This is not what a free or good society does

French police made a woman remove her burkini on a Nice beach while another was fined in the resort of Cannes for wearing leggings, a tunic and a headscarf.

Along the coast in Cannes, a mother of two told AFP on Tuesday she had been fined on the beach for wearing leggings, a tunic and a headscarf.

Her ticket read that she was not wearing “an outfit respecting good morals and secularism”.

There’re fair arguments about wearing a burka in the witness box and the like but this?

Nope.

Given my skin colour, freckles, father’s melanoma, middle of the day at a beach I will be covered up, long trousers, long sleeved shirt, hat. I should be forced into budgie smugglers instead? And no, the State should not be making the difference between me doing it for health reasons and some bint doing it for Allah.

Not that France is a free or good society often enough….

53 thoughts on “This is not what a free or good society does”

  1. The law is stupid, and I suspect the authorities are doing this because they don’t want to tackle the real jihadists which are in their midst. But I also suspect the reason this law is not unpopular in France is because for once Muslims are not having things their way and invoking the full might of the state by wailing “racism”. It’s a pretty shit state of affairs and politicians have themselves to blame for it coming about, but at this point I think Europeans would turn a blind eye to just about any action taken against Muslims, fair or not.

  2. Tim Newman: “But I also suspect the reason this law is not unpopular in France is because for once Muslims are not having things their way …”

    Spot on!

    Is it fair, is it right? No. But it seems to be needed. Or there will be worse to come.

  3. Her ticket read that she was not wearing “an outfit respecting good morals and secularism”.

    Well, the translation certainly sounds like something straight out of the Fundamentalist Religious Police Phrasebook.

    Really don’t see what this policy adds, except to increase tension and isolate Muslim women. The terrorist types haven’t been particularly bothered about hiding their identities.

  4. Basically it comes down to whether you permit people to wander around in a uniform that represents a fascist tyranny, Islam being just that, and the burka being its most obvious uniform. Would we permit people to parade around en masse in full SS uniform? We get the odd nutter occasionally, but would we allow a significant % of the population to congregate in certain areas, and dress that way? I don’t think we would.

  5. Eur In Trouble Now

    Wearing long sleeves and a hat isn’t a gesture of contempt for the values of your host society and a public declaration of religious affiliation. It’s just avoiding sunburn.

  6. NeilsR: “Really don’t see what this policy adds, except to increase tension and isolate Muslim women. “

    Because there’s nothing isolating about a full bin-bag outfit on a sunny beach that says ‘Fuck your western values, I reject them (except the welfare cheques)’, is there?

    “The terrorist types haven’t been particularly bothered about hiding their identities.”

    This isn’t about hiding identities so much as the equivalent of the Nazi swastika – an ‘in your face’ insult to non-members of the Chosen Ones.

  7. “Skirmishes at a beach in the commune of Sisco earlier this month left four people injured and resulted in riot police being brought in to stop a crowd of 200 Corsicans marching into a housing estate with a high population of people of North African origin, shouting “this is our home”.”

    Either the authorities clamp down, or the populace will clamp down. We’ve seen what happens when it’s the latter, haven’t we?

  8. From a ‘Guardian’ whinge by the creator of the burkini, Aheda Zanetti:

    https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/aug/24/i-created-the-burkini-to-give-women-freedom-not-to-take-it-away

    “I wanted to do something positive – and anyone can wear this, Christian, Jewish, Hindus. It’s just a garment to suit a modest person, or someone who has skin cancer, or a new mother who doesn’t want to wear a bikini, it’s not symbolising Islam.

    When I named it the burkini I didn’t really think it was a burqa for the beach. Burqa was just a word for me – I’d been brought up in Australia all my life, and I’d designed this swimsuit and I had to call it something quickly. It was the combination of two cultures – we’re Australians but we are also Muslim by choice. <b.The burqa doesn’t symbolise anything here, and it’s not mentioned in the Qur’an and our religion does not ask us to cover our faces, it’s the wearer’s choice to do so.”

    Tough luck, love. The progressives and their tame press spent the last few decades telling everyone it doesn’t matter what the creator meant, but what other people perceive that’s important…

  9. I dunno. The French have a number of odd rules. Try wearing swimming shorts in a public swimming pool, for instance.

    I do think they (and we) are in the early stages of what I would call a clash of civilisations – if the other side were civilised.

    Clothing is just one expression of a wider ideology which rejects everything about the modern west bar its welfare payments, free housing and soft policing.

    It’s all very well taking an ideologically pure position on this, but in times of war certain preferred liberal norms have to be set aside – principally that which says you don’t kill people.

    You kill people precisely so as to protect your own way of life and (ironically) those liberal norms.

    We’re not in a war – yet, who knows if we will be – but I believe we’re in a sort of medium intensity grapple for the levers of power.

    But then, the French didn’t kill this women – or even prohibit her from using the beach. They just said you can’t dress in a way which reflects your hatred and disgust for our way of life.

    People who want to wear burkinis on French beaches are making a point – that the whole world belongs to allah. They have no allegiance to France, and would probably be happier moving to a country where the wearing of a bikini in public would result in a French woman being whipped, or perhaps stoned to death.

    I absolutely agree that this is one way of showing that they are doing ‘something’ – but I wonder at the howling that would ensue if they did what actually needs to be done (involving bulldozers, confiscations, jailings, deportations and so on).

    Enjoy France now, because in twenty years time, or thirty, you may not be able to. And then the question of how mean it was to enforce a burkini ban might be sadly academic.

  10. I think that a large number of those professing themselves Muslim are doing so more to get peace from their neighbours than out of conviction. Given how unpeaceful some of their neighbours can be I can’t blame them, and I suspect they are a majority.
    Whilst we need to take robust action against the violent ones, not just when they attack non-muslims but all the time, we should do the minimum to inconvenience those merely going along to get along.
    Banning a particular form of dress ( unless it constitutes a disguise) aggravates the people most likely to abandon Islam and drives them back to the fundamentalists.
    I suspect this move is being welcomed as said above, because so far it is the only visible thing being done to check militant Islam.

  11. It’s basically a law against slave collars, so probably exactly what a free and good society should be doing.

    (Not really: a free and good society would continually expose and revile Islam for the evil creed it is, rather than criminalise such criticism.)

  12. ‘BTW, I suspect Muslims view benefits as Jizra, to which they believe their faith entitles them.’

    Frankly, Pat, they can believe their religion entitles them to free rides at Alton Towers, every Tuesday off and a season ticket to Old Trafford. So what?

  13. ‘Banning a particular form of dress ( unless it constitutes a disguise) aggravates the people most likely to abandon Islam and drives them back to the fundamentalists.’

    Anyone militantly insisting on wearing a burkini on a European beach already is a fundamentalist.

    We also need to stop trying to appease people. The ones we’re worried about adhere to a strong horse theory of life – you won’t win by giving them items from the list of things they want, you just end up with a longer list.

  14. Bloke in Wiltshire

    the problem is that these people don’t want a free society. And France gets this. So, their approach is simply to make life uncomfortable if they want to remain in their medieval culture. They can change or fuck off elsewhere.

    And it is about the low level stuff. It’s about telling people who want separate swimming sessions at the local pool to fuck off. It’s about not serving halal in school canteens. It’s about banks kicking people out wearing burqas in the same way as people wearing motorcycle helmets.

  15. My point as to Jizra was that they will never appreciate benefits or charity, they will view that as their rightful due simply for being Muslim.
    Hence there is no point giving them anything, at least unless you agree with them.

  16. I doubt those wearing a burqini on the beach are fundamentalists- rather that they are attempting to enjoy a day on the beach without upsetting the fundamentalists.

  17. It’s as near as the French dare get to saying “Fuck off back to Khazistan”. So brave to say it to a woman on her own.

  18. Interested wrote:
    “We’re not in a war – yet…”
    I think we are; we just refuse to recognise the fact. The enemy don’t, and they strut around our (and now their) streets in uniform to demonstrate the occupation.

