Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

Swiss win EU case - Muslim girls must swim with boys Watch

    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RainbowMan)
    Switzerland has failed yet again on this. Not surprised.

    It's a state school. It taxes everyone including Muslims to provide a service. It should therefore be sensitive to their needs as well as to any other person's needs.

    I don't see that if girls don't swim with boys, they'll somehow become pariahs or social outcasts.

    It doesn't hurt integration to respect a person's reasonable request - they're not asking that they should be allowed to mutilate or assault their children. They are asking for an exemption and the state should grant it to them if it wants to maintain freedom of conscience.

    Such exemptions are compatible with a liberal polity which Switzerland says it is. The hysteria with immigrants and Islam is getting annoying.
    Swimming in a seperate area to boys is not a "need".That is very much a want.And the swiss have every right to tell them where to go.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    I think freedom to practice religion is fine and where the law should stop. This isn't hindering anybody's ability to practice their religion within reasonable limits - ie we don't let people beat their wives over here despite multiple holy books say it's ok. There has to be a line drawn between being a functioning member of modem society and believing in your deity ..
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Robby2312)
    Swimming in a seperate area to boys is not a "need".That is very much a want.And the swiss have every right to tell them where to go.
    No they don't. They might if this was North Korea. But it is not. Liberal societies accept freedom of conscience and freedom of religion - subject to constraints regarding violence. Parents not wanting to have their daughter swim with boys is not violating anyone's rights.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Swirly123)
    I went to school in Dubai and girls and boys swam together. The Muslims didn't complain Over there. One of my friends who felt uncomfortable simply sat out the lessons.
    Very good point which pretty much justifies the court's decision.

    Schools make rules that everyone has to adhere to. If you don't like those rules then you go elsewhere.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RainbowMan)
    No they don't. They might if this was North Korea. But it is not. Liberal societies accept freedom of conscience and freedom of religion - subject to constraints regarding violence. Parents not wanting to have their daughter swim with boys is not violating anyone's rights.
    They also accept the right to be free of sexism.The parents do not want their daughters to swim with boys because they adhere to a backwards religion that is rife with mysogyny.Not allowing them to swim with boys violates the daughters rights to be allowed to interact with the opposite sex.The right to be free from sexism trumps the sensitivities of religous feelings I'm afraid.Or at least it should do.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Robby2312)
    They also accept the right to be free of sexism.The parents do not want their daughters to swim with boys because they adhere to a backwards religion that is rife with mysogyny.Not allowing them to swim with boys violates the daughters rights to be allowed to interact with the opposite sex.The right to be free from sexism trumps the sensitivities of religous feelings I'm afraid.Or at least it should do.
    Parents are responsible for their children, not the state. The state only has to keep the children free from parental abuse. If we went into details about how parents raise heir children, we'd have to live in an Orwellian totalitarian society in which the state basically raises your child according to how it thinks is proper.
    Online

    7
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RainbowMan)
    That's not an argument. If I migrate to Saudi Arabia and become a permanent citizen, it wouldn't be less immoral for my sister to have to wear a particular kind of clothing in public. It wouldn'tbe less immoral if she couldn't get a driving's license just because I was a migrant there - why do people peddle this nonsense?

    I'd still be right to say that the state is repressive and barbarous even if I'm a migrant there and even if I knew beforehand that the state is what it is.

    All states contain unjust laws. What I thought we were discussing here is whether a law is just or not, not whether people should respect it (I agree that we should respect all laws at all times but I also believe in people's right to protest and attempt to change unjust laws even if they're immigrants because guess what, people have rights independently of their status as migrants)

    Regarding the pool thing, I haven't read that they want separate pools for their children. this is what you have assumed. And again, I'm not in favour of that so it is irrelevant (or, if they do want that, it shouldn't be a public expense).

    But again, that has no bearing on whether they should be allowed to say no to their children participating in this particular class.
    Of course It would not be less immoral, I never said that. But if you decide to move to a country with certain rules you should be willing to accept / tolerate them. I believe that laws can be attempted to be challenged but if you straight away REFUSE to accept existent rules when you arrive to a country- you should never be allowed to become a resident/ citizen imo. And the point is that they did refuse to accept it completely.
    And religious beliefs should never be given any more priority than a simple whim. Why on earth muslims' claims should be viewed more seriously because its Islam and not someone else's religion which may not be so popular that is requiring him to do very bizarre things for instance, those claims would be thrown away instantly.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RainbowMan)
    Parents are responsible for their children, not the state. The state only has to keep the children free from parental abuse. If we went into details about how parents raise heir children, we'd have to live in an Orwellian totalitarian society in which the state basically raises your child according to how it thinks is proper.

    Arguably religious indoctrination is in fact abuse.You keep comparing it to an Orwellian society when in actual fact it's not Orwellian at all.It is Islam that is restrictive and Orwellian It is Islam that tells women how they should dress and who they can interact with.The ruling is simply removing one of the restrictions placed upon women by Islam.Hence it is actually granting women more freedom not less.Also parents do not own their children.Children should be able to be free from their parents religious rules.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by hassassin04)
    Of course It would not be less immoral, I never said that. But if you decide to move to a country with certain rules you should be willing to accept / tolerate them. I believe that laws can be attempted to be challenged but if you straight away REFUSE to accept existent rules when you arrive to a country- you should never be allowed to become a resident/ citizen imo. And the point is that they did refuse to accept it completely.
    And religious beliefs should never be given any more priority than a simple whim. Why on earth muslims' claims should be viewed more seriously because its Islam and not someone else's who may have not so popular religion requiring him to do very bizarre things for instance, those claims would be thrown away instantly.
    How can not people get that disagreeing with the morality of a specific law is not an argument for disobeying it? how can you not get that?

    E.g. I think cocaine laws are deeply unjust. The state locks people in for using cocaine (you can do life formere possession). That's unjust. I don't think that people should go around snorting cocaine though. But that doesn't mean I think the laws are alright and should continue to be what they are.

    So we have gone on a completely different tangent here and we're discussing things which are irrelevant to the original point.

    I don't know what these people did and neither did you. You're just assuming that they disobeyed laws (again, as I said, disagreeing with the morality of law doesn't mean free reign to disobey it) or even that they're migrants (they might not be).

    All this is irrelevant as to whether a liberal order should allow parents to raise their kids as they see fit, subject to laws regarding abuse, or neglect. All this is irrelevant as o whether someone's Muslim's freedom of religion is truncated when they aren't allowed to arrange for same-sex swimming lessons. My answer to both question has been yes and I think I explained why.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Plantagenet Crown)
    Brilliant news! :woo:

    The less special privileges religion is given, the better.
    fewer

    :spank:
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Robby2312)
    Arguably religious indoctrination is in fact abuse.You keep comparing it to an Orwellian society when in actual fact it's not Orwellian at all.It is Islam that is restrictive and Orwellian It is Islam that tells women how they should dress and who they can interact with.The ruling is simply removing one of the restrictions placed upon women by Islam.Hence it is actually granting women more freedom not less.Also parents do not own their children.Children should be able to be free from their parents religious rules.
    There's nothing special about religious rules. Parents have all sorts of rules. What time to go to bed, which foods to eat, which shows to watch, what kind of language to speak, which books to read, etc, etc.

    It's not possible to regulate the upbringing a child gets and that includes religious upbringing. All the state can do is macro-manage. That is prohibit violence and neglect. If a child has vitamin deficiencies or is cold or is sick, etc. Not whether it believes in God or whether it holds utilitarian or Marxist views.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by cbreef)
    And our "rules" support freedom of religion. It could be argued that this infringes on that principle.
    No it can't be argued that it infringes on that principle because the ECtHR ruled otherwise.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by the bear)
    fewer

    :spank:
    Wait, was that in Game of Thrones or something...?
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by _Fergo)
    Wait, was that in Game of Thrones or something...?
    Eteignez la télé allumez la cervelle :spank:

    translation compliance:

    Spoiler:
    Show

    TV rots your brain
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RainbowMan)
    There's nothing special about religious rules. Parents have all sorts of rules. What time to go to bed, which foods to eat, which shows to watch, what kind of language to speak, which books to read, etc, etc.

    It's not possible to regulate the upbringing a child gets and that includes religious upbringing. All the state can do is macro-manage. That is prohibit violence and neglect. If a child has vitamin deficiencies or is cold or is sick, etc. Not whether it believes in God or whether it holds utilitarian or Marxist views.

    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.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Robby2312)
    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.
    Yes there clearly is. Just like if a parent was raising its child to be vegetarian, it would be unjust to force it to eat meat in the cafeteria. Just like if a parent was raising its child to be atheist, it would be unjust to force it to proclaim and pronounce that there's only one God and his name is Allah.
    Online

    7
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RainbowMan)
    How can not people get that disagreeing with the morality of a specific law is not an argument for disobeying it? how can you not get that?

    E.g. I think cocaine laws are deeply unjust. The state locks people in for using cocaine (you can do life formere possession). That's unjust. I don't think that people should go around snorting cocaine though. But that doesn't mean I think the laws are alright and should continue to be what they are.

    So we have gone on a completely different tangent here and we're discussing things which are irrelevant to the original point.

    I don't know what these people did and neither did you. You're just assuming that they disobeyed laws (again, as I said, disagreeing with the morality of law doesn't mean free reign to disobey it) or even that they're migrants (they might not be).

    All this is irrelevant as to whether a liberal order should allow parents to raise their kids as they see fit, subject to laws regarding abuse, or neglect. All this is irrelevant as o whether someone's Muslim's freedom of religion is truncated when they aren't allowed to arrange for same-sex swimming lessons. My answer to both question has been yes and I think I explained why.
    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.
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RainbowMan)
    Yes there clearly is. Just like if a parent was raising its child to be vegetarian, it would be unjust to force it to eat meat in the cafeteria. Just like if a parent was raising its child to be atheist, it would be unjust to force it to proclaim and pronounce that there's only one God and his name is Allah.
    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.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 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.
    Im not arguing with the Court, I haven't read its decision.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (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.
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    What newspaper do you read/prefer?
    Useful resources
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.