2yo girl barred from Manchester pool for not being Muslim

[El Bourricot]

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/article...slim/article.do

Swim centre bars two-year-old girl because she isn't Muslim

12.02.07

Darby Williams with her father Lee.

When Lee Williams saw a parent-and-toddler session advertised at his local pool, he thought it was the perfect chance to teach his young daughter to swim.

Arriving at the leisure centre already in her swimming costume, two-year-old Darby was desperate to get into the water.

But she was left in tears when staff said they were not allowed in the pool because the session was for Muslim women and their children only.

Mr Williams, 34, bitterly criticised Manchester City Council yesterday after it admitted that advertising for the session, on its website and on leaflets, had been misleading. 'I can understand why Muslim women need to have this kind of session, but the council should not be advertising it as parent and toddler,' he said.

'They made out I'd got it wrong, but I had checked on the council's website for the times.'

The incident happened at Abraham Moss Leisure Centre in Crumpsall. Mr Williams, a delivery driver from Blackley, had seen the parent-and-toddler session being promoted on the council's website and a leaflet.

But when they arrived, reception staff told Mr Williams he could not swim with Darby because it was a women-only session and they would have to come back later. Despite his protests that he had specifically checked the time of the session, the staff were insistent.

It was only when he telephoned the council to complain that he was told the session had been privately booked for Muslim women.

According to Islam, women are forbidden from exposing their bodies to any man but their husband.

A spokesman for Manchester City Council apologised to Mr Williams. He said: 'We were sorry to hear that he had been turned away. We are ensuring that our website is updated and staff are briefed so this does not happen again.'

The incident is the latest in a series of rows between local authorities and the public over swimming lessons for ethnic minority groups.

In December last year, Croydon Council in South London came under fire for running Muslim-only sessions at one of its leisure centres.

Non-Muslim members of Thornton Heath leisure centre were angry that they could not swim during the Muslim-only sessions on Saturdays and Sundays unless they obeyed the strict dress code.

For men, this involved wearing shorts which kept the navel hidden and were extended below the knee, while women bathers had to wear a swimming costume which covered their body from the neck down to the ankle.

Similarly, Wolverhampton Council and South Lanarkshire local authority have also been criticised for operating women- only swimming for Muslims.

Since when do public facilities under a secular government bend down to the wishes of a particular religious group?

If Muslims want a Muslim pool, they can go and build one out of their own taxes, that's what happens in a free market country.

[Brodel]

lol, Apartheid < Isolated incident of girl not being able to go into the swimming pool.

To be honest I'm not sure I see the problem. I can understand that it would be annoying if you wanted to swim there, and the session should probably just be on either Sat or Sun rather than both, but as part of a multicultural country why shouldn't Muslims be allowed to swim? The idea that they "can go and build one out of their own taxes" is ridiculous, are we going to start splitting tax expenditure based on religion and race now? This is just one universal aspect of the religion, not an extremists demands, so maybe a small separate swimming pool in an area with a large Muslim population such as Croydon isn't that bad an idea.

[j.nudd]

lol, Apartheid < Isolated incident of girl not being able to go into the swimming pool.

To be honest I'm not sure I see the problem. I can understand that it would be annoying if you wanted to swim there, and the session should probably just be on either Sat or Sun rather than both, but as part of a multicultural country why shouldn't Muslims be allowed to swim? The idea that they "can go and build one out of their own taxes" is ridiculous, are we going to start splitting tax expenditure based on religion and race now? This is just one universal aspect of the religion, not an extremists demands, so maybe a small separate swimming pool in an area with a large Muslim population such as Croydon isn't that bad an idea.

See, that's just it; they are allowed to swim. The privilege of using the facility isn't enough though. Instead, the facility must cater to the demands of a single religious group. If this were a Christian, or maybe even Jewish group of people, with a specific set of guidelines regarding how they can show their bodies, the pool wouldn't care in the slightest about them. Our society as a whole has become so careful to not offend certain racial or religious groups it's ridiculous...

