to ride in the back of the bus. Like that, it allows them to walk, to go to work instead of staying home ... Finally, segregation on buses do not imprison blacks, on the contrary, it frees! "
Duh!


Imagine the reaction if a journalist dared write such things about the law that forbade blacks to sit at the front of the bus?
She would treat an idiot and a racist! But in the case of Burkini, we have no problem to keep the same kind of place!

The burkini, liberating garment ...

By what twisted logic can we reach an absurd conclusion?
Religious ultramisogynes force women to cover themselves from head to toe because their body is dirty and you find it liberating?

The West really fell on its head!
Soon, if this continues, we will congratulate the Islamists who whip their victims because it is less serious than cutting off their heads.
"Wow, the whip, what progress! We can say, it's still more humane than decapitation, right? Certainly, the Islamic state is going in the right direction ... "

SNUB TO REAL FEMINIST

Instead slay a backward ideology that stifles women, go-left and the feminist movement extolling the virtues of sailing and Burkini!
Fortunately, Simone de Beauvoir is not alive, she would be killed by such debate.
Never activists of the left and go-feminists would take that kind of place if it was Catholic extremists who forced women to cover for a dip.
These people take to the streets and condemn misogyny Pope.
But because it is a religion "exotic" and "Eastern" which forces half of humanity to wear a burkini to the beach, we find it cool and "liberator".
There was a time when the feminist movement was defending women. Today, the feminist movement promotes an ideology.
It is not at all the same thing.

LONG LIVE THE DRIVING BAN!
The hatred of the West is trying to blind the left.
Feminists should condemn a single voice Islamist misogyny. Instead, they spend their time and energy to justify the unjustifiable pretext that the eastern misogyny (which is "cultural") is more acceptable than the Western misogyny (which itself is "Policy").
Today, we say that the burkini releases.
What we will say tomorrow?
The driving ban Saudi women to protect them from accidents?
original link
Reply
#9
Christian teachers are forbidden to wear crosses around their necks in U.S. public schools.  People in our military have been rebuked for having a bible on their desks. Private employers reserve the right to prohibit various symbols and clothing. Head scarfs and this beach thing are considered religious garb ... how exactly is it all that different?

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/nati...veil_x.htm

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion...nment.html

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/poli...e14214307/

Governments ban all sorts of religious symbols and garb in various ways for various reasons all around the world ... mostly in an effort to enforce secularism.  Does this really strike you breaking any new ground?
"Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want and deserve to get it good and hard."
-- Henry Mencken
Reply
#10
(08-27-2016, 07:53 PM)mr_yak Wrote: Christian teachers are forbidden to wear crosses around their necks in U.S. public schools.  People in our military have been rebuked for having a bible on their desks.  Private employers reserve the right to prohibit various symbols and clothing.  Head scarfs and this beach thing are considered religious garb ... how exactly is it all that different?...
All this is stupid. The only prohibition in the Constitution is against the Fed setting up a state religion.

Any laws enacted to block Sharia Law, though, seems perfectly fair - as that is against unConstitutional political ideology - not just religion.
Reply
#11
Fred, I'll tell you one thing that is far more important to put a halt to, IMEDIATELY.  And that is letting them congregate in the middle of the road, and allow them to pray "en mass", blocking traffic and other things.  If they continue to get away with it, they will consider that their legal rights.    

There are other things, but that is by far the more important strategically.  I shit thee not.
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
"INSIDE EVERY PROGRESSIVE IS A TOTALITARIAN SCREAMING TO GET OUT" - David Horowitz

Reply
#12
(08-27-2016, 08:00 PM)WmLambert Wrote: All this is stupid. The only prohibition in the Constitution is against the Fed setting up a state religion.

Any laws enacted to block Sharia Law, though, seems perfectly fair - as that is against unConstitutional political ideology - not just religion.

It may be stupid, but it doesn't stop the infringements on 1st Amendment rights.  As for Sharia, it's effectively voided by  the same provision that prohibits a state religion.  It's not really workable to have a dual system of laws is it?   But it is, however, possible to blur constitutional order by telling one group that their symbols and practices are guaranteed ... and tell another that those same items are restricted.
"Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want and deserve to get it good and hard."
-- Henry Mencken
Reply
#13
(08-27-2016, 10:44 PM)mr_yak Wrote: ...it is, however, possible to blur constitutional order by telling one group that their symbols and practices are guaranteed ... and tell another that those same items are restricted.

Not if one set is not a religion, but a political ideology disguised as religion.
Reply
#14
(08-28-2016, 12:19 PM)WmLambert Wrote:
(08-27-2016, 10:44 PM)mr_yak Wrote: ...it is, however, possible to blur constitutional order by telling one group that their symbols and practices are guaranteed ... and tell another that those same items are restricted.

Not if one set is not a religion, but a political ideology disguised as religion.

Well, I totally agree with that.  It certainly isn't first and foremost a religion.  Not only is it an autocracy, but a Collectivist one at that: Islamic Socialism.
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
"INSIDE EVERY PROGRESSIVE IS A TOTALITARIAN SCREAMING TO GET OUT" - David Horowitz

Reply
#15
Some folks in France are choosing just to ban the ones wearing all that stuff. S13

Paris restaurant owner refuses to serve hijab-wearing women as 'terrorists are Muslim and all Muslims are terrorists'

I suspect this will be just the beginning. Spiteful
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
"INSIDE EVERY PROGRESSIVE IS A TOTALITARIAN SCREAMING TO GET OUT" - David Horowitz

Reply
#16
Here is what most Americans in 1900 considered proper women's swimwear:


.jpg   1900SwimsuitsforWomen.jpg (Size: 15.55 KB / Downloads: 27)

Here is what is being sold today as "modest" American women's swimwear:


.jpg   Modern2PieceWomensSwimwareBilledAsModest.jpg (Size: 9.92 KB / Downloads: 27)

Bikinis, of course, are in a class by themselves. Sorry, no pix! S5
Reply
#17
It's a ham handed attempt to reverse post WWII loss of faith. It's as doomed to failure as Marxism was. Just stupid as hell telling women they have to wear whatever the state decides.
Reply
#18
To counter the burkini, the crosskini!
[Image: 14368920_305852713104031_852722246640270...e=587F5823]

source: f
Reply
#19
Opps, I got the wrong impression.  When the page came up, I could only see the head and upper torso, so I immediately thought "Kim Kardashian.   S18

Butt.................and that's a very big word with Ms. Kim, this gal actually has a trimmer looking fanny, that isn't out of some Neolithic European Venus carving,

[Image: 0.jpg]
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
"INSIDE EVERY PROGRESSIVE IS A TOTALITARIAN SCREAMING TO GET OUT" - David Horowitz

Reply
#20
Jhon... I don't think it's recommanded to take inhibition pills if you keep watching such pictures. S2
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)