Beach Hajib

[MercyA]

Never mind--too late for posting! :)  

 

Edited August 26, 2016 by MercyA

[ChocolateReignRemix]

Where there is a law ( and there isn't a French law about beaches) it applies to all conspicuous religious symbols, be they Christian, Muslim. Sikh, Jewish or other.

 

I believe the French law that banned religious symbols only applied to schools.  Even though this law is local, a law that bans someone wearing religious attire in public seems to be treading heavily upon personal freedoms.

[Amira]

Where there is a law ( and there isn't a French law about beaches) it applies to all conspicuous religious symbols, be they Christian, Muslim. Sikh, Jewish or other.

 

Is it hypocritical to let nuns paddle in the ocean and accost Muslim women ? Of course.

 

Doesn't mean that emphasizing the 'God told me to' aspect of wearing a burkini is the most strategic approach for Muslim women to take right now.

But that *is* why they're choosing to wear it. If this were just about avoiding sunburn, then there wouldn't be a ban (because no one else covering a lot of skin at the beach has been forced to change), but even though skin cancer avoidance would be a more strategic argument, it doesn't mean that government should get to ban a practice if you're doing it for religious reasons but allow it if you're doing it for something they consider practical. This local government ordinance does specifically target Islamic clothing and belief and I don't think that's acceptable.

 

I don't share the belief that God told women to cover up more than men- I think the covering should be the same for both genders if one's religious beliefs cover clothing. But my beliefs aren't more important than anyone else's. Security is something else, but that's not the motivation for this local law from everything I've read.

[Katy]

I'm under the impression that the ban has nothing to do with religion per se but is about facial recognition cameras.  Some head coverings, when worn in particularly modest ways, are folded so low as to obscure the eyebrows, which messes with facial recognition cameras.  As soon as camera systems started "recognizing" people, the coverings of the brow bones became a problem.

 

Besides, some of those burkinis are not particularly modest at all by fundamentalist Christian standards - more skin might be covered, but being wrapped in wet lycra doesn't conceal the fact that your body is shaped like a female at all.

 

Edited because auto-correct is stupid.

Edited August 26, 2016 by Katy

[staceyobu]

I will say this, in fairness to France, they are one of many countries now policing what women can wear. They are just forcing less clothing instead of more. It doesn't make it any more right. But, why isn't everyone up in arms about Iran forcing everyone to cover?

[zoobie]

Where there is a law ( and there isn't a French law about beaches) it applies to all conspicuous religious symbols, be they Christian, Muslim. Sikh, Jewish or other.

 

Is it hypocritical to let nuns paddle in the ocean and accost Muslim women ? Of course.

 

Doesn't mean that emphasizing the 'God told me to' aspect of wearing a burkini is the most strategic approach for Muslim women to take right now.

 

Unless they were here in the US, and they were Christians talking about White Jesus God wanting them to do something. Then it would be a great tactic. I don't personally understand any sort of religiously motivated covering, but if you can do it for one religion, you should be able to do it for any or all of them. The government banning women's choice of clothing is bigotry parading as paternalism, which is so, so sadly ironic. You poor women don't know what's best for you... You, on the other hand, in your safely secular Lands End attire and Coolibar hat, you're a-okay. ;)

[zoobie]

I will say this, in fairness to France, they are one of many countries now policing what women can wear. They are just forcing less clothing instead of more. It doesn't make it any more right. But, why isn't everyone up in arms about Iran forcing everyone to cover?

 

For me as an American, it's that our history of independence and "freedom" is closely linked to France's. Seeing state-sanctioned bigotry in a close ally is disturbing to me. The current political climate here is...worrisome to me. Iran is a theocracy with a history of extremism, and the return to forced covering isn't unexpected or surprising. Iran's poor treatment of women has been somewhat of a constant. It's not an either-or though. I can be in favor of women choosing what to wear on the beach in France AND simultaneously appalled that women in Iran (and other countries) are forced to cover and have no choice. I'm sure there are hideous things happening to women in other places as well, but beach hajib happens to be the topic in this thread at this moment in time.

[zoobie]

I can see not wanting gendered covering to become a social norm in a secular society. So yes, in one way I can see how a state might wish to express approval of some clothing and disapproval of others.

 

The ban does leave the local areas open to (justified) charges of bigotry, paternalism and hypocrisy.

