The main problem is that they escape to us and want to live like at home, but there are different cultures and this will not fit.

A populist would say in the koran stand nothing about burkas and so on, so they are extremists.

Opinion: telling a woman what to wear or what not to wear is repressive and not fitting for France's liberal tradition.

Have you seen the comparison of Burkini, full body wet suit anf Catholic nun's traditional garb? Only one of them is being banned on French beachs. So yes, targeting a racialised minority.

Don't make me post the link to the youtube video about racialisation again...

@Gerry, no the main problem is our culture preaches tolerance of thers but doesn't practice it. Instead practices racialisation.

There is an arguement that women in Islam don't have to cover their bodies, unfortunately it is being made by another man who controls how the women in his cult appear: https://youtu.be/7bH21w2R0hc

Might seem like it fits better in Hollywood than Turkey... But i guess men will tell women what to wear or how to look all over the world.

Outright not letting women choose to wear them is just as repressive as telling them they have to :)

I don't think that banning crosses and burkini does much to protect a liberal society. While admittedly religion is almost invariably the enemy of freedom, I am not sure that this is a productive approach. It's more important to not let religion be a ruse for undermining secular values through stupidities like Hobby Lobby and the "religious freedom" to discriminate and so forth. I don't think that symbols make much of a difference and there are a lot of reasons to wear a burkini (eg sun protection)

@orathaic: Do you think we benefit the radicalisation ?

I can tell you that they came in my hometown conquered a church and claims free wLan, free public traffic, 70 Euro per month was too less, better flats......

The problem is not the giving , its a brashness to claim something in this way and you will tell me thats radical when we kicked them out?

And the best was at least they claimed alcohol because by is its free so they have a right on it, whats for character...

@ OP: "Critics claim that hijabs, burkas, and other similar face or head coverings are repressive of women"

Having armed policemen forcing women to undress in public is NOT a good way to address the repression of women. Just saying.

@ Gerry: "I can tell you that they came in my hometown conquered a church..."

1. Who are "they"? Women in modest beachwear attacked a church in your town, really?

2. "Conquered" how? Did they rush inside with guns and force the priests to leave? What do you mean by "conquered"?

@gerry, really i have very little understanding of what you tried to say.

Also, i'm talkin about racialisation, not radicalisation. I did not call you a radical, in fact i believe that racism is rather conservative and not radical at all.

I don't agree with the French way, but that's their country and their prerogative to ban whatever they like. If you don't like it, don't go there!

Does a burkini help the wearer make the drop, and carve a better bottom turn on a serious wave ? Didn't think so, but neither do all those overpriced garments in surf shops...so I have no problems with a bunch of deluded women wearing these silly garments to the beach whether it's religious propaganda or advertising propaganda driving their choices of apparel.

Let me put another hypothetical... Banks, for sound reasons of security, do not let persons wearing motorcycle helmets that obscure the wearers face into their premises...a Beach is generally public property.. A bank is private property.. In my view any Bank has the right to refuse entry to any person who chooses to wear clothing, helmets or other items that obscure their identity..and if they choose to make certain exceptions, such as allowing a nun in the full garb, then that is their prerogative

Good point Gobbledygook, I like it..and let's just remember that France is a democracy, so these laws have been enacted by an elected government and passed through a Parliament.
Also can't help but note that all those people ranting about this "loss of freedom of choice" in France have got nothing to say about the far more serious lack of freedom for individual expression that exists in that Islamic theocratic state Iran... define hypocrisy.. Oh your actions do that wonderfully

gobbledydook - we don't know the woman on the beach wasn't French. She could've been second or third generation immigrant. Whilst I agree it is for every country to make their own laws, that should stop people commenting on those laws. Often we discuss US gun laws and other issues, sharing our thoughts can help us all to a better understanding of one another. I'm sure discussing other country's laws in the past has led to change: Apartheid in South Africa for example, debate shouldn't be closed down just because it doesn't directly affect us.

I've seen lots of people taking the line Gobbledygook just did, saying "if you don't like it, go back to the desert" etc as if every person of Muslim faith currently in France just arrived in the last few weeks...

*sigh*

You also make a good point Maniac, I've certainly expressed my views on reasonable gun control laws in my own country, and other countries

France is in the European Union. If you have the right to live in France, you have the right to live anywhere in the EU.

Now Jamiet99uk, don't "verbal" Gobbledygook, I see no mention of going back to any desert in his posts
So let's break it down
If people choose to visit another country, they are obliged to observe the laws, and social customs of that country whilst they are there, even if they disagree with those laws and social customs.
If a person is a resident of a nation state and they disagree with laws enacted in that nation state, then their choices are :
Suffer in silence, work within the accepted ways of that nation state to change the laws with which they disagree ( and France is a democracy so there are options in how people in France can work for change in non violent ways ), or..emigrate to a nation in which they can live under laws they find acceptable

Ahhhh ha ha ha ha....France....you silly bigots.

@ Jamie99uk: With they I meant refugees, the most of them are moslems;

and 2nd: yes they did, it happened near by three years ago in Vienna.

@orathaic: sorry i thought it was a type miss match, and I do not know this word racialisation, loe.org also not, what does it mean?

http://m.dw.com/en/asylum-seekers-occupy-viennese-church/a-16510050

I think this is the story he's talking about?

And for racialization (or racialisation for the wrong spellers):
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racialization

@ TrPrado: Yes, thats what I meant. thx for informing

It seems more characteristic of a protest than a conquest. We never called the Occupy Wall Street movement a group of conquerers.

@orathaic : after learning a new word and understanding what you meant, I agree with you opinion.

it seems ... this is right , this report is a brashness, where is the end? where is standing that we needed police to remove them?
Its an perfect example for what the press does with the truth.

If they would just cut two small holes in the burkini over their nipples everything would be alrighty.