In France, a public swimming pool has come under fire for introducing women-only pool sessions. And a muslim women’s basketball tournament has been cancelled because men were barred from attending the event. Is France right to uphold its secular values? Or is it missing the chance for Muslims to integrate through sport?
Last Monday, a municipal swimming pool in the region of Isère trialled a two-hour session open only to women. The local mayor defended the decision as a process of integration. For many muslim women their faith prevents them from using mixed swimming pools.
Today the French Urban Affairs minister said this is an “extremely dangerous” trend which threatens the principles of equality and secularism, values which are entrenched in the French constitution.
In a similar development, a women’s inter-mosque basketball match has been cancelled in Vigneux, near Paris, when it became clear that men would be banned from the stadium. The Minister for Youth and Sport said the laws of the country apply in a municipal stadium, laws which prohibit gender-based discrimination.
Attitudes differ across Europe. In the UK, women-only sessions are commonplace at public swimming pools, and one pool in North London has introduced sessions for muslim men only.
While a German court has just ruled that a 12 year old muslim girl can’t opt out of mixed swimming lessons, arguing for the state’s responsibility to educate the girl, despite her parents’ objections that her body would not remain covered.
Daniel Pipes has been following the debate in France since 2003, when the town of Lille first offered segregated swimming.
Do you think public swimming pools should offer separate sessions for men and women? Is this a religious issue, or should everyone be entitled to single-sex pool time? How should the French state balance its secularism with the rights of religious groups?
RSS feed
BBC World Have Your Say 
Hhhmmm, like the topic we had a few months back on segregated gyms or gym hours at harvard?
I personally wouldn’t go to a pool if it were going to be all dudes. If men or women want separate times to swim on their own, they can head home to the bath tub for ‘free swim’ and call it a day.
Then you get into the subject of why? Do they not want others seeing them or do they not want to see others? What then of homosexuals? Are they banned from the pool altogether because of their attraction to the same sex? That is why the segregation is taking place, because of gender attraction or gender-based self-consciousness, right?
While a German court has just ruled that a 12 year old muslim girl can’t opt out of mixed swimming lessons
Now that’s messed up…
If Muslims want to swim in western cultures with gender-only pools, by all means build some for yourselves and have at it. Heck, throw a waterslide in there and have a ball! But don’t take away our rights to pools, build new ones and have fun.
If it’s PUBLIC, meaning funded by the taxpayers, there absolutely should be no segregation. That’s unacceptable.
As Brett mentioned, there was a situation at a private gym at a university where they wanted to make female only ours, and even in that case I was against, given that all of the students have to pay a gym fee, so why should men have less access and pay the same fee?
There was a second argument, not for religious reasons, but that some women feel uncomfortable around men, hence women should get their own hours. That argument makes my blood boil. Why should 50% of the population have to suffer because a certain percentage of the other half is insecure? That would be like a bar/club banning men 6’3+ so that shorter guys don’t feel so insecure. Why enable people’s insecurities? WHy should you suffer because someone else is insecure?
Segregation or integration! How is that even a question?
This subject underlines a broader point: Islam and the Western way of life are incompatible.
Officially endorsed segregation is not what Western society is about and all attempts to smuggle this in under cover of ‘religious tolerance’ should be resisted. As Brett suggested, Muslims should build their own pools if they can’t bear swimming alongside non-Muslims (it’s not just a female thing – in my part of London a public pool was recently exposed for holding sessions for Muslim men only). Perhaps the Saudis could divert some of the petro-dollars lavished in building prestige mosques in Western capitals into constructing Muslim-only pools. But this segregated activity should never happen at public expense.
Islam continues to do a grand job of integrating.
The case of the German girl is different. She is forced to take the mixed swimming lessons against her will. This is a violation of her basic human rights by the State.