[El Bourricot]

They can wear their special suits if they want to and swim with everyone else.

Apartheid = (amongst other things) separate facilities for the Blacks and the White.

Here we see separate facilities for the Muslims and the heretic infidel scum.

Now of course if the local Muslim community has HIRED the pool between the times where there's no non-Muslims then it's perfectly fine. I just object to the pool turning away a lot of its customers between certain times just because it's "Muslim hour".

Although if it works in a business sense, then fair enough.

Put it this way: if I was to make a "white hour" where I turned away all non-white people at my swimming pool, how would the world react?

[ZZOOzzoo]

This sounds more like a case of misleading advertisement than an 'apartheid' to me. From what I understand, the pool was booked privately for a specific group of people, a fact that the managers of the pool failed to inform the public. Sounds like a typical media fuss over nothing.

[j.nudd]

This sounds more like a case of misleading advertisement than an 'apartheid' to me. From what I understand, the pool was booked privately for a specific group of people, a fact that the managers of the pool failed to inform the public. Sounds like a typical media fuss over nothing.

If that's true, then it's nothing more than what your local bowling alley does when it rents out its facilities to bowling leagues. However, if, as bourricout has speculated, the staff turned away non-muslims during regular business hours normally open for everybody, then there is a problem.

[El Bourricot]

'They made out I'd got it wrong, but I had checked on the council's website for the times.'

I guess that's where the problem is.

You're right, it had been privately booked, in which case they can do whatever the hell they want.

So let's discuss this part instead:

In December last year, Croydon Council in South London came under fire for running Muslim-only sessions at one of its leisure centres.

Non-Muslim members of Thornton Heath leisure centre were angry that they could not swim during the Muslim-only sessions on Saturdays and Sundays unless they obeyed the strict dress code.

Now THAT is wrong.

[ZZOOzzoo]

If that's true, then it's nothing more than what your local bowling alley does when it rents out its facilities to bowling leagues. However, if, as bourricout has speculated, the staff turned away non-muslims during regular business hours normally open for everybody, then there is a problem.

The swimming pool was not open for public when they were turned away. It was meant to be in a mom-and-toddler session, which the management misleadingly advertised as parent-and-toddler session. If that girl came with her mother, then they would certainly have been admitted regardless of their religion.

@El Bourricot: I do not know the details of that incident, but that does sound wrong.

[j.nudd]

The swimming pool was not open for public when they were turned away. It was meant to be in a mom-and-toddler session, which the management misleadingly advertised as parent-and-toddler session. If that girl came with her mother, then they would certainly have been admitted regardless of their religion.

@El Bourricot: I do not know the details of that incident, but that does sound wrong.

But do you think they would have let a mother and toddler in, despite the fact that they weren't Muslim? They certainly would not have been dressed according to Islamic principles, and the entire population in the pool would notice that the woman wasn't wearing Islamic clothes. I don't think they would have gotten in even if they it were the mother and toddler. However, since it now appears that it was actually rented out during that time slot, I don't think there is anything turning them away, even if they are not Muslim. If you pay the money to use the facilities, I don't see why you can't set the rules, within reason.

[Boffa Jones Veteran]

But do you think they would have let a mother and toddler in, despite the fact that they weren't Muslim? They certainly would not have been dressed according to Islamic principles, and the entire population in the pool would notice that the woman wasn't wearing Islamic clothes. I don't think they would have gotten in even if they it were the mother and toddler. However, since it now appears that it was actually rented out during that time slot, I don't think there is anything turning them away, even if they are not Muslim. If you pay the money to use the facilities, I don't see why you can't set the rules, within reason.

We could just as easily assume that if it was a woman and toddler it would have been allowed. Unfortunately there is no way for us to know how it would have played out for sure, one way or the other. With the second situation, it looks like it may be a similar situation, and if it is supposed to be a public hour, and they are not paying for it then it would be wrong. But say, for example it is in a mainly Muslim neighborhood, then they are just catering to their public, which is still arguably wrong but initially much less sensational.

