PDA

View Full Version : Dad Locked Out of Daughter’s Swim Practice to Accommodate Muslim Sensibilities



red states rule
04-09-2013, 03:22 AM
If Muslims are so picky - why not have Muslim only swim classes?




TORONTO - When a single dad signed his nine-year-old daughter up for female-only swim lessons, he didn’t realize he — as a man — was going to be banned from watching her practice.


Chris (who didn’t want his last name published) was shocked when he had the blinds to the viewing area of the Dennis R. Timbrell Recreation Centre pool in Flemingdon Park shut on him and then was told by staffers it was for “religious reasons.”


“I spoke to a staff member and she told me that it’s because of Muslim women, that we’re not allowed to look at them or whatever,” Chris, 38, told the Toronto Sun Friday. “I don’t think religion has a role to play in a public pool.”


Chris said he enrolled his daughter online through the city’s website and registered her for the Ultra Swim 1: Female class – a nine-week course offered for free at the community centre.


Nowhere on the form did it mention that males could not watch the lessons.


So, when he showed up with his child at the pool on March 28 and again on Thursday night, he was confused when told he wasn’t allowed to watch.
“She doesn’t have a lot of friends and I wanted her to swim with girls,” Chris explained. “I don’t know what parent wouldn’t want to watch their child participate. There were other fathers there who weren’t too happy.”


Local Councillor John Parker hadn’t heard of the particular case until the Sun contacted him Friday, but said the dad’s point is a “legitimate one” and raises a “fair issue.”


http://www.torontosun.com/2013/04/06/toronto-dad-upset-hes-not-allowed-to-watch-daughters-swim-class

Jeff
04-09-2013, 06:44 AM
If Muslims are so picky - why not have Muslim only swim classes?

We try so hard to kiss everyones Butt in this country that some seem to lose any kind of good sense they had , if the Muslim woman cannot be seen of course they should have a class all of there own but to tell a parent he can't watch his child due to someone else's religious beliefs is ridiculous at best

jafar00
04-09-2013, 07:41 AM
A lot of women sign up for women's only sessions because they don't want men gawking at them in their bathing suits. They are not all Muslim either.

Marcus Aurelius
04-09-2013, 08:11 AM
A lot of women sign up for women's only sessions because they don't want men gawking at them in their bathing suits. They are not all Muslim either.

Not the point, dumb ass. He should have been told when he signed his daughter up that he wasn't to be allowed to watch her.

aboutime
04-09-2013, 10:10 AM
If Muslims are so picky - why not have Muslim only swim classes?


red states rule. Your question reminded me of a joke I heard many, many years ago.

Asking "Why not have Muslim only swim classes?"

JOKE: "How do you get them to get out of the pool when you tell them?"

ANSWER: "Drop a bar of soap in the pool!"

My apologies to anyone who thinks I just insulted SOAP.

jimnyc
04-09-2013, 10:29 AM
A lot of women sign up for women's only sessions because they don't want men gawking at them in their bathing suits. They are not all Muslim either.

Well in this case it is Muslims. And secondly, if they want complete privacy, they shouldn't be going to PUBLIC places to do the swimming, and it's ridiculous that non-muslims are blocked out from watching their children. They should have tossed out the little Muslims and told them to swim like everyone else, or find a place to accommodate what it is they want.

aboutime
04-09-2013, 10:34 AM
Well in this case it is Muslims. And secondly, if they want complete privacy, they shouldn't be going to PUBLIC places to do the swimming, and it's ridiculous that non-muslims are blocked out from watching their children. They should have tossed out the little Muslims and told them to swim like everyone else, or find a place to accommodate what it is they want.


jimnyc. This is how the socialists work. Mob rule can be controlled by the few, to impose on the many. And if anyone refuses. It become racism, or discrimination. One step at a time until the FEW control everyone else.

DragonStryk72
04-09-2013, 12:24 PM
A lot of women sign up for women's only sessions because they don't want men gawking at them in their bathing suits. They are not all Muslim either.

Um, well first off, that isn't even the point, so why bring it up? Second, a parent has a right to watch over their kid. At as certain point, if you have intensely limiting cultural or religious beliefs, you can't just keep punishing others for it. You don't see me stopping people from ordering a pepperoni pizza on Fridays, do you? No, of course not, I'd be an asshole if I did, and the reverse is also true.

They could have set up an all muslim women's group, but no, they didn't give that much consideration to the other people around them. I get that they have serious religious beliefs, but I'm not debating those. I refuse to believe that being Muslim means that you have to inconvenience others who do not share your belief for purely self-serving reasons.

Marcus Aurelius
04-09-2013, 12:38 PM
Um, well first off, that isn't even the point, so why bring it up? Second, a parent has a right to watch over their kid. At as certain point, if you have intensely limiting cultural or religious beliefs, you can't just keep punishing others for it. You don't see me stopping people from ordering a pepperoni pizza on Fridays, do you? No, of course not, I'd be an asshole if I did, and the reverse is also true.

They could have set up an all muslim women's group, but no, they didn't give that much consideration to the other people around them. I get that they have serious religious beliefs, but I'm not debating those. I refuse to believe that being Muslim means that you have to inconvenience others who do not share your belief for purely self-serving reasons.

:clap::clap::clap:

logroller
04-09-2013, 01:02 PM
Not the point, dumb ass. He should have been told when he signed his daughter up that he wasn't to be allowed to watch her.
The class was designated Female Only swimming; and fwiw, they also have female swimming. He should have been told what "only" means? In English, French or Arabic? Guys a dumbass if he fails to understand what "only" means.

DragonStryk72
04-09-2013, 01:10 PM
The class was designated Female Only swimming; and fwiw, they also have female swimming. He should have been told what "only" means? In English, French or Arabic? Guys a dumbass if he fails to understand what "only" means.

Really? A dumbass? Parents have been watching their kids swim, yes even at female only classes, for decades. why would he assume that was different now? He wasn't participating, he was just trying to be there for his kid.

jimnyc
04-09-2013, 01:20 PM
The class was designated Female Only swimming; and fwiw, they also have female swimming. He should have been told what "only" means? In English, French or Arabic? Guys a dumbass if he fails to understand what "only" means.

I'm confident that this designation means that men can't join and participate in that class - not that they are forbidden from watching their children. Especially at that age, parents tend to watch for the safety of their kids, even with a lifeguard on duty.

Marcus Aurelius
04-09-2013, 02:23 PM
The class was designated Female Only swimming; and fwiw, they also have female swimming. He should have been told what "only" means? In English, French or Arabic? Guys a dumbass if he fails to understand what "only" means.

was he trying to swim?

Marcus Aurelius
04-09-2013, 02:24 PM
http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by logroller http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?p=630181#post630181)
The class was designated Female Only swimming; and fwiw, they also have female swimming. He should have been told what "only" means? In English, French or Arabic? Guys a dumbass if he fails to understand what "only" means.



I'm confident that this designation means that men can't join and participate in that class - not that they are forbidden from watching their children. Especially at that age, parents tend to watch for the safety of their kids, even with a lifeguard on duty.

yup

red states rule
04-09-2013, 03:08 PM
A lot of women sign up for women's only sessions because they don't want men gawking at them in their bathing suits. They are not all Muslim either.

After the 8 years of Bill Clinton, gawking is no longer a bad thing

red states rule
04-09-2013, 03:09 PM
The class was designated Female Only swimming; and fwiw, they also have female swimming. He should have been told what "only" means? In English, French or Arabic? Guys a dumbass if he fails to understand what "only" means.

