Creeping Islamic Takeover: A Look Behind The Burkini Ban
At Gatestone Institute, Dr. Guy Millière, a professor at the University of Paris, explains how France got to the burkini ban -- now repealed. And no, it wasn't that there were just these covered-up ladies who wanted to take a swimmy. There were the Muslim men chasing away tourists and blocking access to the beaches to non-Muslims:
In Sisco, Corsica, on August 13, a group of Muslim men arrived on a beach in the company of women wearing "burkinis" (full-body bathing costumes). The Muslim men firmly asked the tourists on the beach to leave and posted signs saying "No Entry". When a few teenagers resisted, the Muslim men responded with a harpoon and baseball bats. The police intervened -- but it was just the beginning.In the following days, on beaches all over France, Muslim men showed up, accompanied by women in burkinis, and asking beachgoers to leave. Tourists packed up and fled. Several mayors of seaside resorts decided to ban the bathing costume, and the "burkini ban" scandal was born.
Some politicians said that banning the burkini "stigmatized" Muslims and infringed on their "human rights" to wear whatever they liked. Other politicians, including Prime Minister Manuel Valls and former President Nicolas Sarkozy, called the burkini a "provocation", and asked for a law to ban it. The Council of State, the highest legal institution, eventually declared that banning the burkini was against the law; the ban was lifted.
What is important to explain is what lies behind the "burkini ban."
Thirty years ago, France was a country where Islam was present but where Islamic demands were virtually absent and Islamic veils were rare.
Then, in September, 1989, in a northern suburb of Paris, three female students decided to attend high school with their heads covered by a scarf. When the dean refused, the parents, with the support of newly created Muslim associations, filed a complaint. The parents won.
All of sudden, Islamic headscarves multiplied in high schools and on the streets, and soon were were replaced by long black veils. Muslim associations called for an "end to discrimination," requested halal food in school cafeterias, and complained about the "Islamophobic content" in history textbooks. Unveiled women in Muslim neighborhoods were assaulted or raped.
After the French government created a commission of inquiry, a law banning "religious symbols in public schools" was passed in 2003. In the name of a refusal to "stigmatize" Islam and out of "respect for human rights," Christian crosses and Jewish skullcaps were also banned, in addition to Islamic headscarves.
This is just part of how the Islamization of a society works.
A few points from the author:
•Yusuf al-Qaradawi, spiritual leader of the main Islamic movement in France, explained how Muslims living in the West have to proceed: they may use terror, they may use seduction, exploit Westerners' sense of guilt, grab public spaces, change laws, and create their own society inside Western societies until they become Muslim societies.•France used to be a country where religious neutrality in the public space was seen as an essential principle. Muslim extremists appear to be using Islamic veils and head-coverings as visible symbols to create the impression that Islam is everywhere.
•Politicians claim that they respect human rights, but they seem to have forgotten the human rights of the women who do not cover up -- of those who suffer from Islamization, who are no longer free to write, think, or go for a walk on the street.
•Politicians refused to "stigmatize" Islam and do not want to see the consequences: harassment, rapes, the destruction of freedom.
•French journalists write under the threat of trial or assault, and almost never use the phrase "Islamic terrorism." Almost all books on Islam in French bookstores are written by Islamists or by authors praising Islam.
•Have non-Muslims lost the will to fight?
What's going on is called "stealth jihad." William Kirkpatrick explains at FrontPage that "it can be just as effective as the armed variety"
Stealth jihad is a long-term campaign to spread Islamic law and culture by influencing key institutions such as churches, schools, courts, businesses, media, and local and national government.Armed jihad instills a sense of urgency--"let's roll," let's take action. But stealth jihad is intended to lull us into complacency--not "let's roll," but "let's roll over and go back to sleep." Immediately after 9/11, representatives of various stealth organizations such as CAIR and ISNA were at President Bush's side, assuring him that Islam means "peace." Bush, in turn, assured the rest of us that the terrorists were a tiny minority who had attempted to hijack a great religion. Amazingly, fifteen years later, that myth is still the dominant narrative.
The term "stealth jihad" is a bit misleading. The stealth jihad groups may be stealthy, but they don't operate underground. They have offices, spokesmen, PR people, legal teams, and impressive websites. They present themselves as moderate mainstream groups, and for the most part the media and administration officials accept them as such.
