Burkini

[Iftikhar]

Burkini

Sir we have to fight terrorism shall we send air force to bomb isis ? no .shall we send aid to the rebels ? no shall we decrease number of immigrants ? no . what shall we do sir ? BAN BURKINI . It's part of western society who can't seem to stop objectifying women. Look around its everywhere. U get paid more to take ur clothes off, and fined for wearing more clothes.


It's ok for Nuns to chill on the beach full clothed but not Muslim females? Absolutely disgrace! Glad to hear of this being suspended!

Mayors do mot have the right to ban Burkinis. France’s highest administrative court ruled.
The Council of State's ruling suspends a ban in the town of Villeneuve-Loubet, near Nice, and could affect cities around the country that have prohibited the full-length swimsuit.

I'm fascinated to hear from those decrying this decision exactly what they would do if local authorities decided to ban an item of their clothing and engaged policemen to force them to take it off in public? Hiding behind the nonsense that the Burkini defies France's secular culture is just pathetic. There is nothing outwardly religious about it as the police proved by their own incompetence yesterday in failing to distinguish Burkinis from similar dress worn by women with no allegiance to Islam at all. The court has ruled quite correctly according to law. Let's hope that's an end to it. I am proudly a reactionary person is to defend the common good and the good of society I am in favour of Burkini in Europe

French authorities have been criticised for imposing the ban, after photographs were published this week of police fining Muslim women wearing headscarves on beaches. It has peaked fierce debate on freedom of religion, women's rights and the integration of France's Muslim community. The ban was imposed following a series of terror attacks in France by Islamist terrorists.

Opinion polls suggested most of the French public supported the bans, which Muslims claimed targeted them unfairly.

John Dalhuisen, Amnesty International's Europe Director welcomed the court's decision.

"By overturning a discriminatory ban that is fuelled by and is fuelling prejudice and intolerance, today's decision has drawn an important line in the sand," he said in a statement.

"French authorities must now drop the pretence that these measures do anything to protect the rights of women. Rather, invasive and discriminatory measures such as these restrict women's choices and are an assault on their freedoms of expression, religion and right to non-discrimination."

"These bans do nothing to increase public safety, but do a lot to promote public humiliation. Not only are they in themselves discriminatory, but as we have seen, the enforcement of these bans leads to abuses and the degrading treatment of Muslim women.

A long time ago, in Europe, a Catholic woman had to cover her hair when entering a church. Also, before nuns were liberated, they had to wear habits! Very restrictive and ridiculous! The French then didn't make a big deal out of it as it was A RELIGIOUS RIGHT!

Long before France attempted to colonise parts of Africa and the Middle East, there was a battle, in 732, at Tours, when an Islamic army, led by Abdul Rahman, tried to colonise all of France, and to force every French person to convert. The French drove them back to Spain, with much bloodshed. So, naturally, they have a reasonable amount of distrust for anything Muslim. After the battle of Tours, France was "ruled" for 1,000 years or so by the Church of Rome, and the "aristocracy", until the revolution of 1793, when the people decided that no religion or royalty would ever hold sway over the elected government. That`s it, and the laughable attempts by Islamists to justify dress codes mandated by their "prophets", is just, laughable. Thank you. Banning the Burkini by the French govt. is not the issue but telling me that France is a secular country after the banning of the Burkini is the big issue. This is hypocrisy and we know it.

European immigrants to Australia, New Zealand, Canada or even the USA did that they took their religion, culture, language and customs with them and then forced the indigenous people to behave like them!! The French government is doing exactly what ISIS and the other terrorist groups want. They want the French government to segregate and discriminate against Muslims, to create a us and them society. Well done France, bowing to terrorism. How many attacks were carried out by French Muslim women in Burkinis?