[Laurë Veteran]

The thing was privately booked, so I can't see a problem *except* for the misleading advertising. I have a low opinion of the majority of civil servants and council staff - they don't have to stay competitive to keep their jobs, they can get away with being sloppy and lazy - so that's what they do.

For men, this involved wearing shorts which kept the navel hidden and were extended below the knee, while women bathers had to wear a swimming costume which covered their body from the neck down to the ankle.

Do costumes like this exist in Britain? I thought they disappeared with the Victorians. If I remember correctly, the women would not have had to dress like that if there no men present - it's only in front of men other than their husband that they have to cover up so much. So perhaps this session allowed the women to not drown from the weight of their bathing suits.

Anyway, if it is possible for Muslims to go to mixed swimming pools wearing those clothes ^ then they don't need separate sessions. The incident in Croydon was definately out of order.

If there is a high population of Muslims in an area, who also work and pay taxes, then I would not be against letting them have a Muslim session at certain times - but during one or two evenings a week, not the middle of a Saturday afternoon. Afterall, why should non-Muslims be inconvenienced because a group of people (Muslims) choose to follow a certain set of rules which also happen to be at odds with the society they chose to live in.

[ZZOOzzoo]

But do you think they would have let a mother and toddler in, despite the fact that they weren't Muslim?

It sounds very plausible to me that non-Muslim would have been allowed to join the session, since the primary reason that the man couldn't enter the pool was his gender, not his religion. But I can never be 100% sure.

[Boffa Jones Veteran]

Afterall, why should non-Muslims be inconvenienced because a group of people (Muslims) choose to follow a certain set of rules which also happen to be at odds with the society they chose to live in.

This I agree with. I mean, it is good to accommodate, but this goes to an extent. Like having the pool for a private muslim session isn't a bad thing, but allowing sharia law to run on non muslims is a bad thing.

[Fred Derf Veteran]

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/article...slim/article.do

If Muslims want a Muslim pool, they can go and build one out of their own taxes, that's what happens in a free market country.

Muslims, however, do not pay separate taxes. They pay taxes into the general system and so they should be served by the general system.

It would not be a problem if the 2yo girl had been accompanied by her mother. The problem was that there was a man that wanted to get into the pool with Muslim women.

The only problem here was the lack of proper promotion/advertising.

[El Bourricot]

Muslims, however, do not pay separate taxes. They pay taxes into the general system and so they should be served by the general system.

I was waiting for this.

Let's assume we're talking about the case in South Croydon (where the session was public, not privately booked).

We pay taxes to maintain the pool, not just muslims. As such, using your argument, there's no reason muslims should get priority booking.

Otherwise I could say that I will only go and swim if only Christians are swimming in the pool, and ask for Christian opening hours. Or Atheist opening hours.

It's an unfair bias towards just ONE minority.

[Boffa Jones Veteran]

If the Christians wanted a specific time to themselves and didn't get it then perhaps there would be reason to be angry. Assuming that the Muslim time is still around, and how long it was there for?

[mad_onion]

basically, it seems like we all have a similar opinion. if the pool is privately run then its ok but if its a governement facility then it isnt. that seems fine to me.

[Fred Derf Veteran]

I was waiting for this.

Let's assume we're talking about the case in South Croydon (where the session was public, not privately booked).

We pay taxes to maintain the pool, not just muslims. As such, using your argument, there's no reason muslims should get priority booking.

Otherwise I could say that I will only go and swim if only Christians are swimming in the pool, and ask for Christian opening hours. Or Atheist opening hours.

It's an unfair bias towards just ONE minority.

The current rules discriminate against Muslim women who cannot share the pool with men (Christian or otherwise). I'm sure there are non-Muslim women that feel the same way.