How do they operate? In general, they advertise themselves as civil rights advocates working to protect the rights of the "Muslim community." Using the cover of civil rights activism, the stealth jihadists have been able to score some spectacular successes. In 2012, for example, more than 1,000 documents and presentations were purged from counterterror training programs for the FBI and other security agencies. This was done in response to pressure from Islamic advocacy groups who complained that the training policies were biased and offensive to Muslims. In effect, these Muslim Brotherhood-linked groups were given veto power over national security policy, and, as a result, investigative agencies were forced to limit themselves to politically correct policing.
Burkinis are a bit like interracial couples who practice BDSM with a white dom and black sub.
On an individual level, I am all for their freedom to choose to do that.
But if we started seeing black subs with white doms being public about it on a large scale, it would make me very uncomfortable and I do not think it would be desirable, but in fact, quite creepy.
NicoleK at September 25, 2016 8:34 AM
"In Sisco, Corsica... a group of Muslim men arrived on a beach in the company of women wearing 'burkinis'..." - and proceded to abuse and drive away tourists.
Ohhhh. Now I get it. Until now I couldn't understand the reason for prohibiting women from wearing burkinis. It's sort of like if a group of men arrived at Huntington Beach in the company of women wearing one piece bathing suits, and proceded to abuse other beach goers, the obvious response would be to prohibit women from wearing one piece bathing suits. I would have mistakenly thought the solution would be to have the police go down there and jerk the slack out of the men abusing the other beach goers.
Ken R at September 25, 2016 9:09 AM
Ken R, that was probably the first thoughts of the first responders UNTIL it was pointed out that that would be racist and islamophobic.
You know, like policing high crime areas more vigorously is racist because it creates more negative interaction with young black men.
"Round up the usual suspects." nowadays has to be done TSA-wise - old women and babies first.
But I do agree w/you and truly wonder what the heck they were thinking.
Bob in Texas at September 25, 2016 9:27 AM
I don't think that it is right to ban the burkini. That is just another way to oppress the already oppressed Muslim women and keep them out of sight.
We do need to come down harshly on the men that are driving away non-Muslims or threatening them in any way.
When I saw the burkini, my first thought was that I wish that they had been around 40 years ago. My sweet aunt had lupus. She would take us to the beach fully covered to avoid the sun. It was quite a sight to see her wearing a big hat, gloves, and turtleneck on a sunny day. She was unable to go in the water. A burkini would have given her that freedom.
I bet a few of my fair friends might like one too. I'm looking at you goddess. ; )
Jen at September 25, 2016 9:30 AM
"Then, in September, 1989, in a northern suburb of Paris, three female students decided to attend high school with their heads covered by a scarf." And somehow because of that, "Unveiled women in Muslim neighborhoods were assaulted or raped."
Because when an unveiled woman is raped it is in no way her fault; she is the victim. It's the fault of teenage Muslim girls wearing scarves to school. So prevent rape by prohibiting school girls from wearing scarves.
Kind of like if a Mormon man rapes a woman in a mini skirt it's the fault of teenage Mormon school girls wearing knee length skirts. So have the authorities force girls to remove skirts and dresses longer than four inches below their asses.
With that logic it's not clear what responsibility the rapists have in these scenarios.
Ken R at September 25, 2016 10:06 AM
"Almost all books on Islam in French bookstores are written by Islamists or by authors praising Islam."
Well duh. This is because all books on Islam are written by people interested enough in Islam to write books about it. These will most likely be Muslims.
Ken R at September 25, 2016 10:17 AM
"The Council of State, the highest legal institution, eventually declared that banning the burkini was against the law; the ban was lifted."
Good. If a bunch of Muslim women want to lay out on the beach looking like a herd of walruses, I could care less. As long as they're not going after other people with harpoons and baseball bats the style of their beachwear is none of my business.
Ken R at September 25, 2016 10:29 AM
"Politicians claim that they respect human rights, but they seem to have forgotten the human rights of the women who do not cover up -- of those who suffer from Islamization, who are no longer free to write, think, or go for a walk on the street."
The problem here is the abuse and oppression of women, of which head coverings and burkinis are a superficial symptom. Opposing radical Islam by banning head coverings and burkinis is like opposing Westboro Baptist Church by banning granny panties.