Why am I not surprised you would have an issue with a father keeping an eye on his child?

logroller
04-09-2013, 04:53 PM
I'm confident that this designation means that men can't join and participate in that class - not that they are forbidden from watching their children. Especially at that age, parents tend to watch for the safety of their kids, even with a lifeguard on duty.
I'm confident that a women's swimming class would indicate that much. Yet they offer women's ONLY swimming in addition. Why offer both?

logroller
04-09-2013, 05:02 PM
Why am I not surprised you would have an issue with a father keeping an eye on his child?
Are you trying to imply something? Do you even have kids or do you just enjoy watching girls swim?

jimnyc
04-09-2013, 05:17 PM
I'm confident that a women's swimming class would indicate that much. Yet they offer women's ONLY swimming in addition. Why offer both?

Didn't they already state the reason for closing things up was based on religion? I don't think I've ever heard of a children's swim class where one of the parents wouldn't be able to attend. But if the reson was based on women only like you say, then they wouldn't have needed to brain up religion.

Marcus Aurelius
04-09-2013, 05:21 PM
I'm confident that a women's swimming class would indicate that much. Yet they offer women's ONLY swimming in addition. Why offer both?

again.. was he swimming?

I ask, because I noticed you neglected to answer the first time.

jimnyc
04-09-2013, 05:47 PM
I have to remember that this is Canada. Having the local government grant religious exemptions which result in others exclusion, that wouldn't fly here.

Tyr-Ziu Saxnot
04-09-2013, 06:55 PM
Um, well first off, that isn't even the point, so why bring it up? Second, a parent has a right to watch over their kid. At as certain point, if you have intensely limiting cultural or religious beliefs, you can't just keep punishing others for it. You don't see me stopping people from ordering a pepperoni pizza on Fridays, do you? No, of course not, I'd be an asshole if I did, and the reverse is also true.

They could have set up an all muslim women's group, but no, they didn't give that much consideration to the other people around them. I get that they have serious religious beliefs, but I'm not debating those. I refuse to believe that being Muslim means that you have to inconvenience others who do not share your belief for purely self-serving reasons.

That's the point!!! Muslims do not give a damn how anything they do affects others. All others be damned! Finally more people are starting to discover this about them! I've only been pointing it out for close to two decades now. They would raise hell if their girls were segregated and made to be away from others in swimming classes. Yet then demand a Christian father can not watch his own daughter swim!!
When the hell are non-muslims going to wake up to their absolute and total intolerance!??
Canada yielding to the scum proves they are certified dumb asses.

logroller
04-09-2013, 07:03 PM
Didn't they already state the reason for closing things up was based on religion? I don't think I've ever heard of a children's swim class where one of the parents wouldn't be able to attend. But if the reson was based on women only like you say, then they wouldn't have needed to brain up religion.
Ask yourself, why would someone sign up for a female swim class? I can understand why someone with religious reasons or is maybe just self-conscious. If it can be accommodated, I don't have an issue with it. But why did this guy sign his daughter up for female swim? I'd bet dollars to donuts that coed swim classes don't include rubbing genitals, so there's some other reason that they offer segregated swim classes to which he should have been aware.

again.. was he swimming?

I ask, because I noticed you neglected to answer the first time.
Oh, was that not a rhetorical question? He wasn't that I am aware. By way of analogy, say I took my daughter into a restroom just to make sure she's alright-- do you think a woman is completely out of her mind to take issue with my being in the ladies' room, just watching?

Marcus Aurelius
04-09-2013, 07:12 PM
http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by Marcus Aurelius http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?p=630236#post630236)
again.. was he swimming?

I ask, because I noticed you neglected to answer the first time.


Oh, was that not a rhetorical question? He wasn't that I am aware. By way of analogy, say I took my daughter into a restroom just to make sure she's alright-- do you think a woman is completely out of her mind to take issue with my being in the ladies' room, just watching?
I think you're brain damaged if you think those two situations are even remotely alike.

jimnyc
04-09-2013, 07:23 PM
Ask yourself, why would someone sign up for a female swim class? I can understand why someone with religious reasons or is maybe just self-conscious. If it can be accommodated, I don't have an issue with it. But why did this guy sign his daughter up for female swim? I'd bet dollars to donuts that coed swim classes don't include rubbing genitals, so there's some other reason that they offer segregated swim classes to which he should have been aware.

Maybe his daughter is just more comfortable swimming with her girlfriends? So naturally he then signed her up for the all girls class. But not many people are going to think that this means a father can't even be in attendance, and even their local Councillor seems to think his gripe was/is legit. I can 'almost' understand if they made it abundantly clear that it's not just an all girls swim class, but only girls can also be in attendance. But even then, they didn't ask him to leave based on gender only class, but outright told him that it was based on religious reasons. Now, I suppose some might have a point if they remained fair to ALL religious accommodations, and they do apparently have an all male class, where women can't be present.

This isn't much different than religious displays on public property, or pictures of Jesus in a public school, IMO. If they are going to remain out of the religion business, then remain out of it for all.

As for why they offer other classes which are segregated, I'd be willing to bet as well, that it stems from religious accommodations. I'm of the belief that those wanting things different based on their religion, they should look for a more private setting or private classes, not expecting others to be excluded. And yes, asking the father to leave is excluding him.

jimnyc
04-09-2013, 07:24 PM
Oh, was that not a rhetorical question? He wasn't that I am aware. By way of analogy, say I took my daughter into a restroom just to make sure she's alright-- do you think a woman is completely out of her mind to take issue with my being in the ladies' room, just watching?

And the same would apply at the REST ROOMS at these swimming pools. But a rest room is NOT like a swimming pool. There are probably millions of pools out there and I've never seen people treat kids like they are walking into the opposite sexes bathroom.

logroller
04-09-2013, 08:32 PM
I think you're brain damaged if you think those two situations are even remotely alike.
I think you have failed to answer the question and attacked me instead. Clearly when faced with you own beliefs being challenged, you attack. How very Islamic of you. :poke:

Marcus Aurelius
04-09-2013, 08:34 PM
I think you have failed to answer the question and attacked me instead. Clearly when faced with you own beliefs being challenged, you attack. How very Islamic of you. :poke:

why would I answer a question that makes no sense?

Unless of course you're saying it is commonplace for women to urinate in public pools.

Tyr-Ziu Saxnot
04-09-2013, 08:38 PM
I think you have failed to answer the question and attacked me instead. Clearly when faced with you own beliefs being challenged, you attack. How very Islamic of you. :poke:

Log, I am quite sure that you have not only misjudged Marcus but have also just falsely accused him with that post.
As I know there is nothing Islamic about him that I've ever read here. -Tyr

logroller
04-09-2013, 08:41 PM
And the same would apply at the REST ROOMS at these swimming pools. But a rest room is NOT like a swimming pool. There are probably millions of pools out there and I've never seen people treat kids like they are walking into the opposite sexes bathroom.
Restrooms have stall doors. You can't even see a woman until she's fully clothed. And some places have family restrooms to avoid such. In fact, this pool has family, coed, female and female only classes. Why do you think that is? And why did this man enroll his daughter in female swimming? Maybe he didnt know, and maybe they should have told him, but its not intolerable for girls to want to swim In bathing suits outside the guise of the opposite sex.

As for the millions of pools, My wife belongs to a female only gym. I dont bitch because i cant go watch her; because i understand what female only means. So such facilities exist. When I was in high school PE, the girls and boys swam on different days.

logroller
04-09-2013, 08:50 PM
Log, I am quite sure that you have not only misjudged Marcus but have also just falsely accused him with that post.
As I know there is nothing Islamic about him that I've ever read here. -Tyr
What I pointed out was an intolerant viewpoint of his, that because he believes a cultural issue on bathrooms is so far removed from cultural issues of others regarding bathing suits that I must be brain damaged. And you have admonished him for calling me brain damaged, right? Somehow, i doubt it. so carry your own water. I get called names here all the time and from time to time I dish it too. Free speech and shit.

logroller
04-09-2013, 08:55 PM
why would I answer a question that makes no sense?

Unless of course you're saying it is commonplace for women to urinate in public pools.
I answered your question. I notice you have consistently avoided why they have female only swimming classes. Why-- do women sign up for female only swimming to avoid men's urine?

jimnyc
04-09-2013, 09:12 PM
Restrooms have stall doors. You can't even see a woman until she's fully clothed. And some places have family restrooms to avoid such. In fact, this pool has family, coed, female and female only classes. Why do you think that is? And why did this man enroll his daughter in female swimming? Maybe he didnt know, and maybe they should have told him, but its not intolerable for girls to want to swim In bathing suits outside the guise of the opposite sex.

As for the millions of pools, My wife belongs to a female only gym. I dont bitch because i cant go watch her; because i understand what female only means. So such facilities exist. When I was in high school PE, the girls and boys swam on different days.

Intolerable? Perhaps not. But will you continue to side with the government if they allow for religious accommodations while on public property? Even if it perhaps might exclude someone as a result?

Marcus Aurelius
04-09-2013, 09:16 PM
Restrooms have stall doors. You can't even see a woman until she's fully clothed. And some places have family restrooms to avoid such. In fact, this pool has family, coed, female and female only classes. Why do you think that is? And why did this man enroll his daughter in female swimming? Maybe he didnt know, and maybe they should have told him, but its not intolerable for girls to want to swim In bathing suits outside the guise of the opposite sex.

As for the millions of pools, My wife belongs to a female only gym. I dont bitch because i cant go watch her; because i understand what female only means. So such facilities exist. When I was in high school PE, the girls and boys swam on different days.

Men do not generally go into the ladies room. Men DO generally go to public pools.

You are still using completely ridiculous analogies here.

Marcus Aurelius
04-09-2013, 09:17 PM
What I pointed out was an intolerant viewpoint of his, that because he believes a cultural issue on bathrooms is so far removed from cultural issues of others regarding bathing suits that I must be brain damaged. And you have admonished him for calling me brain damaged, right? Somehow, i doubt it. so carry your own water. I get called names here all the time and from time to time I dish it too. Free speech and shit.

Your 'brain dead' is showing more with each post you make.

Marcus Aurelius
04-09-2013, 09:19 PM
I answered your question. I notice you have consistently avoided why they have female only swimming classes. Why-- do women sign up for female only swimming to avoid men's urine?

the level of 'brain dead' you are showing boggles the mind.

Tyr-Ziu Saxnot
04-09-2013, 09:20 PM
What I pointed out was an intolerant viewpoint of his, that because he believes a cultural issue on bathrooms is so far removed from cultural issues of others regarding bathing suits that I must be brain damaged. And you have admonished him for calling me brain damaged, right? Somehow, i doubt it. so carry your own water. I get called names here all the time and from time to time I dish it too. Free speech and shit.

No, I did not admonish him for calling you brain damaged. As I have not enough information on that to make a call. :poke:
I do have more than enough information on his views about Islam to say with certainty that there is nothing Islamic about him.
Hoss, I always carry my own water but I also post my opinions here. My opinion was that your accusation about his being Islamic in his posting his opinion was in error. Had I thought you correct I would have posted that judgement to him.
I carry my water in 55 gallon buckets ...been doing so for many decades now. .- :laugh:--Tyr

jimnyc
04-09-2013, 09:22 PM
In fact, this pool has family, coed, female and female only classes. Why do you think that is? And why did this man enroll his daughter in female swimming?

To answer this directly... As a reasonable and logical person, I would have assumed the following:

Family - probably parents with their young kids all mingled
Coed - Guys and Gals together
Female - A class for the Gals
Male - A class for the guys

And unless noted otherwise, I wouldn't have even thought of non-participants, as line-ups like that, from everywhere I have ever been, referred to the class itself. And as I stated earlier, I assume he put her in the all female class so that his daughter could swim with those 'like her'.

Many Jewish folks are at odds with Muslim folks, and the feeling is mutual. Suppose a group of Jewish people were uncomfortable based on religious reasons, and don't want to be in the presence of Muslims, or another religious group. In an effort to remain consistent and fair, this should likely be accommodated by the government then, correct? And of course the same in return, as the animosity from Muslims towards Jewish people is almost embedded in them. So surely they should also be able to bar Jewish people from the pool while Muslims are in there.

Kathianne
04-09-2013, 09:28 PM
In the OP link the father said that he hoped she'd make some girlfriends, that she had a difficult time doing so.

She's not a 'woman,' she's 9 years old. 3rd or 4th grade. No mention of why she has problems with friends, could be disability, could be she's heavy, something else?

Hard to tell from the article if there are age limits, but at least around here until over 15, all the classes at the public pools, the Y, and private club I belonged to keep 'kids' with kids, regardless of swimming ability. Thus 'lifeguard qualifying classes' are only for 10-15 year old that meet the prerequisites. Over 15 might have anyone from 16-99+.

All of my kids had swim lessons through the end of Red Cross lifesaving. Until I knew the instructors, I never would have left them without watching. It sounded similar to where my kids had lessons, a viewing room of the pool, not in the pool area itself.

Marcus Aurelius
04-09-2013, 09:32 PM
To answer this directly... As a reasonable and logical person, I would have assumed the following:

Family - probably parents with their young kids all mingled
Coed - Guys and Gals together
Female - A class for the Gals
Male - A class for the guys

And unless noted otherwise, I wouldn't have even thought of non-participants, as line-ups like that, from everywhere I have ever been, referred to the class itself. And as I stated earlier, I assume he put her in the all female class so that his daughter could swim with those 'like her'.

Many Jewish folks are at odds with Muslim folks, and the feeling is mutual. Suppose a group of Jewish people were uncomfortable based on religious reasons, and don't want to be in the presence of Muslims, or another religious group. In an effort to remain consistent and fair, this should likely be accommodated by the government then, correct? And of course the same in return, as the animosity from Muslims towards Jewish people is almost embedded in them. So surely they should also be able to bar Jewish people from the pool while Muslims are in there.

What about those filthy Star Trek fans? The should be separated from us peaceful and clean Star Wars fans. And don't even get me started on those redneck Lost in Space people.

Tyr-Ziu Saxnot
04-09-2013, 09:39 PM
In the OP link the father said that he hoped she'd make some girlfriends, that she had a difficult time doing so.

She's not a 'woman,' she's 9 years old. 3rd or 4th grade. No mention of why she has problems with friends, could be disability, could be she's heavy, something else?

Hard to tell from the article if there are age limits, but at least around here until over 15, all the classes at the public pools, the Y, and private club I belonged to keep 'kids' with kids, regardless of swimming ability. Thus 'lifeguard qualifying classes' are only for 10-15 year old that meet the prerequisites. Over 15 might have anyone from 16-99+.

All of my kids had swim lessons through the end of Red Cross lifesaving. Until I knew the instructors, I never would have left them without watching. It sounded similar to where my kids had lessons, a viewing room of the pool, not in the pool area itself.

What is being left out here in this thread is the importance of why the call was made and that it was made for religious reasons= muslim. Muslims object to other parents seeing their kids swim because they being muslim enforce the covering of the female body from head to toe. This insanity is designed to protect females(their property) and to degrade them too.
When my daughter took private swimming lessons(I paid for) I was there to watch her the first few weeks , other girls her age and older were there . She was 5 years old , the other girls 6, 8, and 10 I believe . There was no problem my being there. I was there to protect my daughter as I did not personally know the lady swim instructor.
Folks need to wake up to the absolute intolerance and total contempt the muslims have for ALL infidels.-Tyr

logroller
04-09-2013, 10:11 PM
To answer this directly... As a reasonable and logical person, I would have assumed the following:

Family - probably parents with their young kids all mingled
Coed - Guys and Gals together
Female - A class for the Gals
Male - A class for the guys

And unless noted otherwise, I wouldn't have even thought of non-participants, as line-ups like that, from everywhere I have ever been, referred to the class itself. And as I stated earlier, I assume he put her in the all female class so that his daughter could swim with those 'like her'.

