The Bare Truth About Burkinis

Women can decide for themselves how much to expose and why.


Migliorini/Adria/Giino/Ropi/ZUMA Press/Newscom

A beach in France is likely to feature some sights that would shock many Americans, such as bare-breasted women and paunchy middle-aged men in tiny Speedos. Lately, it may also feature a sight that would shock many French people: females who cover up.

These beachgoers wear a swimsuit called a burkini, favored by some Muslims because it conceals everything but the hands, feet and face. But though Muslims in France are expected to tolerate lavish displays of flesh by others, many non-Muslims feel no reciprocal obligation to let the demure practice modesty.

Some French municipalities have banned these suits from public beaches, claiming to uphold hygiene, secularism and even "public morals." Some French think the burkini signifies sexist oppression. The mayor of Cannes labeled it a "symbol of Islamic extremism."

"France does not lock away a woman's body," exclaimed right-wing leader Marine Le Pen. "This is the soul of France that is in question." That's right; a Frenchwoman wearing nothing but a thong is really baring her soul.

Prime Minister Manuel Valls claims the burkini symbolizes Islam's "enslavement of women." Cabinet member Laurence Rossignol says its function is to "hide women's bodies in order to better control them."

Their argument goes as follows: France must dictate what Muslim women wear to teach them that no one may dictate what they wear. In the name of promoting the freedom of Muslim women, government should deprive them of the right to make their own apparel choices.

It's the logical extension of France's law against full-face coverings, particularly the kind worn by some Muslim women. Supporters of that law, enacted in 2010, said it was needed to keep criminals from concealing their identity. That excuse doesn't work for the burkini, which confirms it was just that: an excuse.

There is nothing inherently oppressive about this swimwear. Presumably, some women don it only because men insist. But there are doubtless other French women who buy skimpy suits in submission to male coercion and social pressures.

Other women are capable of deciding they prefer more coverage. A maker of modest swimwear called Sea Secret was founded by two Orthodox Jewish women—who report that they sell not only to Jews and Muslims but even to Christians.

When snorkeling, my highly independent wife has found she needs a long-sleeved top and long shorts to keep her fair skin from being torched by the tropical sun. British celebrity chef Nigella Lawson, whose voluptuous upper torso is hardly a state secret, has worn a burkini at the beach to preserve her pale complexion.

These women can think for themselves. Why assume Muslims can't? French-Tunisian historian Leyla Dakhli told The Associated Press there are as many reasons behind such decisions "as there are women in the world." Reading women's minds through their attire is an unreliable science.

If some Muslim men employ violence or threats to control their wives and daughters, the target of government policy should be detecting and ending that sort of abuse. Forbidding burkinis is like trying to combat rape by telling women they can't have sex.

A ban on modest clothing will not emancipate tyrannized females but add to their oppression. A woman whose husband allows her to swim only in a burkini probably won't respond to a ban by letting her venture forth in a two-piece. He will probably respond by not letting her swim at all. Instead of freeing the affected Muslim women, a ban will trap them in their homes.

Marwan Muhammad, executive director of the Center Against Islamophobia in France, told The New York Times that burkinis are a marker of liberation, not repression. "In conservative Muslim countries," the Times paraphrased, "women would never go to a beach with men, much less go swimming, since even in the burkini, the wet cloth sticks to a woman's body, outlining her curves."

Muhammad said that "Muslim women who didn't used to enjoy that day at the beach or at the pool are now taking part. They are socializing." Yes—maybe even with people who wear more revealing garments, which could be educational for everyone involved.

The key to a free society is the principle of "live and let live"—accepting your neighbor's right to live by beliefs you may not share, as long as your neighbor extends you the same latitude. Any mayor or other leader who finds the burkini objectionable has a perfectly good option: Don't wear one.

© Copyright 2016 by Creators Syndicate Inc.

NEXT: How Safe Is Our Food Supply?

