"Burkini" ban

elraval2

I have my own criticisms of the burka and what it represents, however I feel people really should be able to wear (or not wear) whatever they damn want

If a clothing had the icon of a black swastika on a white background inside a red circle would you still think the same?

Or what about a KKK robe? I wouldnt feel safe if i walked down the road and suddenly round a corner came 50 people wearing a KKK robe walking towards me.

Anyway the thing about Burkas (and the likes) is that its not just straight forward. You can meet up 3 people wearing a burka all with 3 different backgrounds. Like one person could be a woman who are forced to wear the burka. A second woman could be wearing it from her own choice. A 3rd person could be a guy disguised as a muslim woman out to kill workers with a bomb or a loaded ak47 hidden under the burka.

One could say if burkas or similar clothing are normal clothing behaviour for woman then it should be observed that woman are wearing burkas where there are no muslim influence. (like in South America...?)

http://www.withthesetwohands.com.au/international-womens-day/
(Women from Ecuador on international womens day)

But this is not observed, so it can only mean that the burka is forced on them from outside of female influence. Which means those women who are wearing a burka purely out of their own choice belongs to a very small minority.

Wow, GP, start off with Godwin's Law and then jump right into some weird right-wing reactionary arguments. Well done.

i agree with elraval2

what the ban is likely to achieve is stopping muslim women from going to the beach, which is probably the point

Or they are going to wake up to a new reality where they realise that their clothing is not a uniform. The burka is quite hypocritical phenomenon cause the women are only to wear it if there are males nearby. Which means they can drop it when there are only females nearby. Which means if they are dropping the burka then why wear it in the first place if they really dont want to wear it?

you defend the market but not peoples right the wear whatever they want. and you apparently know better than muslim women what muslim women actual think.

also thats not a burka, its more like a hijab

http://www.versobooks.com/blogs/1757-arundhati-roy-feminism-and-foundations-burkas-and-botox-an-extract-from-capitalism-a-ghost-story

When, as happened recently in France, an attempt is made to coerce women out of the burka rather than creating a situation in which a woman can choose what she wishes to do, it’s not about liberating her but about unclothing her. It becomes an act of humiliation and cultural imperialism. Coercing a woman out of her burka is as bad as coercing her into one. It’s not about the burka. It’s about the coercion.

Oh no... another one
Gulai are you fucking kidding!?
All you've written on this thread is garbage. Can't even begin to set you straight.

elraval2

Reminds me of when the cousin of an ex was telling me that she didn't have a problem with (male) homosexuals, "as long as they don't come over to my house, sit on my sofa and start kissing in front of my son" !

Did you ask her if she had reason to think that male homosexuals were likely to do that? :D

Burkas are shit but GP's comments are shitter.

Ideally women would only wear the burka if they really wanted to avoid sunburn :)
As has been said, the burka in itself is a form of control, but banning it is another form of control.
And GP has gone nuts.

clothes in general should be banned ... also cornflakes

“Ain’t no sin to take off your skin and dance around in your bones”

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nlg46kIGm_Q

Gulai Polye

elraval2

I have my own criticisms of the burka and what it represents, however I feel people really should be able to wear (or not wear) whatever they damn want

If a clothing had the icon of a black swastika on a white background inside a red circle would you still think the same?

Or what about a KKK robe? I wouldnt feel safe if i walked down the road and suddenly round a corner came 50 people wearing a KKK robe walking towards me.

Anyway the thing about Burkas (and the likes) is that its not just straight forward. You can meet up 3 people wearing a burka all with 3 different backgrounds. Like one person could be a woman who are forced to wear the burka. A second woman could be wearing it from her own choice. A 3rd person could be a guy disguised as a muslim woman out to kill workers with a bomb or a loaded ak47 hidden under the burka.

One could say if burkas or similar clothing are normal clothing behaviour for woman then it should be observed that woman are wearing burkas where there are no muslim influence. (like in South America...?)

http://www.withthesetwohands.com.au/international-womens-day/
(Women from Ecuador on international womens day)

But this is not observed, so it can only mean that the burka is forced on them from outside of female influence. Which means those women who are wearing a burka purely out of their own choice belongs to a very small minority.

What nonsense-- anybody, everybody who wears a Klan robe is supporting a white supremacist terrorist organization. Anybody, everybody who wears a Nazi flag is announcing his/her support for genocide, fascism, and all the rest.

Wearing the hijab or a burka says nothing about a person's intent regarding terrorism, genocide, white supremacy, any of that stuff.

All this is, is one more attempt by the French govt to stigmatize Islamic women.

elraval2

Cheers,
el raval

Yea I too am curious about any historical texts/articles on the subject. My understanding is that social-democracy movements (of whatever stripe- red,pink) traditionally practiced rigorous de-veiling in mid-east, central asia, and europe. But whats left of the western left doesnt seem to hold this view at all.

radicalgraffiti

what the ban is likely to achieve is stopping muslim women from going to the beach, which is probably the point

The authorities want "Muslim"-origin people to convert to Secular Catholicism (which has little to do with the catholic religion). Ironically what they fetishise as French-way-of-life (political,economic,social) is the by-product of recent Americanisation of the country
Serge Forward

Burkas are shit but GP's comments are shitter.

radicalgraffiti

http://www.versobooks.com/blogs/1757-arundhati-roy-feminism-and-foundations-burkas-and-botox-an-extract-from-capitalism-a-ghost-story

When, as happened recently in France, an attempt is made to coerce women out of the burka rather than creating a situation in which a woman can choose what she wishes to do, it’s not about liberating her but about unclothing her. It becomes an act of humiliation and cultural imperialism. Coercing a woman out of her burka is as bad as coercing her into one. It’s not about the burka. It’s about the coercion.

jef costello

Ideally women would only wear the burka if they really wanted to avoid sunburn :)
As has been said, the burka in itself is a form of control, but banning it is another form of control.
And GP has gone nuts.

If 'burkas' are bad, undesirable, and are a fetish representing controlling social relationships why would banning them be a problem? This seems like a right wing (classical liberal/US-syle "libertarian") argument about 'freedom of choice' in the democratic coercion free marketplace. But society isnt one of independent individuals making their choices but having those chioces imposed on them.
.

S. Artesian

Wearing the hijab or a burka says nothing about a person's intent regarding terrorism, genocide, white supremacy, any of that stuff.

I was referring to the point where OP said: "however I feel people really should be able to wear (or not wear) whatever they damn want".

radicalgraffiti

you defend the market but not peoples right the wear whatever they want. and you apparently know better than muslim women what muslim women actual think.

also thats not a burka, its more like a hijab

Why is the quality of discussion about the burka and variations thereof/ responses to Islamic terrorism always so poor?

Also why are the voices of Muslims so rarely heard on this apart from demanding they dissociate themselves from fundamentalism and terrorism?

Does anyone know of any decent reading about this?

Edit - I should really read that Arundhati Roy book mentioned, it's on my list when I have a free month.

My take on this, it's easy to dislike this ban on this side of the channel with GCHQ whirring away 24/7 and people under terrorism prevention orders (albeit it seems only one at present), the Muslim community not knowing who to trust in case their friend or neighbour is working for MI5, no attacks with mass casualties since 7/7 (think this is right), I imagine things feel very different in Nice, I don't know what the answer is.

