Nice Officials Say They'll Sue Internet Users Who Share Photos Of French Fashion Police Fining Women In Burkinis
from the liberte! dept
Over the last few weeks there's been plenty of controversy over plans on the Côte d’Azur in the south of France to ban burkinis -- a kind of full body bathing suit favored by some Muslim women. As the Guardian pointed out recently, the whole thing seems like a "bizarre inversion" of Muslim countries where making sure women are covered is enforced:The burkini row may seem banal, and to some a surreal inversion of laws in Islamic countries, but it has become yet another flame in the murderous tinderbox of Islamism in France, invoking issues of control over the body, religious freedom, racism, provocation, terrorism, Islam and Islamophobia, republicanism and what the French call laïcité. Lïïcité is the hardest for people outside France to understand: our words “laity” and “secularism” fail to express the depth of allergy to all things theocratic, which is endemic to French societal fabric since the revolution.Others are pointing out the absurdities when compared to what's allowed. I've seen several versions of this, but this one is my favorite:
Just to be clear everyone, only ONE of these is illegal to wear on the beach in France, #BurkiniBan pic.twitter.com/74HQhbZYPV
— Ally (@_AllysonMarie_) August 24, 2016
Just let this sink in. Men with guns forcing a women to undress, with the weight of the law behind them. pic.twitter.com/4BI16Bbss9
— Abdul-Azim আজিম (@AbdulAzim) August 23, 2016
Christian Estrosi ... has published a press release by the city of Nice, to announce that he would file a complaint against those who would broadcast pictures of municipal police verbalize women guilty of exercising what they believed to be their freedom to dress from head to feet on the beaches.Wait. Showing accurate photos creates defamation against the police? How's that work? Estrosi apparently says that legal actions have already been filed, though Numerama was unable to confirm any legal actions as yet. The article also notes that despite Estrosi implying otherwise, police do not have any sort of special protections that say they cannot be photographed while in public.
" Photos showing municipal police of Nice in the exercise of their functions have been circulating this morning on social networks and raise defamation and threats against these agents ," the statement said.
Either way, it's not clear what this kind of move will accomplish other than making France appear intolerant and petty towards all sorts of freedoms, including religious freedoms and freedom of speech.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: burkinis, christian estrosi, cote d'azur, france, free speech, nice, social media
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Spain mk. II
The funny thing is that by reacting in such a fashion they're admitting that they don't think the law is just, or able to withstand public scrutiny. If they really believed the law was defensible then they would have absolutely no problem whatsoever with one or one million photos or videos of it being enforced posted and shared online. That they instead want to try and hide it's application, reduce it to just dry legal words on a screen rather than a picture of it in action indicates that they don't think it to be defensible.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Well why do they still allow bikinis?
Doesn't that offend Muslims?
Oh wait, you mean the Muslims aren't demanding everyone do everything their way?
This is stupid jingoism, and while it was the Daily Mail one can sort of believe that as the police were harassing the women that others in the area joined in on making them feel unwelcome.
This is yet another group of politicians doing stupid shit to get headlines & build support at the expense of others. Because making people feel like outsiders always helps them feel welcome and doesn't help push some of those people to look for support online...
Perhaps its time to look at doing things that don't get huge headlines but actually benefit all citizens.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
If the problem is bad enough, lets knock the fucking nations government over and force them to do it correctly, otherwise leave them and their fucking country along.
Every nation gets the Government it deserves.
It has never been and will never be a world community. That is just delusional tripe designed to trip up people unprepared to retort that cognitively bankrupt logic.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
You oblivious entitled little prick.
P.S. This, right here? -->
>lets knock the fucking nations government over
>and force them to do it correctly
This is how a whole lot of these refugee crises got started in the first place.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
What is the difference between destroying an out of control government and destroying a civilized society to help others?
We are watching the fall of the EU due to these ignorant and self destructive refugee policies. We are watching and you still have your worthless head in the sand.
The idea that we have no right to harm a destructive government yet have some moral obligation to help those that have destroyed their own country is foolishness.
They made their beds, let them sleep in them!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
They usually own it to themselves. It's not like you can just dig a hole, throw all those refugees in, mow them down with machine guns and then put the soil back again.
Well, strictly speaking you can. And it has happened a few times in history. But it tends not to be covered by national or international law and looks bad when someone digs them up again.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
What made America great was the idea of "give me liberty or give me death" and "ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country."
Today everyone thinks they are owed something for nothing and they ask "what can my country do for me?" None of them intend to do anything for their country.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Oh yeah - have you ever asked a vet what they have done for you lately? I didn't think so.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Their parents should have taught them better than to kill and die for an illusion.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
No. What made America great was the idea of “Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free.”
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"Every nation gets the government it deserves"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Agreed, and the millions of Palestinian refugees (card-carrying and otherwise) need to go back to where they came from.
Because the European Union forces it's member states to accept non-native people into the country, the only thing that a nation like France can do is to make it as inhospital and unwelcome as possible, in the hope that these people will move elsewhere.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Compared to the hell they came from? France will have a hard time trying that route. Last I heard they now have to start teaching their children its not safe to even be in their own country any more.
