
French police make woman remove clothing on Nice beach following burkini ban - fabiendem
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/aug/24/french-police-make-woman-remove-burkini-on-nice-beach
======
panglott
This kind of thing is just amazing to me as an American. I'm an atheist, but
people have a fundamental right to express their personal values in their
dress and practice their religion. France's bans on religious expression in
the name of "secularism" are just a different kind of theocracy.

~~~
nugget
What happens when the "practice of religion" results in the oppression of
minority rights (often within the religion itself) or cult like behaviors?
Tolerance is an important value but must we be tolerant of extreme
intolerance?

~~~
panglott
If religious practices cause actual harm to other people, that's a reasonable
cause for state intervention.

But as far as I can see, this is about people who to wear a certain kind of
hat or style of swimsuit. How is that conceivably an actual harm against other
people?

~~~
harperlee
I believe that preventing the tension buildup that leads to violence is a
reasonable cause for state intervention.

The ban of the burkini is a misguided attempt to alleviate that tension.

Although this is very sad to write, nowadays in France being very publicly
muslim increases that tension.

Using burkinis that contrast your being covered whilst the rest of the people
on the beach/pool are semi-naked is included in being very publicly muslim.

Also, there is a big element of context in this article. See my comment at
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12352798](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12352798).

~~~
dragonwriter
> The ban of the burkini is a misguided attempt to alleviate that tension.

Its so badly and _obviously_ misguided as a technique to that intent that it
is simply implausible that that is the actual intent, specifically in that it
does the _exact opposite_ , and that it is transparently obvious that it would
do so, and that even if you might excuse someone for failing to recognize this
in a vacuum, the fact that a number of _similar_ previous bans have been both
proposed and implemented in Europe, and France specifically, with wide media
coverage and the same counterproductive effect makes it impossible to believe
any policy maker anywhere in France (or, on Earth for that matter) could,
other than through willful ignorance, be unaware of the likely effect.

~~~
mywittyname
It's almost like France is actively encouraging terrorist attacks by giving
fundamentalist groups ammunition for recruitment and radicalization.

These stories of oppression spread throughout the world and we know they are
used by groups like ISIS to spread their message.

------
pjkundert
Liberty: the ability to freely choose to self-restrict behavior.

Tyranny: restricting behavior due to fear of reprisal.

Please don't mistake one for the other.

That's why Nuns (who can choose to wear garb or nothing at all, at any time)
are not equivalent to those forced to wear garb on threat of acid burns for
non-compliance.

A society that does not protect those under threat of violence for trivial
clothing choice violations cannot claim to love liberty, can it?

~~~
panglott
You're implying that the only reason women wear burkinis is the fear of acid
attacks and reprisal. You can't know what motivates people to wear burkinis.
But the harm there is the acid attacks and threat of reprisal, not the wearing
of the burkini—even under this theory, you're bringing the power of the state
to bear on the victim. When you make it a police matter, you're also invoking
the threat of state violence to restrict behavior due to fear of reprisal.

~~~
pjkundert
I'm reciting some basic tenets of liberty.

I find these French town's responses tragic/comical, and agree with you -- the
state is bringing its force to bear on the victim.

Like police the world over, who know (trivially) that it is much safer to
harass the law-abiding (who will cower and comply) rather than confront the
violent (who might shoot them in the face), these socialist mayors seem to
know that it is safer to force these already oppressed women to comply, than
go into the dangerous ghettos and confront those forcing them to bear this
garb in the first place.

Solution? I don't know -- perhaps some immigration tests on whether applicants
agree with Supremacist and anti-liberty doctrines (ie. Sharia), or are
prepared to defend the liberty of the oppressed?

France surely would reject an immigrant who is a self-proclaimed Aryan
Supremacist thug who wants to enforce his beliefs on others. Perhaps they
should likewise resist Islamist Supremacists who want to enforce their rules
on others? I'm sure that the multitudes of liberty-loving Muslims in France
who desire their women to have full freedom to dress as they wish without fear
of reprisal would appreciate it, too...

Once wearing this garb is associated with liberty (as is the wearing of a
Nun's robes -- everyone knows they can choose to stop at any time), I'm pretty
sure liberty-loving people will no longer mind the "burkini" being worn in
public.

------
tmptmp
This is a good news from a very fundamental aspect in our history and for our
future too.

Islam with its barbaric, medieval, vicious ideology (e.g. kaafirs are against
Allah, Muhammad is above any criticism, apostates should be killed, extreme
injustice inflicted on Muslim women and so on) is at crossroads with the
freedom loving, liberal and secular western world.

The religions should have no place in modern public life. But religions want
to control every aspect of human life. Thanks to the fight put up by and
sacrifices given by the freedom lovers, liberals and modern free-thinkers from
the western world, mainstream religions have been rendered harmless/toothless
to a significant extent, except Islam.

The liberals/critical thinkers have attacked earlier and do attack now also
various bad and evil aspects in other religions
(Christianity/Judaism/Hinduism) and our free society never suppresses their
thoughts. Islam should not be an exception and hence Islam should not be given
special treatment. Else we may have to lose the hard earned values that we
cherish so much.

But we are seeing that some Islam apologists (whether bought and paid for or
not) are hunting down any thoughtful and legitimate criticism of Islam, its
prophet Muhammad, its scriptures and so on. They are using various types of
pressure tactics for this. For example, labeling any criticism of Islam as
racist attacks on Muslims or Islamophobia or hate speech or right-wing
practice.

e.g. Geert Wilders is labeled as right-wing fanatic by such Islam apologists.
Geert Wilders has been a liberal free-thinker (e.g. his support of
gays/homosexuals).

The freedom lovers, liberals and humanists must understand this threat posed
by the vicious ideology of mainstream Islam.

The west now must invest large amount of efforts and resources to fight this
vicious ideology of Islam. We must realize that this is an ideological war and
must be fought on the ideological war-front. This can and must be done by
supporting liberal minded humanists (like, Bill Maher, Sam Harris, Richard
Dawkins) who are exposing the viciousness of the ideology of Islam and
upholding the modern humanist values like freedom of expression and separation
of 'mosque and state'.

edit: added point about Geert Wilders.

~~~
astanway
"But religions want to control every aspect of human life."

You mean like controlling what kind of bathing suits people can and can't wear
in public?

~~~
tmptmp
Yes, you are right. The ban on Burqa/clothing should not be a priority.

The ban on Burqa in France is a knee-jerk reactionary measure taken by the
frightened French society which doesn't have a clue that their real fight
should be against the evil ideology of Islam and that burqa-forced-on-women is
but a small piece of that evil ideology.

Now the Islam apologists will take undue advantage of this ban by citing
western ideals like "freedom of choice" and that "burqa is a choice made by
Muslim women" and so on.

Hence, the French and western society should realize that they must not only
stand fast and firm behind people like Charlie Hebdo editors and the
cartoonists who drew Muhammad's cartoons but also encourage them and other
people to do so again and again. The western society should tell the Muslims
in unequivocal terms that "the Muslims should learn to get offended and also
learn the more civilized ways of living in the world. That Allah, Muhammad,
Islam and Islamic practices are a proper target of ridicule, criticism and
humor. That Quran is not last word here in the west. That Charlie Hebdo and
other cartoonists are our people and we can't let their freedom get trampled
just because Muslims think their feelings/sentiments get hurt."

So, yes, you are right that the French action is more in line with the
religions. But we must remember that this is a start of the (potentially long
drawn) fight against the evil ideology of Islam and burqa (and women's
clothing) is nonetheless a significant part that helps us bring out certain
evil aspects of this vicious ideology in public discourse.

BTW, you should realize that despite this ban, the French society is far from
controlling most aspect of human life like the way Islam (or any other
religion) does.

Edit: added last para (BTW...).

------
AlexOrtiz201
I love it, I feel like a saw an article linked through hn about the fact that
so al-queda and extremist groups supposedly want exactly this to happen.
Something along the lines of how this was a strategy for recruitment.

~~~
harperlee
It is fallacious to argue that if X is what the enemy wants us to do, then X
is a bad action.

X might be the best course of action on where we are, the problem being the
short-sightedness that took us to this place in the first place (thinking like
in chess - you limited your better options with earlier moves).

EDIT: Of course, if the enemy is better at the long game, and succeeded in
taking us to here, what's to assure us that we evaluate correctly X as the
best course of action, instead of them nudging us to it?

~~~
mywittyname
Armies need resources; people are resources. So the argument isn't, "X is what
the enemy wants," it's, "X allows the enemy to recruit more troops."

Thinking like chess -- you'd probably avoid moves that gave the opponent more
pieces. Especially when those piece spawn by your king.

~~~
harperlee
I was speaking abstractly, not about the OP theme - a logical fallacy is a
logical fallacy, even if it provides a useful heuristic.

Even if the opponent wants you to do something, it might be the best for you.

Think about the game of chicken [1] in game theory. If the opponent puts on a
blindfold and makes a precommitment, they want you to swerve - that's what
they want! But it would be foolish not to swerve and crash. Once the opponent
precommits, you have already lost, and you decide how much both take home.

That's even without accounting for different target outcomes or one of the
sides knowing more about the outcomes, that might be in play in the OP
discussion.

Example of the first, for the OP discussion: if the mayor that banned the
burkini only looked after votes, "That's what the terrorists want!" yeah, but
for the mayor, short-time the outcome is good, and long-time, other might
solve the issue.

Example of the second, for the OP discussion: if the terrorists want us to
make a step that would be their unavoidable demise, but only us would know it,
"That's what the terrorists want!" yeah, but they are clueless and/or crazy,
our choice is good.

Anyway this is all just for the sake of imagining and hypothesizing :)

[1]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicken_(game)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicken_\(game\))

~~~
mywittyname
But the post you replied said, they want this to happen __because it helps
recruitment __.

It's only a logical fallacy because you've decided to ignore the predicate
statement ("this was a strategy for recruitment") and focus on the implication
of it ("extremist groups supposedly want exactly this to happen").

The crux of the OP's argument is that aiding in the recruitment of ISIS is not
in the best interest of the French, yet that's what this policy is doing.

------
projectramo
I call this move the "Reverse Taliban."

------
yusee
France is so pro-women that it forces a woman to publicly strip.

Everyone who supports this is deeply confused.

------
mark_l_watson
Black mark against the French. Shame on them.

~~~
chambo_e
Shame on who ? I'm French and by no way I support this. There is still death
penalty on some US states but I'm not shaming every US citizens. There is only
15 towns concerned by this ban, that's not representative

~~~
waterphone
I can't speak for the OP, but in my experience when people say something like
this, they are generally referring to the government and the people who
support such things, with the understanding that with any sort of collective
abbreviation like this, there is an understanding that not everyone included
in that group was involved with or supports such rules.

~~~
chambo_e
I agree and pretty sure that was OP POV but that's the same as saying shame on
Muslim because of IS attacks. Including a much larger population just because
of a single shared characteristic like citizenship or religion is IMHO not a
good thing. I felt accused by OP even if he didn't intended to

