“France is at War with its own Citizens” – Yasser Louati on the Cannes “Burkini” Ban

“The colonialist administration invested great sums in this combat. After it had posited that the woman constituted the pivot of Algerian society, all efforts were made to obtain control over her.”

“This woman who sees without being seen frustrates the coloniser”

~ Frantz Fanon



“The colonialist administration invested great sums in this combat. After it had posited that the woman constituted the pivot of Algerian society, all efforts were made to obtain control over her.”

 “This woman who sees without being seen frustrates the coloniser”

 ~ Frantz Fanon

The Cannes ban on the Hijab/full body suits, where politically expedient, theologised, metaphysical ideas tangibly trump a Muslim woman’s ability to attend the beach, presents yet another example of the much vaunted “tolerance” born from “secular indifference to religion”, usually postulated as an argument against Islam.

The ban is blatantly premised on reductionist, culturalist logic (“ostentatious displays of religious affiliation” referring to “an allegiance to terrorist movements” is a colonialist trope used to justify repression against a people). It is clearly discriminatory against the Muslim minority, conflicting with the ideas it seeks to protect; one can really insufflate the freedom, liberty and…

View original post 106 more words

This entry was posted in World by truthaholics. Bookmark the permalink.

About truthaholics

| Exposing Truth Behind Media Spin. Truth is not gossip. It's not sensational or even exciting. Truth's reality, fact. Truth's shocking, sad, horrific, frightening and deadly. Controversial issues discussed here so only for those able to digest Truth.

22 thoughts on ““France is at War with its own Citizens” – Yasser Louati on the Cannes “Burkini” Ban

  1. Personally, I believe that defense of any apparel, which denies identification, allows for explosive devices or illegal weapon concealment and/or negates the physical liberty of a ‘woman’ to liberate herself from the torment of deranged masculism, is absurd and ridiculous in these modern times. Barbarianism and female domination is based on ignorance of facts and Truths regarding Life Itself; and the later, should not evolve within humanity further. Males, who have mental-glandular problems, which have not mentally matured enough to respect the female form and body are obviously deranged and lack any knowledge of the ‘True Being’ within this Form. Those male defects should be reprogrammed and/or, if they violate a woman, condemned to isolation with their counterparts on some far away island without ant female presence.


    • I think you’ve conflated the issues posted about. It’s about the woman’s choice. Her right to wear as much or as little she chooses should only be interfered with as an extreme measure by the state and not as part of a steady erosion of civil rights in general and a routine of targetting Muslims in particular.


      • Not confused! This apparel was, according to documented history, forced upon the ‘Ladies’. Even today, we see in Syria, once liberated from the oppressive minds of terrorism and masculism imprisonment that this type of apparel is being immediately shunned by many of the ‘Ladies’.

        Obviously, when a person is intimidated into a the acceptance of even the most irrational of man-made customs, psychologically it becomes a desired factor even down to being repeatedly abused and beaten. The later is extensively documented and factual in its context. Thus “choice” cannot, in certain areas, be considered “desired”; but instead psychologically programmed into fear of nonacceptance or even punishment for not continuing-on with the programmed format.

        Unfortunately, here, we are forced to enter into the question of society’s security aspects and concerns and the obedience of laws regarding full-identification, which has necessarily been established to protect ‘People’ from harm.

        No, I haven’t “conflated” or confused the issues. Instead, i clarified them.

        Have a great day!


        • Rather than another form of targetted post-colonial colonialism it is by being inclusive and clarifying the rule of law for everyone that the so-called enlightened values can shine through.

          #Islamophobia #PostColonial #Britain’s Problem With #Islam! https://truthaholics.wordpress.com/2015/03/07/islamophobia-postcolonial-britains-problem-with-islam/ via @truthrazor

          Do Muslim Women Need Saving? https://truthaholics.wordpress.com/2013/11/01/do-muslim-women-need-saving/ via @truthrazor

          How ironic that a significant if not the largest global growth demographic is white educated European reverts to Islam?
          | The debate about Muslim women wearing veils is not complex. This is Britain, and in Britain you c… https://truthaholics.wordpress.com/2013/09/17/the-debate-about-muslim-women-wearing-veils-is-not-complex-this-is-britain-and-in-britain-you-can-wear-what-you-want/ via @truthrazor

          Related articles
          The debate about Muslim women wearing veils is not complex. This is Britain, and in Britain you can wear what you want (blogs.telegraph.co.uk)
          | Have you ever met a woman in a niqab? Has one ever harmed you? (truthaholics.wordpress.com)
          ‘Feminism’ can’t force Muslim women to ditch the veil (telegraph.co.uk)
          The Veil: What Do Muslims Think? (blogs.independent.co.uk)
          Full-face veils aren’t barbaric – but our response can be | Maleiha Malik (theguardian.com)
          If we want a debate on the veil, why not listen to Muslim women first? (rationalist.org.uk)
          The niqab debate: ‘Is the veil the biggest issue we face in the UK?’ (theguardian.com)
          Have you ever met a woman in a niqab? Has one ever harmed you? (newstatesman.com)
          My veil epiphany | Victoria Coren Mitchell (theguardian.com)
          We need a national debate on Muslim veils in public places, says minister (standard.co.uk)


          • Your replies and basic stance avoids totally the published facts regarding the reasons behind the non acceptance of ‘total coverage’. Instead, you now revert to defending. or better selling, Islam and providing your personal viewpoints.