Many Jewish folks are at odds with Muslim folks, and the feeling is mutual. Suppose a group of Jewish people were uncomfortable based on religious reasons, and don't want to be in the presence of Muslims, or another religious group. In an effort to remain consistent and fair, this should likely be accommodated by the government then, correct? And of course the same in return, as the animosity from Muslims towards Jewish people is almost embedded in them. So surely they should also be able to bar Jewish people from the pool while Muslims are in there.


You left out *female ONLY*. They have female and female ONLY. As I have stated, repeatedly. Yet people dance around the issue. I believe the reasoning was not that the muslims didn't want to be around non-muslims but, rather, that they didn't want to be seen by a male less than fully clothed. The pool has rules about what can be worn; so rather than make an exception for just that religion, they opened a class for female ONLY, different than the female class.

logroller
04-09-2013, 10:19 PM
Intolerable? Perhaps not. But will you continue to side with the government if they allow for religious accommodations while on public property? Even if it perhaps might exclude someone as a result?

It depends on the facts of the situation, who is excluded, to what extent, was it avoidable, could they be accommodated in a less intrusive way to others...strict scrutiny and stuff. As for limitless gov't accommodation, of course not. For example, I don't like the idea of a witness taking the stand wearing a veil for religious reasons, but I could care less if a defendant wanted to. Same as Fort Hood dude; go ahead a grow that beard against the regulations of those who will convict you. No pity for those who knowingly screw themselves when they're quite able to avoid it. Like dude in the OP-- pick another class, problem solved. I guarantee they're more classes without that restriction than with. I'd say get his money back, but they're free.

jimnyc
04-09-2013, 10:23 PM
You left out *female ONLY*. They have female and female ONLY. As I have stated, repeatedly. Yet people dance around the issue. I believe the reasoning was not that the muslims didn't want to be around non-muslims but, rather, that they didn't want to be seen by a male less than fully clothed. The pool has rules about what can be worn; so rather than make an exception for just that religion, they opened a class for female ONLY, different than the female class.

I agree with the bold - which is them asking for an accommodation, based on their religious beliefs, which in this case, for Islam, is for the gals not to be seen by males other than family. To accommodate this request, they made gender based classes, it would appear, to solve their problem.

logroller
04-09-2013, 10:36 PM
I agree with the bold - which is them asking for an accommodation, based on their religious beliefs, which in this case, for Islam, is for the gals not to be seen by males other than family. To accommodate this request, they made gender based classes, it would appear, to solve their problem.
it wasn to solve a problem, it was to accommodate the beliefs of others. Watching your kids swim is an accomodation too. Its not necessary for one's parent(s) to watch them swim. And many places have installed viewing areas, often behind glass, to accomodate parents viewing without having the parents right there, as this can frustrate the learnin environment. The difference is that there are a multitude of classes which allow unfettered viewing, few that do not. That's why I think its a reasonable accomodation. If they demanded that the water be cleansed by a cleric and no infidels were allowed to use the pool for a week prior, that'd be unreasonable. Having one class out of fifteen outside the guise of males is reasonable.

Abbey Marie
04-09-2013, 11:31 PM
You left out *female ONLY*. They have female and female ONLY. As I have stated, repeatedly. Yet people dance around the issue. I believe the reasoning was not that the muslims didn't want to be around non-muslims but, rather, that they didn't want to be seen by a male less than fully clothed. The pool has rules about what can be worn; so rather than make an exception for just that religion, they opened a class for female ONLY, different than the female class.

Female-only could mean other things. For example, it could mean that the instructors must all be female, too.

Football is almost always a male-only activity. Yet thousands of women watch them play the sport. Without more detailed information, it is logical to assume that female-only refers to the actual class participants, not a concerned parent who wants to ensure his little girl is safe and/or watch her progress.

Btw, if this was in the USA, I would say it is more of an Establishment clause issue than one piece of classic art hanging inertly on the wall. (Though I don't think either fits the framers' intent).

DragonStryk72
04-10-2013, 12:47 AM
That's the point!!! Muslims do not give a damn how anything they do affects others. All others be damned! Finally more people are starting to discover this about them! I've only been pointing it out for close to two decades now. They would raise hell if their girls were segregated and made to be away from others in swimming classes. Yet then demand a Christian father can not watch his own daughter swim!!
When the hell are non-muslims going to wake up to their absolute and total intolerance!??
Canada yielding to the scum proves they are certified dumb asses.

Okay, I'm glad you agreed with me, but don't build something out of my point that doesn't exist. My entire point was that, again, being a Muslim does not require anyone to inconvenience other for their own self-serving reasons, period.

As well, it was not the muslims that made the ruling, but the pool management. Had the public pool offered a class specifically for muslim women, it would most likely have been accepted by the Muslim community, but you can't accept something that isn't offered first. The religion of the father is not a part of the issue here either.

DragonStryk72
04-10-2013, 01:09 AM
I'm confident that a women's swimming class would indicate that much. Yet they offer women's ONLY swimming in addition. Why offer both?

Because the most community pools offer both anyhow, and have for years.


Are you trying to imply something? Do you even have kids or do you just enjoy watching girls swim?

This is just a trolling comment, so we'll move on.


Ask yourself, why would someone sign up for a female swim class? I can understand why someone with religious reasons or is maybe just self-conscious. If it can be accommodated, I don't have an issue with it. But why did this guy sign his daughter up for female swim? I'd bet dollars to donuts that coed swim classes don't include rubbing genitals, so there's some other reason that they offer segregated swim classes to which he should have been aware.

Oh, was that not a rhetorical question? He wasn't that I am aware. By way of analogy, say I took my daughter into a restroom just to make sure she's alright-- do you think a woman is completely out of her mind to take issue with my being in the ladies' room, just watching?

Why would a parent sign up their daughter for a girls class? Maybe because she's a girl? This isn't deep thinking, and if there was a serious issue with the dad spending time with his daughter, that should have been made clear when the signing occurred, so that he could take his daughter elsewhere. They did not do this.


I think you have failed to answer the question and attacked me instead. Clearly when faced with you own beliefs being challenged, you attack. How very Islamic of you. :poke:

Well, you've failed to answer my points, so I don't see where you have the right to complain about anyone else here.


Restrooms have stall doors. You can't even see a woman until she's fully clothed. And some places have family restrooms to avoid such. In fact, this pool has family, coed, female and female only classes. Why do you think that is? And why did this man enroll his daughter in female swimming? Maybe he didnt know, and maybe they should have told him, but its not intolerable for girls to want to swim In bathing suits outside the guise of the opposite sex.

As for the millions of pools, My wife belongs to a female only gym. I dont bitch because i cant go watch her; because i understand what female only means. So such facilities exist. When I was in high school PE, the girls and boys swam on different days.

If you're taking your little girl to the bathroom, it is different, because as a guy, you take her into the mens room, just as moms who need to take their little boys to the bathroom take them to the ladies room.

But, oh wait, that makes entirely to much sense. For your analogy to work, it would require that the man be barred from waiting outside the bathroom for his little girl.


What I pointed out was an intolerant viewpoint of his, that because he believes a cultural issue on bathrooms is so far removed from cultural issues of others regarding bathing suits that I must be brain damaged. And you have admonished him for calling me brain damaged, right? Somehow, i doubt it. so carry your own water. I get called names here all the time and from time to time I dish it too. Free speech and shit.

