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

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

    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by yudothis)
    So the entire class should change the chosen exercise, because two sets of parents do not want to integrate into our society? Wow.
    You said it was easy and "socially acceptable" to offer vegetarian meals and not force atheists to recite Muslim prayers.

    I said that it's pretty easy and socially acceptable for Muslim parents who don't want their kids in mixed swimming classes to have them attend alternative classes.

    Wow! The horrors! the oppression! the cultural change! what are we to do!
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RainbowMan)
    I said that it's pretty easy and socially acceptable for Muslim parents who don't want their kids in mixed swimming classes to have them attend alternative classes.
    But you have failed to tell us what other classes would teach them to swim.
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RainbowMan)
    You said it was easy and "socially acceptable" to offer vegetarian meals and not force atheists to recite Muslim prayers.

    I said that it's pretty easy and socially acceptable for Muslim parents who don't want their kids in mixed swimming classes to have them attend alternative classes.

    Wow! The horrors! the oppression! the cultural change! what are we to do!
    You said it yes, but you are wrong as I have explained above. Either the school needs to find supervision for them, or they have to stay at home. Not the case for your two scenarios. They will not partake in normal class because of a made up reason that is not in fact socially acceptable.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RainbowMan)
    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).
    Then the whole discussion should be about compulsory schooling and not swimming classes in particular. I do not have a strong stance whether it is a good thing or a bad thing. The point of these news is that muslims yet again do not want to assimilate and are rejecting very basic western values by favouring segregation.
    Public school is not really an argument though , how do you even know that those parents are actually paying taxes in the first place? Maybe they live on benefits. In any case , assuming that everyone pays taxes , why should THEY get special arrangements? Because religious views are above non-religious views?
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by yudothis)
    You said it yes, but you are wrong as I have explained above. Either the school needs to find supervision for them, or they have to stay at home. Not the case for your two scenarios. They will not partake in normal class because of a made up reason that is not in fact socially acceptable.
    You haven't explained anything fyi. You said it's not easy to attend an alternative class but providing vegetarian meals is?

    What is even supervision man? you have swimming class on monday at 10am, I have swimming class on friday at 2pm. What..
    Online

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Mr Moon Man)
    Good, it's them who have to follow our rules, not the the other way round.
    You'd let your shy, self concious 10 year old daughter swim with other boys? you have no shame or self respect.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by hassassin04)
    Then the whole discussion should be about compulsory schooling and not swimming classes in particular. I do not have a strong stance whether it is a good thing or a bad thing. The point of these news is that muslims yet again do not want to assimilate and are rejecting very basic western values by favouring segregation.
    Public school is not really an argument though , how do you even know that those parents are actually paying taxes in the first place? Maybe they live on benefits. In any case , assuming that everyone pays taxes , why should THEY get special arrangements? Because religious views are above non-religious views?
    First of all, we want to cater to people's beliefs no matter their content. So if you're in a country that has mandatory military service (Switzerland maybe?) and you are a pacifist you can ask for an exemption. If you're a vegetarian, you can ask for veggie meals. If you're an atheist, you can ask for a different kind of oath. Etc etc.

    It's nothing special indeed. People get all preachy about it 'cos it has to do with Muslims and they're not popular in Europe right now.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RainbowMan)
    First of all, we want to cater to people's beliefs no matter their content.
    Only if catering to their beliefs is limited to allowing to believe what they like and giving them free rein to pursue those beliefs in private (within the law).
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RainbowMan)
    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.
    You are entirely wrong here.
    Never head of the term "in loco parentis"?
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by QE2)
    You are entirely wrong here.
    Never head of the term "in loco parentis"?
    Yes but it is irrelevant to what we're discussing. The state is not responsible for the wellbeing of the children we're talking about.
    Offline

    16
    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.
    The Quran/hadith say is is permitted to beat a disobedient wife, to keep slaves and to use female slaves for sex (under certain conditions). The ECHR says "screw you, you can't do that".

    Is the ECHR still "not fit for purpose".

    In the real world, evidence-based, rational thought trumps Bronze Age superstition and medieval tradition.
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RainbowMan)
    You haven't explained anything fyi. You said it's not easy to attend an alternative class but providing vegetarian meals is?

    What is even supervision man? you have swimming class on monday at 10am, I have swimming class on friday at 2pm. What..
    Yes, a canteen that cannot make two meals one of which is vegetarian? Lel.

    And yes, supervision, or who looks after the child when they cannot be in their normal class? And they are supposed to split the entire class by gender just because of two girls' parents? Or do you suggest they do it on their own at another time? As your stupid I have class at 10am and you at 2pm suggests.
    Offline

    16
    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
    You are losing sight of the principle by concentrating on individual detail.
    Parents must have good reason for witholding their children from mandatory classes. That is the law, and a reasonable one. These parents broke that law. End of story. You are just getting excited because the parents happen to be Muslims and their unacceptable reason is religious superstition, so for some reason best known to yourself you seem to think that this allows the parents special priviledge to break the law.
    That's not how society works.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RainbowMan)
    If Muslims didn't want their kids to mingle with non-Muslim kids, we'd have a problem..
    We do have a problem. And we are sleep walking into a religiously segregated society because of the complacent and naive views of people like you.

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education...orse-plot.html

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/reli...ommission.html
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Good bloke)
    Can you tell us of another exercise that teaches young people how to save their own lives if they fall into deep water?
    Yes.
    Prayer!
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by yudothis)
    Yes, a canteen that cannot make two meals one of which is vegetarian? Lel.

    And yes, supervision, or who looks after the child when they cannot be in their normal class? And they are supposed to split the entire class by gender just because of two girls' parents? Or do you suggest they do it on their own at another time? As your stupid I have class at 10am and you at 2pm suggests.
    Is the concept of a free period alien to you?
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by QE2)
    You are losing sight of the principle by concentrating on individual detail.
    Parents must have good reason for witholding their children from mandatory classes. That is the law, and a reasonable one. These parents broke that law. End of story. You are just getting excited because the parents happen to be Muslims and their unacceptable reason is religious superstition, so for some reason best known to yourself you seem to think that this allows the parents special priviledge to break the law.
    That's not how society works.
    I didn't say anywhere that they should break the law. I don't have any reason to like Muslims or their religion.
    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.
    Why not? You're assuming the Quran/Hadith is all-accurate and must be 100% respected. Well, no.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by astutehirstute)
    We do have a problem. And we are sleep walking into a religiously segregated society because of the complacent and naive views of people like you.

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education...orse-plot.html

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/reli...ommission.html
    My apologies for advocating religious liberty?
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RainbowMan)
    Is the concept of a free period alien to you?
    Are you suggesting sending pre-teens of to free period without supervision?
 
 
 
  • 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.