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.
Pourquoi?
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!
UNE LOGIQUE TORDUE
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!»
Duh!
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...»
AFFRONT AUX VRAIES
FÉMINISTES
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.
VIVE L’INTERDICTION
DE CONDUIRE !
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?
Índia
“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:
Enviar um comentário