Burkini Season.

Months ago, I’d never heard of burkinis. I thought someone made a spelling error. Now, they’re all the rage.

Literally.

We live in a world where words like ‘terrorism’ and ‘extremists’ slip into day-to-day conversation and this ever-present widespread fear has become commonplace.

And the latest evidence is as follows: certain French seaside towns and cities have decided that burkini wearers, all of them, are essentially criminals-in-hiding.

When I first saw the news report, I thought it was one of those Daily Show “moments of zen” or a Comedy Central news spoof. But no. It was not.

I think it’s important to define some key terms first.

“Extremism” (noun): advocacy of extreme measures or views; radicalism.

“Radicalism” (noun): the opinions and behaviour of people who favour extreme changes, especially in government; radical political ideas and behaviour.

Need I say more?

When you tell a woman what she can and cannot wear, indeed, you are limiting her basic human rights. This is true. When it is done in Middle Eastern countries, the West looks in, shakes their heads and tuts in response. “How dare they?” “How can they?” “And on the basis of religion.” “Thank goodness we’re different.” “We’re better.”

Say, are you?

The French have been hurt, no doubt. By extreme actions taken by people in the name of religion. But then, by opening up this new facet of legislature, are you not purporting a new set of extreme measures in the name of religion? Are you not in essence saying, yes, indeed, we are protecting an ideal, so we must take away the rights of the few for the sake of the many.

Basically, in the simplest terms, the root of the holocaust.

Let’s cross the waters for a moment and take a look at black men in the United States. When police find young boys in dark hooded sweatshirts suspicious because they have chosen to hide their faces in the shield of a sweater, we gasp. How dare they? How can they single a person out based on their dressing? Surely that in itself should be against the law.

Shall we tell Nike that they can no longer produce hooded sweatshirts? Or no, stop selling them to black people then. Or rather, that you can own it, but limit the wearing of it to the privacy of your own home.

Now perhaps this whole ramble is breaking a significantly complex issue down to too simple a point.

So let’s look at the complex facts, as they are.

The mayor of Cannes, in a move to “ensure security” introduced this ban on burkinis – the “ostentatious showing of a religious affiliation.”

And naturally, the law has spread around the country, to other parts and places.

We understand that this is limited to beachwear. (For now). We know that it was meant to be temporary. (Right).

And, we know that it comes from a place of fear and concern for the potential rifts that differences in belief systems, and more so, a widespread awareness of this, could cause.

Basically, avoid the mob mentality by creating mob mentality. Us against them. Now, “them” have the law on their side.

Look, I understand it. I won’t pretend that I don’t know what fear does to people. I spent majority of my time in London’s public spaces this summer looking over my shoulder, eyeing everyone with a rucksack suspiciously, and basically jumping back at the slightest graze by my fellow man. We are afraid. Of what could happen. Of what has happened. Of how it has come to be.

But by singling out the very people whose countries have suffered the greatest destruction, by singling out the very people whose belief system has been decimated, by pulling aside anyone who is “different” and planting this scarlet letter on their backs, are you not championing fear?

After these attacks, the leaders of these countries come out and speak of unity, of strength, of never cowering to these cowards who hide behind skewed ideals, but what is this if not the complete opposite of that?

When a woman is raped, some blame it on how she is dressed. More modesty please. When a woman is asked to strip on the beach, we shall now walk by unfeeling, blaming it on her dress sense, on her religious beliefs – basically, on the various ways in which she is wrong.

After all, it’s the law: “Access to beaches … is banned for anyone who does not have swimwear which respects good customs and secularism.”

“Secularism” (noun): the belief that religion should not play a role in government, education, or other public parts of society.

Hello?

By creating laws based on religious senses of dress, are you not in essence creating a role for religion in government?

You simply cannot have it both ways.

How dare you allow any young girl to sit by and watch a group of men force a woman to pull off her clothes?

How dare you ostracise a whole group of people in the name of security?

How dare you tell me where and when to embody my religious beliefs?

And one final question: where does it end?

We start with beaches. Then we say, no more burkas, hijabs or any related religious garb. Those preachers who stand on the side of the road spreading the Word must pull off their robes right away. Then we say, no more crosses around your necks. Then we go on and have a yarmulke burning party. Then the bible-toting has to end, so we search the bags of every Christian and toss their bibles into the rivers. Then the mosques have to go, for in public spaces, we cannot allow the Adhan to ring out so loudly. Shall we drown all nuns then? Where does it end? Where is the line?

And yet, when Donald Trump said he would introduce a law to ban all Muslims from the United States, the world shook its head, aghast. Well, here we are. Pray tell, how is this different?

I understand the need to separate church and state. I do. I almost feel it is in fact a necessity. However, we must ask ourselves, at what cost?

Any man – or woman – is allowed to take away my dignity if they feel it is in violation of the attempts of their government to ensure security? This is ridiculously potent fodder for those who strap bombs around their chests in the name of their faith. The rift widens and ignorant children grow up with a newfound mentality – simply, they are bad and they must be punished for the good of the country.

Temporary my foot! Even if you say it is so, you have created a space in which this is okay, and that, I’m afraid, is permanent. So don’t fool yourselves.

We are on this earth for a finite amount of time, and all the while, many of us have sat by and watched the systematic destruction of large groups of people and cities and countries for one reason or another. And it all starts with these ridiculous one-line decisions. We shall invade Iraq. We shall teach them that western education is forbidden. We shall ban any ostentatious show of religion in public spaces.

A connection can be created between nearly anything we wear, do, say and are, and any belief system and its interference with public security. Where is the line?

Limiting one’s religious identity because said religious identity has been used by a small portion to commit terrible acts does not cancel out that group of people who will commit terrible acts. People who, by the way, have rarely, if ever, been caught due to their ostentatious show of religious beliefs. Might as well single out everyone and anyone who looks like they are trying significantly to blend in.

This reasoning is flawed, plain and simple, and that would be perfectly alright if it wasn’t also terribly dangerous.

Sources: