Liberal indignation at the sight of a Muslim woman in a swimsuit says far more about the fragile state of western secularism than it does the role of Islam in European societies.
Also the covering of the body does not have to be a typical Muslim phenomena. English celebrity chef Nigella Lawson in in 2011 choose to wear the fashionable long swimsuit with a head covering, which became better known as ‘the burkini” (burqini).
Proponents of clothing bans hail themselves as defenders of European civilisation and liberators of Muslim women from their patriarchal menfolk. they consider themselves to have the right to decide for those women whom according to them cannot decide for themselves which religion they would love to adhere and how they want to be dressed.
A covered woman, by this logic, is robbed of her agency – weak, oppressed and in need of the full armour of the state.
But those not allowing those women to wear what they would love to wear and to show or not show their body parts in one way or another are now deprived of their liberty to dress how they like and of their freedom to be religious in the way they want to be religious.
*
To remember
- France, Socialist government imposed a “secularism charter” = in every school, banning Christianity from educational system.
- Municipalities changed enrollment form for schoolchildren eliminating words “father” and “mother”, = replacing them with “legal manager 1” and “legal manager 2”. => = George Orwell’s “Newspeak”.
- “Day of Secularism” = celebrated every 9th of December.
- October 2000, Nice, 105-member European Convention drafted Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union => only referred to the “cultural, religious and humanist inheritance of Europe”.
+
Preceding articles:
French showing to the whole world their fear and weaknesses
Does Banning Face Veils Help Us Fight Terrorism?
++
Additional reading
- Is Europe going to become a dictatorial bastion
- On French beach French police forces woman to undress in public
- Women in France running with naked bosom all right but with covered bosom penalised
- France and the Burkini
- Not limiting others but sharing peace with all
+++
Further reading
- The surprising Australian origin story of the ‘burkini’
- Burkini a boon for Muslim women
- France’s War on the Burqini
- French mayors dismiss suspended burqini ban
- The Burqini Ban
- My Burkini and I
- What does it mean to cover?
- Dear white people of France: being forced to undress wasn’t exactly the liberation I was longing for
+++
Related articles
 |
- In France, the Socialist government imposed a “secularism charter” in every school, banning Christianity from the educational system. Municipalities have already changed the enrollment form for schoolchildren by eliminating the words “father” and “mother”, replacing them with “legal manager 1” and “legal manager 2”. It is George Orwell’s “Newspeak”.
- After two major terror attacks in 2015, France, instead of promoting a cultural “jihad” based on Western values, responded to Islamic fundamentalism with a ridiculous “Day of Secularism” to be celebrated every 9th of December.
- This narrow secularism has also prevented France from openly supporting Eastern Christians under Islamist oppression.
- The empty 13th century Oude Kerk church in Amsterdam is now used for exhibitions and can be rented for gala dinners. In front of it there is “Sexyland”, offering “Live F*ck Shows”, a coffee shop for drugs and an “Erotic Supermarket” for dildos. For seven euros one can also visit…
View original post 121 more words
Stepping Toes 
Dear me – let’s straighten out some errors (from a secular atheist perspective):
1. Secularism is a commitment to the separation of church & state and is the ONLY framework that provides true religious freedom. This is because under a truly secular approach, all religions are offered the SAME protection i.e. Christianity / Islam are not provided with preferential treatment. Secularism is NOT the persecution of religions, though some PRIVILEDGES may be removed e.g. blasphemy laws removed, etc. If you disagree that this is a good thing, imagine that your religion was in the minority, instead of the majority
2. I completely disagree with the “Burkini” ban. I feel it is reasonable for all citizens of a community to be expected to show their face when in public spaces, for a number of reasons.
The 1st, and my least concern is around security – we have a right to see the people next to us, as it is important for our own safety.
Next concern leads straight on from above – how can we reasonably interact with people who have their faces covered? A vast amount of information is conveyed from others’ facial expressions & for us not to be able to see this effectively disables communications amongst citizens.
My greatest concern is the obvious subjugation of women. I’ve been on holiday in 35 degree temperatures, staying at the Hark Rock Hotel in Bali and seen women in full Niqab (small hole for eyes only, whilst her husband wore shorts, thongs & tank top. As for the argument that it’s the woman’s choice to do so, such “choice” is not made in isolation of, at times, significant pressure from their community.
For clarity, if someone wants to cover their head/hair/shoulders, etc to appease their chosen god so be it – body language is still effectively conveyed while doing so – it’s simply face covering I object to.