The French minister’s attitude would be more justified if France were a very liberal country. If the French attitude were always like:
“We don’t want a small religious minority to prevent gay people from marrying”,
“We don’t want a small religious minority from making it impossible to legalize euthanasia under certain conditions”,
then they would indeed be upholding secular values. But clearly, this isn’t the case. So, thisjust an anti-Muslim attitude.
I’m curious, how far will we allow religion to go? Would we permit race based discrimination if people of certain religions didn’t like mixing with other races?
We just got through a primary here in the US that if you didnd’t vote for Hillary Clinton, you are a sexist, so are we saying sex discrimination is okay, so long as it’s done for religious reasons? Why not extend it to race as well?
@Count Iblis: I don’t think this is a human rights matter. It’s more basic than that. The question is simple: whose way of life is to prevail? That of the French and the Germans, in their own countries, or that of a minority that wants to impose its values, which are not indigenous to either France or Germany, on the French and the Germans (and others)?
If you don’t like the way of life in a country then you should leave. It’s as simple as that. There are plenty of Muslim countries where these women and girls could enjoy the most complete gender apartheid, including not being allowed out of their homes at all. I have come to accept that Muslims have their way of life that, however different from mine, is theirs and is valued by them. I respect that. Why do Muslims in the West find it so difficult to reciprocate, and to respect the way of life that Westerners have established for themselves? Why do they choose to remain in countries where they can only be unhappy themselvers and a nuisance to others?
Yeah this is pretty ridiculous but completely unsurprising. Things like canceling the tournament should be continued and I think maybe bringing up charges against the pools that implement such rules should be done. People in the US have brought lawsuits against Ladies Night discounts at clubs for god’s sakes and I think this is far far worse.
“Similar cases have come before courts across the nation in recent years. In early June of this year, the California Supreme Court ruled against a Los Angeles nightclub that refused to provide four men the “Ladies’ Night” discounts available to women. Angelucci v. Century Supper Club, No. S136154.
In 2004, a New Jersey administrative ruling that declared ladies’ nights violated state discrimination laws led New Jersey lawmakers to pass legislation legalizing the practice. Gillespie v. Coastline Restaurant, No. CRT 2579-03. ”
http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1184144791036
As Victor said, if they want such gender apartheid keep it in their own countries. Plenty of women have fought for equal rights for so long, they shouldn’t be tossed aside in the name of ‘religious tolerance’. Especially to an intolerant religion.
@Steve: re how far this will be allowed to go. Not very far. Western liberals have a double standard: one for privileged/protected minorities, another for the general population. Black consciousness: good, a source of pride and identity; white consciousness: Nazi-Klan-racism! Larry Summers’ tentative opinion about women: sexist beast, unfit to run Harvard, crucify him (which they pretty much did); Islamic gender apartheid in Western societies: deafening silence from our usually stentorian feminists. White murders a member of a minority group: hate crime with attendant media frenzy; white is murdered by a member of a minority group (which is generally more common): statistic, little media interest. Man beats woman: an horrifc act of violence and oppression; woman murders man while he’s asleep: a justified act of self-defence for his beating her. Southerners live by a system of racial exclusion and racial privilege: horrendous social injustice that must be overcome some day; affirmative action discriminates against whites and in favour of minorities: perfectly in order, justice.
The desire of Muslims for discriminatory practices in their favour and against non-Muslims will never be judged to be as offensive as any corresponding desire by non-Muslims for discrimination against Muslims (even though the second doesn’t exist – there being no holy book calling for it). The first will be excused as an expression of their culture or of religious freedom. The second will be denounced as bigoted, racist, Islamophobic madness that should not be tolerated for even a second. It’s the liberal way.
Victor,
The Muslims should not indeed not impose their way on life in us, they should not infringe on our freedoms in any way. But also, we should not impose unnecessary restrictions on them either.
Going to school is compulsory in Germany and most other European countries. Therefore, if parents are not given any choice about swimming lessons for their child, then that is a form of State persecution. Germany, unlike many other countries, is supposed to be a free country that doesn’t dictate to its citizens how they should live.