    I hate the fact we are even having to consider things like beachwear bans (and I wouldn’t blame a group of nuns going to the beach in protest), but that’s one battle they’ve chosen to fight and we should take it to them.

    Going with my quid pro quo approach, once women are free to roam Saudi beaches in itsy-bitsy-teeny-weeny-yellow-polka-dot bikinis, then we can consider burkas here.

  19. I stand second to nobody in my animosity to the RoP. But the scum of the state should not be telling people how to dress. Bad enough that that poor nudist idiot seems to be banged up for life over here. And that is just the state getting away with saying you must wear something. That is as far as it should go –and maybe too far-altho who wants to look at ugly loons letting it all hang out).

    Commenters are right that this is a cowardly milksop gesture by the Frogspawn. Instead of meat-eating such as no more arrivals and taking the vote off them. And declaring their +1 marriages bigamous with the full rigor of the law and above all cutting the subsidised breeding programme. Measures that would do some good.

  20. @Interested
    August 24, 2016 at 8:51 am

    You’ve won the internet with this comment – with the proviso that I think we are at war, and have been for the last 1400 years. Also, as Julia said, either the Government must do something or the populace will.

  21. I don’t like telling people what to do. However I think covering the face should be allowed for everyone or no-one.
    I used to wear a balaclava when doing a paper round in the winter, I would have to taken it off when entering a bank – why shouldn’t it be a rule for all.

  22. @Ecks – so you’re happy for the ‘Scum of the State’ to dictate how many people X can marry, but not what Y can wear?

    This seems inconsistent to me.

    I appreciate that the devil is in the detail, but if the law of the land is that if you want to go on the beach, you can wear X and not Y, well, if you don’t like it, don’t go on the beach. I’ve been to places where people shit on the beach. We don’t allow public shitting, either. Is this yet more overreach by the ‘Scum of the State’?

    We didn’t allow people to ponce around the country in Nazi uniforms in WW2, for very good reason. I’m not Godwinning myself – I don’t think muslims are analagous to Nazis. But I do think that the hardcore, impose-sharia, western-women-are-filth brigade are on the continuum, and ISIS shows us that there are plenty out there who are willing to go beyond even what the Nazis did, given enough rope (vile as they were, I don’t think the Nazis boiled people in tar, or burned them in cages).

    If we remove from Europe that proportion of muslims who are on that continuum, and allow to remain those who don’t want to eat bacon but don’t mind if we do, we can get along reasonably fine.

    But if we allow them to grow in confidence by allowing absurd dress rules designed to appease a sky fairy to prevail and become commonplace, we’re quite possibly fucked.

    Utter, perfect libertarianism is all very well, but it’s unrealistic. If you don’t deal with lions they eat your herd, and when they’ve eaten the herd they come for you.

  23. “…and taking the vote off them.”

    Isn’t that a bit more scummy of the state than taking a headscarf off them?

  24. Farting about with clothes is irrelevant. The measures they should be taking will help break the problem and leave them with no hope of victory.

    This bagged women caper is just a sideshow designed to con people that “something” is being done. It is a time waste when far more effective measures –as I detailed–need to be taken.

  25. PJF–Scummy?

    You want them voting more and more power to their cause? Including the power to import even more?

    They lose the vote. Or do you prefer that they win?

    And a positive side effect will be no more shite like Jack Straw.

  26. “They lose the vote. Or do you prefer that they win?

    I’d prefer it if people who are here get to vote. I’d prefer it if observant muslims (those that believe in Sharia) were not here.

    I don’t know how to go about getting rid of them (without destroying our society) but I believe that we must. I suspect that outlawing the promotion of Sharia is a good place to start.

  27. wat dabney
    August 24, 2016 at 9:32 am

    “Not really: a free and good society would continually expose and revile Islam for the evil creed it is, rather than criminalise such criticism.”

    Exactly. And top comment.

    We already don’t have a free and good society – because Islam. Let’s operate in that non-free and non-good environment, and remove the problem.

  28. Ecks

    ‘Farting about with clothes is irrelevant. The measures they should be taking will help break the problem and leave them with no hope of victory… It is a time waste when far more effective measures –as I detailed–need to be taken.’

