Right: Women of many faiths joined together to protest the banning of the burkini.

Found a word you're not familiar with? Double-click that word to bring up a dictionary reference to it. The dictionary page includes an audio sound file with which to actually hear the word said.



Arguments against banning the burkini

1. The burkini is not unsafe or unhygienic
Supporters of the burkini argue that some of the complaints made about it are merely lame excuses used to disguise prejudice. This is the reaction that many who favour women being allowed to wear burkinis have with regard to its supposed unhygienic nature.
Its supporters note that a burkini is little different to a wetsuit, which is not condemned for being unhygienic and that it is made out of the same fabric as conventional swimsuits and thus is no more likely to contaminate water, shed dye or hold dirt that any other accepted swimming costume.
In an opinion piece published in The Telegraph on August 14, 2016, Juliet Samuel indicated her scepticism regarding those who purport to believe that the burkini is unacceptable because it is unhygienic. Samuel quotes the mayor of Villeneuve-Loubet, who has stated, 'I was told that there was a couple on one of our beaches where the wife was swimming fully dressed, and I considered that unacceptable for hygienic reasons.' Samuel's disbelief of this filmsy justification is indicated in her response, ' He did not specify whether he was worried about the hygiene of the wife, the other swimmers or the fish.'
There are a number of jurisdictions which have overturned attempted bans on the burkini due to supposed health concerns.
Malta's state health directorate has declared that swimming in a full-body Islamic bathing suit is just as hygienic as using any other form of swimwear.
Charmaine Gauci, who heads the Health Promotion and Disease Directorate, has stated that there was no hygiene concern in swimming in a full-body suit or burkini. Dr Gauci issued this statement after the Marsa Sports Club in Malta ordered a Muslim woman not to use the pool wearing a burkini on the grounds that her costume was a risk to public health.
It has similarly been claimed that the burkini, being made from the same fabric as conventional swimsuits does not impede swimming any more than a wetsuit. In addition, it has been argued that the degree of sun protection the burkini offers makes it a safer option.
Celebrity chef Nigella Lawson attracted media attention in 2011 when she was
photographed pictured wearing a burkini on Bondi Beach. Lawson claimed to be wearing the burkini so she did not have to keep re-applying her sun cream. She stated, 'I can see it looks odd but it is incredibly comfortable and there's no sun block and you're not getting a tan.'
It has further been noted that the burkini does not increase the wearer's risk of drowning.
On August 13, 2016, Religious Despatches published at comment by Shabana Mir which stated, 'There are no issues with floatation, since the fabric is the same as a regular swimsuit. It's not an abayah that will get in the way of your limbs, or a dress that will fill up with water and drag you down. It's simply a swimsuit that covers more of your body. Why is that even an issue of note? If scuba divers wear wetsuits, why is the burqini a problem?'

2. The burkini ban is an attack on religious freedom and a range of other freedoms
It has been claimed that the recent banning of the burkini in a number of coastal communes in France and at some public swimming pools in Germany and Austria is an unjust restriction on the religious freedom of Muslim women.
Supporters of the burkini argue that it is unfair to deny those women whose religious beliefs require them to cover much of their bodies in public an opportunity to do so. It requires the women concerned to make a choice between their freedom of movement and their freedom of religious belief. Both freedoms are guaranteed by the United Nations' Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
Article 18 of the Declaration states, 'Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.'
Article 13 of the Declaration states, 'Everyone has the right to freedom of movement...'
It has also been claimed that prohibiting Muslim women from wearing the burkini is an attack on their freedom of expression.
Article 19 of the Declaration states, 'Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.'
It has further been claimed that these bans are discrimatory and as such are a violation of women's right to freedom from discrimination.
Article 7 of the Declaration states, 'All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law. All are entitled to equal protection against any discrimination in violation of this Declaration and against any incitement to such discrimination.'
France is one of the 48 original signatories to the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Opponents of French actions in banning the wearing of the hijab in schools and in prohibiting the wearing of face coverings in public have suggested that these actions are not in accord with the Declaration.
On August 26, 2016, the French State Council ruled the measures prohibiting the wearing of burkinis a 'serious and clearly illegal violation of fundamental freedoms'.
The court ruled that local authorities could only introduce measures restricting individual freedoms if wearing the Islamic swimsuit on beaches represented a 'proven risk' to public order. The judges said there was no such risk in the case before the court concerning Villeneuve-Loubet, a resort on the Cote d'Azur between Nice and Cannes.
The United Nations has expressed support for the decision of the French State Council. A UN spokesperson, Stephane Dujarre, has stated, 'We welcome the decision by the court. The need for people's dignity has to be respected.'
Amnesty International Europe Director John Dalhuisen has also stated, 'These bans do nothing to increase public safety, but do a lot to promote public humiliation. Not only are they in themselves discriminatory, but as we have seen, the enforcement of these bans leads to abuses and the degrading treatment of Muslim women and girls...
Invasive and discriminatory measures such as these restrict women's choices and are an assault on their freedoms of expression, religion and right to non-discrimination.'