Actually, it was not intolerant to expect that he would be able to watch his little girl in a public area. If there was an issue with this, then it, again, should have been made clear to him.

Also, as I am not a troll on this board, let's try this again: You diminish yourself by stooping. You know better than to stoop to their level, and worse, accuse someone of pedophilia because they're disagreeing with you.


I answered your question. I notice you have consistently avoided why they have female only swimming classes. Why-- do women sign up for female only swimming to avoid men's urine?

Because they want to be around women? But wait, we're not discussing women, so where is that coming from? Many things a kid can do, but sign legal papers to enroll in classes? Nope, don't think so. They didn't specify women, just females.


You left out *female ONLY*. They have female and female ONLY. As I have stated, repeatedly. Yet people dance around the issue. I believe the reasoning was not that the muslims didn't want to be around non-muslims but, rather, that they didn't want to be seen by a male less than fully clothed. The pool has rules about what can be worn; so rather than make an exception for just that religion, they opened a class for female ONLY, different than the female class.

Uh, no, people have answered that point, such as myself, but you repeatedly ignored my post. In a children's girls class, just as everywhere else, it has been the practice for decades to allow parents to observe their kid. You are lawyering for devil's advocate, and you know that.


It depends on the facts of the situation, who is excluded, to what extent, was it avoidable, could they be accommodated in a less intrusive way to others...strict scrutiny and stuff. As for limitless gov't accommodation, of course not. For example, I don't like the idea of a witness taking the stand wearing a veil for religious reasons, but I could care less if a defendant wanted to. Same as Fort Hood dude; go ahead a grow that beard against the regulations of those who will convict you. No pity for those who knowingly screw themselves when they're quite able to avoid it. Like dude in the OP-- pick another class, problem solved. I guarantee they're more classes without that restriction than with. I'd say get his money back, but they're free.

But that is exactly what you're advocating for here. At no point have you addressed the blame on the pool for not informing the father before signing up that this would be an issue, nor why the pool, knowing that they had clientele that required very exacting religious standards, did not set up a special class for them? Why put in them in with other girls, thus depriving those girls of their fathers?


it wasn to solve a problem, it was to accommodate the beliefs of others. Watching your kids swim is an accomodation too. Its not necessary for one's parent(s) to watch them swim. And many places have installed viewing areas, often behind glass, to accomodate parents viewing without having the parents right there, as this can frustrate the learnin environment. The difference is that there are a multitude of classes which allow unfettered viewing, few that do not. That's why I think its a reasonable accomodation. If they demanded that the water be cleansed by a cleric and no infidels were allowed to use the pool for a week prior, that'd be unreasonable. Having one class out of fifteen outside the guise of males is reasonable.

It was a problem, or we wouldn't be having this discussion. It was made a problem by the staff, who failed both in making certain the parents were up to speed on the special conditions of the class, as well as not providing a special needs class that would fit for their muslim attendees.

It is you who decided this father was the dumbass (Without all of the info, I might add), despite the fact that he, as I mentioned before, made the same assumption as more than 90% of parents would make, that the class was for girls, and that they would be allowed to watch their child swim if they so chose.

red states rule
04-10-2013, 03:00 AM
So are there boys only days where moms are not allowed to attend and watch?

Islam is not a religion. It is a cult - a violent cult - and the constant pandering to Islam could prove to be fatal

Jeff
04-10-2013, 05:45 AM
Restrooms have stall doors. You can't even see a woman until she's fully clothed. And some places have family restrooms to avoid such. In fact, this pool has family, coed, female and female only classes. Why do you think that is? And why did this man enroll his daughter in female swimming? Maybe he didnt know, and maybe they should have told him, but its not intolerable for girls to want to swim In bathing suits outside the guise of the opposite sex.

As for the millions of pools, My wife belongs to a female only gym. I dont bitch because i cant go watch her; because i understand what female only means. So such facilities exist. When I was in high school PE, the girls and boys swam on different days.

You have to remember we are talking about a Father and his child here , any parent should have the right to observe his child, if this was to be for woman only no men allowed to watch then maybe it should've been for adults only

Marcus Aurelius
04-10-2013, 06:58 AM
what the brain damaged logroller seems to continually ignore, is that they never TOLD him he would not be allowed to watch... until he tried to do so.

Had the information about the class stated plainly 'No males will be allowed to view the women only swim class, even from the normal viewing area', I doubt he would have signed his daughter up.

jimnyc
04-10-2013, 07:02 AM
it wasn to solve a problem, it was to accommodate the beliefs of others. Watching your kids swim is an accomodation too. Its not necessary for one's parent(s) to watch them swim. And many places have installed viewing areas, often behind glass, to accomodate parents viewing without having the parents right there, as this can frustrate the learnin environment. The difference is that there are a multitude of classes which allow unfettered viewing, few that do not. That's why I think its a reasonable accomodation. If they demanded that the water be cleansed by a cleric and no infidels were allowed to use the pool for a week prior, that'd be unreasonable. Having one class out of fifteen outside the guise of males is reasonable.

Yes, it was done to accommodate the beliefs, religious beliefs, in a public setting controlled by the local government. I would go as far as to say, that it's more important for a parent to keep an eye on their child at such an age, than it is to succumb to religious beliefs within a public setting.

jimnyc
04-10-2013, 07:06 AM
So are there boys only days where moms are not allowed to attend and watch?

Islam is not a religion. It is a cult - a violent cult - and the constant pandering to Islam could prove to be fatal

Actually, according to the article there is in fact. That's their way of saying they are being equal, but of course we know that guys don't need a religious accommodation to swim in front of the ladies.

jimnyc
04-10-2013, 07:09 AM
what the brain damaged logroller seems to continually ignore, is that they never TOLD him he would not be allowed to watch... until he tried to do so.

Had the information about the class stated plainly 'No males will be allowed to view the women only swim class, even from the normal viewing area', I doubt he would have signed his daughter up.

And even if not told to him, it should certainly have been in the fine print or similar on the contract. I would just ask for the $ back if I were him and take his kid to a place where everyone is equal.

Tyr-Ziu Saxnot
04-10-2013, 09:50 AM
Okay, I'm glad you agreed with me, but don't build something out of my point that doesn't exist. My entire point was that, again, being a Muslim does not require anyone to inconvenience other for their own self-serving reasons, period.

As well, it was not the muslims that made the ruling, but the pool management. Had the public pool offered a class specifically for muslim women, it would most likely have been accepted by the Muslim community, but you can't accept something that isn't offered first. The religion of the father is not a part of the issue here either.

Why do you think the pool management made that decision?
I did not build my opinion that you are disagreeing with from your point. I agreed with your point and added my opinion in as well. Happens all the time amigo.
Muslims do object to other men seeing their females, their property and even more so if those men are infidels.
Obviously the pool management made their decision based upon their judgement that the muslim objections to males seeing their females in swimming attire was to be honored and their appeasement rated above anybody else's possible objections.
My point stands. The little girl's dad being infidel,christian whatever matters too , in that those making the decision know how the muslims feel about those of other faiths.-Tyr

stevecanuck
04-10-2013, 01:01 PM
We don't have to worry about sharia being imposed on us from the outside, because we're doing it to ourselves.

aboutime
04-10-2013, 01:32 PM
We don't have to worry about sharia being imposed on us from the outside, because we're doing it to ourselves.


Steve. Correct! Reminds me of the expression, or famous words: "We have met the enemy, and it is Us!"

jafar00
04-10-2013, 09:04 PM
One wonders if there would be so much rage over this if it was just a bunch of women who wanted to swim in private.

oh wait....

Women want rights!?! Oh nooooo! Sharia is being forced on us!