Ken R at September 25, 2016 10:46 AM
Ken R, overall, I'd like to agree completely with you. Besides, women who want to wear burkinis should not be forced to strip and humiliate themselves just because they want to go to the beach. That could be called a type of harassment.
Trouble is, when you think about it, from the government's point of view, it's about "a stich in time saves nine."
That is, it's a lot easier for the government and less costly (if a lot more ethically dubious) to deal with men wielding harpoons and baseball bats by imposing the ban and thus making it "harder" for those men to attack Muslim women who don't cover themselves in any way. Just as many teen girls who didn't want to wear headscarves in French schools could only get away (safely) with defying their parents when there was a ban on headscarves.
I suppose Atatürk, in Turkey, went through something similar when he banned men from wearing the fez in 1925. From one site: "The wearing of the fez, which had been introduced a century earlier as a modernizing reform to replace the turban, was outlawed because it had become for the nationalists a symbol of the reactionary Ottoman regime."
BTW, if anyone's interested, here's something I posted over a week ago:
Katha Pollitt on the French ban on "burkinis."
https://www.thenation.com/article/frances-cultural-panic/
Tip: If you're going to read it, do not jump back and forth to read other articles - it doesn't take long before they force you to subscribe.
From the second quarter:
"I actually agree with the critique of veiling...Moreover, there are valuable aspects to France's much-criticized policy of laïcité, the rigorous denial of a public role for religion, especially as compared with (the U.S.)..."
And from the last quarter:
"Even if you think Islamic garb—or Orthodox wigs, or fundamentalist-Mormon prairie dresses—is a fashion prison, it doesn't follow that banning it is the path to liberation. In fact, it does the opposite: It fetishizes Islamic covering as a communal identity marker and turns it into a way of poking the majority culture in the eye. It also further marginalizes Muslim women. Not men, who dress as they please with no awkward questions about whether they truly want to sport that beard or crocheted skullcap. In France, street attacks on women in Muslim dress have increased since the niqab ban. A Muslim woman in a head scarf can’t work in a government job. According to a recent legal ruling, she can even be denied a job in a day-care center lest she give toddlers the wrong idea about a woman’s place. Prime Minister Valls even wants to ban the head scarf from universities. This isn’t feminism; it’s cultural panic..."
lenona at September 25, 2016 12:35 PM
Oh, and the French government could also easily be thinking of an idea by Mr. Crisp (this is from 1968):
“As Brophy’s First Law says, it is not the simple statement of facts that ushers in freedom; it is the constant repetition of them that has this liberating effect. Tolerance is the result not of enlightenment, but of boredom.”
(And, in his case, it was all about forcing strangers to recognize him as gay from a mile off, in part by wearing "as much makeup as the forces of gravity would allow" from 1931 onward, an era when, in London, even WOMEN didn't wear makeup. Only actresses and prostitutes - including male prostitutes - did that.)
lenona at September 25, 2016 12:44 PM
"The Muslim men firmly asked the tourists on the beach to leave and posted signs saying "No Entry". When a few teenagers resisted, the Muslim men responded with a harpoon and baseball bats. The police intervened -- but it was just the beginning."
This is an ... interesting reading. The truth is that there were multiple clashes between Muslims and non-Muslims on the beach. It's not clear who started it or what it started over (the Muslims claim the non-Muslims were taking pictures of them). Violence was perpetrated by both sides (the cars of the Muslims were set on fire; several of the non-Muslims were injured with harpoons). And this was a part of a tension that was building for weeks. I guess I shouldn't expect Gatestone to get it right.
Ted at September 25, 2016 2:49 PM
Oh, and the French government could also easily be thinking of an idea
___________________________________________
Just to clarify: I meant, of course, that the French likely think if their government is stubborn about imposing the burkini ban for long enough, Muslim men would find it easier not to act like rabid animals around uncovered women in general - sooner or later. They would simply get bored with the sight of such women.
lenona at September 25, 2016 4:17 PM
I think you are wrong about the motivation here Lenona. The French are very particular about cultural norms. They have government institutions that supposedly regulate things like that. Even to the extent of creating new words for common things created by non-French people. The burkini was deemed to be 'not-French'. Hence the governmental action against it.
