The Burka and the Burkini???

[André]

Ever saw Louis de Funès in Le Gendarme de St-Tropez (mid-1970s) ?

.

Same story here:



France, 1966: "Put some clothes on, Ma'am. This is against the law !"

France, 2026: "Take these clothes off, Ma'am. This is against the law  ! "

[Andante]

The point I am trying to make is that if you are going to make another country your home you should make a point of fitting in if you are not prepared to do that why not stay where you are, or even try a country with the same values that you wish to live under, I see that Ken B and Holden understand this.
For me religion of any denomination is not an excuse for anti establishment behaviour

[André]

Well, the establishment has spoken: France's Conseil d'État (their Supreme Court) has ruled the bans as illegal.

http://www.lemonde.fr/societe/article/2016/09/09/la-justice-suspend-l-arrete-anti-burkini-du-touquet_4995143_3224.html

[ComposerOfAvantGarde]

Well, the establishment has spoken: France's Conseil d'État (their Supreme Court) has ruled the bans as illegal.

http://www.lemonde.fr/societe/article/2016/09/09/la-justice-suspend-l-arrete-anti-burkini-du-touquet_4995143_3224.html

Hear hear!

[ComposerOfAvantGarde]

The point I am trying to make is that if you are going to make another country your home you should make a point of fitting in if you are not prepared to do that why not stay where you are, or even try a country with the same values that you wish to live under, I see that Ken B and Holden understand this.
For me religion of any denomination is not an excuse for anti establishment behaviour

I really do agree with this and it is why I've always been against the burkini ban in France.

[Jo498]

I think this debate is completely blown out of proportion. We have it in Germany to some extent as well. There are probably more women who would wear those things in France but it is still a tiny minority. In Germany nobody knows it but the Burka-wearers are estimated between a few dozen and a few hundred (of 82 million). I do not know about the French laws but in Germany it seems impossible to completely ban the Burka. You can ban it for certain circumstances (like entering a bank or any occasion where you have do prove your identity with a photo ID, obviously) but in general this would go against freedom of religion, freedom of opinion and freedom to wear what you like to wear. These are fairly fundamental rights, so one cannot pass a law infringing them without VERY good reasons. And what I heard of comments by dry uninvolved jurists without any multicultural fish to fry they think it is impossible to get a ban through.

Another obvious point that seems to be missed: If one bans the burka or covering swimwear those women will not switch to mini-skirts or bikinis. They are efficiently banned from public appearance or public swimming. We might find it bad that families/traditions force women to wear those coverings. But should we not prefer that they be able to get out in a burka than to be completely confined to the house?

Those bans serve no sensible purposes whatsoever. It is only to appeal to anti-islamist sentiments.

Otherwise, I think the cartoon is very apt.

[Madiel]

In the western world it is the rule not to cover the face what is the difference between  a Balaclava and a Burka just try walking into a bank with a Balaclava on.

What a relief, then, that a "burkini" - thing that some French towns have tried to ban - doesn't cover the face.

[ComposerOfAvantGarde]

I think this debate is completely blown out of proportion. We have it in Germany to some extent as well. There are probably more women who would wear those things in France but it is still a tiny minority. In Germany nobody knows it but the Burka-wearers are estimated between a few dozen and a few hundred (of 82 million). I do not know about the French laws but in Germany it seems impossible to completely ban the Burka. You can ban it for certain circumstances (like entering a bank or any occasion where you have do prove your identity with a photo ID, obviously) but in general this would go against freedom of religion, freedom of opinion and freedom to wear what you like to wear. These are fairly fundamental rights, so one cannot pass a law infringing them without VERY good reasons. And what I heard of comments by dry uninvolved jurists without any multicultural fish to fry they think it is impossible to get a ban through.

Another obvious point that seems to be missed: If one bans the burka or covering swimwear those women will not switch to mini-skirts or bikinis. They are efficiently banned from public appearance or public swimming. We might find it bad that families/traditions force women to wear those coverings. But should we not prefer that they be able to get out in a burka than to be completely confined to the house?

Those bans serve no sensible purposes whatsoever. It is only to appeal to anti-islamist sentiments.

Otherwise, I think the cartoon is very apt.

Just to add, I believe that there are around 300 women who wear a burqa in France. It's very rarely seen anywhere apart from Afghanistan as far as I know.

[Jo498]

Thanks; Germany has more people than France but fewer muslims (and most German muslims are Turks who never wear burkas), so I am pretty sure that it's less than 300 here.

What actually bugs me most is the incredible smugness and ahistorical parochiality of many so-called conservatives. Just look a picture from a British or German beach in 1900! If victorian conservatives had prevailed, nobody would wear a bikini today. But nowadays conservatives seem to be bothered more by the fact that some cultures would prefer "modest" clothing (especially but not only for women) then by teenagers walking around cities like on the beach (or rather like hookers) I do not think such things should be enforced by laws.

Do we think the appeal of western culture and customs so low that we are afraid it will be destroyed by burkinis or headscarfs? If one really believed that certainly more drastic measures were called for than banning burkinis...

(BTW you will get kicked out or at least frowned upon if as a tourist you enter a church in southern Europe with a revealing top or hot pants - should we put pressure on them as well? Or could we expect tourists in Rome do as the Romans do?)

My German Lutheran (but of course the religion has nothing to do with it in this case). grandmothers (born in 1908 and 1911) were frequently/usually wearing headscarfs and not only for dirty work. Until the mid 20th century most adults would wear some headgear in public and be considered not completely dressed (although not offensively indecent) without but this vanished rapidly for some reasons. If I remember correctly in the first James Bond movie, Connery is wearing his hat ONLY for the scene when he throws it dexterously on the hatstand in Moneypenny's office. So it was already fading then, you will hardly see anyone in a 1940s movie bareheaded outside of a house

[zamyrabyrd]

BTW you will get kicked out or at least frowned upon if as a tourist you enter a church in southern Europe with a revealing top or hot pants - should we put pressure on them as well? Or could we expect tourists in Rome do as the Romans do?

Modesty in churches should be enforced. It's only respect.
As for covering up at the beach, some people have to do it for medical reasons. One can include nuns in traditional garb and Orthodox Jewish women. It's really stupid to ban the burkini. In fact, it shows how lame the  overall policy is, to admit potentially hostile elements and then get into a snit about what they are wearing.

[Sergeant Rock]

Same story here:



France, 1966: "Put some clothes on, Ma'am. This is against the law !"

France, 2026: "Take these clothes off, Ma'am. This is against the law  ! "

Reminds me of a personal incident in 1972. I was rowing a boat on a lake in a park in the middle of Strasbourg on a intensely hot day (100°F/38°C). I took off my shirt to cool down. A policeman saw me and threatened to arrest me if I didn't put my shirt back on 

Sarge

[Ken B]

What a relief, then, that a "burkini" - thing that some French towns have tried to ban - doesn't cover the face.

The French have banned face coverings. So to a lesser has Quebec.
I do think these are very separate issues though. There are legitimate reasons for insisting faces be visible in many contexts, fewer for insisting navels be.

[Florestan]

you will get kicked out or at least frowned upon if as a tourist you enter a church in southern Europe with a revealing top or hot pants

Not at all, at least not in the Eastern Europe country of Romania: neither kicked out, nor frowned upon. In some churches and monasteries, but by no means in all of them, you will just be kindly asked (both by written notice on the entrance door and verbally by the usher, if there is any at all...) to wear a dress (provided on the spot, for men as well, I wore one of those a month ago) that covers your naked legs, women and men alike --- but if you purposefully or inadvertently manage to bypass it, nobody, and I mean nobody, will either kick you out or frown upon you. You know, the Greek Orthodox --- a misnomer if there ever was one --- Christianity is much less formal, prohibitive or puritan than any Christian denomination you Westerners --- this is not a pejorative term in my book, nota bene --- might be accustomed to.

EDIT: I have never been kicked out or frowned upon in Venice, Florence, Naples, Rome, Madrid, Seville, Barcelona, Toledo, Vienna, Budapest and tens of other cities where I entered churches and monasteries wearing short pants and t-shirts. But hey, you know what: Roman Catholicism is the closest one gets to Greek Orthodox in popular ethics and behavior...

[André]

Various types of hijab:



The face is not covered, and some women wear make up. The goal is to cover the hair, not the face. I read that the Coran requests that women cover their head (not their face) "in the house of Mahomet". How exactly this is put into practice varies from one muslim country to the other.

Read I Corinthians 11, 5-15. This is christian theology, from the Bible. When and where do you ever see that applied ? Maybe in southern Italy or Greece, where women customarily cover their head when entering church. In my opinion, the hijab is not much different (there is a hindu version  too, but I don't know how it is called. Indira Gandhi wore a shawl covering her head when speaking in public).

Now, the burka:

.

It covers everything, from head to ankles. The face is totally covered, even eyes are not visible. This is a "modern" version of the traditional tchadri. The latter allows the arms to be strethed out, and the hands are visible. Also, it does not go down as much on the legs. The "modern" burqa is a salafi invention from the 1990s.

And the niqab:



There is an opening for the eyes. The rest is pretty much the same as the burqa. What is worn in which countries is dependent on local traditions, and is not necessarily enforced.

Now, the burkini:



That's the woman on the left, not the other two  . I like that picture because it shows different swimgears in peaceful coexistence. What should be obvious is that it has very little to do with the burka, where the whole body (including face and arms) is trapped under a tent. Whoever coined the term burkini was not right. It should have been called the hijabini !

[Madiel]

Whoever coined the term burkini was not right. It should have been called the hijabini !

Agreed, but I suspect it just didn't have the right sound to it. "Burkini" is a trademark owned by the designer.

She also designed the "hijood", which is a hijab/hood blend for sports.

[Florestan]

Read I Corinthians 11, 5-15. This is christian theology, from the Bible.

With all due respect, not everything that's literally in the Bible is Christian theology --- at least not for the Greek Orthodox and Roman Catholic Churches.

Sola Scriptura is equally alien to both of them.

When and where do you ever see that applied ? Maybe in southern Italy or Greece, where women customarily cover their head when entering church.

In Romania very devout women customarily cover their head when entering the church. This is a general rule among older women while younger ones observe it only if they are truly devout or willing to go by the rules.

Now, whether the rule is applied or not depends not only on the women themselves but also on the priests. I have personally witnessed both priests who could not care less about women, old or young, wearing any head cover and priests who scolded women, old or young, for not wearing a head cover --- the latter being much less numerous than the former.

[André]

With all due respect, not everything that's literally in the Bible is Christian theology --- at least not for the Greek Orthodox and Roman Catholic Churches.

Sola Scriptura is equally alien to both of them.

In Romania very devout women customarily cover their head when entering the church. This is a general rule among older women while younger ones observe it only if they are truly devout or willing to go by the rules.

Now, whether the rule is applied or not depends not only on the women themselves but also on the priests. I have personally witnessed both priests who could not care less about women, old or young, wearing any head cover and priests who scolded women, old or young, for not wearing a head cover --- the latter being much less numerous than the former.

You are right. Strictly speaking it is not theology. But Paul (the Apostle) still looms very large on christian religious practice.

In his letters he was addressing problems and issues arising in local communities, each one isolated from the other (there was no internet back then). It is of interest in that it gives a very focused perspective on issues covering church or even household practices. As such, what I find illuminating is how diversely interpreted (when not downright ignored) such admonestations and instructions are in the Western world.

[Gurn Blanston]

You are right. Strictly speaking it is not theology. But Paul (the Apostle) still looms very large on christian religious practice.

In his letters he was addressing problems and issues arising in local communities, each one isolated from the other (there was no internet back then). It is of interest in that it gives a very focused perspective on issues covering church or even household practices. As such, what I find illuminating is how diversely interpreted (when not downright ignored) such admonitions and instructions are in the Western world.

Earlier you asked "where and when". At St. Anthony Roman Catholic Church in Burlington, VT, USA, in the period extending from at least 1955 to 1969, when I stopped going there, women were not allowed in church without their head covered. The 'Church Ladies' never went outdoors without some sort of scarf in their pocket which could be used for that purpose in the event they decided to stop in for a prayer. In any case, I never thought anything of it, most certainly that it was in any way demeaning, since it had been ingrained from earliest times. I never heard a woman complain about it. I was never told it was done because the bible said so.

May I infer from your post that this is no longer the case?  It seems like such a trivial thing to base a global jihad upon...

[André]

Indeed, that is no longer the case.

It was pretty much the same here as in Burlington when I was young, although my mother never wore anything on her head. It was more my grandmother's generation.

What's funny is that orthodox jewish men are required to wear a hat in the synagogue, whereas apostle Paul in the I Corinthians passage I quoted specifically bans them to wear anything on their head. Go figure....

These things are made up to show some kind of respect at church (or synagogue, temple, whatnot), and IMHO are purely tradition based. Just like the Constitution, some traditions never seem willing to die or change. Today's global village is made up of all kinds of such conventions that often contradict one another depending on your cultural stock.

As I mentioned regarding the burkini pic above, what I like is that it shows 3 women taking up their own individual solution to that particular issue of bathing in public. I like to think that it shows 3 different ways to empowerment, each according to their individualities.

BTW there is no such thing as "individuality". Everybody conforms more or less to broad (sometimes narrow) guidelines and conventions. That's why I absolutely agree with you: the whole issue is one of the silliest news topics of the decade.

[Holden]

To put a slightly different perspective on it, many clubs in Australia, such as the RSL and also some bowling clubs, require men and women to remove their headgear when they enter the indoor part of their premises. Their rule is totally inclusive which means you won't see any hijabs, shawls, baseball caps, yarmulke, turbans, etc. They are quite happy if you don't use their premises because you object to their rules.  I'm happy to comply, especially if I'm thirsty and know a cold beer will be welcome.