.

Gulai Polye

S. Artesian

Wearing the hijab or a burka says nothing about a person's intent regarding terrorism, genocide, white supremacy, any of that stuff.

I was referring to the point where OP said: "however I feel people really should be able to wear (or not wear) whatever they damn want".

Sure you were:

Anyway the thing about Burkas (and the likes) is that its not just straight forward. You can meet up 3 people wearing a burka all with 3 different backgrounds. Like one person could be a woman who are forced to wear the burka. A second woman could be wearing it from her own choice. A 3rd person could be a guy disguised as a muslim woman out to kill workers with a bomb or a loaded ak47 hidden under the burka.

Gulai Polye

radicalgraffiti

you defend the market but not peoples right the wear whatever they want. and you apparently know better than muslim women what muslim women actual think.

also thats not a burka, its more like a hijab

Oh now i get the point of the thread. Burkini has nothing to do with burka. It should be named Hijabini

Did I just up-vote an SA post? Four horsemen of the apocalypse...

Actually I don't think that banning a swimming customer is thing to prevent terror.

teh

If 'burkas' are bad, undesirable, and are a fetish representing controlling social relationships why would banning them be a problem? This seems like a right wing (classical liberal/US-syle "libertarian") argument about 'freedom of choice' in the democratic coercion free marketplace. But society isnt one of independent individuals making their choices but having those chioces imposed on them.
.

I would argue that the role of trade unions is to pacift rather than to help the working class but I would see an attempt to ban them by the government as an attack on the working class. Banning something because it is dangerous/harmful (ie no one would still be using asbestos under communism) but currently allowed is not the same as banning something as part of a movement of control. As I said before the burka is not banned to help women, it is a move against Islam and while I see no reason to defend this,or any, religion I am not going to support a politicised attack on one, especially considering the anti-muslim climate that is being stoked in France.

radicalgraffiti

what the ban is likely to achieve is stopping muslim women from going to the beach, which is probably the point

I agree with Radicalgraffiti and Jeff Costello.

This whole choice/no choice thing is much too simplistic, people make choices within loads of different impositions from outside themselves. I just chose to spend all my money on paying an electricity bill. No one put a gun to my head to do it, I could have just not paid it, then they would have cut off my electricity supply, so I 'chose' to pay the bill.

Look, in my workplace some people wear niqabs. I don't like it but I would be totally against a ban. A niqab ban would mean that a lot of those women wouldn't be able to come to college, not that every single student would just take off the niqab and still come to college. Even if people did take off the niqab to come to college, yes I think some people don't like wearing it but do so because of family pressure and would probably feel relieved to take it off, but others would be really upset to take it off and would feel they were being forced to do something.

I feel the only way forward is for people to come to college, wearing niqab, hijab, stillettos, hot pants, saris, minis, combat trousers or whatever, and mix with all the other students and hopefully feel supported if they want to wear or not wear any of the above. If they want to wear something in defiance of their family strictures or other social pressures probably the biggest problem is other students snitching or tutting. As other students wear all sorts of things, a student might well also get support from friends if she wanted to change something about the way she dressed.

Don't worry, jesuit. You'll get over it, I won't tell anybody, and I'm sure it's just a random event with no deeper significance.

Entdinglichung

clothes in general should be banned ... also cornflakes

Someone who's against clothes would be against cornflakes, wouldn't they...

Lots of good posts on this thread, btw.

The burkini ban, like all other bans on types of clothing, is wrong, ridiculous and totalitarian. France's whole anti-terror strategy and the way they deal with muslims and 'muslim extremists' has been a disaster and now the UK is set to copy France's methods, which has radicalised muslims. I'm all for secularism but it's the wrong approach.
I think people are spot on here to say it's an attack on muslim women's rights, which it obviously is. Women and men and anyone should be allowed to wear whatever they want. I can't help but feel that women who want to wear the burkini should just cover themselves in something else at the beach, they shouldn't allow the french government to actually stop them going to the beach and I doubt they will. But , that it's come to this is ridiculous and it's not going to acheive anything other than piss off more muslims.

potrokin

The burkini ban, like all other bans on types of clothing, is wrong

Should it be allowed for everyone to wear a police uniform?

Jesus Christ, it's just a swimsuit.

Gulai Polye

potrokin

The burkini ban, like all other bans on types of clothing, is wrong

Should it be allowed for everyone to wear a police uniform?

deleted by myself

GP, Do you want to keep digging or should we hand you some rope?

Khawaga

GP, Do you want to keep digging or should we hand you some rope?

There is a switch for your brain. It should be set to "on". Can you double check if it is?

GP, what do you actually think? Do you think the burkini ban is a good thing? If so, why?

For starters i think it should be renamed to Hijabini. Calling it burkini is just anti islamic propaganda at its finest. But people on this site continues to call it burkini. Its tragic.

It's more of a hijab than a burka, yes, but burkini is the name that it's popularly known by so that's why people use that one.
But I don't really think this is the big issue here?

Do you think a ban would be a good thing?

also do you support the ban on the actual burka in france, you sound like you do

fingers malone

Do you think a ban would be a good thing?

Yes if the ban is on forcing people into clothings they dont want to wear

I'd support a ban on forcing people into clothes they don't want to wear too, but do you think that is how this is going to work?

I guess you went for the rope option...

fingers malone

I'd support a ban on forcing people into clothes they don't want to wear too, but do you think that is how this is going to work?

And who issued that ban? Me or someone else?
And if its someone else you should go talk with them

Do you think a ban would be a good thing?

Not exactly the right posing of the question:

GP--

Do you support the actions of the French state in prohibiting a type of clothing associated with people of a specific religious or ethnic background on the grounds that that specific background makes them more inclined to be a threat to the public, and therefore the clothing facilitates terrorism?

Yes or no will do.

Gulai Polye

fingers malone

I'd support a ban on forcing people into clothes they don't want to wear too, but do you think that is how this is going to work?

And who issued that ban? Me or someone else?
And if its someone else you should go talk with them

Errr, what, sorry?

S. Artesian

Do you think a ban would be a good thing?

Not exactly the right posing of the question:

GP--

Do you support the actions of the French state in prohibiting a type of clothing associated with people of a specific religious or ethnic background on the grounds that that specific background makes them more inclined to be a threat to the public, and therefore the clothing facilitates terrorism?

Yes or no will do.

No i dont support the French state - what a stupid question to ask

I don't actually know the legal position on forcing family members to wear certain clothes, you might or might not be able to get some kind of injunction, or perhaps the state might intervene if, eg, you were not allowed to leave the house with your head uncovered, the state might intervene saying that you could not be restrained by force from leaving the house. But part of the problem is that when people are forced to dress in a certain way which is not always the case with people covering up but when people are forced, they don't usually want to provoke a massive conflict with their family over it and also in some cases, not all, are at risk of violence if they do.

Gulai Polye

S. Artesian

Do you think a ban would be a good thing?

Not exactly the right posing of the question:

GP--

Do you support the actions of the French state in prohibiting a type of clothing associated with people of a specific religious or ethnic background on the grounds that that specific background makes them more inclined to be a threat to the public, and therefore the clothing facilitates terrorism?