Kathianne
04-10-2013, 09:13 PM
One wonders if there would be so much rage over this if it was just a bunch of women who wanted to swim in private.

oh wait....

Women want rights!?! Oh nooooo! Sharia is being forced on us!

So you are saying that your 9 year old daughter should dictate to you? Or are you saying that your 9 year old daughter should dictate to those that hold different beliefs than you?

Marcus Aurelius
04-10-2013, 09:29 PM
One wonders if there would be so much rage over this if it was just a bunch of women who wanted to swim in private.

oh wait....

Women want rights!?! Oh nooooo! Sharia is being forced on us!

you really are a dumb ass, aren't you.

Marcus Aurelius
04-10-2013, 09:30 PM
So you are saying that your 9 year old daughter should dictate to you? Or are you saying that your 9 year old daughter should dictate to those that hold different beliefs than you?

No. He's saying you're an infidel and a woman and that you should just let the men handle things. Islamic men, that is.

Tyr-Ziu Saxnot
04-10-2013, 09:47 PM
We don't have to worry about sharia being imposed on us from the outside, because we're doing it to ourselves.

The magical powers of appeasement and the handiwork of the muslim appeasers.. The dems/libs/leftist preach, teach and demand that appeasement be the first path taken where Islam is concerned. They so because of the unwritten, unholy alliance they have forged to defeat a common enemy== US!

jafar00
04-11-2013, 12:41 AM
So you are saying that your 9 year old daughter should dictate to you? Or are you saying that your 9 year old daughter should dictate to those that hold different beliefs than you?

In the OP, the daughter didn't dictate anything. And if my 9 y/o daughter wanted to swim in a women's only class where no men are allowed to watch, I would let her.

logroller
04-11-2013, 01:09 AM
Because the most community pools offer both anyhow, and have for years.
Female and female only?



This is just a trolling comment, so we'll move on.
Uh huh. And rsr's post, the one I had responded to, wasn't? Turnabout is FairPlay. Not surprisingly you neglected to respond to his trolling, yet feel the need to admonish me for my response. Might want to check your bias there instead of speaking down to me from your high-horse.



Why would a parent sign up their daughter for a girls class? Maybe because she's a girl? This isn't deep thinking, and if there was a serious issue with the dad spending time with his daughter, that should have been made clear when the signing occurred, so that he could take his daughter elsewhere. They did not do this.

Fair critique, feel like I said similar.


Well, you've failed to answer my points, so I don't see where you have the right to complain about anyone else here.

Which point was that? Was it phrased as a question? You have only one post prior to this one I believe. I will take a look and check what pointed question I failed to address and respond.


If you're taking your little girl to the bathroom, it is different, because as a guy, you take her into the mens room, just as moms who need to take their little boys to the bathroom take them to the ladies room.
Oh yeah; Toronto parks has rules for that, I looked them up. Its opposite genders are allowed into restrooms and changing rooms under the age of 8. One must contact a supervisor for exceptions.


But, oh wait, that makes entirely to much sense. For your analogy to work, it would require that the man be barred from waiting outside the bathroom for his little girl.

And peeking through the door. That's not creepy...although, In some cultures it might not be.


Actually, it was not intolerant to expect that he would be able to watch his little girl in a public area. If there was an issue with this, then it, again, should have been made clear to him.

It was intolerant to in off to the news and blame the evil muzzies instead of just findings other class.

Also, as I am not a troll on this board, let's try this again: You diminish yourself by stooping. You know better than to stoop to their level, and worse, accuse someone of pedophilia because they're disagreeing with you.
nor am I a troll; but I sure get trolled plenty. I could fill a thread with all the posts that referenced only me as a poster and not the subject matter. Ad hominem Fallacies galore... What shall I do instead? Just take it; move to another board; maybe go cry to the news or powers that be? Ignore it???? Yeah well, so could dude in the OP.

Or accusing another of diminishing parental rights; but that, apparently, escapes your scrutiny-- Why? Its called spin ds72. The article clearly does so; I present a different POV and that intimidates people and I get attacked, called a troll, lib, Obamabot, socialist, communist... an advocate for the devil....but you knew that. I have been on both sides, I've been the staff representative to public comments and listened attentively while being called a globalist agenda 21 socialist hellbent on treating people like rats in a cage for suggesting urban infill projects, and in the same meeting called a corporate oil drone for suggesting roads expansions. Neither person gave their name for the record, as is the protocol. So forgive me if I come across as rude, I give patience and grace a-plenty at the office. I come here of my own volition and treat others in kind. It that's trolling in your perspective, try walking a mile in my shoes.



Because they want to be around women? But wait, we're not discussing women, so where is that coming from? Many things a kid can do, but sign legal papers to enroll in classes? Nope, don't think so. They didn't specify women, just females.
Oops. I said women when I meant female. Sue me. I do believe I have specified female only vs female multiple times in this thread. Accept my apologies and lets get back to the question at hand.



Uh, no, people have answered that point, such as myself, but you repeatedly ignored my post. In a children's girls class, just as everywhere else, it has been the practice for decades to allow parents to observe their kid. You are lawyering for devil's advocate, and you know that.

You did; where? The only person who responded to that question was abbey; I thanked her for it. My wife belongs to a female only gym. I understood that to mean I couldn't watch. Werni to enroll my daughter, i would assume the same. So it does exist; irregardless of all the times where one can watch. Softball for example. But swimming and softball aren't the same.


But that is exactly what you're advocating for here. At no point have you addressed the blame on the pool for not informing the father before signing up that this would be an issue, nor why the pool, knowing that they had clientele that required very exacting religious standards, did not set up a special class for them? Why put in them in with other girls, thus depriving those girls of their fathers?

Haven't I? You quoted an excerpt where I did just that. Shall I bump it?


It was a problem, or we wouldn't be having this discussion. It was made a problem by the staff, who failed both in making certain the parents were up to speed on the special conditions of the class, as well as not providing a special needs class that would fit for their muslim attendees.

Obviously the guy with problem also had a problem giving his name. I'm suspicious of those who raise he'll but won't give their name.


It is you who decided this father was the dumbass (Without all of the info, I might add), despite the fact that he, as I mentioned before, made the same assumption as more than 90% of parents would make, that the class was for girls, and that they would be allowed to watch their child swim if they so chose.
And did the OP have all the info before running the story? Like the guy's name? The name if the staff member who said it was for Muslims? Or the official handling of the events? Or their response? Nah. Just ran with it and blame those Muslims for forcing their beliefs in others and depriving a father of time with his daughter. Its spinning like a top. I see it. If you don't, then you're biased and ignorant.


Female-only could mean other things. For example, it could mean that the instructors must all be female, too.

Football is almost always a male-only activity. Yet thousands of women watch them play the sport. Without more detailed information, it is logical to assume that female-only refers to the actual class participants, not a concerned parent who wants to ensure his little girl is safe and/or watch her progress.