            With regards to conversions to Islam by those factions mentioned: Please be advised that “intelligence” is not defined as being the “educated”; it is defined as the ability to manage that information that has been provided by experience, and accordingly programming or education.

            Talking to someone, whom has been victimized for a lifetime by masculine mind-control ploys would have no bearing at all on the Truth of the matter. It would only demonstrate the effectiveness of the brainwashing techniques used. We see the later all over the World and in every man-made and concocted religion of any ‘false gods’. However, true expression of the undesirability, of wearing these garments, has become visual worldwide with the tearing-off and burning of the same being witnessed when ‘Women’ are freed from tyrannical and masculine domination, which has been historically been, after someone’s entrance into the recordings, forced into play by ‘mere men’, who cannot interpret the beauty of a woman’s form without having sexual orgasms in the streets.

            As far as ‘Islam’ or any other man-u-factor-ed religion? They all demonstrate total ignorance of True Being and the Natures of This Oneness. Those who defend them, like parrots, rely on quotes, chapters, psalms, and links; and they totally incapable of dealing with or even coming-up with Natural and/or Divine Pure Knowledge, Wisdom, Intelligence, Logic and so on. These later Natures contradict each and every man-u-factor-ed belief > conviction > conclusion > thought > programmed information > indoctrination > mind-control h-book that exists now or in the past.

            Natural Wisdom would adorn the ‘Hair’ on a woman’s head and would not require the covering of a Natural Form of Divinity, Whom was conceived naturally naked since the beginning of times. It respects Divinity’s Forms within the Dimension known as “physical” and does not rule over Divinity’s Choices and Natures.

            Everyone, including you, has their right to live-on within their mentally programmed and perceived illusions concerning True Being and Life. However, they have no right to dominate over the Presence and Rightfully Personal Experience of Individual Evolution of another ‘Being’.

            In reply to your comment on conversions? I am certain that there are a great number of ‘perceived-to-be humans’, who find gratification using religion as a cover-up for their own personal shortcomings.

            Take care.


              • I have read your replies; and, I have addressed the “actual issues objectively”. The problem appears to be that, if the replies do not correspond with your ‘thread’ of a sales-pitch than you find them incoherent or better said … unacceptable.

                France is not at war with its “Citizens”! It is defending its culture and security against those who have migrated in with, unfortunately, a mix of genuine fanatics / terrorists and the established and well known secret services supporting the forcing-in of the New World Order.

                It is not logical in any manner to allow full face and/or body coverage, even in the Middle East Nations, that afford the concealment of explosives or weapons. Personally, I would suggest that the same restrictions are enforced on ‘nuns’ (religious orders)… when they come into the public areas. Religions have historically demonstrated an occult and fanatical mindset that should, in these times, be heavily monitored and controlled.

                Your article is a mere ploy to turn people against the French Government and its actions, which are, in this case, intelligent ones. Any individual faction, which, in fact, has a cultural foundation and/or custom that violates intelligent security measures, should willingly conform to the decisions and procedures established that are geared towards Public Security and Well-being. Option being. they return to their place of origins and do whatever they want. If however, they consider themselves to be French Citizens then they should respect the fact that they have been accepted into the French Population and conform to France’s Laws and Cultural decisions. No one has the right to enter into another Nation and Population to change their customs or governmental proceedings! And, seeing as there exists separation of ‘religion and state’ they have no right to impose, questionable, religious or foreign customs or beliefs on the Peoples who have, in fact evolved France, Germany, or any other nation. I said “No one”! However, within these ‘Nations and Populations’: No one has the right to rule over Another Being’s Individual, Natural and/or Divine Rights to their personal evolution as True Being!

                WE are really getting down to “objectivity”…and also, it seems for you, an uncomfortable “Reality”.


                • I really wish you would grasp the nettle here.
                  s i g h !!
                  It’s a woman’s choice how little or much she wears.
                  Not yours.
                  Or, anyone else’s.
                  End of.
                  Can you accept this?

