(Switzerland) Muslim girl made to attend swimming lessons

[The Straight Story]

Muslim girl made to attend swimming lessons

Integration comes before religion, according to the country’s supreme court. It ruled that a 14-year-old Muslim girl could not be excused from swimming lessons because the teacher was male.

In a judgment on Friday, the Lausanne-based Federal Court said puberty also constituted no grounds for dispensation: the girl could cover up under an Islam-conforming burkini.

The 14-year-old girl from a strict Muslim family attends a district school in the canton of Aargau, the Swiss news agency SDA reported.

In 2011 her parents sought permission for their daughter to be excused from swimming lessons that took place every five weeks under the supervision of a male teacher. Girls and boys were taught separately.

The authorities rejected this request and have now been vindicated by the ruling of the Supreme Court.

http://www.thelocal.ch/page/view/court-rules-against-muslim-family-in-swimming-row#.UZAKckr4KSo

[southernyankeebelle]

1. I think it is nerve when people come to a country (any country) and don't learn to adapt to

that country you are going to live in. The old saying When in Rome sure does apply. When I have lived in foreign countries I always tried to live by their laws. Speak and keep your culture up in your homes our your culture centers. That goes for americans going to other countries also.

[awoke_in_2003]

3. Yep,, if you don't like secular laws...

stay in your nice little sharia run country. And to be fair, all the Christians that want to bring their version of sharia here can get the fuck out.

[southernyankeebelle]

8. Not just religion. I think when you move to a new country you need to adapt to the

countries way. There is nothing wrong with your culture ways and you shouldn't forget them. But in the greater society you are living in then you should embrace your new land. What I have noticed that some who come here bring their culture with them and don't want to change. Like head dress or those long outfits. They are beautiful but not in a working environment. I know when my parents families came from the old country they wanted us to adapt to the american culture. The only problem with that was they didn't speak the language with us at home so we really didn't learn it. I think we should learn and embrace our cultures at home.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

10. If I moved to a country with Sharia law, I still wouldn't become a misogynist.

I don't think geography has much to do with morality.

[southernyankeebelle]

12. I am not really talking about religion.

[byeya]

48. I agree with your views 100%

[southernyankeebelle]

50. thank you. Your really really smart. LOL

[KatyMan]

35. I don't see anywhere in the article

that the young lady is not Swedish. I know several Swedish natural born citizens who are Muslim.

[southernyankeebelle]

38. No. I was talking in general terms. Not just religious people.

[FreeState]

40. Um the story doesn't say she immigrated or is a foreigner

Am I missing something? For all we know she was born and raised there.

[southernyankeebelle]

47. I am talking in general. A few comments ago. I don't care where she was born. All

am saying when you live in a country (any country) you have to learn to adapt to their way of life. Now I know there are some country I would never move to. I wouldn't move to any middle east country at all. I wouldn't move to a country where you have to wrap yourself up from head to toe. I would move to any Western european country because we do share some of the same ideas.

[antigone382]

61. I understand your point, but there's a little more to the story than that, I think.

It is easy for me to say that I wouldn't move to a country with a very different culture, because as it happens I have decent economic opportunity in my country, and in most of the countries that are similar to mine (Western countries). For most people in the world, that isn't the case, and a lot of that has to do with the West colonizing other countries, a process which destroyed their economies in ways that still matter today, and also one in which a lot of their culture was destroyed and replaced with "superior" Western culture.

I mean, for example, we ourselves are typing at each other on the soil of Native Peoples whose cultures were almost totally destroyed, along with their lives, and replaced with a Western European one. I have a friend who is an illegal immigrant from Mexico who speaks fluent Mayan, as have her ancestors who have been on this continent for twelve thousand years. Between the two of us, should she conform to my culture or should I conform to hers?

Basically, the point I'm making is that a lot of people have to leave the cultures where they are comfortable, whether they want to or not, because they cannot make a living there. A lot of that has to do with centuries of the West forcing economic norms (which are one aspect of cultural norms) on these people and places, to the extent that many of them have no choice but to come here. That being the case, it isn't really fair to act as if they are privileged to come to our countries and ought to show their appreciation by conforming to our cultures. They are here oftentimes because of a history of deprivation in their own countries that is caused by us.

