Re: Way I see it I don't know that's the case though. The Burka ban was based on security but I can't comment on them extending it to the Burkini. As I said, some people may not particularly like a law but when you're in that country then then they should be respected or challenged through official channels.
You've just unintentionally hit the nail on the head. Her scenario is completely different to yours as well. In the current climate in France, for her, it must have been quite an intimidating and scary position to be in.
Re: Way I see it she must have been red hot i that they must have feared for her health, and she couldnt get a tan ben covered over in that and i clicked on the link because i thought it said bikini ban in france, i nearly booked a flight to go
Re: Way I see it No worries I'm aware sometimes written word can come out a bit different to how I intend it to.
I'd think it would be pretty frightening myself so would seem relevant. It feels like from the outside looking in an almost sexual assault and whatever the rights and wrongs of the situation is both oppressive and patronising towards women.
Re: Way I see it Don't see why these should be banned really, those all black outfits with the faces covered should be banned though as they're intimidating. Why are they black as well when they're from Arabia where it's red hot, shouldn't they be white? Or is this more punishment doled out to women in that area?
A woman who was just wearing leggings, a long sleeved top and a head scarf was made to undress by four blokes who were carrying guns. Made to ******* undress by armed police. If you can't see that is so unbelievably ****** up and hugely intimidating then there's something wrong in your head. I'm sorry, but there is.
Turns out it was a set-up, woman turned up in the outfit with a professional photographer in toe and waited for the police to turn up. Muslims playing the victim again, which was what led to child grooming all over the country and radicalisation in jails with the liberal establishment too scared to do anything.
That's not really a set up though is it - it's just an experiment to see what the reaction would be and having a photographer on hand to document it. It's still something that actually happened and is in my mind wrong. A set up would be taking a photo of 4 fake policeman making someone undress.
Strictly speaking you are correct. However, they are police and if the police are routinely armed then it would be the case. They didn't specifically call for an armed response unit! Having said that the ban is ridiculous, what's the difference between that and somebody wearing a wetsuit? "I'm sorry, you can't wear that many clothes on the beach" - it's crazy!
Re: Way I see it But isn't that what we are debating? Just saying "rules are rules" isn't a response, do you think the rule is correct? The rules in Nazi Germany were you couldn't do certain things if you were Jewish, was that ok then? After all "rules are rules"? That's the defence of dictatorships. It's a totally absurd law, banning full coverings is one thing, but this is essentially saying that people can't wear too much clothing on a beach! What if someone has a skin condition but wishes still to sit with their family on a beach? This type of clothing would be ideal to protect from the sun - but no, you have to wear a swim suit that shows flesh!
A woman paying a photographer to lay in wait and photograph armed police forcing her to undress is no more of a setup than a bigot paying armed police to lay in wait and force a woman to undress.
But the fact that it needed FOUR armed men to ask a woman to undress is the key bit. Had one officer who happened to have a gun in his holster had approached her the ban would be ridiculous but the actions of the police would be respectful. Sending a group of four, all of which had their guns makes the situation much more frightening and over the top racist bullying and harassment