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. The purpose of restricting speech and religion is to spark a war. Europe knows this well – they’ve been down this road many times. Recall – top Nazi propagandists were radicalized under Weimar blasphemy laws originally intended to prevent anti-Semitism. The purpose of the Burkini ban is to instigate extremists and provide them with with an excuse for violence. The Western Secular Caliphate is quickly approaching another frenzy of self-destruction. The US is holding strong due to Constitutional protections – which must be aggressively preserved. Trump had hoped to antagonize Muslims into terrorist attacks though calling Obama ‘the founder of ISIS’ may have backfired. He will feel pressured to stage an attack before the election, like his buddy Putin.

    1. You got all of this out of that story?

      I just got the urge to google Nigella Lawson.

      1. I’d like to google Nigella Lawson…wink, wink, nudge nudge

        1. Just no googling in public.

      2. She’s very sexy

      3. Yeah, Nigella Lawson sidetracked me as usual. It’s like every time I hear or see a reference to her I immediately hear “Brick House” by the Commodores.

    2. Are you fucking serious?

      1. abs so fucking lutely

    3. I’m making over $7k a month working part time. I kept hearing other people tell me how much money they can make online so I decided to look into it. Well, it was all true and has totally changed my life. This is what I do…

  2. Covering up your women so completely just encourages others to undress them. Keep them naked for their own good.

  3. how much for the little girl?

  4. French beach policy is officially “tits or GTFO”.

  5. These beachgoers wear a swimsuit called a burkini, favored by some Muslims because it conceals everything but the hands, feet and face.

    Worst. Farmer tan. Ever.

  6. “France does not lock away a woman’s body,” exclaimed right-wing leader Marine Le Pen.

    Unless, if course, its owner violates a dress code.

  7. Seems like something the puritans here would want to make manditory. For the male gaze.

    1. There are Puritans here? Oh, you are simply delineating those who have a tiny amount of morals and those who have absolutely none.

  8. Gary Johnson should move to France. His burqa-banning totalitarian ways would be more acceptable there.

    1. what does SIV stand for?

      1. I learned recently “single issue voter”. Until then I’d thought “simian immunodeficiency virus”.

        1. It can be both if your single issue is the health of chimps.

    2. Gary “bake that cake” Johnson supports a burqa ban?

      Can’t say I’m surprised though. This is the least libertarian ticket ever.

  9. They clothe their women. Disgusting!

    1. +1 quark nodding in agreement

  10. I don’t have a problem with religious garb. People like the Amish or Hassidics do not bother me in the slightest. The problem with Arab religious garb is that it really isn’t religious garb. It is barbaric female garb. Whenever you see an Amish family, the women are dressed in their long skirts and head stays but the men also are wearing hats and long sleeved dress shirts. Same with Hassidic or Orthodox Jewish families. It is a matter of religious belief and applies to both sexes. And that is fine. What is not fine is the Arab Muslim garb. There you will see women dressed in a Burka and a man in shorts and a T-shirt. If cultural dress is so damned important as opposed to just fucking with women, why do the men not also avail themselves of some standards of modesty? That is why these things suck.

    Beyond that, it is one thing to dress modestly. It is quite another to cover women and only women from head to tie such that you can only see their eyes. That is beyond the pale. That is just erasing women from society. People want to wear head scards and dress modestly, have at it. But in a Burka? No.

    1. Ultimately the only person who makes slavery possible is the slave himself.

      If these women wish to accept this then let them. I’ve had enough ‘interventions’ in my lifetime – none of them ever seem to help the people on whose behalf we intervene.

      1. That is a good point. I don’t know that banning this stuff helps. If these people really want to enslave themselves, it is difficult if not impossible to stop them. That, however, seems to be an argument for not letting strict Arab Muslims into the country in the first place. I am not sure how you can have a free society where a significant percentage of the population embrace the enslavement of women.