I just cannot understand how people are okay with sacrificing their own children's future just to look good helping someone else. It's almost like some sick and twisted keeping up with the Jones parody, except people are being raped and murdered!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Then why does the US have such a great track record of creating worse dictators than those they deposed?
Oh thats right because they keep insisting the US way is the best way and well we have Trump running for president, perhaps we are a shitty example?
How many of these refugees are the fault of these nations meddling in the affairs of others to impose their values on them?
You are right we should let the refugees die, and not care a single bit for anyone who isn't just like us. We can sit back on our smug superiority of having destablized countries on the whims of corporations who make more money when there are wars.
We can't fix what we broke, but we shouldn't allow innocents to suffer for our hubris.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
I mean, tons of countries help each other through crises even though they don't "owe" them anything. Maybe I'm being ignorant but I like to believe that there are people out there that want to help others independent of obligation.
Living only for yourself will never bring around a world community, and you are basically making a self fulfilling prophesy that way.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
10:1 says this individual self-identifies as Christian.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
But in fairness their behavior can be difficult to distinguish from that of smug self-righteous Christians.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Refugees
Hospitality and fair treatment of refugees is not a duty that one nation owes to another nation, it's a duty that each of us, as individuals who benefit from national laws and identity, owe to all other individuals, considering that but for the grace of God (or your luck and fortune) you could also be outlawed by your own state and pushed out of its borders... or just executed and cremated in a mass oven.
Of course, thanks to George W. Bush's administration the Geneva Convention doesn't mean as much as it once did, and we will have to relearn why we created and ratified it in the first place.
So you can choose to vote against allowing refugees into your borders. You can choose to deny others sanctuary when their own have turned against them and the trains are getting packed and the ovens are on day and night.
But when fortune turns around, and it happens to you, or your grandchildren or your descendants down the line, when they become the persecuted, when the death camps are cooking once again, you had best hope that the people controlling those borders are kinder, more empathetic or more honorable than you are.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Refugees
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Refugees
The problem with today's refugee situation is twofold;
1. We're not talking about a few thousand people, it's millions and the numbers only seem to be increasing. Providing them with free housing, free food, and free medical care is straining already struggling government finances. And why should newcomers be given all these things free when the native population has to pay for them? Even when they are given all these things, a great many of them complain that it's not to their liking. Have you seen all the videos of migrants/refugees throwing away food because it doesn't meet their standards? Screaming that they want welfare money? Smashing bottles of water handed to them by the authorities for no apparent reason other than they took offense to something? How about the personal accounts of doctors and nurses from hospitals in France and Germany of migrants/refugees demanding free drugs, abandoning their kids for the staff to care for and threatening said staff for not doing everything they ask? I suppose those are all propaganda videos created for the express purpose of maligning the poor, innocent refugees?
2. Most of the refugees don't assimilate. They bring their backwards culture with them and expect that they can set up their own little Islamic state within whatever country they're in. And yes, it is backwards. A man in the UK beat and raped a woman. He was saved from deportation when his Muslim lawyer successfully argued that he didn't know that beating and raping a woman was unacceptable behavior and that no "permanent damage" was done to her. He went on to beat and rape two other woman. A refugee in France(?) stabbed a mother and her daughters for not being dressed modestly enough. A Muslim in Germany attacked people on a train with an axe after writing that he was going to kill unbelievers. Or how about the Muslim who plowed through the crowd in France with a truck? Or the Muslim attacks in Canada? Or the Muslim patrols in the UK and other countries? Or the school in Germany that warned parents not to let their daughters wear short skirts because it might tempt the poor innocent refugees into raping them?
Muslim refugees should assimilate into whatever culture they've chosen to live in, but more and more it seems like other cultures have to assimilate into Islamic values. Don't insult Mohammad, don't insult the Koran, make exceptions when a Muslim store check doesn't want to wait on people buying pork and alcohol, give the Muslims extra breaks so that they can go pray, don't complain when the local mosque loudspeaker starts broadcasting chanting early in the morning and just equate it to the relatively neutral sound of church bells on Sunday and don't be suspicious of the woman wearing a burka even though it would be absolutely perfect for hiding a suicide vest and being Muslim she does come from the religion that has produced more terrorists than any other group. Remember that all Muslims are peace-loving innocents*.
*Except for the ones who kill others for insulting their religion, blow themselves up in the name of Allah, crash planes into buildings, mow down people with a truck, stab women for not covering up more, attack people on trains, shoot up gay nightclubs...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
We don't expect nuns in full habit to be carrying bombs either
We've had to deal with millions before. Germany's pursuit of a Jew free Europe as per the Wannsee Conference ratified a massacre of 21 million Jews across German-occupied territories. Is it expensive? Possibly. The costly support of Jews even in ghettos or being forced to work was the excuse used to turn from a policy of sterilization and exile to evacuation (because even the officers at Wannsee couldn't stomach saying annihilation or massacre.) Interestingly Nazi Germany was willing to prioritize its war machine (and then waste it on the same attempt at a Russian invasion that also ended Napoleon's campaign).