Yes or no will do.

No i dont support the French state - what a stupid question to ask

Ok so as it's the French state imposing the ban, what do you think then?

Not stupid at all given the nature of your remarks. I'm not asking you if "in general" you do or do not support the French state; I'm asking you if you are in favor of this specific ban, in France, as enacted.

But since you want to play silly buggers.....let's try it this way:

do you oppose this ban on this attire?

If yes, why?

If no, are there circumstances in which you would not oppose a ban on this specific attire?

fingers malone

I don't actually know the legal position on forcing family members to wear certain clothes, you might or might not be able to get some kind of injunction, or perhaps the state might intervene if, eg, you were not allowed to leave the house with your head uncovered, the state might intervene saying that you could not be restrained by force from leaving the house. But part of the problem is that when people are forced to dress in a certain way which is not always the case with people covering up but when people are forced, they don't usually want to provoke a massive conflict with their family over it and also in some cases, not all, are at risk of violence if they do.

Now that you mention it there was one time where i had to go to a family thing and my parents told me i had to wear a specific clothing which i didnt want to. I was just about to abort the whole thing and take the train home but i changed my mind. I put the clothes on, but after that i didnt talk to my parents for a year.

GP, if someone wanted to go to the beach with her friends, and was allowed as long as she wore full length clothing, wouldn't that be better than her not going at all?
Yes I am virulently against parents being able to do these kinds of things, but in this society that we live in at the moment, they do often have that power.

fingers malone

and was allowed as long as she wore full length clothing wouldn't that be better than her not going at all?

Yes but she should be allowed in non full length clothing too

Well of course I also think she should, but if her parents don't allow it and the risks involved in disobeying them are very high?

S. Artesian

do you oppose this ban on this attire?

yes

If yes, why?

1. Not in favour of liberty
2. I support a different kind of ban which i have already mentioned which is in favour of liberty

I am in favour of people not being forced to wear things they don't want to wear, but

(a) some women feel that ordinary swimsuits are things they don't want to wear, they do want to wear burkinis

(b) as a messy compromise I am in favour of people going out and meeting other people and doing things, and if they are pressured to cover up to do that but are unhappy with that I think the only thing you can do is try and be supportive if at all possible, and I think that state bans hinder more than they help here.

Nudity empowers some, modesty empowers some. It's just a backwards hang-up that women aren't allowed to walk around topless if they wanted to while it's fine for a man to do so. I think I'm right in saying that where I live in the UK, it's illegal for a woman to just walk around topless, I think I'm right in saying it's legally considered indecency and it's probably the same in France aswell. Now, If I'm right about that- thats crazy. I'm not one of these people who supports Femen but when you think about it it's mad that just because a woman has different bits than a man (milk glands that are actually useful for feeding children) that she should cover them up. Equally, if a woman wants to cover up she should be left alone and allowed to do so, and the way women are sexuallised and objectified today and the amount of harrassment they get- I'm not suprise they would feel the need to cover up.. No one should be forced either way.

fingers malone

Well of course I also think she should, but if her parents don't allow it and the risks involved in disobeying them are very high?

Well thats the thing. The risk shouldnt be high. So what options are there?
1. There could be a community who act in solidarity with the disobeyer, and harass the family until they give in.
2. or there could be an alternative family which the disobeyer could come to and then could live there.

Personally im more into option number 1

I would also think that option 1 would be a good thing, but sadly that's not always how the community responds

If my memory serves, in the movie, Battle of Algiers (1966), it is the Algerian woman in western clothes who bombs the café. Of course the French state banned the movie for years, so possibly few people understand the logic therein. Banning clothes is only a substitute for intelligent action to contain the poison of western imperialism and religious fanatics.

EDIT
Forgot the name of the bloody movie!

The Battle of Algiers

EDIT: oh, you found it!

Thanks fingers!

Battle of Algiers?

Edit: cp with fingers.

Banning clothes is only a substitute for intelligent action to contain the poison of western imperialism and religious fanatics.

In this case, it's simply one more effort to stigmatize Islamic women, to make them targets.

You can't wear this on the beach...but you can wear it everywhere else? Who the f++k is kidding whom? This has nothing to do with any action, stupid or not, to "contain the poison...of religious fanatics."

This purpose is merely to make Islamic women targets for attack. It's right out of the Donald Trump playbook.

It's politicians making gestures, it's not a conspiracy to provoke attacks on Islamic women.

Auld-bod

It's politicians making gestures, it's not a conspiracy to provoke attacks on Islamic women.

It's capitalist politicians attacking those whom they have historically attacked; minorities, the poor, women.

It's not a conspiracy. It is exactly the type of action that explicitly makes targets of certain people.

S. Artesian #66

I wrote it is a substitute for intelligent action not to ‘contain the poison…’ – read my post properly.

My understanding of politicians is to manage capitalism by containing opposition and when possible to divide and rule the working class. They do so by attempting to appear competent managers, not by obviously stirring the shit. This is the reason why Trump is an embarrassment to the ruling class. They attempt to appear to control the uncontrollable (capitalism) largely through gesture politics - offering false choices, elections, referendums, etc.

Gulai Polye

fingers malone

I don't actually know the legal position on forcing family members to wear certain clothes, you might or might not be able to get some kind of injunction, or perhaps the state might intervene if, eg, you were not allowed to leave the house with your head uncovered, the state might intervene saying that you could not be restrained by force from leaving the house. But part of the problem is that when people are forced to dress in a certain way which is not always the case with people covering up but when people are forced, they don't usually want to provoke a massive conflict with their family over it and also in some cases, not all, are at risk of violence if they do.

Now that you mention it there was one time where i had to go to a family thing and my parents told me i had to wear a specific clothing which i didnt want to. I was just about to abort the whole thing and take the train home but i changed my mind. I put the clothes on, but after that i didnt talk to my parents for a year.

Yeah, that's true, definitely an analogous situation....

Auld-bod

S. Artesian #66

I wrote it is a substitute for intelligent action not to ‘contain the poison…’ – read my post properly.

My understanding of politicians is to manage capitalism by containing opposition and when possible to divide and rule the working class. They do so by attempting to appear competent managers, not by obviously stirring the shit. This is the reason why Trump is an embarrassment to the ruling class. They attempt to appear to control the uncontrollable (capitalism) largely through gesture politics - offering false choices, elections, referendums, etc.

I thought you wrote:

Banning clothes is only a substitute for intelligent action to contain the poison of western imperialism and religious fanatics.

Reads to me as if the action of the banning is undertaken in lieu of other actions that are "more intelligent" re "containing" the "poison of religious fanatics."

This action has absolutely nothing to do with trying to contain "religious fanatics." That's the point. It has everything to do with "stirring the shit" so that there's a convenient target to attack.

I don't know what your reading of capitalist history, particularly that of the US is, but there has never been a time when one wing or the other did NOT attempt to stir the shit. Never. I mean really... Jim Crow, segregation, Father Coughlin, Fox News-- Donald Trump is but the longest in a great line of shit-stirrers in American history, attacking the most vulnerable sectors of the working class for personal, professional, and class aggrandizement. He is in the fine tradition of Rehnquist (got his start intimidating black votes from voting when he worked for Nixon; Goldwater and "state's rights," Trent Lott, Jesse Helms, Strom Thurmond, and the nut jobs who flock to the Koch Bros. or to the new Nazis.