So, this attitude toward Muslims actually undermines our freedoms. If schools are allowed to force children to have swimming lessons, then what’s next?
Compulsary religion lessons in order to let the Muslims learn about the Christian fate by taking away the option that parents currently have to opt their children out of religion lessons? 😦
Not very far. Western liberals have a double standard: one for privileged/protected minorities, another for the general population. Black consciousness: good, a source of pride and identity; white consciousness: Nazi-Klan-racism!…
…The second will be denounced as bigoted, racist, Islamophobic madness that should not be tolerated for even a second. It’s the liberal way.
Haha, Nice generalized stereotype there…
With all due respect, you and others on here get up in arms when Anti-Western sentiment is spouted on WHYS, then you and others take plenty of topics and posts and turn them into Anti-Liberal soapboxes. Thats all well and fine, as everyone has their own ideas and beleifs and has equal right to express them.
I love your posts, they are always intelligent, well written, and full of great points. But why the double standard on soapbox rhetoric?
What’s next, making rules that Jew’s can’t have the same public school classes as Muslims? I think people are too lenient with Muslims because of 9/11 and things of that sort.
-Anthony, LA, CA
Hold on a second! This is plainly getting exceptionally stupid in both argument and debate!
For God knows how long Muslims have lived in the west peacefully accepting that it is they who are living in predominately secular societies and were quite happy to do so.
Now, in the last 8(?) years, being a Muslim is much more of a political organisation rather than a religion of faith. I am a liberal, I want people to live together in peace and harmony, I am a Christian who thinks that the state and religion should not mix – i.e. being a secularist.
Look toward Turkey if you want to see how the faith of Islam can be a part of a secular state – Ataturk would be turning in his grave with some of the things happening there by the way – but that is another thread.
Because of the politicising of the Islamic faith we have idiotic things that are happening today – and it will only get worse if it carries on.
Victor mentioned the feminist movement – what I would like to ask that movement is why do they have double standards when it comes to Muslim women and ‘western’ women – are they different?
Actually Will, Feminists defended the women only hours at Harvard, because they felt that some women feel uncomfortable around men, hence men need to be banned. So if you feel uncomfortable around someone, you can have them banned, at least based upon gender, i fyou are female.
@ Brett: stereotype? Not at all.
Let me illustrate: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wichita_Massacre
The decision not to treat the Wichita Massacre as a hate crime perfectly illustrates my point: the perpetrators were black and the victims were white, therefore no big deal. If the situation had been reversed the whole world would have heard of the case and we’d probably have debated it on WHYS (“How Far Must America Go To Overcome Racism”). Recall that even a hoax like Jena was mentioned here (when it was believed to be true and the victims members of a minority – not the subsequent fact that it was a hoax and the real victims were in fact white). All the examples I gave – specific or general – are drawn from real life (including the wife-abuser murdered in his sleep whose killer was defended by British feminists, the same feminists who have never ever dared to tackle Islam’s culture of misogyny), and I could expand on the detail of each of them if you wanted. But that’s not what you’re criticising, is it?
I’m not averse to hearing the West criticised. I do it myself on things like Iraq, Afghanistan, and…errr, Western liberalism. What I do object to are half-witted and tangential rants against the West. So, if the topic is ‘What future for Zimbabwe’, someone can usually be relied on to start foaming at the mouth about ‘colonialism, the slave trade, Western exploitation, the Crusades, North American Holocaust, Australian aborigines, rape of Africa, native peoples, conquistadors, Inquistion, the West stole its wealth from Africa…etc’. If the topic is ‘What can be done about AIDS in Africa?’, you will find people blogging with original and pertinent insights about ‘colonialism, the slave trade, Western exploitation, the Crusades, North American Holocaust, Australian aborigines, rape of Africa..’ If the topic is ‘Do you think there is life on other planets?’, sooner or later someone will – but you get the picture. That kind of anti-Westernism is as risible as it’s deranged and is, I think, usually what I go for. Informed criticism of the West (or of individual Western countries) is absolutely fine. Why should I object to that? I’m not a liberal so I don’t believe in the perfectibility of man or that anybody, any nation, or any thing is above criticism.