        It should be noted that these things are a total perversion of Islam. The Koran says modest dress and few Muslim women even wore head scarfs outside of the Persian Gulf as recently as the 1980s. The Burka is the invention of the Wahabist radicals.

        1. nakes sense. the only way to maintain a free society is to have state approved religions, eliminate free labor markets and liberty to travel. Spain ca 1492 is really the highpoint for human freedom & a society we should emulate.

          1. You can’t a free democratic society if the demos rejects freedom. Thus, if a demos wants to remain free, it must avoid diluting its number with those who reject freedom. It’s just basic logic. The only true democracy that can actually work is one based on freedom of association, not one based on territory.

        2. We’ve managed to handle it pretty well so far.

          The trick is, I think, to not fall into the trap of excessive tolerance. Stuff like the burka, by itself, are nothing more than weird fetish choices – worthy of no more a second look than a dude crawling on all fours while his leash is held by some chick as they act out their kink. Add in complete intolerance for anything that violates our core principles of personal freedom – genital mutilation, honor killings, rape, etc.

          1. This thing would solve itself if not for the evil specter of public accommodation laws. If society is left alone, no one wearing a burka in public is going anywhere and the appeal of doing so will be very limited. If, however, the government steps in and forces everyone to accept it, then it becomes a way to be a rewarded and protected victim and becomes very appealing.

            1. The women are doing it because their husbands demand it. That is none of my business. Whether I “accept” it or not is meaningless.

              1. It is very meaningful. If you own a business and don’t want your customers to wear them or don’t want your employees to wear them, that is your right. If a school doesn’t view it as acceptable dress, same thing. Let people express their views in that way and it will always be an insignificant issue.

          2. An honor killing is a cultural affectation that must be respected. A burkini is a style choice and you can’t have anyone in France who is not in style, the worst crime there.

            1. Problem is, the victim of an honor killing is not usually a willing recipient of said killing.

              Libertarianism does not support or condone the initiation of force against any person except in self-defense.

              It would allow for honor suicides, but not honor killings (murders).

    2. Some Muslim countries, Malaysia comes to mind, have fairly comparable dress codes for men and women. However, whether they are enforced equally against members of both sexes is another question…

      1. Malaysia only requires head scarfs. I don’t think head scarfs are any kind of an issue. They are not and haven’t been when done by Orthodox Jews or certain sects of Christianity. The issue is the Burka. And that is as I say above an Arab invention and not really a specifically Muslim one.

        1. Really, it doesn’t matter what the exact article of clothing is.
          We could see some societies force people to wear “I Voted” stickers against their will, and that would still be wrong. So long as the penalty is the threat or use of lethal force, it’s wrong.

    3. I agree, it’s a whole different thing and quite morally suspect. And why feminists don’t see Islam as enemy #1 is a bit of a puzzle (well, sort of).

      That said, banning a style of dress is also a bad thing, and the justification of this reeks of some kind of Marxist “false consciousness” crap. You aren’t going to change that culture by punishing people for dressing like they do.

    4. Actually, Muslim men often wear distinctive dress as well, long-sleeved tunics that look almost like dresses, but with pants under them. The one thing they noticeably leave exposed is their feet, since they wear sandals they can easily slip off for their prayer rituals. I don’t think I’ve ever seen a woman in a burqa with a man dressed in shorts and a tee shirt

      1. I don’t think I’ve ever seen a woman in a burqa with a man dressed in shorts and a tee shirt

        I live in a Little Egypt of sorts & I see this every single day. I find it revolting but at the end of the day it’s none of my or my government’s business.

      2. That stuff is more a reasonable response to the climate though. Loose, body covering clothing is common in hot, dry climates with a lot of sun.

        1. The restrictions on women can extend to what they wear *under* the Burka – even if you can’t see it directly, tight fitting clothing (like jeans) is often forbidden as can be makeup.

      3. They wear that by choice.

        I live in Dearborn. Believe me, it’s FAR more common to see Muslim men and boys in t-shirts and flip-flops while mom and daughters are in full, head-to-toe dress.