Women should be allowed to wear WHATEVER THEY WANT on the beach. Whether that be a bikini, a swimming costume, a skirt, leggings, a dress, pyjamas, trousers, a jacket, a coat, a jumper, a hoody, a Burkini! It's their body so should be their choice whether to strip off or cover up. The West is fast becoming very oppressive and hypocritically doing the very thing it's accusing other nations of. Whatever happened to tolerance, acceptance, equality and freedom? Leave innocent people alone. Fed up of this nonsense. I think forcing the woman to take off her clothes was wrong. A bit like forcing a Sikh to remove his turban. They should have explained the new law to her and given her a chance to leave the beach, or just face a fine. I am wondering how this law could be implemented in Australia as stinger suits and wet suits are not dissimilar to Burkinis. Will they be outlawed too?

Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau defended the Burkini — an Islamic dress for swimming that covers the whole body except the face, hands, and feet — and stood for individual rights during a meeting with his ministers on Monday (22 August). He said that Canada did not like to seize personal rights and respected cultural diversity.

While speaking to media, the Liberal Party leader addressed the controversy swirling in France over a Burkini ban and said, "We should be past tolerance in Canada". He added that the country could never think of a Burkini ban or any kind of prohibition that would affect any person's individuality.

"In Canada, can we speak of acceptance, openness, friendship, understanding? It is about where we are going and what we are going through every day in our diverse and rich communities," he was quoted as saying by AFP.

He also added that individual rights should be "at the top of public discourse and debate."

Some policymakers in Quebec province of Canada had requested for the ban after 15 towns in France's southeast banned Burkinis, but Trudeau dismissed the ministers' call.

Societies which force people to dress a certain way cannot call themselves 'democratic.' This Burkini ban claims to protect "secularism" and ban "beachwear which ostentatiously displays religious affiliation." My question: do you think someone wearing beach clothes decorated in Jewish religious themes would face the same fine and treatment? What a low hypocrite and disgusting country. No wonder why France is becoming almost a poor country and having millions of its own citizens immigrating to England, USA, Dubai, Canada seeking a better life.

Should we start dressing down anyone wearing a nighty and a shower cap because of "national security" This isn't a law that targets criminals, or terrorists. This is a by-law that targets Muslims for not wanting to show skin. Which is ridiculous. If tomorrow in any country someone said "white people cant wear trench coats" because of the amount of American mass shooters who have worn one would be met with complete anarchy.

There is a thousand and one other outfits from different cultures that similarly represent the Burkini. This is state sponsored racism. No one seems to have a problem with Sikhs wearing turbans and rightfully so... You see this is borderline apartheid on the grounds of "national security" and "protecting western values" when in reality it's just a way of segregating and disenfranchising those who are 'different' from us.

They have no problems with Sikhs, Jews, Buda's etc... When it comes to Muslims, yes everybody is against them! Com on guys those are not our values, we were not raised like this, at least not in the US... We should all condemn these stupidities which divide us more than anything else and give terrorists more ground to recruit other ignorant people. This is really what the terrorists wants and the French are doing exactly what they want to segregate those Muslims and make them feel the society don't want them although those ladies weren't terrorist. This is how the terrorist wants and the French are doing exactly. Congrats and now many of those who got fined eventually will feel ashamed that society cant accept them for who they are... thus what do u think these people would do? God knows how they feel.. and just so u people know that many Muslims themselves are targets of terrorist too.

West must learn to respect and tolerate those who are different. Discrimination against Muslim practices, such as France’s recent stance against the Burkini, can have the opposite of the intended impact. In making Muslim communities feel threatened and under siege, discriminatory policies can make the narrative of extremists that the West is at war with Islam that much more appealing.

Muslims are not embracing western life'. What do we do? In our free time us English go down the pubs and get smashed, do the same in clubs, sleep with random people and as a result have the highest teenage pregnancy rate in Europe. Can anybody please tell me what integration means? other then speak English!!! The Jews did their best to integrate in Germany. They even took German names! Look how far it got them. If the Muslims try to integrate, the Germans/British will complain about the 'pollution' of their identity once again. I wonder how many English people were saying "Multi-Culturalism does not work" when they were busy invading and taking over other people's countries!? India, the Africa, the Americas, Australia, to name but a few. I wonder how many English people are saying "Multi Culturalism does not work" when they are busy sunning themselves in the south of Spain, speaking only English, eating in English restaurants, drinking in English bars, and complaining that not all Spaniards speak English!? Monkey see? Monkey do? And what is English culture, anyhow!? Our football teams are full of foreign players and some are owned by foreign owners, Christian Church attendance has dwindled, we love our curries (influenced by Indian food), we holiday abroad often...so I really would like somebody to define to me what is English culture, these days. If you mean by integration going down to the pub with the lads, getting drunk, picking up a few girls, and then on Sunday maybe going to church - then I'm sure that Muslims will not integrate.
IA
London School Of Islamics

[Dingfod]

incroyable le burkini vraiment tres sexy -...

