Father Reportedly Locked Out of Daughter’s Swim Practice to Accommodate Muslim Sensibilities

I know that in muslim countries, the men and women are segregated at the beaches. Of course this even goes beyond the burkini thing. I've seen women eating with gloves on to keep covered. This is what we invite in when we allow such different foreign cultures to rule in the West through "tolerance". They bring lawsuits against people who won't cave. I thought the Feminists didn't want a male-centric ideology to rule them but I guess the "tolerance" factor weighs more than the "freedom" factor, as it always does with Nanny Staters.

In this case, the women are programmed by the male-centric religious clerics to make demands like these.

Where are all the civil rights people on this? Oh yah, I guess only one side can declare their rights....

Originally posted by IBelieveInAliens

Originally posted by grey580
reply to post by FollowTheWhiteRabbit

 

Again. Read the full article.

It's not a muslim only class. It's a Female only class.
We have plenty of female only gyms and whatnot.

Were the class a religious class I'd be all over it.

As a Female only class then it's a different story.

And if it was a male only class where a young Mother was turned away? There'd be outrage.

A major one.

Originally posted by MountainLaurel
reply to post by Rubic0n

 

You make an excellent point, and I don't know enough to comment on Muslim Religions....I did think the women wore these Burka things for religious reasons...so I learned something.....

If for whatever reason these women are uncomfortable swimming in a public pool around men, they need to get a private pool to swim in...and in my perfect World....ditch the "Burkinis" and try skinny dipping !

Weeeeeel , the skinny dipping might be stretching it

The islam does dictate to cover private parts and dress modestly , this includes men to the very same degree btw. So either muslim men start wearing similar burka's or woman are allowed to dress normally like men. This however is not how it is enforced and somehow the rules only apply to woman.


My mother is from europe and i was raised there and i still prefer the european beaches where we did not have to wear a thing if we choose to


I now dubt it "BirthdayKini's"

No good sir , i am not insulting any religion, i am expressing mine by wearing my "Birthdaykini...

reply to post by WilsonWilson

Men only swim classes are also available.

This may be true, but the issue is that a man wanted to see his daughter's swim lesson and was kept out. I keep wondering why all the civil rights people work for only certain civil rights. This sort of thing causes disruptions, not more peaceful lives. People who want to stir things up insist on some of the most outrageous things. It's just like the ex KGB guy said, the purpose of it is to create chaos and instability.

reply to post by lnfideI

But I dont need to go perv at a pool to do it.

So are you telling us that the girl's own Dad is a perv for wanting to watch his own daughter have a swim lesson? Not to mention circumventing the natural daddy instinct to protect their own children from harm, which would include the possibility of a negligent lifeguard staff.
And you called the swim facility to get this information about pervs watching the lessons? The plain stark fact is that a group of people are trying to enforce drastic cultural practices on entire populations. Why did these people not just stay in a country where the practice is already enforced?
The answer is CONQUEST!

Also, this is not an isolated case. In the US a woman tried to have her driver's license pic taken with her hijab covering her face. The whole point of the pic is for identification. Another case in California was a woman who got employment at Disneyland, and when you are employed you have to sign that you will abide by their rules which involve things like earrings no bigger than a dime, no bizarre haircuts like a Mohawk, no obvious unnatural looking hair colorings, and even the nails have to be a certain length of shortness. This attention to appearance began when Walt Disney himself was alive. This lady decided that Disney has to abide by her religious needs and she insisted on being allowed to wear a head covering on the job. She filed a lawsuit.

So why get a job knowing the requirements, then proceed to try to break them legally? The same thing applies to Sandra Fluke at Georgetown, knowing the health insurance coverage, applying there, and then trying to break it.

This is the Rules for Radicals type of thing and it is deliberate.

reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus


No to burst your bubble but that's how it is around here in the UK (in some parts). Muslims might the scourge of the Earth but we have a even bigger problem, pedophiles and I am worried sick enough knowing my kids are out there yet I am not allowed to keep guard of my own children.

It's a double edged sword, because our society has gone from extreme to extreme we have stupid rules created on top of misguided principles when a middle ground can be found (and does work).

The rhetoric on this thread suggests we should get Muslims to wear green badges, have separate travel arrangements and live out fenced camps?

Originally posted by old_god
reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus

 

No to burst your bubble but that's how it is around here in the UK (in some parts). Muslims might the scourge of the Earth but we have a even bigger problem, pedophiles and I am worried sick enough knowing my kids are out there yet I am not allowed to keep guard of my own children.

It's a double edged sword, because our society has gone from extreme to extreme we have stupid rules created on top of misguided principles when a middle ground can be found (and does work).

The rhetoric on this thread suggests we should get Muslims to wear green badges, have separate travel arrangements and live out fenced camps?

No one is suggesting anything about wearing green badges? I never said that and I haven't seen anyone else here say it. We are just saying that this group of people is going around demanding everyone else change to their rules. Did you read my post about how the one woman signed the Disney rule and then proceeded to make demands to accommodate her especially with a lawsuit? That is not tolerance, that is a deliberate way to force change on people.

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
reply to post by lnfideI

 

But I dont need to go perv at a pool to do it.

So are you telling us that the girl's own Dad is a perv for wanting to watch his own daughter have a swim lesson? Not to mention circumventing the natural daddy instinct to protect their own children from harm, which would include the possibility of a negligent lifeguard staff.
And you called the swim facility to get this information about pervs watching the lessons? The plain stark fact is that a group of people are trying to enforce drastic cultural practices on entire populations. Why did these people not just stay in a country where the practice is already enforced?
The answer is CONQUEST!

Also, this is not an isolated case. In the US a woman tried to have her driver's license pic taken with her hijab covering her face. The whole point of the pic is for identification. Another case in California was a woman who got employment at Disneyland, and when you are employed you have to sign that you will abide by their rules which involve things like earrings no bigger than a dime, no bizarre haircuts like a Mohawk, no obvious unnatural looking hair colorings, and even the nails have to be a certain length of shortness. This attention to appearance began when Walt Disney himself was alive. This lady decided that Disney has to abide by her religious needs and she insisted on being allowed to wear a head covering on the job. She filed a lawsuit.

So why get a job knowing the requirements, then proceed to try to break them legally? The same thing applies to Sandra Fluke at Georgetown, knowing the health insurance coverage, applying there, and then trying to break it.

This is the Rules for Radicals type of thing and it is deliberate.

edit on 12-4-2013 by ThirdEyeofHorus because: (no reason given)

Well sed...Nicely put.

Originally posted by old_god
reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus

 

The rhetoric on this thread suggests we should get Muslims to wear green badges, have separate travel arrangements and live out fenced camps?

All they need to do is to explain and ensure that they follow the rules and regulations set forth by the Government of UK and the private sector businesses when they sign up for a job or seek asylum/residency/immigration visa. In the case of employees of different religious/racial background in a foreign country, they all generally receive a employee handbook/code of conduct book (which is required by law in US by most companies). The rules and regulations are explained briefly and it is understood the individual is capable of understanding them fairly well. If not, they can always approach the Human Resources to clarify before accepting the job offer. How many companies do you know that allows 'shorts' and 'tank tops' for women at work be it blue or white collar? (small businesses or certain types are exceptions if they're self/family owned such as restaurants/bars/landscaping etc). Should they start to protest and file law suits against the companies for violating their rights from being/feeling more feminine/down to earth/free/open/good about themselves in summer?

This is a practice for many special interest groups and/or minority groups. Whats worst is that many of them have political affiliation so to represent the 'voters' and thus it also receives a wide coverage in the media even if the grounds/basis of such exploitation is morally/ethically/technically/legally incorrect IMO.

The last few pages have made me think about something that I hope will be viewed in context as just my observations based on my experiences.....I come from a very diverse area of the USA...and truely enjoy and have been influenced by many different cultures, races and families in my lifetime.....

I grew up in a family business...I have worked most of my life in some type of retail business....I'm good at it, I have the right temperment, and am orientated toward "high end" customer service......I went to College, and became very good at Horticulture and Floral Design...and when my daughter was a baby I worked in a "high end" market managing a very nice Floral Dept. until I got promoted to run 46 of them....yikes....lol....

OK, now please don't flame me....but Muslim women, dressed in full Burka gear were my most difficult customers...one lady used to make the whole store "cringe" when she walked in...she was sooo unreasonable...maybe she was taking back her power in some way...being forced to dress in HOT CA weather covered from head to toe...I don't know? This was before 9-11, in a CA market where you see it all...no one cared she was Muslim, we didn't like her because she was unreasonable no matter HOW much you tried to accomidate her.

She would expect me to pull apart 10 different arrangements and bouquets to make her a custom arrangement, which I can do....put not for the price of the $10 bouquet...she just wanted to "cherry pick" her favorite flower out of each bouquet...we did not sell single flowers, except roses...but I tried to work with her...untill one day she pushed my limits, and I suggested she should take her business to a flower shop that could give the service she "expected"...my Boss totally had my back too...

I would never go to her Country and treat the people and customs there with such disrespect.......

I keep reading more and more comments in this thread stating this is wrong. My previous posts seemed to fall on deaf ears as they still keep going about the "outrage"

Did it ever occur to anyone that the pool is rented for this female only course? The city of Toronto does rent time for swim classes as you can see on this site under indoor pools & outdoor pools. Since this is a specialty class, I wouldn't be surprised if the class was charged rent as it does not include anyone.