    Oh, I see. Your objection to the burkini ban is not made on libertarian grounds but on grounds that it is not authoritarian enough.

    That’s fine, but let’s have no more chat from you about the ‘Scum of the State’, because whatever you would like to see would require imposition by said scum and would be far worse for the recipients than being told what to wear on a beach.

  29. JuliaM, Interested etc, I’d prefer classifying Islam as a terrorist organisation, with bans on association and/or entry/residence, than to give the State room to designate what is acceptable dress.

    It’s not like we haven’t already seen local govt using terrorism legislation to spy on wheelie-bin usage, right?

    This is security-theatre, making gendarmes bully weak members of a disfavoured subgroup because the politicians and police chiefs can’t stop the lunatics driving the lorries, and don’t know how to define ‘unacceptable’ Islam without looking like ‘waycists’.

  30. NielsR, why do I doubt your sincerity when you say you would prefer to classify a religion as a terrorist organisation?

    If there’s ‘unacceptable’ Islam, there must be ‘acceptable’ Islam, no? But you’d be happy to lump them all together?

  31. Interesting link Pat. I don’t disagree to an extent – it’s very hard for ordinary people to stand up to a man or men who are prepared to murder them and die doing it.

    The Dear Massi column suggests it would be a tough weeding process.

    http://www.asianimage.co.uk/columnists/dearmassi/?ref=mnav

    There’s a treasure trove of cultural issues in there.

    Also this:

    http://www.asianimage.co.uk/news/14699287.Police_Scotland_says_Muslim_hijab_will_become_an_optional_part_of_its_uniform/?ref=mr&lp=5

  32. @Julia,

    I wouldn’t be happy about it, never said I would. Both infringe on the same freedom of expression.

    But I’d prefer it, yes. Border controls or restrictions on association would see regular challenge from other countries, local ethnic/religious organisations, or larger companies trying to recruit from abroad. People who have a lot more of a voice than some poor sod confronted by Gendarmes on a crowded beach. Less likely to stay on the books unnecessarily, or expand in scope (should we strip people in the street to see if they have swastika tattoos? Do we really need the govt to spend more time trawling for ‘hate speech’?)

    And it might actually tackle terrorism. What’s this bollocks supposed to achieve, beyond making non-muslims feel like something is being done?

  33. Interested –My reply is delayed by a modem crash that wiped the original.

    Banning silly swimsuits is on a par with doing f-all about German re-armament in the 1930s while trying to ban jodhpurs believing this to be a viable strike against Nazism.

    We are in–thanks to the lefts infiltration of just about everything with any social influence– a very dangerous situation. If trends do not change–WE WILL LOSE–and you can kiss goodbye to liberty and free-market prosperity and technological progress as well. You kids and theirs will be up shit creek without a paddle.

    IanB is correct with his Vegan Village analogy. We cannot survive the ongoing mass import of those whose “values” piss all over ours.

    If we have to keep liberty for ourselves by denying it to those who are trying to piss on it anyway –I say so be it. This is a war–and believer in liberty as I am I don’t try to fight “fair” against foes who will give me no such consideration.

    No vote equals no power bloc and no more incentive for leftscum to try and import. Individual RoP followers will still be free to work and prosper by their efforts–not likely given the benefits/employment rate amongst them. Which is why the bigamy laws must be enforced though the Heavens fall and money paid only for one woman, two kids max and Housing Benefit only enough to house same as economically as possible. I call that fair without pandering to potential or actual enemies . Who have been imported by the leftist enemy within for the express purpose of undermining and destroying our society.

    Any action against the RoP is futile without massive efforts to destroy the left. Again forcibly removing the state’s tit from between their green suede teeth does not seem esp illiberal to me. Cut the money is cutting them. The taxpayer has no obligation to finance socialist tyranny or the lifestyles of well-off middle/upper class CM pricks. As Sean Gabb says they won’t have a lot of time for CM propaganda when they are doing 14 hours a day of double-glazing tele-sales to try and pay their mortgages.