        You almost NEVER see Muslim men in casual situations dressed in long tunics.

        1. I can see that with the boys though. Lots of women in Columbus (where I live) who do wear the full Burka or Niqab, let their kids get away with significantly less. Some of the daughters want to and do wear a headscarf, but they often aren’t forced to do so, and the sons tend to be shorts and t-shirts even if the father has traditional garb on a Friday night. My guess is that it’s a cost issue, since kids grow so fast, they don’t bother clothing them with the formal garb until they’ve become a little more grown up.

          1. It might be that they are, *gasp*, actually integrating into American society, which many first generation immigrants do.
            I consider this a great thing–if only they continue to integrate, picking up Constitutional principles/values.

    5. These seem closer to hijabs than burqas since the face is perfectly visible.

    6. John, seriously go read a book or something. Here’s the shocking story for you: The Muslims who believe in a clothing code for women ALSO believe in a clothing code for men. Usually long flowing robes that cover the whole body, in the Arab countries often something that covers the head and hair, and depending on which hadiths you pick and choose mandatory beards.

      “There you will see women dressed in a Burka and a man in shorts and a T-shirt.”

      For this, you’re taking the Muslims who believe in a dress code for women and then comparing them to the men among Muslims who do not believe in a dress code (because Dress Code is all Hadith).

      That’s like me saying “Christians are oppressive because only in Christianity will you find women dressed in a wimple and long dress and a man in shorts and a T-shirt” comparing Amish women to your average “Easter and Christmas” men.

      Hell, I could say that in Islam “you will see men dressed in a covering clothing and hair coverings and women in tight, revealing outfits” if I’m comparing all Saudi men to Sunidhi Chauhan.

      TL:DR; Just John being John pretending to be an expert on religions and cultures he knows nothing about.

    7. We wouldn’t even have to have this discussion if it wasn’t for that stupid open borders nonsense. I don’t think the government has a right to ban certain types of clothing, but I do think the gov’t has a right to protect the borders. Keep these people out of western countries in the first place.

  11. We pretend that these women as ‘choosing’ the modesty demanded by Islam–many of them pretend this as well.

    But there is no choice involved. You wear what the men say or you get punished. This is Islam.

    When a woman in the West chooses to cover up to protect her skin or her modesty there is no punishment waiting for her if she chooses otherwise. This is the difference–and it is a huge one.

    Because of this difference Islamic men see women who are not complying with Islamic strictures as flaunting their sexuality, as behaving as whores. And they act accordingly.

    1. When the other “choice” is a jar of acid to the face, it isn’t really a choice.

      1. That doesn’t mean Western civilization should accept it.

    2. Translation: Tits or GTFO.

      Sure, ladies, you may THINK you aren’t being oppressed, but until you take it ALL OFF it’s clearly just internalized mysogyny or something something buzzwords making you think you need to wear clothes because something something hiding the female form something something tits or GTFO.

    3. Well put.

      What you said is pretty much exactly what this Iranian emigrant and anti-Sharia activist says it is and was like living under Sharia:

      (Or go to and look under Radio 3Fourteen for “Women Under Sharia.”)

      The whole interview is worth listening to.

    4. Then they should simply disassociate with these men?

  12. Cargo cult logic. “Murderous hateful bigots want women to cover up, therefore women covering up is the problem”. They’ll do anything possible rather than confront the actual ideological source of oppression and terror.

  13. A decent article by Chapman? End times!!!

  14. “Forbidding burkinis is like trying to combat rape by telling women they can’t have sex.”

    Uh, not so sure about this analogy. Though it’s clearly counter-libertarian. However, when religions act as a competing (or colluding) level of govt, literally policing the behavior of it’s members, I wouldn’t be so quick to jump to the “free society” side either. The french are passing these stupid laws because they feel their govt is not maintaining the monopoly on force over these women, and that a worse one is in place. The more interesting question is how right they are.