As to my criticism of liberalism: I don’t deny it. But then, why should I? Liberalism (which I would define as a state of mind that believes in such things as universal values applicable to all circumstances and peoples, holds equality and non-discrimination as central tenets, celebrates diversity (while enforcing uniformity), is secular (though only because it fails to recognise that it’s a political faith that believes in ‘the religion of humanity’), makes a fetish of democracy, deplores whatever is national and local and thinks in global terms, takes the UN seriously, and hates the past, the customary and the traditional), liberalism is a force in most Western countries. Recall the WHYS programme about ‘diversity’ in which one of the uber-liberal participants declared that those backward countries that hadn’t embraced diversity should be made to do so by (military) force? It’s precisely that attitude that makes modern liberalism a menace and something that ought to criticised. By my lights George Bush has carried the liberal banner into Iraq and Afghanistan. It’s a set of beliefs that really does need to be ‘stopped before it kills again’.
So, without any partiality to myself: the criticisms of the West I object to are shallow and pointless effusions of unsound minds; my criticisms of liberalism are doing a service to the world. Besides, I was trying on this occasion to answer a question by Steve who wondered where this slippery slope might lead, and the consideration of liberalism happened to be extremely relevant to the response.
I am a Muslim woman. In my circle of acquaintances, one family comes close to being able to afford their own backyard pool. Were a local gym to establish women-only hours, it would open up a world of opportunity, not only to me and other women like me, but also to families with young children whose only opportunity to go swimming would be when their fathers had a rare day off work. The tone of argument that has been spewed on this thread disappoints and even frightens me. I don’t view women-only or men-only hours as impinging on the ability of others to enjoy the same facilities, but rather as making opportunities for more people – and not just Muslims – to use the facilities.
“I don’t view women-only or men-only hours as impinging on the ability of others to enjoy the same facilities, but rather as making opportunities for more people – and not just Muslims – to use the facilities.”
It does, by default, since you are limiting access time to 50% of the population. The majority of the country, which clearly does not agree with such policies, should not be forced to adapt to your way of life. You can get together with your circle of friends and pitch in for a pool. You should not be able to have a public pool follow Sharia law so you can be accommodated, sorry. The tone of argument of this thread is to take a stand against Muslims forcing their way of life upon a non-Muslim country. If you cannot deal with the rules of your host country why would you stay? As Victor said there are plenty of Islamic countries willing to force the burqa and segregate according to sex.
If we have such a superior society and way of life, why are we so afaid on our muslim population? Surly their exposure to our way of life will win them over, particularly in the second generation. Equil rights for women, freedom of speach, Wal-mart, Big Macks, relax and have some patience. Alah will soon be forgotton infavor of rap music & plazma TVs.
I think more swimming pools of any kind would be a good idea.
Hello guys… I’m a young practicing Muslim woman, and I surely would never want my body to be exposed infront of other men… As I said before, I see my body as a sacred and precious gift from dear Allah to me, and it’s my duty to honour it and preserve it pure and unaccessible… If a woman like me living in the West and having a problem with mixed swimming pools or gyms, then the answer to that is pretty simple: Just don’t go to those mixed swimming pools and gyms if going to them will go against your own beliefs and principles, it’s just as simple as that ! Everyone anywhere around the world mustn’t be forced to do anything that goes against his/her own principles and beliefs… So to me, if I were living in a society that doesn’t approve swimming pools or gyms for women only, then all I have to do is simply not to go to those mixed swimming pools and gyms, it’s just as simple as that ! With my love… Yours forever, Lubna…
I think the whole idea of women-only pools are OK…Then on the other hand, men-should have there own hours alone for male-bonding.
