Leicfox Posted 17 August 2009 Posted 17 August 2009 Croyden has scrapped the idea now, but the person who came up with this policy needs sacking. http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/art...pped/article.do WTF.
danny. Posted 17 August 2009 Posted 17 August 2009 this enrages me quite a lot. I'm 100% in favour of the muslims swimming with their clothes on if their religion requires that, but forcing your religion on others is disgusting.
James. Posted 17 August 2009 Posted 17 August 2009 this enrages me quite a lot.I'm 100% in favour of the muslims swimming with their clothes on if their religion requires that, but forcing your religion on others is disgusting. Forcing YOUR stupidity on us is more disgusting. Did you read the article? EDIT: sounds a bit Ultra-y that does, sorry..!
Babylon Posted 17 August 2009 Posted 17 August 2009 but forcing your religion on others is disgusting. They aren't, it's the council.
acooling08 Posted 17 August 2009 Posted 17 August 2009 Whoever thought this shit up should be sacked and not allowed back in politics for life.
danny. Posted 17 August 2009 Posted 17 August 2009 Forcing YOUR stupidity on us is more disgusting. Did you read the article?EDIT: sounds a bit Ultra-y that does, sorry..! yea I did, i know it was overturned, i meant the original plan.... fair enough though, it isn't the local muslims that made this rule, but i guess someone must have been pushing for it?? or did the council just randomly think "lets make up a rule noone has asked for fromt he muslim community"?
Jon the Hat Posted 17 August 2009 Posted 17 August 2009 Ah these things are always taken out of context and overblown. So they planned a Muslim swimming session. Clearly if you are going to have a Muslim simming session you would either ban any non Muslims or apply a dress code. How is this different from having a women only swimming session? Many pools do that. Men are banned. Totally. I think we need to form Men for Swimming Justice and wear Batman capes. Or a no kids session. How ridiculous! People want to swim without being jumped on by someone else unruly kids? Crazy. This was not a stupid idea, no one should be sacked, they should in fact be applauded for coming up with a proposal to attract people who do not use the pool currently to do so. The fact that it was probably canned to avoid causing a response like this should be the issue.
danny. Posted 17 August 2009 Posted 17 August 2009 if you are going to have a Muslim simming session you would either ban any non Muslims. Why?????? What if someone had a "white english only" session and banned everyone else? Would be outrage. How is this different from having a women only swimming session? Many pools do that. Men are banned. Totally. I think we need to form Men for Swimming Justice and wear Batman capes. Don't really like that either, I'll get my cape.
Budweiser Posted 17 August 2009 Posted 17 August 2009 Why?????? What if someone had a "white english only" session and banned everyone else? Would be outrage. Exactly. Religion just causes problem. End of.
Bryn Posted 17 August 2009 Posted 17 August 2009 this enrages me quite a lot.I'm 100% in favour of the muslims swimming with their clothes on if their religion requires that, but forcing your religion on others is disgusting. You see, THIS is the issue with these ridiculous PC schemes. It's "indigenous" (For want of a better word, I don't really approve of that word but hopefully you'll all know what I'm getting at best if I use that word) councils coming up with stupid ideas, and then "indigenous" cretins not bothering to read articles proper and kicking off. Causes so many problems. The article suggests that the Muslim council was rather coy about it, saying they could see "some merit" in the decision during "designated Muslim sessions", but saying that they "would never have asked for it". Completely faultless, but they were attacked by the very next post. It then, in turn, makes it harder to discuss real race issues, such as the disgusting new law somewhere (I forget where) that allows a man to starve or rape his wife if he is denied sex for 4 days, or those ridiculous burkas which are a symbol of female oppression, because then the cretins on the other side of the coin kick off. And Danny, why you havent backed out of this thread completely ashamed of yourself is beyond me.
Guest Posted 17 August 2009 Posted 17 August 2009 You see, THIS is the issue with these ridiculous PC schemes. It's "indigenous" (For want of a better word, I don't really approve of that word but hopefully you'll all know what I'm getting at best if I use that word) councils coming up with stupid ideas, and then "indigenous" cretins not bothering to read articles proper and kicking off. Causes so many problems. The article suggests that the Muslim council was rather coy about it, saying they could see "some merit" in the decision during "designated Muslim sessions", but saying that they "would never have asked for it". Completely faultless, but they were attacked by the very next post.It then, in turn, makes it harder to discuss real race issues, such as the disgusting new law somewhere (I forget where) that allows a man to starve or rape his wife if he is denied sex for 4 days, or those ridiculous burkas which are a symbol of female oppression, because then the cretins on the other side of the coin kick off. And Danny, why you havent backed out of this thread completely ashamed of yourself is beyond me. Exactly! And the law was passed in Afghanistan. If a husband doesn't feel like raping his wife, he may choose to starve her instead. I was reading that this was a law passed to appease a minority Islamic group, in the lead up to the forthcoming elections. And people here think we've got it bad.
Jon the Hat Posted 17 August 2009 Posted 17 August 2009 Why?????? What if someone had a "white english only" session and banned everyone else? Would be outrage.Don't really like that either, I'll get my cape. Because white english is not a religion which requires a particular dress code in a swimming pool? There should indeed be outrage at such a rule, particularly, say, in the membership rules of a "political" party.
