Nudes in the news

[jbeegoode]

There is Burkini controversy in Southern France. This showed up in the headlines:
French Court Overturns Ban on Burkinis
August 26, 2016
Headlines

France’s highest administrative court has overturned a local ban on full-body swimsuits known as "burkinis," amid ongoing controversy over an incident in which armed French police confronted a woman on the beach over her full-body dress. Photos of the incident show two armed police officers approaching the woman as she lay sleeping, and then standing over her as she removed her long-sleeve shirt. The police then gave her a ticket, which said that she wasn’t wearing "an outfit respecting good morals and secularism." More than two dozen French towns have banned the burkini, saying the swimsuit violates French secular laws. On Thursday, dozens of women protested the burkini ban at a rally outside the French Embassy in London. This is one of the protesters.

    India Thorogood: "It’s never right to tell a woman what she can wear or to take her clothes off. That’s not for a man to say. And I think, in a time of increased Islamophobia, which we’ve seen in the U.K. and in France, it’s just an even more horrible image to see, because it just shows the kind of things that Muslim women have to deal with. So we wanted to show solidarity with Muslim women in France and call for a repeal of the ban."

AT: http://www.democracynow.org/2016/8/26/headlines/french_court_overturns_ban_on_burkinis

It doesn't explicitly tell us that they are defending nudity, nor emphasis on it, but that seems to be what she and the courts are saying. They both seem to have a "man" telling them chip on their shoulders.

Any better information on this in the European press? The Gardian: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/aug/25/frances-burkini-ban-row-divides-government-court-mulls-legality

So, if it is protected for a man to walk down the street with his women walking behind dressed in burkas, then is it protected to appear freely undressed? Here we are 100 years later, another wave of Victorian-like disease, against body freedom, this time with these women's groups in the mix....
Jbee

[eyesup]

If someone wants to go out in public dressed or not however they please, there shouldn't be anyone bothering them with laws regarding the morality of clothing.

If someone wants to do their errands wrapped in a blanket, so what. If another wants to do the same with only a speedo or nothing at all, the law needs to stay out of it.

I can see why some are fearful of different customs being thrust on them. But banning cultural behavior is a two edged sword and can hurt as much as help. Adhering to a religious requirement is fine if it's voluntary. VOLUNTARY
 
Once a group starts forcing dress codes, that's a whole 'nuther bolt of cloth.

Duane

[JOhnGw]

I understand that a French higher court has ruled the burkini ban to be unconstitutional.

[jbeegoode]

Yea JOhn, That's what the Democracy Now article was about, the high court knocking down the dress code. The Guardian things told me that other similar bans had been deemed unconstitutional, but the local politicians still did this and then sent five or six armed men in menacing black uniforms, demanding that...well, to me that is rape from where she is coming from.

Yea, Eyesup. I think that it comes down to intolerance, which is a bad thing no matter where it comes from. There is law which impartially remains secular, but then this makes secularism like an enforced state religion...goofed up.

I suppose that Muslims will be harassed there in other ways, in spite of court rulings. They are just not wanted. People were cheering the police action.  I'm sure that the politicians heard that one. I suppose that what comes around, goes around.
Jbee

[Peter S]

On the one hand, freedom to dress - or not - as one sees fit. On the other, a section of French society standing up for what it perceives to be its own culture in the face of threats from an invasive and opposing culture, and having chosen an item of clothing as the weapon in this instance. I can see their point but feel they've chosen the wrong battle in this instance.

Peter

[atourist]

On the one hand, freedom to dress - or not - as one sees fit. On the other, a section of French society standing up for what it perceives to be its own culture in the face of threats from an invasive and opposing culture, and having chosen an item of clothing as the weapon in this instance. I can see their point but feel they've chosen the wrong battle in this instance.

Peter

The 'burkini' controversy is far more complex than just being a question of culture, but the perceived (ie, mistaken) 'threat' to national culture is certainly an element.

I always think that when people start worrying about their culture being 'threatened' they must be worried that it is too weak to naturally survive outside influences. If it was that weak, it wouldn't be worth preserving, and the best thing would be to put it out of its misery. More likely: the person who feels his culture is under threat doesn't understand what his or her culture really is.

It's a bit like certain British people clinging to the pound, red telephone boxes and London buses when our culture is actually about far more substantial things like freedom of speech, the NHS, Shakespeare and (topically) the shining example of Team GB at the Olympics, to give just a few out of many examples. And - dare I say it? - multiculturalism is another of Britain's major cultural assets. All these things are branches of an oak tree that is not threatened by anything growing underneath it, whether it is weeds or flowers.

If the French really thought about it - and I'm sure millions of them do - a burkini on a beach is a miniscule threat to a Frenchness that is defined by much more important things, from the French Revolution downwards.