You don't remember Lee Atwater and his marketing of the black scare in '88, the favorite shit stirring of the so called "competent managers" since 1964?

Anyway, the important point is that this is nothing but an attempt to target Islamic women, put them in the cross hairs.

Right, you can't wear the Burka at the beach-- in Cannes, but of course, because it's Cannes and when you're on the beach at Cannes, it's gotta be tits and ass. After all, that, tits and ass, is an important source of revenue.

Gulai Polye

potrokin

The burkini ban, like all other bans on types of clothing, is wrong

Should it be allowed for everyone to wear a police uniform?

And the answer from Potrokin is..?

Chilli Sauce

Entdinglichung

clothes in general should be banned ... also cornflakes

Someone who's against clothes would be against cornflakes, wouldn't they...

Lots of good posts on this thread, btw.

I know the stuff about cornflakes ... but my contribution was more an example of automatic writing ... there are threads which deserve that kind of comments

Unfortunately this sort of racist lunacy isn't just the preserve of the right, I think as GP is an example it has spread to the far left and anarchists as well.

A few years ago the hijab ban came up on this forum, and all the people in Class War were in favour of the ban (including Paul Stott, who is now a UKIP supporter). And Zizek has also gone full Islamophobe. It is very worrying and depressing.

In terms of the OP, no I'm an anarchist so of course I don't support the state dictating how people can dress - especially people of a particular ethnic/religious background and gender, it's appalling.

When you add this sort of state sanctioned bullying and harassment to the everyday racism, discrimination, exclusion and poverty and France's history of colonialism in North Africa, is anyone surprised that a tiny minority of Muslims in France would be prepared to carry out attacks there?

The French laws are as much about nationalising street racism as anything else. Who needs a drunken EDL rabble when you can have disciplined and professional officers of the state roughing people up for looking a bit foreign?

[youtube]fmqQgzrCc6w[/youtube]

Steven.

including Paul Stott, who is now a UKIP supporter

bloody hell- what a bawbag.

Apparently more people are buying them now, especially non Muslim women

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/aug/23/burkini-bans-in-france-have-sales-of-full-body-swimsuit-soaring-says-designer

If I lived in France, I would buy and wear one (in fact I would have thought that French anti-racists should organise a mass wearing of them somewhere)

Sarkozy is now talking about banning pork-free food in schools. Which would seem to require mandatory pork in everything. To protect French culture.

Pork is France's Freedom Fries? Who knew?

Horse meat next? And what about fois gras? Fruit tarts with extra gelatin?

Joseph Kay

Sarkozy is now talking about banning pork-free food in schools. Which would seem to require mandatory pork in everything. To protect French culture.

Well, here's a material basis for a united front between observant Jews and observant Moslems... and vegetarians, and lacto-ovo vegetarians.

If Sarkozy had a hair on his ass, he'd insist on alcohol consumption in the primary grades-- that would smoke out the terrorists for sure.

Drink Bordeaux or die, motherfuckers!

(missed this post)

jef costello

teh

If 'burkas' are bad, undesirable, and are a fetish representing controlling social relationships why would banning them be a problem? This seems like a right wing (classical liberal/US-syle "libertarian") argument about 'freedom of choice' in the democratic coercion free marketplace. But society isnt one of independent individuals making their choices but having those chioces imposed on them.
.

I would argue that the role of trade unions is to pacift rather than to help the working class but I would see an attempt to ban them by the government as an attack on the working class. Banning something because it is dangerous/harmful (ie no one would still be using asbestos under communism) but currently allowed is not the same as banning something as part of a movement of control. As I said before the burka is not banned to help women, it is a move against Islam and while I see no reason to defend this,or any, religion I am not going to support a politicised attack on one, especially considering the anti-muslim climate that is being stoked in France.

My comment was more in line of my full post about historical/current socialist positions rather than the French republics per se. You make the comparison to trade unions. But I imagine under socialism or a transition to socialism this layer of management would be dissolved by force by a workers movement. How would you under socialism go about getting rid of the 'burqa' which you characterized as "a form of control" and something generally harmful and undesirable? Or do you mean its like a pubic vice that should/will be tolerated?

"A move Against Islam" " anti-muslim climate" - are you fine with Central Asian states, which are majority Islamic by demographics, banning or attacking veilings and so on in recent years (or if say France's entire political class weren't detestable morons and worked towards the same ends through different means and ideology.)
For example this recent story from Kyrgyzstan http://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-trending-36846249 (the BBC is obviously hostile to the governments position and characterizes it as "anti-islamic" somehow but you get the general gist). Religion doesnt really have an essence outside of its material context and many elites/peoples in various majority muslim countries view "burkas" as a hostile 'arabisation' of their nations or veiling as something of the past.

My point is I dont get why certain cultural norm fashions are supposed to be symbols of of oppression or others symbols of liberation. I get the misogynist logic of covering up in public but in the modern world it seems as relevant as a woman taking her husbands last name when getting married.

France 2016: young women being ordered out of sea & inspected by armed beachwear police as children look on. https://t.co/9fgkUfZ3Yj— Peter Allen (@peterallenparis) August 23, 2016

In the videos of police harassment I've seen, none of the women are even wearing burkinis, they are just wearing long tops with leggings and headscarves. The worst thing is reports of other people cheering when the women are being harassed.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/aug/24/french-police-make-woman-remove-burkini-on-nice-beach

From the Guardian article, posted by Alf:

A witness to the scene, Mathilde Cousin, confirmed the incident. “The saddest thing was that people were shouting ‘go home’, some were applauding the police,” she said. “Her daughter was crying.”

Well, where would the women's liberation movement be without the French state liberating the poor wee muslim lassies who are "told what to wear" by their menfolk but are now being fined, harassed and told what not to wear by the cops.

I'd say it's a good result for islamist cults like Daesh and their supporters. The French state victimises and alienates more people from a muslim background, which in turn, pushes more fucked up people in the direction of Daesh and their ilk. You don't even need a crystal ball to predict what happens next... coming to a news channel soon.

Meanwhile, the bourgeoisie shifts further to the right/far right and the working class follows the same pattern and is increasingly divided, ruled and shat on.

There's been a threat from the French state to shut down a Halal supermarket in Paris unless it sells pork and alcohol. The pictures on the Nice beach are disgusting expressions of the state whipping up and maintaining racism and divisions. Meanwhile French "advisers" are on the ground in Syria (along with their American and British counterparts) directing their forces (the YPG) to more extensive bombings.

But you don't need to look at France in order to see "disciplined and professional officers of the state roughing up people who look a bit foreign". https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=muslim+women+taken+off+plane+and+questioned+by+armed+police&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&client=firefox-b&gfe_rd=cr&ei=7rq9V4ueFqGN8Qfd3I-4Dg.

