• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Muslim girls allowed private swim test

Status
Not open for further replies.

aluc

Member
Inactive
Reaction score
0
Points
210
http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&c=Article&cid=1147297812988&call_pageid=968332188492&col=968793972154&t=TS_Home

Muslim girls allowed private swim test
Religion makes ripples in pool
Montreal-area school focus for debate
May 11, 2006. 05:45 AM
SEAN GORDON
QUEBEC BUREAU CHIEF

MONTREAL—The decision to close a high school pool to give three Muslim girls a private swimming class is stoking debate over the place of faith in Quebec's public institutions.

At issue is the practice known as "reasonable accommodation" for religious views, one that's increasingly common in a city that's home to most of Quebec's immigrants.

Parents say the decision by Commission Scolaire Marie-Victorin, with more that 40,000 students in 80 schools, risks encouraging "segregation in the name of religion."

The board argues it is simply respecting provisions of a recent Supreme Court judgment on wearing Sikh kirpans (ceremonial daggers) in classrooms that set limits on restricting religious rights.

The most recent chapter in the argument centres on a request from three Muslim students at Antoine-Brossard high school in the South Shore suburb of Brossard, who asked to be excused from swimming class because their religion rejects sharing a pool with men.

The board demurred, saying children couldn't beg off the requirements, which are part of a physical education curriculum, but could take the swimming test needed to pass the course under special circumstances.

So last Friday morning, the pool was closed to all other students and tables were placed in front of the windows so the three girls would be shielded from view. A female teacher administered the test, aided by another female school employee.

The problem with all that, says the parental representative on Antoine-Brossard's "conseil d'établissement" (parent-teacher council) is that, when the question was brought to the council, it unanimously decided to demand the board shelve that decision.

Fouad Cheddadi, a Muslim whose children attend the school, told reporters this week, "This is a decision that makes a lot of parents uncomfortable. The main goal of school is to provide secular instruction to children. It's a place where all cultures meet."

School board officials referred all questions to its executive director François Houde, who could not be reached for comment.

Houde told La Presse, "This issue is closed," noting the board is constrained by the Constitution and by high court rulings that spell out "an obligation to find a reasonable accommodation."

The board notes many other public pools in Montreal, especially in areas with large Jewish, Muslim and Sikh populations, have time set aside specifically for women.

Last week's swim test is just the latest incident illustrating Quebec's recent struggles to reconcile constitutionally guaranteed religious freedoms — especially those exercised by minorities — with the increasing secularization of public institutions.

"There's a nervousness about allowing too much," said Annick Germain, a professor of urban sociology at Université du Québec's l'Institut national de recherche scientifique.

Germain has studied the whole question of reasonable accommodation in public pools.

It's a relatively rare phenomenon, she said, but the current debate is as much a proxy for a larger debate on immigration as it is about specific details of the case.

Several Toronto public school pools offer weekly all-girl swim periods for Muslim girls whose religion prohibits them from wearing bathing suits in front of boys.

The University of Toronto provides a 90-minute all-female swim time each Monday, Wednesday and Friday in a pool in the main athletic building, and a one-hour women's swim period Sundays.

During these times, blinds are drawn in the viewing gallery to prohibit observation, and only female lifeguards are on duty.



What happened to the separation of state and religion? Does accommodating peoples' religious beliefs help intergrate them into our society? What kind of precedence is being established here. I know it's not probable, but couldn't this decision lead to further segregation? Hypothetically, what if a particular public school has a large population of any one religious group that forbids males and females from attending class together. If they complain loud and long enough, will the school have to respect their wishes and segregate the classroom, so not to impede on a particular group's religious freedoms? Any thoughts out there?

 
This seems perfectly reasonable to me, I've actually got to go to school right about now actually but I think the article is making a mountain out of a molehill.
 
Does this sound reasonable?


HUTTERITES ALLOWED PIC−FREE LICENCES
(The Calgary Sun, 2006.05.10, page: 10 )
Legislation requiring Hutterites to have photographs on their driver's licences has been deemed a
violation of their religious freedom after the province failed to prove it is justified to override the
charter right.
In a 10−page decision released Monday, Court of Queen's Bench Justice Sal LoVecchio said the
regulation requiring all drivers to have the new−style licences, featuring a digital photo, goes against
the rights of the Hutterite Brethren of Wilson Colony.
"In the present case, the amended regulation is inconsistent with the charter to the extent that it
renders a digital photograph mandatory for individuals who claim a valid religious objection," the
ruling states, adding because of that inconsistency, "it is of no force or effect."
Greg Senda, lawyer for the colony, 200 km southeast of Calgary, said his clients are pleased with
the result because had they been forced to comply, the number of drivers would have been reduced
to zero, essentially destroying their way of life.
"Obviously, they're pleased because we achieved what we set out do to," Senda said.
"But they're also pleased because it renews their faith in the Canadian justice system."
Hutterites believe the Second Commandment in the Bible prohibits them from willingly having their
picture taken and were exempt from having photos on licences until new versions started being
issued in 2003.
Cathy Housdorff, a spokeswoman for Alberta Government Services, said the province is in the
process of reviewing the decision, and is also considering whether to appeal.
1/1
 
Strange.... :o

I work for the colonies in Manitoba and they all have pictures on the licenses
 
I suppose if the young'ns wanted to hit the bar scene, they just need to swipe dads liscence. Wonder how you explain that one to the border guards when entering the US?
 