But even if immigrants do have opportunity in their own countries, or even if the lack of opportunity they experience isn't our fault, to another extent people have always moved from place to place, bringing their culture with them, and along with that bringing conflict with the cultures already in the area. Most every religion practiced today has some syncretic elements (meaning it is a combination of a religion that someone else brought to a place, and whatever religion or religions were already practiced there), and the same goes for language, clothing, and almost any other aspect of culture. We all adapt to each other, and based on archaeological evidence we always have.

Anyway, I don't mean this to sound like a lecture at you, you just got me thinking about a lot of things.

[southernyankeebelle]

62. You make excellent points that I can't disagree with. But saying that you also must

admit that when you move to a new culture or they move here to ours life would be much simplier if you try to adapt. Right?

[antigone382]

63. Sure, I think a certain amount of adaptation is inevitable.

But I also think it should go both ways; we should be flexible and respectful in terms of incorporating new cultures into our own. I think any time a new culture comes into an existing one, there are things that both cultures have to teach each other.

It's hard to say exactly what level of adaptation is enough, since it's going to be different for each individual person. I also think it is important to respect that newcomers may have different things that may be very important to them, and they may have a difficult time adapting for all kinds of reasons that we have no idea of.

[dimbear]

2. Centuries ago, people generally didn't know how to swim, even sailors.

Common result: drowning. Science, you rascal, interfering with the scheme of things.

[Fumesucker]

4. You'd be surprised how many people can't swim in the US today

http://www.today.com/id/38533071/ns/today-today_news/t/six-teens-drown-trying-save-each-other-red-river-sinkhole/

None could swim

Marilyn Robinson, a friend of the families, watched helplessly as the children, five boys and a girl, went under, the Times reported.

"None of us could swim," the 38-year-old told the newspaper. "They were yelling 'help me, help me. Somebody please help me.' It was nothing I could do but watch them drown one by one."

With tears rolling down her face, Louise Edwards, another witness, added: "It was hard watching them and not being able to help. Some people tried to jump in, but they were already gone. It's like a nightmare. Lord please help us, please."

Robinson said a group of family and friends, including about 20 children, had been out at a sandbar to barbecue and enjoy the water. She said they were familiar with the area, the Times reported.

[JI7]

6. i never learned and i'm from so cal

i wish i had . it would especially have been nice to learn in school . i sucked at team sports so it would have been nice to actually learn something during PE rather than wait for the time to go by playing some game i suck at and have no interest in .

i always loved it when we had to run the mile .

[Dash87]

17. That's why everyone should have swimming lessons.

I believe this should be taught in school. It's a life skill that everybody needs, and once you learn, it's like riding a bike - you never forget.

[Skidmore]

22. I don't swim and will never learn.

I tried when I was a kid and the teacher didn't notice when I was in trouble. I nearly drowned. I stay away from water above ankle deep. I'm the one up the beach getting bitten by nosee'ums. No law could force me to do more than attend the class and observe.

[KatyMan]

36. article states she could already swim. n/t

[rug]

5. I'd like to see the decision.

In its ruling the Federal Court referred to a judgment establishing a principle from 2008. According to this decision, obligatory swimming lessons take precedent over religious duties.

Where the hell is CallMeWesley?

[JI7]

7. it was based on integration of foreigners being more important than religious beliefs

[rug]

13. I'd still like to see it.

I can only find German language reports.

I suspect the underlying rationale had more to do with a public safety issue than simply blending in.

[JI7]

14. how is it a public safety issue ?

[rug]

16. The state may consider the ability to swim to be basic.

[JI7]

20. yes, that would be the point of having the lessons itself but the court ruled

against letting her take other classes with only females based on the integration issue.