The two sister, wearing hijabs, and their brother were marched off an Easyjet plane surrounded by armed police and questioned about whether they were communicating to Isis via their mobile phones. They were talking to their father. Police said that the morons that grassed them up acted with "good intent". Similarly the airline said that there were genuine "security concerns". This sort of insidious racism and bullying is happening more and more. Prior to Brexit, the new PM Theresa May, as Home Secretary, sent lorries around London with billboards threatening immigrants and whipping up racism. When taking over as PM, May issued a Francis of Assisi inclusive type speech that has as much validity to it as the one made by Thatcher when she became Prime Minister.

You don't need a "conspiracy" (Auld bold, above) to unleash attacks on muslim women - they flow organically from the inherent nationalism, racism and divisions of the capitalist state. Thus, for several years now in Britain muslim women, particularly if alone, are subject to harassment and physical abuse - idiots yanking their headgear off for example. These elements are wound up by the capitalist state, its politicians, its police and its businesses.

The one humorous thing that I've seen in all this shit, was a young woman muslim on France 24, who described the burkini as "coquettish".

Baboon #88
‘You don't need a "conspiracy" (Auld bold, above) to unleash attacks on muslim women - they flow organically from the inherent nationalism, racism and divisions of the capitalist state.’

I agree with you, however you have decontextualized my posts. I was replying to A. Artesian #64:

‘In this case, it's simply one more effort to stigmatize Islamic women, to make them targets.’

You do NOT need a conspiracy because, as you say, society is inherently racist, etc., all that these politicians do is perpetuate prejudice and make a pretence at combating terrorism through ludicrous measures. It is totally counterproductive and as has been suggested in posts above may lead to unintended consequences. If these consequences ARE intended then ‘conspiracy’ could be an apt description. It is more likely simple stupidity, with an eye to the next set of elections.

Sorry If I misrepresented you Ab and I agree with your points.

I don't think that the bourgeoisie as a class, particularly in the major capitals, are generally stupid. They've managed to get the working class to pay for the brunt of the crisis and kept it divided and quiescent while doing so. You could argue, with Marx, that "the bourgeoisie becomes intelligent in times of crisis." But the system is becoming more and more irrational forcing the ruling class to make more and more "stupid" decisions. Like the decision to have an EU referendum in Britain putting at risk the interests of British and wider capital. A side-effect of this, deliberately whipped-up, was nationalism and xenophobia. This latter had already started in Britain against "muslims" after the first Gulf War in the early 90's. Successive governments and institutions have kept this division going ever since - while creating and sustaining religious fundamentalism, an irrational expression par excellence, and working with backward religious forces at home.

They don't have to have a meeting behind closed doors to decide to wind up racism. Racism, and the use of racism in order to divide the working class while providing scapegoats, runs in the blood of the bourgeoisie.

The bourgeoisie are stupid, but they do the things they do deliberately. One doesn't exclude the other.

This "ban" is not a "stupid" gesture meant or intended combat terrorism. No more than that fuck Sarkozy's "make 'em eat pork" is a gesture against terrorism. These are the deliberate acts of politicians to prey upon the ignorance, fear, and racism in society to make a section of the population a target.

I do not really disagree with the two posts above Baboon #90 & A. Artesian #91.

I do think the French state would like to stamp out terrorism (while at the same time pursuing policies which generate it) and opportunistically attempts to placate the real fears of the public by inept ‘tough guy’ gestures.

All politicians are perpetually playing several often contradictory games. For example, Cameron promising a referendum for short term Conservative electoral advantage by appeasing his internal party critics and to spike the guns of UKIP. An unnecessary referendum (the British public at the time showed no interest in leaving the EU) proved a total disaster for Cameron and his clique, professionally and for the policies they wished to pursue. His place in history: the Etonian smart arse becomes the Westminster dolt.

On different BBC news channels, last night and this morning, there have been various reports on the Nice Burkini event. These reports have been openly critical of the actions by French police and, at the same time, depicted Britain as a place where this couldn’t happen. As I mention above there is daily harassment of Mulsims in Britain, particularly the easy target of young and old women. The BBC reports failed to mention any of these in the context of events in France.

The demonisation of Muslims in Britain (along with asylum-seekers) has been going on for decades in Britain from the left to the right wing of the bourgeois political spectrum. The “ghettoisation” of Muslims has been a particular feature of the British state with its lefty cover of “multi-culturism”. And this multiculturalism is the perfect foil for the right wing of the bourgeoisie and most of the media;

While about 18 months ago the BBC was again reporting critically about the murder by strangulation of cigarette seller Eric Garner in New York, it failed to give the same critical attention to the choking to death of Angolan deportee, Jimmy Mubenga by Home Office thugs on a flight from Heathrow. The judge in the trial of the G4S goons ruled that their explicitly racist texts to each other should be discounted. Getting away with the murder of a black man was and is an element of both American and British democracy.

The point is that you don’t have to “go abroad” to see armed thugs of the state terrorising the vulnerable in the name of capitalism’s “rule of law”.

"Make them eat pork" is disgusting. Totally vile racism. At least you can chose not to go to the beach, it's off but it's still something you can avoid, schooling is a basic human right. And forcing shops to sell pork and alcohol, whatever happened to liberte, egalite, fraternite.

Regarding the differences between Britain and France, British politicians and establishment are generally opposed to bans on niqab or other Islamic dress.

Even those in Britain who might support some form of ban on niqab (including some Muslims) think this burkini ban is ludicrous, racist and dangerous from what I’ve seen.

There are big differences between how the British and French states deal with their Muslim minorities, for all sorts of historical reasons. There is no master plan or unified strategy by the bourgeoisie or the state. I don’t even think there is evidence of consistent state policy of ‘demonisation of Muslims’ in Britain.

In general Britain has gone down the road to accommodating increasing demands of religious minorities (not just Muslims) since that’s how they attempt to manage black and migrant communities. This is no less problematic and in some cases racist than the French model of intolerance. Some aspects may seem more progressive, some worse. Here some changing now due to the securitisation lense. Maybe this is for another thread.

The understanding of the burkini debacle is inadequate if it sees only state racism and Muslim victims (and proposes remedies like wearing burkinis in solidarity). As always, listening to the voices of people who find it necessary to oppose both state/popular racism and also religious fundamentalism is instructive. I haven’t been following this that much but I expect there are plenty of women out there trying to address the ‘double bind’ aspect of the burkini issue.
You can probably find them on Sedaa or British Muslims for Secular Democracy
Here’s one
https://nervana1.org/2016/08/21/the-right-not-to-wear-a-burkini/
I even prefer this analysis by Muslim liberal (and notorious bogyman from Quilliam). I don’t apologise for posting something by liberals since we are all employing liberal arguments i.e. the state shouldn’t dictate what women should wear, women should have the choice - how could we do otherwise?
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/08/25/both-sides-are-wrong-in-the-burkini-wars.html

For those who are interested in more intersectional feminist analyses of religious fundamentalism and the state, gender, ‘race’, secularism, community and struggle, beyond the burkini, we now have a new resource in Feminist Dissent online journal.
It’s based at a university but contains writing by and trying to appeal to non academics too. It’s focused on global fundamentalism and gender, trying to fill a gap and challenge some of the orthodoxies. Addressing fundamentalisms as reactionary political movements using religion to gain and maintain authority. The first issue has a couple of articles that might be relevant to the topic of this thread and also some other things discussed here on libcom including blasphemy and Islamism and the left etc

here’s a link to an article introducing it and the journal itself

https://www.opendemocracy.net/5050/sukhwant-dhaliwal-chitra-nagarajan-rashmi-varma/feminist-dissent-why-new-journal-on-gender-and-

https://journals.warwick.ac.uk/index.php/feministdissent/issue/view/2

People have probably already read the news, but the ban was overturned by French courts yesterday.

