9 February 2012

Ladies, are leering men holding back your swimming? The Greens have an answer

| johnboy
Join the conversation
258

The Greens’ Meredith Hunter is kicking off a push for women’s only swimming opportunities in the ACT:

“Providing women’s only swimming would increase the availability of swimming to a number of women and children in our community, both for safety, and for fun.

“Some women and families currently do not use our public pools due to religious reasons, accessibility concerns, or for body image reasons.

“I have raised women’s only swimming with the Chief Minister in recent weeks, and I hope her planned meetings with community advocates will progress this issue.

“There have been some women’s only swimming programs run by community organizations or small community groups on a season by season basis, which rely on the availability of private pools such as the pool at Canberra Girls Grammar or the ACU.

“With work yet to begin on the new Gungahlin Leisure Centre, the Government has a golden opportunity, for instance, to incorporate screening into the design so that a separated pool area can be available for women only sessions.

“Such ad hoc arrangements can be difficult to manage, especially due to the rising costs of insurance, which many small community organisations are not able to meet.

UPDATE 08/02/12 15:25: Andrew Barr has tweeted his disapproval:

The ACT Labor Government will not be supporting the Greens call for a women’s only public swimming pool. Public pools are for everyone.

UPDATE 09/02/12 10:04: A spokeperson for the Greens has sent this in:

The tweet from Andrew Barr yesterday regarding women’s only swimming may have caused his followers and your readers to be misinformed about the issue. No one that we know of has proposed a women’s only pool. The Greens certainly don’t support that. This is about opportunities for women’s only swim sessions. Women’s and Men’s only swim sessions were run in the past at the now closed Kaleen swim centre, and were very popular (about 60 people per session). Investigating a temporary screen for such sessions is being supported by the Royal Life Savers ACT, YWCA as well as the Greens.

Join the conversation

258
All Comments
  • All Comments
  • Website Comments
LatestOldest

shadow boxer said :

fabforty said :

I never thought I would say it ..but… I agree with Jethro.

I wonder how many of you outraged citizens actually use public pools in the first place. Is it really going to ruin your lives to show a bit of tolerance for an hour or so a week (probably in the middle of the day when you are at work anyway) ? Surely there are times when you can’t use some sports grounds or other facilities at certain times because specific sports teams are using them ?

Get a grip people.

How do you know it is an hour or so, like Jethro you are just making stuff up, the sports analogy is equally stupid as anyone can join these sporting teams or at least can share the pool and not be told where to look.

It may make you feel cool to pretend you are more tolerant than others but I would wager the people trying to quietly build the mosque down the road wish the supporters of this would just shut up and but out.

There are two lovely privately run schools in Gungahlin, I am sure they can be hired if the price is right and there really is a demand.

I’m less of a supporter and more of someone who just doesn’t get the 9 pages of outrage on this thread.

Morgan said :

Oh please, this is a bit silly don’t you think. What would happen if we had men only swimming times? Or if we had swimming times for white people only who don’t want to share the pool with migrants? Or what about swimming only for fit trim people so no one has to see a fat person? Or conversely we ban all fit people from public exercise so as not to make unfit people feel self conscious? Or while we are at why don’t we just ban men from the world. These are the same people who assume I am a sex offender for taking a video of my young nephews learning to swim to send to their grandparents.

A public swimming pool is for all people men, women, children and families to use. I have no problem in booking lanes etc. but this suggestion would see only women rostered on at the women only times and an inconvience to a great many people. Let private interests build their own facilities at a private expense, and the rest of us will learn to share the pool.

So anyone not white is considered a migrant? Come on!

shadow boxer11:30 pm 18 Feb 12

fabforty said :

I never thought I would say it ..but… I agree with Jethro.

I wonder how many of you outraged citizens actually use public pools in the first place. Is it really going to ruin your lives to show a bit of tolerance for an hour or so a week (probably in the middle of the day when you are at work anyway) ? Surely there are times when you can’t use some sports grounds or other facilities at certain times because specific sports teams are using them ?

Get a grip people.

How do you know it is an hour or so, like Jethro you are just making stuff up, the sports analogy is equally stupid as anyone can join these sporting teams or at least can share the pool and not be told where to look.

It may make you feel cool to pretend you are more tolerant than others but I would wager the people trying to quietly build the mosque down the road wish the supporters of this would just shut up and but out.

There are two lovely privately run schools in Gungahlin, I am sure they can be hired if the price is right and there really is a demand.

I never thought I would say it ..but… I agree with Jethro.

I wonder how many of you outraged citizens actually use public pools in the first place. Is it really going to ruin your lives to show a bit of tolerance for an hour or so a week (probably in the middle of the day when you are at work anyway) ? Surely there are times when you can’t use some sports grounds or other facilities at certain times because specific sports teams are using them ?

Get a grip people.

SnapperJack said :

Jethro said :

Is this rant still going?

Jiminy Crickets… it’s a couple of lanes behind a screen for a couple of hours a week.

It’s not like anybody’s being asked to do something severely drastic and unwarranted like give up half a metre of their road space for a bike-lane, or some other such nonsense. It’s a couple of lanes in a swimming pool having a screen across them for a couple of hours a week. It’s a freaking non-issue.

Like, a real non-issue.

It is obvious you never visit swimming pools in Canberra. I go to Tuggers pool every weekday morning when the pool opens at 5:30AM and the Woden Swim Club has three lanes. The Tuggeranong Swim Club has two lanes and the Vikings Club has one lane. The Woden Club demands that their lanes be on one side of the pool and the Tuggers Clubs demand that their lanes be on the other side so that the coach drills directed at the swimmers don’t interfere with each other. The public has a grand total of two lanes in the middle which usually have about 7 or 8 swimmers each. Are you suggesting that curtains be put around each one of these middle lanes? How stupid would that be? And then when the swim clubs leave later in the morning will the curtains all have to be rearranged? The lifeguards would be so preoccupied reconfiguring the curtains they wouldn’t have any time to keep an eye on the swimmers.

Another ignorant comment from someone who knows nothing about the practicalities of the aquatic industry.

So don’t do it at peak times.

And it would seem from your comment that the pools already are being roped off and limited for use by certain groups. How is this different?

SnapperJack said :

Jethro said :

And then when the swim clubs leave later in the morning will the curtains all have to be rearranged? The lifeguards would be so preoccupied reconfiguring the curtains they wouldn’t have any time to keep an eye on the swimmers.

The FEMALE lifeguards. All the males lost their shifts because they might see a woman swimming in a burkha.

Arthur McKenzie said :

Jethro is no ranter, no siree, but I reckon there would be a bit of reading to do if he wanted to tell us it wasn’t a non-issue.

Lawks – a- Mussy! That Jethro has his thawng in a twist no mistake!

Jethro said :

Is this rant still going?

Jiminy Crickets… it’s a couple of lanes behind a screen for a couple of hours a week.

First they came for the swimming pool lanes,
and I didn’t speak out as I wasn’t a swimmer.
Then they came for the….

Jethro said :

Is this rant still going?

Jiminy Crickets… it’s a couple of lanes behind a screen for a couple of hours a week.

It’s not like anybody’s being asked to do something severely drastic and unwarranted like give up half a metre of their road space for a bike-lane, or some other such nonsense. It’s a couple of lanes in a swimming pool having a screen across them for a couple of hours a week. It’s a freaking non-issue.

Like, a real non-issue.

It is obvious you never visit swimming pools in Canberra. I go to Tuggers pool every weekday morning when the pool opens at 5:30AM and the Woden Swim Club has three lanes. The Tuggeranong Swim Club has two lanes and the Vikings Club has one lane. The Woden Club demands that their lanes be on one side of the pool and the Tuggers Clubs demand that their lanes be on the other side so that the coach drills directed at the swimmers don’t interfere with each other. The public has a grand total of two lanes in the middle which usually have about 7 or 8 swimmers each. Are you suggesting that curtains be put around each one of these middle lanes? How stupid would that be? And then when the swim clubs leave later in the morning will the curtains all have to be rearranged? The lifeguards would be so preoccupied reconfiguring the curtains they wouldn’t have any time to keep an eye on the swimmers.

Another ignorant comment from someone who knows nothing about the practicalities of the aquatic industry.

shadow boxer7:01 am 18 Feb 12

Lots of people have put up well reasoned arguments on why this is bad policy, indeed there have been some well articulated responses on why it should be supported.

You twisting the facts (a couple of lanes a couple hours a week is wrong) and yelling at people does nothing to move the debate forward.

As this thread shows the policy, while trying to be inclusive, is by its nature divisive and should be abandoned.

Arthur McKenzie2:18 am 18 Feb 12

Jethro is no ranter, no siree, but I reckon there would be a bit of reading to do if he wanted to tell us it wasn’t a non-issue.

Is this rant still going?

Jiminy Crickets… it’s a couple of lanes behind a screen for a couple of hours a week.

It’s not like anybody’s being asked to do something severely drastic and unwarranted like give up half a metre of their road space for a bike-lane, or some other such nonsense. It’s a couple of lanes in a swimming pool having a screen across them for a couple of hours a week. It’s a freaking non-issue.

Like, a real non-issue.

How many of the people having a whinge on here have ever actually been to a public pool wanting to do laps, but simply couldn’t because the pool was so goddamned full that there just wasn’t a lane to spare? I mean the humanity. Having to give up a lane or two once or twice a week. This is an outrage that finds few parallels in history.

Possibly the segregation laws in Mississippi circa 1950, but that’s about it. I mean, these Gungahlin swimmers facing the possible loss of a swimming lane or two a few times a week are experiencing the modern day equivalent of Rosa Parkes being kicked off the bus for refusing to stand for a white person. The outrage you must feel for this egregious assault on equality. The idea that women should have a swimming lane screened of a few times a week. Those goddamned fascists in government abusing their power in such a way. The spit is literally foaming at my mouth as I ponder this outrageous injustice.

Women having screened of lanes. It’s a slippery slope. Who know how they will assault our liberties next.

Based on all the fuming going on in this thread I’m going to assume that the entire population of Gungahlin is at the pool during every hour of the week, so that the possibility of screening off a lane or two is simply impossible. It’s the only explanation for the foaming mouths having a whinge on this thread.

Seriously, this thread may stand as the single-most extreme example of Canberra whinging and knicker-twisting I have seen in my 5 years in this town.

Arthur McKenzie10:24 pm 17 Feb 12

Dilandach said :

colourful sydney racing identity said :

regardless of the size of our muslim community we should not do it. Just the same as we should not tie ouselves in knots trying to not offend catholics, scientologists or disciples of Odin.

I’m sure that Thor can hold his own.

Orbiting Teapot followers can hold there own too. Their women are always suitably attired in tea cosies anyway. What’s wrong with these people. Maybe they’re just looking for an excuse to burn down a few buildings and have a few riots and killings after the cartoons emerge.

Arthur McKenzie10:04 pm 17 Feb 12

dtc said :

B Johnson said :

… but being prevented from accessing 1% of the pool time available in Canberra is hardly going to change anyone’s life.

A sound argument. So why not scrap the centre altogether? Alternatively, if having the ludicrous segregation has minimal effect on anyone then scrap it!

Arthur McKenzie8:47 pm 17 Feb 12

What about a couple of sessions every Friday at the mosque for non-muslims, atheists and pig farmers?

GeneralMonash1:52 pm 16 Feb 12

harvyk1 said :

Diggety said :

Anyway, johnboy asked the rioters:

“Ladies, are leering men holding back your swimming?

I counted one ‘yes’ reply… The CT isn’t hearing much agreement either.

That is of no surprise. In general we are an inclusive society, who usually doesn’t mind people doing whatever they like, provided they don’t infringe on our own rights. Excluding 50% of the population from using a resource because someones beliefs prohibits them from using the resource at the same time as someone else does not fall into this inclusive society guidelines.

so no swimming sessions at all I take it? There should also be no dedicated lanes? It’s not that i support this action, just i think this argument is kinda stretching it. What could definitly be said is that this is a secular state and so its money should not be wasted on peoples beliefs, unless being embarassed started a wave of spontaneous self-combustion.

Also the whole ‘these people aren’t paying for it’ argument is also week as I *think* swimming sessions cost money.

You could definitly say that it excludes people from swimming sessions, thats for sure.

#245 and #247 pretty well sum up the reality of this. Thanks 🙂

What I really like is when people use women’s equality as a reason to achieve exactly the opposite.

I’m not sure if you understand exactly what you’re doing. But you’re f***ing for virginty.

pink little birdie2:50 pm 13 Feb 12

you know Tuggeranong pool has a curtain screen which they drop when ever a sporting group is using the deep end of the 50m pool. I assume the screens would be similar just going accross the whole building not just the width of the 50m pool.

Though here they are talking about a screen on the family pool which would be difficult to implement in the first place and if it is going accross say half the family pool wouldn’t it be subject to damage from swimmers?

if it’s in the pool children are going to play on it…

B Johnson said :

If people want privacy in swimming pools, then they can spend their own money building those pools. If the people of a religion want private swimming for religious reasons, then their own religious communities can spend the money to build their pools. However, a public pool is built by the taxpayers of the community as a whole and is, therefore, open to the whole of the public. And while I don’t like the sight of men in speedos either, it’s their choice. I’m also of the opinion that most women who wear bikinis haven’t got the figures for it, but, that’s also their choice. If you don’t like it, don’t look at it.