Dennis
Onondaga Community College
Syracuse, New York
United States of America
Morgan
His decision is good. Mugabe wants power although old age betray him. he should stop politics and hand over the baton to another one. Violence and intimidation will not allow free and fair elections. I support what Morgan has done.
A shame on Mugabe. Mozmabique media today was against him. he should stop the elections. Poople are fed up.
My friend in at Aquabot is jewish and she also goes to a women only swimming pool….
Cool down a bit folks! We are losing rationality here! We are all creation of the same Creator and MUST learn to co-exist on this planet. And whether one likes it or not, can there be co-eixstence without one-fourth of humanity that constitutes people of the Muslim faith? If the premise of this debate is that we have geographically demarcated territories for various faiths, then what are we doing in ‘their’ territories in the garb of ‘pliant democracy’ (while supporting convenient dictatorships wherever suitable), ‘bull in a china shop style globalisation’ (while preventing destitude third world farmers access to our markets), ‘human rights rights’ (while unashamedly continuing our own Gitmos, Abu Graibs, and countless unknown shameful acts now and before), ‘energy security’ (while insisting on free market policies when we have to sell anything) …..the list can go on. But do we really want to go there when part of the truth behind this debate is that we men in the west love to reveal as much of a woman’s skin as is possible ‘politely’, ‘decently’, ‘courteously’………(while we too continued to suppress our women for several milleniums, without the right to vote, the right to property and countless other basic rights!). Is the west suddenly superior because it is slightly ahead in certain trends many of which other civilisations have long advocated but then forgotten to practice? Wasn’t it the Moorish civilisation in Granada that allowed civilisation to thrive where all religions/races/civilisations co-existed in perfect harmony for the betterment of the greater civilisation – the human civilisation – a prelude to the rennaissance! This is been done before and must happen again……..because NO CO-EXISTENCE IS NO EXISTENCE.
Interesting.
I found this while looking if women-only swimming pools existed in NY. I’m female and love swimming. However, due to religious beliefs I cannot go to mixed swimming pools. Recently there’s been an increase in gyms for women only. What’s the problem with having other sport facilities for women? If you have 10 mixed swimming pools in one area, would it hurt anyone if there was one for women only? Or a day a week for women and young children? Or heck, even an hour a week would do!
It’s never about imposing beliefs on others or about inequality or anything like that. And no one’s asking for pools to be built on taxpayer money, we don’t want some of you to freak out.
Anyway, I’ll just have to work a little harder, make a little bit more money and build my own pool : ) That would beat a public pool any summer day!
I am thankful for the few rational responses that have appeared in this article.
As a British Asian (whatever that means) who grew up in a very predominantly white town in South-East England, I am surprised that ‘women-only’ pool hours are such a big deal. The local pool in my town had a set time slot once a week for women only, and clearly this was for the predominant ‘white’ population since there were so few minorities, let alone Muslims. Indeed segregated swimming pools were found in England prior to demand from minorities, for example the freshwater swimming pools which area still in use at in Hampstead Heath park with one mixed, one for males only and one for females only. This desire for modesty existed before us ‘Muslims’ and as someone above has mentioned, such issues are being overly politicised.
My own view is that there surely is nothing wrong with female only pool time, or male only for that matter. The demand for them is either for reasons of modesty or embarrassment (and therefore comfort), but certainly is not about sexism. Gender equality (which is still an ideal that is not upheld in the workplace in the West, if you look at female’s salaries compared to their male colleagues) should not mean that genders are forced to be in the same place at all times, for example many people would feel uncomfortable with mixed changing rooms, or toilets. All i want is a nice swim! I am yet to find a suitable pool in central London.