[Call Me Wesley]

27. Here's a translation by your state.gov:

Regarding waivers on religious grounds from classes other than confessional instruction, there are no national guidelines, and practices vary. Some cantons have issued guidelines not to excuse pupils from swimming or physical education classes. In 2008 the Federal Tribunal reviewed its 1993 ruling regarding exemptions for students from swimming or other physical education classes on religious grounds. The Tribunal's 2008 ruling allows individual cantons to determine when exemptions from swimming lessons are permitted on religious grounds. In order to avoid exemptions from swimming lessons, a number of cantons decided to allow Muslim girls to use a full-coverage swimsuit.

http://www.state.gov/j/drl/rls/irf/2010/148989.htm

So, mainly, it was handled by states (which are called 'cantons' here) individually, but this new verdict on federal grounds puts in a new perspective. It has nothing to do with swim safety issues; we all had swimming lessons in school, and the only way you could get out of it was if you were a girl and were on your period. Religion wasn't even considered then, but obviously is now.

It is an integration issue, and if you read the original lawsuit (or appeal,) it wasn't that swimming was against the religion but the fact the swim teacher was male, so therefore should have been banned teaching this girl.

There's a lot of BS going on over here right now regarding immigrants, and it comes from both sides. Admitting, the anti-immigrant side is burning more money than they have right now. What we need is a common ground. Before 9/11 we had it. Now it's just messed up and plays with the same fear you're exposed to any day.

P. S. My swimming teachers were both female. I only protested when they tried to force me into some semi-Olympics because I was the fastest swimmer they've ever seen. I just wasn't really into sports or competition. I liked swimming, though.

Not sure this helps.

[rug]

28. Danke mein Freund.

Even though I was proven wrong in two languages.

[Call Me Wesley]

29. Gern geschehen!

I didn't prove you wrong. It was a legit question.

I think it's still state law, but it's a huge step. We only have two states that divide government and religion so far. On the other hand, fundies don't have this much success here. Nobody really cares.



On edit: Updated subject title to classical, easy googling use ...

[Jim Lane]

9. I wonder how this case would come out in the United States.

To force the Muslim girl to participate in an activity that's against her religion would violate the Free Exercise Clause. To grant Muslims an exemption from a requirement of general applicability, one serving a secular purpose, would violate the Establishment Clause.

Most commenters in this thread apparently see no merit to the family's position. I'm more sympathetic -- I don't think either side has a slam dunk.

Ideally, they'd try to reach an accommodation. Maybe the family could arrange private lessons from a woman, and any student of whatever religion could be exempted from the school's lessons upon showing that he or she could already swim.

[JI7]

15. that's because the US culture is much more religious and you see exceptions made

for religious people in the US all the time.

the ruling was based on importance of integration which is why it was not ok for her to take some other classes with mostly muslims and only females instead of this one she is trying to get out of.

[treestar]

19. There was US case law to the effect that

it is not a violation of Religious Freedom if part of your observance is illegal - I think the case was Rastafarians smoking weed. It was illegal to do that. The Court ruled that so long as the law was enforced against all regardless of religion, the Rastafarians could not get an exception and were not subject to unlawful religious discrimination. This sounds like that. If all kids have to take the lessons to stay in the public school, then you could argue, it is the ability to stay in the public school that is at issue, not religion.

[Jim Lane]

32. There is U.S. case law (and statutory law) both ways.

Some laws are not enforced against all regardless of religion. For example, an employer isn't allowed to practice sex discrimination in employment, but the Catholic Church can invoke its religious views as the basis for an exemption, denying women the opportunity to serve as priests.

This gives the Catholic Church a special privilege, one not available to purely secular sexists. In that respect it's contrary to the Establishment Clause.

In other cases, as you note, the law is enforced uniformly, despite the resulting encroachment on the Free Exercise Clause.

If the Swiss case were to arise here, each side would be able to find some support for its position in the established body of law concerning the First Amendment.

[treestar]

33. That's within the church itself; nothing the government is doing

It's the government enforcing the no-marijuana law that implicates it. In a public school, she would have to swim, (though likely not, I bet even public schools would accommodate that rather than litigate it). In a private school they could kick her out for not swimming or just have no swimming. That's the thing - in the US they could easily find a school with no swimming. Don't know about Switzerland, but the fact this came up maybe means it is a Swiss school thing that you have to swim.

[Jim Lane]

42. Your distinction doesn't hold water.

One issue you raise is: "It's the government enforcing the no-marijuana law that implicates it." For both the Rastafarians and the Catholics, they assert that their religion requires them to engage in a certain practice. That practice is one that's forbidden to the citizenry in general. The issue is whether the religious group will get an exemption. The government enforces the no-marijuana law against the Rastafarians but does not enforce the no-discrimination law against the Catholics. (I assume the exemption was written into the statute, so the government doesn't fail to enforce a statute, it actually fails to enforce the general principle. What counts for this purpose is that there's no such religious exemption for the no-marijuana law.)

