Year 12s: what will be the first way you research your future options? >>

Swiss win EU case - Muslim girls must swim with boys

Scroll to see replies

You are right there is nothing special about religious rules.Therefore there is absolutely no reason that the Muslim girls cannot join in with all the other children and swim together. No exceptions.Everyone gets treated the same.

Reply 61

hassassin04

Who was even saying it??? They are the ones disobeying it because of their personal views. The article clearly said that they refused to send their child to classes which were compulsory.
They are free to challenge it but meanwhile you better obey the rules or otherwise face penalties, just like with your cocaine. If you disagree- no problem but you still can't walk around and use it freely and expect not to be punished.
If you are here to argue whether schooling should be compulsory or not- this thread is certainly not about it then.

Reply 62

yudothis

The court acknowledged that freedom of religion is interfered with, just not violated, and that the school has a bigger importance in social integration than religious sensitivities.

Reply 63

QE2

Original post by TheMaskedLady

Where as if the case was about, say a girl who didnt want to swim because she didnt want to show the scars on her body to anyone, everyone would be on the girls side.

Are you seriously comparing physical disfigurement/disability with religious ideology?

If you can respect her reasons why cant you respect a muslim's reason for wanting segregation?

There are two issues with respecting religious claims such as this.
1. Their origins are imaginary.
2. The reason for not mixing is to avoid forbidden sexual activity. If the parents really believe that attending mixed swimming lessons will lead their pre-pubescent daughters into illicit sex, then they have some serious issues!

Their religion isnt interfering with your life so why y'all hating?

Ah, the good old "why are you bothered about things that don't affect you" argument.
So if their religion required the beating of their children, that would be fine because it "isn't interfering with your life", and to object would be "hating"?
Top argument.

Or if the girls didnt want to swim with the boys just because they werent 'comfortable with the other gender' I'm sure no one would have made such a hubbub over it

The parents refused to send their children to certain classes. The law states that you can't do this without good reason. As the school made concessions to Muslim sensibilities but the parents still refused, the court decided that they didn't have good reason. Nothing remarkable there. If the kids had been kept out of school because the parents were junkies, no one would be complaining about the courts insisting on their attendance, but once religion comes into the picture...

but once religion comes into the picture... *explosion*

You bigot. Not all Muslims are suicide bombers.

Reply 64

QE2

Original post by gogojakeo

I don't see why it should be compulsory for them to attend swimming lessons. Switzerland is landlocked.

It is also famous for having no lakes, rivers or swimming pools.

They shouldn't be made to sin in their religion.

The prohibition against mixing is to prevent sexual activity outside marriage. Why would pre-pubescent girls be at risk from jumping into bed with a classmate just because they swim together? It's madness!

Reply 65

_Fergo

Original post by the bear

Eteignez la télé allumez la cervelle :spank:

translation compliance:

Spoiler

Sorry Bear :frown:

Reply 66

username2053059

Original post by _Fergo

No it can't be argued that it infringes on that principle because the ECtHR ruled otherwise.

Well if (and it's a big if) the Quran/Hadith(s) prohibit this then the ECHR ruling means f all.

Reply 67

_Fergo

Original post by cbreef

Well if (and it's a big if) the Quran/Hadith(s) prohibit this then the ECHR ruling means f all.

No, you don't understand the point. Freedom of religion, through the ECHR, is a legal right - where the Court says no, it means no. Whatever the Quran/Hadith(s) say is irrelevant.

Reply 68

yudothis

Well it seems like an easy way to argue is to take their argument. But just looking at yours, I don't buy your analogies. Forcing a vegetarian to eat meat is not analogously. Nor is forcing prayer on atheists. This is about integration.

Reply 69

username2053059

Original post by _Fergo

No, you don't understand the point. Freedom of religion, through the ECHR, is a legal right - where the Court says no, it means no. Whatever the Quran/Hadith(s) say is irrelevant.

Then they should rename it Freedom of most religions. (If the Quran does say that, idk if it actually does)

There's hope.

So it's ok to force a child to not eat meat, but it's not ok to force them to eat it. Interesting argument. Why is one position valid and the other not? (Assuming no clinical issues/allergies, etc)

Reply 72

_Fergo

Original post by cbreef

Then they should rename it Freedom of most religions. (If the Quran does say that, idk if it actually does)

Freedom in a society is never unrestrained. This applies to everything, including all religions.

Reply 73

yudothis

One the alternatives are easy. Whereas the swimming one either they have to provide separate classes or the girls have to stay away. Two in your examples the alternative are socially acceptable. In the swimming example staying away from swimming for made up reasons (i.e. no medical or such reason) is not. This is about integration, in your examples that is not hindered.

Reply 74

username2053059

Original post by _Fergo

Freedom in a society is never unrestrained. This applies to everything, including all religions.

What I'm saying... is that if the Quran/Hadith say that this stuff is forbidden, but the ECHR says "screw it you're doing it anyway" then it's not fit for purpose.

Reply 75

Jay Caz

Original post by Charzhino

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-38569428

To sum it up the European Court of Human Rights have backed up Swirzerland in a case where Muslim parents refused to send their young daughters to swimmimg classes which were mixed with other boys due to religious sentiments. The parents where fined, took the case to law and have now lost again.

Is this a straight forward ruling or is there a debate to be had whether the parents freedom of religious beliefs were impinged on and essentially told they were being bad parents?

I disagree that it impinges on their religious freedom as it is part of the school curriculum and their children should be held back from their freedom of opportunity in a free society. The idea that we allow parents to control their lives to a strict standard and restrict them from things as simple as swimming classes.

This is also why I don't like home schooling. (Even though there are rare cases of homeschooling being very successful which are clearly exceptional and I am impressed to see.)

EDIT: Reading the comments, I see a lot of people seem to have this idea that this pre-pubescent girl is somehow a "Muslim" at her age. This is her parents sensibilities and I don't respect those sensibilities so I am glad the court's made this decision. I see this decision as a good thing for the child rather than a bad thing for the parents.

(edited 7 years ago)

Reply 76

Good bloke

Original post by cbreef

What I'm saying... is that if the Quran/Hadith say that this stuff is forbidden, but the ECHR says "screw it you're doing it anyway" then it's not fit for purpose.

What isn't fit for purpose? The Koran has proved itself as fit for purpose (controlling the behaviour of countless superstitious desert-dwellers) for centuries. The ECHR, too, appears to be protecting European civilisation from the aggressive attempts of Moslems to change European society to conform with ancient alien superstitions, so it is probably fit for purpose.

You aren't saying, are you, that the ECHR should aid these Moslem parents in their attempt to subvert European civilised norms?