Womens only swimming day at public pool.

[taxme]

19 minutes ago, CITIZEN_2015 said:

It may be true in SOME cases that they do it out of fear (though not widespread in Canada) but at the same time you ignore the fact that many of them CHOOSE to wear hijab out of their own beliefs. I don't agree with those beliefs that is why I do not wish any family member or friend of mine wear it but if she does and chooses to do so then this is not my business because it is HER BODY AND HER CHOICE.

If you are offended by seeing covered up women then close your eyes or don't look at them. I say the same thing to those male apes who try to force hijab on women. If woman's hair is provocative then he is a sick ape and HE MUST CLOSE HIS SICK EYES NOT FORCE THE VICTIM TO COVER UP HER BODY.

Walk in a mosque one day and let me know if you can find one woman who does not have their head covered? I am pretty sure that there is not one woman there who's head is not covered up. Why even the past Ontario liberal leader(thank gawd)Kathy Wynne was forced to cover her hair up when she entered a mosque. Why was she wearing some head piece if she did not have too? Why did she suck up to these archaic Islamic Imam women haters? Wynne should have sent a message to those Muslim women that they should be free to wear or not wear a head cover. They are now living in Canada. 

I can't help it if I happen to look in some direction and see some woman all covered up. I am not going to close my eyes and maybe end up walking into a wall. Again, I will say that I am offended by seeing Muslim women being forced to walk around somewhere all covered up. It is just not Canadian. That should be considered as cruel and unusual punishment. I wonder that if they had the choice to go out looking like our own Canadian women do would they still want to wear that costume or be free of it. I think that they would go for the latter. 

As you said, these "male apes" are being allowed to get away with this nonsense. How can any so called Muslim man think that a woman showing her hair is pretty much considered a whore is beyond me. It just shows as to just how sick and pathetic and archaic this Islamic religion is. This foreign and silly religion is not needed or required in Canada. My opinion. 

[CITIZEN_2015]

The debate here is about being FOR a woman's right to choose to wear what she wants. That choice could be hijab or mini skirt. That is her choice and as long as it is her choice and not imposed on her we must respect that. Any other topic is irrelevant.

Edited July 17, 2018 by CITIZEN_2015

[Goddess]

11 minutes ago, CITIZEN_2015 said:

The debate here is about being FOR a woman's right to choose to wear what she wants. That choice could be hijab or mini skirt. That is her choice and as long as it is her choice and not imposed on her we must respect that. Any other topic is irrelevant.

You can respect it if you like.

I do not respect the choice to promote ISIS ideology in Canada, any more than I would respect the choice of a woman to wear a t-shirt with a swastika on it, or if she chose to wear a KKK hood.

If they choose to wear it to mosque or choose to wear it to a formal occasion now and then or choose to just wear it once in a while, fine.

But promoting the wearing of it at all times, not being allowed to be seen without it, refusing to remove it when asked and when appropriate - that is ISIS ideology and I do not respect that.

[CITIZEN_2015]

And you can disrespect a woman's choice if you like.

Back to the topic under discussion,  as much as I support women's right to choose what to wear, I do NOT support separating swimming pools or classes or public places or praying in public as a right. Swimming pool is a place to swim. If they come to swim then swim along (as ridiculous as it may seem with hijab) but among all other humans of both sexes. You cannot have a separate pools just because you are used to it. If you are against mixed pools then do not go to swimming pools or dance bars or strip bars ......etc.,  but do not come here and try to change or demand others to change their way of life for yours which is centuries behind. Even better if you are fanatic about it or wish to impose on those born here then get the hell out back to the hell hole where they treat people like animals separating them based on gender.

Edited July 17, 2018 by CITIZEN_2015

[turningrite]

7 hours ago, CITIZEN_2015 said:

Their ideologies become repressive ONLY if they try to impose them on others but it is NOT repressive if they choose them for themselves.

Others have explained in detail why the arguments for religious freedom often have little or nothing to do with actual freedom. The point is that nobody should have the option of being able to impose their religious ideology on others, including family members, against their own preferences and/or beliefs. Ultimately, secularism is the only model that sustains actual freedom.

Edited July 18, 2018 by turningrite

[cannuck]

12 hours ago, CITIZEN_2015 said:

And you can disrespect a woman's choice if you like.

