In Theory: Burqini bans raise questions of motive

Sisco, a village on the French island of Corsica, became the third municipality in France to ban burqinis, a full-body Islamic swimsuit.

Village mayor Ange-Pierre Vivoni’s announcement follows similar bans in Cannes and Villeneuve-Loubet and was sparked by weekend fights: Locals clashed with families of North African origin after tourists photographed women in burqinis, Agence France-Presse reports.

Vivoni said the ban was “not against the Muslim religion but to avoid the spread of fundamentalism.”

“I am absolutely not racist. I want to protect the population, notably my area’s Muslim population because I think that they are the main victims of these extremist provocations,” he said.

Women’s Rights Minister Laurence Rossignol was critical of the burqini: “[It] has a goal. The goal is to hide women’s bodies to hide women … there is something profoundly archaic about it.”

Rossignol did not give a position on the ban, but she warned against “ulterior motives” of some conservatives, whom she accused of “stoking debates” to win votes from the far right.

Q. What do you think of the ban? Do you see the burqinis as a form of religious expression or female oppression?

Banning a certain style of clothing won’t hinder the spread of “fundamentalism,” however you define it. The real issue here is the condition of the human heart, from which our behavior, good or evil, flows. External adornment cannot affect inner disposition. It is inner disposition that motivates external adornment. So Mayor Vivoni must positively affect the hearts, not just the fashion preferences, of his fellow citizens and visitors to accomplish his peaceable desire.

The problem with Man during the days of Noah was that “every intent of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually” (Genesis 6:5). God “was grieved in his heart” (:6) at the poor heart condition of man who he made in his image. God still grieves over our sin. But there is hope! Our hope is rooted in what God has done for us. Paul encouraged the Roman believers: “thanks be to God that though you were slaves of sin, you became obedient from the heart to that form of teaching to which you were committed” (Romans 6:17). That teaching was the gospel of Jesus Christ, which, when believed, changes us from the inside. What consequently flows out from within is called “the fruit of the Spirit [which is] love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control; against such things there is no law” (Galatians 5:22-23). The truest change happens through conversion, not legislation.

Pastor Jon Barta
Burbank

I appreciate that the French embrace “ Laïcité” or “secularism in public life,” which is ostensibly the justification for this ban, however I do not think much of the ban itself and do not see anything good coming of it.

Telling women what they can’t wear to counteract them being told what they must wear makes no sense to me.

The ban raises a number of other questions. Why is a burqini singled out among many other religions’ garbs and symbols? How can the ban be fairly enforced when French law contains no standard legal definition of the garment? Will women who wear other sorts of cover-ups on the beach — for modesty, vanity or health concerns — be asked to uncover or leave?

If I were told to wear a burqa I would certainly call it oppression and refuse to comply, but my view can’t substitute for a devout Muslim woman’s. It is my understand that in conservative Muslim countries in the Middle East, observant Muslim women wouldn’t go to the beach at all if men are present, making the burqini a liberating innovation.

I can’t see the ban as anything other than discrimination against Islamic women by France.

Roberta Medford
Atheist
Montrose

Like so many things, there are at least two sides of this issue, and neither really has anything to do with us. Currently it’s a French issue, and France has to deal with the preservation of its culture as it sees fit. I can understand why France may wish to ban the burqini, as it’s had a terrible time with recent terrorism, and just about everything that smacks of Islamic extremism probably makes the French cringe. As long as the Muslims act like Frenchmen outwardly and maintain a liberal religious perspective behind closed doors, it would probably be fine with their adopted homeland, but of course this isn’t going to be the case, and the burqini will continue to draw attention and translate into contention.

To us it seems ridiculous, as we wonder, “Who’s business is it of yours to tell someone what to wear when they go swimming?” And whether anyone thinks it oppressive to women will not change the position such women who wear burqinis take. If they are allowed to enjoy the water as swimmers, they will not do it without their burqinis, so it doesn’t do them any good to tell them they are oppressed, then further oppress them and take away one more personal freedom.

In America we have groups like the Amish, whose fashion sense ended a couple centuries ago, yet we don’t ban their attire as unAmerican, or prevent them from swimming on public beaches, but that’s us, and we’re not French. When you think about it, these subgroups, like the Amish, or the Muslim population on Corsica, are strict about their own dress codes. Nobody can be part of their group without wearing the uniform. So what happens when the subgroup is the main group, like the French population in general? Their dress codes and cultural expectations are not being met by the subgroup. Should they even be allowed citizenship? After all, the French invented the bikini, so I’m guessing if you’re not somewhere on that end of the spectrum it would seem rather unpatriotic and antithetical to the bigger group ethos.

If anything, modesty might more be the subject of discussion here, as the French seem to have little and the North Africans have too much. Is there a middle ground? Something we Americans ought to start thinking about…

Rev. Bryan A. Griem
Tujunga