Burkini ban suspended by top French court

[rooster59]

Burkini ban suspended by top French court

 

 

France’s highest administrative court has suspended the ban on women wearing burkini swimsuits that had been in force in the southern seaside town of Villeneuve Loubet.

 

The ruling by the State Council in Paris is a temporary one which only applies to the town. A permanent ruling on whether or not to ban the burkini from public view in France is expected to be made in a few months.

 

The Human Rights League had challenged it on the grounds that it was an infringement of religious freedom. “There is the principle which is the freedom of religion. There will be a violation to this freedom if the town decides to forbid someone to express his religion on the public space,” Patrick Spinosi said.

 

The court said the ban “seriously, and clearly illegally, breached the fundamental freedoms to come and go, the freedom of beliefs and individual freedom.”

 

The wearing of burkinis has touched a raw nerve in France which is trying coming to terms with deadly Islamic extremist acts of violence such as the Bastille Day truck attack which killed 86 people in Nice.

 

Prime Minister Manuel Valls has defended the ban but some ministers have criticized it, splitting the government.

 

France’s Moroccan-born education minister, said the burkini debate was fanning racist rhetoric and being used for political gains.

 

Vallaud-Belkacem said she opposed burkinis but dismissed the political argument that the ban was a useful tool in France’s fight against militants.

 

“There is no link between the terror attacks of Daesh and the dress of a woman on the beach,” Vallaud-Belkacem told Europe 1 radio, using the Arabic acronym for Islamic State.

 

Nicolas Sarkozy, who is running again in the election in 2017, has said he’ll never allow burkinis to be worn if he becomes president.

 

 

-- © Copyright Euronews 2016-08-27

[ClutchClark]

french Democracy and Personal Freedoms are really being put to the test these days by Islamic Radicalism and Islamic motivated violence. 

 

I do agree with the Courts decision; however, I can certainly sympathize with the 60+% of the French population who supported the ban. 

 

Effectively, they have given their unique culture away and the Mislims have bitten the hand that feeds them.

[NongKhaiKid]

Yesterday Baerboxer posted he hoped the court will keep its nerve and uphold the ban but it didn't and in throwing the law out talked about fundamental personal freedoms.

However already three French mayors have said they will ignore the administrative court and enforce the ban so an issue involving Muslims will see the French pitted against their own system.

The BBC are showing an interview,   for all the world staged,   with a Muslim woman on a beach showing her excitement when the BBC informed her of the court decision and she was able to wax on about liberty and equality etc.

Funny thing though the woman was dressed in casual clothes,    bareheaded and was prepared to sit in public so attired but right on cue announced she's be back on the beach the next day all covered up.

Not only is the tail wagging the dog it get all the assistance it needs to do so.

[Class C]

22 minutes ago, ClutchClark said:

french Democracy and Personal Freedoms are really being put to the test these days by Islamic Radicalism and Islamic motivated violence. 

 

You could make a good case for arguing that France is inciting the whole situation by allowing ‘charlie hebdo’ cartoons that are totally disrespectful. 

 

Where is the logic in fanning the flames ?

 

charlie hebdo cartoons
 

[jaidam]

Only a matter of time until of one them hides explosives under the funny costume and blow up other beach goers (in the name of  Liberte Egalite Fraternite ). No point in trying to punish the deceased jihadi, but there is very much a point to charging the lilly livered politicians that pandered to extreme islam and facilitated their terror spree.

[Credo]

I have mixed feelings on this.   I understand the apprehension of many people because of the religious symbolism, but on the other hand it is a step in the right direction for many Muslims to allow the women to be at the beach in other than full garb.   

 

It's an incremental step in the right direction.   

[craigt3365]

22 minutes ago, Class C said:

 

You could make a good case for arguing that France is inciting the whole situation by allowing ‘charlie hebdo’ cartoons that are totally disrespectful. 

 

Where is the logic in fanning the flames ?

 

charlie hebdo cartoons
 

It's called freedom.  Freedom of speech.  Like it, hate it, whatever.  It's better than repressive laws. 

 

Perhaps the radicals should be dealt with rather than the freedom of expression?  Education is the key.

[ClutchClark]

28 minutes ago, Class C said:

 

You could make a good case for arguing that France is inciting the whole situation by allowing ‘charlie hebdo’ cartoons that are totally disrespectful. 

 

Where is the logic in fanning the flames ?

 

charlie hebdo cartoons
 

 

I might personally find some of those cartoons offensive; however, I strongly encourage they should be published often. 

 

I have the choice to read them or not.

 

Thats the way it is supposed to work. It is not supposed to result in a terror attack with innocent people being gunned down.

 

If muslims do not like living in a country where such cartoons are part of society and identity then they hqve the freedom to move elsewhere. 

[stevenl]

43 minutes ago, NongKhaiKid said:

Yesterday Baerboxer posted he hoped the court will keep its nerve and uphold the ban but it didn't and in throwing the law out talked about fundamental personal freedoms.

However already three French mayors have said they will ignore the administrative court and enforce the ban so an issue involving Muslims will see the French pitted against their own system.

