Paris pool bans Muslim woman in 'burqini' swimsuit

Breitbart ^ | 08/12/09 | Staff

[FreedomFerret]

Man, there is nothing hotter than a woman sporting a wet burlap sack. Rawr!

[kjo]

...but...but...but...you can see their feet!

[wolfcreek]

Someone needs to tell these women, “We KNOW what you look like NAKED”.

[Disambiguator]

"Next up! Svimvear!"

"Veddy nice."

[Disambiguator]

I think some enterprising bartender needs to come up with a drink called a ‘burqini.’

[dusttoyou]

Chastity Belts to the rescue!!

[sunny48]

Years ago I read about a Saudi princess, Princess Sultana’s Circle, it was a trilogy.
There’s many parts of the book I always remember. One was when a young girl was diving in her pool in her back yard.
A neighbor boy saw her and complained.
She kept diving and one day the father tied her up, weighed her down and threw her in.

[Iron Munro]

Pictures of the "burquinis"

Not to be confused with the "Kerry-quini"

[dmz]

I think some enterprising bartender needs to come up with a drink called a ‘burqini.’
_______

i’ll take mine shaken not stirred.

[loreldan]

Wow! Good thing the Amish don’t live in France. Freedom of religion only if you adhere to secular norms.

[vladimir998]

It’s no joke about being a health issue:

Rickets has made a comeback among Muslim women in Britain: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/1154211.stm

[AppyPappy]

“French convert to Islam”

Lunatic feminist attention whore

[goldfinch]

Pool staff "reminded her of the rules that apply in all (public) swimming pools which forbid swimming while clothed," said Daniel Guillaume, an official with the pool management.

Sounds like skinny dipping is the way to go in French pools...

[fr_freak]

Wow! Good thing the Amish don’t live in France. Freedom of religion only if you adhere to secular norms.

Actually, I think the French have the advantage over us when it comes to this. We have certain freedoms specifically guaranteed in the Constitution, but some have become particularly glorified by anti-American interests merely because they recognize them as a means of using our own values to destroy us. As an example, the First Amendment guarantees that Congress shall make no law establishing a religion, nor prohibiting the free exercise thereof, but only an extremely opportunistic interpretation of that principle would be used to say that a swimming pool can't ban a burquini.

The freedom to worship Allah and Mohammed is not infringed by not allowing a burquini in a swimming pool, yet the intention of the First Amendment is deliberately stretched to force Americans to accept Islam in all areas. The Muslims could find another place to swim, or not swim at all, and that would not inhibit their ability to worship Allah one bit. But that is not the goal here. The goal is to force themselves on American society using our own misinterpreted laws against us. Meanwhile, they use the exact same laws to forbid Christians from openly exercising their faith. As a result, we end up with schools teaching all about Islam, but forbidding even a mention of Christianity.

The French, not having a Bill of Rights that is selectively elevated to the level of Gospel, do not feel obliged to be intimidated and used in such a way. They feel far more comfortable protecting their own right to be French than we feel protecting our right to be American.

[Dajjal]

cultural jihad bump

[loreldan]

I’m now in the uncomfortable position of defending Muslims somehow, but so be it. I don’t care if a private pool bans any kind of clothes - or lack of. But the French are talking about banning Muslim dress altogether. Fine for them. But to have Americans (who may I remind you was populated by people seeking freedom of religion) encouraging them to ban excessively modest clothes (which is a ban on their religion) is unreal to me. We either want freedom of religion or we don’t. Do you want freedom of religion only if it’s Christian? Any other standard would be jeopardizing our national identity otherwise.

[fr_freak]

But the French are talking about banning Muslim dress altogether. Fine for them. But to have Americans (who may I remind you was populated by people seeking freedom of religion) encouraging them to ban excessively modest clothes (which is a ban on their religion) is unreal to me.

My point was that banning the burquini, even at a public pool, is NOT an infringement on one's ability to practice their religion. Theoretically, one could ban crosses from a public swimming pool, and that would not prevent anyone who swims from worshiping Christ.

