Burkini and Topless in the Pool: A Compromise in Grenoble?
Only thong (empty breast) Is this an RI (internal regulation) or a penal code that must be amended?
Burkini approved at Grenoble. I have already revealed myself for the Renaissance!
Yesterday I saw the Mediapart article at this point which is not enough. So go for Burkini which covers all the skin but not always the body (because I was told very well made) women!
But have bare breasts (including plain jerseys) been adopted by “textile reciprocity” in Grenoble? I am again explaining the principle of reciprocity and equality which is an important principle of Grenoble’s “textile” agreement: if we can wear “very covered” we can also wear “very little covered”: breasts in the absence of string bears (which I mentioned in my previous lesson 1). Speaking of) it will then be empty breasts and not just bath towels, which have already been tolerated. Mere administrative tolerance is not a right, although it is relatively generalized. Administrative authorities may approve but refrain from doing so. When he refrains for a long time and under the influence of further change everywhere then the law goes away, may evolve: the law then changes.
Sexophobic and gender-separatist religious fundamentalism
This agreement in no way addresses the question of international religious fundamentalism (a reactionary and ultra-patriarchal element of a religion) that imposes either veiled women (sexophobia) or housewives (sexo-separatism) or even a combination of the two oppressions – and which are suspended.
While the veil is not inherently radical, it is important to remember that all Muslim fundamentalists (plural due to internal diversity) impose the veil and ultra-long skirt everywhere from sexophobia and many more times: sexoseparatism (women with the house) or a combination. Both! The Haredi Jews do the same thing (the same rigid psychology of women’s fear) that easily explains the desire to set the limits of this international mobility! Also more.
If “textile reciprocity” (spursly dress and very covered) is adopted with the genre mix for the same place, a compromise is reached. Is.
It’s about a compromise between opposite positions that can be stable without worries but can also be difficult like any hard-made compromise. So it is important to note that compromise does not upset the balance of power by excluding: denial of sexophobic views, sexist insults, sexist touches, against topless women. There could also be a general “Islamophobic” insult against all Muslims. We can certainly criticize Islam, we can support blasphemy, we can differentiate between fundamentalism and ordinary believers, but we have a responsibility to leave people alone. This is a fundamental human right. And we can clearly see that some criticisms of Islam are an insult to Muslims (the word Muslim has been replaced by Islam) and are addressed to people who are Muslims or supposedly: we are not anti-racist militants at all!
No one is forced to love the veil
As for the Islamic veil, as Mediapart’s article on Grenoble’s decision reverses it, it must be remembered that “no one is forced to choose the veil” especially on the one hand for the extra display of its opposite religious identity. The view of secularism – which is certainly not secularism (which is just a compromise in a stable society by law), especially on the other hand for the very conservative aspect of religious prescription for women since little girls are kept under full screen (head to toe), which is very tragic but early The side says a lot about body structure and layout. So no one is forced to love the veil, even if the veil is not inherently radical, which we must remember, but just as much as the existence of a strong reactionary counter-movement. Muslim women. Yet respect for people (see above)
So we must be aware of the contradictions at this point and be aware of possible conflicts in the future.
“Not anti-veil obsession, not pro-veil obsession” means that the veil is in principle free to wear but it is – and still can be – prohibited in a limited way (except where it is prohibited in the public service).
It is important to uphold the French law of 15 March 2004, which prohibits explicit religious signs in public schools and related lawsuits (corporate IR).