The BBC are showing an interview,   for all the world staged,   with a Muslim woman on a beach showing her excitement when the BBC informed her of the court decision and she was able to wax on about liberty and equality etc.

Funny thing though the woman was dressed in casual clothes,    bareheaded and was prepared to sit in public so attired but right on cue announced she's be back on the beach the next day all covered up.

Not only is the tail wagging the dog it get all the assistance it needs to do so.

 

3 mayor's have said, formally correct. This court decision is not applicable to their jurisdiction. Different from your statement.

Edited August 27, 2016 by Moderator01
Corrected Quote

[ClutchClark]

14 minutes ago, craigt3365 said:

It's called freedom.  Freedom of speech.  Like it, hate it, whatever.  It's better than repressive laws. 

 

Perhaps the radicals should be dealt with rather than the freedom of expression?  Education is the key.

 

They are currently being educated by imams and their faith and the Koran.

 

How does one educate louder than those things?

[KonaRain]

I'd like to show the BBC, or some of the French, the way that some of the women in Hawaii, who aren't Asians or Southern European, but Scotch Irish or English, and they might be wearing an old long sleeve wetsuit top, with longer shorts, so as not to attract every guy on da beach, or to protect from scorching sun..
-whatever's
Aloha

[ClutchClark]

Just now, KonaRain said:

I'd like to show the BBC, or some of the French, the way that some of the women in Hawaii, who aren't Asians or Southern European, but Scotch Irish or English, and they might be wearing an old long sleeve wetsuit top, with longer shorts, so as not to attract every guy on da beach, or to protect from scorching sun..
-whatever's
Aloha

 

I believe the problem is not that of covering ones skin but rather the ideology motivating it.

 

Nor do I recall any terror attacks in Hawaii in recent years that left many Hawaiians dead and afraid.

 

 

[craigt3365]

3 minutes ago, ClutchClark said:

 

They are currently being educated by imams and their faith and the Koran.

 

How does one educate louder than those things?

I'm NO expert on the Koran, but from what I've read, what these terrorists are doing is not 100% supported by that book.  They've twisted it. 

 

Cartoons hurt no one.  Teaching people hate does.

[NongKhaiKid]

8 minutes ago, stevenl said:

3 mayor's have said, formally correct. This court decision is not applicable to their jurisdiction. Different from your statement.

I'm quoting the BBC.

I wasn't in court,   were you   ?

[ClutchClark]

14 minutes ago, craigt3365 said:

I'm NO expert on the Koran, but from what I've read, what these terrorists are doing is not 100% supported by that book.  They've twisted it. 

 

Cartoons hurt no one.  Teaching people hate does.

 

I have not read the Koran.

 

I just see alot of terrorists saying the reason they decide to shoot, stab and blow up everybody is to defend Islam.

 

Tolerance is key to the success of any Western Culture. Somewhere these terrorists are not building their tolerance level.

[halloween]

1 hour ago, Class C said:

 

You could make a good case for arguing that France is inciting the whole situation by allowing ‘charlie hebdo’ cartoons that are totally disrespectful. 

 

Where is the logic in fanning the flames ?

 

charlie hebdo cartoons
 

Here's some JC cartoons. How many people should I kill?

https://www.funnypica.com/top-30-funny-jesus-pictures-with-humor/

[NongKhaiKid]

34 minutes ago, stevenl said:

3 mayor's have said, formally correct. This court decision is not applicable to their jurisdiction. Different from your statement.

The BBC is now using the word   '  defy  '.

[CWMcMurray]

Ami the only one who is a little confused about the ban?

 

to me it seems that their is little difference between a burkini and a wet suit?

 

are they banning wet suits too?

 

 

Edited August 27, 2016 by CWMcMurray

[stevenl]

2 minutes ago, NongKhaiKid said:

The BBC is now using the word   '  defy  '.

The verdict was applicable to one town, others can legally keep enforcing the ban.

[rijit]

Ami the only one who is a little confused about the ban?

 

to me it seems that their is little difference between a burkini and a wet suit?

 

are they banning wet suits too?

 

 

No confusion the ban as your pictures showed was just plain ridiculous What they didnt show was the nasty small minded rascist ignorant people behind the ban

[CWMcMurray]

If not banning wetsuits ... Then what is to stop women from wearing the same thing and saying it's not a 'burkini' ... It's a 'wetsuit'

 

would a rose by any other name...

 

this seems like a over reaction and style over substance ..implemented without thought

 

how does it combat terrorism? It doesn't in any way solve or address the problem... Just fans the flames

Edited August 27, 2016 by CWMcMurray

[Agent Sumo]

59 minutes ago, craigt3365 said:

It's called freedom.  Freedom of speech.  Like it, hate it, whatever.  It's better than repressive laws. 

 

Perhaps the radicals should be dealt with rather than the freedom of expression?  Education is the key.

 

That's a rather simplistic. 

If Charlie Hebdo restricted their lampooning to people like Abu bakr al-Baghdadi, leader of Islamic State or other scum, they might have found the overwhelming majority of Muslims would come out in complete agreement with them. 

 

But they don't do that do they?