The French do not suffer from the disease that has infected our, and most English-speaking, societies, which is a sort of self-loathing where we no longer feel entitled to protect and promote our own culture. The French are very proud of French culture (for some reason) and they are not the least bit hesitant to show that, or to protect their culture within their own borders. Part of the reason that they are considering things such as banning the hijab or the burquini is that they recognize that Muslims are attempting to overrun France with Islam, and since Islam is all together a religion, a culture, and a political system, the supremacy of Islam in France necessarily means the displacement or death of French culture. They are simply taking steps to ensure that French culture does not die.

Once again, part of the reason that banning a burquini in a public pool would seem so horrible to Americans these days is because we have been largely brainwashed into believing that principles put in place to protect freedom are really shackles that prevent us from even being critical of other cultures/religions in our local communities. The Bill of Rights was designed to be a limitation on the power of the federal government to interfere in the business of local communities, but is now used as a means for the federal government to control local communities and force them to accept foreign people and cultures at the expense of their own. Thus, we get a situation where it is more politically correct to fly the Mexican flag than it is to fly the American flag. Our Bill of Rights is being used to destroy us, not protect us as it was designed. It is being used to take the power away from local communities to set their own standards, rather than protecting us from interference in those standards. I would object to the federal government banning burquinis, but I think that local governments and other public entities should have every right to set community standards and enforce them, and if that means they ban burquinis, then so be it.

[loreldan]

So what is American culture? All Americans came from other cultures. So American culture to me is freedom and self-reliance. Let the French do what they want, but if we start limiting what we can wear we're the ones attacking our culture not the Muslims. If I as a white, non-muslim, American male decide for whatever reason that I want to wear a bur-qua, then I sure as hell don't want somebody in Washington or in Denver telling me that I can't do it! My ancestors came here on the Mayflower and fought in every American war since then. They came here so that they and I, as their descendant, can do whatever, pursue whatever, worship whatever I wish - as long as I'm not hurting someone else. THAT is American culture!

[fr_freak]

So what is American culture? All Americans came from other cultures. So American culture to me is freedom and self-reliance. Let the French do what they want, but if we start limiting what we can wear we're the ones attacking our culture not the Muslims.

It is not true that all Americans came from other cultures. I was born an American. I have lived my whole life as an American, as have millions of other people. We have a distinct culture, one that may have arisen from a mishmash of other cultures originally, but has its own distinctness now. To deny that is to deny everything that has made America great.

When you say "but if we start limiting what we can wear" you are engaging in a bit of a strawman. I've already said that I would object to the federal government putting out an edict as to what we can wear, or say, or pray. That is what the Constitution is for - to protect us from exactly that kind of overbearing central government. However, the Founders envisioned sovereign States, where the federal government was restricted from interfering in State business other than what was specifically allotted for it, which would then allow the States to run their governments in whatever way they saw fit, in accordance with their state constitutions. Furthermore, local governments could set whatever standards they wanted in accordance with the will of the local community, as long as it fit within the state constitution. We have a history of blue laws in the country which bear the truth of this hierarchy, e.g. the town of Somewhere, Utah banning the wearing of hats on Sunday. These blue laws existed because the local communities set up their standards as they saw fit, and were free to do so. That was the way it was supposed to be.

Fast forward to 2009 and we are in a situation where the federal government now feels entitled to tell local municipalities how they can and cannot run their local offices, or what private citizens can and cannot do with their own property or businesses. For instance, the federal government will tell a house owner who he is allowed to refuse to rent to, will tell schools whether they are allowed to have a moment of silent prayer each morning, and will tell town councils what decorations they are allowed to have for Christmas in the town square. That kind of thinking has turned the federal system envisioned by the Founders completely upside down, mainly because the people who are interested in dissembling and destroying American society and culture finally figured out that the only way to do it was to use our own exalted principles against us, and convince us that "freedom of speech" means that a town council can't outlaw strip bars, and "freedom of religion" means that town council members can't say a prayer in the town square, or have the Ten Commandments on the wall of the courthouse. That is in direct 180 degree opposition to the intent of our federal Constitution.

[Scythian]

I agree, folks staying inside all the time has caused major health issues, something like 90% of kids today are very, very low on Vitamin D, I go out all the time now and get sun intentionally with no sun block on, I don’t get burned, just a nice color, not super dark or anything, no need to be sun worshipper, but it’s very important to get real sun on your skin, without sunblock. Good point.