You also argue that deciding who can be a priest is "within the church itself" and therefore different. There are plenty of other instances that aren't within a church. For example, the Amish asserted that participating in the Social Security system violated their religious beliefs, and I think one Amish person actually went to jail for not complying with the FICA tax rules. The statute was amended to provide an exemption, and to this day the Amish don't pay FICA taxes. By contrast, if a group of secular libertarians were to announce that, in emulation of the Amish, they wanted to set up their own community with their own procedures for caring for the elderly, and that they too should therefore be exempted from FICA taxes, their request would be denied, because it wouldn't be based on a religious belief.

My point is just that there's no easy answer to some of these questions. It's a valid principle to say that the laws should be enforced impartially, i.e., not giving any religious group a special privilege. It's also a valid principle to say that the laws shouldn't interfere with the free exercise of religion. Those valid principles sometimes come into conflict. The course actually followed in American law is not to treat either principle as an absolute, but to try to strike a reasonable balance.

[treestar]

43. True, but discrimination is a civil rather than criminal matter

And the government is not directly involved - the government itself could not discriminate. The Rastafarians could also discriminate - about who gets to be a Rastafarian or who gets to hold certain positions within it.

The case allowing the Amish to do this admits they are a special case - hard cases make bad law. I suspect such a group would not have to be based on religion if it were as long term and as intractable an issue. A new group would have arisen out of our FICA-paying society, and could be expected to adjust.

I suspect we adjust to Free Exercise pretty well, except for things our society considers beyond the pale. We probably would not allow Muslim men to marry more than one woman. But we would let them refuse to swim in the public schools. I think we would likely thing our laws required them to allow girls to wear burkas to school (unlike the French who apparently are making laws about that).

[snooper2]

11. Jesus christ on a dodge ball joint fundies are stupid...

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

18. So, what are they going to do if she refuses? Imprison her? Banish her to Arizona?

[JI7]

21. she wont complete her school requirements to move on to the next level

same as any other class that a student fails.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

23. I would think an accomodation could be reached allowing her to take private lessons.

[JI7]

25. no, integration is more important than religious beliefs

that's what the court said

[cali]

30. hey, let's accomodate all fundamentalists. Say, some kid's family

objects to teaching the ToE, just give that kid private lessons in young earth creationism

It's ridiculous to give in to these beliefs.

[jessie04]

44. I don't think you understand multiculturalism

it is accommodating different religions and cultures based on their sensibilities and Sharia law.

You are aware like 2 RW states in the US that have voted to ban Sharia law.

[Call Me Wesley]

31. Nope.

She will complete and move on. It's not like swimming lessons are fundamental, and being Swiss, there's soo much lee-way to the law, that this might end up just being a daily topic on DU.

Grades for swimming lessons didn't even show up in the official 'grade book.' PE isn't this big here.

[hunter]

24. Mid 'seventies, USA. Our high school implemented co-ed swimming classes.

The fundamentalist Christians in our community went insane and school board meetings went until two in the morning so they could all complain.

Previously the classes had been segregated, but in favor of the boys. There were girls, especially in the honors and AP classes, who couldn't take swimming because of scheduling conflicts.

Mind you as a high school boys taking a coed swimming PE class we all wore a very loose swimsuits and were absolutely terrified anyone would notice any evidence of adolescent sexual arousal.

It would be the very worst thing in the world if a girl wearing a bikini laughed at a boy with an involuntary erection.

But I doubt there were any innocents among us.

[War Horse]

26. This sort of thing seems to pop up regularly in Europe

Here in Norway we don't have separate swimming classes. It is my impression that we tend to be a bit more accommodating when it comes to... how shall I put it... certain 'religious constraints', in general in this context, than the Swiss, but this particular issue has been heavily debated here as well.

A body-concealing swimsuit has kinda 'worked' in several cases around here, but apparently that's not an option for the parents is this case.

I'm very tempted to just tell the parents to suck it up. They are the ones causing the problem in this case, IMO.