One ban was overturned in one place, I think they are local bans. Just for accuracy. I don't know if this means each ban needs challenging separately but I would imagine they will let the bans go anyway.

The decision was by the highest administrative court in France and is expected to set the precedent throughout the country:

"The ruling by the State Council specifically concerns the ban in Villeneuve-Loubet, but the binding decision is expected to set a legal precedent for all municipalities that have issued similar decrees."

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jul/20/french-outrage-beach-closure-saudi-kings-visit-salman-riviera-villa-vallauris

No burkini ban talked of here by the French state adding venality and hypocrisy to the racist underpinnings.

Sarkozy is positioning himself for the presidency, he's a pretty unpopular figure and it's only due to the complete lack of support Hollande has that he has a chance (beat Hollande in the first round and then everyone votes for Sarko to keep out Le Pen.) also his own party has no clear candidate.

When Sarkozy launched his war on the banlieues I didn't understand it. It seemed like a tactically stupid move. Then I realised it wasn't about fighting crime, restoring law and order or even winnning. It was about fighting the banlieues. People wanted to see someone 'standing up' to the banlieues. This is more of the same. He isn't even the first to talk about prok, I think he's directly stolen that from the Front National. Schools in areas with muslim /jewish pupils tend to offer and non-pork option for every meal. They're proposing to cancel that which makes no sense. It's unlikely to happen at all. Incidentally most jewish students (at least obervant ones) go to private schools (in France there are cheap state private schools, that are mostly catholic and religious)

The burkini thing is just feeding into this impotent rage that has been building up in France for years because basically nothing is working as people want it to. Jobs are scarce, esepcially for the young, there's a mixture of illegal work pressure and people using work protection to not work (less common than the general belief) There are two-tier structures developing where young workers are on temp contracts and older workers are afraid, knowing that their job security, wokring conditions and pensions are next.

There's also a feeling that integration of muslims has failed (it has, pretty much due to racism) and all the options presented seem to be based around more racism.

Stripping off a woman on a beach may just be stunningly stupid, or it may be a deliberae provocation. For muslims it can't help but seem like a direct attack on them because it is. Those withe longer memories will also remember that in the Algerian war for independence French soldiers would strip the women of the villages naked and march them through the centre or the main market to humiliate the local population.

Is no one going to respond to teh's post? I found it one of the more thought provoking in this thread. Sadly my thoughts on the subject are not concrete enough to post but my general feeling towards this is that the entire topic is a minefield of knee jerk reactions... and maybe well-meaning posts like teh's can do something about that.

Which post?

A related story
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/sep/01/muslim-women-veil-integrate-study

Hetappi

Is no one going to respond to teh's post? I found it one of the more thought provoking in this thread. Sadly my thoughts on the subject are not concrete enough to post but my general feeling towards this is that the entire topic is a minefield of knee jerk reactions... and maybe well-meaning posts like teh's can do something about that.

Well teh quoted me but argued against things I hadn't said and that no one had argued for so I didn't see a need to respond.

Link to an article and response to it on Verso blog on this topic.

The first article by Sara Farris develops a common argument after the burkini bans: the problem is the 'secular fundamentalism' of the French state.  The response article suggests that instead it's a symptom of resurgent racist nationalism in France and across Europe.

It also challenged the argument implicit in many left articles I saw, that the burkini ban = French colonialism, therefore veiling = anti-colonial resistance.

http://www.versobooks.com/blogs/2843-nationalism-fundamentalism-and-the-monopoly-on-violence-a-reply-to-sara-r-farris

To respond to the last post here, no. 105 - yes the modern international culture of veiling should be seen as political.

The article I linked to above gives a definition of fundamentalism that emphasises its political character.

‘fundamentalism refers to modern religious-political interpretations of religious texts, which aim to create a social order based on the 'return to fundamentals' of an imaginary utopian past. Control of the minds and bodies of women and sexual minorities are central to this ideology. Fundamentalist movements exist within all religions and they seek to impose their version of religion as the only valid one. Fundamentalists aim to reduce plural spaces and the right to interpret, dissent and doubt…’

The authors link the rise of fundamentalism to shrinking state provision and religious groups stepping into the place vacated by left wing political movements, among other things.

Our comrades in France wrote this and it is now published in English

http://en.internationalism.org/icconline/201609/14105/burkini-debate-france-sowing-seeds-pogrom-mentality

I think the 'burkini' ban is counterproductive, and unnecessary. I am much more sympathetic to the ban on burqas.

I will concede that in some cases, this is a free, and conscious choice, as inconceivable as that may be. However, for many women, it is not. For them, it is a prison uniform, and a silent cry for help. The burqa (not 'burkini') is based in retrograde, reactionary, and misogynistic views that have no place in any civilized society. How can women be liberated when they are forced to hide themselves under a sackcloth? This is 2016. This medieval nonsense needs to be tossed in the dustbin of history, where it belongs.

None of that is the point. The point is a bourgeois state apparatus, or bourgeois city apparatus introduced the ban in order to stigmatize and target a specific section of the population. That's the issue. The mayor of Cannes imposed this ban as an attempt to target Moslem women.

The police in Nice forced women wearing these garments from the beach, facilitating racist comments by the non-Moslem onlookers.

You know how Hegel defined liberalism? A philosophy of the abstract that capitulates to the world of the concrete. Your "prison uniform...cry for help" is exactly that capitulation in the flesh.

S. Artesian

None of that is the point. The point is a bourgeois state apparatus, or bourgeois city apparatus introduced the ban in order to stigmatize and target a specific section of the population. That's the issue. The mayor of Cannes imposed this ban as an attempt to target Moslem women.

The police in Nice forced women wearing these garments from the beach, facilitating racist comments by the non-Moslem onlookers.

You know how Hegel defined liberalism? A philosophy of the abstract that capitulates to the world of the concrete. Your "prison uniform...cry for help" is exactly that capitulation in the flesh.

Again, I explicitly criticized (and, in fact, oppose) the burkini ban.Those comments were explicitly in reference to burqas. There is a significant difference.

Are you saying that burqas (again, not 'burkinis') aren't innately misogynistic, and therefore, incompatible with women's liberation? If so, why do you think so? If you aren't saying that, then there doesn't appear to be any actual disagreement, here.

Furthermore, there is nothing 'abstract' about women being forced to cover themselves, head-to-toe, in a sheet, or the societal implications, thereof. We could debate what equality between the sexes would actually look like, in practice, but it definitely doesn't look like that.

And as I said, none of what you wrote is the point. The point of this thread was the French govt. banning a particular mode of dress in order to target a section of the population for attack.

You find it convenient to ignore the point of the entire discussion and go on about burgas. Well, if the mayor of Cannes or Villeneuve-Loubet banned the burqa from being worn in public I would oppose that; as I opposed the French govt. banning the headscarf.