Living in a certain country and all of the good inherent in that country (i.e. relative safety and advanced society) carries obligation on every citizen – one such obligation is that you MUST show your face in public. It is a mischaracterisation to paint such obligation as “persecution”
Look forward to your thoughts
Scott
LikeLike
Dear Scott,
1st you say ” I completely disagree with the “Burkini” ban. ” But then you come to give the impression it should be banned because you “feel it is reasonable for all citizens of a community to be expected to show their face when in public spaces”
This saying gives us the impression that you seem to think the burkini does not let see the face of the person, but than you have no idea how a burkini looks like. Please take a look at the different fashionable designs of burkini’s.
Several burkini’s even show more of a person than certain Italian and southern French dresses of Catholic nuns and priests. so why in the past and now nobody objected to their clothing and today also not forbid them to be clothed in that way, where it is even more easy to hide guns and bomb belts underneath their clothing, than under a burkini?
LikeLike
Thanks for the comment – perhaps I should have been clearer.
My understanding is that the Burkini does NOT cover the face, therefore it shouldn’t be banned (as the face can be seen)
I do however argue that clothing (like the Niqab), where the face is effectively covered should be banned from being worn in public spaces. This ban should not be limited to religious wear – even if it’s considered fashionable to cover your face. To protest with masks/bandana’s covering your face should be considered in the same vein – everyone should be subject to SAME RULES
This sentence I posted is consistent with the above, though perhaps I should have worded it more clearly! “I completely disagree with the “Burkini” ban. I feel it is reasonable for all citizens of a community to be expected to show their face when in public spaces, for a number of reasons”
Would like your comments re securalism and my view on face coverings, given above clarification
LikeLike
In most countries in West Europe the burka is already banned, also in France but the governement did not take actions enough against people wearing such covering clothes. There the clothing to be forbidden is a matter of security one not knowing who or what can be hidden underneath it. It is not forbidden for religious reasons.
to have a secular state does not mean that people should not be allowed to show their religious feelings.
LikeLike
Secularism should mean the state itself chooses to leave out any bias on the way of thinking of their citizens and their choice to be religious and would love to have its citizens also not use their religious or spiritual basis for judging others or acting against others with another religious or non religous base.
Secularism should bring a state to a place for a pluralistic community, allowing all sorts of thinking to exist next to each other.
LikeLike
Seems we’re in agreement that a secular country offers greatest level of religious freedom.
We also seem to agree that the burkini ban is nonsensical
However, you’ve not addressed my main concern with some forms of religious dress:
“My greatest concern is the obvious subjugation of women. I’ve been on holiday in 35 degree temperatures, staying at the Hark Rock Hotel in Bali and seen women in full Niqab (small hole for eyes only, whilst her husband wore shorts, thongs & tank top. As for the argument that it’s the woman’s choice to do so, such “choice” is not made in isolation of, at times, significant pressure from their community.
For clarity, if someone wants to cover their head/hair/shoulders, etc to appease their chosen god so be it – body language is still effectively conveyed while doing so – it’s simply face covering I object to.
Living in a certain country and enjoying all of the good inherent in that country (i.e. relative safety and advanced society) carries obligation on every citizen – one such obligation is that you MUST show your face in public. It is a mischaracterisation to paint such obligation as “persecution”
Look forward to your thoughts
Scott
LikeLike
Pingback: You are what you wear | Stepping Toes
Pingback: Where’s the Outrage Over Nun Beachwear? – The Daily Beast | Stepping Toes
Pingback: Secularism in France becoming dangerous for freedom of religion | Belgian Biblestudents - Belgische Bijbelstudenten
Pingback: Christians, secularism, morals and values | Belgian Biblestudents - Belgische Bijbelstudenten
Pingback: Enough already with the ridiculous “they used to be free” memes | From guestwriters
Pingback: Enough with the Clothes Shaming of Muslim Women | From guestwriters
Pingback: Listening to the lessons of the Bible and looking for ways to please God – Belgian Ecclesia Brussel – Leuven
Pingback: George Orwell is Rolling in His Grave | Part One – batiekear.com
Pingback: The first question: Why do we live – Questiontime – Vragenuurtje
Pingback: From Guestwriters 2016 in review | From guestwriters
Pingback: 2016 in review Politics #1 Year of dissonance | Marcus Ampe's Space
Pingback: Vliegend spaghettimonster en Gelijke behandeling voor elke overtuiging | Belgian Biblestudents - Belgische Bijbelstudenten
Pingback: Pushing people in a corner danger for indoctrination and loss of democratic values | Marcus Ampe's Space
Pingback: Controversial burkini issue in France not finished yet – Some View on the World