The US war machine is so huge that it dwarfs the Wehrmacht by orders of magnitude, and only a small fraction of the US budget would not only provide survival and dignity for all the Syrians that reach our shores, but also we could also end the hunger of the 20% of US children that face it. So I call bullshit when we have the finances to develop laser planes and active-camo tanks (yet, notably, aren't providing adequate armor to protect against IED concussion). We've run the numbers regarding food and distribution for large regions such as Africa or South America, and while it is expensive to get food to so many mouths across so much territory, the US military industrial complex is simply that much hungrier.
As for your videos of people tossing away food, I don't know. I haven't seen them. But a couple of incidents does not a trend make when we're talking millions of people. (And to be fair, there have been problems with food incompatibilities before. Maize shipments to Ireland during the Great Famine proved less than relieving to a people who didn't have the means or knowledge to process cornmeal.) So if you can present statistics to back such incidents and indicate how common they are, that will speak far better than one or two videos even if true. But so far we've seen our media use footage not even from this century to malign the Syrians, so I know first hand that false propaganda is being made to dissuade providing them relief and sanctuary.
2. Most of the refugees don't assimilate. They bring their backwards culture with them and expect that they can set up their own little Islamic state within whatever country they're in.
Again I call bullshit, but am open to statistics. Every new wave of immigrants brings their culture, backwards or otherwise, with them. And often it takes a couple of generations before integration is complete. They will bring their weird ways, and our own descendants will adopt many of them to create their own polyglot culture that is neither ours nor theirs. Remember that the Irish and the Italians were dirty and despised, too, when they washed up on US shores, and the crime waves that followed with them them (thanks to a big boost from Prohibition) makes our black and Latin communities look downright mild.
In fact, first generation refugees (of all kinds) are notorious for having lower than average incidents of crime or problems. They're generally so happy to have peace and a place that they are content to lay low and work hard and make the locals look bad.
So no. I don't buy it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
nah we only do that when corporations have money on the line.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: the idea that one nation owes it to another nations people or the world to take on refugees.
Think of them as treasure that Assad is simply throwing away. They can make a major economic contribution to any country that takes them in. Why would you say no to such a free gift?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Yep, those people born in East Germany deserved it. The people in Somalia are getting exactly what they deserve. And obviously the people fleeing the civil war in Syria are getting what they deserve because... um, well, because. When the Rwandan government didn't or couldn't stop the genocide there? Yep - they deserved it!
It's nice to sit back and reassure ourselves that there really are no injustices in the world, because then we have no obligation to do anything about it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Wrong every nation get the government that manages to lie and/or force its way into power. Even when the people revolt, the leaders of those revolts are mainly driven be self interest and spin the politics like crazy to get people to follow them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Sharia law
Sharia is extreme enough that I can only believe most Muslims want to escape it, much as most people in camps of the Islamic State want nothing more but to flee them unscathed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Halacha law
And don't even think about Halacha law - did you know they both forbid eating pork?!!! That's practically satanic.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Sharia law
There was a video I watched a while ago, (which I've forgotten the title of, if anyone has a link, please post it) that showed a Muslim cleric talking to a room full of maybe 200-300 men. He asked them if they believed that the punishments listed in the Koran, such as stoning for adultery and chopping off a thief's hand were the best punishments since they came from Allah, and every single man raised his hand. I believe he also asked them (although I won't swear to it) if they thought that these punishments should be above the laws of other countries and I believe all the men raised their hands.
There's also a video where Muslim men in America were asked if they'd rather live under American law or Sharia law and all of them said they'd prefer Sharia law.
Saudi Arabia practices Sharia law and I don't recall there being any mass exodus from that country.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Sharia law in Saudi Arabia
Moving from what you know to what you don't is considerable process even when you have enough support for it to be low risk. And in Saudi Arabia, low risk it is not.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Sharia law in Saudi Arabia
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0pruYnr06k8
The whole thing is worth watching, but the part I mentioned starts at 7:32.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Sharia law
It is at its heart those with power using religion to justify their control over others lives, and explain why they should hate those who are different. Keep them angry at those who aren't faithful so they don't question why those in charge violate the laws as they wish.
'Christian Conservatives' always yell loudly about Sharia Law, because they are afraid someone might do it before they can. Passing laws based on 1 groups religious views with harsh punishments for breaking them. In states that literally have vital infrastructure failing, they spent millions fighting to make sure those damn homos can't get married. Seems like a bad use of limited resources, gays getting married seems like it should be less worrying than if the bridge is going to fail killing people. But the masses cheer for fighting against the homos because their leaders (political and religious) told them thats what they should do. Pay no attention to the potholes, we've gotta stop the homos from stealing the american dream from you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Sharia law
You have to respect others' religion.
You respect Christianity?
Yes.
Judaism?
Yes.
Islam?
