But as far as I can see, this is about people who to wear a certain kind of hat or style of swimsuit. How is that conceivably an actual harm against other people?
There need to be limits, and while it is very difficult for everyone to agree on where they stand, and easy for us to mock the "Leaders need to do SOMETHING!", they only have so many tools to try and improve the situation. Banning the burkini is one of them (that I don't find particularly useful, but anyway).
Once burkini has been banned, you can respect the law and/or protest against it. If you choose to protest it with civil disobedience, you go to the beach and refuse to leave, this is going to happen. So this woman might have decided along the way that it was better to take some clothes off than to leave, or perhaps she was fined and was trying to talk herself out of it. Who knows? We lack sufficient information.
But I don't think it is justified to classify this as "police forcingly undress and shame woman", and make the moral parallel with islamic police making women cover themselves. Pkgundert's comment (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12352409) gives some reasons. You could also read that and cynically say that France is here also practicing tyranny.
The fact is that the context of this news is that France is in state of emergency, and this woman chose to practice civil disobedience in Nice barely a month after the Nice attack.
For comparison, as you say you are american: ranked against all terrorist attacks in USA [2], Nice would end up ranking 3rd or 4th.
Perhaps that's what the terrorists want. But the fact is that the tension is already there, and there would have been problems even without the police:
>“The saddest thing was that people were shouting ‘go home’, some were applauding the police,” she said. “Her daughter was crying.”
[1] http://www.politico.eu/article/german-tourists-prank-trigger...
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism_in_the_United_States...
Tyranny: restricting behavior due to fear of reprisal.
Please don't mistake one for the other.
That's why Nuns (who can choose to wear garb or nothing at all, at any time) are not equivalent to those forced to wear garb on threat of acid burns for non-compliance.
A society that does not protect those under threat of violence for trivial clothing choice violations cannot claim to love liberty, can it?
I find these French town's responses tragic/comical, and agree with you -- the state is bringing its force to bear on the victim.
Like police the world over, who know (trivially) that it is much safer to harass the law-abiding (who will cower and comply) rather than confront the violent (who might shoot them in the face), these socialist mayors seem to know that it is safer to force these already oppressed women to comply, than go into the dangerous ghettos and confront those forcing them to bear this garb in the first place.
Solution? I don't know -- perhaps some immigration tests on whether applicants agree with Supremacist and anti-liberty doctrines (ie. Sharia), or are prepared to defend the liberty of the oppressed?
France surely would reject an immigrant who is a self-proclaimed Aryan Supremacist thug who wants to enforce his beliefs on others. Perhaps they should likewise resist Islamist Supremacists who want to enforce their rules on others? I'm sure that the multitudes of liberty-loving Muslims in France who desire their women to have full freedom to dress as they wish without fear of reprisal would appreciate it, too...
Once wearing this garb is associated with liberty (as is the wearing of a Nun's robes -- everyone knows they can choose to stop at any time), I'm pretty sure liberty-loving people will no longer mind the "burkini" being worn in public.
Islam with its barbaric, medieval, vicious ideology (e.g. kaafirs are against Allah, Muhammad is above any criticism, apostates should be killed, extreme injustice inflicted on Muslim women and so on) is at crossroads with the freedom loving, liberal and secular western world.
The religions should have no place in modern public life. But religions want to control every aspect of human life. Thanks to the fight put up by and sacrifices given by the freedom lovers, liberals and modern free-thinkers from the western world, mainstream religions have been rendered harmless/toothless to a significant extent, except Islam.
The liberals/critical thinkers have attacked earlier and do attack now also various bad and evil aspects in other religions (Christianity/Judaism/Hinduism) and our free society never suppresses their thoughts. Islam should not be an exception and hence Islam should not be given special treatment. Else we may have to lose the hard earned values that we cherish so much.
But we are seeing that some Islam apologists (whether bought and paid for or not) are hunting down any thoughtful and legitimate criticism of Islam, its prophet Muhammad, its scriptures and so on. They are using various types of pressure tactics for this. For example, labeling any criticism of Islam as racist attacks on Muslims or Islamophobia or hate speech or right-wing practice.
e.g. Geert Wilders is labeled as right-wing fanatic by such Islam apologists. Geert Wilders has been a liberal free-thinker (e.g. his support of gays/homosexuals).
The freedom lovers, liberals and humanists must understand this threat posed by the vicious ideology of mainstream Islam.
The west now must invest large amount of efforts and resources to fight this vicious ideology of Islam. We must realize that this is an ideological war and must be fought on the ideological war-front. This can and must be done by supporting liberal minded humanists (like, Bill Maher, Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins) who are exposing the viciousness of the ideology of Islam and upholding the modern humanist values like freedom of expression and separation of 'mosque and state'.
edit: added point about Geert Wilders.
You mean like controlling what kind of bathing suits people can and can't wear in public?
The ban on Burqa in France is a knee-jerk reactionary measure taken by the frightened French society which doesn't have a clue that their real fight should be against the evil ideology of Islam and that burqa-forced-on-women is but a small piece of that evil ideology.
Now the Islam apologists will take undue advantage of this ban by citing western ideals like "freedom of choice" and that "burqa is a choice made by Muslim women" and so on.
Hence, the French and western society should realize that they must not only stand fast and firm behind people like Charlie Hebdo editors and the cartoonists who drew Muhammad's cartoons but also encourage them and other people to do so again and again. The western society should tell the Muslims in unequivocal terms that "the Muslims should learn to get offended and also learn the more civilized ways of living in the world. That Allah, Muhammad, Islam and Islamic practices are a proper target of ridicule, criticism and humor. That Quran is not last word here in the west. That Charlie Hebdo and other cartoonists are our people and we can't let their freedom get trampled just because Muslims think their feelings/sentiments get hurt."
So, yes, you are right that the French action is more in line with the religions. But we must remember that this is a start of the (potentially long drawn) fight against the evil ideology of Islam and burqa (and women's clothing) is nonetheless a significant part that helps us bring out certain evil aspects of this vicious ideology in public discourse.
BTW, you should realize that despite this ban, the French society is far from controlling most aspect of human life like the way Islam (or any other religion) does.
Edit: added last para (BTW...).
X might be the best course of action on where we are, the problem being the short-sightedness that took us to this place in the first place (thinking like in chess - you limited your better options with earlier moves).
EDIT: Of course, if the enemy is better at the long game, and succeeded in taking us to here, what's to assure us that we evaluate correctly X as the best course of action, instead of them nudging us to it?
Thinking like chess -- you'd probably avoid moves that gave the opponent more pieces. Especially when those piece spawn by your king.
Everyone who supports this is deeply confused.
I also agree about the USA death penalty, and I would not be surprised if a majority of Americans are also against it. Our laws very often do not reflect majority public opinion.