 

Idk. In some ways, none of us in Western countries really have a leg to stand in re criticizing each other about how we react to terrorism at home. The US went to war in Iraq, and how many innocent women and children DIED because of that ?

 

War is up there with religious covering in Things I Don't Understand. 

[Amira]

I will say this, in fairness to France, they are one of many countries now policing what women can wear. They are just forcing less clothing instead of more. It doesn't make it any more right. But, why isn't everyone up in arms about Iran forcing everyone to cover?

Because public protest from other countries, or within the country, makes no difference in Iran. Or in Saudi Arabia, where I'm going out in five minutes in an abaya that I'm required to wear.

 

It does make a difference in countries like France.

[Roadrunner]

I will say this, in fairness to France, they are one of many countries now policing what women can wear. They are just forcing less clothing instead of more. It doesn't make it any more right. But, why isn't everyone up in arms about Iran forcing everyone to cover?

Because we (I mean the western world) has been up and arms about the treatment of women in some Muslim countries for as long as I can remember. It isn't news that Iran and Saudi Arabia curtail women's right to chose her own clothing. It is news though that France does, even if is exactly the opposite.

[Negin]

You must enter a post. 

Edited August 26, 2016 by Negin

[MercyA]

Idk. In some ways, none of us in Western countries really have a leg to stand in re criticizing each other about how we react to terrorism at home. The US went to war in Iraq, and how many innocent women and children DIED because of that ?

 

I have always been strongly opposed to the invasion of Iraq and feel perfectly comfortable criticizing the responses of both the U.S. and France.  :)

 

The state should strive to be just, always. It's not just to outlaw burkinis. It's not just to kill innocent people. Obviously one is much worse than than the other, but they are both wrong.

Edited August 26, 2016 by MercyA

[ChocolateReignRemix]

I will say this, in fairness to France, they are one of many countries now policing what women can wear. They are just forcing less clothing instead of more. It doesn't make it any more right. But, why isn't everyone up in arms about Iran forcing everyone to cover?

People do care. Iran just doesn't care what those in other nations think.

[ktgrok]

Are the French limiting nun habits? Or do they only have a problem with symbols of Islam? They seem okay with ostentatious Catholicism. (Notre Dame, Sacre Coeur...)

 

the wording of the law makes it sound like even a large cross worn around the neck would be illegal, but somehow I doubt that is being enforced. Are men forbidden from wearing a yarmulke?

[ktgrok]

I will say this, in fairness to France, they are one of many countries now policing what women can wear. They are just forcing less clothing instead of more. It doesn't make it any more right. But, why isn't everyone up in arms about Iran forcing everyone to cover?

 

Because we have higher standards for western Europe than Iran. We all pretty much agree some of the laws against women in the Middle East are awful. This thing in France is a topic of conversation because it was so surprising, to have this kind of thing in a more "modern" country. 

[Guest]

People BE caring about injustice in Iran, I assure you.

 

People are in prison for caring about injustice _in_ Iran.

 

So, yanno, soundbited fallacy there in the "what about Iran?" as if Iran just does whatever it wants to do to her citizens and the world has been silent for decades about it.

[Osmosis Mom]

I will say this, in fairness to France, they are one of many countries now policing what women can wear. They are just forcing less clothing instead of more. It doesn't make it any more right. But, why isn't everyone up in arms about Iran forcing everyone to cover?

 

Oh, I love this comparison. I am going to refrain from saying what I think in regards to ignorance and lack of knowledge on the poster's side because that would be tremendously rude on a board where we are trying to come together and understand each other and educate ourselves and our children to be global citizens with a basic cultural idea of setting and place, but do you know what has been happening inside Syria in areas where ISIS has been forcefully removed? Women were out celebrating in the streets and burning their burkas/niqaabs. Whatever my personal opinion about niqaabs is, then it is a fact that there is a segment of Muslim women who choose to wear it (including here in the US, many of whom are converts), but it is also a fact that many women and girls abhor the niqaab and its restrcitions including the fact that it is being forced (literally) onto them by the men in their lives or as in Syria by extremist militants, which is pretty much the case in Iran and Saudi where there is a Religion Police.

 

For a country like Syria, in the 1980s you had the government forceful remove hijaabs off women's faces (they would come down in helicopters and remove those pesky hijabs so women could be secular) and over the years anyone wearing religious-looking outfit (such as a more serious-looking hijaab or beard for men) would be followed and put on the regime's radar (or detained, tortured, gone from public sphere). 

