Swimmers are told to wear burkinis

What an absolute disgrace! I cant wait to leave this hell hole and live somewhere else. Taking our freedoms one at a time, a revolution is long overdue.

Guys, allow me to interject.
Im indian, not muslim but my culture is from a conservative standpoint.

Did anyone think that this isn't entirely religion-related?

Conservative parents might not want their kids to see half naked people walking around all wet.

Pakistan recently decided it will be banning bollywood movies.
Although it's stupid, but even non-muslim hindus are saying they can't bring their family members to see a bollywood movie anymore.

I'm just saying, just because it's a group belong to a certain religion doesn't make it's motives necessarily religion-centric.

I suggest you turn the news off. lol

sounds like you are being bombarded with loads of dung and whatnot.

It's ok, we get a lot of nonsense from the news here as well.

no one is making you wear anything.

reply to post by ModernAcademia


I could understand that. In this case I believe it's more associated with religion however. Whether we believe that religion is a bi-product of Culture, or whether Culture is a bi-product of Religion could be a debate for another thread however.

I just don't think this is the type of action a public facility should be supporting.

Originally posted by Rockpuck
I don't think that the "normal" dress code is AT ALL Christian..

It is a Christian dress code. Christians have this fanatical problem with seeing any signs of areolae or pubic hair. That is precisely what is forbidden by the current dress code at the pool.

Aren't thongs just the modern Christian's version of lifting your long skirt enough to show your bare ankles? Thongs are just a way to flaunt the (religious) decency rules, without doing anything that would be considered "sinful" on its own.

Jon

Another example of convenient dismissal of a nation's laws in order to accomodate 'Muslim culture'.

If nonMuslim parents arranged a marriage for their 12 to 13 year old daughter and sent her alone to Lebanon to be married to a male in his mid-20's, the State would prosecute the parents for being accessory to the rape and deprivation of liberty of a minor. The State would very probably take the child into care, provide counselling, etc.

Yet the State did nothing when Muslim migrant parents in Australia sent their young daughter to Lebanon to be married to a male ten or more years older than she. The girl was told by her parents that she was being sent 'on holiday' to stay 'with friends'. Her parents pulled her out of school, where she was doing well. The girl had been born in Australia, spoke Australian like a native, was popular, enjoyed school, was a good student, had never been in any kind of trouble in her life.

When the girl arrived in Lebanon, she was met by a group of people who frightened her, whom she'd never met and knew nothing of. They took her to their house and put her immediately to work. She attempted to be co-operative and to please her hosts. A few days later, the women of the family phyiscally examined her, causing her considerable embarrassment and pain, in order to confirm she was a virgin. They then ordered her to bathe and gave her a dress with orders to put it on. She was told this was her wedding day.

The poor girl was terrified, believed she'd been kidnapped by crazy people. She protested and said she wanted to return home. When she begged to be allowed to use the phone in order to contact her parents (who she believed would fly to her assistance) she was beaten and informed her parents already knew all about the marriage .. in fact they were eager for it to occur as swiftly as possible.

The girl was married to a man who physically and otherwise repulsed her. The women of his family treated the girl like a slave and told her it was her duty to obey her husband to the letter.

He raped the girl. When she cried, he beat her. Then he went to complain about her to the women of his family who also beat her.

The girl tried to escape and as punishment and to teach her obedience, she was locked in a room for several days, during which her 'husband' repeatedly raped her and informed her that when they went to Australia, he would leave her. Australian women were hungry for men like him, he assured her. He told her she was his 'ticket' into Australia.

The girl was compelled to live under these conditions for a few years, during which she gave birth to a daughter.

Finally, she stopped rebelling. Only if she could convince her husband and his family that she was 'tamed', 'broken', would she be able to get her daughter and herself back to Australia.

When she arrived in Australia, the girl was subjected to more of her husband's continual physical and mental abuse. One day, she managed (by behaving like a good and obedient wife) to leave the house and phone her mother.

Her mother put down the phone. She would not talk to her daughter or comfort her tears.

It took further time before the girl was allowed to visit her parents to show them their grandchild. During this visit, her mother told her that she herself had been forced into an arranged marriage --- that it was their 'culture' and the girl had better stop rebelling and try to bring honour on her family.

After several more years of torment, the girl escaped and with her young daughter, was provided refuge at a women's shelter.

Her husband swore to kill her, but the girl refused to return to him.

From where she lived in sheltered (secret) accomodation, the girl, now assited by women's groups, commenced divorce proceedings.

She was still too terrified to go outside, for fear her husband, his relatives and even members of her own family, would kill her and her daughter. But she consented to an interview with a prominent Australian Women's magazine and told her story. Her dream, she said, was to return to her studies and to one day become a teacher.

This case was also featured in several Australian newspapers.

The government was notably silent.

Non-Muslim parents would have been charged and punished. So would the girl's 'husband'.

As all the players were Muslim however, the State looked the other way.

reply to post by Rockpuck


Well lets hope so for the sake of mankind!!!

reply to post by Voxel


Um well I don't consider myself "Christian" by any means .. I don't actively practice the religion.

However I certainly do not want to go to the pool and see nipples and pubes. Sorry. I might let my mind wonder what certain attractive women might look like, thank god for imagination, but the vast majority I have no interest in seeing. Hell some people in their bathing suits scare me even when they are covered.

Try again.

reply to post by ashnomadonte


I know you posted both sides, but then you proceeded with a second post, containing only the first part of the article.

WARNING COMMING SOON TO AMERICA!!! We had better watch out for this crap this is to far this is when PC goes bad and wicked wrong.

If this IS in fact a free country(lol), what would be wrong with Muslim pool sessions? If they aren't carrying AKs and RPGs, I don't see why it would be wrong.

Why is it too far? The Muslims get one and a half hour sessions. Even if the pool is only open for 8 hours, that leaves 6 and a half hours for you to do your own thing.

Greed is no virtue.

Originally posted by Rockpuck
reply to post by ModernAcademia

 

I just don't think this is the type of action a public facility should be supporting.

Why not? What if their constituents were a majority Muslim? Wouldn't it just make sense to have Muslim rules at a pool that Muslim tax dollars pay for?

Shouldn't people have the right to demand that local public services be tailored to the local population?

Jon

reply to post by ModernAcademia


yeh you could be right i just remember that protest they did and the males were wearing Khanjar daggers "Muslim, Jewish groups hail top court's ruling ... ruling allowing ceremonial daggers"
and santa being banned "A Nottingham School has cancelled Christmas festivities to make way for commemoration of the Muslim Eid festival, according to the Nottingham Evening Post."
and the big up roar with christmas
and them wearing head gear in pubs and work wear any one eles carnt wear caps "One area Muslim men may clash with company policy is in their wearing of beards. If you have strict guidelines regarding facial hair or follow certain health and hygiene procedures, then it is wise to ensure that potential male Muslim employees are made aware of these procedures. You should also be willing to either compromise on religious grounds or ensure that beard covers are made available.

Muslim women are required to cover their hair (hijab) and to dress modestly. Many do neither but it is best to be aware of the needs of those who do. If your company has a uniform or a certain dress code be sure it permits the wearing of hijabs. Many companies have now taken the step to provide hijabs which match the company uniform".
Dont tell me i dont know what im on about do some research b4 you start ripping some ones post to bits.
any way im not hear to poke and provoke

Originally posted by ashnomadonte
and as for the pool no one has the right to push there religious crap on anyone they don't like it go home, where that crap is OK.

Such intelligent contribution! ATS critical thinking at its finest. Not.

What if they were born in Britain?

reply to post by neformore


The British public did not invite Muslims into Britain

The Australian public did not invite Muslims into Australia

reply to post by Voxel


Then you would agree that local pools in majority white cities should be white only?

Or is this only applying to Islam?

If it's publicly funded NO ONE should be segregated by religion. Open a private pool.

reply to post by mr-lizard


I have to agree. What if the only time i can swim is 'muslim-hour'?

I hope that their homelands are equally willing to have Christian, or Buddhist hour in their pools so that the immigrants etc. can swim in bikinis and trunks.

Tolerance is a two-way street. If i took root in another land i'd expect to integrate to some extent and certainly not expect that society to change their behavior for my sake. If i didn't like it i'd leave - if i couldn't leave, then i'd appreciate where i was a lot more and lump it.

Originally posted by Rockpuck
Then you would agree that local pools in majority white cities should be white only?

I failed to see the part of the article that said that only Muslims were allowed during those 3 hours a week. There is no denial of service going on here, simply a change in the dress code.

Try again.

Jon

reply to post by St Vaast


Here, learn some history......it will help you.....

British Empire & the Commonwealth

From the mid-eighteenth century until at least 1947, and longer in many areas, the British Empire covered a large proportion of the globe, at its peak over a third of the world's people lived under British rule. Both during this time, and following the granting of independence to most colonies after Second World War, the vast majority of immigrants to the UK were from either current or former colonies, most notably those in the Indian subcontinent and the Caribbean. Following the end of the Second World War, the British Nationality Act 1948 was passed to allow the 800 million[6] subjects in the British Empire to live and work in the United Kingdom without needing a visa. These people filled a gap in the UK labour market for unskilled jobs and many people were specifically brought to the UK on ships such as the Empire Windrush.

from Immigration into the United Kingdom since 1922 (emphasis by me)

reply to post by Voxel



Well, I think you're getting the message well and truly right here that it is not considered acceptable that migrants should dictate to the host nation regarding dress codes or anything else.

It's up to the migrants to adapt to the host nation's culture .. or ship out. No 'ifs' or 'buts'.

reply to post by neformore



Kindly do not presume to lecture to me in that condescending manner.

Thank you.

I was born a British subject and now reside in a Commonwealth nation, Australia.


What you have failed to address is the fact .. the fact .. that the British people did NOT invite Muslims to reside in Britain

nor did the Australian public invite Muslims to reside in Australia.

Politicians .. who face the electorate every few years .. would be wise to bear that in mind.

And so would Muslim migrants

when you put lots of different religions together (multiculturism) it will at some point through breeding & or mass immigration (both in & out of the country) end up in some relgious getting smaller & bigger but eventually one religion will become dominant.
now this wouldnt be a problem if all the religions intergrated together under one common law, wich most religions are happy to do.
but when you add a religion that refuses to intigrate & promotes none intigration, this causes huge problems in law/society/human rights/treatment of animals/dress code/alcahole/marrage/relationships/honor killings/freedom to express/freedom to speak/religious hatred/terrorism/gang rape/guns/knife crime.
these are just some of the problems none intigration can & often does cause.
if a religious group that practices none intigration because it sees its self as superior in some goddly way, & decides to use a free society to force its religious dogmas on every one els, the origonal freedoms will be removed as they will have become a threat to the new extreme religion.
if islam ever becomes a magority in the uk/france/germany/denmark/norway/holland/itali/spain/sweden/austria & other countrys out side the eu, will you be happy to lose your freedoms ?.
the lefty loonys will of coarse say this is not happening, but then if islam gets its own way wich is predicted in some years, will the lefty loonys be crying about their lost freedoms wich they like to use so often to protest for so many things.
im only saying this because it is what i & a growing number of brits are watching happen.
i would prefere to see england destroyed with nuclear weapons than to see old blighty become (islamic republic of england) & lose my freedoms.