Interesting precedent.  Kinda makes it hard for the gov to enforce the passport requirements on the Huts as well.  I think it's crap anyway, there are pictures of the brethren semi regularly in the local paper here, and no fuss.
 
They won't get into the States, simple. With the "new" rules, unless you have a valid photo id, and soon a passport, there will be no entry. And somehow, I do not think the US border guards will care much about anyones religious freedoms. Unanticipated consequences. Guess the lawyers should have thought this one out a bit more before taking the brethern's money.

As for the original article, I do not really see it as a major issue. Nor do I see it as a conflict between state/school and religion. I have worked with a number of people, over the years, with strict dietary issues due to religious beliefs. No one ever complained about that. If giving these young girls a little bit of privacy works and really does not impact everyone else (outside of a scheduling conflict), I do not see a problem with it.
 
I don't see a problem with it as long as others don't have to due without so the pool can be closed for them! I would however be on a band wagon for sure if all of a sudden if local kids to that pool had to miss a swim meet practice. I'm not a very tolerant person when it comes to "bowing" all the time.
 
Brat56 said:
I don't see a problem with it as long as others don't have to due without so the pool can be closed for them! I would however be on a band wagon for sure if all of a sudden if local kids to that pool had to miss a swim meet practice. I'm not a very tolerant person when it comes to "bowing" all the time.

I don't see a problem with it.


As for being tolerant to bowing.  Nothing in Christianity says "take advantage of me".  We may accept others
for their beliefs and make reasonable accommodations, but, nothing says we need to sacrifice our own beliefs
in order to accommodate others.

So rest assured Brat, I do not think we'll be experiencing much difficulty with this. (on my side of the fence)

Then again, I have no idea how non Christians or non religious people would re-act to any special accommodations.

If its not hurting anyone, I don't see a problem.
 
Alright, we all agree that muslims can't pee in the pool, but we can fight for their right to pee in the pool.

(Name that movie)
 
Of course, this didn't stop a Canadian Hutterite colony from being promonently featured on Dr Phil the past couple of weeks.
 
I think allowing the girls to take a seperate test is acceptable and this should be applicable to all people if they don't feel comfortable with displaying themselves in a swim suit in front of classmates and others in general. However I don't think this should be presented as just a religeous allowance but something that should be offered to students in general if someone is overly self concious about being seen in a swim suit.  When it comes to the idea of religeous allowance though we have to be careful as to the limits of our acceptance since no matter what your religeon is everyone must be able to compromise their beleifs to a certain degree with general codes of conduct for the greater good of our common human society.
 
Zertz said:
This seems perfectly reasonable to me, I've actually got to go to school right about now actually but I think the article is making a mountain out of a molehill.

In Sydney a while back, a local indoor pool was closed to female muslims only at lunch periods, and many non-muslims who had been swimming there during lunch time for years had to go else where.

I say, if its a public pool, keep it that way. Local residents all pay council rates, and its everyone's pool. Christian, Jew, Muslim or anyone else. Taxes hold no privilage to the public.

Its not okay, and given a power base this will be a regular occurance. I see it as just widening the gap between us and them, and if anything we should be narrowing the gap, and reverse discrimination and politically correctiveness are not the way to win over this problem.

I lived in Sydney for over 10 yrs, and I have seen other things, like the attempted closing of beaches so muslim women could swim. This area was closed off by a large group of rather angry young islamic men, and verbally attacked and threatened any non muslim who cam into the area.

Think about it, we invited them to our country, they did not invite us. Assimilate or go home.

Wes
 
I agree totally Wesley this is the west not the middle east.I think religion has gone to far.
 
>Interesting precedent.

It's a very interesting precedent, particularly in light of ongoing disputes over whether religious private schools (mostly of a Christian nature, in my reading experience) which receive public funding may be permitted to impose rules reflecting their beliefs.

If we're going to apply secular rules wherever public funds are involved, then by all means let's apply the secular rules universally and vigorously.
 
MikeH said:
I agree totally Wesley this is the west not the middle east.I think religion has gone to far.

This is not religion going too far.  It is our Liberal Left who so often give in to any vocal minority and don't want to 'cause any bad feelings' in a visible minority group, that are to blame.  It is the "Feel Good" attitude of these people who are skilfully avoiding and therefore compounding  serious problems in our Society.  By not taking care of the little problems and nipping them in the bud, but allowing them to fester into large problems that will eventually tear our society and beliefs apart; that is the problem here, not religion.  
 
If you recall a while back, there were women in Toronto (I believe) that were fighting for their right to wear the Burka in their liscence photos. Now that the hutterites have won a victory, why should these women be excluded. If you open up the can of worms..... and then when we start having security issues down the road with these "no picture" drivers liscences, does anyone think the courts will backtrack?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top