Btw, if this was in the USA, I would say it is more of an Establishment clause issue than one piece of classic art hanging inertly on the wall. (Though I don't think either fits the framers' intent).
It could mean that, and that's a possibility. However the seasonal flyer includes this statement about female only classes.
Swimming Lessons–Females OnlyTo meet the cultural needs of our community, we offer swimming lessons for adult and youth females at the following pools:
emphasis mine but here's a link. http://www.toronto.ca/parks/pdf/torontofun/Scar/Scar_SpSu12_Swim.pdf

logroller
04-11-2013, 02:19 AM
Really? A dumbass? Parents have been watching their kids swim, yes even at female only classes, for decades. why would he assume that was different now? He wasn't participating, he was just trying to be there for his kid.
Just because no one took an issue with it doesn't mean the status quo can't be revised. When i was in high school girls swam when boys couldnt see; and no parents were even there, and it was that way for decades. So its not unprecedented. I actually read the female only description and, while it didn't specifically mention he couldn't watch, it did mention that "female only" classes were intended to "meet the cultural needs" of those attending. I don't fault the guy for being ignorant of what that entails, and I had stipulated in a posted response to Jim that they could have made that more clear, but the connotation that this Muslims forcibly inconveniencing others is ludicrous. He could find another class and not run off to news media; but that's not what he did. That's why I said he's a dumbass, and fwiw, I wasn't the first person to use the phrase dumbass in this thread. Curiously, they escaped your attention. Perhaps I should feel complimented that you feel I might benefit from your criticism, but truth be told, Take a look around here at what i post regarding facts and conclusions and you'll find substantive reasoning of mine met with personal attacks. The only grace I'm given is when somebody just stops and post another, nearly identical, thread along the same lines. See gas prices increasing for decades despite drilling and production increases. See Insurances exchanges that are so much more expensive, despite their not being any actual data on their costs available. But I'm an Obamabot for pointing that out. You want to know why conservatives lost th election???? They're fractured along the lines of reality; that if you consider the environmental impacts on economy youre a rino. That if you dispute that America is a Christian nation you're a Muslim appeaser. That if I don't sing the party line I'm not really a republican. Well I'm not democrat either. They've told me that much too. So what am I? Brain damaged, the devil's advocate...because I can empathize with the multitude of competing interests and try to explain the oppositional position to find a balance between the two? I thought that was the purpose of debating policy, democracy etc.

jimnyc
04-11-2013, 06:47 AM
One wonders if there would be so much rage over this if it was just a bunch of women who wanted to swim in private.

oh wait....

Women want rights!?! Oh nooooo! Sharia is being forced on us!

There's a HUGE difference between a) separating based on sexes b) separating based on religion

Some will argue otherwise, but that's EXACTLY what is going on here. I don't think anyone would have an issue with woman stating they would like privacy, we respect the ladies. We just don't want people excluded, or religious accommodations being made by public officials in public settings.

jimnyc
04-11-2013, 06:49 AM
In the OP, the daughter didn't dictate anything. And if my 9 y/o daughter wanted to swim in a women's only class where no men are allowed to watch, I would let her.

And that's not an issue at all. But would you expect it to be a PUBLIC class and would you expect other people in the public to be excluded?

Solely out of curiosity though, serious question - is your daughter allowed to wear a regular bathing suit in public, in front of men?

taft2012
04-11-2013, 07:07 AM
So you are saying that your 9 year old daughter should dictate to you? Or are you saying that your 9 year old daughter should dictate to those that hold different beliefs than you?

No. I believe what he's saying is that it's OK for a Muslim man to marry his 9 year-old daughter and pour the coals to her most vigorously, but that he just can't watch her take a swimming class.

Voted4Reagan
04-11-2013, 08:05 AM
Gawking didnt end with Clinton

http://www.theblaze.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/Obama-Sarkozy-G8-gawk.jpg

Tyr-Ziu Saxnot
04-11-2013, 08:24 AM
Gawking didnt end with Clinton

http://www.theblaze.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/Obama-Sarkozy-G8-gawk.jpg

^^ That is obama's secret muslim lust rearing its ugly head.:laugh:
Muslim men must rape every lone female they see or else why the Sharia law forcing all women to be escorted by a husband or male relative when out in the public?

DragonStryk72
04-11-2013, 09:01 AM
Female and female only?

As per the OP, it was for religious reasons, period. Show me where it says in the article that it was not for religious reasons, cause otherwise, you're just wasting time on an argument that doesn't exist.

Uh huh. And rsr's post, the one I had responded to, wasn't? Turnabout is FairPlay. Not surprisingly you neglected to respond to his trolling, yet feel the need to admonish me for my response. Might want to check your bias there instead of speaking down to me from your high-horse.

So then, you should call black people niggers, cause rsr or Tyr might throw out the word? Grow a spine


Fair critique, feel like I said similar.

Which point was that? Was it phrased as a question? You have only one post prior to this one I believe. I will take a look and check what pointed question I failed to address and respond.


Oh yeah; Toronto parks has rules for that, I looked them up. Its opposite genders are allowed into restrooms and changing rooms under the age of 8. One must contact a supervisor for exceptions.



And peeking through the door. That's not creepy...although, In some cultures it might not be.

Where on earth did I say peeking through the door? That's you just trying to make it be creepy.

It was intolerant to in off to the news and blame the evil muzzies instead of just findings other class.

In general, the article didn't blame the muslims. The only blaming the muslims so far have been the usual suspects. In fact, I've not once blamed the muslims for it.

nor am I a troll; but I sure get trolled plenty. I could fill a thread with all the posts that referenced only me as a poster and not the subject matter. Ad hominem Fallacies galore... What shall I do instead? Just take it; move to another board; maybe go cry to the news or powers that be? Ignore it???? Yeah well, so could dude in the OP.

Grow a spine and be a better person?

Or accusing another of diminishing parental rights; but that, apparently, escapes your scrutiny-- Why? Its called spin ds72. The article clearly does so; I present a different POV and that intimidates people and I get attacked, called a troll, lib, Obamabot, socialist, communist... an advocate for the devil....but you knew that. I have been on both sides, I've been the staff representative to public comments and listened attentively while being called a globalist agenda 21 socialist hellbent on treating people like rats in a cage for suggesting urban infill projects, and in the same meeting called a corporate oil drone for suggesting roads expansions. Neither person gave their name for the record, as is the protocol. So forgive me if I come across as rude, I give patience and grace a-plenty at the office. I come here of my own volition and treat others in kind. It that's trolling in your perspective, try walking a mile in my shoes.

Um, that is diminishing parental rights. When you lose the right to be with your kid, that a diminishing of the rights of the right. Oh yes, because no one else has been insulted on the internet, especially not dems toward republicans and conservatives in general. Certainly no one on this board have ever lashed out at me. I am calling you a troll because you are acting as one at the current time.

Oops. I said women when I meant female. Sue me. I do believe I have specified female only vs female multiple times in this thread. Accept my apologies and lets get back to the question at hand.




You did; where? The only person who responded to that question was abbey; I thanked her for it. My wife belongs to a female only gym. I understood that to mean I couldn't watch. Werni to enroll my daughter, i would assume the same. So it does exist; irregardless of all the times where one can watch. Softball for example. But swimming and softball aren't the same.

That is different, and you damn well know it! Your wife is a grown WOMAN, meaning there is no need for you to be right there with her. As opposed to say, your daughter, who would likely want her dad there to see her progress. What, did you never want your parents to witness you succeed? And, oh yeah, she's a little girl, so she may want/need you there. Stop using grown women for a cop out argument since it isn't the discussion at hand.

Haven't I? You quoted an excerpt where I did just that. Shall I bump it?



Obviously the guy with problem also had a problem giving his name. I'm suspicious of those who raise he'll but won't give their name.

raise hell? He seemed fairly rational about it. And really, in the age of identity theft, you can't think of one solid reason a guy might not wanna put his name in the paper?

And did the OP have all the info before running the story? Like the guy's name? The name if the staff member who said it was for Muslims? Or the official handling of the events? Or their response? Nah. Just ran with it and blame those Muslims for forcing their beliefs in others and depriving a father of time with his daughter. Its spinning like a top. I see it. If you don't, then you're biased and ignorant.

Again, stop playing the victim about people blaming the muslims. I haven't. Again, the article didn't even blame the muslims. In fact the father only mentioned that he was schocked by it entirely, I'm guessing because he doesn't usually encounter many muslims. It is you who are spinning it into hate and blame.