Lastly, the notion of Muslim only pool time is ridiculous. I’ve never heard such nonsense! Just about as ridiculous as the ‘go back to your own country’ rhetoric. This is my country. Integration is a two-way street, whilst I live in harmony with friends of many colours and beliefs, it is impossible to live peacefully with those who don’t give the slightest consideration to the concerns of others (as modesty is not an entirely Muslim concern), let alone those who would judge me by the colour of my skin or by my religion alone.
taxpayers have a right to separate swimming just as they have a right to mixed swimming. if taxpayers in a certain locale overwhelmingly want (vote for) separate swimming, so be it!
Well I’m a bit overweight and although I’m a Buddhist, I would prefer a women’s only swimming pool too. (Because of all the evil comments of the guys.) 😦
It cirtainly depends upon the mind set of people where the swimming pool exist.Say in a muslim country, one can not be allow to have mixed swimming pool .While in India we can have it.So It is useless to discuss that each and every society will accept it.To me there should be a facility of mixed pool so that both male and female become more concious towards their physical fitness.
there are many women from all parts of the world and different religion who would love to see an all womens gym or pool. If people would stop being so ignorant and think about where did the YMCA or YWCA originate from; it was the need and want for women and men to be comfortable, so its not only Muslim women who want all womens gym. there are many other facilities which exists today that nobody cares to question why they exist ( Curves, Lucille Roberts or all womens spas), or do you think these facilities are only for Muslims only too. and if another pool has to be but from tax payer dollars then so be it. Muslims pay taxes too and we were never questioned about our beliefs before September 11, if anything we were resepcted. As much I am proud to call myself American i am so ashamed that we have so many ignorant people today. I am not trying to enforce my beliefs on you nor should you have the right to exclude me from what our need are also. MANY PEOPLE CAME TO THE US FOR FREEDOM and the the Constitution clearly states “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances”. My best friend/coworker is a Orthodox Jew and we respect each others views and belives no matter what and when we spoke about this blog she stated that why is it fair for her to have the ability to go to an all womens college right here in the heart of NYC and Muslim women can’t even have an hour to swim”. Its people like my friend Ricky which make me think maybe one day we will be able to live UNITED.
what happened to freedom of choice? In London we have the covent garden spa which is ONLY for women, and it is NOT a religious issue. There women can go and enjoy a whole day of pampering, in numerous pools and relax without having to feel self conscious. The spa is called THE SANCTUARY, and personally I think it is a very nice idea. At different stages of their lives women prefer single sex swimming, for numerous reasons. They might have just had a baby, or they might be teenagers wanting to go with friends and just have girly fun, or they might just be older and feel self conscious, and not want to mix with lots of young cool and hipp people who go swimming for different reasons. There is absolutely nothing controversial about giving women who feel self conscious or the need to not mix with the opposite sex. It is certainly not a moslem thing, on a religous level it applies to all religions as single sex applies to christian, jewish, and moslem and a number of other religions, who might just feel that they want this, so WOMEN ONLY swimming EMBODIES ALL RELIGIONS
my problem is not single sex swimming, because there are so many local swimming pools who offer 2 hours of this per week or more, in London, what I WANT TO SEE is BEACHES FOR WOMEN ONLY, somewhere you can go and relax after you have had a baby with your mom and your other friends who have kids and just chill without feeling self conscious about breastfeeding!!!! women really need holidays after having a baby, BUT NO RESORT IN THE WORLD UNDERSTANDS THIS, everywhere just offers the same package
What’s wrong of having separate sessions? It should be people right to choose to go to a mixed session or a separate one. Some women do not feel comfortable showing their body because they are modest, other because they are not comfortable with their shape, some for different reason. Just like men, women like to bond together and have some time away from men. But male chauvinist want to invade women privacy at all time.
All around the world there are fattiness club for female only, and the people who attend these session come from a mixed religion sector. These clubs are successful and their enrolling rate is much higher than other clubs. In the United States of America, there are many clubs for females only, hooray America your liberty have not been comprised (France need to follow the U.S. foot step)