So maybe people here can stop jumping on it like its a crime and use some logic.

Originally posted by doubtit
I keep reading more and more comments in this thread stating this is wrong. My previous posts seemed to fall on deaf ears as they still keep going about the "outrage"

Did it ever occur to anyone that the pool is rented for this female only course? The city of Toronto does rent time for swim classes as you can see on this site under indoor pools & outdoor pools. Since this is a specialty class, I wouldn't be surprised if the class was charged rent as it does not include anyone.

So maybe people here can stop jumping on it like its a crime and use some logic.

The man was denied access for religious reasons. End of file/

Originally posted by Rubic0n

Originally posted by doubtit
I keep reading more and more comments in this thread stating this is wrong. My previous posts seemed to fall on deaf ears as they still keep going about the "outrage"

Did it ever occur to anyone that the pool is rented for this female only course? The city of Toronto does rent time for swim classes as you can see on this site under indoor pools & outdoor pools. Since this is a specialty class, I wouldn't be surprised if the class was charged rent as it does not include anyone.

So maybe people here can stop jumping on it like its a crime and use some logic.

The man was denied access for religious reasons. End of file/

Well if this pool was being rented, then it doesn't matter if it was for a 'religious' reason or not. The organization renting the pool can have whatever rules they want (within the bounds of the law). Like I said before, if this man didn't know about the rule beforehand, then he should get his money back. And maybe even an apology. But this outrage is hilariously sad.

reply to post by Rubic0n


And? If you pay pay rent on a government subsidized house does that mean anyone can sit in your living room because its publicly subsidized? Its a female only class, regardless of religion female only means female only. Like i said before, instead of this man discussing with the management how to fix his specific issue, he ran to the news.

If these people rented the pool time they are entitled to make the rules during this time.

Originally posted by doubtit

And? If you pay pay rent on a government subsidized house does that mean anyone can sit in your living room because its publicly subsidized? Its a female only class, regardless of religion female only means female only.

You are mistaken. You have failed to make a distinction between a private and public club.

While discrimination on the basis of sex is allowed in Canada in a private club (for instance, in your living room), discrimination of public services (for instance, public swimming lessons in a public pool) are not allowed under the Canadian Human Rights Act.

Link

reply to post by ollncasino


There is no distinction necessary. If what I suspect is true, the class is a private class that rents time from a public pool. The Ontario parks are all public parks, yet in many of them you can rent space to set up a tent. Just because its a public park, do you still believe what you said? Am I allowed to go set up a tent on someone elses rented tent space?

The way I see it is its a non-issue. There are plenty of other classes available for this father to enroll his daughter. Just switch classes, its that easy

Upon thinking about this further, I've decided to put this as simply as possible so anyone outraged by this can see why I feel this is a non-issue.

The female only class was setup for females only. Instead of joining one of the existing classes and inconveniencing anyone, they went out of their way to start their own class. What does this mean? The TRIED to accommodate others. If they had gone into a class and said no males all of a sudden then I can understand people being upset. They didn't do this though and the coed classes went on their merry way.

Some guy enrolls his daughter and finds out the rules for this class and has a beef with it. What more would you like these girls to do? Should they have their own pool built and make it female only? This sounds a lot like segregation to me. Are we back in 1950?

Originally posted by doubtit

Some guy enrolls his daughter and finds out the rules for this class and has a beef with it.

A Canadian man enrolls his daughter in a swimming class and finds that a Muslim women objects to him watching his daughter from thew stands on the grounds that he may catch a glimpse of uncovered Islamic hair.

Couldn't she just have worn a bathing cap?

Originally posted by ollncasino

Originally posted by doubtit

Some guy enrolls his daughter and finds out the rules for this class and has a beef with it.

A Canadian man enrolls his daughter in a swimming class and finds that a Muslim women objects to him watching his daughter from thew stands on the grounds that he may catch a glimpse of uncovered Islamic hair.

Couldn't she just have worn a bathing cap?

Too bad that's not what evidently happened. Or maybe you have something to back up your claim?

Originally posted by Irako

Too bad that's not what evidently happened. Or maybe you have something to back up your claim?

Evidently, you didn't read the OP

A Toronto area father is upset after being locked out of his daughter’s swim class for what he was told are “religious reasons,” according to the Toronto Sun.

“I spoke to a staff member and she told me that it’s because of Muslim women, that we’re not allowed to look at them or whatever,” 38-year-old Chris said Friday (he declined to give a last name). “I don’t think religion has a role to play in a public pool.”

Link