The burkini

Originally posted by sh76
So, are you saying you're okay with it being banned [b]because it's a religious symbol?[/b]

Depends on my mood.
Today, for example, I'm in favour of shoving people's religious symbols up their respective arses without lube.

Today is one of those days that religious people just annoy me.
Pretty sure Santa Clause should stay away from me too!

Originally posted by no1marauder
Apparently the State can also decide that you are wearing too many clothes and that people should be able to peruse certain of your "regions".

🙄

Why you think an entire country can impose a "dress code" on everyone in it without this being an affront to freedom is beyond me esp. when it is quite obvious that the State is targeting a particular minority for no good reason.

Ok, I'll spell it out. The burka and its derivative the burkini are seen as symbols of oppression which is incompatible with values of the French republic and secularism. Whether it is actually oppressive is another matter. France has exercised its powers to introduce legislation which is designed to make this symbol of oppression illegal. Further to this one can certainly legislate against attire, or lack of that is not appropriate. One should not be seen wearing a three piece suit in a sauna or a steam room, by way of example. Carrying this thought forward it seems inappropriate therefore to expect women to cover themselves entirely when sunbathing on the beach in high summer! nor can it be very comfortable when the fabric gets wet. I applaud the stance of the French government having the good sense to ban this ridiculous religious garb from public beaches due to the reasons stated above.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
Ok, I'll spell it out. The burka and its derivative the burkini are seen as symbols of oppression which is incompatible with values of the French republic and secularism. Whether it is actually oppressive is another matter. France has exercised its powers to introduce legislation which is designed to make this symbol of oppression illegal. ...[text shortened]... sense to ban this ridiculous religious garb from public beaches due to the reasons stated above.

"The burka and its derivative the burkini are seen as symbols of oppression which is incompatible with values of the French republic and secularism. "
that's for public offices. what citizens do in their private lives should be none of the government's business. a man can freely wear a sheet over his head in public without any consequence. this is an oppressive law aimed at a specific group of citizens.

"Whether it is actually oppressive is another matter. "
no it's not. this is the whole reason this law exists. it DOES matter if it's real or not.


"France has exercised its powers to introduce legislation which is designed to make this symbol of oppression illegal."
by oppressing those that CHOOSE this symbol. rather than make real laws to prevent oppression, the french government decided it knows best and it should make decision for the very people they are trying to protect.

"Further to this one can certainly legislate against attire, or lack of that is not appropriate. "
yet definitely not target a single category of citizens.

"One should not be seen wearing a three piece suit in a sauna or a steam room, by way of example."
one will not go into a sauna fully dressed but one has the right to wear whatever one pleases, even in a sauna or a steam room. Then pay the hospital bills when they are rushed there for severe heatstroke or dehydration .

"Carrying this thought forward it seems inappropriate therefore to expect women to cover themselves entirely when sunbathing on the beach in high summer!"
it is perfectly legal to go to the beach in a formal suit. or dressed as mickey mouse. or as a clown. nobody dresses that way because it is uncomfortable, but it is their right nonetheless.

"nor can it be very comfortable when the fabric gets wet."
that's their problem, not yours.


"I applaud the stance of the French government having the good sense to ban this ridiculous religious garb from public beaches due to the reasons stated above."
ok, then you would support a law that forces men to wear shorts, t-shirts and flip flops once the temperature passes a certain threshold.

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
"The burka and its derivative the burkini are seen as symbols of oppression which is incompatible with values of the French republic and secularism. "
that's for public offices. what citizens do in their private lives should be none of the government's business. a man can freely wear a sheet over his head in public without any consequence. this is an o ...[text shortened]... ces men to wear shorts, t-shirts and flip flops once the temperature passes a certain threshold.

tone control, find it, turn it all the way up!

The designer of the burkini, Aheda Zanetti

“Burkini is just a word that describes a full cover swimsuit and it doesn’t symbolise anything to do with Muslims

Anyone else believe this drivel? I hope not because here is her contradictory statement.

So I went home and went looking for something that might be better for her to wear, sportswear for Muslim girls, and I couldn’t find anything, I knew there was nothing in Australia. It got me thinking because when I was a girl I missed out on sport – we didn’t participate in anything because we chose to be modest, but for my niece I wanted to find something that would adapt to the Australian lifestyle and western clothing but at the same time fulfil the needs of a Muslim girl.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
tone control, find it, turn it all the way up!