[specious_reasons]

Originally Posted by Iftikhar

West must learn to respect and tolerate those who are different. Discrimination against Muslim practices[....]

I really wish you would stop pretending the cultural practice of abuse and subjugation of women was a religious right.

[Iftikhar]

Why insult Muslim women who wear the niqab (veil) by presuming that they are incapable of making a personal choice, and that they must've been forced to wear it? Those Muslim women who wear the veil do so because it is something that was practised by the Prophets wives, and thus for them it is religiously motivated. Whether you agree with them or not, is besides the point. It is their right to wear what they want!

Where is the evidence to support the claim that Muslim women wearing the niqab have indeed been forced? Where are the surveys? Where is the independent research and study to support this presupposition? There isn't any! Some Muslim women genuinely wear the veil as it is something that was practised by the Prophets wives, and thus for them it is religiously motivated. Whether you agree with them or not, is besides the point. It is their God given right to wear what they want!

There is far more evidence to support the view that non-Muslim women are pressured through cultural media such as magazines and movies to show as much flesh as possible, and to reduce themselves to mere eye candy for the opposite gender. As a result, we have far more impetus to discuss problems such as anorexia and other diet/image related health issues, but here we are talking and wasting time on a matter which concerns possibly a few thousand women scattered around the UK.

Muslims account for less than 3% of the UK population, of which maybe 0.1% or less wear the veil. Given the extreme irrelevance of such a topic and the fact that there is no independent research to support the view that the veil is indeed forced upon Muslim women, I I am shocked at amazed at the amount of disproportional attention the veil receives in the press and at the level of Government. It is clear that this topic is nothing but a distraction to keep the public on the side of hate and prejudice against a segment of the UK population, and to keep their eye off the ball on more pressing matters such as the economy, foreign policy, health and other such matters which are more deserving of our attention!

There is no law that prohibits the veil. Only your opinion opposes the veil. Therefore your logic is flawed. ALL men and women should be allowed to wear what they want in accordance to their beliefs. Of course, given certain circumstances such as the courtroom, in a bank or when going through airport security, it may well be arguable that the veil should be temporarily removed out of necessity. But an outright ban is nothing but extreme and unjustifiable.
IA
London School Of Islamics

[specious_reasons]

Don't presume to know my motivations. I would stand firm behind any person's choice of dress.

Why insult Muslim women who wear the niqab (veil) by presuming that they are incapable of making a personal choice, and that they must've been forced to wear it?

Because they are forced to by law or by vigilantes:

According to the Islamic Penal Code of Iran (1991), "women who appear in
public without a proper hijab should be imprisoned from ten days to two months
or pay a fine of 50,000 to 500,000 Ryal" [500,000 Iranian rials (IRR) = C$47 (XE
20 Dec. 2011a)] (Iran 1991, Art. 638). The law is reportedly applicable to all
Iranian women regardless of their religion (Freedom House 2010, 10; IHRDC
Aug. 2010, 11; US 13 Sept. 2011, 5).

https://www.justice.gov/sites/defaul...RN103920.E.pdf

Unknown men dressed like law enforcement officials had shot Louiza and her friend with paintball guns for not observing a compulsory Islamic dress code, in other words, for wearing clothes deemed to be revealing and not keeping their hair covered. Dozens more women in Chechnya were subjected to similar attacks in summer 2010.

Enforcement of an Islamic Dress Code for Women in Chechnya | HRW


When we can separate the choice from legal and extra-legal enforcement of cultural attitudes, I'll be willing to entertain the notion that it's insulting to women to think that they are incapable of making a personal choice.