                  As to the limit’s of state intervention over the rights of the individual, the public interest is the operable standard.
                  ie, in certain situations public values trump individual choices, eg. not bathing nude at public swimming baths unless designated nudist.
                  Alongside public interest are the individual’s human rights to freedom – freedom of religion and to manifest this in public too.
                  I wish you’d read the links above – they provide a point-by-point rebuttal of the common arguments cited.
                  (without resorting to ad hominems at all)


                  • I really wish you would see the ‘Reality’ of the situation and your preferred stance. Women were not born into the outer physical world with a “Burkini” or any other material substance that covered their ‘Physical Body’! They were forced-into wearing these objects by ‘men’ who have problems in the areas of masculinity, free will, sexuality, and dark religious and occult dominance over ‘Women’.

                    THE POINT: is security in public areas! It is not the ‘choice’ of victims of masculine and religious, better political, domination to put at risk “Others” by wearing garments that, even provoke insecurity, in public areas. If, everyone defending ‘Islam’ and a ‘Muhammad’ would clean-house on terrorism and fanaticism within their cultures, populations, beliefs (documented), and so on. This situation would not even be a discussion! However, everyone is seemingly down on their knees facing the Sun instead of controlling their fellow countrymen’s actions and intentions. FACT IS: the Mosques, on a worldwide basis, have been and are the central recruiting and training grounds for terrorism… and that brings us to the intelligent fears and security measures being taken…

                    If Allah and Mohammad are truly ‘Good Guys’ they would certainly understand the “Point” and the “Situation”, which the French Population or any other one does not desire as a lifestyle; not do they desire to have to pass laws to guaranty security of their children on a beach or in the street. I would suggest that the Islamic Community respect the fears and the victims of these atrocities, by showing support and not opposition to the measures being taken. I question why ‘Allah’ and Mohammad have not reached this level of Natural Wisdom and Logic…


                    • So you advocate freedom of choice and freedom of religion for everyone – except Muslims?
                      Any idea how hypocritical that sounds?
                      I’d sooner spit not swallow mainstream media BS.
                      There’s a reason why Muslims are scapegoated but it takes imagination and critical thinking to figure that out.
                      Cui bono?
                      Read the links posted days ago for a rational discussion …


                    • Do Muslim Women Need Saving? By Lila Abu-Lughod
                      The Western crusade to rescue Muslim women has reduced them to a simplistic stereotype

                      A moral crusade to rescue oppressed Muslim women from their cultures and their religion has swept the public sphere, dissolving distinctions between conservatives and liberals, sexists and feminists. The crusade has justified all manner of intervention from the legal to the military, the humanitarian to the sartorial. But it has also reduced Muslim women to a stereotyped singularity, plastering a handy cultural icon over much more complicated historical and political dynamics.

                      As an anthropologist who has spent decades doing research on and with women in different communities in the Middle East, I have found myself increasingly troubled by our obsession with Muslim women. Ever since 2001, when defending the rights of Muslim women was offered as a rationale for military intervention in Afghanistan, I have been trying to reconcile what I know from experience about individual women’s lives, and what I know as a student of the history of women and of feminism in different parts of the Muslim world, with the stock images of Muslim women that bombard us here in the West. Over the past decade, from the girls and women like Nujood Ali, whose best-selling memoir I Am Nujood, Age 10 and Divorced was co-written, like so many of the others, by a Western journalist, to Malala Yousafzai, they have been portrayed as victims of the veil, forced marriage, honor crimes or violent abuse. They are presented as having a deficit of rights because of Islam. But they don’t always behave the way we expect them to, nor should they.

                      Take the veil, for example. We were surprised when many women in Afghanistan didn’t take them off after being “liberated,” seeing as they had become such symbols of oppression in the West. But we were confusing veiling with a lack of agency. What most of us didn’t know is that 30 years ago the anthropologist Hanna Papanek described the burqa as “portable seclusion” and noted that many women saw it as a liberating invention because it enabled them to move out of segregated living spaces while still observing the requirements of separating and protecting women from unrelated men. People all over the globe, including Americans, wear the appropriate form of dress for their socially shared standards, religious beliefs and moral ideals. If we think that U.S. women live in a world of choice regarding clothing, we need to look no further than our own codes of dress and the often constricting tyrannies of fashion.

                      As for Malala, she was subjected to horrible violence by the Taliban, but education for girls and Islam are not at odds, as was suggested when atheist Sam Harris praised Malala for standing up to the “misogyny of traditional Islam.” Across the Muslim world girls have even been going to state schools for generations. In Pakistan, poverty and political instability undermine girls’ schooling, but also that of boys. Yet in urban areas, girls finish high school at rates close to those of young men, and they are only fractionally less likely to pursue higher education. In many Arab countries, and in Iran, more women are in university than men. In Egypt, women make up a bigger percentage of engineering and medical faculties than women do in the U.S.