  15. I can’t go along with bans like this, but I do admit to feeling a little weirded out by something like it.

    For a long time I researched how I might help sell this — — so I hit lots of YouTubes of children in bubble baths. I noticed in a good number, they were in swimsuits. Was it a trend in families, or just an artifact of YouTube? If a trend, then reason to include instructions on bubble bath to remove clothes immediately after use, to keep soap from drying & concentrating in proximity to skin. So I asked. Where I got answers, usually it was that it was indeed a planned shot for YouTube. However, at least one father said he hadn’t wanted his son & daughter bathing together (it being the kids’ idea to get in with the dog) w/o swimsuits. It disturbs me to think kids are being made to wear swimsuits even for YouTube; if you don’t want to show their privates, duh, just don’t put bath videos of them on the ‘net. But the bit where the YouTube wasn’t even planned, and the father made them wear them anyway? What does that tell the kids? What does it tell the audience, too? You’re accentuating their sexuality if you make a particular point of covering just those parts of them up.

    I noticed that starting maybe 25 years ago, TV ads with kids bathing started having them wear brightly colored swimsuits, apparently to show that the production crew wasn’t seeing them nude. Just bugs me that children are being sexualized this way.

    1. Well, the thing is – if you show a nude shot of your kid you’re going to get a visit by the FBI and CPS. ‘Because pedophiles . . . ‘

      Its kinda been self-reinforcing. People get more paranoid, politicians and bureaucrats become more willing to pander to that to gain power, which makes people more paranoid, and on and on and on.

      I think I’ve mentioned this before but I live in a small town of 15k people – its about 2 miles wide and 3 long. Parents will drive their kids to the bus stop that is in our housing estate and wait with them until the bus comes to take them to the elementary school . . . a half-mile *drive* away (its shorter just to walk out the side of the estate and cross the street and you’d be there).

      My best friend’s kid is now 12 and this is the first year his mother has allowed him to ride his bike to school (they’re divorced). Even then he was driven in on the first day.

      1. I don’t think it has to do with FBI, CPS, etc. because most of the YouTubes like that are w/o swimsuits?they’re not set up as photo shoots, just parents who decide, oh, how cute, let’s video. Except for that dad who wouldn’t let them bathe together at that age naked. It’s a social shift, not a legal one. For someone my age, it’s strange because what used to be unacceptable is now acceptable in nudity for adults, while what used to be acceptable is now unacceptable in nudity for children. There’s been almost the same reversal re pot & tobacco, but that one was foreseen or at least projected from its early stages.

  16. “many non-Muslims feel no reciprocal obligation to let the demure practice modesty.”

    I expect that Chapman and most of the general commentariat don’t interact with Muslims very often except on the most superficial of levels.

    “Islamic garb” is not about being demure, it’s about subjugation. Period. Why are Chapman and other “libertarian” social progressives tolerant of (if not thoroughly COMFORTABLE with) signs of oppression like the hijab, but demand that other symbols (like the Confederate flag) be outlawed?…..olumn.html

    A flag is just a piece of fucking cloth hanging on the end of a pole, but a hijab (and other feminine Muslim cultural dress) is, for all intents and purposes, forced upon women.

  17. Slaves make themselves slaves? The wholesale subjugation of a certain demographic (women) by religious “authorities” dictating to totalitarin states is not acceptable in world that recognizes the principal of Human Rights. Just as the African slaves brought to USA did not “allow” themselves to be legal property and forced to obey under the threat and action of punishment, even death. We can not live our “free” lives by ignoring what is under our nose in the US & worldwide. This is not respecting the estab. & practice of religion. I don’t believe I misunderstand the 13th amend. which abolished slavery & involuntary servitude.

    1. Slaves make themselves slaves?

      You seem to be eliding the difference between people’s voluntary behavior and relationships codified by law.