There is nothing abstract about women being forced to cover themselves, but there is nothing but abstraction in thinking that actions taken against that clothing by a capitalist government has anything to do with "emancipation."

Of course......you could always take the Mrs. George W. Bush approach... talking about how much freedom the US invasion brought to the women of Afghanistan....

S. Artesian

And as I said, none of what you wrote is the point. The point of this thread was the French govt. banning a particular mode of dress in order to target a section of the population for attack.

In other words, we can at least agree that the burkini ban is bogus. Great.

S. Artesian

You find it convenient to ignore the point of the entire discussion and go on about burgas. Well, if the mayor of Cannes or Villeneuve-Loubet banned the burqa from being worn in public I would oppose that; as I opposed the French govt. banning the headscarf.

I didn't ignore it, I made a clear, and specific distinction. You can get as upset about that as you want.

S. Artesian

There is nothing abstract about women being forced to cover themselves, but there is nothing but abstraction in thinking that actions taken against that clothing by a capitalist government has anything to do with "emancipation."

I'm more concerned with outcomes. If those women are beaten, and/or terrorized (which many of them certainly are) into wearing a burqa (again; burqa), effectively reducing them to non-persons, and they absolutely hate it, (which many of them certainly do) then; it's a step in the right direction. The next step is to get them the hell out of that house.

S. Artesian

Of course......you could always take the Mrs. George W. Bush approach... talking about how much freedom the US invasion brought to the women of Afghanistan....

This is a false dichotomy. Opposing the invasion of Afghanistan, and/or the United States government doesn't require one to endorse the Taliban. The only consistent position is to condemn them both. For the record, I was against that war before it even began.

I think you really need to relax, man.

NGNM85

I'm more concerned with outcomes. If those women are beaten, and/or terrorized (which many of them certainly are) into wearing a burqa (again; burqa), effectively reducing them to non-persons, and they absolutely hate it, (which many of them certainly do) then; it's a step in the right direction. The next step is to get them the hell out of that house.

so your saying you consider the french state banning a particular articular of clothing for the purposes of appealing to racists and legitimisation the harassment of Muslims as something that will not only help women in abusive households but do so more effectively and quicker than helping them leave?

I think the preferred term is Muslim, Moslem is out dated and may give the impression you have a problem with followers of Islam

radicalgraffiti

so your saying you consider the french state banning a particular articular of clothing for the purposes of appealing to racists and legitimisation the harassment of Muslims as something that will not only help women in abusive households but do so more effectively and quicker than helping them leave?

No, you're combining a number of different things. For, (hopefully) the final time; I continue to assert that both the burkini ban, and the particularly thuggish way it has been enforced are bogus.

I think the burqa, on the other hand, is a different issue. I think there's a strong case to be made for outlawing it. The reason I say that is because it is just so obviously misogynistic, and my perception that many of these women, in fact, hate wearing it. That's not racist.

I acknowledge that discrimination against Muslim minorities both by the French public, and representatives of the French government is, unfortunately, quite real, and deplorable. All racism is deplorable. However, we have to be able to see these things in more than one dimension. We should be able to criticize the former without embracing, or endorsing reactionary ideas, or practices in those communities, or anywhere else.

This is also another false dichotomy. We don't have to choose between liberating women from the burqa, or from their abusive husband/father/uncle, etc, on the contrary, the two are fundamentally linked.

NGNM85

radicalgraffiti

so your saying you consider the french state banning a particular articular of clothing for the purposes of appealing to racists and legitimisation the harassment of Muslims as something that will not only help women in abusive households but do so more effectively and quicker than helping them leave?

No, you're combining a number of different things. For, (hopefully) the final time; I continue to assert that both the burkini ban, and the particularly thuggish way it has been enforced are bogus.

I think the burqa, on the other hand, is a different issue. I think there's a strong case to be made for outlawing it. The reason I say that is because it is just so obviously misogynistic, and my perception that many of these women, in fact, hate wearing it. That's not racist.

i was talking about the french ban on the burqa, which exists to pander to racism, and helps to promote hostility to muslim women. I don't give a shit about your excuses this is the reality of the situation.

you also havn't explained how you think this ban helps women in abusive households or even if it did why it should be higher priority than giving them the option to leave

NGNM85 wrote:

I think the burqa, on the other hand, is a different issue. I think there's a strong case to be made for outlawing it.

In what way would the state forcing a woman to take off an item of clothing be less authoritarian or be less of the heavy hand of patriarchy than a husband or father forcing a woman to wear it? You know that full face coverings are already banned in France and that it has lead to women being forcibly unveiled and attacked in the street and has poured fuel on the fire of Islamophobia?
Have you seen stories like this? -

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/19/world/europe/muslim-woman-suffers-miscarriage-after-attack-in-france.html

When is it ever acceptable from a libertarian socialist perspective for a man to tell women how they should be dressed? I would love to see the evidence you have that all women who wear the burka/niqab are forced into it by abusive male relatives. Seems to me to be another well worn cliché that muslim women need to be saved from men and that us white folk are the ones to be doing that.

edit: addendum

Then there are articles like these
https://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2015/03/13/muslim-women-in-canada-explain-why-they-wear-a-niqab.html
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/womens-life/11120588/Muslim-women-reveal-why-they-wear-the-veil-burqa-school-debate.html
It seems to me that the insistence that women remove the burka or niqab is rooted in either racism or some kind of white saviour complex.

RG, Fleur, just "relax, man"

Outside of the context of safe, consensual bdsm role play, the burqa is a vile instrument of oppression - whether worn voluntarily or enforced. Should anarchists be supporting state bannings of the burqa or advocating them being forcibly removed by the police or citizens concerned for the welfare of the poor wee lasses? Er... that would be even more ridiculous and would multiply the oppression.

Welcome to Libcom NGNM85!

People should be able to wear, or not wear, whatever the fuck they want.

Empower women, not the policing of women

I don't understand those people in the Telegraph article.

radicalgraffiti

i was talking about the french ban on the burqa,

The fact that you quoted my post indicates that your remarks were a response to mine. If that is the case, then you were talking about what I was talking about. Otherwise, we are talking to ourselves, simultaneously. I know very little about the French burqa ban, or the implementation, thereof, and have said, essentially, nothing about it.

radicalgraffiti

which exists to pander to racism, and helps to promote hostility to muslim women. I don't give a shit about your excuses this is the reality of the situation.

See above.

I'm not making any excuses.

radicalgraffiti

you also havn't explained how you think this ban helps women in abusive households or even if it did why it should be higher priority than giving them the option to leave

For women who are pressured to wear the burqa, who don't want to, and such women absolutely exist, as inconvenient as you may find this fact to be, whether that pressure is coming from a single source, or multiple sources, for those individuals, being relieved of this obligation is just that, a relief: it ameliorates a particular source of discomfort.

This also has broader implications, because, as I mentioned, earlier, the burqa also functions as a form of propaganda, reinforcing the reactionary ideas it represents.

