Muslim Girls Allowed Private Swim Test In Montreal High School

[Pierre the Great]

Muslim girls allowed private swim test

Religion makes ripples in pool

Montreal-area school focus for debate

May 11, 2006. 05:45 AM

SEAN GORDON

QUEBEC BUREAU CHIEF

MONTREAL—The decision to close a high school pool to give three Muslim girls a private swimming class is stoking debate over the place of faith in Quebec's public institutions.

At issue is the practice known as "reasonable accommodation" for religious views, one that's increasingly common in a city that's home to most of Quebec's immigrants.

Parents say the decision by Commission Scolaire Marie-Victorin, with more that 40,000 students in 80 schools, risks encouraging "segregation in the name of religion."

The board argues it is simply respecting provisions of a recent Supreme Court judgment on wearing Sikh kirpans (ceremonial daggers) in classrooms that set limits on restricting religious rights.

The most recent chapter in the argument centres on a request from three Muslim students at Antoine-Brossard high school in the South Shore suburb of Brossard, who asked to be excused from swimming class because their religion rejects sharing a pool with men.

The board demurred, saying children couldn't beg off the requirements, which are part of a physical education curriculum, but could take the swimming test needed to pass the course under special circumstances.

So last Friday morning, the pool was closed to all other students and tables were placed in front of the windows so the three girls would be shielded from view. A female teacher administered the test, aided by another female school employee.

The problem with all that, says the parental representative on Antoine-Brossard's "conseil d'établissement" (parent-teacher council) is that, when the question was brought to the council, it unanimously decided to demand the board shelve that decision.

Fouad Cheddadi, a Muslim whose children attend the school, told reporters this week, "This is a decision that makes a lot of parents uncomfortable. The main goal of school is to provide secular instruction to children. It's a place where all cultures meet."

School board officials referred all questions to its executive director François Houde, who could not be reached for comment.

Houde told La Presse, "This issue is closed," noting the board is constrained by the Constitution and by high court rulings that spell out "an obligation to find a reasonable accommodation."

The board notes many other public pools in Montreal, especially in areas with large Jewish, Muslim and Sikh populations, have time set aside specifically for women.

Last week's swim test is just the latest incident illustrating Quebec's recent struggles to reconcile constitutionally guaranteed religious freedoms — especially those exercised by minorities — with the increasing secularization of public institutions.

"There's a nervousness about allowing too much," said Annick Germain, a professor of urban sociology at Université du Québec's l'Institut national de recherche scientifique.

Germain has studied the whole question of reasonable accommodation in public pools.

It's a relatively rare phenomenon, she said, but the current debate is as much a proxy for a larger debate on immigration as it is about specific details of the case.

Several Toronto public school pools offer weekly all-girl swim periods for Muslim girls whose religion prohibits them from wearing bathing suits in front of boys.

The University of Toronto provides a 90-minute all-female swim time each Monday, Wednesday and Friday in a pool in the main athletic building, and a one-hour women's swim period Sundays.

During these times, blinds are drawn in the viewing gallery to prohibit observation, and only female lifeguards are on duty.

[CerebusClone]

Personally I think such insignificant decisions should be left to each school (or perhaps school commisions). The school should be able to decide whether or not they want to accomodate their students by accomodating them with "favors" such as private swimming lessons, or reserved rooms for prayers. I don't think they should have to, but if they want to, I see no problem with that either; after all, this is a society (Canada and Quebec) that prides itself on being so open and understanding of all cultures.

Although this brings up the larger debates regarding immigration and the integration, who cares really if Muslim girls get to swim together; it makes them feel more comfortable without taking away from anyone else. This has nothing to so with the more important debate over the kirpan, which despite being ceremonial remains a weapon identical to what all other students are forbidden to carry.

People shouldn't be so outraged everytime we allow the simplest favor to people from another culture, just like they shouldn't be so outraged everytime we refuse to give them such favors. After all, when you live in another country, you should accept their rules and values; you can fight to change some things, as for any other citizen, but ultimately you must accept the final decision.