Exactly. If women choose to breastfeed rather than bottle feed, then they should pay for their own lactation nurse. And if men chose to play rugby instead of sitting at home, then they should pay for their own oval. And if children chose to read rather than watch TV, then they should buy their own damn books, I’m sick of my taxpayer’s dollar going to the libraries. And if you chose to join the army, pay for your own gun. I am happy not to have a defence force.

Seriously. Every dollar spent by the govt is probably 90c that is of little to no benefit to you and is to provide a service or build something that you cannot access. Your real argument is that you dont agree with the reason why people want this built. You are just tarting it up as a lack of equity issue, but being prevented from accessing 1% of the pool time available in Canberra is hardly going to change anyone’s life.

If people want privacy in swimming pools, then they can spend their own money building those pools. If the people of a religion want private swimming for religious reasons, then their own religious communities can spend the money to build their pools. However, a public pool is built by the taxpayers of the community as a whole and is, therefore, open to the whole of the public. And while I don’t like the sight of men in speedos either, it’s their choice. I’m also of the opinion that most women who wear bikinis haven’t got the figures for it, but, that’s also their choice. If you don’t like it, don’t look at it.

devils_advocate said :

Diggety said :

Anyway, johnboy asked the rioters:

“Ladies, are leering men holding back your swimming?

I counted one ‘yes’ reply… The CT isn’t hearing much agreement either.

This could be due to selection bias. For example, the kind of people that would vote “yes” might exclusively read “the daily worker” or “tree hugging weekly” for their news and opinion and not publications such as CT or RA.

(jk… kind of.)

Well there is a poll happening later this year which will tell us for sure. Greens I dare you to take this as an issue to election day, lets see how committed you really are.

(As a side note, no I will not be voting for the greens this time around, to me the issue of discrimination of any kind is an important one to me, and any group which feels that the “right kind” of discrimination is acceptable regardless of how small or token automatically gets the thumbs down from me)

Diggety said :

Anyway, johnboy asked the rioters:

“Ladies, are leering men holding back your swimming?

I counted one ‘yes’ reply… The CT isn’t hearing much agreement either.

That is of no surprise. In general we are an inclusive society, who usually doesn’t mind people doing whatever they like, provided they don’t infringe on our own rights. Excluding 50% of the population from using a resource because someones beliefs prohibits them from using the resource at the same time as someone else does not fall into this inclusive society guidelines.

devils_advocate12:56 pm 13 Feb 12

Diggety said :

Anyway, johnboy asked the rioters:

“Ladies, are leering men holding back your swimming?

I counted one ‘yes’ reply… The CT isn’t hearing much agreement either.

This could be due to selection bias. For example, the kind of people that would vote “yes” might exclusively read “the daily worker” or “tree hugging weekly” for their news and opinion and not publications such as CT or RA.

(jk… kind of.)

Anyway, johnboy asked the rioters:

“Ladies, are leering men holding back your swimming?

I counted one ‘yes’ reply… The CT isn’t hearing much agreement either.

Reech said :

If GA becomes a candidate for the next election, citizens might like to reflect on his preparedness to support publicly and vigorously his belief in a fair go for all citizens, and compare that to serving politicians who – with the notable exception of Ms Meredith Hunter and Mr John Hargreaves – seem to be missing in action on this issue, whatever stance they might take. Election year?

I think you meant to say “a fair go within certain limits”. A truly fair go would involve the removal of the necessity for this plan in the first place.

” I thought to send her to swimming lessons then. The lesson was for half an hour a week but we had to stop as every time we are there we see things which are not allowed for us as Muslims; we stopped again. Since then, every time we are at the lake we keep a distance from the water. Me as a mother, I have an uncomfortable feeling every time my daughter is walking towards water or running a bit far.
That might give you an idea of how we feel left behind and can’t even teach our children how to swim so they can save themselves when needed.”

I find it very concerning that we are prepared to accept that people will put their children at risk because of a religious belief.
Those who have migrated from islamic countries to australia because of the opression of women can also be pressured to conform to the regressive standards they have tried escape. What about that?

devils_advocate said :

Gungahlin Al said :

Well there’s the thing about beliefs – they aren’t about what “can” and “can’t” be done, they are about what certain people believe can and can’t be done. Hence the term.

Not quite. Your post included a claim to the effect that a parent “can’t even teach our children how to swim so they can save themselves when needed”.

This is not true. The person who wrote this is, by their own admission, choosing (note – choosing) to elevate the importance of their own religious observance above the safety of their child. Their choice, not mine.

+1 it’s scary that parents would have their priorities so screwed up. Those statements were quite disturbing for that reason – I also find it rather odd. I’ve attended swimming lessons as a child, bringing a child and as an instructor and if you go to say, AIS during lesson time it’s filled with kids, instructors wearing wet suits and fully-dressed adults supervising their kids. It’s not a hotbed of bikinis, often all the lanes are closed! I struggle to understand the things people “can’t watch” and also why they spend their time ogling for women in swimmers rather than watching their kids, which should be taking up all their attention.
I don’t like the idea of a child suffering because of a parent’s crazy beliefs, but I think segregation will make that worse not better.

@Gungahlin Al Screw them. I disagree with the concept of women only gyms, when men to are not allowed to have men only clubs. Men only clubs around the world are forced to admit woman because of equality, but woman only gyms are allowed to continue, unabated. How is this fair? How is this equality?

The excuses are all the same. Don’t want to be leered at, not proud of their bodies yadda yadda yadda. Guess what. Woman are more critical of each others bodies then men are. Further, more men then ever are suffering from body image issues, yet this is continually given lip service. More men are abusing steroids, and other drugs to try and achieve impossible body images propagated by the media, and women.

Men, are minority, and yet their is an office for the status of woman, ensuring that all decisions do not disadvantage women. Where is the office for the staus of men? Why is it that men’s health is always overshadowed by women’s health? Why is their a hospital dedicated to woman’s issues, but none for men? How is this equality?

Why should my hard earned taxpayers money pay for these sessions, when the all boil down to personal choice? Further, segregation like this impedes communication, sharing, and understanding? How is this beneficial for society?

If these groups want to run woman only sessions, then they can higher a private pool, or build there own, with their own money. Public services, and goods are for the use of the whole community, not a subset of them.

devils_advocate11:39 pm 12 Feb 12

Gungahlin Al said :

Well there’s the thing about beliefs – they aren’t about what “can” and “can’t” be done, they are about what certain people believe can and can’t be done. Hence the term.

Not quite. Your post included a claim to the effect that a parent “can’t even teach our children how to swim so they can save themselves when needed”.

This is not true. The person who wrote this is, by their own admission, choosing (note – choosing) to elevate the importance of their own religious observance above the safety of their child. Their choice, not mine.

There are countries in the world that enforce Islamic tenets on their population. In those countries, I would agree this statement would be 100% correct (although I’m sure swimming arrangements in those countries cater towards these specific issues). In Australia there is nothing preventing anyone from taking their children anywhere to teach them to swim at any time.

That’s the thing about being an adult in Australia. Nobody forces us to believe anything, and for that reason everything is a choice, the consequences of which is attributable to nobody but ourselves. It’s a great freedom but also creates that annoying thing called personal responsibility.

SnapperJack said :

Similarly, what’s stopping Protestants demanding a ban on Catholics?

That’s never happened??

HenryBG said :

Gungahlin Al said :

The idea of screens is that they could allow a section of one pool (likely the 20m learn-to-swim pool) to be screened off temporarily, while the rest of the centre continues on as usual. Like when a section of a pool is regularly roped off for club training or water polo or whatever. Except with a screen instead of a rope.
.

So you support the perpetuation of the mediaeval and human-rights-denying treatment of women as 2nd-class citizens.

That’s fine, everybody’s entitled to their opinions – whether its regressive nonsense from Pauline Hanson or regressive authoritarian nonsense from The Greens, it’s good to know what kind of a society we’d be in for if you get your way.

Just let me know when you decide on changing course to offer sensible, progressive, non-fringe policies so I can consider supporting your party again, Al.

+1000

Gungahlin Al has, with his usual calmness, principle, and tenacity, been most supportive of this case. For this I thank him.

If GA becomes a candidate for the next election, citizens might like to reflect on his preparedness to support publicly and vigorously his belief in a fair go for all citizens, and compare that to serving politicians who – with the notable exception of Ms Meredith Hunter and Mr John Hargreaves – seem to be missing in action on this issue, whatever stance they might take. Election year?

Why doesn’t The Canberra Times ask questions of other politicians on this issue, people such as Ms Joy Burch MLA, Minister for Women/Multicultural Affairs; or Mr Simon Corbell MLA, the Human (and now cultural) Rights proponent; or Mr Zed Seselja MLA and his Liberal MLAs. Where do they stand?

(Incidentally, my previous reference to petty politickers, log rollers, pecksniffers, and dogs-in-the-manger, was directed at local politicians territory and federal, and sprang from my experience during the past three months.)

Below is an email that I sent on 19 November 2011. It may provide more information for those whose minds are not firmly made up. I have chosen to keep my name on it as, like GA, Ms Hunter and Mr Hargreaves, and like some brave and admirable women, I am prepared to nail my colours to the mast. By doing so I also pay them tribute for their sincerity and bravery.

“Dear Molonglo MLAs

I am seeking your urgent consideration of the final design for the proposed Gungahlin Leisure Centre (GLC).

Last Friday I viewed the preliminary sketch plans for the GLC (an unadvertised, once only, three hour display, in one location). Disappointingly, one of my suggestions, made following the information session in March this year, was not incorporated. Here is a part of my submission of 2 March, which, inter alia, argued that community service and the range of patrons should be the overriding factors for judging the centre’s utility:

“Related to the questions of inclusiveness, flexibility, and diversity, but worthy of distinct mention, is the ethnicity of many members of the Gungahlin and wider ACT community. Reference B* [City of Sydney Aquatic Leisure Facility Development Strategy Background Research dated May 2005] makes the point that ethnicity is a critical influence on the viability of aquatic leisure facilities and to the mix of facilities and programs which are provided. This is because many cultural groups have little or no traditional involvement with aquatics compared with the majority of the Australian population. This can lead to very low comparative use rates.

Reference A* [the Interim Feasibility Report] did not mention that members of ethnic communities were specifically consulted to provide some input about this type of facility, neither did it mention any special requirements, such as opaque windows, appropriate access from change-rooms to screened bathing areas etc. Ideally these should appear in any design brief. When I raised these matters at the information session it was agreed that they should be considered.

Apart from broadening the range of potential users, very few acts by government could better promote tolerance and inclusiveness than to have an aquatic centre planned from the beginning to cater for different cultural mores.”

* One of the contributors to Reference B, HM Leisure Planning Pty Ltd, was also involved in the production of Reference A.

On Friday it was agreed by the representative of the designers that such suggestions could be incorporated quite readily into the (rapidly approaching) final design. (A public servant present indicated ‘If the [project] manager approved.’ From my project management experience, a ‘manager’ implements an approved requirement; she does not determine it.) The representative also agreed that such features can be achieved more cheaply and more conveniently if contained in the original design, rather than, as in many other jurisdictions, being ‘temporary’ or ‘add on’ fixes later in response to community demand.

Further, I was told that the final design would be approved by the end of February 2012, or ‘possibly sooner’. The finalisation of the design will thus occur during the ACT’s annual season of festivity, holidays, and somnolence. This does not bode well for further community ‘consultation’.

In my March submission the cultural background aspect of the GLC was only mentioned briefly. This was because I had had quite a long discussion about it at the information session and the positive response had left me confident about the outcome. This conversation was virtually repeated last Friday with the same representative and the same public servant. The former was clearly aware of examples of such design features in other aquatic centres, as well as controversial and costly solutions when this did not occur: pool closure to other members of the public, the need to erect ad hoc screening etc. Moreover, he assured me that data about the ethnic origins represented in the Gungahlin community had been consulted. He also assured me that my March submission would have been ‘considered’. Perhaps. But I was also told, by email (of which I have retained a copy), that I would be ‘updated’ on the results of the March consultation. This did not occur.

We will soon have a mosque in the Gungahlin area, close to the GLC. It will attract many citizens from all over Canberra. One would hope that many women and girls would feel welcome to combine a visit to the mosque with a swim in an area suitably screened, while other community members are able to use the facility concurrently. Such an area should also encourage reluctant parents to allow greater participation by girls in learn-to-swim classes. As revealed recently, this is an increasing problem within the greater Canberra community.

But it is not just Muslim women and girls who would benefit from such a facility. The following is from the website of The Women’s Pool in Sydney:

The pool offers a safe, popular and relatively private bathing spot for Christian and other nuns, Muslim women, lesbians, and those who like to swim in privacy, including women with disabilities and some pregnant women. The pool has been used by women bathers since the 1860s.

I note that the GLC is going to cater, inter alia, for water polo players. For this, I have no objection whatsoever. My ‘gut feeling’, however, is that there are many more women and girls than water polo players for whom the GLC, in its present design, will NOT cater. This will disencourage, if not disenfranchise, a large number of citizens from using a publicly-funded community facility, a facility to which they have contributed through rates and taxes and land purchase charges.

