terça-feira, 30 de agosto de 2016

Burkinis? Here's why we should fight them on the beaches / Burkini : le monde à l’envers / “Não usem saias”, pede ministro indiano às turistas estrangeiras

Burkinis? Here's why we should fight them on the beaches

Allison Pearson
30 August 2016 • 1:42pm

On a bathing platform in Turkey, I found myself sunbathing next to a Muslim family. The father strutted about in a pair of teeny red trunks, just visible beneath the landslide of his vast belly. The mother wore a black and orange burkini, which left only her face, hands and feet exposed. She looked like a broiling penguin, clearly suffering in the intense heat. Their lovely children – two girls and a boy – jumped into the water again and again, as lithe and playful as porpoises.
"It’s not what the burkini is, but the poisonous ideology it represents"

I found myself gazing at the little girls and wondering how long. How long before they had to put away their pretty bikinis and their Caramac tummies, how long before they would never know the bliss of sun and sea on their skin again? I gave them about two years, poor mites. No such loss of freedom or pleasure would trouble their brother.

As the battle of the burkini rages in France, some commentators have claimed that at least this ludicrous garment affords Muslim women the opportunity to go swimming, when they might otherwise be locked away. I find that argument gives me the same sinking feeling as a sign on the gate to a meadow saying, “Dogs Must Be Kept on a Lead”. What appals is the way that Western women protested outside the French embassy waving a sign saying: “Non Islamophobia. Oui aux burkinis.” How dim and deluded can you be? France’s objection to the burkini, and its ugly sister the burka, arises from a love of women, not a hatred of Muslims.

On Radio 4’s Any Questions, the Labour MP Cat Smith said: “It is absolutely offensive in the 21st century… when men with guns start policing what women should and shouldn’t wear.” Ms Smith was referring to cops on the beach in Nice who had been trying to enforce a ban on the burkini. It genuinely didn’t seem to occur to her that the men who are most keenly policing what women should and shouldn’t wear in the 21st century are the ones who belong to a repressive, misogynistic culture which denies females agency over their own bodies. Now, that’s what I call offensive.

Sorry to break this to you, Cat, but Islamists aren’t actually in the 21st century; they’ve barely made it into the 20th and, unless they’re stopped, they fully intend to turn the clock back to the 14th, when girls were for breeding purposes only.

It’s much more comfortable for outraged liberals to attack their own culture for trying, however clumsily, to protect its values than it is to address the vexed question of what you do about a fanatical religious minority which despises our freedoms. As one scathing wit put it on Twitter: “This burkini ban is ridiculous. It’s 2016 and we live in a liberal, tolerant society. People should be free to enslave whomever they choose.”

After a murderous summer, in which toddlers were mown down by a truck in Nice and an 85-year-old priest had his throat cut before his own altar, France is setting out what a modern, equal society can and cannot tolerate. She deserves our sympathy. Socialist prime minister Manuel Valls is surely right to call the burkini “a symbol of the enslavement of women”. If it isn’t, then why aren’t Muslim men wearing them, eh?

And I’m afraid the fact that a woman may “choose” to wear a burkini doesn’t mean that her “choice” must always be respected. Not if it ends up intimidating other Muslim women into feeling ashamed for exposing their own flesh, making integration even harder. It’s not what the burkini is, but the poisonous ideology it represents.

The key question is where does authority lie if too much is conceded to minorities? Consider a small clash of cultures right here in the UK. At a graduation ceremony for one college in the University of London, proud parents look on as their offspring queue up to receive a handshake from the Principal. The audience includes my friend Jackie. It should be a joyful occasion, but there is unease in the room. The female Muslim students put on gloves to shake hands with the Principal or they hold out their programmes to signal they do not wish to make physical contact with him.
"I admire Nicolas Sarkozy for saying this week that the French republic will never ever accept segregated bathing. He knows it’s the thin end of the wedge"

Many people feel uncomfortable, but no one dares object. Jackie says: “You think how weird is it that a university, of all places, is pandering to a minority instead of saying, 'I’m sorry, but this is how we do things here’? Actually, we don’t think it’s wrong for a man and a woman to shake hands. We think it’s nice and polite, so deal with it."

Is this multiculturalism in action, or is it cowardly pandering to a sexist custom the majority of Britons find alien? How long before the university decides to dispense with handshakes at its graduation ceremony lest it cause offence to those who won’t participate?