[PMAC]

Actually, as a non-Muslim Canadian living in the Arabian Gulf, UAE, it irritates the shit out of me. As foreigners here we are constantly reminded that we have to "adjust our behaviour to respect local culture". Wait, you say, these were Canadian citizens, not foreign workers. Great. My son was born here, he's not eligible for citizenship. We could live here for 30 years and still not qualify.

All I have to say is that the longer I live overseas, the more I am starting to question Canada's multiculturalism and its accomodation of every group's desires. God help me, I am starting to think a melting pot might not be such a bad idea.

[fromage]

Wow... we have highschools with POOLS? Wtf.

My highschool doesn't even have a woodshop, or any of those kinds of options... let alone a pool.

[Fanpuck33]

Separation of Chuch and State is taken way too far by people. It was meant to prevent religion from being the primary source of government, not to extinguish any form of public support for religion.

[Pierre the Great]

I see seperation of church and state as a tool that keeps religion where it should be: In the church or place of worship and in the home. This violates it because its promoting religion in a public setting. By seperating muslims from the rest of crowd its not only singling them out but makes them a target. Because if a person got special treatment I'd want that treatment too.

[Fanpuck33]

So the state should violate the religious beliefs of the girls by making them do the swimming publicly? This surely is an infringement on their freedom of religion.

You say religion should be kept in the home or church. Does that mean I am not allowed to wear a cross around my neck? Am I not allowed to carry a Bible around? Where does it end?

As I said, the separation of church and state only exists to make sure religion does not become the government. Saying a prayer in school or having a statue of the 10 Commandments has nothing to do with religion taking over government.

[simonus]

So the state should violate the religious beliefs of the girls by making them do the swimming publicly? This surely is an infringement on their freedom of religion.

You say religion should be kept in the home or church. Does that mean I am not allowed to wear a cross around my neck? Am I not allowed to carry a Bible around? Where does it end?

As I said, the separation of church and state only exists to make sure religion does not become the government. Saying a prayer in school or having a statue of the 10 Commandments has nothing to do with religion taking over government.

I don't know if I agree with your constitutional interpretation and regardless, this country is built on precedent and the church-state separation has a long legal history in the US. I really dont know anything about the religious jurisprudence in Canada. I think less severe.

Regardless of the constitutionality, I just wouldnt be in the mood to vote for a government that used its power to that effect. I think if nothing else it just gets a bit messy using govt money in reference to religion. Somebody always gets the short stick and somebody gets one thats too long.

The first part of your post is most interesting to me, and a very difficult issue for the american legal system. How do we treat a non-discriminatory statute or regulation when it has a adverse effect on a given religion. Catholic parochial schools had issues with school zoning issues, etc. The major case is actually native american use of peyote.

The current Supreme Ct ruling is that the regulation stands if not discriminatory.

now there is a presumptive constitutionality if it is a universal regulation, but it is rebutable.

Let us say there were some regulation that made it illegal for anyone to wear fringed garments. Aside from the right to privacy issue, lets pretend that was a law you could make. It would be unconstitutional because the only people it would affect would be orthodox jews.

I don't necessarily how to apply this to a muslim swimmers issue, but there it is.

Edited May 12, 2006 by simonus

[Fanpuck33]

I don't know if I agree with your constitutional interpretation and regardless, this country is built on precedent and the church-state separation has a long legal history in the US.

Please show me in the US Constitution where it talks about the separation of church and state.

The closest thing there is the Establishment Clause, stating that the government cannot establish an official religion for the country. This clause goes hand-in-hand with what I have said thus far.

The current "wall of separation of church and state" did not come into effect until Everson v. Board of Education in 1947. While Everson lost the case, the "official" interpretation of the Establishment Clause was forever changed, defining it much more broadly than it had originally been intended. The majority opinion was written by Justice Hugo Black, a former member of the Ku Klux Klan. What kind of precedence does it set that such a defining ruling be led by a bigot?