 

Muslim women no matter where they live have the right from an Islamic viewpoint to put on the hijab or not. The niqaab is something "extra" that is not mentioned in the same way (it is not mentioned in the Quran) and I have met enough women to know how oppressive it is but I have also met enough women who choose it to keep my opinion to myself. However, I have met women who have been putting on the hijab under danger to their lives from their government and this oppression is part of the outcry and Revolution in Syria where people (most sunni muslims) are now publicly opposing the government so they can have freedom to do what they want. 

 

I met a Saudi girl the other night who was wearing a very open blouse to her breast area and obviously no hijab and she told me that, yes, in Saudi she has to cover up and women can't drive. Now in the same sentence she also mentioned the opulent lifestyle of those reigning men and the fact that if she went public with her opinion - even here in the US and under a pseudonym - then she would risk her own life and that of her family's. This is not Islam. Just like undressing a woman on the beach is secularism. This is oppression.

 

For the woman who was ordered to undress, it was disgusting. Ask her to leave, arrest her, don't have her undress herself. Despicable. What is even worse to me is how many people are just sitting there like lame ducks, not a single person spoke up. I cannot imagine how lonely she must have felt. Just sad.

[flyingiguana]

Here's my question -- Around here, it's not just women wearing traditional/"religious" dress in day to day life.  There are also men wandering about covered neck to toe in traditional garb of some sort or another.  So, if a guy shows up to one of these French beaches with the ban on women's clothing in place, wearing one of these traditional outfits that covers most everything, will he also be forced to undress?  (I don't know what these guys wear when swimming because I never see them swimming.)

 

Or is it just women?  Is this another situation where political statements have to be made on the bodies of women, but men are exempt?

 

There was one woman at one of these beaches who had no intention of going in the water who was forced to remove her headscarf.  Is it just at beaches that this ban is in place?  Whether one is swimming or not?  What would the justification for that be?  Are all other women who are just walking by a beach supposed to strip down to underwear as well?  Or just obviously Muslim women?  And did no one who passed this law even think about the absurdity of this?  Even leaving aside the whole human rights issue.  It's just plain dumb and indefensible.

 

For security reasons, I can understand banning burkas.  Not that I would support a ban in most places, but I can see the logical justification for it -- the thinking being that one could hide explosives or something.  But I fail to see how anyone could hide much under a burkini.

 

Edited August 26, 2016 by flyingiguana

[Bluegoat]

 Wow, if people said this stuff about Americans - "Look, Americans just don't like blacks. It's that simple" - people here would be up in arms. 

 

It could be true though, groups of people do have these kinds of biases.  French culture has a reputation for being xenophobic generally.

[MercyA]

If I was in France, I'd probably wear one. Flooding the beach with burkinis would be an effective tactic for disrupting the law until it's found to be constitutional or not.

 

Sign me up, too. WTM picnic on the beach, anyone? 

[Bluegoat]

I think its a little odd to say peopel don't complain about laws forcing women to cover in som eplaces, because people do complain.

 

I would also say though, that the reasoning in France is particularly bizarre and hypocritical - lets allow for a society with a free exchange of ideas by individuals  by telling people what to think and do!  Affirm individualism by enforcing secular orthodoxy! Lets apply it to Muslims but not Jews or Catholics, because that might make people think we are into fascism!

 

The reasoning in Iran is wrong, I think, but in some ways it's more straightforward - they aren't claiming to believe in freedom of thought and action, or freedom of religion, or a belief in the autonomy of the individual, in the same way France does.

[Pam in CT]

re security rationale:

I'm under the impression that the ban has nothing to do with religion per se but is about facial recognition cameras.  Some head coverings, when worn in particularly modest ways, are folded so low as to obscure the eyebrows, which messes with facial recognition cameras.  As soon as camera systems started "recognizing" people, the coverings of the brow bones became a problem.

 

Besides, some of those burkinis are not particularly modest at all by fundamentalist Christian standards - more skin might be covered, but being wrapped in wet lycra doesn't conceal the fact that your body is shaped like a female at all.

 

Edited because auto-correct is stupid.

 

 

As a couple of pp alluded upthread, there are contexts -- passports & airport security, drivers' licenses and identification -- where the need for facial recognition for security purposes has been acknowledged as a legitimate public policy interest.