Compare and contrast with the German response. In June, Hamburg teachers staged a walk-out during an end-of-term ceremony for students after a Muslim pupil refused to shake the hand of his female class teacher. “No offence,” he said, “my religion won’t let me do that.”

Fellow teachers did take offence, however. They insisted that the boy be sent home. When the headmaster refused, members of staff walked out.

On the surface, this may seem like a minor discourtesy that can easily be overlooked to keep the peace. Live and let live, eh? But where do you draw the line, and, more importantly, who gets to draw it?

Segregated sessions for Muslim women at a public swimming baths look harmless enough, less so a segregated political meeting involving senior Labour MPs, with the women banished to an adjacent room. I admire Nicolas Sarkozy for saying this week that the French republic will never ever accept segregated bathing. He knows it’s the thin end of the wedge.
"Slowly and insidiously, Islamic laws and practices are allowed to take root and it then falls to the host country to challenge them"

When she was Home Secretary, Theresa May launched an independent inquiry into the state of Sharia law in the UK to examine whether Islamic courts “are being used to support forced marriage and issue unfair divorces”. Again, it sounds unobjectionable, doesn’t it? But why is a parallel legal system, one that weighs a woman’s evidence as worth half that of a man, allowed to exist in our country in the first place?

The Iranian and Kurdish Women’s Rights Organisation says it wants all women to have the protection of the mainstream British legal system. Yet, slowly and insidiously, Islamic laws and practices are allowed to take root and it then falls to the host country to challenge them. It ends up making us look intolerant, when what we are guilty of is being too tolerant by half.

We don’t need an inquiry into how well or how badly Sharia courts are discriminating against women. We simply need a ban so discrimination isn’t even a possibility.

And please spare me the howls of concern for the rights of women to dress as they please when there is zero anger about the rights of women forced into ugly, repressive garments by a bunch of medieval misogynists. Just look at the wonderful smiles of those women in Syria the other week who cast off their burkas as soon as Isil had departed.

Burkinis? We shall fight them on the beaches. We shall defend our bikinis. We shall never surrender the rights men and women died for.


At a glance | Where burqas are banned

Full burqa and niqab ban

France, since 2004
Belgium, since 2011
Chad, since 2015
Cameroon, in five provinces, since 2015
Diffa, Niger, since 2015
Brazzaville, Congo, since 2015
Tessin, Switzerland, since 2016

Burkini ban

Around 30 French coastal towns had issued bans, but France's highest court ruled against them on 26th August, meaning that burkini bans are now illegal

Partial burqa and niqab ban

The Netherlands: women cannot have their faces covered in schools, hospital and on public transport
The Italian town of Novara: women were told to stop wearing a full veil in 2010, but there is no established fines system
Parts of Catalonia, Spain: The country's Supreme Court ruled against a ban in some areas in 2013, however those areas which brought their cases to the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) have continued with the ban - supported by an ECHR ruling in their favour in 2014
Turkey: a full ban was abandoned in 2013. Now, women are only barred if they work in the judiciary, military and police

Burkini : le monde à l’envers

Richard Martineau
Lundi, 22 août 2016 05:00 MISE à JOUR Lundi, 22 août 2016 05:00

Décidément, le débat sur le burkini est surréaliste. Prenez Agnès Gruda, de La Presse.

«Le burkini n’emprisonne pas les musulmanes, il les libère», a-t-elle écrit il y a quelques jours.


Parce que si le burkini n’existait pas, les femmes musulmanes ne pourraient pas aller à la plage ou à la piscine.

Donc, vive le burkini!


C’est comme si je félicitais les Américains racistes des années 1960 d’avoir créé des «places pour Noirs» à l’arrière des autobus.

«Wow, c’est cool de permettre aux Noirs de voyager à l’arrière des autobus. Comme ça, ça leur permet de se promener, d’aller travailler, au lieu de rester chez eux... Finalement, la ségrégation dans les autobus n’emprisonne pas les Noirs, au contraire: ça les libère!»


Vous imaginez les réactions si une journaliste osait écrire ce genre de choses à propos de la loi qui interdisait aux Noirs de s’asseoir à l’avant des autobus?

Elle se ferait traiter d’imbécile et de raciste! Mais dans le cas du burkini, on n’éprouve aucun problème à tenir le même genre de propos!

Le burkini, vêtement libérateur...

Mais par quelle logique tordue peut-on arriver à une conclusion aussi absur­de?

Des religieux ultramisogynes obligent les femmes à se couvrir de la tête aux pieds parce que leur corps est sale et on trouve ça libérateur?