As naturists we should understand that (like taking our clothes off in public) putting clothes on on a beach creates some issues, but none of them are any threat to anybody's true culture or way of life.

[JOhnGw]

I think this picture which I first saw on Facebook a few days back summarises the situation beautifully.

[Greenbare Woods]

Anyone who thinks this is only about swimming attire is missing the entire thing. This is a hostile invasion of France and other countries.   Shame on the French Court. 

[jbeegoode]

On the one hand, freedom to dress - or not - as one sees fit. On the other, a section of French society standing up for what it perceives to be its own culture in the face of threats from an invasive and opposing culture, and having chosen an item of clothing as the weapon in this instance. I can see their point but feel they've chosen the wrong battle in this instance.

Peter

A few fundamentalist got in the French faces, and actually did threaten to destroy their culture replacing it with intolerance, etc. Some of that, in Nice was akin to 911. There will always be a reciprocal reaction. All across this country for months and years, it was scary to voice anti-war sentiment, the constitution was attacked from fear. Freedom and constitutional protections slipped down several notches. The different were targeted. Everywhere there were these pickup trucks driving around with flags flying on them as an example of the extremes.

Much the same must be happening in France. It is not just a get off my back empire attack there, but we want to impose a different law attack. Along with the freedom to be different being oppressed, there is a tendency to clamor to the fundamental ideals of the dominate culture. It gets more extreme and people have to consider and define where they stand. Some conform easily, as they never have given much deeper thought to these matters. Others push to extremes. So, generally as a reciprocal reaction, we may see more body freedom, more acceptance of nudity, even as a national cultural pride.
 
But this “might” happens, as the framework which protects the French from a world of police state falls apart and people cling to those fascist who they believe can protect them from something that they irrationally fear, a something that is entirely uncommon, a terrifying act. Fear makes anger, anger breeds anger, punching out into the darkness, it reciprocates over and over, leading to war. The French have lost much more than lives. Like Americans, they are succumbing to a tried and true revolutionary tool.

This atmosphere can take a different course for body freedom. Another weirdness that I observed at that time, was that this atmosphere of anger, fear and intolerant coercion can inflame other issues. The example, at that time early in the century, was a secular ruling by the Supreme Court. The Christian right wing began acting like the Taliban. I remember my friends at work getting just plain nasty and I stayed out of the lunch room. A rightwing issue like anti-nudity can be inflamed in the atmosphere, latched onto and used. Right now, most people are united against their common foe, but what happens when they go to define themselves in an intolerant atmosphere and intolerant attitudes?

 If things calm down, at least somewhat and tourist dollars are an influence, I suppose that the French Riviera will continue to be as it is. Are these locals or are they tourists on the beach cheering on the police action? Were they really thinking, or just angry at a symbol, as them against us, black hat and white hat mentality taking over? What percentage actually cheered? Is it a stumbling politician attempting to maintain the peaceful status quo and economy, knowing that now he is looked upon as the protector, when there is little that he can actually do? Is it all a show, just something to make him look good, or a rally point?

Is it just attempting to get something offensive, to those that would react, off of the beach to keep the peace, order and save against the economic hit and bad press? My son is wandering off to Europe for the next couple of weeks. I actually had to stop and think, "Is that safe?" Lots of people just knee jerk and get scared off, "Nice has bombs, riots, radical muslims everywhere, it must be a bad place to vacation."

Jus' thinkin',
Jbee

[JOhnGw]

Anyone who thinks this is only about swimming attire is missing the entire thing. This is a hostile invasion of France and other countries.   Shame on the French Court.

In practice, the vast majority of Muslims in France date from before Algeria achieved independence in the 1960's. Up to then Algeria was effectively an integral part of France just as metropolitan France is now.
There was also a large number of non-Muslim French in Algeria up to this date when the vast majority of "pieds noirs" also fled to France. Algerian and Muslim restaurants and their traditional dished are a significant part of ordinary French cuisine.

[ric]

jbee dont be overly worried , ive just got back from the airport , daughter is off to utrecht uni {holand} to do a 2 year masters degree,  the normal worries of city life , alcholol and other substances far outweigh the tiny risk of a terrorist related incident.

[JOhnGw]

jbee dont be overly worried , ive just got back from the airport , daughter is off to utrecht uni {holand} to do a 2 year masters degree,  the normal worries of city life , alcholol and other substances far outweigh the tiny risk of a terrorist related incident.

Not exactly the same thing but in the last year 20 people died on Turkish roads for every one killed in a terrorist incident.

[nudewalker]

Everyday my Facebook feed is filled with half Muslim terror posts and half pro Muslim peace posts. Most of these edicts from those mayors are nothing more than taking advantage of fear for political gain. Not that there isn't a threat, just as JohnGw pointed out, there are more deaths from auto accidents that terrorist attacks.