I also think the birkini ban was a terrible idea, because it also eliminated the opportunity for personal choice.

[Stephen Maturin]

Originally Posted by Iftikhar

Why insult Muslim women who wear the niqab (veil) by presuming that they are incapable of making a personal choice, and that they must've been forced to wear it?

Why are you such a dishonest piece of shit?

[Sauron]

Originally Posted by Iftikhar

Burkini

Sir we have to fight terrorism blah blah blah

You're a fraud.

If you actually cared about fighting terrorism - and not just providing camouflage for radical Islam - then you wouldn't be asking for separate accommodations for Muslims in Britain. Instead, you'd be focusing on the root causes of terrorism. But you aren't, are you?

Your walls of text aren't clever, and you aren't convincing. Just in case you were taken in by your own propaganda, I mean.

[Iftikhar]

There will never be an end to extremism and terrorism, as long as Muslim children keep on attending state schools with non-Muslim teachers. All extremist and terrorists are the product of British schooling.

Today, many non-Muslims regard Islam as a religion that promotes violence, terrorism and war. Unfortunately, they rely in their view of Islam on the general media, which is not always accurate in reporting the news. Many media outlets, such as TV, radio, newspapers and magazines, are influenced by their investors or owners who have certain agendas and who want to promote certain values and points of view. Other media outlets are simply after the "big story", in order to make more money and more profits. Others are simply "followers", who only gather news from other sources, re-package it and try to sell it again purely as a business.

In all these cases, the news reporting is not accurate, but is driven by ulterior motives or simply by profits. Only very few media organizations are committed to providing accurate and true information, regardless of financial gain. Therefore, people today should be very careful in what they take from the media.

Before blindly accepting what the TV, radio or newspaper is reporting, one should think critically about what is being reported. Is this being reported accurately, or is it being exaggerated or even completely fabricated? Who are these people reporting the news, and do they have vested interests to report the story in a certain way, or are they completely objective and fair? Critical thinking is very important in all aspects of life, especially when it comes to accepting the media reports about important and controversial issues.

Islam is in fact a religion that promotes peace and understanding among people of all faiths, and it strongly prohibits all forms of violence and aggression against all people regardless of their faith or race.

Islam Prohibits Violence and Aggression, and stands for Peace and Justice.

Islam clearly prohibits all kinds and forms of aggression and violence against anyone, except in self-defence. Islam is a practical religion, meant to be implemented in every aspect of our life. Therefore, it realizes the fact that a person who commits aggression and violence against others will not cease these actions unless they are deterred by similar actions taken against them.

Islam also places very high importance on justice, and allows for aggressors and unjust people be punished accordingly, unless they repent before they are brought to justice. At the same time, Islam encourages people to forgive those who have wronged them whenever possible.

Terror is the biggest business today at home and abroad. Everyone is a beneficiary. The government gets more clout and more powers over the lives of its hapless subjects through new terror laws and activation of old ones in an atmosphere where no one dares to question the motives of the politicians over the vital issue of "security". Security forces get immunity for illegal acts and crimes for which they win medals, rewards, promotions and huge funds with no accountability attached.

Newspapers and TV channels improve their circulation and ratings sensationalising real and imaginary terror stories with total impunity as no one would dare question their rightful concern for our safety and security.
IA

[Stormlight]

Originally Posted by Iftikhar

There will never be an end to extremism and terrorism, as long as Muslim children keep on attending state schools with non-Muslim teachers.

So one solution would then be to put an end to it by forbidding indoctrinating children, right?

All extremist and terrorists are the product of British schooling.

Not enough in the world.

[Vivisectus]

All extremist and terrorists are the product of British schooling.

[Sauron]

Originally Posted by Iftikhar

There will never be an end to extremism and terrorism, as long as Muslim children keep on attending state schools with non-Muslim teachers.All extremist and terrorists are the product of British schooling.

An obvious lie, since Daesh militants are not the product of British education.

Your posts are quite easily disproven this way; a child could do it. Don't you realize that?