But we're talking about a 14 year old girl, probably torn between two cultures. Both of which 'program' her to be insecure on so many levels, to boot. There are no simple answers here. That I see, anyway.

[Demo_Chris]

34. Good. nt

[smirkymonkey]

37. In a land with so many lakes, it would be wise to learn how to swim.

just saying.

[alp227]

39. There is religious freedom, then the REAL WORLD. N/t

[tritsofme]

41. If you live in Europe, you ought to be tolerant of secular values.

[burnodo]

45. I guess I will never understand

Why Islam requires women to be covered up. Does it help them commune with their god? Is it for their benefit?

[leftynyc]

46. Near as I can see

it's because all men are dogs who cannot control themselves and therefore it is up to the women not to tempt them. Why they punish women rather than the assholes who cannot control themselves is totally beyond my comprehension.

[burnodo]

52. I tend to agree with that

I just don't understand why Muslim women seem so penitent to those directives.

[leftynyc]

53. That is complicated

and depends on where you are speaking of. In many countries women are illiterate (so are many of the men) and they're being told by their asshole imans that burqas are required in order to be a "good" Muslim. Some have these cretins patrolling the streets looking for women not dressed or behaving properly and beat the women. Some countries punish (by stoning, beating and jailing) women who have any kind of relationship with a man not their husband. Unfortunately, Islam is so bastardized in many places, it makes it an abomination for women.

[byeya]

49. Roman Catholic woman have to (had to?) cover their hair while at mass. A hat or scarf would do.

Apparently, seeing the hair on the head of a female gave the angels naughty thoughts.

[pnwmom]

54. Fifty years ago it was considered a sign of respect for the seriousness of the occasion;

just as, for men, removing hats while indoors was also supposed to be a sign of respect.

Hat wearing or not-wearing no longer carries the same kind of significance it once did.

[snooper2]

51. A lot of fundy Muslim men are really into Ninjas

[Nine]

55. I guess I'm the only one who finds anything wrong with this.

I guess I'm the only one bothered that posters on a progressive message board are suggesting that members of an immigrant culture (not necessarily immigrants themselves even) need to "go back to their own country" if they are not 100 percent assimilated into the prevailing majority culture.

I guess I'm the only bothered that a 14-year-old girl is being forced into a situation that she may find extremely uncomfortable.

I guess I'm the only one bothered that, just as with "zero tolerance" rules in U.S. schools, common sense and common decency is being completely derailed here in order to spitefully stick to some arbitrary letter of the law.

I guess I'm the only one bothered by the apparent glee with which this ruling is being met on this board and the sense that "these people" deserve it because they belong to the wrong culture or the wrong religion or even to any religion at all.

[The Straight Story]

56. Well

First off, I am sure many don't care about the culture and religion part - but there are government run schools that have certain standards and they should not have to change - go to a private school. Or, look into things before you move somewhere (some personal responsibility).

If businesses want to change how they work/operate that is a private business decision.

Zero tolerance is stupid but this is not punishing a kid for something they did, it is what they are refusing to do because the teacher is of a particular sex (and many progressives don't like sexism - though some will say just about anything we do is sexist....)

The glee comes from the whole religion angle - where we have religious people trying to change society to fit some book they read instead of trying to sit down like adults and discuss changes and ideals we can all live without outside of said books. If someone claims to be against abortion because of the bible I can easily just dismiss it, they are not thinking for themselves. If they say they are against for other reasons not being spoon fed I will listen and discuss (kind of like how some dismiss any gun argument by labeling you an nra shrill/member - they are not able to think and discuss the issue and rely on a catchphrase drilled into their head).

[Nine]

57. You're proving my point for me.

A 14-year-old girl is being forced into a situation she likely finds uncomfortable. I can't find any reason to be gleeful about that, no matter how much of scourge you think religion is upon the world.

I also find the statement, "look into things before you move somewhere," really offensive. The girl may have been born in Switzerland. Even her parents might have been born there. And even if they are immigrants, does that make them second class citizens who have no right to ever challenge the status quo? Do you say similar things about immigrants and/or their descendants in the U.S.?