 

Romping on the beach isn't one of those situations.  No one in those municipalities ever made the argument that all the other beach-goers were going through facial recognition systems en route to the shoreline whilst the burkini wearers were flummoxing the cameras.

 

 

re whether or not burkinis meet American Christian modesty standards -- the point of both the French burkini ban, and also the burkini wearers' motivation to wear it, is that there are other folks out there with other motivations.  All knocking around sharing the same little world, having to come to some sort of framework on how to live across differences.

 

 

France's history has long been intertwined with ours; their national motto is Liberté, égalité, fraternity.  We expect more, on issues of individual liberty and choice, than we do from a theocracy.  When they miss the mark on something like this, it cuts rather close to the bone.

[SKL]

I think people are disappointed because they like to say "look, France got it right, why can't we" and they can't say that so much nowadays.

France is terrorized and in transition and they are more scared than we are at this moment.  Poor decisions are the predictable result.

 

I'm sure the French were wagging their fingers at the US as some Americans reacted poorly to 9-11 too.

[Amira]

Muslim women's clothing has been used as a political tool for a very long time. The Soviets spent years fighting against the paranja in what is now Uzbekistan and Tajikistan, and the same thing happened in a lot of Muslim countries led by at least ostensibly Muslim leaders throughout the 20th century. You also have examples like Iran where earlier forced "unveiling" was reversed by a different government. And the whole thing is complicated because some Muslim women do conciously choose to cover a lot of skin, others choose to cover less, and others are required to cover or not cover by their families or governments.

 

Like I've said, I'm not a fan of requiring women to cover more skin than men do. But please, make this a cultural battle fought by the people who are forced to wear the clothing (assuming they are being forced to) rather than a political battle fought by secular governments to mandate what any woman is wearing. Those who aren't part of the culture can find ways to support those who are.

 

I truly believe that empowering women will do more to lead to world peace and stability than anything else we can do. I don't think that clothing bans empower women because, if a woman is actually being oppressed (and again, I am not saying that covering equals oppression) the clothing is just a symbol of it, not the cause and getting rid of the clothing won't do much to end the oppression. We *must* find better ways to support women than making rules about their clothing, and that goes for secular governments, husbands, religious dictatorships, the older generation, blatantly religious people, neighbors, whoever.

Edited August 26, 2016 by Amira

[Guest]

Muslim women's clothing has been used as a political tool for a very long time. .

 

Indeed.

 

I recommend this book all of the time. It's so good. And the top review is correct: it is much wider in scope than just "the ladeez are wearing scarves."

[Osmosis Mom]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/europe/top-french-court-to-rule-on-legality-of-burkini-bans/2016/08/26/18499b64-6b64-11e6-91cb-ecb5418830e9_story.html?wpisrc=al_alert-COMBO-world%252Bnation

 

 

France has formally ruled that it is illegal to ban burkinis.

[eternalsummer]

 I actually think the bolded is problematic in this context. Because it switches the focus from 'what I personally feel comfortable with' to 'dressing according to God's laws'. And the French - rightly or wrongly - have issues with ostentatious symbols of religion. 

 

Strategically, I'd be emphasizing the personal choice aspect. A lot of people can get behind that in a way they just won't re God's laws.

 

Is it slightly disingenuous to pretend it's just a personal fashion preference in the same way a one piece is a personal preference ? Sure. It's likely to be a lot more effective though.

 

Re the italicised - it's going to differ from place to place. The area I live in, where I see niquab frequently, is low socio-economic. Doesn't mean the women wearing it aren't smart or useful, but they are statistically unlikely to be university educated. 

 

I think, as someone who dislikes it intensely and sees it as a quite appalling symbol of systemic misogyny,  it is quite fair to ask me to tolerate it in AU, and to not judge the woman behind it  - I'm afraid I will never go the one step further and develop an appreciation for it. It's out of place here. I do support the French ban on niquab in public for France. And I would prefer it not to be culturally acceptable here.**

 

** Not talking about hijab! Or burkini.

 

 

That's interesting, because I find that in the US it's somewhat different - there is a respect for religious customs or decisions that doesn't exist as strongly for personal moral customs or decisions.

 

Like, if I were Muslim and said my kid can't eat pork because of God's Law, people would accept that here *much* more easily than they accept the idea that my kid can't eat factory farmed meat because of personal moral beliefs.

 

and that's even with the slight bias against Muslims!