The GLC provides an opportunity to be more than tokenistic in this area: it is an opportunity to be fair dinkum. I repeat my statement from March:

“Apart from broadening the range of potential users, very few acts by government could better promote tolerance and inclusiveness than to have an aquatic centre planned from the beginning to cater for different cultural mores.”

I urge you, as the elected representatives of (almost) the whole of the Gungahlin community, to consider the above and to act urgently. And I would be most appreciative if you would advise me of any action that you take.

Yours sincerely,

W.A Reid (Mr)”

Deref said :

shadow boxer said :

Seriously dude, run as an independant, we need you but not with the Green baggage.

+1

+1 totally agree

Gungahlin Al said :

The idea of screens is that they could allow a section of one pool (likely the 20m learn-to-swim pool) to be screened off temporarily, while the rest of the centre continues on as usual. Like when a section of a pool is regularly roped off for club training or water polo or whatever. Except with a screen instead of a rope.
.

So you support the perpetuation of the mediaeval and human-rights-denying treatment of women as 2nd-class citizens.

That’s fine, everybody’s entitled to their opinions – whether its regressive nonsense from Pauline Hanson or regressive authoritarian nonsense from The Greens, it’s good to know what kind of a society we’d be in for if you get your way.

Just let me know when you decide on changing course to offer sensible, progressive, non-fringe policies so I can consider supporting your party again, Al.

Sorry to introduce new material and double post on a thread that is already extending to eight pages, but if we allow this it will be a slippery slope to other outrageous demands. For example two years ago a pool in Sydney was forced to ban boys under 16 from the male change room because one patron objected and didn’t want to be accused of being a pedophile.

You can imagine the avalanche of other demands and the various permutations. For example, what is stopping a white supremacist group demanding whites only pools and the banning of blacks and Asians? Similarly, what’s stopping Protestants demanding a ban on Catholics?

Once you open the door to discrimination and segregation a whole range of other problems follow. We should leave well alone. It is ironic that this debate has erupted in the week of the Multicultural Festival.

shadow boxer said :

Seriously dude, run as an independant, we need you but not with the Green baggage.

+1

I-filed said :

If there’s a demand for segregated swim sessions, then the private pools should take advantage of that demand and offer those sessions.

Spot on.

shadow boxer2:00 pm 12 Feb 12

Sorry Al, I fail to see how curtaining off part of a public asset for a minority is fair or multicultural.

Quite the opposite really (and by its nature divisive).

Seriously dude, run as an independant, we need you but not with the Green baggage.

If there’s a demand for segregated swim sessions, then the private pools should take advantage of that demand and offer those sessions.

At public pools, rather than “women only” sessions, the managers could identify a couple of sessions during the slowest times when they could section off a number of lanes for women only while leaving adequate room for all other comers. It would be up to those women to either cover up completely in a burquini if that’s their choice, or be shielded by friends (or volunteer Greens?) with large towels from the change rooms to the poolside. Once they are in the water no-one would be able to see their bodies from another lane.

If (and it’s unlikely) a woman who is in a burquini is being openly and rudely leered at in the pool, she can complain to management.

In real life, I suspect people in the above scenario would just get on with getting fit, enjoying their swimming, and not be too interested in other people in other lanes.

ACT Government Pools:

Canberra Olympic Pool
Dickson Pool
Manuka Pool
Tuggeranong Lakeside Leisure Centre

Private Pools:

Active Leisure Centre (Erindale)
Australian Institute of Sport Pool
Canberra International Sports and Aquatic Centre-(Belconnen Pool)
Big Splash Waterpark (Macquarie)
Gold Creek Aquatics Centre
Phillip Swimming and Ice Skating Centre

Gungahlin Al12:53 pm 12 Feb 12

devils_advocate said :

Gungahlin Al, re: the first-hand accounts you have posted up, I note the prolific use of terms like “can’t” “not able to” “not supposed to”. But these terms are not quite accurate, because – and this is a hugely important aspect of life in Australia – everyone exercises a choice about what religion they identify as and how they choose to observe it.

Plenty of things I could do which are justified by my religion (forcibly removing people from their land, being intolerant of sinners, etc) but I don’t because I actually take responsibility for my personal choices.

People may claim they “can’t” do something on the basis of religion but in reality religion is a choice and people need to live with the consequences (good and bad).

Well there’s the thing about beliefs – they aren’t about what “can” and “can’t” be done, they are about what certain people believe can and can’t be done. Hence the term.

I don’t like this aspect of the Muslim religion one bit, but there is plenty that I don’t like about probably every religion to varying degrees. That is a much bigger issue than us or Gungahlin or Canberra and it isn’t going to change much any time soon.

In the meantime, I am trying to separate that from the reality here and now that there are people living in our community who can’t swim and their children are going to grow up the same way and a major purpose of this facility is to teach water skills to everyone in our community. Can it be addressed for relatively low cost in the design stage of a new building and without significant disadvantage to others in the community? I think so.

harvyk1 said :

Gungahlin Al, thank you for finally posting which community groups which have asked for it. Was that really so hard?

Yeah Harvyk1 it was – I have had a very busy week at work, things on every night, circumstances mean I can’t go posting to RA on work computers, and as I have said elsewhere RA is pretty hard to use on a personal phone.

From your comments and those by others here there seems to be an assumption that some sort of exclusion is proposed from a whole pool on a permanent basis or the whole centre on a temporary basis. The idea of screens is that they could allow a section of one pool (likely the 20m learn-to-swim pool) to be screened off temporarily, while the rest of the centre continues on as usual. Like when a section of a pool is regularly roped off for club training or water polo or whatever. Except with a screen instead of a rope.

The right sort of screens could be installed hanging from the beams and roll down including into the water when needed. They wouldn’t cost a bomb. I have seen just such screens in the recently opened gym at Harrison School to divide the courts when required.

Please realise that this pool complex has been a dominating theme through my entire five and a half years volunteering with GCC. It was one of the first things I campaigned on, when Simon Corbell told us we’d need 100,000 people to warrant even a single 50m pool. Then we had a (successful) fight to stop the government from selling off a chunk of the available land to a commercial use, thereby compromising what could be eventually built. The community swung behind us and we campaigned until we got a proper aquatic centre with 50m and learn-to-swim pools included promised by all parties. Then we had to fight over again when Andrew Barr and Sport and Rec staff looked to downscale the 50m pool to 25m. Again we won through with a vocal community behind us when we asked them for support.

The ground will be broken on this project before the next ACT election, and you need to know that I wouldn’t do anything that I thought would delay or imperil this project. And what some people in older areas of Canberra might not be aware is that in Gungahlin we now have an incredibly diverse social mix. In many school classes, the children from other cultural backgrounds outnumber Caucasians. So when this aquatic centre is built, it is only fair that it will be able to be used by everyone in our community.

Greens (and Labor) – please dont support special female times only at public pools.
This could easily lead to pressure on Islamic women to only attending at these times. That is, it could in fact work against their current freedom which they have at present to attend at any time they like – which fits in with aussie culture that all are welcome at any time.

I note the prolific use of terms like “can’t” “not able to” “not supposed to”.

So if they can’t, or are “not able to” or or are “not supposed to”, then that’s fine. If you believe an omnipotent being would create all these petty rules for you, then you obey the word of the sky fairy, and do without.

devils_advocate said :

Gungahlin Al, re: the first-hand accounts you have posted up, I note the prolific use of terms like “can’t” “not able to” “not supposed to”. But these terms are not quite accurate, because – and this is a hugely important aspect of life in Australia – everyone exercises a choice about what religion they identify as and how they choose to observe it.

Quite.

Al, you’re either missing or choosing to ignore the fundamental reason why so many of us have problems with this.

Islam relegates women to the role of second-class citizens. Some of its incarnations require women to be entirely covered from head to toe in public; some prevent women from driving cars; some require male chaperones for women in all interactions with non-family men – I could go on.

Of course Islam isn’t alone in this. Christianity and Judaism had – and in many places still have – similar codes.

It’s taken a long time for our culture to move beyond these mores and for women to gain the significant equality they now have – and the fight’s not over yet.

Regardless of what some Muslim women may tell you, this is not a matter of personal choice for them: it’s a requirement of their religion. If those women will spend some time at the pool or the beach in bikinis – which is their right as human beings (though not necessarily their preference) and then choose to attend women-only swimming lessons or gyms, I’ll support them 100%.

But while they’re forced to ask for it because their patriarchal, misogynistic mythology prevents them from participating fully and as full equals in Australian society, I’ll continue to oppose it.

devils_advocate said :

Gungahlin Al, re: the first-hand accounts you have posted up, I note the prolific use of terms like “can’t” “not able to” “not supposed to”. But these terms are not quite accurate, because – and this is a hugely important aspect of life in Australia – everyone exercises a choice about what religion they identify as and how they choose to observe it.

Plenty of things I could do which are justified by my religion (forcibly removing people from their land, being intolerant of sinners, etc) but I don’t because I actually take responsibility for my personal choices.

People may claim they “can’t” do something on the basis of religion but in reality religion is a choice and people need to live with the consequences (good and bad).

Couldn’t have said it better myself…

Gungahlin Al, thank you for finally posting which community groups which have asked for it. Was that really so hard?

Yes there is a definite theme going on in that list, which is why this thread has taken on an Islamic debate.

I understand the reasons why an Islamic group would want private female sessions. Based on the comment “My husband did it once and then stopped because of other women in there which he is not supposed as a Muslim to watch, and I couldn’t do it either.” one would think that a separate male session would also be in order.

The problem I have with this is a public facility should be there for the public. Whilst I’m not supportive of businesses like Fernwood existing which can legally exclude males from using their facilities, I realise that they do exist and thus can do so legally. As such if a private business wishes to set up such a facility then that’s their prerogative.

As I said in regards to other pre-existing places in Sydney which are women only area’s, as you point out they where created in 1876. Quite frankly that was a very different time, where there was lots of places that women where forbidden to attend themselves.

In regards to pools running classes for certain members of society (such as children or seniors), my experience has been that whilst the classes are targeted towards as certain part of society, they do not prevent others from using the pool at the same time.

The issue I have with this proposal is basically forbidding males from using the pool ( a public facility) full stop during these sessions. If the facility was a private facility, then well there is little I could complain about. As you do have the right to dictate who will enter your own private (business) premises.

Finally “The comment at the end of the post by Reech that some took umbrage at – seemed pretty clear that it was sarcasm to me.” – No it seemed like Reech was attempting to insult anyone who didn’t like and fit in with their point of view.

devils_advocate11:24 am 12 Feb 12

Gungahlin Al, re: the first-hand accounts you have posted up, I note the prolific use of terms like “can’t” “not able to” “not supposed to”. But these terms are not quite accurate, because – and this is a hugely important aspect of life in Australia – everyone exercises a choice about what religion they identify as and how they choose to observe it.

Plenty of things I could do which are justified by my religion (forcibly removing people from their land, being intolerant of sinners, etc) but I don’t because I actually take responsibility for my personal choices.

People may claim they “can’t” do something on the basis of religion but in reality religion is a choice and people need to live with the consequences (good and bad).

Since saving public money is such top priority, surely we should push for common male and female changing rooms and toilets to be the norm in public facilities. In theory everyone has seen everything or will do so, and we should not be ashamed of each others bodies. We should even remove partitions and doors at showers and toilets which cost money. It would remove the dirty word of segregation, and help ease the slippery slope arguments e.g. the one in post #205. And anyone who finds this a turn off to use public facilities, should just “get over it”.

Reductio ad absurdum.

I want a over 50s pool, but younger than 55. People who swim must have proof of age via a barcode on their left shoulder. They must also only drive red cars, have black and blue swim suits and must recite the number and length of each funeral commercial currently on TV.

bigM said :

I had a quick look through the google machine and the woman only swimming sessions seem pretty common in Victoria.but it seems that they have gone from ‘women n children only’ to ‘Muslim woman, girls and boys to the age of 6’ groups.and to attend,you must adhere to strict dress regulations,that being you must be covered from your neck down to your knees.is this what we have to expect will be next???I have an issue like alot of people on RA with our money being spent to segregate females n males.i will have another massive issues if anyone who may attend such events is then told what they can and can not wear

Your are not the only one. This is what some Islamic people were saying about the Islamic dress code swimming sessions, when I went looking:

“Islamic women’s leaders also panned the order.

Islamic Women’s Welfare Council chairwoman Tasneem Chopra said she understood the intention to make the event inclusive, but stressed women should have the right to choose what they wore.

“We don’t, as women, appreciate being told what to wear,” she said.

“We do have concerns about setting a standard of dress code for the broader public when it comes to a public event.”

Islamic Council Victoria vice-president Sherene Hassan said her council also did not support the dress restrictions. “

Also I would urge you to read “under the cover up” from the Age newspaper. Just google it.

Gungahlin Al11:25 pm 11 Feb 12

I was asked what groups had been asking for access to priate pool sessions. Apart from those already mentioned earlier in this thread, some others include:
Multicultural Women’s Advocacy Services
Canberra Multicultural Community Forum Inc
ACT Government Muslim Advisory Council
Muslim Women’s Network
Islamic Society of Belconnen
Canberra Muslim Youth Group
Canberra Muslim Community
Muslim Women’s Welfare Association ACT

The comment at the end of the post by Reech that some took umbrage at – seemed pretty clear that it was sarcasm to me.