                      A language of rights cannot really capture the complications of lives actually lived. If we were to consider the quandaries of a young woman in rural Egypt as she tries to make choices about who to marry or how she will make a good life for her children in trying circumstances, perhaps we would realize that we all work within constraints. It does not do justice to anyone to view her life only in terms of rights or that loaded term, freedom. These are not the terms in which we understand our own lives, born into families we did not choose, finding our way into what might fulfill us in life, constrained by failing economies, subject to the consumer capitalism, and making moral mistakes we must live with.

                      There is no doubt that Western notions of human rights can be credited for the hope for a better world for all women. But I suspect that the deep moral conviction people feel about the rightness of saving the women of that timeless homogeneous mythical place called Islamland is fed by something else that cannot be separated from our current geopolitical relations. Blinded to the diversity of Muslim women’s lives, we tend to see our own situation too comfortably. Representing Muslim women as abused makes us forget the violence and oppression in our own midst. Our stereotyping of Muslim women also distracts us from the thornier problem that our own policies and actions in the world help create the (sometimes harsh) conditions in which distant others live. Ultimately, saving Muslim women allows us to ignore the complex entanglements in which we are all implicated and creates a polarization that places feminism only on the side of the West.


  2. Glad to see that you went on with your Muslim Sales Pitch alone and did not wait for my return 🙂 NOW: Please get-off your immature attempts to turn what I state into a religious conflict! Religion has nothing to do with your false and ignorant-of-facts &reality accusation (Title above)! Whether we speak of the ‘cult’ you are attempting to sell and/or sell-out here with your jargon or any other ‘cult’, it is common knowledge, documented historically, that they are all fictitious fairy (How fairy?) tales! So now you know for certain that ‘I’ am not involved in, favoring or proposing any scam that operates against Humanity (as the mere mental perception it so be) under the guise of a religion or some concocted ‘god’ by any name!

    We are talking about SECURITY and LOGICAL DECISIONS TO ATTEMPT TO SECURE THE SAME! So PLEASE (a word you like to use) get-off your pro-muslim attempts to create issues that do not relate in any way, shape, form or sect! Other than the FACT that the same has created the necessity for these SECURITY MEASURES! I believe it is more than correct to state that the ISIS THREAT is flowing-out of muslim origins and apparel! But that does not make all muslims terrorists either! Just like throughout humanity’s diversity there are/is the good and the bad in every faction, group, idea, population,, and so on and on.

    You be muslim and allow the French to do, in their Nation, what is necessary to protect innocent men, women and children of all national origins, false beliefs, and whatever… including muslims! If allah or muhammad would have a problem with this later procedure? Maybe you should reflect on who you are a servant of… any ‘god’ by any name, if they are genuine bears an Intelligence and Wisdom that would certainly support these security measures! Your’s doesn’t?

    Don’t attempt to twist either my words or my intentions!


    • “Thierry Migoule, Cannes’ head of municipal services, claimed: “We are not talking about banning the wearing of religious symbols on the beach … but ostentatious clothing referring to an allegiance to terrorist movements that are at war with us.
      Migoule appears to believe that Muslim ladies doing their holiday shopping are thinking: “Does my bomb look big in this?” But don’t worry ladies, the only things unsightly here are the overt hate and the hypocrisy.”



      • Don’t the Middle East Countries have beaches to go to, where they could dress like they so desire instead of attempting to impose their ways on other Populations in their Home Countries? This discussion is becoming a RED LIGHT for everyone, without discussing beachwear. Muslims, not all, in general have to have everything their way! Otherwise they are offended… have to sue… threaten… and even brutally beat and murder those who disagree. PEACEFUL & LOVING SOLUTION: STAY HOME!


        • WRONG again, because you miss the point. Further by conflating culture with religion you display gross ignorance. Fact is Islam is universal same as Judaism and Christianity – all Abrahamic religions. Please educate yourself – urgently – instead of repeating tripe which barely disguises the creeping fascism already rampant in the mainstream media and politics. If there was a grain of truth in your bald assertions you would be championing equality of opportunity for all – a human rights based approach especially for the socially less-privileged, wouldn’t you? After all, inclusiveness is the test of a better system isn’t it? Otherwise do yourself a huge favour and instead of parroting lemming-logic, feel free to crawl back under your rock! You categorically have NO RIGHT in a free society to preach to others what they can and can’t wear! LOL!


          • “Ignorance” seems to be your trait! What I have stated is fact … documented … witnessed globally… and so on! Your problem is that you are not able to accept anything that does not support your own limited mindset. Your above comment demonstrates clearly your limited wisdom, culture, intelligent, logic, and further, it demonstrates the darker weakness of the Islamic culture that you preach personally. You are preaching to others in a manner in which you demand that ‘others’ accept your position! DEMOCRACY IS BASED ON THE MAJORITY OF THE PEOPLE’S OPINIONS AND CONCERNS, DECISIONS AND DEMANDS! THUS, I SUGGEST YOU FOLLOW IT…


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s