 

They ridicule the Prophet and, for many Muslims, that simply isn't on. You might not share the faith but that's no reason to insult it or those that follow it then dress it up as "free speech".

 

Walk down the street in the UK hurling racist abuse at ethnic minorities and 99.9% of them will just shake their heads or mutter something under their breath but there's that 0.1% that will slice open your windpipe.

 

That 0.1% is who Charlie Hebdo pissed off 

[SgtRock]

49 minutes ago, craigt3365 said:

I'm NO expert on the Koran, but from what I've read, what these terrorists are doing is not 100% supported by that book.  They've twisted it. 

 

Cartoons hurt no one.  Teaching people hate does.

 

As a certain poster continually posts, France has expelled in the region of 40 Imams from France.

 

The question should really be, who is twisting the book, Imams or terrorists ?

 

You do not have to be an expert on the Quran to join the dots 

 

Your last sentence is 100% spot on

[stander]

So prominent Muslims have suddenly become feminists after the Burkini ban, never mind FGM, honor killings, forced marriage and Sharia.

[happy Joe]

24 minutes ago, stevenl said:

The verdict was applicable to one town, others can legally keep enforcing the ban.

 

The mayors could maintain their decree of prohibition but they can not force people verbalized to pay the fine.

 

Otherwise they risk administrative sanctions for publishing these liberticide decrees, tried by the State-Council not complying with the constitution.

 

These penalties can range from denial of credit to the dismissal of the Mayor.

 

Last but not least, Alain Juppe favorite candidate for president, courageously opposed such bans.

 

France is better ...

[craigt3365]

3 minutes ago, Agent Sumo said:

 

That's a rather simplistic. 

If Charlie Hebdo restricted their lampooning to people like Abu bakr al-Baghdadi, leader of Islamic State or other scum, they might have found the overwhelming majority of Muslims would come out in complete agreement with them. 

 

But they don't do that do they?

 

They ridicule the Prophet and, for many Muslims, that simply isn't on. You might not share the faith but that's no reason to insult it or those that follow it then dress it up as "free speech".

 

Walk down the street in the UK hurling racist abuse at ethnic minorities and 99.9% of them will just shake their heads or mutter something under their breath but there's that 0.1% that will slice open your windpipe.

 

That 0.1% is who Charlie Hebdo pissed off 

If they lampooned the leader of IS, they would have been targeted also.  As it's the extremists who are doing the bombing, not the vast majority of Muslims who are moderates.  As pointed out by others, a small minority are twisting things.

 

Charlie Hebdo had cartoons about Christ.  I'm sure many Christians didn't like it, but they didn't resort to bombing and killing either. Why is that?  Religious tolerance perhaps?

 

Your comment about hurling racist speech is not the same thing.  And in many countries, luckily, that is illegal.

[SgtRock]

1 hour ago, Class C said:

 

You could make a good case for arguing that France is inciting the whole situation by allowing ‘charlie hebdo’ cartoons that are totally disrespectful. 

 

Where is the logic in fanning the flames ?

 

charlie hebdo cartoons
 

 

Logic and nutjobs are a bit like hot oil and cold water. It can be quite explosive.

 

Logic is good, If all the players are logical.

 

When there is  a death cult going crazy in your Country killing and wounding hundreds of men, women and children it is time to put logic to bed.

[Agent Sumo]

4 minutes ago, craigt3365 said:

If they lampooned the leader of IS, they would have been targeted also.  As it's the extremists who are doing the bombing, not the vast majority of Muslims who are moderates.  As pointed out by others, a small minority are twisting things.

 

Charlie Hebdo had cartoons about Christ.  I'm sure many Christians didn't like it, but they didn't resort to bombing and killing either. Why is that?  Religious tolerance perhaps?

 

Your comment about hurling racist speech is not the same thing.  And in many countries, luckily, that is illegal.

 

Perhaps they might have still been targeted but those trying to exact revenge would have less passive approval from moderate Muslims who wouldn't go out and do these things themselves but can understand the outrage felt by those that do.

 

Racially insulting speech is illegal, yes, but why is it when it, too, could realistically be described as "free speech"?

[GeorgesAbitbol]

9 minutes ago, craigt3365 said:

If they lampooned the leader of IS, they would have been targeted also.  As it's the extremists who are doing the bombing, not the vast majority of Muslims who are moderates.  As pointed out by others, a small minority are twisting things.

 

Charlie Hebdo had cartoons about Christ.  I'm sure many Christians didn't like it, but they didn't resort to bombing and killing either. Why is that?  Religious tolerance perhaps?

 

Your comment about hurling racist speech is not the same thing.  And in many countries, luckily, that is illegal.

Maybe, before praising Christian and every religion except Islam for its tolerence, you should look at mordern History and what happen in countries where the information is not "interesting" 

Africa : Christian warriors who kill in the name of God, remember IRA, had a look recently in Burma...

But yeah it is not the same, right?

Veil is not a burka, burkini DOES nNOT cover the face, so women wear it and those who are not happy have to deal with it.

[phantomfiddler]

Anything that covers the face and prevents recognition should be banned anywhere in public, simple as that !