No.
http://www.cc.com/video-clips/y6mxf5/the-daily-show-with-trevo r-noah-putting-donald-trump-supporters-through-an-ideology-test
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Sharia law
Please stop with the lies. Secularists are the brutal ones. They cannot tolerate dissent. Just look at your attitude here at TD. You will jump on any Christian you find. I would hate to see how you treat them in person. If the government came around to round them up, you and most other liberals would cheer. You have hate and malice in your hearts. There is no tolerance as you like to "preach". You even kill your unborn and many of them would be liberals like yourself, or gay, or Jewish, or Muslim, or anything else.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
It only means 'Islamic law' if the main reference is Islam, much as the same way 'town' or 'city' (as in 'I'm going in to town/the city') does - what you call the city may not be the same as what it means to me.
Sharia law is alive and well in the US, for instance, championed by the likes of [former] Chief Justice Roy Moore of Alabama, or Mike Huckabee, or Mike Pence.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Conservative Christian Law as interpreted by the Religious Right in the US
Really, it's come to using one ideology or another (religious or otherwise) to give legal preference to some people over others.
And in the United States of America as I was taught to believe we operated, that's complete bullshit.
(I grew up into disappointment, yet we still teach the ideals of social equality to our children, and to them we continue to pretend that's the way things are now.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I do think that there should be a fight to stop supression of women, but forcing them to strip in public (and possibly getting consequenses at home if they truly are forced) is a really idiotic and tone deaf way of doing it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
I can hear the 'extremist' recruiters speeches now:
"They make our women undress in public!"
Crowd cheers
"They disrespect our religious figure!"
Crowd cheers
"In schools they teach our children lies about our faith!"
Crowd cheers
"Everywhere go we are watched and accused of doing bad things"
Crowd cheers
"Let's show those son's of bitches what it's like to be treated this way!
Crowd cheers, grabs pitchforks and torches.....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
s/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
On the other hand if you're going to move and leave your Muslim country for another different type of country, maybe you should try adapting to that culture some. I said SOME!!!
Here in the U.S. we used to have emigrants from all over come here and want to adapt and become a American and learn English, etc. These days, we have many that come here and stay Mexican, Wave the Mexican flag in America which makes zero sense. Won't learn English. We go along with this with putting documents in every language. Hell N.Y. just changed their Taxi driver rules where you don't even need to know basic English anymore.
You want to move into other countries, you have to assimilate some at least. There has also been a lot of cases of MEN dressing up in them burka's and doing crime, hiding their identity because you can't see a persons face.
This beach thing, maybe taking things a little far. On the other hand, quite easy to hide a big old bomb under one!!!
There's no easy answers.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Integration On Track
Kinda like the italians wave the italian flag and the irish wave the irish flag?
Hispanic immigrants are integrating at exactly the same rate as other groups have for the last two centuries. The 3rd generation won't understand spanish any more than you do.
http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Society/2013/0707/Immigration-Assimilation-and-the-measure-of-an-Ame rican
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Because it's still nice to go to the beach maybe?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
I see what you did there. ;-)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Just something you need to be aware of..
The burkini was INVENTED AND DESIGNED IN AUSTRALIA!!!
It was developed by our Surf Life Saving foundation so that women who identified as Muslim could become fully qualified lifesavers and actually perform a volunteer function that saves lives.
The burkini is what is called compromise and is a form of integration of ALL cultures which is what the whole planet should be about anyway
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
There is no official language in the US, so you have no more right to have documents in English than they do to have them in Spanish. And thankfully the 1st Amendment protects their right to wave wave whatever flag they want and speak whatever language they want. I don't understand why anyone who really believes in American ideals would have a problem with others doing as they choose as long as they're not hurting anyone.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Wait, I've got it!
It's the same reason they force anyone without sunblock to apply it or leave, and escort those that have been in the sun for too long indoors or back to their cars, for public safety!
Whew, and here I was thinking this was some absurd overreaction to a piece of clothing, when it was in the best interest of those wearing said clothing all along.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
If so would you mind outlining it to me? I hear some people argue that it isnt the burkini that is banned, but any explicit religious symbols, so e.g. a nun wouldnt be allowed on the beach either in her outfit.
Or is the ban specifically targeting the burkini only?
I also didnt know there was an expiration on the ban, thanks for that info
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Jokes aside, don't cops in France have better things to do with their time? What a bunch of idiots.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
1. beaches would be a LOT less crowded...
2. skin cancer rates would drop precipitously for most, and rise among a few...
3. there would be three cohorts left : beautiful people, people who dont give a fuck, and voyeurs...
not too serious about that, but i am serious about making ALL bathrooms be unisex to simply avoid all the useless handwringing about somebody unauthorized might see my precious, precious gonads...
oddly e ough, ALL home bathrooms are unisex, and almost no one has ever been raped and stuff cause they tapped their foot wrong in the next stall...
geez, we dont have enough REAL problems on thisy here ball-o-mud we gotta make stupid shit up ?
(gosh, i wonder if that is what our puppetmasters want us to do: obsess over stupid shit while they get a free pass on their eeevil machinations???)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Also - do we have a working phone number for Christian Esrosi? I want to call him and mock him.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Feel proud
Was your paycheck worth it? Yeah, thought so. Bought and payed for.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Statement of the week.
This piece of news should be eligible for some outrageous award.
There must be (or should be) an austentatious prize for which to nominate this newsline.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"France, a country that claims to pride itself on freedom"
In the 20th century, the Nazis came in and rearranged all that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: "France, a country that claims to pride itself on freedom"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: "France, a country that claims to pride itself on freedom"
*Offer not valid for people who have darker skin, lack of wealth and those located within reach of the government over-watchers or 100 miles of a border/airport.
We are currently at war with the concept of fear and with consumers of drugs.... at least when it comes to allowing rights to be subsumed. If the people arrested in these "wars" were actually treated like prisoners of war, they would get much better treatment.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: "France, a country that claims to pride itself on freedom"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Verbalisent
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
background information on France and Muslims.
In France many Muslims have started to move into the country. In some communities it is purely Muslim faith people.
I don't know what ratio but, some non-Muslim French people are scared that the Muslims will vote in a block and essentially overrun the rest of the country because they are soon to become the majority of the population.
The sharp rise of the Muslim people in France is a combo of immigration and also higher birth rates than non-Muslim French citizens.
Not trying to justify anything, just letting people know.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: background information on France and Muslims.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Laïcité
Actually, it's a concept most French people also fail to understand.
What it actually means is basically that the government must stay away from religious matters: no state religion, no government subsidies to any religion (save from a regional exception), no discrimination against a reliving, etc. Basically the equivalent of a first amendment limited to religion.
What people understand too often is that the government should eliminate "visible" signs of (mostly Islamic) religious choices. So Muslims shouldn't wear burka or niqab... Or those burkinis mentioned in the article. Since everyone has equal rights, but some are more equal than others, it's obvious that signs of catholic religion are tolerated.
So yes, I can easily believe that foreigners have a hard time understand the concept.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Laïcité
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Laïcité
Not quite understanding what you're saying here. Is this meant as a 'this is what people here think it means' example, because it seems to be contrary to the idea of the government staying away from religious matters.
If the government's supposed to stay away then it seems that would include not telling people what they can and cannot wear for religious reasons, unless the prohibition was based on non-religious reasoning such as public safety or something like that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Laïcité
That's what too many people misunderstand about this concept, and yes it runs directly counter to what it really means
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Police Brutality in the US
But that is a different issue than a post 9-11 cultural fear of Muslims and angry Arabs. The police are financially motivated to find and seize loose cash and valuables, and will do so regardless of who holds them.
To be fair, I have no idea if law enforcement in other nations hold the same privileged caste that they do here, if they can confiscate, incarcerate or even murder with impunity like they can in the states.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Here's a photo for you, French cops -- go for it!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Burkini Faso
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Yuck
The French have gone insane with fear.
These actions are a complete disgrace.
Perhaps the French should take their fear induced insanity to the next level?
They could model a new law based on a scene from the Woody Allen movie Bananas where the new president decrees all citizens underwear must be changed every half hour and that to make things easier for the "authorities" to check everyone must wear their underwear atop their other clothes.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EV4N2dk0cMk
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Nice Officials Say They'll Sue Internet Users Who Share Photos Of French Fashion Police Fining Women In Burkinis
(Sorry, couldn't help myself.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Nuns?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Nuns?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
burkinis -- a kind of full body bathing suit worn by some Muslim women to prevent being harassed/ostracised by grumpy old men (of their families) who don't understand the Koran properly.
FTFY.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"Ridiculous"?
And by "ridiculous" you meant "French," right?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
VOTE DEM!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Tweet removed
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
FRANCE VS HUMAN RIGHTS
.
France is on edge... the basis of which, we're all aware!... but, nevertheless, France must respect both Human Rights and Digital Human Rights, or it will create more enemies than the ones it is presently preoccupied with!
.
Please!... no emails!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Also, wetsuits are worn for specific purposes, such as keeping the person warm and making them more buoyant. And as long as they're wearing something underneath the wetsuit such as trunks for men or a traditional swimsuit for women, most people don't have any problem removing it in public, or at least stripping off the top half to make themselves more comfortable. It's not worn for modesty purposes.
Personally, I think the reason that this is such a big deal is because it's a symbol of Islam, the religion that has a long history of repressing women and punishing women for not acting modestly enough. Not to mention its association with terrorism. Christian religions may have once been as dangerous as Islam, but now they're seem as pretty much harmless. Islam on the other hand is still pretty dangerous. And if you want to dispute that, try going to an Islamic country and declaring that you're gay and see what happens.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Burqinis et. al.
But disallowing women to wear burqas or hijab or any other part of attire mandated by religion is the equivalent of disallowing a kippah. It is a violation of freedom of religion.
To be fair I don't know if freedom of religion is as valued in France as it is in the US. I had always thought that France was Catholic and that regulation of other religious practices was acknowledged and accepted.
Regardless, in an egalitarian state, any regulation of religious practice has to apply to all religions, not just a specific subset.
Incidentally, wetsuits are often worn without a beach-ready swimsuit on underneath, rather have their own undergarment layers, if not a layer of grease.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Burqinis et. al.
I just meant that they're part of the church and not just average followers of it.
I wonder what the reaction would be if the christian religions suddenly decided that all christian women must wear a nun's habit in public.
I'd be in favor of banning all religion.
I've never worn one, I just know that I've seen guys strip off the top half and let it hang down. I could swear I've seen women do the same, but maybe they put on a bikini top after they opened the wetsuit.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Burqinis et. al.
Except that supposition doesn't reflect the current situation. Not all Muslims are suddenly deciding that all Muslim women must wear the hijab. Yes, it's mandated in some Islamic states, and France may have some families in which the women are pressured to wear Hijab, but to be sure a man in France who attacked improperly adorned women would be regarded as a criminal and a madman, and not tolerated.
I'd be in favor of banning all religion.
The problem there is that it's difficult to tell what counts as religion, what counts as ideology, and what counts as non-ideological information (e.g. the Theory of Evolution). We human beings suck at being able to separate out what is a fact (an observed event in nature) from what is an opinion, let alone notions like the value ratio between capital and labor.
And as western culture is, religions would just pretend to be non-religions in order to be legally disseminated.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Wetsuits
As for women, it really depends on their modesty or whether or not people around them would be offended by nudity. After an industrial dive, everyone is exhausted and no one has the energy to ogle anyone else, or be offended by nudity, so they'll strip down. But I can see someone donning a top if post-dive footage is needed for a show or something.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Burqinis et. al.
At last you've found an exact parallel to what Nice officials are doing here: Mandating what women wear in public.
What better way to show how highly you value individual liberty than to ban people from exercising it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Burqinis et. al.
Right. So does this freedom of religion entail the right to discriminate others based on their religion, gender, sexual orientiation?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Freedom to discriminate against others.
Which is to say I completely disagree with SCOTUS' Hobby Lobby ruling.
I've never seen a Hobby Lobby, so I've never had the opportunity to not shop there and pay more at a competitor's for a hobbyist item to avoid shopping there.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Freedom to discriminate against others.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Which religious belief is more important: person or country
And as a more specific example:
When Muslim women go to other countries, their religious belief tells them to wear full-body swimsuits on the beach, even if the country's culture is to wear swimsuits with far less coverage.
Yet if I go to a Muslim country, my religion says I can wear a bikini on the beach, yet the country's culture won't allow it.
I know this will get a lot of downvotes, but I think Muslim women need to be more careful. Yes, in theory, they should have the right to wear whatever they like, but there's a HUGE amount of Islamophobia (just look at some of the comments to this post, especially about how a guy could dress in a burqa to hide a bomb).
Why would women wear something that clearly marks them as "different"? Sure, they're following their religious beliefs, but again, it's a different country with a different culture.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Which religious belief is more important: person or country
Yes it's Islamophobia because something like that would NEVER happen...
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/world/man-disguised-woman-wearing-burqa-kills-14-chad-attac k-article-1.2288989
http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/pakistan-male-suicide-bomber-wearing-burqa-kills-10-shia -mosque-1525296
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/burqa-clad-suicide-bomber-kills-45-in-pa kistan-2169050.html
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Islamophobia
From this, I take that you are saying it's not Islamaphobia (id est, acceptable) to assume that a Muslim might dress as a woman and hide a bomb in his burqa because you can link to incidents in which terrorists did such a thing, yes?
By the same logic can we assume that the people of the United States endorse massacring brown people considering how little anyone complains of the CIA drone strike programs (yet we do complain when someone shoots up a school of white children and kills twenty of them). That's legit, right?
How about that conservative Americans and members of the Religious Right endorse the CIA Extrajudicial Detention and Interrogation program (id est, the state kidnapping and torturing people without due process), since so many of those outspokenly endorsed the torture program during the Bush years. That works too, right?
I take we can assume by the article above that all French hate Muslims to the point they cannot stand seeing someone dressed in Islamic fashion.? Fucking bigots.
Or maybe, just maybe, terrorists will terrorist, and it really doesn't matter what their religion is, considering western history is deluged in the blood of true Christians and Christian heretics.
Once you decide that a certain logic is valid to condemn one group, you must apply it to all groups to which the paradigm fits.
Unless you want to specially plead for one of them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Islamophobia
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Islamophobia
Well if it isn't acceptable to think such things, how are you supposed to know if the person wearing a burqa is just a devout Muslim woman or a suicide bomber? It obviously does happen as evidenced by the news articles. If suicide bombers were easy to spot they wouldn't be nearly as effective at killing people. The whole point is to go unnoticed so that they can get in the best position to detonate their bombs. If people are used to seeing women wearing burqas all the time, what better way to hide the fact that they are a bomber?
I'm sure that if you were to ask most bombing victims, they would say that they didn't think anything of the nice Muslim who walked into the shop/market/wherever and were taken completely by surprise when the place exploded.
Do you just close your eyes and hope that you don't happen to run into any fanatics?
Christians did some terrible things in the past and some still commit terrible crimes today, however...
Can you name a single Christian group that has committed organized acts of terrorism in multiple countries such as Spain, France, the U.S., etc? When was the last time that a school shooter said he was doing it because the bible commanded him to?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Islamophobia
How are you supposed to know if a bag someone is carrying contains a their belongings or a bomb?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Islamophobia
I didn't say it wasn't acceptable, but that the same logic applied universally leads to conclusions we find distasteful, e.g. that the Republican party is the pro-torture party (which they pretty much still are). If you don't want to come to those conclusions as well, you'll have to refine your model.
It's easy to oversimplify things, especially when we're trying to analyze violent events in order to understand and prevent them. We just have a lot of people with a lot of legitimate disagreements, and with our numbers we're going to have a lot of belligerence and a few crazies mad enough to pop off.
Can you name a single Christian group that has committed organized acts of terrorism in multiple countries such as Spain, France, the U.S., etc?
You mean like the Óglaigh na hÉireann (more commonly, the Provisional Irish Republican Army)? Are they too far in the past? They're not gone, just inactive.
Christian terrorism takes place largely in India, Lebanon and Uganda. We just don't see so much of it on the news here in the states because that's brown-people news, and who cares about that?
When was the last time that a school shooter said he was doing it because the bible commanded him to?
Christian terrorists in the US like to go after abortion clinics. Robert L. Dear and Scott Roeder are two recent examples. Both were convinced Jesus was with them when they went active. Both of them were openly celebrated by Operation Rescue. And they continue to this day to seek out recruits willing to go that extra mile.
Robert Doggart, an anti-Islam terrorist in the US was discovered by the FBI as amassing munitions consistent with other rampage attackers in the US with intent to attack Muslim institutions. He still believes Jesus wants him to kill Muslims. He remains at large.
And we haven't yet gotten into Pirates and Emperors material in which terrorism is condoned because it is conducted (often on large scale) by entities that are considered legitimate. The CIA drone-strike campaigns which do little but massacre civilians in Afghanistan and Pakistan is, by any reasonable definition, terrorism. And a massacre. What do we call terrorism when it is authorized by the White House? The president could, with a single signature, save more lives than all the deaths by firearms in the US.
Interestingly, the drone strikes are a total non-issue in our election campaign. It's not acknowledged at all. We in the US are amazingly comfortable with terrorism when it's happening to inconsequential people in nations we don't like much.
Generally, from what I've experienced and understood of militants, they often have legitimate grievances which are not directly religious in nature (the sides may be cut by faith but that's about it) or they just like to watch the world burn. Either way, religion assuages some guilt and presents some means to dehumanize the enemy. And then we even have an atheist ideologist that convinced himself it was acceptable to shoot up some innocents. It always takes something more than faith to compel one to kill.
But most Muslims -- even those who are outraged by acts of western imperialism -- are determined to be peaceful, even pacifist. And yes, this is despite that some of their own scripture, taken literally, could be interpreted to call them to arms. (So it is for Jews and Christians.)
I'm sure that if you were to ask most bombing victims, they would say that they didn't think anything of the nice Muslim who walked into the shop/market/wherever and were taken completely by surprise when the place exploded.
I'm sure that San Francisco pedestrians consistently give drivers the benefit of the doubt, sometimes even after they've been hit and permanently disabled. Just because a few drivers are careless or distracted doesn't mean we should judge the vast majority by them, and SF pedestrians have a statistically greater cause to be paranoid.
The cure for terrorism, really, is to ignore the the causes and organizations. Detect and prosecute the offenders. Comfort the bereaved. Respect the fallen. But don't give time of day to the alleged causes that motivate them. Sadly, the fear and anger from terrorism turns news of it into click bait, and is used by our leaders to convince us to consolidate power. Terrorism is the perfect device by which to reverse centuries of progress away from totalitarian dictatorship.
Though maybe some people like being ruled by a despotic king.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Islamophobia
In addition to all the groups others have cited...
The Lord's Resistance Army
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Which religious belief is more important: person or country
I guess you answered your question.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The difference between (say) the US and Saudi Arabia is that here in the US we try to respect the rights of the individual, where in Saudi Arabia, the rights of the individual are disregarded.
And that's the thing, it should be up to the woman. If a woman wants to wear a full-body swimsuit (burqini or otherwise) it should be her right to wear one, even if the local custom is to swim in a (limbless) one-piece, or a French-cut or nude. She should have the right in all cases to make her own decisions, and we condemn any nation that tries to impose limits on her, whether that is Saudi Arabia who wants all women completely concealed (including the face) or France, who disfavors Muslim-indicative attire.
Fuck those nations for their contempt of their own people.
Now, yes, some women in France (or here in the US) are forced by their husbands to do things they don't want. We here in the US have a considerable domestic abuse problem in and out of Islam. We want those women (and male victims) to be informed that they can escape that abuse if they want, and will be safe and supported once they do.