They, most likely got "priority booking" because they asked for it. If a bunch of men got together and asked for their own swim time for a valid reason (i.e. they are uncomfortable having women watch them) then they would probably also get their own swim time. I'm sure that reason wins out in the end. It usually does.

[El Bourricot]

The current rules discriminate against Muslim women who cannot share the pool with men (Christian or otherwise). I'm sure there are non-Muslim women that feel the same way.

They, most likely got "priority booking" because they asked for it. If a bunch of men got together and asked for their own swim time for a valid reason (i.e. they are uncomfortable having women watch them) then they would probably also get their own swim time. I'm sure that reason wins out in the end. It usually does.

I was talking about the Croydon situation.

Where they didn't book the pool, but requested and got a special "muslim only" time.

Their belief does not mean we have to accomodate them.

BNP members don't want to swim with black people and jews in the pool, so they avoid the pool, or they book themselves a slot and pay for the privilege of being accomodated above the rest of pool users.

[Nicholas-c Veteran]

this is wrong i hate the fact that this probs hasn't been in the big news but if a Muslim was kicked out for not being Christian or something then all hell would break loose

[Phixion]

Now things like this make me mad, the UK is being turned into some multi cultural country, bowing to pressure from all angles. Last xmas there was shitloads of fuss made about putting up xmas decorations in a town because it may offend some non christians - I really am worried about the way this country is going tbh.

If we closed a pool down for "christian people only" we would be accused of racism...

In my area in the past 2 years we have seen a huge increase in Polish people, there were even road signs popping up with Polish translations on them... in the middle of England.

[TokyoKiller]

I think you guys are misunderstanding the situation, it clearly states that "According to Islam, women are forbidden from exposing their bodies to any man but their husband."

If this little girl had her mother with her I am sure they would have let her join in, but since her father was accompanying her, it is a different case. The session was for mothers and their kids.

Makes sense? It has nothing to do with the girl not being Muslim.

[Phixion]

I think you guys are misunderstanding the situation, it clearly states that "According to Islam, women are forbidden from exposing their bodies to any man but their husband."

If this little girl had her mother with her I am sure they would have let her join in, but since her father was accompanying her, it is a different case. The session was for mothers and their kids.

Makes sense? It has nothing to do with the girl not being Muslim.

So because the parent was male means it was ok to discriminate against them? Last I heard the UK wasn't an Islamic state...

But she was left in tears when staff said they were not allowed in the pool because the session was for Muslim women and their children only.

The key part of the quote there is "Muslim women and their children only", so obviously religion does come into this, and like I said, since when has the UK been an Islamic state?

[Fred Derf Veteran]

Just because you accommodate the wishes of a certain percentage of the population doesn't mean that you are an Islamic state. People are perfectly willing to pay for youth drop-in programs, people are perfectly willing to pay for a seniors swim. These programs are all exclusionary. It's only when Muslims get involved to people have a coronary.

The whole problem could have been solved if it was advertised as a women and child swim program. There is no need to mention the Muslim faith. I'm sure there would be non-Muslim mommies that would prefer to go to a women + child only swim. If men wanted to get together and ask for their own swim time, for whatever valid reason they can come up with, then go ahead and apply. The government is in the business of serving the public and like it or not, some of the public are Muslims.

The only controversy here was the advertising of the time-slot.

[Phixion]

Not meaning to offend you Fred, but you don't live in the UK, and unless you do alot of reading up about it you won't know the state of the country and the direction it's heading.

I really don't see why the UK should bow to pressure for <insert race or religion here>. If it was worded as a Christian Mother and Child session I'm sure we'd be accused of discrimination.

Like I said in my earlier post, there was alot of crap over putting up xmas decorations because certain faiths don't believe in it - all of this in the UK... we used to be able to do as we pleased in our own country, now you can't do anything without stepping on someone elses toes - I guess what I'm saying is, people can believe in what they want, as long as it doesn't mean we as a nation have to radically change our lifestyle.