3. The ban denies some Muslim women physical freedom and an opportunity to exercise
Dress code restrictions impose inevitable restrictions on some conservative Muslim women. The modesty requirements that regulate their choice of attire have traditionally meant that they are either denied access to beaches and swimming pools or are extremely limited in the access they can enjoy.
The burkini was designed as an attempt to open up these recreational public spaces to Muslim women who would not otherwise be able to enjoy them.
The Australian designer of the burkini, Aheda Zanetti, has stated, 'When I invented the burkini in early 2004, it was to give women freedom, not to take it away.' She originally designed it for her niece so she would be able to take part in outdoor activities other Australian girls take for granted, without violating the modesty requirements of her religion.
Zanetti has described the freedom she personally felt when she first trialled the swimming costume. She has written, 'It was my first time swimming in public and it was absolutely beautiful. I remember the feeling so clearly. I felt freedom, I felt empowerment, I felt like I owned the pool. I walked to the end of that pool with my shoulders back.'
The freedom that the burkini has allowed Muslim women has been similarly described by Sarah Malik, who has stated, 'In 2006, Mecca Laalaa became the first burqini-clad Muslim woman in Australia to become a lifeguard, trailblazing a road for Muslim women to not only participate but own the surf.'
Describing her own experience of wearing the burkini, Malik has further stated, 'I love the beach. I live right near one and as the weather warms up, there is nothing more glorious than walking the golden shores and sinking into the cool water.'
Supporters of the burkini argue that banning this type of swimming costume means that many Muslim women will lose this recently acquired freedom to enjoy sun, surf and sand.
Malik has claimed, 'Now these women who were perhaps even braving the disapproval of the more conservative in their own community will be back to watching from the shoreline.'
Rather than liberating Muslim women, it has been claimed that banning the burkini will intensify their disempowerment.
Malik concluded her argument by noting, 'The ban is an attack on minority communities, already subject to increased surveillance and harassment, who occupy the very bottom of the social hierarchy; and its most vulnerable members - Muslim women.'

4. The burkini does not conceal a woman's identity and does not pose a security risk
It has been claimed that the primary justification used to support the banning of the burka, does not apply to the burkini. The burka covers or obscures the wearer's face. As such it is a garment that can pose a security risk, as the wear may be a known criminal or suspect who might otherwise be recognised. The wearer of a burka could also commit a crime and not be able to be easily recognised. Given the level of concern regarding terrorist attacks, it is also alarming that a terrorist would be easily able to hide a weapon beneath the voluminous folds of a burka.
A comment published in Swarajya on August 26, 2016, stated, 'Experts argue that while there is a strong security justification for banning the burka, the same cannot be said about burkini. If someone tried to carry a Kalashnikov beneath a burka, they would be - and have been - able to get away with it. The same principle applies considerably less in the case of the tight-fitting burkini.'
Defenders of the burkini argue that none of the justifications that can be applied to the banning of the burka, which was effectively achieved in France in 2010, apply to the burkini.
In an opinion piece published in The Independent on August 25, 2016, Adam Taylor noted, 'The burkini did not originate in Afghanistan. In fact, given that it is a two-piece garment that doesn't cover the face, it doesn't have a whole lot to do with the burka in general.'
Rim-Sarah Alouane, a religious freedom expert at the University of Toulouse and a Muslim raised in France, has stated, 'It's not a creation by Iran or Saudi Arabia: It's for women who are trying to enjoy a very Western activity, like sitting on a beach in the sand.'
Akeela Ahmed, a London-based equalities campaigner, has stated, 'They're penalising French Muslim women for the actions of terrorists. They either go to the beach and not swim or remain isolated in their communities at home.'
Akeela Ahmed has added, 'These women are not a security threat, they're just average French Muslim women.'

5. The ban expresses and promotes islamophobia
For many opponents of the ban it is dangerous and offensive because it identifies all conservative, observing Muslim women as potential risks to public security. This is the demonisation of a group on the basis of their religious beliefs, in this case, adherence to Islam.
In an opinion piece published in Daily O on August 31, 2016, Affan Yesvi noted, 'Sadly, a mode of attire which is purely rooted in cultural and religious preferences has been regarded as an act of identification with terrorist groups.'
While it is reasonable for French authorities to exercise extreme caution in the aftermath of a series of terrorist attacks perpetrated by Islamist extremists, it does not follow that all French citizens who are followers of Islam are terrorist extremists. Critics of the ban note that the burkini ban is an expression of this generalised anti-Islamic prejudice.
French-born Muslim Ben Mohamed, whose views were presented on CBS News on August 26, 2016, has noted that actions such as the banning of burkinis legitimise anti-Islamic prejudice in the eyes of other French citizens. It demonstrates to them that many French authorities see all Muslims as people to be feared.
Ben Mohamed has stated 'We already have this problem of Islamophobia since the attack of Charlie Hebdo, but now it's worse and worse since, you know...it's very, very difficult for Muslim people to be what they are.'
Ben Mohamed has further stressed, 'When you see someone wearing hijab, it means that she is Muslim. But for the mayor of Cannes, if you are wearing a burkini, it means that you are a part of a radicalised organization.'
According to recent polls, two-thirds of the French population support the ban.
Michele Sibony, a senior member of the Jewish Union for Peace, has compared the current climate for Muslims in France to the 1930s when the Jewish community lived under rampant anti-Semitism.
Sibony has stated, 'By arguing for this hate, people were inoculated with it, and there comes a time where a single match will be enough.'