The trivial burkini debate

After seeing the shocking and unprecedented images of a lone middle-aged woman lying on a beach in Nice surrounded by armed police and ordered to remove her top at gunpoint, it certainly came as some relief to learn, days later, that France’s highest administrative court suspended the controversial ban on the burkini imposed by some coastal towns, where burkini clad women were being routinely reprimanded by armed police and treated like outlaws.

However, despite the positive ruling, I realised that the matter was far from over when I watched a French politician on the BBC World Service, last Saturday, commenting in response to the court’s decision, that Muslim women should not overdo it and that they should restrict their religious practice to the mosque and not bring it to the beach.

The irony surrounding the singling out, targeting and criminalisation of this particular item of clothing, a humble swimsuit, at this charged moment, could not be more obvious.

The burkini was invented in Australia in early 2004 by Australian Aheda Zanetti precisely for the purpose of giving Muslim women, or any woman who favours it, personal modesty, freedom and inclusion, and not so that they can have their freedom taken away.

She invented this swimsuit so that women could take part in sport activities, to enable them to adopt a healthier lifestyle and participate in their community activities, whilst upholding and maintaining their personal choice to remain modest.

In Australia, in particular, due to the very strong sun and high rates of skin cancer, this type of swimsuit is very common and popular on the beaches, and is worn by children in the form of “rash suits” and adults who choose to protect their skin.

It is rare to find a child on an Australian beach not wearing a “rash suit”, which comes in a variety of styles and is very similar to the burkini.

In 2011, famous British TV chef Nigella Lawson caused a stir when she was photographed on the beach on holiday in Australia wearing a full three-piece burkini, her reason being that she wanted to protect her pale skin from sun damage.

Evidently, burkini is by no means a religious dress, let alone a symbol of religion. It is simply a swimsuit for those who choose to cover up, and it provides them freedom to participate in activities they would not have previously joined, opening the door to fitness and health.

So what makes the burkini so different, and where do we draw the line on how much coverage is acceptable? 

This ludicrous issue actually highlights the farce that the burkini hysteria has inevitably become. 

The burkini is just another choice of swimwear amongst many. 

That a woman decides to cover part or most of her body on beaches should be no one else’s concern. It is an essential part of one’s personal freedom as long as it does not break the law or imply any form of indecency.

As a matter of fact, many see it as dignified and worthy of appreciation and respect.

The burkini, therefore, does not turn beaches into places of worship, as the French commentator may seek to suggest. 

This is so facetious that it makes a mockery of any serious discussion regarding secularism and freedom, and clearly indicates that the burkini is being used as an excuse to further feed a rising wave of Islamophobia.

Furthermore, to demand that people only perform their religious duties, their prayers, or their religious supplications in the mosque or other revered places of worship is another imposition on individual freedom.

Islamic tradition permits prayer in any clean place; in open air, at home, in the park, on board the plane while flying, at work and also on the beach.

Followers of other religions do the same. They pray to God for safety when they fly or board a ship. They pray in front of their loved ones when in hospital for treatment, they pray for peace and safety in moments of trouble and they pray for any other purpose in any location. 

That has never been a problem. There is nothing more gratifying than witnessing a believer submitting in prayer to his God.

The problem, therefore, is not the clothing. Rather, it is the association of that particular item of clothing with those who mostly wear it: Muslim women.

The opposition to the burkini is simply a smokescreen to cover up a much deeper and more serious fear and concern.

Islamophobia has been building up in some Western countries to such an extent that the extremist elements within them do not want to see Muslims around at all, and if they do have to be present, they should not make their presence obvious or noticeable. 

There is no question that the expansion of terror into Europe and many other parts of the world has been a major cause for raising Islamophobia trends to unprecedented levels. 

The heinous crimes by extremist jihadist organisations against innocent Europeans, including Muslims among the victims, were mostly committed in the name of Islam.

Despite condemnation by each and every Muslim country and every Muslim authority of such barbarities, despite extensive explanation that Islamic teachings and Islamic values that categorically reject such behaviour are being seriously damaged by such extremist groups’ atrocities, it is hard to expect some of the effected people not to be seriously and negatively disturbed, particularly when their lives become threatened.

That is understandable, and that is why we should all stand together and unify our efforts to fight the terrorists’ actions as well as ideology. 

The last thing we all need in such a hard undertaking is to squander any needed effort on trivial and petty disputes over issues of fashion.

Integration of Muslims in many European countries suffered setbacks and mishandling in the past. 

There are indications that the marginalisation of European Muslims has contributed to the radicalisation of some of those who chose the path of terror.

We need to conduct deeper studies to uncover the real causes and then address them.

The danger in allowing a vicious cycle to emerge is a serious complication that should be prevented at any cost.

Most of the terrorist attacks in Europe have unfortunately been committed, or claimed, by Muslim organisations, mainly Daesh’s ilk. That has played well in the hands of the extremist ultra-nationalist European parties that openly reject foreigners, with emphasis on Muslims.

The vicious cycle, therefore, is: terror leads to more hatred; more hatred leads to further alienation and marginalisation; more marginalisation leads to radicalisation and more terror.

This cycle must be destroyed right from the beginning.

We all need to work together to first separate the bad elements that exist already. Then, we need to deal with the situations that helped their creation. 

The answer is more integration, more tolerance, more acceptance and more understanding.

Diversity and respect for others and others’ cultures, traditions, ways of life, beliefs as well as interests and rights are the answer.

How shameful, cowardly and shocking it is to put aside and ignore the serious issues and instead argue and dedicate so much time and resources to the pettiest trivialities and absurdities, all because of hatred and intolerance, by picking on the easiest, softest and most defenceless targets, a small minority of Muslim women who simply choose what they wish to wear on the beach.

How could forcing women to take off their clothes at gunpoint and imposing what they should wear ever be in the name of freedom and liberty?

Could there even be a more glaring and ridiculous contradiction?

On the one hand, the West is obsessed with liberating Muslim women from their “oppressors” and now they want to tell them what they can and cannot wear and treat them like criminals for making their own choices. 

This is exactly what the Taliban in Afghanistan do and what Daesh is now doing to Muslim women.

The tragic irony of it all certainly cannot be missed, but neither should the danger.