I have been contacted by some of the people asking for this facility, but they feel intimidated by the debate. Here are some observations from them, which might shed some light on the issue:
______

This is a woman’s issue because there are many reasons for why women choose to swim in private (please note Coogee beach in Sydney has had a separate ocean swimming area since 1876? how amazing is that).
We have women only gyms and many of us are asking to extend the exercise arena to included some women only time in the pool for whatever reasons women want.

Pools are closed off to the public for swimming classes, water polo and other water sports and there is no problem with that at all. Men can also ask for private swimming time too there is no problem with that, if some get access where they never had it before then that is fantastic.

Fernwood, Curves, Club Pink, Contours and the ladies baths of Coogee are well patronised for a reason and by choice. These women only gyms are award winning, successfully run business providing women with choice. Women should be empowered to decide where they want to exercise. Many report that they feel confident to work out, try new things, don’t feel the pressure of being watched by males, and they love the social aspects of a female only environment, dealing with women and socialising with friends. These are comments from non multicultural women which is why some of the coverage is really offensive because some are turning it into a Muslim or multicultural issue but it is Muslim women standing up for access for all women to feel empowered to choose to swim in a female only setting, or even men, athletes and children being able to have special private time too. Separation does not mean inequality.
Please note pools include access for children undertaking swimming laps or classes, water polo and other sports training, men etc. We are just asking for a time slot for women only sessions as well.

________

I have lived in Canberra since I was three, and as with any Australian child in the summer, swimming and water games were always on the agenda, however, as Muslims, we were never able to fully participate in public pool arenas; rather, we often relied on friends to pity our plight and invite us over for the elusive swim. I would like this to be different for my daughter and others in Canberra, who for many different reasons, require privacy when entering aquatic activities. The proposed screened area would not just be for the use of Muslim women, but in the same vein as ‘women only’ gyms which promote privacy and liberty, would also be accessed by women from all walks of life. For example, in my role as a midwife, I consider the presence of this facility as being invaluable for pregnant and postnatal women who may benefit from aqua exercise. This in turn may have a positive impact on maternal and infant birth outcomes.

Furthermore, if the ACT government is serious about reducing child drownings and increasing swim safe messages, we must be inclusive of all and provide people the platform for change and knowledge. Many Muslim women and their children often do not engage in swimming activities due to modesty issues and thus are not being included in the change the government hopes to create around water safety.

I, like the other women who have written to you on this matter, have been involved over the years in organising women’s only swimming such as in the Manuka Pool facility. Many women from many walks of life attended the brief period in which we operated and were prepared to travel distances to participate.
_______

I came to Australia with my husband and my little daughter in 2005 from a very crowded city to Canberra a very quite city. Going to the lake and watching the swans was the most enjoyable thing to be done in Canberra especially for my little daughter. Once by mistake my daughter fell into the lake, this happened in front of me and thank God we got to save her. Then I thought that I really need to teach her how to swim. We thought to send her to the pool to get used to the water and maybe send her to swimming lessons after. But by the place’s policy kids under six years need to be joined by an adult while in the pool. My husband did it once and then stopped because of other women in there which he is not supposed as a Muslim to watch, and I couldn’t do it either.

I thought to send her to swimming lessons then. The lesson was for half an hour a week but we had to stop as every time we are there we see things which are not allowed for us as Muslims; we stopped again. Since then, every time we are at the lake we keep a distance from the water. Me as a mother, I have an uncomfortable feeling every time my daughter is walking towards water or running a bit far.

That might give you an idea of how we feel left behind and can’t even teach our children how to swim so they can save themselves when needed.

FioBla said :

Since saving public money is such top priority, surely we should push for common male and female changing rooms and toilets to be the norm in public facilities. In theory everyone has seen everything or will do so, and we should not be ashamed of each others bodies. We should even remove partitions and doors at showers and toilets which cost money. It would remove the dirty word of segregation, and help ease the slippery slope arguments e.g. the one in post #205. And anyone who finds this a turn off to use public facilities, should just “get over it”.

In theory, we should not cater to individual idiosyncrasies. But real life is just not so well defined.

And now you’re just being facetious. While cultures around the world range from everyone seeing everything to “cover up and don’t even think about showing ankle”. Modern cultures have adopted a middle ground. There is no segregation except for the most intimate of activities. Changing being one such activity.

We as a society have moved past segregation of the sexes when it comes to activities, why should those who have not yet discovered equality be encouraged to promote segregation?

I have little time for those who accuse me of being intolerant because I don’t tolerate the intolerance of others.

Hey Greens, where is the pushing for
– Decent Drug legislation based on actual science and reason
– Gay equal rights.
– Incentives to drive hybrid/electric/hydrogen vehicles.
– High Speed Rail Network
– Light Rail
????

Stuff like this, banning plastic bags (instead of pushing for biodegradable plastic bags), trying to ban Solariums etc etc is what gives us lefties a bad name in the media and more ammo for the Daily Telegraph, The Australian and The IPA to fire at us and make middle and right Australia think we are crazy.

Start pushing the good stuff, kthxbye.

Since saving public money is such top priority, surely we should push for common male and female changing rooms and toilets to be the norm in public facilities. In theory everyone has seen everything or will do so, and we should not be ashamed of each others bodies. We should even remove partitions and doors at showers and toilets which cost money. It would remove the dirty word of segregation, and help ease the slippery slope arguments e.g. the one in post #205. And anyone who finds this a turn off to use public facilities, should just “get over it”.

In theory, we should not cater to individual idiosyncrasies. But real life is just not so well defined.

Deref said :

milkman said :

I would argue the problem with religions is not the extremists, rather it is the moderates. If there were no moderate Jews, Catholics, Muslims etc, their religions whould be exposed for precisely what they are and justifiably deplored.

Precisely. The moderates provide validation for the extremists. We tolerate religious nonsense because the moderates, who are, at least in Australia, still the majority, but the difference in their views is one of degree, not of kind.

We also tolerates idiots like you who think your opinion is somehow more valid than those you don’t agree with.

Good thing we’re a pretty tolerant country or there’d be little room for anyone.

Putting the religious aspect of the proposal aside, here’s what the problems are; firstly having a women only pool session may mean that some men, due to transport difficulties or medical problems or one of a thousand other reasons, can only get to the pool at a time when the women only sessions are planned.

Secondly, there is a problem with using public money to pay for some sort of screen. If women’s groups or the greens, or any other group want a screen then they should pay for it themselves. Run a cake stall or a raffle or become chuggers in Civic.

RATEPAYERS could be stung up to $45,000 to install curtains at a public pool so Muslim women can have privacy during a female-only exercise classes. The City of Monash has won an exemption from equal opportunity laws to run the sessions outside normal opening hours. The council says the privacy screen is needed for “cultural reasons”. It follows moves by other councils to introduce women-only sessions for the Muslim community, such as Greater Dandenong asking a tribunal to approve a ban on uncovered shoulders and thighs for those attending a family event at a pool.

Okay, so say we start with segregated sessions at publicly-funded swiming pools to appease certain sectors of society because of their skyfairy/personal beliefs or their lack of self-esteem issues – then where do we stop?

Should we start funding segregated public hospitals so that female patients with specific skyfairy beliefs or personal issues don’t have to be concerned that they might have to be operated on or seen naked by a male nurse, doctor and/or specialist?

And while we’re at it, since some women seem to find that being near men is not to their liking, because apparently ‘all’ men leer, and could also be potential rapists, then maybe as another kneejerk precaution we should keep all women seperated from children in public places – after all, there have been some shocking cases where women have either killed or seriously maltreated children in the past, so you have to be careful, you know!

And Al, I seriously think you have nailed your flag to the wrong tree by running with the Greens – especially while they allow themselves to become associated with what is obviously such a stupid bloody idea.

milkman said :

I would argue the problem with religions is not the extremists, rather it is the moderates. If there were no moderate Jews, Catholics, Muslims etc, their religions whould be exposed for precisely what they are and justifiably deplored.

Precisely. The moderates provide validation for the extremists. We tolerate religious nonsense because the moderates, who are, at least in Australia, still the majority, but the difference in their views is one of degree, not of kind.

Dilandach said :

I honestly couldn’t care less about what religion someone is. At the core, they all believe in the same thing just that each group believe they were told to wear a hat of a particular colour but the other groups misheard and chose the wrong coloured hat.

The thing I object to is that its taken from a “safety” point of view as well as a need to cover up because men can’t control themselves around women and children. You can quote HR regulations until the cows come home but it is absolutely offensive that there is a group demanding that women be need to have segregation to protect them from the male population and their sexual deviant ways.

Precisely. When was the last time there was a report of a woman being molested by a man in a public swimming pool?

I honestly couldn’t care less about what religion someone is. At the core, they all believe in the same thing just that each group believe they were told to wear a hat of a particular colour but the other groups misheard and chose the wrong coloured hat.

The thing I object to is that its taken from a “safety” point of view as well as a need to cover up because men can’t control themselves around women and children. You can quote HR regulations until the cows come home but it is absolutely offensive that there is a group demanding that women be need to have segregation to protect them from the male population and their sexual deviant ways.

Reech said :

For consideration by the RiotACT cognoscenti, below are selected extracts from a Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal determination dated 17 July 2009:

“The Tribunal has considered an application pursuant to section 83 of the Equal Opportunity Act 1995 (the EO Act), blablabla

The limitation on human rights which this exemption proposal represents deals effectively with the possible collision between the two sets of human rights I have just mentioned.”

Classic piss-poor judgment and typical of anything that happens when “Human Rights” legislation is involved.

By the same argument, slave owners could be given state subsidy so that they would not overwork their slaves.

The question begged and the elephant in the room is Islam’s failure to comply with the freedoms, civil rights, and other social norms of what we consider civlised society. Judgments such as the above are recognising the conflict between civilisation and a backward cultural practices and failing to give the latter the short shrift they deserve.

The poor buggers want to have a swim – if putting up a screen or letting them have an hour a week will work then why not.

LSWCHP said :

Reech said :

For consideration by the RiotACT cognoscenti, below are selected extracts from a Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal determination dated 17 July 2009:

“The Tribunal has considered an application pursuant to section 83 of the Equal Opportunity Act 1995 (the EO Act), by Hobsons Bay City Council and Leisure Management Services Pty Ltd (the applicants)….

….much deletage…

Oh, and The Women’s Pool in Sydney – a pool available only to women and young children all of the time – has survived a challenge on discrimination grounds and is exempt from the NSW Anti-Discrimination Act.

Well all that that certainly changed my opinion then.

Not here.

Never had a problem with women only session times. I did however have a problem with Greens were proposing on a full time basis it seems:

“With work yet to begin on the new Gungahlin Leisure Centre, the Government has a golden opportunity, for instance, to incorporate screening into the design so that a separated pool area can be available for women only sessions.”

However, I do still have a problem with that aspect of Muslim faith (or that of Exclusive Brewthern) that treats women as 2nd class citizens. Can the Greens come out and support that aspect of their faith?

I had a quick look through the google machine and the woman only swimming sessions seem pretty common in Victoria.but it seems that they have gone from ‘women n children only’ to ‘Muslim woman, girls and boys to the age of 6’ groups.and to attend,you must adhere to strict dress regulations,that being you must be covered from your neck down to your knees.is this what we have to expect will be next???I have an issue like alot of people on RA with our money being spent to segregate females n males.i will have another massive issues if anyone who may attend such events is then told what they can and can not wear

I took my kids to Jamberoo during the holidays and there were a number of muslim women there, happily swimming (well, wading) in long garments made out of swimming costume material. So options are out there for women who wish to cover themselves at the pool for religious reasons.

I do oppose separate swimming times for males and females. This is not part of the Australian culture, and that is a good thing that it is not. We are open and unashamed of ourselves.

Creating closed spaces for those who are unaccepting of openness and people being comfortable in their own bodies is not enhancing tolerance – it is accepting their argument.

We can only lose as a society if we do this.

Reech said :

For consideration by the RiotACT cognoscenti, below are selected extracts from a Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal determination dated 17 July 2009:

“The Tribunal has considered an application pursuant to section 83 of the Equal Opportunity Act 1995 (the EO Act), by Hobsons Bay City Council and Leisure Management Services Pty Ltd (the applicants)….

….much deletage…

Oh, and The Women’s Pool in Sydney – a pool available only to women and young children all of the time – has survived a challenge on discrimination grounds and is exempt from the NSW Anti-Discrimination Act.

Well all that that certainly changed my opinion then.

For consideration by the RiotACT cognoscenti, below are selected extracts from a Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal determination dated 17 July 2009:

“The Tribunal has considered an application pursuant to section 83 of the Equal Opportunity Act 1995 (the EO Act), by Hobsons Bay City Council and Leisure Management Services Pty Ltd (the applicants). The application for exemption is to enable the applicants to operate the pool area of the Bayfit Leisure Centre in North Altona on any Friday between the hours of 7.30 pm and 9.30 pm for women only, and to advertise that service, and to advertise for and employ women only in relation to that service (the exempt conduct).

UPON READING the material submitted in support of the application, and hearing submissions … the Tribunal is satisfied that it is appropriate to grant an exemption …

Should the exemption be granted?