But the beach of Nice is not the battleground for that. Especially since some women want to wear the burqini.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This whole affair was stupid from the git-go.
By the way, very broadly speaking, I'd say that the main difference between the French conception of laïcité and the American conception of separation of church and state is that the French discourage overt religiosity in any aspect of public life, whereas Americans only ban direct government support for or interference with the practice of religion -- and that, only in theory and when forced to by Supreme Court decisions. In France, you can practice your religion in private but, as with a penis, you can't pull it out, wave it around in public, and shove it down other people's throats. In the US, you can get your church subsidized by taxpayer dollars* (to the tune of ten of billions a year in the aggregate), you can starve, sleep-deprive, and brainwash potential converts and make them slaves to your cult, and you can even deny your children life-saving medical treatment so long as you make the case that your sincerely held religious beliefs require it. I'm much more sympathetic to the French approach, but attentive to hypocrisy and double standards on both sides.
*I'm aware of the special régime in Alsace-Moselle, which was part of Germany when France enacted the 1905 law on separation of church and state. After World War I, Alsace-Moselle threatened to petition the League of Nations to remain with Germany if France did not allow them to keep their their existing arrangements. France relented, so religion in Alsace-Moselle is still effectively governed by Napoleon's 1801 Concordat with the Vatican. As a result, four different top-level French national politicians are the formal heads of the Catholic, Calvinist, Lutheran, and Jewish faiths in Alsace-Moselle; the government foots the bill for clerical salaries and places of worship; and religion is a required subject at public schools. At one point, President Hollande said he would try to end Alsace-Moselle's special régime and bring it into line with the rest of France, but he seems to have dropped that plan. (Alsace-Moselle also has better government health insurance coverage and more paid holidays than the rest of France, which could making ending the régime a tough sell, locally.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Poor Timmy, proven wrong in a day
I guess this is why TImmy says a secular government is superior to a theocratic government?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Poor Timmy, proven wrong in a day
This guy gets it and this is something liberals will never understand. Governments have power only through force. Force they are all to willing to use. Force they use to submit people to their will, secular or religious. So ultimately all governments are about bending people to he will of the government.
You want to see that in action in the US, just look at when Obama threw his temper tantrum about the government shutdown. He closed down private businesses on public lands, kicked an old couple out of their house and herded people who paid good money to vacation in Yellowstone away from Old Faithful. And he found police fully willing to do it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Poor Timmy, proven wrong in a day
You want to see that in action in the US, just look at when Obama threw his temper tantrum about the government shutdown.
And if he had continued running the federal government after the Republicans denied him any funds to do so, you would have accused him of tyranny and usurping the constitutional authority of the legislative branch. Congress told him he had to shut down the government, so he did. What would you rather he had done?
This guy gets it and this is something liberals will never understand.
Conservatives are the only ones capable of seeing things the way they really are, is that it? This is not a recipe for useful discourse.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Poor Timmy, proven wrong in a day
Yes, I said seeing all things in all times and all places. Jumping to extreme conclusions is another liberal tactic. What you, Timmy and most libs don't understand is governments have authority only by using force. Whether it is secular or religious based, that force is used to make everyone comply to the will of the government.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Poor Timmy, proven wrong in a day
Are all conservatives mind readers or just you? We can either have governments that operate by force or each individual can have power over others according to the force he is willing and able to employ. Which would you prefer?
And governmental authority ultimately rests on force but also largely from the willingness of the governed to recognize the authority of the government. Most interactions between government and citizen don't involve force.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Monopoly on Force
And without that ability, the state ultimately cannot enforce the law, at least when it comes to those private powers that can muster a greater amount of force. While the concept is late middle ages / early renaissance (16th century), it is the notion behind even feudalism, in which the lord holds a greater power of force over all comers.
That notion continues in the US as per the commander in chief, but enough
The conservative ideal of small government, however, is not a solution, since small government can only make for small nations (e.g. a town-state or city-state). There is so much to regulate in a nation of hundreds of millions, that you need large-scale oversight and regulators. But the advantages are manifold, including large infrastructure (power, drinking water, roads, etc.) but also centralized disease control (which works better than segregated tribes) and the ability to muster large armies with which to defend against other large armies. In fact the greatest threat against a nation now is, a bigger, more forceful nation.
So you might actually want to recognize what aspects of a large government you enjoy, though if you really like small government, there are still south Pacific islands with cultures untouched by the unyielding cogs of industry.
If you want to talk about the dangers of large government and transgression of our high-ranking officers you could bring up the CIA Extrajudicial Detention and Interrogation program started by George W. Bush and continued (to this day) by Obama. When people can be snatched up by the government without due process and not only held indefinitely but tortured, that's a pretty good indication that things have gone wrong and that corruption has infested the system to the highest levels.
But that would mean that it's not an issue you can blame on partisan sides.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
As I was saying
Hence we can have the kind of corruption in the Department of Justice that we do.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
French laïcité does not exist.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
French police
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: French police
You think the government should get to decide who has the right to know what the government is doing and who is "non serious"?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]