It could mean that, and that's a possibility. However the seasonal flyer includes this statement about female only classes. emphasis mine but here's a link. http://www.toronto.ca/parks/pdf/torontofun/Scar/Scar_SpSu12_Swim.pdf


Just because no one took an issue with it doesn't mean the status quo can't be revised. When i was in high school girls swam when boys couldnt see; and no parents were even there, and it was that way for decades. So its not unprecedented. I actually read the female only description and, while it didn't specifically mention he couldn't watch, it did mention that "female only" classes were intended to "meet the cultural needs" of those attending. I don't fault the guy for being ignorant of what that entails, and I had stipulated in a posted response to Jim that they could have made that more clear, but the connotation that this Muslims forcibly inconveniencing others is ludicrous. He could find another class and not run off to news media; but that's not what he did. That's why I said he's a dumbass, and fwiw, I wasn't the first person to use the phrase dumbass in this thread. Curiously, they escaped your attention. Perhaps I should feel complimented that you feel I might benefit from your criticism, but truth be told, Take a look around here at what i post regarding facts and conclusions and you'll find substantive reasoning of mine met with personal attacks. The only grace I'm given is when somebody just stops and post another, nearly identical, thread along the same lines. See gas prices increasing for decades despite drilling and production increases. See Insurances exchanges that are so much more expensive, despite their not being any actual data on their costs available. But I'm an Obamabot for pointing that out. You want to know why conservatives lost th election???? They're fractured along the lines of reality; that if you consider the environmental impacts on economy youre a rino. That if you dispute that America is a Christian nation you're a Muslim appeaser. That if I don't sing the party line I'm not really a republican. Well I'm not democrat either. They've told me that much too. So what am I? Brain damaged, the devil's advocate...because I can empathize with the multitude of competing interests and try to explain the oppositional position to find a balance between the two? I thought that was the purpose of debating policy, democracy etc.

Yes, the status quo can change, and when they change things from the way they've been done in the past, it is the responsibility of the business to make the customer aware of the changes, especially in places where legal paperwork is signed, such as waivers, or signing up for classes. The man was not a dumbass for assuming things operated as they usually had. Do you often stop to ask if the stoplight means go? No? Why not? Or how about which side of the road we drive on? If those things did change, don't you feel it is the responsibility of those who changed it to make certain that those effected are informed?

I also see you making personal attacks, which cancels out any good your arguments may have done. The thing with Gabs, Tyr and RSR and the like is that they know they're jerks, and don't care. Why have you opted to follow in their footsteps?

Oh yeah, I'm libertarian, so I take crap from all sides as "wasting" my vote and time. I don't resort to personal attacks. I don't shift to Rep line-toeing either, or even purely Libertarian line-toeing. No one can make you sink to that level but you.

Tyr-Ziu Saxnot
04-11-2013, 09:25 AM
DragonStryk72 (http://www.debatepolicy.com/member.php?183-DragonStryk72)
http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/statusicon/user-online.png
Conservative Libertarian
So then, you should call black people niggers, cause rsr or Tyr might throw out the word? Grow a spine

Why yes I use that word all over this board and the other 4 boards I frequent. Of course you will not find it here and if I give you my nicks and the other 4 forums I post at you'll not find me using at any of those forums either. I did note you used the word -might- and did not actually say I used the word but the implication made singled out only rsr and I as members that possibly would.
Thanks for the laugh on that as I am noting it now not as an angry complaint but as a reminder that the truth I PRESENT HERE AGAINST ANY GROUP HAS BEEN AND WILL OFTEN BE WRONGLY ATTRIBUTED TO ME BEING RACIST.
The truth can never be racist. Racism exists on the false premise that the offending race is inferior, bad, dirty , corrupt, etc. Truth is none of those and can never be as truth is the light that saved mankind .

tailfins
04-11-2013, 09:44 AM
In the OP, the daughter didn't dictate anything. And if my 9 y/o daughter wanted to swim in a women's only class where no men are allowed to watch, I would let her.

I'm pretty sure none of this is Muslim driven. It's likely a politically correct non-Muslim micro-manager wanting to assert her authority. It's like those who want to ban Nativity scenes at work because someone MIGHT be offended. They think they are lowering the risk of a possible lawsuit and are shocked by the guaranteed lawsuit by the Christian.

Tyr-Ziu Saxnot
04-11-2013, 09:49 AM
I'm pretty sure none of this is Muslim driven. It's likely a politically correct non-Muslim micro-manager wanting to assert her authority. It's like those who want to ban Nativity scenes at work because someone MIGHT be offended. They think they are lowering the risk of a possible lawsuit and are shocked by the guaranteed lawsuit by the Christian.

The appeasers appease the muslims often even before any muslim complains. It is called fear. The muslims instill that fear worldwide by their willingness to murder for even the slightest perceived insult! Its called jihad. Its a well practiced and known result if one crosses Islam. Instilling such fear is known as terrorism, they are masters at it. -Tyr

tailfins
04-11-2013, 10:00 AM
The appeasers appease the muslims often even before any muslim complains. It is called fear. The muslims instill that fear worldwide by their willingness to murder for even the slightest perceived insult! Its called jihad. Its a well practiced and known result if one crosses Islam. Instilling such fear is known as terrorism, they are masters at it. -Tyr

I refuse to deal in fear. If I want to see Tehran, I will see Tehran. If I want to put up a Nativity scene at work, I will put up a Nativity scene at work. I will deal with the consequences later.

jimnyc
04-11-2013, 10:17 AM
I'm pretty sure none of this is Muslim driven. It's likely a politically correct non-Muslim micro-manager wanting to assert her authority. It's like those who want to ban Nativity scenes at work because someone MIGHT be offended. They think they are lowering the risk of a possible lawsuit and are shocked by the guaranteed lawsuit by the Christian.

As far as I'm concerned, they can even remove any mention of Islam or Muslims. I don't think ANY religion should be accommodated in a public environment, where another person might be excluded as a result.

If you want something covered based on your religion - go to a private club or similar. If this were in the US... taxpayer money might be used to fund a class that accommodates a religion and then a parent gets excluded? Other religious things are continually removed and changed, based on them being in or around the public, and now it would suddenly be OK? This isn't about a female only class, which would be just fine IMO if clarified, but rather the accommodation and exclusion based on religion.

Marcus Aurelius
04-11-2013, 10:20 AM
Gawking didnt end with Clinton

http://www.theblaze.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/Obama-Sarkozy-G8-gawk.jpg

Least he has good taste. Look at Frenchie there, thinking 'Michelle is gonna kick his ass...'

tailfins
04-11-2013, 10:37 AM
Least he has good taste. Look at Frenchie there, thinking 'Michelle is gonna kick his ass...'

Barack Mixalot

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kY84MRnxVzo

Abbey Marie
04-11-2013, 12:54 PM
In the OP, the daughter didn't dictate anything. And if my 9 y/o daughter wanted to swim in a women's only class where no men are allowed to watch, I would let her.

9 year olds will not generally see men as thretening or sexual, unless some adult makes them see them that way.

Given the age of Mohamed's "wife" I can see why Isalm is touchy about having men around 9 year olds, though.

Abbey Marie
04-11-2013, 12:56 PM
As far as I'm concerned, they can even remove any mention of Islam or Muslims. I don't think ANY religion should be accommodated in a public environment, where another person might be excluded as a result.

If you want something covered based on your religion - go to a private club or similar. If this were in the US... taxpayer money might be used to fund a class that accommodates a religion and then a parent gets excluded? Other religious things are continually removed and changed, based on them being in or around the public, and now it would suddenly be OK? This isn't about a female only class, which would be just fine IMO if clarified, but rather the accommodation and exclusion based on religion.

Exactly. From what I've heard, Orthodox Jewish women in the US have been having ritual baths forever, and they manage to have them in private facilities.