I first consider this question from the point of view of the EO Act. I then consider the application of the Charter.

Putting the Charter to one side, I agree with the Applicants’ submission that the exemption should be granted. There is possible sex discrimination involved in the proposal. But in my view, the interests served by the exemption justify the overriding of the prohibitions against sex discrimination in the EO Act. The exemption is different from those previously granted by the Tribunal in respect of women only swimming programs in other leisure centres in Victoria. Those proposals involved swimming programs for women only run at times when the leisure centres were closed to the public. Under this proposal, the use of the pool area of the Leisure Centre (but not of the other facilities of the Centre) by men will be shortened by a half an hour on a Friday evening. In my view, this is a minimal restriction on the public use of the pool area by men. A period of half an hour every Friday is involved. It occurs at a time when visitor numbers to the Centre are relatively low.

Against these considerations, one must weigh the advantages of the program. It will give an opportunity to women who, for religious or cultural reasons, cannot swim in the pool while men are present, an opportunity to use that pool area of which they would not otherwise have. It will give an opportunity to women who have suffered from sexual abuse or assault or domestic violence at the hands of men and who, because of fear, feel unable to swim in the company of men, an opportunity to use the pool area. It will give to women who, for body image reasons or reasons of self-consciousness, prefer not to swim in the company of men, an opportunity to use the pool area. Because the pool area is currently open to men and women alike, all these women cannot, at present, use it at all. The pool area is currently open to all for at least 90 hours per week. This proposal seeks to allow women who could not otherwise use the pool area two hours per week to do so.

Benefits from the program are these. It will give the women I have mentioned an opportunity to participate in a healthful recreational activity in a communal and supervised setting. This is an opportunity which, under the current operating conditions of the Centre, they do not have. It will provide community contact for those who may feel marginalised or socially isolated and will give them an opportunity to meet, socialise and form friendships in the local community. The communal sharing of problems and understanding which will result in benefit not only the women who attend the program, but the families of these women too. The women who attend the program pay the same fees as other members of the public and, in my view, the cost implications of the proposal are minimal.
Although the proposal does not directly fall within one of the express exception provisions in the EO Act, it is consistent with the interests underlying two of the express exception provisions. Section 80 permits (in certain circumstances) discrimination which is reasonably necessary to protect health. Section 82 permits the provision of special services, facilities or benefits to meet special needs of people with an attribute recognised by the EO Act, or to reduce disadvantage suffered by them in various areas such as welfare.

The Applicants have devised this program so as to have a minimal impact on the use of the pool by the public. But their aim is to encourage women who make use of the program to bring their children (aged four and under) with them. This aim will be thwarted if the program is held too late in the evening. In setting the program’s times, the Applicants have (in my view) balanced these two considerations. The proposal is the least restrictive alternative.

Applying the Charter

What human rights might be affected here? I agree with the Applicants that they are these. There are rights under s8 – the right to enjoy human rights without discrimination; the entitlement to be equal before the law and to have equal protection of the law without discrimination; and the right to equal and effective protection from discrimination. There is the right under s12 to (among other things) move freely within Victoria. These are rights relevant to the way in which men may be affected by this proposal.

There are also some rights which are relevant because of the way in which the proposal relates to women. Under s14(1)(b), there is the freedom to demonstrate one’s religion in practice. Under s19(1), there is the right of people with a particular cultural or religious background not to be denied the right, in community with others of that background, to enjoy their culture and practice their religion.

Some of the human rights in the Charter are limited by specific provisions. The rights in s8 which I have earlier mentioned are limited by s8(4). That provides that measures taken for the purpose of assisting or advancing persons or groups disadvantaged because of discrimination do not constitute discrimination.

There is also a general limitation provision. Under s7(2), a human right ‘may be subject only to such reasonable limits as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society based on human dignity, equality and freedom taking into account all relevant factors’. Those relevant factors expressly include the nature of the right, the importance of the purpose of the limitation, the nature and extent of the limitation, the relationship between the limitation and its purpose, and any less restrictive means reasonably available to achieve the purpose that the limitation seeks to achieve.

In my view, s8(4) applies to this proposal. It can be said that, by providing in the Leisure Centre ‘mixed’ swimming facilities for any member of the public (whether a man or a woman) the Applicants may indirectly discriminate against women who, because of their religious or cultural background, cannot access these facilities. In this sense, this proposal is a measure to assist women who are disadvantaged by that discrimination.

In any event, I accept the Applicants’ submission that this proposal represents a reasonable limitation on the human rights in ss8 and 12. The human rights in these sections are important. So is the purpose of the limitation. The purpose of the limitation is to provide an opportunity to women who would otherwise be unable to engage in healthful communal recreational activity of this kind to do so. This is an opportunity which men and women without the cultural or religious background of these women, or without their history of violence or abuse at the hands of men, or without their self-consciousness or concerns about body image, currently have. The limitation on the rights of men which the proposal contemplates is relatively small. The limitation is adapted to and connected with its purpose and is not arbitrary or disproportionate. There is no less restrictive alternative to achieve the purpose of the limitation. The limitation is framed in a way that will interfere as little as possible with the use of the pool area by men at times when the Centre is open to the public. The employment of women only to staff the pool area during the conduct of the proposed program is necessary for the program to work. These women are unable to use the pool area while men are present – whether the men are staff or members of the public.

I also consider it a relevant factor that this limitation deals with a possible collision of human rights in these circumstances. I have mentioned the various rights under s8 and under s12 which men might argue are engaged by this proposal. But there are also the human rights of women under ss14 and 19 to practice aspects of their culture and religion. In one sense, it is the exercise of those rights to practice aspect of their culture and religion which makes them unable to swim at the Centre while men are present and so means that use of the pool area is currently barred to them.

The limitation on human rights which this exemption proposal represents deals effectively with the possible collision between the two sets of human rights I have just mentioned.”

Oh, and The Women’s Pool in Sydney – a pool available only to women and young children all of the time – has survived a challenge on discrimination grounds and is exempt from the NSW Anti-Discrimination Act.

There’s quite a few women I’ve seen in public pools that could do with being segregated

poetix said :

[… and that Darwin is frying in hell.

Darwin was a staunch Christian, and stated publicly that he thought his work augmented his faith.

Morgan said :

Oh please, this is a bit silly don’t you think. What would happen if we had men only swimming times? Or if we had swimming times for white people only who don’t want to share the pool with migrants? Or what about swimming only for fit trim people so no one has to see a fat person? Or conversely we ban all fit people from public exercise so as not to make unfit people feel self conscious? Or while we are at why don’t we just ban men from the world. These are the same people who assume I am a sex offender for taking a video of my young nephews learning to swim to send to their grandparents.

A public swimming pool is for all people men, women, children and families to use. I have no problem in booking lanes etc. but this suggestion would see only women rostered on at the women only times and an inconvience to a great many people. Let private interests build their own facilities at a private expense, and the rest of us will learn to share the pool.

Hell yes! Meredith Hunter needs to pull her head out of her arse and look at the real world.

Even the thickest of Greens can see from the comments here, and the many on the Canberra Times website about this, cannot ignore that this is not a vote winner.

But, they will argue “principle”and “leadership”. Good on them, if they cannot read the polling on this, they are going to be doomed at this years election.

colourful sydney racing identity said :

I would argue the problem with religions is not the extremists, rather it is the moderates. If there were no moderate Jews, Catholics, Muslims etc, their religions whould be exposed for precisely what they are and justifiably deplored.

What exactly is the problem with a belief in God? It doesn’t necessarily make you go all Sarah Palin (to stick to Christianity) or think that the world was created 7000 years ago and that Darwin is frying in hell. I can’t think of how seeing Christ as an example of how to try to live is something to be ‘deplored’. (Some people who say they are Christians are responsible for terrible things, but that’s another issue, surely?)

And not all Christians are Catholics if that word is meant to stand in for Christian. I hear there are even women priests lurking around these days, here and there.

colourful sydney racing identity said :

NoImRight said :

Yes indeed wont someone please think of the children. You could argue the same in Israel or even just children born in to religious familes here.All religions have them. And yes Islamic countries do seem to have capital punishment for some crimes that we find hard to accept but its not as widespread as we may choose to think either.

Maybe allow them the freedom to choose for themselves? Isnt that why we are supposedly better?

Yes, I could argue that and I do. However, most religions do not have the death penalty as a punishment for leaving the religion, not even the Scientologists do that.

You can not argue that people can be given the ‘freedom to choose’ when it has been drummed into them since birth that if they choose to leave, the penalty is death.

Did I miss something? How did this become about religion????

colourful sydney racing identity4:39 pm 10 Feb 12

NoImRight said :

Yes indeed wont someone please think of the children. You could argue the same in Israel or even just children born in to religious familes here.All religions have them. And yes Islamic countries do seem to have capital punishment for some crimes that we find hard to accept but its not as widespread as we may choose to think either.

Maybe allow them the freedom to choose for themselves? Isnt that why we are supposedly better?

Yes, I could argue that and I do. However, most religions do not have the death penalty as a punishment for leaving the religion, not even the Scientologists do that.

You can not argue that people can be given the ‘freedom to choose’ when it has been drummed into them since birth that if they choose to leave, the penalty is death.

colourful sydney racing identity said :

NoImRight said :

harvyk1 said :

NoImRight said :

There is a bit of irony in claiming to demonstrate a free society by telling someone they cant wear what makes them comfortable and expresses their beliefs. They are free to conform to it seems

A general obvservation not aimed at anyone in particular 🙂

I’m not quite sure how this fits into the general discussion. People are free to wear whatever they themselves feel comfortable with. But that’s not the issue under discussion. The issue under discussion is should public money full stop be spent on something that only serves to segregate?

The crux of the issue is how in the original press release it basically had a tone of “men are bad m’kay”. Had the original press release said something along the lines of “We’re looking into providing single gender (encompassing single gender swimming opportunities for both women AND men) swimming sessions at the request of groups A \ B and C” I expect we wouldn’t have seen 168 (and counting) responses.

As I have said, usually the first release out shows the original true intentions, the follow up releases are usually in response to backlash.

It is probably a little off topic and without being able to multi quote its hard to show what I was referencing. Mainly comments that indicated if its a religious motive then its just too bad and they should be like “us”. That doesnt seem that removed from a wider antipathy of Islam that is sometimes expressed as supposedly freeing the believers.I dont want to get caught up in the pedantry of “I didnt say exactly that” though.

What about the children that are born in to the religion and are forced to follow its tennants, by pain of death (given that Islam teaches that the penlaty for apostacy is death)? Surely if one supports freedoms, one must be opposed to something as wicked as this?

I also believe that Islam and freedom are contradictory. Have a look at how many Islamic countries sent ambasadors to the leadership of Denmark to try and force the Danish Government to stop a media outlet publishing cartoons. Really think about that…countires sending ambassadors to demand that a foregin governement bans cartoons from being published, it truly beggars belief.

Yes indeed wont someone please think of the children. You could argue the same in Israel or even just children born in to religious familes here.All religions have them. And yes Islamic countries do seem to have capital punishment for some crimes that we find hard to accept but its not as widespread as we may choose to think either.

Maybe allow them the freedom to choose for themselves? Isnt that why we are supposedly better?

colourful sydney racing identity4:22 pm 10 Feb 12

NoImRight said :

harvyk1 said :

NoImRight said :

There is a bit of irony in claiming to demonstrate a free society by telling someone they cant wear what makes them comfortable and expresses their beliefs. They are free to conform to it seems

A general obvservation not aimed at anyone in particular 🙂

I’m not quite sure how this fits into the general discussion. People are free to wear whatever they themselves feel comfortable with. But that’s not the issue under discussion. The issue under discussion is should public money full stop be spent on something that only serves to segregate?

The crux of the issue is how in the original press release it basically had a tone of “men are bad m’kay”. Had the original press release said something along the lines of “We’re looking into providing single gender (encompassing single gender swimming opportunities for both women AND men) swimming sessions at the request of groups A \ B and C” I expect we wouldn’t have seen 168 (and counting) responses.

As I have said, usually the first release out shows the original true intentions, the follow up releases are usually in response to backlash.

It is probably a little off topic and without being able to multi quote its hard to show what I was referencing. Mainly comments that indicated if its a religious motive then its just too bad and they should be like “us”. That doesnt seem that removed from a wider antipathy of Islam that is sometimes expressed as supposedly freeing the believers.I dont want to get caught up in the pedantry of “I didnt say exactly that” though.

What about the children that are born in to the religion and are forced to follow its tennants, by pain of death (given that Islam teaches that the penlaty for apostacy is death)? Surely if one supports freedoms, one must be opposed to something as wicked as this?

I also believe that Islam and freedom are contradictory. Have a look at how many Islamic countries sent ambasadors to the leadership of Denmark to try and force the Danish Government to stop a media outlet publishing cartoons. Really think about that…countires sending ambassadors to demand that a foregin governement bans cartoons from being published, it truly beggars belief.

colourful sydney racing identity4:10 pm 10 Feb 12

harvyk1 said :

colourful sydney racing identity said :

I am not trolling at all, I believe that it is entirely appropriate for people, particularly those on the left (which I consider myself), to oppose the hateful, mysoginstic religion that is Islam. Not one cent of public money should go to any cause of this religion.