Look, people can have different opinions about what the proper ruling in this case should have been, but I don't understand why people have to be so ugly and hateful about it. What if the student were a girl who had been sexually abused recently and found the whole situation traumatizing? What if the student had autism or some other disorder and didn't function well in that sort of large group setting? What if the student had been born with male genitalia but identified as female and wanted to participate in the female swim class instead of the male one? What if a student was simply extremely shy and self conscious? I don't claim to have the definite answer as to how to handle each of those situations, but I can guarantee that there would be a lot more compassion and common sense coming from DUers in any of those scenarios. It really feels like people are just making this teenage girl the designated scapegoat for all their own frustrations and bigotry.

[The Straight Story]

58. Well, one point I do understand:

She may have been born there - but I was going off what you said (immigrant culture).

If they are immigrants, no, not second class citizens - but if your religion is that important to you and the public schools there have rules you should consider that before moving to someplace else.

We can find all sorts of what ifs with students and religions and their beliefs, but the schools are not religious based institutions. The coach/teacher they have and pay for is a male one. And as far as 'if someone was born a certain way' that is not a choice.

I feel for the girl in this case - but not the parents who want the education system there to change for choices they are making and the position it has put their daughter in.

"Integration comes before religion, according to the country’s supreme court."

I don't think that is unreasonable.

" The court also referred to the fact that the school had provided separate lessons for boys and girls.
As the girl could already swim she needed to have no physical contact with the male teacher."

No physical contact, once every 5 weeks, and the lessons were mandated by the courts.

They said this did not allow their pubescent daughter to swim under the gaze of a male teacher – even if she was wearing a body-concealing swimsuit.

So it boils down to - a man cannot watch her swim even in something that covered her whole body but males could teach other subjects?

[Nine]

59. Integration, not education

This wasn't about making sure she knew how to swim. This was about forcing her to submit to the values of the dominant culture. In this country we used to "educate" and "integrate" Native American children the same way. All the school had to do was allow her to show certification from any accredited swimming instructor that she knew how to swim. That would not have cost them extra money and certainly would have been cheaper than taking it to court.

How do you know the parents are making choices for their daughter? Maybe they are simply supporting her in what she chooses for herself.

[The Straight Story]

60. “parallel societies”

"Allowing the dispensation would have contributed to “parallel societies”, the court found. Instead, the girl and her parents could reasonably be expected to take steps toward acceptance of local social and societal norms."

Statistics
Based on the census of the year 20001, the total Swiss population numbers 7,288,010. Of this
number, 310,807 are Muslims, meaning Muslims represent 4.3% of the total population of
Switzerland. An element that is important and interesting to note is that of the 310,807 Muslims
in Switzerland, only 36,481 have Swiss nationality, having been born Swiss nationals and/or
converting to Islam (approximately one-half of the 36,481) or having gone through the process of
naturalization to become Swiss citizens.

Islam and Law in Switzerland
Muslims in Switzerland must abide by all Swiss laws and regulations. In general, no Swiss laws
exist that directly interfere with any Islamic duty. For example, no Swiss laws forbid Muslims
from exercising their religious beliefs or practices, such as praying or fasting. However, some
conflicts with Islamic rights may be found in the Swiss family law.

www.muslimpopulation.com/pdf/Switzerland_countryprofiles.pdf

Their society has, and has had, rules and regulations relating to their education, laws, etc. From all reports I have found the family are not citizens, came here from a foreign country ("Integration of foreigners is more important than their religious beliefs, Switzerland’s highest court ruled on Friday&quot .

This is not like the American Indians, they did not go to their country and try to integrate them - they are coming to their country and trying to get that country to change their laws to fit their religious beliefs.

Most people don't seem to like such things. I don't want my society to change based on what the pope says the law should be.

"Here is our society, you are welcome to come here and live as long as you obey the laws and regulations we have in place" - seems simple to anyone. Why should they have to change to accommodate others - and if they do so, how many times and things will they end up changing? You want to live in a society of strict Muslims? Go to a country where such beliefs exist - don't expect others to jump up and change their laws to suit your needs, especially when 95% of the people who are there and have been there living with such laws are the ones who made them and are content with how they impact their society.

I wouldn't move to Saudi Arabia and expect them to change their education system based on what the bible says.