[eternalsummer]

When I lived in NZ it was similar; on the other hand, there was a lot more religious expression in public schools (they sang songs about God at assemblies) than there would ever be here.

 

I think it was just less of an issue all around; people's feelings about religion there were less strong.

 

I don't know anything about the French - *I* feel like a ban on religious expression is non-Western and terrible, but I am not French and can see that the societal pressures there are different.

[Pam in CT]

re American respect for religiously-based vs. other-values-based decisions

That's interesting, because I find that in the US it's somewhat different - there is a respect for religious customs or decisions that doesn't exist as strongly for personal moral customs or decisions.

 

Like, if I were Muslim and said my kid can't eat pork because of God's Law, people would accept that here *much* more easily than they accept the idea that my kid can't eat factory farmed meat because of personal moral beliefs.

 

------

 

and that's even with the slight bias against Muslims!

 

 

Huh.  I've never turned that particular comparison around in my mind.  Within my own family, we all follow some religiously-based eating restrictions; one of my daughters is vegetarian "on top" of that.  To your point, we get more of a pass, albeit sometimes accompanied by eyerolls (we're not fully observant, we pick and choose), than she does.  She elicits a "why on earth would you do THAT" fairly often, and her reasons (ethically- rather than health-based) often seem to set off a defensive reaction that Gods' Law (which, actually, FWIW, is not really our reasoning for our restrictions, which for us are more about affiliation to tradition and community than divine revelation, but, we don't generally go into that in casual conversation).

 

_____

 

But, we're Jewish, not Muslim.  At this moment, I'd say the bias against Muslims here is more than "slight."  I'm not at all sure Muslims get as much scope for understanding do other religious minorities such as Jews or LDS; and other religious minorities get less scope for religiously-based customs than do members of the majority strand.

[eternalsummer]

 

_____

 

But, we're Jewish, not Muslim.  At this moment, I'd say the bias against Muslims here is more than "slight."  I'm not at all sure Muslims get as much scope for understanding do other religious minorities such as Jews or LDS; and other religious minorities get less scope for religiously-based customs than do members of the majority strand.

 

 

Yes, it depends on where you are - sometimes the anti-muslim bias is stronger.  Where I am (a liberal part of Colorado Springs, to the extent that such a thing exists), Muslims get more or less the same reaction as other religious people (at least this is my perception from a non-religious perspective).  possibly it looks different from the other side.

[happymom4]

Never knew burkini's existed...  I think I just found my new swimsuit. 

[Katy]

I rescind all my comments about safety.  I spent some time reading several articles on this today that were more detailed than the blip I heard on NPR or wherever.  It really does seem to be about demanding "French" society not change at all.  Nothing to do with safety.

[Bluegoat]

I rescind all my comments about safety.  I spent some time reading several articles on this today that were more detailed than the blip I heard on NPR or wherever.  It really does seem to be about demanding "French" society not change at all.  Nothing to do with safety.

 

Well, it is a country with an institute dedicated to preventing changes in the language.

[Amira]

I agree with the bolded. That's why I don't support a ban.

 

The italicized is interesting; perhaps for a spin off thread. On a purely selfish level, I know that the support I give conservative religious women to cover as they will, will not be returned when it comes to things like our upcoming giant opinion poll on marriage equality in AU.

 

Solidarity needs to flow between all women, and be multidrectional. It has to also encompass women who reject their religion, and women who are lesbian, bisexual and trans.

I agree with all of this. I think it's horribly disingenuous when religiously conservative people yell about religious freedom but vote against LGBT+ rights, for example, and it's hard to be supportive when you feel like you're probably going to get stabbed in the back later. But I also just as firmly believe that the solidarity has to start somewhere and cannot be predicated on the other side doing the right thing. In other words, I think that defending someone's rights even when you don't agree with their actions is always the right thing do to, even if you know they won't return the favor right now.

[eternalsummer]

I think it's definitely a cultural preservation/ anti-Muslim immigrant thing; I don't know, not being French, if it is justified.   Firstly, they are aggressively secular; secondly, they have a substantial and quickly growing minority population that is quite religious and in some ways not all that interested in assimilating into secular society; third, they have both population pressure (the Muslims reproduce and the native French don't, largely); fourth, they have some natural fear of Other as there have been several high-profile attacks from members of the minority population that is making them nervous anyway.

 

Still, it seems overzealous and misguided to my American sensibilities.