Back to the topic under discussion,  as much as I support women's right to choose what to wear, I do NOT support separating swimming pools or classes or public places or praying in public as a right. Swimming pool is a place to swim. If they come to swim then swim along (as ridiculous as it may seem with hijab) but among all other humans of both sexes. You cannot have a separate pools just because you are used to it. If you are against mixed pools then do not go to swimming pools or dance bars or strip bars ......etc.,  but do not come here and try to change or demand others to change their way of life for yours which is centuries behind. Even better if you are fanatic about it or wish to impose on those born here then get the hell out back to the hell hole where they treat people like animals separating them based on gender.

If I remember, the question is about closing a PUBLIC swimming pool to a group who wishes to discriminate against taxpayers to suit their religious belief. Since Canada is SUPPOSED to be some kind of "free" country, it is clearly inflicting a religious doctrine on someone in public, and that SHOULD  be clearly illegal.   The freedom to rent or own a PRIVATE facility that is exclusive should be the sole solution.   On the other hand, any public interference in a PRIVATE organization such as a "men's club" should similarly be completely off bounds - but it is not.   Just shows how the agenda of the politically correct left has become codified to the extent of removing the basic freedoms that this country is ASSUMED to have had.

[dialamah]

2 hours ago, cannuck said:

If I remember, the question is about closing a PUBLIC swimming pool to a group who wishes to discriminate against taxpayers to suit their religious belief

One of the PUBLIC swimming pools here closes once a month so that nudists can go swimming without any clothes; clearly discriminating against people who want to wear bathing suits.  Why should these people have the right to impose their nakedness on the rest of us?

PUBLIC.swimming pools here also close for birthday parties, again discrominating against people who aren't having birthday parties.  How dare they!

The two PUBLIC pools closest to me rotate their  "womens only" sessions, this discriminating against men to accommodate their sexist agenda.  

/s

Public swimming pools closing to accommodate special groups is nothing new; it has been happening for decades.  The issue here isn't that pools accomodate some groups, its because the group that is being accommodated is "Muslim".  

Edited July 18, 2018 by dialamah

[cannuck]

32 minutes ago, dialamah said:

Public swimming pools closing to accommodate special groups is nothing new; it has been happening for decades.  The issue here isn't that pools accommodate some groups, its because the group that is being accommodated is "Muslim".  

I don't agree with ANY discriminatory use of public facilities, unless the user is paying the full cost of the facility to do so.

[turningrite]

16 hours ago, cannuck said:

If I remember, the question is about closing a PUBLIC swimming pool to a group who wishes to discriminate against taxpayers to suit their religious belief. Since Canada is SUPPOSED to be some kind of "free" country, it is clearly inflicting a religious doctrine on someone in public, and that SHOULD  be clearly illegal.   The freedom to rent or own a PRIVATE facility that is exclusive should be the sole solution.   On the other hand, any public interference in a PRIVATE organization such as a "men's club" should similarly be completely off bounds - but it is not.   Just shows how the agenda of the politically correct left has become codified to the extent of removing the basic freedoms that this country is ASSUMED to have had.

I tend to agree with you on the public facilities issue. A good friend of mine - now, sadly, deceased - tried after completing his first lengthy round of cancer treatments to go back to his local recreation facility to work out but was told he'd have to change his schedule due to an arrangement that provided "religious" accommodation for a small group of female users. He wouldn't use the facilities in high-use periods because of self-consciousness about his physical deterioration and other times of day were simply impractical as I believe he was receiving scheduled home care visits and had various appointments. So, he simply gave up.  e could no longer enjoy the benefits of a taxpayer-funded facility he had used for about a decade even though I believe his doctors said he could resume his workouts, which could have been medically and psychologically beneficial to him. You have to ask whose rights were really trampled on here? Had he requested accommodation on grounds of disability, would it have been accorded him? He doubted it would, which demonstrates the moral inconsistency in our accommodation regime. I believe we have developed an artificial hierarchy of accommodation rights, where some rights are rendered more politically important than are others.

Edited July 19, 2018 by turningrite

[Machjo]

On 10/28/2016 at 7:37 AM, -1=e^ipi said:

Lesbian and bisexual women can gawk at other women.

 

Your justification for discrimination on the basis of sex is very heterocentric.

And the vast majority of the population is heterosexual. I see nothing wrong with segregating the sexes in cases in which a person may need to dress less modestly than usual such as in a public washroom, a change room, a dorm room, or a swimming pool.