Ben at September 25, 2016 6:59 PM
I don't think that it is right to ban the burkini. That is just another way to oppress the already oppressed Muslim women and keep them out of sight.
We do need to come down harshly on the men that are driving away non-Muslims or threatening them in any way.
Jen at September 25, 2016 9:30 AM
Women are less threatening, and therefore much easier to control, than men.
I've had a couple of experiences this month, in the US, where people have called me out for doing something a man was also doing and allowed to keep doing undisturbed. I'm a bit cranky about it now.
From my vantage point as a reader in the US, it sounds like the French government took the age-old cheap shot of controlling what women wear, going to far as to create a new law to ban a particular type of clothing used by a subset of women, rather than enforce existing laws to hold men accountable for atrocious, illegal behavior.
Michelle at September 25, 2016 7:34 PM
"I've had a couple of experiences this month, in the US, where people have called me out for doing something a man was also doing and allowed to keep doing undisturbed. I'm a bit cranky about it now."
What did you do Michelle? My curiosity is getting to me.
Isab at September 25, 2016 8:26 PM
What did you do Michelle? My curiosity is getting to me.
Isab at September 25, 2016 8:26 PM
Nothing, really. One interaction was a man who jogged past me and told me my dog should be on a leash. He was right. The leash laws are in effect although the culture in that area has been off-leash for decades. So, he was right, and his wording and tone were shitty and scathing, and I'm a bit sensitive right now, so when my friend caught up with me with his two off leash dogs, I mentioned that I was just shaking off the comment. My friend is also middle aged, but male, and mentioned that the same jogger passed him while he stood on the trail with his two off leash dogs and didn't say a word to him.
The other incident was just an airline stewardess who leaned over, pointed, and told me to get my bag strap under the airline seat before takeoff. To do that she leaned over the middle aged white guy next to me, in the aisle seat, whose computer bag strap was between his two feet, along with papers spilling out. Not a big deal in itself, just annoying to be targeted by someone who leaned over, and did not address, the guy doing the same thing.
The most pointed experience occurred over two decades ago, when I was a teenager out to dinner with a female friend. A guy sitting behind me tapped me on the shoulder and asked me for my name. I said "no thank you," and turned back to my friend. He loudly called me a dyke. I happen to be a dyke (if identity politics are necessary) and let the guy know, loudly, that he did not have a right to interrupt my meal, touch my body, request personal information, be rude to me and my friend, and slander queer people to me. A waitress came over to intercede and then asked my friend and I to move "because it would be easier" to move two sober women than the rowdy drunk man and his three friends. I mentioned something about this thing called the Taliban and my unwillingness to be backed into a corner and shut in my house because of someone else's bad behavior. They moved the guy. I appreciate the waitress' clarity and transparency about her priorities. The brief conversation was eye-opening.
I'm older, I'm a lot more mellow, and right now I'm tired, but being so tired I'm irritated when people grab my attention and I see that they're being inconsistent/ unprincipled and aiming for the easy pickings.
Michelle at September 25, 2016 9:58 PM
Good on you Michelle for pushing back with the waiter.
Ben at September 26, 2016 6:22 AM
I dunno, the French language bookstores around here still have critical books, mostly written by women, like that one by Osama's sister-in-law.
NicoleK at September 26, 2016 11:59 AM
Thank you Ben.
Not sure how I'd handle the offense now, but I'm glad for how I handled it then.
Michelle at September 26, 2016 4:37 PM
Well done and written, Michelle.
Ben, I'm aware of the French being "very particular about cultural norms," in part because I read Pollitt's column that I linked to. I was just saying that the French government's hope of forcing men to become "bored" at the sight of uncovered Muslim women as well as uncovered non-Muslim women could be an EXTRA reason - and hardly a trivial one at that.
Unfortunately, as I hinted, there's yet another likely reason to impose the ban - the government is hoping to cut down on the number of injured or killed police officers, since so many already have to risk their lives protecting citizens against terrorist attacks. (Of course, that raises the question of how to deal with violent attacks by non-Muslims against veiled Muslim women. But which is the more common problem in France right now - women attacked for being covered or uncovered?)
lenona at September 27, 2016 9:02 AM
Leave a comment