"PARIS – A Muslim woman garbed in a head-to-toe swimsuit — dubbed a "burquini" — may have opened a new chapter in France's tussle between religious practices and its stern secular code.
Officials insisted Wednesday they banned the woman's use of the Islam-friendly suit at a local pool because of France's pool hygiene standards — not out of hostility to overtly Muslim garb.
Under the policy, swimmers are not allowed in pools with baggy clothing, including surfer-style shorts. Only figure-hugging suits are permitted."
Officials insisted Wednesday they banned the woman's use of the Islam-friendly suit at a local pool because of France's pool hygiene standards — not out of hostility to overtly Muslim garb.
Under the policy, swimmers are not allowed in pools with baggy clothing, including surfer-style shorts. Only figure-hugging suits are permitted."
This is a quote from the AP article regarding the contention over whether Islamic women should be allowed to wear a modified-for-swimming version of the head-to-toe burqa. The article states also that this debate has raged in many forms- over the legality of the hijab in French schools, and in wearing a burqa in general.
Frankly, this is ridiculous. Why should a woman not be allowed to wear a head-to-toe garment if it's in accordance with her beliefs? This is stifling religious rights, not allowing them. I know women of all ages who choose to wear their burqas and hijab out of a sense of religious duty. They don't feel coerced or oppressed. It seems that the government is making it out so that anyone wearing the hijab or burqa is somebody who is imprisoned within a rigid set of beliefs. While some women may feel coerced by their husbands to wear these items of clothings, it is not true that everybody who wears them is imprisoned.
On the contrary- Muslims who ascribe to following that Islamic doctrine should be allowed to wear what they believe to be appropriate. What is so wrong about being covered up? Now, I can understand why pool-owners would feel uncomfortable about a fully-clothed woman entering their pool. The article does make note of the fact that there are regulations against baggier styles of swimming suits, as it is said they are more prone to disease-spreading.
But in the larger picture, what does this say about France? A 2004 law banned the wearing of the hijab, along with kippot (Jewish skullcap, also known as yarmulkes), and the display of large Christian crosses.
While not a fierce advocate of public proselytizing, I believe that there is no problem with public displays of religion. Putting a Christian cross up on a front door or on a t-shirt does not force passers-by to become Christians (though it may repel the occasional vampire). My t-shirt that reads "Chocolate Lover" isn't against the law. It's just another piece of clothing that defines a little of who I am. That's just the same for religious attire- a simple admission of a belief that one holds. By no means does a piece of clothing reflect an entire person- instead, it adds to diversity. This is government regulation taken to ridiculous levels. What else can they ban? Will they begin to disallow religious practices entirely? If that happens, consider France boycotted in my book.
These women who wear what they consider modest clothing should not be disallowed to wear such things. If the government is going to start getting down on women with religiously modest clothing, who knows where they'll stop?
In the meanwhile, Muslim ladies in the house should rock their burqinis all they want.