    2. Slaves *allow themselves to be made slaves*. And African slaves did allow themselves – like all slaves have. They faced a choice and chose to accept bondage.

      While I sympathize with those having to choose between death and bondage – and would myself (lets not kid ourselves here) also choose bondage – I don’t sympathize with those who simply accede because its easier.

      1. Gotta say women in Islam regularly lose their heads or someone throws a bunch of stones at ’em.

  18. The key to a free society is the principle of “live and let live”

    And yet Chapman managed to get through the piece without once mentioning the very-French principle of La?cit?

    “”La?cit? is a core concept in the French constitution, Article 1 of which formally states that France is a secular republic””

    Proponents assert the French state secularism is based on respect for freedom of thought and freedom of religion. …La?cit? relies on the division between private life, where adherents believe religion belongs, and the public sphere, in which each individual, adherents believe, should appear as a simple citizen equal to all other citizens, devoid of ethnic, religious or other particularities. … It is best described as a belief that government and political issues should be kept separate from religious organizations and religious issues (as long as the latter do not have notable social consequences). Critics of la?cit? argue that it is …infringement on individual right to religious expression, and that, instead of promoting freedom of thought and freedom of religion, it prevents the believer from observing his or her religion.

    aka The State is obligated to main citizen’s “Freedom FROM Religion”. The American concept of “free exercise” is its opposite.

    1. Thank you for posting that. Chapman wrote an entire article about France, while holding them to American standards. What a stupid unworldly hick.

    2. Thank you for posting that. Chapman wrote an entire article about France, while holding them to American standards. What a stupid unworldly hick.

      1. ack…sorry, not sure how it double posted.

    3. France is one of the most statist countries in the world, certainly the most in europe. Shit nation.

    4. Bingo!

      The problem is not the burkini, it is that eventually Islam will change the nature of France from a “secular republic” to something else.

      And that “something else” sure won’t be a free society.

  19. Forgot to say, Fuck this not about To Wear or Not to Wear but about rights. In Saudi women Are Owned by their immediate Male Relative. Why do some of you “guys” think its about a robe or a scarf?

    1. “Guys”

      I personally identify as a quadgendered Ocelotkin, thank you.

      Again = you seem to be pretending that Saudi/Sharia laws are in force in France or the US. They’re not.

      Muslim woman aren’t required to dress like overweight Ninjas; they (some) choose to. The issue is whether France will allow them to choose to wear what they want.

      In the US they can choose because the 1st amendment protects free exercise. In France the state has taken a stricter policy of “secularlizing” the public-sphere, and has banned veils.

      No one in the comments seems to be endorsing replacing either French or US law with Sharia, contra your suggestion.

      1. Sorry on the guys, I was immersed in a female outrage moment. But, you were more eloquent than I.
        Must admit I don’t know what a quadgendered Ocelot-kin looks like, will google immediately. And I will learn appropriate cultural address.

    2. Because we’re talking about *France* here, not Saudi Arabia.

      If any French women is ‘owned’ by a male relative in France, its because she’s allowed it, consented to it.

      1. Apologies for my stubborn disagreement that many, many women are under threat from their families to adhere to certain dress & authoritative control of their actions, even in the US.

        1. You’re still mad Dad wouldn’t let teenage-you dye your hair pink?

          For the third time =

          “”You seem to be eliding the difference between people’s voluntary behavior and relationships codified by law.””

          No one is “forcing” anyone to do anything. If a wife is pressured by a husband to be “more modest”, she can get a divorce, or simply take the guy to court if he’s threatening her. If minors are being pressured against their will, they can also in many cases seek restitution (with limits); if they’re not minors, they’re free to leave their families and do whatever the fuck they want. (and many do)

          Either you already understand that there’s a difference between Govt sanctioned coercion and voluntary-religious-behavior, and you’re trying to muddy the difference for some (dull) rhetorical point…

          …or you actually don’t understand the difference at all. Despite it being pointed out to you very clearly in multiple places above.