[JoeP]

Originally Posted by Sauron

Your posts are quite easily disproven this way; a child could do it. Don't you realize that?

Iftikhar probably didn't have the benefit of a good education.

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by Iftikhar

Islam clearly prohibits all kinds and forms of aggression and violence against anyone, except in self-defence. Islam is a practical religion, meant to be implemented in every aspect of our life. Therefore, it realizes the fact that a person who commits aggression and violence against others will not cease these actions unless they are deterred by similar actions taken against them.

Islam also places very high importance on justice, and allows for aggressors and unjust people be punished accordingly, unless they repent before they are brought to justice. At the same time, Islam encourages people to forgive those who have wronged them whenever possible.

Historically both of these principles have been so broadly interpreted as to be practically meaningless. The Moorish invasion of Spain (an unjustifiable act of agression and a naked land grab on par with the Crusades) being a case in point.

[Vivisectus]

Originally Posted by Angakuk

Historically both of these principles have been so broadly interpreted as to be practically meaningless. The Moorish invasion of Spain (an unjustifiable act of agression and a naked land grab on par with the Crusades) being a case in point.

Oh Ifti knows it. He posted that right after he said "there was a battle, in 732, at Tours, when an Islamic army, led by Abdul Rahman, tried to colonise all of France, and to force every French person to convert."

This contradiction was also a problem when he explained how the religion of peace came to develop this unfortunate habit of producing violent extremists.

We can only conclude that the Ummayads must have sent their children to an English school.

[Stormlight]

Banning the Burkini by the French govt.

Also, this is false and you know it.

What a low hypocrite and disgusting country. No wonder why France is becoming almost a poor country

Stay classy, my friend!

[Watser?]

Originally Posted by Angakuk

The Moorish invasion of Spain (an unjustifiable act of agression and a naked land grab on par with the Crusades) being a case in point.

Wow. I do not agree with that. The Muslim invasion was greeted by the population as the Christian populace and the Christian rulers did not share the same branch of Christianity. They were allowed to practice their faith under the Muslim rulers, which they were not allowed under the Visigoths. The Crusades on the other hand were very violent and bloody. The First Crusade resulted in a massacre where Muslims, Jews and even local Christians were slaughtered.

[mickthinks]

Interesting. I think you read Angakuk's parenthetical description as

an unjustifiable act of aggression on par with the Crusades, and a naked land grab also on par with the Crusades

whereas I read it as

a naked land grab on par with the Crusades, and an unjustifiable act of aggression

Your response counters the notion that the aggression (and pehaps the lack of justification) of the Moors in Spain was comparable to the Crusades, and I think Ang would agree with you. But you haven't addressed the claim that Spain was a land grab that matches the Crusaders' invasion of Palestine.

[Vivisectus]

They do seem to have been nicer landgrabbers where religious toleration is concerned: a lot of Muslim empires just taxed non-muslims extra and were generally happy to make use of their various social and religious organizations to rule their new lands. The Dhimmi system was a very clever innovation - let different ethnic groups rule themselves, with their own courts and churches and other organizations, and you keep the non-muslim population happier, and divided: less chance of general revolt that way, and you can keep a large and diverse population under control. Ifto would sure like that.

But landgrabbers they were, and violent ones at that, though not quite as brutish as the crusaders were.

[Angakuk]

It was not my intention to compare the degrees of violence and brutality between the Moorish Invasion of Spain and the Crusades. Rather, my intended point was that they were both unjustified acts of agression and unjustified land grabs. Islamic apologists for the invasion of Spain argue that somebody was oppressing somebody else over there on the Iberian Penninsula and they just had to go over there and put a stop to that oppression. Support for that position requires an extraordinarily broad interpretation of the Koran's restrictions on the use of violence. So broad in fact as to render the restrictions themselves essentially meaningless*. Additionally, the whole argument that the invasion was about correcting an injustice is undermined by the subsequent occupation and annexation of territory, hence my reference to it being a land grab.

*Much the same could be said about the ways in which the Christian "Just War Doctrine" have been employed.