I shouldn't be surprised, but I am, that a newspaper like the Guardian with its

[Monty92]

history of supporting gender equality and minority rights, can publish an article that explicitly promotes the idea that burkinis/veils are empowering to women.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/aug/31/why-we-wear-the-burkini-five-women-on-dressing-modestly-at-the-beach

I

[Burney]

history of supporting gender equality and minority rights, can publish an article that explicitly promotes the idea that burkinis/veils are empowering to women.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/aug/31/why-we-wear-the-burkini-five-women-on-dressing-modestly-at-the-beach

I

No surprise at all. A lefty is always capable of convincing themselves that black is white - except when it comes to race relations, of course, when any suggestion that black is white or vice versa will have them screaming 'RACIST!' at the tops of their voices.

[Monty92]

No surprise at all. A lefty is always capable of convincing themselves that black is white - except when it comes to race relations, of course, when any suggestion that black is white or vice versa will have them screaming 'RACIST!' at the tops of their voices.

It's just such a staggering betrayal of the very people they have always claimed to fight for. Can you imagine being a muslim woman whose husband would beat her for showing her bare ankle in public and reading that article? How would she feel?

[Ash]

It's just such a staggering betrayal of the very people they have always claimed to fight for. Can you imagine being a muslim woman whose husband would beat her for showing her bare ankle in public and reading that article? How would she feel?

Presumably she'd let you know how she feels in the comments. Has she commented yet?

[Burney]

It's just such a staggering betrayal of the very people they have always claimed to fight for. Can you imagine being a muslim woman whose husband would beat her for showing her bare ankle in public and reading that article? How would she feel?

As I say, all these defences of it being the woman's choice usually fall down on the basic question 'OK. Well if it's all your choice, tell me how your menfolk would react if you started dressing like a western woman?' At that point, the whole pretence falls apart.

[Mo Britain less Europe]

I note The Guardian, very democratically, does not allow for comments. I presume that they are now in favour of slavery provided the slaves say how nice it is to be in chains.

[eastgermanautos]

No surprise at all. A lefty is always capable of convincing themselves that black is white - except when it comes to race relations, of course, when any suggestion that black is white or vice versa will have them screaming 'RACIST!' at the tops of their voices.

While it's not possible to agree with you on most things -- despite my best efforts! -- I do agree with the burqini ban thing. Oh, I know, certain women will feel oppressed, or else not oppressed. The French authorities feel they need to justify things in these terms. To me it comes down to secular vs non-secular. If the burqini could be shown to have some secular function, then fine, keep it. But France had some pretty gnarly religious wars back in the 14th century, and therefore they're within their rights to continue to demand secularism. Religious mumbo jumbo invading the public square? Fvck all that!

[Ganpati's Goonerz--AFC's Aboriginal Fertility Cult]

While it's not possible to agree with you on most things -- despite my best efforts! -- I do agree with the burqini ban thing. Oh, I know, certain women will feel oppressed, or else not oppressed. The French authorities feel they need to justify things in these terms. To me it comes down to secular vs non-secular. If the burqini could be shown to have some secular function, then fine, keep it. But France had some pretty gnarly religious wars back in the 14th century, and therefore they're within their rights to continue to demand secularism. Religious mumbo jumbo invading the public square? Fvck all that!

Think you mean the C16th. The Reformation didn't start until 1517.

Their war of religion went from the Vassy Massacre, 1562, to the Edict of Nantes {which emancipated the Huguenots} 1598.

But this stuff, French secularism, isn't about the wars of religion, anyway. Louis XIV revoked the Edict of Nantes in 1685. This all comes from the Revolution a century later which was about secular deists taking control from the Catholic Church.

So it's really to do with their main ting, the Revolution, which came on the back of the Enlightenment and nothing at all to do with the wars of religion in the 2nd half of the C16th.

This doesn't invalidate the point you are trying to make, but just thought you'd like to know.

[eastgermanautos]

Think you mean the C16th. The Reformation didn't start until 1517.

Their war of religion went from the Vassy Massacre, 1562, to the Edict of Nantes {which emancipated the Huguenots} 1598.

But this stuff, French secularism, isn't about the wars of religion, anyway. Louis XIV revoked the Edict of Nantes in 1685. This all comes from the Revolution a century later which was about secular deists taking control from the Catholic Church.

So it's really to do with their main ting, the Revolution, which came on the back of the Enlightenment and nothing at all to do with the wars of religion in the 2nd half of the C16th.

This doesn't invalidate the point you are trying to make, but just thought you'd like to know.

You so danged tootin' :-)

[Ganpati's Goonerz--AFC's Aboriginal Fertility Cult]

You so danged tootin' :-)

:o

Knew all the work I put in to that OU history BA would come in useful one day.