    The only real society-saving alternative to such measures –and others–I that I am suggesting above is a Big Export. And you clearly aren’t up for that.

    You are a generally a sane type–so if you have any alternative suggestions that might actually do something as opposed to fashion policing please bring them forth. Any ideas may help.

  34. Eur In Trouble Now

    The burkini ban isn’t about security, it’s about symbolism. And should be assessed as such.

  35. No to the banners. I’ve seen a couple of burkinis sported in action on a Yorkshire beach, and the women and their families seemed to be having FUN. They could be better described as hijabinis or similar, as you can see the wearer’s feet, hands, face and a smile.

  36. @ Interested and the “dear Massi” column. The answers to the questions seem to be remarkably like the answers to questions in the Sun’s agony column- either stop being selfish and stupid, or tell so and so to FO.
    The details are of course different, the stupidity is the same.
    Weeding out the bullies won’t be easy especially to start with. Monitoring social media will be a guide as to who to look at, followed by individual surveillance. We’ll know the tide is turning when we start getting anonymous tip offs (that check out). We’ll know we’re on the point of victory when people other than police are willing give evidence. We’ll have won when reports originate from Muslims who also give evidence.
    It would be a damned good idea to enforce one man one vote, and ensure that every vote takes place in secret- means scrapping postal votes as well as personal registration and voter ID.
    We the might find Muslims voting for people other than the ones they were told to. I suspect many Muslims came here to get away from Sharia, certainly some did, and we don’t help them much in that.
    Oh and get rid of the right for foreigners to come here just because they’ve married a British person. Either the foreigner is acceptable as an immigrant in their own right or not at all- the family can unite wherever it likes except here. This will make those here adapt their culture more readily, and reduce the number of new bullies being imported.

  37. Some imam was murdered in America a few weeks back. Previously silent muzzies came out of the woodwork to condemn that.
    Precisely the people we heard nothing from about that shitty truck murderer.

  38. Ignoring the obvious debate of “garish pyjamas and unkempt beards” versus “SS uniforms with swastikas” in public places for a second – would a wet suit be OK?

    For example, if Abdul’s 14th wife was water skiing around the bay, would that be OK? A can of Fosters in the ohter hand, would that swing it?

  39. “Utter, perfect libertarianism is all very well, but it’s unrealistic. If you don’t deal with lions they eat your herd, and when they’ve eaten the herd they come for you.”

    + 1

  40. Bloke in Wiltshire

    Mr Ecks,

    Yeah. The real solution is getting them into work and mixing with people. That means:-

    a) clamp down on benefits
    b) remove all laws about free association

    Don’t like touching ham? No, we aren’t going to jump through hoops for you. You can choose between your sky fairy and having that job. Want to wear a burka for the office? That should be treated no differently to someone who wants to come in dressed as an SS officer or a centurion. In other words, is the gaffer ok with it? Want time off for religious observance? Treated same as tennis practise observance or pub observance.

    No special treatment. And if that’s a problem, fit in or fuck off.

    That’s how America sorted out immigrants. The Chinese, Italians, Germans and Irish had to work. Initially they stuck to their own, but gradually traded more and more. Irish got a liking for Chinese food. Italian and Jewish mobsters worked together. They didn’t care as long as the Jews made money. They put that before tribe eventually.

  41. Sadly, we may have arrived at a position that anything that chivvies and harries muslims should probably be welcomed simply because it makes clear that a bridge has been crossed where tolerance by the non-muslim majority can no longer be taken for granted.

    The risk thereafter is that politicians are reinforced in their already strong belief that tokenism solves problems.

  42. @Pat

    I don’t read the Sun but they don’t have many complaints that X isn’t religious enough. Appreciate you said the problems are different but that’s the point.

    Re

    “Monitoring social media will be a guide as to who to look at, followed by individual surveillance. We’ll know the tide is turning when we start getting anonymous tip offs (that check out). We’ll know we’re on the point of victory when people other than police are willing give evidence. We’ll have won when reports originate from Muslims who also give evidence.”

    All of this currently happens.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *