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

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

Announcements
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (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!
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by the bear)
    Eteignez la télé allumez la cervelle :spank:

    translation compliance:

    Spoiler:
    Show


    TV rots your brain

    Sorry Bear
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 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.
    Because I'm not arguing that these people were right to disobey the law. You made it sound like I did and that's whjy we even got into discussing this red herring.

    I'm arguing that the court should've allowed these parents some arrangements by which their children did not have to attend mixed swimming lessons (without impinging on the right of other parents to have their children attend mixed swimming lessons) because these people are taxpayers, these schools are public and are supported by tax money from thjem and therefore thery should be at least sensitive (but definitely not always accommodating - e.g. to cases like female genital mutilation) to all people's beliefs regardless of content (religious or not).
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (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.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (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.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RainbowMan)
    Im not arguing with the Court, I haven't read its decision.
    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.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (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)
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    There's hope.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 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.
    What's the difference?
    Offline

    16
    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.
    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)
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (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.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by QE2)
    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)
    It's ok for the parents to raise their children as they see fit providing they are not abusing it or grossly neglecting it. Yes.

    It's not ok for the state to play the parents because it's not responsible for its well-being.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RainbowMan)
    What's the difference?
    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.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (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.
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (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.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (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?
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 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.
    It sounds to me it's pretty easy to do another form of aerobic exercise. Why do they have to do this one and in this way? pfff
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RainbowMan)
    It sounds to me it's pretty easy to do another form of aerobic exercise. Why do they have to do this one and in this way? pfff
    Can you tell us of another exercise that teaches young people how to save their own lives if they fall into deep water?
    Offline

    3
    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.
    If they don't want to follow Swiss laws why don't they leave.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RainbowMan)
    It sounds to me it's pretty easy to do another form of aerobic exercise. Why do they have to do this one and in this way? pfff
    So the entire class should change the chosen exercise, because two sets of parents do not want to integrate into our society? Wow.
 
 
 
  • 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.

  • Will you be richer or poorer than your parents?
    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.