The designer of the burkini, Aheda Zanetti

“Burkini is just a word that describes a full cover swimsuit and it doesn’t symbolise anything to do with Muslims

Anyone else believe this drivel? I hope not because here is her contradictory statement.

So I went home and went looking for something t ...[text shortened]... ustralian lifestyle and western clothing but at the same time fulfil the needs of a Muslim girl.

"tone control, find it, turn it all the way up!"
?

yes, she wanted to permit women to swim while still allowing them to observe their faith. if anything, it is liberating not oppressive. it's like someone inventing bacon flavored chicken for jews.


i must say, it's hilarious that you think this is oppressive but you have no problem letting children die rather than giving them blood transfusions.

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
"tone control, find it, turn it all the way up!"
?

yes, she wanted to permit women to swim while still allowing them to observe their faith. if anything, it is liberating not oppressive. it's like someone inventing bacon flavored chicken for jews.


i must say, it's hilarious that you think this is oppressive but you have no problem letting children die rather than giving them blood transfusions.

I don't know any parent that has 'no problem' when their children need medical care then again as someone that supports the killing of 150,000 unborn children everyday the vast majority due to 'social convenience' no one can expect you to understand feelings of a human nature. A rather I'll conceived and transparent ad hominem Zippy, predictable and not very clever.

The point is Zippy she has been caught telling porky pies. The dress is designed for Muslims and is therefore religious in nature. Its extreme, inappropriate, a symbol of oppression and the French government have every right to ban it. Vive Le Francias!

Originally posted by sh76
Limiting the amount of clothing people are allowed to wear to prevent people from wearing bombs is downright insane. If someone wanted to wear a bomb and avoid detection, they'd go to a crowded mall in February with a heavy winter coat on, not to a beach in August. On the contrary, terrorists would presumably like to blend in to avoid detection. Wearing a burki ...[text shortened]... rtant. But being sane about it and not becoming a police state while you do is also a good idea.

I was talking about the sense of alarm that can be created, intentionally or inadvertently. So far no one here seems to think this is important, or has any bearing on the sense of fear terrorists want to instill. It's gotten to the point where simply leaving a day pack unattended on a sidewalk can create the same sense of fear as someone shouting "Fire" In a crowded theater. If this isn't true then how can we account for news stories of areas being cleared and a bomb squad sent in to examine an adandoned back pack? Is this an over reaction as well?

The issue here has virtually nothing to do with clothing fashion or anyones right to wear certain clothing, and only a moron would think this is an issue about clothing preference and nothing else. The best that can be said about someone wearing traditional Muslim (Islamic) garb in a city that has experienced (Islamic) terrorist attacks is they are incredibility stupid and insensitive to the people they've chosen to live side by side with.

Originally posted by Suzianne
From who's point-of-view? A white Christian's point-of-view? How does that point-of-view have any more validity than any other?

How about from any reasonable point of view?

According to the prevailing 'logic' presented here you should be able to go about in public wearing an emblem of a swastika, because it's nothing more than a fashion statement. And if anyone objects it's because they are a right-wing racist white man homophobic xenophobe blah blah blah de blah blah...

If history doesn't look favorably on Nazism because of the pain and harm it caused, then what makes you think it will be any different for the pain and harmed being caused now by Islamic terrorists?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
I don't know any parent that has 'no problem' when their children need medical care then again as someone that supports the killing of 150,000 unborn children everyday the vast majority due to 'social convenience' no one can expect you to understand feelings of a human nature. A rather I'll conceived and transparent ad hominem Zippy, predictable and ...[text shortened]... a symbol of oppression and the French government have every right to ban it. Vive Le Francias!

"I don't know any parent that has 'no problem' when their children need medical care "
many jws don't
others rightfully realize that jw doctrine is murderous and they do offer their child medical care.


"as someone that supports the killing of 150,000 unborn children everyday the vast majority due to 'social convenience'"
those aren't children, they are bundles of cells. it's up to the woman what happens to growths inside her body

"A rather I'll conceived and transparent ad hominem Zippy"
awww, it's so adorable when you try to use big words.
for your education, ad hominems try to support/counter an argument by attacking the opposing debater rather than the argument itself. i did no such thing, my argument stands very well on its own. what i did do is remember how you have no problem allowing children to die in the name of a horrendous religious doctrine, as long as it is your religious doctrine.

"The dress is designed for Muslims and is therefore religious in nature. "
so bacon flavour tofu is religious because it is meant for a particular group of people? can non muslims/non jews/non vegans eat that bacon flavor tofu or do they spontaneously combust because god smote them? getting back to our case, can the burkini be used by, for example, women (or men) that have an embarassing skin condition?

"Its extreme"
according to you.
"inappropriate"
according to you.
"a symbol of oppression"
as long as the one wearing it has no problem with it, it's not your damn business.

"the French government have every right to ban it"
no more than they would have the right to ban porn, alcohol, cigarettes, gay marriage, men wearing skirts, women wearing pants, women wearing any amount of makeup, men wearing any amount of makeup.

"Vive Le Francias"
les francais.

Originally posted by lemon lime
How about from any [b]reasonable point of view?

According to the prevailing 'logic' presented here you should be able to go about in public wearing an emblem of a swastika, because it's nothing more than a fashion statement. And if anyone objects it's because they are a right-wing racist white man homophobic xenophobe blah blah blah de blah blah... ...[text shortened]... u think it will be any different for the pain and harmed being caused now by Islamic terrorists?[/b]

"what makes you think it will be any different for the pain and harmed being caused now by Islamic terrorists?"
yet just like not all germans were nazis so too not all muslims are terrorists. in fact, percentage wise, more germans were nazis than muslims are terrorists.

Originally posted by lemon lime
I was talking about the sense of alarm that can be created, intentionally or inadvertently. So far no one here seems to think this is important, or has any bearing on the sense of fear terrorists want to instill. It's gotten to the point where simply leaving a day pack unattended on a sidewalk can create the same sense of fear as someone shouting "Fire" I ...[text shortened]... are incredibility stupid and insensitive to the people they've chosen to live side by side with.

"The best that can be said about someone wearing traditional Muslim (Islamic) garb in a city that has experienced (Islamic) terrorist attacks is they are incredibility stupid and insensitive to the people they've chosen to live side by side with."
so muslim people should renounce their faith and change because a madman who happened to be muslim did something horrible? and you call THEM "incredibility" stupid and insensitive? funny

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
"The best that can be said about someone wearing traditional Muslim (Islamic) garb in a city that has experienced (Islamic) terrorist attacks is they are incredibility stupid and insensitive to the people they've chosen to live side by side with."
so muslim people should renounce their faith and change because a madman who happened to be muslim did something horrible? and you call THEM "incredibility" stupid and insensitive? funny

a madman who happened to be muslim did something horrible

A madman? Do you mean there is only one? Well, I sure hope we can stop him (or her) before he (or she) does any more damage.

Originally posted by lemon lime
[b]a madman who happened to be muslim did something horrible

A madman? Do you mean there is only one? Well, I sure hope we can stop him (or her) before he (or she) does any more damage.[/b]

"madman? Do you mean there is only one? Well, I sure hope we can stop him (or her) before he (or she) does any more damage"
yes, i really meant it when i used the singular. i have only heard of one terrorism attack ever.

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
"madman? Do you mean there is only one? Well, I sure hope we can stop him (or her) before he (or she) does any more damage"
yes, i really meant it when i used the singular. i have only heard of one terrorism attack ever.

Due to an unrealistic expectation of receiving a cogent response from you I'm looking forward to receiving a cogent response from you.

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
"I don't know any parent that has 'no problem' when their children need medical care "
many jws don't
others rightfully realize that jw doctrine is murderous and they do offer their child medical care.


"as someone that supports the killing of 150,000 unborn children everyday the vast majority due to 'social convenience'"
those aren't children, they ...[text shortened]... ng any amount of makeup, men wearing any amount of makeup.

"Vive Le Francias"
les francais.

I am sorry but I didn't even read the text after the first line, usual drivel unworthy of anyone's attention. You wasted your time, you certainly wont be wasting mine, 4sure.