Ban the burkini? I say yes

13
ACCEPTABLE ATTIRE: Uncovered or undercover?

I AM 100 per cent in agreement that the beach shroud or ‘Burkini’ should be completely banned from public bathing sites. The reason? It offends me.

In the countries supported by those who follow these practices, it is not only against the law to even show a glimmer of flesh, the full weight of the law will drop on anyone who seeks to do so.

I have seen western women’s arms and lower legs struck by ‘religious police,’ who carry thick bamboo canes explicitly for this purpose.

And this to foreign women, who have tried to respect the country they are in, but unfortunately find their Kaftans have not quite reached low enough or are not long sleeved enough to satisfy these hypocritical bigots. The reason? It ‘offends’ them.

Although I’m not in the habit of wearing a bikini on the beach (not a pretty sight!) I can see how a Western women, in perfectly acceptable bathing attire, can be made to feel totally uncomfortable lying next to a ‘holier than thou’ member of the same sex wearing a black diving suit. Well, the idea of that in our free democracy offends me.

After the Second World War our countries were completely devoid of colour and variety. Vehicles and clothing were a drab mixture of grey and black.

Slowly but surely, we began to recover from the horrors of war and with it came the emergence of wonderful colours and fashions that played an important role in lifting us from the depression and misery inflicted by the conflict.

It therefore offends me to find parts of our societies being taken over by people, whose ancestors have played no part in the shaping of our countries, parading the pavements in depressive black shrouds and now wanting to extend their bigotry to our resorts and democratic places of fun and freedom.

Areas which have been fought and won for by men and women who had more courage in their little fingers than those millions of cowards fleeing from the countries they seem to want to emulate so badly.

Well you all offend me.

All love Leapy.
[email protected]

13 COMMENTS

  1. To be honest Leapy, I am at a loss to know why Muslims insist their women cover themselves from head to toe.
    Back in the 60’s and 70’s it was never like that.
    Whoever came up with this idea must have been nuts!

  2. Personally I don’t think the Burkini should be banned, what I would be worried about would be when faces are covered. Now the reason I don’t think a Burkini should be banned is because if you look at the beach on a sunny day some people will be covered up from the sun, in the UK “and possibly other countries” that would extend to a scarf which covered a womans head while a garment with long sleeves and slacks or dress that would cover her legs, not much difference between that and a Burkini except “possibly” the reason of why it was worn and that is the womans business not any one else’s business.

    I think we need to be careful here, next thing British or other European women will not be allowed to ware a head scarf as Muslins will claim discrimination. As long as a burka or other similar garment that covers a persons face is not work then what exactly is the problem!

  3. Ha, ha, ha! Leapy. What a joke! Listen, if you see a nun wearing her full nun’s habit while paddling in the sea, does that offend you as much as a Muslim woman in a burkini? No? Oh, what a surprise!

    Well either your normal thick skin has just melted and you’re genuinely offended or you’re just wearing your usual Hughie Green, Opportunity Knocks, insincere grin on your face and harping on about your favourite gripe. Islam.

    Your hatred could be real, fed partly by your unfortunate experiences in that strange country called Saudi Arabia. It could also be caused by swallowing all the ridiculous propaganda spewed out by the rag-tag sections of the media. All their anti-Islamic rants have one thing in common. They fail to distinguish between the simple-minded murderers of IS proclaiming some evil PERVERSION of Islam – and the decent followers of normal Islam who just want to be left in peace to worship their God in their own way. Oh, and do a bit of paddling in the sea when they want to just like the rest of us.

    For the sake of trying to create a decent, caring, tolerant society in place of this mess we’re currently enduring, please learn to spot the difference. If you, and others like you, don’t do that then we’re all condemned to a lengthy and bloody quasi-religious war caused, like most wars, by misunderstandings, disinformation and sheer intolerance. That would not be funny. It would be tragic.

  4. Quite right Mike. The fact that the face is not covered should mean the burkini is not an issue. Why Leapy is SEEMINGLY so outraged by it says more about him than it does about women in burkinis. Either that or he’s never actually SEEN one and he’s operating under a complete misunderstanding.

  5. With many woman it would be far better if they covered their entire body whilst on a beach…………we could then be spared the sight of bulging flesh..!!

  6. Just to even things up, more than a few MEN could do with covering up too! They either have beer bellies that hang down over their pants or they look like big red lobsters from too much sun. Or both!
    😉

  7. Whereas I certainly do not agree with western women being attacked for their dress, neither should Muslim women be treated in the same manner for their dress.

    Leapy’s point about feeling offended by their dress puts him in the same boat as the people he is objecting to! What about a bit of tolerance all round? Surely that’s a better way to go? Oh and by the way, pneumonoultramicroscopicsilicovolcanoconiosis is spelled incorrectly. If you break the word into its component parts it’s easier.

    Pneumono-ultra-microscopic-silicon-volcano-coniosis. In the words of the meerkat, not market, “simple”! I enjoy your paper very much and usually save it for my “Sunday read” over a leisurely breakfast.

    Cheers!
    Michele O’Sullivan
    Elviria

  8. Good point Michelle. Now that the dreadful  hate-preacher, Anjem Choudary, is behind bars perhaps ALL other hate-preachers should take note – whatever type of hatred they preach!

    Are you listening, Leapy?

  9. Items in the news today about an American man who was radicalised by the jailed hate-preacher, Anjem Choudary. Jesse C. Morton, previously known as Younus Abdullah Muhammed, says he came to doubt whether Choudary was genuinely committed to anything but his own self-promotion!

    Sound familiar? A hate-preacher committed to nothing but his own self-promotion? Surely nobody like that would be published in the Euro Weekly News?
    😉
    Oddly enough, Y. A. Muhammed felt so strongly that Choudary was only interested in self-promotion that he created his own extremist website and that led to him being jailed himself! Now a de-radicalised academic with a Masters degree, he says Choudary’s favourite method of operation was to plant an idea and leave it to others to work out what it meant. Again, does that sound familiar?

    Conclusion? Extremism is a crime. Peddling extremist propaganda results in a jail sentence. Publishing extremist views on the web leads to a  jail sentence. Extremists and admirers of extremists take note!

    Jesse C. Morton is now a Research Fellow in the Center for Cyber and Homeland Security at George Washington University promoting Disengagement from Extremism.

LEAVE A COMMENT

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here