L’Occident est vraiment tombé sur la tête!

Bientôt, si ça continue, on va féliciter les islamistes qui fouettent leurs victimes parce que c’est moins grave que de leur couper la tête.

«Wow, le fouet, quel progrès! On a beau dire, c’est quand même plus humain que la décapitation, non? Décidément, l’État islamique s’en va dans le bon chemin...»


On est rendu là.

Au lieu de pourfendre une idéologie arriérée qui étouffe les femmes, la go-gauche et le mouvement féministe vantent les vertus du voile et du burkini!

Heureusement que Simone de Beauvoir n’est pas en vie, ce débat la tuerait.

Jamais les militants de la go-gauche et les féministes ne tiendraient ce genre de propos si c’était des extrémistes catholiques qui obligeaient les femmes à se couvrir pour aller se baigner.

Ces gens descendraient dans la rue et condamneraient la misogynie du pape.

Mais parce que c’est une religion «exotique» et «orientale» qui contraint la moitié de l’humanité à porter un burkini à la plage, on trouve ça cool et «libérateur».

Il fut un temps où le mouvement féministe défendait les femmes. Aujourd’hui, le mouvement féministe défend une idéologie.

Ce n’est pas du tout la même chose.


La haine de l’Occident est en train d’aveugler la gauche.

Les féministes devraient condamner d’une seule et unique voix la miso­gynie islamiste. Au lieu de ça, elles dépensent temps et énergie pour justifier l’injustifiable, sous prétexte que la misogynie orientale (qui est «culturelle») est plus acceptable que la misogynie occidentale (qui, elle, est «politique»).

Aujourd’hui, on dit que le burkini libè­re.

Que dira-t-on demain?

Que l’interdiction de conduire pour les Saoudiennes les protège des accidents?

Não usem saias”, pede ministro indiano às turistas estrangeiras
30/8/2016, OBSERVADOR

Mahesh Sharma, ministro do Turismo da Índia, aconselhou as mulheres estrangeiras a não utilizar saias nem sair à noite quando visitarem o país, "por questões de segurança".

João Francisco Gomes

O ministro do Turismo da Índia aconselhou as mulheres que visitam o país a não utilizar saias e a não sair à noite sozinhas. “Para a sua segurança, as mulheres estrangeiras não devem usar vestidos curtos nem saias. A cultura indiana é diferente da ocidental”, disse Mahesh Sharma este fim de semana, numa conferência em que apresentou um kit e um panfleto que será distribuído aos turistas, à chegada à Índia, escreve o The Times of India. Sharma tornou a insistir no assunto, ao falar do kit a distribuir aos visitantes: “Há um cartão com a lista do que fazer e não fazer. Coisas básicas como não sair à noite ou não usar saias”, disse o ministro.

A recomendação não caiu bem e levou o ministro a recuar nas declarações, tentando esclarecer o que tinha dito. “Não demos instruções específicas em relação ao que devem ou não vestir. Apenas estamos a pedir-lhes que tenham cautela ao sair à noite. Não estamos a tentar mudar as preferências de ninguém”, explicou o ministro. Sharma tentou ainda justificar com a sua própria família: “Sou pai de duas raparigas. Nunca diria às mulheres o que elas devem ou não vestir“, disse o governante, que classificou uma possível proibição das saias como “inimaginável”. “Mas não é crime ser cauteloso“, concluiu o ministro.

Sharma já tinha estado envolvido numa polémica no ano passado, depois de ter dito que as raparigas não deviam sair de casa à noite. “As raparigas quererem uma noite fora de casa até pode ser correto no resto do mundo, mas não faz parte da cultura indiana“, disse o ministro do Turismo no ano passado. O país tem sido alvo de duras críticas por não dar resposta aos repetidos casos de violação de mulheres, chegando a colocar as culpas nas próprias vítimas por não se cobrirem ou por andarem na rua à noite.

Os casos mais recentes na Índia têm merecido comentários dos principais líderes políticos do país. “O número de crimes contra as mulheres depende de quão vestidas elas estão e de quão regularmente visitam os templos”, defendeu Babulal Gaur, um importante líder do BJP (o maior partido político da Índia), que afirmou ainda que a “violação é um crime que depende do homem e da mulher. Às vezes é correto e outras vezes é errado“. Om Prakash Chautala, o líder do INLD (outro partido político indiano), defendeu no ano passado que “o casamento infantil é uma solução para a violação e outras atrocidades contra as mulheres”.

Sem comentários: