What's new

France’s ‘Burkini’ Bans Are About More Than Religion or Clothing

TopCat

ELITE MEMBER
Joined
Nov 20, 2008
Messages
15,736
Reaction score
-3
Country
Bangladesh
Location
Bangladesh
WASHINGTON — There is something inherently head-spinning about the so-called burkini bans that are popping up in coastal France. The obviousness of the contradiction — imposing rules on what women can wear on the grounds that it’s wrong for women to have to obey rules about what women can wear — makes it clear that there must be something deeper going on.

“Burkinis” are, essentially, full-body swimsuits that comply with Islamic modesty standards, and on Wednesday, Prime Minister Manuel Valls of France waded into the raging debate over the bans in some of the country’s beach towns, denouncing the rarely seen garb as part of the “enslavement of women.”

This, of course, is not really about swimwear. Social scientists say it is also not primarily about protecting Muslim women from patriarchy, but about protecting France’s non-Muslim majority from having to confront a changing world: one that requires them to widen their sense of identity when many would prefer to keep it as it was.

“These sorts of statements are a way to police what is French and what is not French,” said Terrence G. Peterson, a professor at Florida International University who studies France’s relationship with Muslim immigrants and the Muslim world.

While this battle over identity is rising now in the wake of terrorist attacks, it has been raging in one form or another in French society for decades, Professor Peterson said. What seems to be a struggle over the narrow issue of Islamic dress is really about what it means to be French.

During France’s colonial era, when it controlled vast Muslim regions, the veil became a “hypercharged symbol,” Professor Peterson said. Veiling was treated as a symbol of Muslims’ backwardness, and Frenchwomen’s more flexible standards of dress were seen as a sign of French cultural superiority, views that helped to justify colonialism.

Colonialism set France up for the identity crisis it is experiencing today by ingraining a sense of French national identity as distinct from and superior to Muslim identities — and, at the same time, holding out the promise of opportunity to colonized Muslims, who began migrating in large numbers to France. The resulting clash has often played out in debates over clothing.

The veil remained a potent symbol of difference as colonialism collapsed after World War II and Muslims from colonized countries flocked to France. But now, that difference was within a country trying to sort out its own postcolonial identity.

Over generations, the veil became more common among France’s Muslims, as a religious practice and, perhaps, as a symbol of their distinct cultural heritage. It was a visible sign of the way that France itself, as well as its role in the world, was changing.

As a result, the veil became a symbol not just of religious difference, but of the fact that people of French descent no longer enjoyed exclusive dominance over French identity. France had become a multicultural and multiethnic nation, where traditions meant very different things to different people.

The colonial-era symbolism of the veil as a sign of Muslim inferiority made it a convenient focus for arguments that the “traditional” French identity should remain not only the dominant but also the sole cultural identity in France.

Burkinis may seem frightening because they are seen as threatening that particular type of French identity by expressing an alternative form of identity — in this case, as Muslims. Many French, rather than believing that those two identities can coexist, perceive them as necessarily competitive.

There is even a pejorative French word for the introduction of these alternate identities, “communitarianism,” the growth of which is seen as a national crisis.

Muslim clothing items such as the veil or burkini have become symbols of the fact that French national identity is no longer the sole domain of the demographic groups that lived there for centuries. Rules like this summer’s burkini bans are meant to prevent the widening of French identity by forcing French Muslims not only to assimilate, but also to adopt the narrower, rigid identity.

This is a method that France has been using for decades, to repeated failure.

John Bowen, an anthropologist at Washington University in St. Louis, said France tended to experiment with such restrictions at times when it was struggling with both domestic and international tensions relating to Muslims and the Muslim world.

This began in 1989 with the so-called affaire du foulard (“affair of the scarf”), in which three French schoolgirls were suspended for refusing to remove their head coverings. Ostensibly, this was because the scarves were visible religious symbols and thus ran afoul of the French rule of laïcité, or secularism. But laïcité had been on the books since 1905, with head scarves nonetheless by and large permitted.

What changed, Professor Bowen wrote in a book on the subject, were events elsewhere in the world that made Islam seem like a particularly pernicious force. In 1989, Iran’s leader, Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, issued a fatwa against the novelist Salman Rushdie. Around the same time, some Algerians formed the Islamic Salvation Front, a hard-line Islamist party and later insurgency.

Banning head scarves from French schools became a way to deal with the anxiety arising from those domestic and foreign events, and to stake a claim to protecting French values.

Head scarves in schools returned to the national spotlight in 1993 and 1994, as the French authorities worried that young men from Algerian immigrant families would join the Islamist insurgency in Algeria. After the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, veils were once again a focal point for fears of Muslim communities that were isolated from mainstream French society and culture.

And this summer, France is reeling from a series of deadly terrorist attacks, and is increasingly concerned about young French Muslims’ traveling to Syria to join the Islamic State or other jihadist groups. Once again, some in France view the drive for assimilation as a national security issue.

The veil is an especially potent symbol of anxiety over assimilation because wearing it is a choice. Whereas fixed characteristics like race or skin color do not imply any judgment on French culture or values, clothing implies a decision to be different — to prioritize one’s religious or cultural identity over that of one’s adopted country.

Garment bans are meant, in effect, to pressure French Muslims to disregard any sense of communitarian identity and adopt the narrowly French identity that predates their arrival. But trying to force assimilation can have the opposite effect: telling French Muslims that they cannot hold French and Muslim identities simultaneously, forcing them to choose, and thus excluding them from the national identity rather than inviting them to contribute to it.

France does have another choice: It could widen its national identity to include French Muslims as they are. This may feel scary to many French, more like giving up a comfortable “traditional” identity than gaining a new dimension to it. In the absence of accepting this change, there is a desire to pressure French Muslims to solve the identity crisis, but decades of this have brought little progress — and significant tension.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/19/w...-clothing.html?smid=fb-nytimes&smtyp=cur&_r=0


Interesting READ
 
@Vergennes @Penguin @Solomon2 @Joe Shearer @Loki @Saiful Islam
@vostok
@500 @MarkusS
Is it more of a conflict of culture or is it the secularism as France is trying to say. We seen extreme secularism in former USSR and that did not bring any fruit and eventually they gone back to orthodoxy. Can France have a 2nd option?
World has changed. Dont they?

I cant recall too many Europeans in the forum. Please tag if you know any
 
Last edited:
Any country with immigrants, and any individual immigrant, faces the question of finding a new balance between adapting to the culture in your new home country, and retaining identity. It is unrealistic and unnecessary to expect any new arrival to totally shed his/her cultural identity, which often was shaped over many years. That may be different though, in terms of expectations, for immigrant offspring i.e 2nd and 3rd generation, born in the country that was new to (one of) the parents. It is equally unrealistic (not to mention self-deluding) to cling to the old country: if you can't genuinely call (or start calling) the new country home, then the only sane conclusion would be: leave, find a place in the world that does feel like home. That may or may not be the old country.

Secularism is the principle of the separation of government institutions and persons mandated to represent the state from religious institutions and religious dignitaries.

One manifestation of secularism is asserting the right to be free from religious rule and teachings, or, in a state declared to be neutral on matters of belief, from the imposition by government of religion or religious practices upon its people.

In the Netherlands, we have seperate beaches for people who prefer to bath and sun in the nude (for whatever reason). This in part so that people can do so without being ogled by other people, who find it all very exciting. It is also a protection of those (i.e. the majority in this case) who do not particularly care for being confronted gratuitously with full frontal nudity when they go to the beach. If you get invited by nudist friends to their beach, you have 2 options: you get naked, or you don't (and then you might get some remarks for others there) Likewise on the non-nudist beach: if you are a nudist and get naked there, the people you are with may not mind, but others may (and if getting naked is a breach is some public ordinance, you may face a fine or dismissal from that beach).

I give this example to point out that imposing a NON-religious practice, e.g. setting and clothing rules in public places with a view to decency in public and/or public safety, is not unheard of.

In the Netherlands, it is forbidden by law to wears ANY gard that fully covers your face in public places, whether balaclava, helmet or otherwise, for reason of public safety. This includes public schools, where there is the additional 'issue' that facial coverage interferes with teacher-pupil interaction). Clearly, the law also requires you to wear a helmet when riding a motorbike or moped ;-) So, the issue is when you're not riding.
 
Last edited:
Bizzare article by nytimes. They preach others about freedom of expression while double standards here. Will French government decide what culture should Muslims follow?
 
Bizzare article by nytimes. They preach others about freedom of expression while double standards here. Will French government decide what culture should Muslims follow?
How is it bizzare? where it talked about restricting freedom of expression

Any country with immigrants, and any individual immigrant, faces the question of finding a new balance between adapting to the culture in your new home country, and retaining identity. It is unrealistic and unnecessary to expect any new arrival to totally shed his/her cultural identity, which often was shaped over many years. That may be different though, in terms of expectations, for immigrant offspring i.e 2nd and 3rd generation, born in the country that was new to (one of) the parents. It is equally unrealistic (not to mention self-deluding) to cling to the old country: if you can't genuinely call (or start calling) the new country home, then the only sane conclusion would be: leave, find a place in the world that does feel like home. That may or may not be the old country.

Secularism is the principle of the separation of government institutions and persons mandated to represent the state from religious institutions and religious dignitaries.

One manifestation of secularism is asserting the right to be free from religious rule and teachings, or, in a state declared to be neutral on matters of belief, from the imposition by government of religion or religious practices upon its people.

In the Netherlands, we have seperate beaches for people who prefer to bath and sun in the nude (for whatever reason). This in part so that people can do so without being ogled by other people, who find it all very exciting. It is also a protection of those (i.e. the majority in this case) who do not particularly care for being confronted gratuitously with full frontal nudity when they go to the beach. If you get invited by nudist friends to their beach, you have 2 options: you get naked, or you don't (and then you might get some remarks for others there) Likewise on the non-nudist beach: if you are a nudist and get naked there, the people you are with may not mind, but others may (and if getting naked is a breach is some public ordinance, you may face a fine or dismissal from that beach).

I give this example to point out that imposing a NON-religious practice, e.g. setting and clothing rules in public places with a view to decency in public and/or public safety, is not unheard of.

In the Netherlands, it is forbidden by law to wears ANY gard that fully covers your face in public places, whether balaclava, helmet or otherwise, for reason of public safety. This includes public schools, where there is the additional 'issue' that facial coverage interferes with teacher-pupil interaction). Clearly, the law also requires you to wear a helmet when riding a motorbike or moped ;-) So, the issue is when you're not riding.

Infact NY times trying to see it in a different angle. The conflict of cultural dominance. Your comparison with nudity with burkini is absurd and bizarre. I was watching one french politician was saying about equality of men and women in dressing. But the anchor did not ask him whether he would be willing to wear bikini to make him equal to the women or ask the women to shred bikini to become a man? LMAOF.

Anyways I find the debade bit funny and silly.
 
Last edited:
How is it bizzare? where it talked about restricting freedom of expression
Freedom of expressing themselves, how they look, what they wear etc etc. They claimed its a threat to French identity hence they want ban. Read the article you have posted.
 
Covering women these days is enslavement while making them shed their clothes is considered norm.

Strange times we live in.
 
Infact NY times trying to see it in a different angle. The conflict of cultural dominance. Your comparison with nudity with burkini is absurd and bizarre. I was watching one french politician was saying about equality of men and women in dressing. But the anchor did not ask him whether he would be willing to wear bikini to make him equal to the women or ask the women to shred bikini to become a man? LMAOF.

Anyways I find the debade bit funny and silly.

No, I don't think it is bizar. It is about written and un written rules of behavior in the public sphere (as opposed to the private sphere), which aren't necessarily aimed at any religion or believe but which to affect it. I will say The Netherlands and France are different (although that distinction may be lost on the casual upbserver). What you (can) do on a private beach versus a public beach differs, and does so irrespective of whether it concerns nudity or quite the opposite (ie a full body cover).

I don't see the relevance of your anchor story to what I was attempting to convey. More interesting I find that you take aim at a nudity example but completely ignore the previous part on adjusting to a new cultural setting.

Why would I have to take the angle of the NY TImes?

Nudity
http://www.naaktstrandje.nl/
https://www.nfn.nl/locaties/
http://www.artikel430a.nl/overheid.html (rules for local government re. nude recreation)
http://www.artikel430a.nl/naaktrecreant.html (rules for the individual re. nude recration)

Face covering clothing
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-mask_laws
https://www.rijksoverheid.nl/actuee...en-zorg-overheidsgebouwen-en-openbaar-vervoer
https://www.rijksoverheid.nl/actuee...leding-onder-voorwaarden-niet-meer-toegestaan

Use google translate if necessary.
 
Surfer_at_the_Cayucos_Pier,_Cayucos,_CA.jpg
 
@Vergennes @Penguin @Solomon2 @Joe Shearer @Loki @Saiful Islam
@vostok
@500 @MarkusS
Is it more of a conflict of culture or is it the secularism as France is trying to say. We seen extreme secularism in former USSR and that did not bring any fruit and eventually they gone back to orthodoxy. Can France have a 2nd option?
World has changed. Dont they?

I cant recall too many Europeans in the forum. Please tag if you know any

Well, one cannot be more Japanese than the Japanese or become a brainless nationalist flag bearer. And following the country's laws are important.

Nonetheless, the article rightly points out about the French having issues with Muslims in France for a very long time. So, it hasn't really changed, just the same thing under a different cover.

Amid all that had happened and perhaps may happen, I sense a serious lack of communication and resolve here. You gotta talk.
 
This is exactly what right wingers in India want. They want every Indian be of any religion, follow Indian culture, Indian traditions, to take pride in Indian history and not some foreign inported wahabi culture or sharia. Most of them are related to Hinduism, so minorities reject them, supported by activists, journalists, NGOs all over the world and teach India on how to respect freedom of minorities. But these same people have double standards in western countries and justify all sorts of restrictions.
 
Back
Top Bottom