          The issue =

          In france, religious garb is being “banned” from public. In the US this would be a violation of the 1st amendment free-exercise protections.

          Neither of these countries are dealing with any ‘compelled’ behavior. In both cases they are issues of people being allowed to choose to exercise religious strictures

          1. I think you’re overlooking the possibility of non-state actors (family, Mafia, whoever) using actual violence to enforce their decrees.

  20. Heh, Chapman actually believes Muslims are tolerant of other beliefs and lifestyles.

    He is not paying attention.

  21. France is wrong about this and must understand that Burkas are preventing Muslim women from constantly being raped. When Muslims invade, I mean migrate, to places where Burkas are not mandatory, look at the rape epidemic that ensues. France should embrace rape awareness and prevention by mandating Burkas for all French women. Clearly, that is the root of this problem.

  22. I don’t care what you wear, as long as it doesn’t affect me.

  23. Sorry again, I Stubbornly adhere to the belief this issue is not about the burka, but their ability to date, drive a car, to vote, shuck the burka, marry whom they please, go naked, have a drink, walk with a man that is not her relative– all without being murdered by they own family.

  24. RE: The Bare Truth About Burkinis
    Women can decide for themselves how much to expose and why.

    Such vulgar talk about women deciding for themselves on how much they should expose is political pornography at its apex. We should allow our ruling elitist turds to decide for women what they should wear and when. All of us untermenschen are unenlightened neanderthals who would not know what to wear if it wasn’t for the Clothing Kommissars are kind enough to offer their gracious diktats on what we should wear and when. If it wasn’t for them, we would be wearing our socks on ears, our underwear on our heads, using our hats to poop in, use our shoes for drums, putting our shirt sleeves around our legs and our pants around our arms. Thankfully, the Clothing Kommissars ended these mortifying displays of ignorance and put all us lowly plebian fools on the path to correct way to wear our clothes. One can only sigh with despair thinking what all us little people would live without the guidance of The State.

  25. You could have dug a little deeper and found out the real cause of the restrictions. My understanding of the issue is that groups of Islamic people had been staking out parts of some beaches, and intimidating or attacking non Islamic visitors to those areas. I don’t think that the ban is the best way to solve that problem, but I do not live in a community that relies on beach visitors for economic survival.
    This explanation comes from interviews on German Television.

    1. “This explanation comes from interviews on German Television.”

      OK, then.

    2. I had read the same on various European news sites.

      It could all be solved with beachgoers having at least one of their crew armed and on overwatch against the violent, gang-like behavior of some Muslim beachgoers, but oh wait, France has banned guns, so the only tool they have is to use the state to issue ever more bans.

  26. $89 an hour! Seriously I don’t know why more people haven’t tried this, I work two shifts, 2 hours in the day and 2 in the evening?And i get surly a chek of $1260??0 whats awesome is Im working from home so I get more time with my kids.
    Here is what i did


  27. The French are really creepy on this one. Essentially demanding women strip for them. Creepy frogs gonna be creepy frogs I guess.

  28. The next time you go on vacation in the Emirate of your choice, wear whatever you want while swimming at the beach. You’d probably beg for the opportunity to pay a small fine rather than recieve 40 lashes or a few years in prison for offending their medieval sensibilities.

    BTW, why the fuck do people go on vacation to places like that? Don’t they read the news about people getting arrested for some very inconsequential shit?

    1. You are wrong. I’ve seen lots of g-strings on tourists in Dubai, even on men (I cannot unsee that, unfortunately). Sometimes tourist cash is more important than a deeply-rooted ideology, you know?

  29. I’m am opposed to any gov’t dictating what people should wear. While telling my husband about this story, he replied that he had read that the burkini Muslim women were causing problems by chastising the women in more revealing swim wear. Is this true?

    1. Yes, and the Muslim men with them also harass non-Muslims in more revealing dress.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.