If you scroll up, you'll notice I never said that getting rid of the burqa was more important than getting women out of abusive households. There is no trade-off, there. Not only is it possible to do both, but, I would argue, the two are highly complementary. The latter creates a healthier, more positive domestic environment for a specific woman, the latter promotes a healthier, more positive social environment for that woman, and all other women.

NGNM85

radicalgraffiti

i was talking about the french ban on the burqa,

The fact that you quoted my post indicates that your remarks were a response to mine. If that is the case, then you were talking about what I was talking about. Otherwise, we are talking to ourselves, simultaneously. I know very little about the French burqa ban, or the implementation, thereof, and have said, essentially, nothing about it.

you promote the ban and say it is a good think and yet you know nothing about it?

NGNM85

radicalgraffiti

which exists to pander to racism, and helps to promote hostility to muslim women. I don't give a shit about your excuses this is the reality of the situation.

See above.

I'm not making any excuses.

radicalgraffiti

you also havn't explained how you think this ban helps women in abusive households or even if it did why it should be higher priority than giving them the option to leave

For women who are pressured to wear the burqa, who don't want to, and such women absolutely exist, as inconvenient as you may find this fact to be, whether that pressure is coming from a single source, or multiple sources, for those individuals, being relieved of this obligation is just that, a relief: it ameliorates a particular source of discomfort.

This also has broader implications, because, as I mentioned, earlier, the burqa also functions as a form of propaganda, reinforcing the reactionary ideas it represents.

the idea that men who would prevent women relatives for going out without a burqa would just stop trying to control how they dressed or when or how they went out when its banned is really fucking naive

NGNM85

If you scroll up, you'll notice I never said that getting rid of the burqa was more important than getting women out of abusive households. There is no trade-off, there. Not only is it possible to do both, but, I would argue, the two are highly complementary. The latter creates a healthier, more positive domestic environment for a specific woman, the latter promotes a healthier, more positive social environment for that woman, and all other women.

you said
NGNM85

I'm more concerned with outcomes. If those women are beaten, and/or terrorized (which many of them certainly are) into wearing a burqa (again; burqa), effectively reducing them to non-persons, and they absolutely hate it, (which many of them certainly do) then; it's a step in the right direction. The next step is to get them the hell out of that house.

that is you saying that women should be banned form wearing burkers before begin provided with help to leave an abusive situation

the idea that men who would prevent women relatives for going out without a burqa would just stop when its banned is really fuckign naive

It is very naive, to put it mildly, to image that within a situation where a woman is compelled to wear a burka by an abusive male relative, should she be banned from wearing it outdoors, that she would be able to go out at all. Have you considered in your hypothetical scenario that going outside in a burka may constitute a small amount of freedom to an abused woman and that by banning the garment, you would be taking that from her. Having posted up the links of women explaining why they chose to wear these garments, the set of women who are compelled to wear the burka are now housebound and entirely unable to make contact with the outside world in order to ask for help in leaving these abusive relationships. But at least no-one can see them.

I am assuming you realize how hard it is to leave an abusive relationship and how difficult, verging on the impossible it is to do it unassisted. Helping people leave abusive relationships is far more important - and is chronically underfunded - than mandating how someone should dress.

You say you know very little about the French Burka ban - I did post up a link and explained that it has directly resulted in women being assaulted in the street, including the the incident where the woman was beaten until she lost her baby. If you want to know how burka bans have directly affected women in the real world, it might be a good idea to do some research.

I think the picture being painted may not be quite right. It's not the case that women who wear burkas (or niqab) are divided between one hand those young empowered types exercising their individual rights, as in Fleur's links, and then on the other hand those who in abusive relationships who are forced to wear them by abusers. Those aren't the only two options.

First, to be clear, there are all sorts of reasons why individuals wear Islamic dress and there's no telling what's in someone's head from what they're wearing.

But overall the increase in wearing of 'modest' dress including niqabs is the result of growing conservatism and fundamentalism.

The pressure to wear 'Islamic dress' (which for many Muslims esp. from Asia isn't 'traditional dress' at all) doesn't come only from families. Other influences on dress and hundreds of other micro details of daily life come from the global influence of Islamist movements. Norms and expectations (ever changing) are circulated through social media, satellite broadcasts, podcasts, lectures, bookshops, conferences, classes and study circles, and institutions like mosques, religious schools and sharia councils.

Women take an active role in normalising conservative gender practices as they do in every other fundamentalist movements including the Christian Right and Hindutva. Piety and the social status that accrues with it can be a powerful currency in some circles; social pressure can also work the other way in other circumstances.

We can add to this list of the sources of pressure on gender norms that discrimination and racism encourage some Muslims to embrace the visible signs of Muslim identity such as hijab and niqab.

State bans on niqabs probably keep some women indoors, expose some to violence, and free others from hated garments. There's a debate. Plenty of Muslim women hate niqabs but don't want them banned, others do.

Personally I oppose state bans but see no particular problem with niqabs (and maybe some other forms of 'modest dress') being disallowed under school uniform rules.

deleted

Rachel:

I think the picture being painted may not be quite right. It's not the case that women who wear burkas (or niqab) are divided between one hand those young empowered types exercising their individual rights, as in Fleur's links, and then on the other hand those who in abusive relationships who are forced to wear them by abusers. Those aren't the only two options.

I don't feel that those are the only two options. There's bound to be many shades in between and other reasons for wearing it. However, I do think that forcing someone to remove a garment is no less oppressive than forcing someone to wear one.

We can add to this list of the sources of pressure on gender norms that discrimination and racism encourage some Muslims to embrace the visible signs of Muslim identity such as hijab and niqab.

I think this is very pertinent. For example, one of my neighbours have 3 adult daughters who all wear the hijab, whereas the mother does not. They are all very secular but the reasons the daughters give for wearing them is that they do it mostly as an outward symbol of their pride in their culture, in a world that has ever increasingly demonized muslims and that muslim women are stereotyped as being submissive and that it subverts that stereotype to be hijabi while being confident, independent women.

deleted

Absolutely, some young women rock the look. One of my kids recently graduated in fashion design and one of the groups in her year presented a collection which reflected their own cultural backgrounds, including hijabs. It stands to reason that any garment is going to evolve and be worn in different ways.

I just think this very rigid approach, as taken by the other poster, that it is oppressive and must be banned is not the right approach and certainly in the situations alluded to that women are being forced to wear it by abusive families, forcing them to take it off is actually not very useful.

But most of all, telling women what they are allowed or not allowed to wear, in the name of anarchism really grinds my gears.

in this and in the posts early in the thread Fingers Malone describes a sort of messy, imperfect trying to do the right thing as you go along which I totally agree with, it’s where I come down on these issue in my daily life too.

Things are rarely as simple as being for or against a state ban. Most of us are against them - great. But that's the easy part.

There are still dozens or hundreds of examples of smaller negotiations over dress, and other issues (women/girls only classes, music lessons, food, arts, sports, trips etc) that people in schools (for example) have to make all the time. In my experience locally schools try to give their kids the best chances and opportunities out of limited resources, and will do whatever it takes to get those kids into the pool, on the school trip, into the school play or whatever. But there have been costs as well to this muddling through as well, in terms of ground gained by conservative forces. I have to go to sleep now but have been thinking about this in recent weeks and might explore it here another time.