I do not believe that we should be doing anything to normalise the abhorrent attitudes of a religion that would see little girls have parts of their genitals brtually cut off and people put to death for their beliefs.

Whilst I agree with your statement that not one cent of public money should go to Islam, I would extend that to say not one cent of public money should go to any religion full stop.

The problem is not with Islam, it’s with those who take a hard line or extremist view. Most moderate Muslims that I have met take as much of a dim view of hard liners or extremists as the rest of us, in some ways more so because they are worried such extreme people (who are usually the ones news organisations quote) will tarnish them. Of course extremism is not a Islamic phenomenon. Every religion has those who take extreme views of their own religion. Ever been to the bible belt in the US? You will find christian extremists there who are just as out there as their Islamic counterparts.

Of course this has gone way off on a (predictable) tangent.

I would argue the problem with religions is not the extremists, rather it is the moderates. If there were no moderate Jews, Catholics, Muslims etc, their religions whould be exposed for precisely what they are and justifiably deplored.

harvyk1 said :

NoImRight said :

There is a bit of irony in claiming to demonstrate a free society by telling someone they cant wear what makes them comfortable and expresses their beliefs. They are free to conform to it seems

A general obvservation not aimed at anyone in particular 🙂

I’m not quite sure how this fits into the general discussion. People are free to wear whatever they themselves feel comfortable with. But that’s not the issue under discussion. The issue under discussion is should public money full stop be spent on something that only serves to segregate?

The crux of the issue is how in the original press release it basically had a tone of “men are bad m’kay”. Had the original press release said something along the lines of “We’re looking into providing single gender (encompassing single gender swimming opportunities for both women AND men) swimming sessions at the request of groups A \ B and C” I expect we wouldn’t have seen 168 (and counting) responses.

As I have said, usually the first release out shows the original true intentions, the follow up releases are usually in response to backlash.

It is probably a little off topic and without being able to multi quote its hard to show what I was referencing. Mainly comments that indicated if its a religious motive then its just too bad and they should be like “us”. That doesnt seem that removed from a wider antipathy of Islam that is sometimes expressed as supposedly freeing the believers.I dont want to get caught up in the pedantry of “I didnt say exactly that” though.

johnboy said :

Indeed, a visit by the strategic air command is always memorable.

Oh, wait, you mean the band!

Yes, the band – http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7K8jiFhmBAY

VYBerlinaV8_is_back3:24 pm 10 Feb 12

Holden Caulfield said :

devils_advocate said :

Australia is a secular nation.

Unless you’re gay and want to get married.

(Apologies for going OT.)

I only believe in gay marriage when both chicks are hot.

colourful sydney racing identity said :

I am not trolling at all, I believe that it is entirely appropriate for people, particularly those on the left (which I consider myself), to oppose the hateful, mysoginstic religion that is Islam. Not one cent of public money should go to any cause of this religion.

I do not believe that we should be doing anything to normalise the abhorrent attitudes of a religion that would see little girls have parts of their genitals brtually cut off and people put to death for their beliefs.

Whilst I agree with your statement that not one cent of public money should go to Islam, I would extend that to say not one cent of public money should go to any religion full stop.

The problem is not with Islam, it’s with those who take a hard line or extremist view. Most moderate Muslims that I have met take as much of a dim view of hard liners or extremists as the rest of us, in some ways more so because they are worried such extreme people (who are usually the ones news organisations quote) will tarnish them. Of course extremism is not a Islamic phenomenon. Every religion has those who take extreme views of their own religion. Ever been to the bible belt in the US? You will find christian extremists there who are just as out there as their Islamic counterparts.

Of course this has gone way off on a (predictable) tangent.

Well, I am of the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, and I demand a exclusive swimming lane for my Pastafarian friends- filled with tomato sauce.

I may start a petition…

threepaws said :

Gungahlin Al said :

Chop71 said :

Al, I hope you didn’t sign up for this.

Seriously, I think they need you more than you need them.

I used to chair the Sunshine Coast Water Safety Advisory Committee, and one of the emergency services’ largest concerns was people from inland who couldn’t swim very well always drowning themselves when on holidays at the beach. I’m behind anything that can broaden swimming skills (and health to boot). Hitting the water is a fundamental part of Australian culture, and I’d like everyone to be able to participate, regardless of whatever their other concerns or beliefs may be.

If these minority groups can only hit the water behind screens, I don’t think drowning at the beach is going to be an issue. There are men in speedos and women in bikinis there remember (and possibly men in mankinis…)

Surely you mean:

Boy’s in bikinis
Girls in surfboards
Everybody’s rockin’
Everybody’s fruggin’
Twistin’ ’round the fire
Havin’ fun
Bakin’ potatoes
Bakin’ in the sun
Put on your noseguard
Put on the Lifeguard
Pass the tanning butter
Here comes a stingray
There goes a manta-ray
In walked a jelly fish
There goes a dog-fish
Chased by a cat-fish
In flew a sea robin
Watch out for that piranha
There goes a narwhal
Here comes a bikini whale

🙂 B-52s know how to rock a pool party.

Indeed, a visit by the strategic air command is always memorable.

Oh, wait, you mean the band!

geni_lou said :

And also misses the point that young women are often the harshest critics of their peers.

So which is more likely: 16 yo with weight problems goes to public session at public pool and gets bullied by peers, OR 16 yo with weight problems goes to women-only session at a public pool and gets bullied by equally body-conscious peers?

I suspect that the people with the attitude of bullying people who don’t conform to their idea of beauty wouldn’t be going to or welcome at a women-only swimming session, while there won’t be so much attention paid to people’s attitudes during public sessions.

geni_lou said :

I want the young women I know to love their bodies, and to feel gorgeous in their skin. They are. Taking them somewhere they could see women not conforming to a ridiculous expectation driven by companies that want to sell crap products to make them fell better about themselves hiding away behind a screen would be infuriating

The young women you know aren’t going to come to love their bodies just because you want them to. They must come to love their bodies on their own terms, and if having a segregated area of the pool means they have the opportunity to go swimming without public humiliation, isn’t it up to them whether they choose that option or not? Nobody is talking about making all women attend the women-only swimming sessions: the sessions are there for those who need more personal assurance.

The only person getting infuriated in this scenario is yourself. The experiences related by the Royal Lifesavers and YWCA is that there are people who use these opportunities because they want to get into the pool but are embarrassed to do so outside the gender-exclusive times.

Until we can get advertisers to stop using beautiful young women to drive the sales of everything from haemorrhoid cream to car insurance, we are going to be stuck with the fallout of the beauty myth. There are numerous avenues to tackle the problem, but in the meantime we have these people who are effectively refugees from sex-driven marketing: men and women who are embarrassed to be seen in public because they have too much/too little hair, too round a butt, an odd shaped nose, or whatever.

JennD said :

Should we not be working towards a society where people’s bodies are not considered ‘good’ or ‘bad’ rather than giving people places to hide? Why would a young women think her body is fine when we are looking at creating places that say “if you’re not Hot, come here”

Yes we should be working towards a fair society. You’re posing the second half of the question the wrong way: why would a young woman go to a place which states, “we will help you regardless of your age, weight or aesthetic appeal”?

shadow boxer2:50 pm 10 Feb 12

colourful sydney racing identity said :

shadow boxer said :

colourful sydney racing identity said :

shadow boxer said :

colourful sydney racing identity said :

shadow boxer said :

That said segregating off a section of the public pool is just plain wrong, sends all the wrong multicultural messages and gives the bigots oxygen.

I would contend that opposing Islam is the antithesis of bigotry.

I’ve seen your posts and you are smarter than that, I think you are Friday afternoon trolling now

I am not trolling at all, I believe that it is entirely appropriate for people, particularly those on the left (which I consider myself), to oppose the hateful, mysoginstic religion that is Islam. Not one cent of public money should go to any cause of this religion.

I do not believe that we should be doing anything to normalise the abhorrent attitudes of a religion that would see little girls have parts of their genitals brtually cut off and people put to death for their beliefs.

oh, ok then………………………………..backs away quietly

While you back away, do you believe we should appease proponents of such practices?

I think there are extremists in all religions, that’s why I hate them all and their stupid sky fairies.

devils_advocate2:47 pm 10 Feb 12

harvyk1 said :

Holden Caulfield said :

devils_advocate said :

Australia is a secular nation.

Unless you’re gay and want to get married.

(Apologies for going OT.)

I have my suspicions that religion may have something to do with that as well.

1) two wrongs don’t make a right. Pointing out that the state needlessly gets involved in regulating something on religious grounds (e.g marriage per se) doesn’t justify… the state getting needlessly involved in regulating something on religious grounds,

2) marriage as a concept has its origins in religion. Swimming, as far as I’m aware, does not.

3) The Cth govt has removed all economic discrimination against same-sex couples. The law doesn’t require people to say vows in a church to be considered married (and entitle one spouse to liberate the other of their belongings on this basis). I don’t agree that the state (broadly defined) can actually prevent two adults being married in any real sense.

colourful sydney racing identity2:35 pm 10 Feb 12

shadow boxer said :

colourful sydney racing identity said :

shadow boxer said :

colourful sydney racing identity said :

shadow boxer said :

That said segregating off a section of the public pool is just plain wrong, sends all the wrong multicultural messages and gives the bigots oxygen.

I would contend that opposing Islam is the antithesis of bigotry.

I’ve seen your posts and you are smarter than that, I think you are Friday afternoon trolling now

I am not trolling at all, I believe that it is entirely appropriate for people, particularly those on the left (which I consider myself), to oppose the hateful, mysoginstic religion that is Islam. Not one cent of public money should go to any cause of this religion.

I do not believe that we should be doing anything to normalise the abhorrent attitudes of a religion that would see little girls have parts of their genitals brtually cut off and people put to death for their beliefs.

oh, ok then………………………………..backs away quietly

While you back away, do you believe we should appease proponents of such practices?

shadow boxer2:31 pm 10 Feb 12

colourful sydney racing identity said :

shadow boxer said :

colourful sydney racing identity said :

shadow boxer said :

That said segregating off a section of the public pool is just plain wrong, sends all the wrong multicultural messages and gives the bigots oxygen.

I would contend that opposing Islam is the antithesis of bigotry.

I’ve seen your posts and you are smarter than that, I think you are Friday afternoon trolling now

I am not trolling at all, I believe that it is entirely appropriate for people, particularly those on the left (which I consider myself), to oppose the hateful, mysoginstic religion that is Islam. Not one cent of public money should go to any cause of this religion.

I do not believe that we should be doing anything to normalise the abhorrent attitudes of a religion that would see little girls have parts of their genitals brtually cut off and people put to death for their beliefs.

oh, ok then………………………………..backs away quietly

Holden Caulfield2:28 pm 10 Feb 12

harvyk1 said :

Holden Caulfield said :

devils_advocate said :

Australia is a secular nation.

Unless you’re gay and want to get married.

(Apologies for going OT.)

I have my suspicions that religion may have something to do with that as well.

Bingo!

colourful sydney racing identity2:16 pm 10 Feb 12

shadow boxer said :

colourful sydney racing identity said :

shadow boxer said :

That said segregating off a section of the public pool is just plain wrong, sends all the wrong multicultural messages and gives the bigots oxygen.

I would contend that opposing Islam is the antithesis of bigotry.

I’ve seen your posts and you are smarter than that, I think you are Friday afternoon trolling now

I am not trolling at all, I believe that it is entirely appropriate for people, particularly those on the left (which I consider myself), to oppose the hateful, mysoginstic religion that is Islam. Not one cent of public money should go to any cause of this religion.

I do not believe that we should be doing anything to normalise the abhorrent attitudes of a religion that would see little girls have parts of their genitals brtually cut off and people put to death for their beliefs.

NoImRight said :

There is a bit of irony in claiming to demonstrate a free society by telling someone they cant wear what makes them comfortable and expresses their beliefs. They are free to conform to it seems

A general obvservation not aimed at anyone in particular 🙂

I’m not quite sure how this fits into the general discussion. People are free to wear whatever they themselves feel comfortable with. But that’s not the issue under discussion. The issue under discussion is should public money full stop be spent on something that only serves to segregate?

The crux of the issue is how in the original press release it basically had a tone of “men are bad m’kay”. Had the original press release said something along the lines of “We’re looking into providing single gender (encompassing single gender swimming opportunities for both women AND men) swimming sessions at the request of groups A \ B and C” I expect we wouldn’t have seen 168 (and counting) responses.

As I have said, usually the first release out shows the original true intentions, the follow up releases are usually in response to backlash.

shadow boxer1:55 pm 10 Feb 12

colourful sydney racing identity said :

shadow boxer said :

That said segregating off a section of the public pool is just plain wrong, sends all the wrong multicultural messages and gives the bigots oxygen.

I would contend that opposing Islam is the antithesis of bigotry.

I’ve seen your posts and you are smarter than that, I think you are Friday afternoon trolling now

shadow boxer1:53 pm 10 Feb 12

NoImRight said :

There is a bit of irony in claiming to demonstrate a free society by telling someone they cant wear what makes them comfortable and expresses their beliefs. They are free to conform to it seems

A general obvservation not aimed at anyone in particular 🙂

Who said they couldn’t wear what they want ?

Holden Caulfield said :

devils_advocate said :

Australia is a secular nation.

Unless you’re gay and want to get married.

(Apologies for going OT.)

I think this could easily go into the draw for comment of the year. I love it!

VYBerlinaV8_is_back said :

geni_lou said :

And also misses the point that young women are often the harshest critics of their peers.

Spot on.

Was just about to say that too. I think if someone has body issues so serious they want to be screened away, they will also be uncomfortable with the other people behind the screen seeing them, even if they’re women and especially if they’re skinny women!

There is a bit of irony in claiming to demonstrate a free society by telling someone they cant wear what makes them comfortable and expresses their beliefs. They are free to conform to it seems

A general obvservation not aimed at anyone in particular 🙂

Holden Caulfield said :

devils_advocate said :

Australia is a secular nation.

Unless you’re gay and want to get married.

(Apologies for going OT.)

I have my suspicions that religion may have something to do with that as well.

Holden Caulfield said :

devils_advocate said :

Australia is a secular nation.

Unless you’re gay and want to get married.

(Apologies for going OT.)

=1. Well said sir

You know I have been thinking about this issue since it was first posted and to tell the truth I can’t see anything wrong with it, once you get over whole “but what about me!!!!” attitude that seems prevalent when it comes to these issues.

If some people feel uncomfortable with swimming in groups of there owm kind then let them. As long as they don’t think that they have a right to run roughshot over others rights it will be fine.

colourful sydney racing identity1:22 pm 10 Feb 12

shadow boxer said :

That said segregating off a section of the public pool is just plain wrong, sends all the wrong multicultural messages and gives the bigots oxygen.

I would contend that opposing Islam is the antithesis of bigotry.

@ Reech: get your own pool.

Holden Caulfield12:21 pm 10 Feb 12

devils_advocate said :

Australia is a secular nation.

Unless you’re gay and want to get married.

(Apologies for going OT.)

Holden Caulfield12:19 pm 10 Feb 12

I’m not racist but…

dungfungus said :

If the Muslims insist on keeping their strange ways and taboos why the hell did they come to Australia in the first place?

Yeah, I think you’ll find that’s called freedom of religion. As a broad concept those strange ways and taboos are not all that different to the “white” religions we seem to freely accept. So like the “normal” religions “the Muslims” probably like Australia because it’s one of the best places in the world to live. Funnily enough, I’d argue that freedom of religion helps support that claim.

shadow boxer11:47 am 10 Feb 12

threepaws said :

Gungahlin Al said :

Chop71 said :

Al, I hope you didn’t sign up for this.

Seriously, I think they need you more than you need them.

I used to chair the Sunshine Coast Water Safety Advisory Committee, and one of the emergency services’ largest concerns was people from inland who couldn’t swim very well always drowning themselves when on holidays at the beach. I’m behind anything that can broaden swimming skills (and health to boot). Hitting the water is a fundamental part of Australian culture, and I’d like everyone to be able to participate, regardless of whatever their other concerns or beliefs may be.

If these minority groups can only hit the water behind screens, I don’t think drowning at the beach is going to be an issue. There are men in speedos and women in bikinis there remember (and possibly men in mankinis…)

It’s a truly terrible idea, i’m a big supporter of the mosque and welcome our islamic brothers and sisters with open arms, cant wait to see a bit of extra diversity and new food treats in the G.

That said segregating off a section of the public pool is just plain wrong, sends all the wrong multicultural messages and gives the bigots oxygen.

harvyk1 said :

colourful sydney racing identity said :

This is probably going to trun me into a three post nut bag, but, the suggestion that having men and boys at a pool is a risk to the safety of women and children is entirely offensive and a disgraceful statement by Ms Hunter.

I know this is slightly OT, but it’s rant time anyway.

I personally find the whole way males are treated when it comes to kids to be highly offensive. One of my fears so to speak is that if when I’m out with my kids and my wife is not there, if one of them throws a tantrum I might actually have to prove to someone that those kids are mine. Don’t think it doesn’t happen, a few years ago a prominent British politician was ask to move to a different seat on an aircraft because the flight attendant wouldn’t believe he was actually seated next to his own kids. (I just know about this one because he rightly so made a huge issue out of it in the media, the airlines response – the FA was following protocol, thus there would be no apology)

They then wonder why they can’t attract more males into roles involving kids. Everyone looks at men with suspicion, it’s almost a “why would you want to hang around with kids, what’s your angle” type looks, always using “better safe than sorry” for their justification.

Quite frankly I also worry about in years to come will my sons be treated in much the same way as a 1950’s woman was when they tried and enter the workforce? or hell, lets at least try and get this back on topic for a second, go to the swimming pool?

I’m not advocating a male vs female battle of the sexes, in fact exactly the opposite. What I would like to see is this notion of females need protection against males become as outdated as many of the other notions which seemed logical in the 1950’s.

So in case you didn’t get what my position on this issue is, Meredith Hunter can go jump – into a pool filled with males all ready to leer away.

I would tend to agree; equality (in terms of social power and the ability to participate as a citizen) should be for all. I have strong feminist tendancies especially when I acknowledge that without the historical Feminist movement, I would not be allowed to participate in society beyond breeding and supplying Breakfast lunch and dinner to my husband. I do though question the idea that ALL women should be protected against men – does making decisions that continue to seperate the genders actually encourage in-equality in social power? Should we not be working towards a society where people’s bodies are not considered ‘good’ or ‘bad’ rather than giving people places to hide? Why would a young women think her body is fine when we are looking at creating places that say “if you’re not Hot, come here”

devils_advocate10:57 am 10 Feb 12

None of what I have read is anti-islamist. The reaction would be exactly the same if it was any religion (or fundamentalist sector thereof) attempting to assert their religious expression at the expense of others.

Australia is a secular nation.

Gungahlin Al said :

Chop71 said :

Al, I hope you didn’t sign up for this.

Seriously, I think they need you more than you need them.

I used to chair the Sunshine Coast Water Safety Advisory Committee, and one of the emergency services’ largest concerns was people from inland who couldn’t swim very well always drowning themselves when on holidays at the beach. I’m behind anything that can broaden swimming skills (and health to boot). Hitting the water is a fundamental part of Australian culture, and I’d like everyone to be able to participate, regardless of whatever their other concerns or beliefs may be.

If these minority groups can only hit the water behind screens, I don’t think drowning at the beach is going to be an issue. There are men in speedos and women in bikinis there remember (and possibly men in mankinis…)

VYBerlinaV8_is_back9:35 am 10 Feb 12

geni_lou said :

And also misses the point that young women are often the harshest critics of their peers.

Spot on.

Grail said :

Wow, I love how this has turned into an anti-Islamist thread.

I’ve sent a letter off to Meredith asking for an explanation of who these minority groups are. Have any of you? From the sounds of it, you’re just foaming at the mouth rabid anti-Islamists who have decided to pick on one target group that will be supported by this idea. What about the fatties who are simply embarrassed by their body? I suspect a large number of those will be teenage girls who still haven’t come to accept that all women have different body shapes and that attempting to conform to the Kate Moss model of femininity is a stupid idea.

In the meantime, I remind people to look at the update from the Greens in the title post: specifically the part relating to the major community groups that have supported this scheme. Those would be Royal Life Savers ACT and the YWCA.

My own opinion is that there is a gulf of difference between tolerance and accommodation when it comes to religious practices. I am not going to stand by watching my money being spent to accommodate religious practices that I don’t support (the obvious example being the misogyny inherent in Islam).

On the other hand, if putting screens up at pools for women-only sessions will help a significant portion of the population get to the pool, learn to swim and get some exercise, I’m all for it.

So how many of you have asked the Greens about who the community groups are that are campaigning for this idea?

I think people are responding to the Muslim angle because
a) It’s been in the media and the other issues haven’t
b) The idea that dealing with a social pressure that says young women must meet ridiculous and unhealthy physical standards by screening “fatties” off is ludicrous.
I want the young women I know to love their bodies, and to feel gorgeous in their skin. They are. Taking them somewhere they could see women not conforming to a ridiculous expectation driven by companies that want to sell crap products to make them fell better about themselves hiding away behind a screen would be infuriating
And also misses the point that young women are often the harshest critics of their peers.
This is a terrible idea every which way you look at it.
Disappointing from the YWCA, too.

Grail said :

Wow, I love how this has turned into an anti-Islamist thread.

Not really, this is more an anti segregation thread.

Grail said :

I’ve sent a letter off to Meredith asking for an explanation of who these minority groups are. Have any of you? From the sounds of it, you’re just foaming at the mouth rabid anti-Islamists who have decided to pick on one target group that will be supported by this idea.

To answer your question no, however to be fair to us foaming at the mouth rabid anti-Islamists, it was Meredith herself who brought up the religious connection with her statement. We simply put two and two together.

What you’ll find is the problem is the idea of public money being spent on a project which is actively designed to exclude 50% of the population by no other reason than gender.

If there is a demand for such a service why can’t a Islamic group or a business specialising in providing services only to women (Fernwood, looking at you, although don’t get me started on the fact your legally allowed to operated due to exceptions in the anti discrimination act) provide such a service?

I’m aware of the follow up release from the Greens, but a far as I’m concerned Meredith has shown her true colours, and the follow up release was “damage control”.

Grail said :

Wow, I love how this has turned into an anti-Islamist thread.

I’ve sent a letter off to Meredith asking for an explanation of who these minority groups are. Have any of you? From the sounds of it, you’re just foaming at the mouth rabid anti-Islamists who have decided to pick on one target group that will be supported by this idea.

How are we supposed to put our views on this issue without mentioning that there is a group who, due to their medieval views on women, require, or at least are being encouraged to require, women only swimming.

We can take it you are pro the idea of women leading second class lives of servitude and social isolation then?

As someone has mention, if there was another religious group demanding, or being told be y the Greens that they need, perpetrate provision from the rest of society, then the opprobrium would be heaped on them also. Luckily most other religions have at least caught up with the 19 th century.

Grail said :

On the other hand, if putting screens up at pools for women-only sessions will help a significant portion of the population get to the pool, learn to swim and get some exercise, I’m all for it.

There is no “significant proportion” who will be enabled by this idea, a minute minority may get some special treatment.

(may I suggest that men’s and women’s comments be segregated on this site, to avoid any mingling?)

So if the pool has lifeguards they would then need an extra one to watch behind the screen, and that gaurd would have to be female, wouldn’t that be descrimination if a male applied for a lifeguard job and was rejected on the basis they only want female lifeguards?

Also, how do the women in the female only area get from the change room to the screened off area, will there be a seperate screen off change room?

drfelonious said :

In the CT article this morning, a Muslim woman was quoted as saying she is all for this proposal because when she was younger her father would not let her take swimming lessons.

I just couldn’t get my head around it. She seemed upset obviously that she had missed out on learning how to swim but somehow seemed to think that female only swimming was the answer, rather than actually perpetuating the same attitude that left her unable to swim.

The Greens and Muslims make for some very strange bedfellows indeed.

You have lost my vote Meredith – this is a regressive, not progressive measure.

Nicely put, Doc.

Many religious – of all brands – would have us undo hundreds, if not thousands, of years of social progress to revert to iron age tribal myths and norms. If that sounds like overkill for something as seemingly trivial as segregated swimming, consider that its source is that which gave us female (and, if it comes to that, male) genital mutilation.

There can be few things more worth fighting against.

We all know the Greens are more about keeping people happy than they are about politics or real issues. Why don’t they just stand on a street corner and hand out happy pills?

FioBla said :

I don’t think that there is much merit in the “why should I pay for someone else’s… facilities”: Because we do that all the time. I’m not disabled, and yet there is disabled parking, and ramps at public sites. I’m not over 50, and yet the ACT Library sets up book clubs for the over 50 (oh no, segregation). I don’t have children, and yet there are public schools and now a push on this site for public childcare. I don’t fish, and yet I don’t mind Lake Burley Griffin being repopulated by fish. (I don’t mind my tax dollars going to all of the above by the way).

But there is a possibility that everyone can use those facilities. You may have an accident and require disabled parking. You could turn 50 and feel the need to join a book club. You may suddenly want children. The option of being a woman isn’t there for everyone

As for the fishing, I’m pretty sure fish in the Lake serve a larger purpose than providing a recreational activity involving a lawn chair, a stick with string on it and a six pack. The fish provide balance to the marine ecosystem and are an important part of the lakes health.

As far as I’m concerned religion has no part in politics or public funding.

colourful sydney racing identity8:45 am 10 Feb 12

Grail said :

Wow, I love how this has turned into an anti-Islamist thread.

I would have the same view if it was being suggested that this should be done to accomodate Jews, Catholics, Protestants, Hindus, Scientologists, Buddhists or any other variet of religious nut bags. The suggestion by Ms Hunter that having women’s only swimming would be ‘safer’ for women and children is incredibly offensive and reeks of the abhorrent seperatist feminist cry that ‘all men are potential rapists’.

colourful sydney racing identity8:38 am 10 Feb 12

Grail said :

So how many of you have asked the Greens about who the community groups are that are campaigning for this idea?

I have asked Greens hopeful Gunghalin Al via this thread.

Wow, I love how this has turned into an anti-Islamist thread.