I often wondered, as burka clad women sat on the beach in Florida, are they condemning me to hell for wearing what almost amounts as next to nothing? There was the one incident where a young girl asked her mother "Where is your bathing suit?'. After being exposed to the beach and others scantily clad how do their parents explain once you reach a certain age you must cover also. There has to be a culture shock on both sides; however how can one come to the west and expect we change our culture to fit their beliefs? Or, will they try to impose their values on us?

Bottom line to me is if you wish to wear a full body covering to the beach so be it but on the same hand don't expect me to cover up for your sake. 

[jbeegoode]

Everyday my Facebook feed is filled with half Muslim terror posts and half pro Muslim peace posts. Most of these edicts from those mayors are nothing more than taking advantage of fear for political gain. Not that there isn't a threat, just as JohnGw pointed out, there are more deaths from auto accidents that terrorist attacks.

I often wondered, as burka clad women sat on the beach in Florida, are they condemning me to hell for wearing what almost amounts as next to nothing? There was the one incident where a young girl asked her mother "Where is your bathing suit?'. After being exposed to the beach and others scantily clad how do their parents explain once you reach a certain age you must cover also. There has to be a culture shock on both sides; however how can one come to the west and expect we change our culture to fit their beliefs? Or, will they try to impose their values on us?

Bottom line to me is if you wish to wear a full body covering to the beach so be it but on the same hand don't expect me to cover up for your sake.

These burkinis are not much different, maybe more clingy than the early swimwear going back to past 100 years ago. There was a liberalization of women being seen as too frail to swim (whenever that silliness began). Slowly, more skin was revealed. The culture changed, but we are still being influenced by the proper Victorian dress code and social oppression. It should be "don't expect me to cover up for your sake," but liberation isn't complete. I DO see that the body freedom should not end on the sand of the beach. Good for the beach, good elsewhere.

You can bet that these muslims are looking down their noses at us and others, just like the intolerant who would call us heathen, crude, uncultured, damned and with all disdain. Who needs that vibe? Those that immigrate, come from intolerant and proud societies. They can't know different. Those that have been around western culture tolerate it, but it is wrong damnable behavior, and they don't want their children to see it. It is just like our fundamentalist nemesis who have lived here for generations acting like some kind of christian taliban, wanting to take over with impositions of law and power.

When these oppressive intolerant fundamentalist are outwardly attacking My freedoms, then I will be defensive. It is difficult to be tolerant when someone is stepping on my toes. The key word is tolerant. The key issue is religious freedom for everybody.

On the other hand, I see a woman covered up and walking behind a man, being essentially owned, and to me that is abuse. I also see that attitude about other human beings as the guy's potential to have him try that crap on me. Am I being intolerant, or defending my sisters freedom? I was required to isolate a young immigrant girl from boys in my classroom as a religious/cultural  accommodation. I had to rearrange the desks and place girls in desks between her and any males. It was very disruptive, taught segregation, and railroaded the girl, cheated her, when my job and mission was to teach her to think. Choice isn't choice unless there is a full complement of information to make that choice. It took a long time to get rid of separate classrooms and schools, to make for equality. That isn't religion, its defacto slavery. Is the woman in a burkini really making a clear choice to dress as such? Some have choice, like most Black Muslims and a couple of people who have been close to me. Too many do not get choice.

Perhaps I should spell naturist with a Capital "N" and comport myself nude. My behavior is every bit as justified as these religions. Perhaps, I should get accommodations and protections, too.

Were those people on the beach defending equality and liberty, or what they perceive as their culture? Or both?

About politicians using fear. When I look at it, I have about as much chance of being killed in a terrorist attack, as I do of hitting the lottery on a given day. Over 300 million people and most are not in a target area. How's my math? What are the odds that my naked body would actually do harm to another?
Jbee

[eyesup]

. . banning cultural behavior is a two edged sword and can hurt as much as help. Adhering to a religious requirement is fine if it's voluntary.

Where I posted this still applies after all this. When you ban that clothing, who's to say what gets banned next. Maybe something you value. There's the two edged sword.

If the courts want to say you cannot ban clothing, they must also eventually state that one group cannot require another to yield their rights in order to facilitate the protection of another.

You have to treat all equally. If the courts eventually rule that one group gets protection for itself from another in order to preserve it, then I agree with Bob. Shame on any parliament, congress or other political body that caves into political correctness.

That would be the de facto surrender by the system.

If you come to a free country and you want to force your family members to follow the old customs, that's fine if they agree to. Once they attain legal age and they choose to go off on their own, that is also fine. No one should not be allowed to treat anyone as chattel.

Duane