Thracian Posted 18 August 2009 Posted 18 August 2009 Exactly! And the law was passed in Afghanistan. If a husband doesn't feel like raping his wife, he may choose to starve her instead. I was reading that this was a law passed to appease a minority Islamic group, in the lead up to the forthcoming elections. And people here think we've got it bad. We have judging by some of the crimes already seen to be committed here against suppposed erring Muslim women. Anyway does that mean you're opposed to sharia courts in the UK?
skinnydipper Posted 18 August 2009 Posted 18 August 2009 Cover up swimming is sinful Skinnydipping for all
Guest Posted 18 August 2009 Posted 18 August 2009 We have judging by some of the crimes already seen to be committed here against suppposed erring Muslim women. Anyway does that mean you're opposed to sharia courts in the UK? WTF has that got to do with anything?
Thracian Posted 18 August 2009 Posted 18 August 2009 WTF has that got to do with anything? I thought it might be fairly obvious. But never mind. It was a simple and innocent-enough question yet you sidestepped answering in exactly the way I imagined.
Finnegan Posted 18 August 2009 Posted 18 August 2009 Hasn't Thracian had enough of Lisa making him look stupid yet?
Guest Bilo Posted 18 August 2009 Posted 18 August 2009 Awaits kobe......... When I read the words 'cover up' I was expecting an El Empty conspiracy theory.
Guest Bilo Posted 18 August 2009 Posted 18 August 2009 You see, THIS is the issue with these ridiculous PC schemes. It's "indigenous" (For want of a better word, I don't really approve of that word but hopefully you'll all know what I'm getting at best if I use that word) councils coming up with stupid ideas, and then "indigenous" cretins not bothering to read articles proper and kicking off. Causes so many problems. The article suggests that the Muslim council was rather coy about it, saying they could see "some merit" in the decision during "designated Muslim sessions", but saying that they "would never have asked for it". Completely faultless, but they were attacked by the very next post. I genuinely couldn't agree more with the first part of the statement. Such ludicrous rulings are quickly seized upon by the far-right and lapped up by the people you rightly describe as cretins, undermining the fight against the BNP and therefore achieving the exact opposite of what the people who introduce such rulings must wish. Moronic.
BoneDog Posted 18 August 2009 Posted 18 August 2009 There really are some racist div's around. We're doomed I tell thee.
Lillehamring Posted 18 August 2009 Posted 18 August 2009 "If it was designated as a Muslim session to encourage Muslim women to come along, to that extent I could see a degree of merit in it." maybe they'd be more encouraged to swim if they could wear 'normal' swimwear... the ugliest thing in this whole case is the sexual inequality that seems to be tolerated... religion is a lifestyle choice and should never go beyond the law, as far as i know, it is against the law to discriminate against someone based on gender, and therein lies the fundamental problem with this, and most religions... at least the christians (bless 'em) are trying to bring their beliefs upto date... quite frankly, it would be a credit to muslims, and brilliant for how they are perceived, to realise that in the west it is no longer considered acceptable to treat women as second class citizens. it is very difficult for some people to see why a non-muslim shouldn't discriminate against muslims, when male muslims discriminate against women, for some people it is hard to see how the two things are different....
BoneDog Posted 18 August 2009 Posted 18 August 2009 maybe they'd be more encouraged to swim if they could wear 'normal' swimwear...the ugliest thing in this whole case is the sexual inequality that seems to be tolerated... religion is a lifestyle choice and should never go beyond the law, as far as i know, it is against the law to discriminate against someone based on gender, and therein lies the fundamental problem with this, and most religions... at least the christians (bless 'em) are trying to bring their beliefs upto date... quite frankly, it would be a credit to muslims, to realise that in the west it is no longer considered acceptable to treat women as second class citizens. it is very difficult for some people to see why a non-muslim shouldn't discriminate against muslims, when male muslims discriminate against women, for some people it is hard to see how the two things are different.... What? If you talk to a Muslim woman, she doesn't cover herself cos she is forced to by a man. She covers herself cos of what she believes. Maybe a few are scared of their husbands/fathers/brothers but the percentage of sexism or bullying is no less in western society. I don't see how you come to the conclusion that a Muslim woman covering her body in a swimming pool must mean that the Muslim male is treating her as a second class citizen? I think that if you knew any Muslim families you would learn that the women rule the roost mostly, and that they are not oppressed or treated as lower than men. I gotta admit I can see why many folk come to this conclusion though.
Bryn Posted 18 August 2009 Posted 18 August 2009 What? If you talk to a Muslim woman, she doesn't cover herself cos she is forced to by a man. She covers herself cos of what she believes. Maybe a few are scared of their husbands/fathers/brothers but the percentage of sexism or bullying is no less in western society.I don't see how you come to the conclusion that a Muslim woman covering her body in a swimming pool must mean that the Muslim male is treating her as a second class citizen? I think that if you knew any Muslim families you would learn that the women rule the roost mostly, and that they are not oppressed or treated as lower than men. I gotta admit I can see why many folk come to this conclusion though. I'm no expert on the Koran so I will avoid saying anything concrete, but I'm inclined to say that asking a Muslim woman to cover themselves entirely is oppressive. I'm lead to believe that the Koran does not ask a woman to entirely cover herself, but that that is a male scholarly interpretation, passed down in tradition. Other scholars say, I have read, that the interpretation of how covered a woman must be should have been down to the woman to choose but that has not been the case. I stress, though, that I have got this from a quick Google search, by no means a solid basis for argument.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.