I’ve sent a letter off to Meredith asking for an explanation of who these minority groups are. Have any of you? From the sounds of it, you’re just foaming at the mouth rabid anti-Islamists who have decided to pick on one target group that will be supported by this idea. What about the fatties who are simply embarrassed by their body? I suspect a large number of those will be teenage girls who still haven’t come to accept that all women have different body shapes and that attempting to conform to the Kate Moss model of femininity is a stupid idea.

In the meantime, I remind people to look at the update from the Greens in the title post: specifically the part relating to the major community groups that have supported this scheme. Those would be Royal Life Savers ACT and the YWCA.

My own opinion is that there is a gulf of difference between tolerance and accommodation when it comes to religious practices. I am not going to stand by watching my money being spent to accommodate religious practices that I don’t support (the obvious example being the misogyny inherent in Islam).

On the other hand, if putting screens up at pools for women-only sessions will help a significant portion of the population get to the pool, learn to swim and get some exercise, I’m all for it.

So how many of you have asked the Greens about who the community groups are that are campaigning for this idea?

Typical Greens philosophy; a minority may or may not want something, we’ll tell them they do want it as it fits with our views. Everybody else can be taxed to pay for it and put up with any inconvenience it causes them.,

colourful sydney racing identity7:52 am 10 Feb 12

three post nutbag here
@reech – there are a number of countries in the world that have segregated pools, if you wish to live in such a society you are welcome to, though I suspect that you may not like them.

colourful sydney racing identity7:49 am 10 Feb 12

LSWCHP said :

I’m now off to Google to find out what a pecksniff is, and I hope it’s not what it sounds like.

When you find out can you please let me know – I am not game to do a google serach at work.

colourful sydney racing identity7:47 am 10 Feb 12

Reech said :

Petty politickers, pecksniffs, log rollers, and dogs-in-the-manger will act accordingly.

And that sums you up completely, anyone who disagrees with you is a ‘petty politicker, pecksniff, log roller, or dog-in-the-manger’.

Tell me, what is your interest in all this? Why are you seeking to appease extremists who subjugate women, mutilate the gentials of little girls (give that some serious thought) and teach their children that the penalty for apostacy is death?

Reech said :

I support strongly screened swimming for women and girls

My only motivation in continuing to pursue this issue is to see a just outcome for the women and girls who will be affected. .

What you could also be doing is to educate and liberate these women from an opressive, regressive religion that forces women to be 2nd class citizen in there own community eyes. But I guess that is too hard.

whitelaughter12:21 am 10 Feb 12

April came around early this year didn’t it?

Has to be, when I’m agreeing with Andrew Barr!

Thatsnotme the article in the Canberra Times written by Megan Doherty quotes Ms Hunter as saying “removable screens to section off a part of the pool for women’s-only swimming could be a solution, but also some funding or insurance coverage for other pools.”

funding, other pools. Perhaps you need help with those words.

I’m one of the embarassed-to-be-Green folks right at this point in time.

Angry letter to Meredith done. Let’s see if they can convince me that this idea has any merit whatsoever. Otherwise it’s time to renounce the party and join One Nation, or (perish the thought) the Liberals.

Ok Reech, in response to your post #126, there is two points I’d like to make.

1. There is no Australia or ACT law which forbids Islamic women from swimming in mixed company. The choice by some Islamic women not to do so is an entirely personal one (or enforced by their fathers in some cases as you point out). Whilst I will agree that their religion forbids such activities, most people tend to chose which parts of their religion they follow and which they don’t, it is a choice which is made, not legally enforced.

2. Looking at a swimming area which was first made women only in 1830’s as your example of a “successful” place does not prove a point. Remember back in the 1830’s segregation was a way of life. Women where prohibited many things. Whilst I don’t know the specific history of the area it would not surprise me if back in the 1830’s there was a nearby area which was male only. Of course as women asked for more rights (rightly so in my opinion) such “male only areas” became mixed. I would expect the women’s only area is more a relic of a time gone by.

Now if you feel so strongly that a place needs to be made which excludes 50% of the population based on anatomy, then raise the funds yourself and purchase a pool for the Islamic women of the ACT \ women who dislike swimming in front of men. Luckily for you there are no laws to state you can’t be selective on who enters your own private property.

According to one of the online dictionaries, a pecksniff is “an extreme hypocrite
a character in Charles Dickens’ ‘Martin Chuzzlewit”.

Phew. I’m glad it’s nothing like “One who sniffs peckers”, which is what I originally thought it might mean.

Be that as it may, I don’t think there’s anything hypocritical about my point of view. I don’t like anything about this idea. I don’t like the subtext behind it, which is that women at a pool should automatically feel threatened by men. I don’t like the idea that men and women should be segregated and screened from each otherin public places.

I don’t like this idea. It’s bad. I hope this doesn’t happen

Reech said :

I support strongly screened swimming for women and girls being made possible in the planned Gungahlin Leisure Centre. In fact, since March 2011 I have made a number of representations to Molonglo MLAs, the ACT government, and the project team.

Here are two points taken from my latest letter to the Chief Minister:
Hopefully, politicians, territory and federal, who have indicated their support privately will now display publicly the sincerity and bravery of Ms Meredith Hunter MLA and some other community leaders. Petty politickers, pecksniffs, log rollers, and dogs-in-the-manger will act accordingly.

Now that’s a really interesting post. A lot of apparently calm and reasonable discussion about a very contentious issue. But then in the last sentence, the real attitude seems to come out. ie, “If you don’t agree with me then you’re a petty politicker, pecksniff, log roller and dog-in-the-manger”.

I’ve followed this thread carefully but without adding much because others have expressed my thoughts (this is a silly idea) as well as I could, but this really gets up my nose. I have no idea WTF a pecksniff is, but I suspect it’s not nice.

So, rather than persuading me of the correctness of your views, your arrogant and insulting dismissal of those, like me, who disagree with you has just convinced me that you’re knob, and further convinced me that this is a ridiculous idea that should never eventuate.

I’m now off to Google to find out what a pecksniff is, and I hope it’s not what it sounds like.

farnarkler said :

So they want to spend tax payers money to alter existing pools eh? I’m sure a letter from a legal firm promising to sue the greens for misuse of public money will shut Ms Hunter and her freakshow greens up.

*sigh*

Regardless of which side of the debate you support, surely it’s not that hard to actually read about what’s being proposed, before you go shooting your mouth off on a public forum? If you’d taken the time to read the post that started this whole thing, you’d have seen that there was no mention of altering existing swimming pools, and the proposal that’s being discussed here is talking about getting in at the planning phase of the (not yet constructed) Gungahlin pool.

Thank god these mysterious legal firms, who apparently are bang up for holding the government to account, employ people with some form of reading comprehension skills.

So they want to spend tax payers money to alter existing pools eh? I’m sure a letter from a legal firm promising to sue the greens for misuse of public money will shut Ms Hunter and her freakshow greens up.

drfelonious said :

In the CT article this morning, a Muslim woman was quoted as saying she is all for this proposal because when she was younger her father would not let her take swimming lessons.

I just couldn’t get my head around it. She seemed upset obviously that she had missed out on learning how to swim but somehow seemed to think that female only swimming was the answer, rather than actually perpetuating the same attitude that left her unable to swim.

The Greens and Muslims make for some very strange bedfellows indeed.

You have lost my vote Meredith – this is a regressive, not progressive measure.

It wasn’t her father who wouldn’t let her take swimming lessons it was the mediaval culture he subscribed to. If the Muslims insist on keeping their strange ways and taboos why the hell did they come to Australia in the first place? If they want to have separate bathing for their women then let them fund it themselves. My wife is a migrant and she didn’t learn to swim when she was young because her family couldn’t afford the cost of the lessons.

I support strongly screened swimming for women and girls being made possible in the planned Gungahlin Leisure Centre. In fact, since March 2011 I have made a number of representations to Molonglo MLAs, the ACT government, and the project team.

Here are two points taken from my latest letter to the Chief Minister:

“First, while it is true that a screened swimming facility would be used mainly by Muslim women and girls (unless the siting of a new mosque in the Gungahlin town centre is a demographic aberration), this issue should not be treated solely as an ‘Islamic’ one. It is not. This extract from the heritage listing for The Women’s Pool (McIver’s Pool) in Sydney is relevant:

‘The McIver Women’s Baths have [sic] State heritage significance for its social value to the female community of NSW. In use since the 1830s by the early female colonists, the baths have long been used as a site for recreational bathing, swimming and water safety lessons for generations of Sydney women. The inherent privacy of the location and the beauty of its setting have attracted a range of different women to use the baths. Mothers with children, the elderly or disabled, women from Islamic and Catholic communities, or women that prefer to swim in privacy, all continue to frequent the baths today and this popularity and continuity in its use reflects just how highly the site is regarded amongst the female community of NSW.’

“My second point relates to the integrity of ACT Labor policy and principles. The 2008 election Sport and Recreation Policy, as well as Mr Barr’s press release dated 4 August 2008, stated: ‘This new facility [the GLC] will provide a place where all members of the Gungahlin community can come to enjoy an active, healthy lifestyle all year round.’ The meaning of the word ‘will’ in the context of both documents is unequivocal: ‘be able to, be capable of (doing); have a (specified) ability, potential, or capacity.’ (SOED, 6th edn, 2007).

Further, the ACT Labor Branch Platform 2010-2011, in relation to Multicultural Affairs, lists as a principle: ‘Labor is committed to equity of access to and enjoyment of community resources for all residents of the ACT.’ It continues that, as a strategy, Labor will: ‘Ensure the laws, government policies and practices are culturally appropriate and do not prevent or inhibit ethnic communities from practicing and maintaining their spiritual and cultural beliefs, subject to Australian law.”

My only motivation in continuing to pursue this issue is to see a just outcome for the women and girls who will be affected. It is disappointing that the issue has not been resolved with alacrity. A considerable amount of money and time was found – and wasted – by the government in the pursuit of a design that contradicted both common sense and its 2008 election promise. That is now history. But it is not fair that a group of tax and rate paying citizens, composed and civil, pursuing a reasoned and reasonable objective, one endorsed by the government, one that accords with ACT Labor principles and policy, should now be hostage to that history.

Hopefully, politicians, territory and federal, who have indicated their support privately will now display publicly the sincerity and bravery of Ms Meredith Hunter MLA and some other community leaders. Petty politickers, pecksniffs, log rollers, and dogs-in-the-manger will act accordingly.

Blen_Carmichael8:00 pm 09 Feb 12

[

dtc said :

Blen_Carmichael said :

Excluding one gender from certain lanes simply exacerbates the problem, not to mention the fact it’s outright discrimination. What if the proposal were to exclude someone on the basis of race but – using your “solution” – attempting to placate them by pointing out they could come back at a certain time or perhaps use another pool? By your reasoning, it’s merely putting into practice the favoured category’s beliefs, isn’t it?

Well, as a male, I am able to cope with being ‘excluded’ from a couple of swimming lanes every now and then. I’m not a powerless minority like the example you have given (excluding on the basis of race).

There is a difference between direct discrimination against someone (excluding on the basis of race) and not giving someone a benefit that someone else is getting (eg: giving someone exclusive use of a lane).

For example: do you consider that educational scholarships that are only open to low income students discriminate against you (assuming you are not a low income student)? Or low income housing (keeping in mind that some low income people do in fact choose to be low income)? What about expenditure on child care rebates? Do they discriminate against you because you chose not to have a child?

I think we were talking about discrimination based on gender. Is this the best you can muster?

In the CT article this morning, a Muslim woman was quoted as saying she is all for this proposal because when she was younger her father would not let her take swimming lessons.

I just couldn’t get my head around it. She seemed upset obviously that she had missed out on learning how to swim but somehow seemed to think that female only swimming was the answer, rather than actually perpetuating the same attitude that left her unable to swim.

The Greens and Muslims make for some very strange bedfellows indeed.

You have lost my vote Meredith – this is a regressive, not progressive measure.

geni_lou said :

NoImRight said :

geni_lou said :

Isnt part of “equality” letting someone else do something you dont agree with? Are these people suddenly more equal when you tell them they cant have follow their own religion because you dont like it? As pointed out above lots of times money gets spent on things for minorities.Why does this cause so much angst? Because they are noticably different?
Im not saying this particular idea is right or wrong but I dont support telling someone what they can and cant think somehow represents some sort of additional freedom to them. It seems like just the opposite.

It’s absolutely not about telling people what they can and can’t think or do. It’s about publicly supporting something that enforces a social norm we rejected many years ago because of its obvious inequality.
I am saying that where that religion has a belief that harkens back to something our society has rejected (ie segregation) that we should not provide public funds to support that action. That goes for any religious belief.
If people don’t want to be around others who don’t fit their standard of dress due to their religion, that’s fine. But I don’t think we should sanction curtaining off a gender group because of those beliefs. We have a cultural history of inequality towards women, and this is a step backward into that, regardless of the reason for it.
I may not like your speedos, but I defend to the death your right to wear them.

Well put.

NoImRight said :

Isnt part of “equality” letting someone else do something you dont agree with? Are these people suddenly more equal when you tell them they cant have follow their own religion because you dont like it? As pointed out above lots of times money gets spent on things for minorities.Why does this cause so much angst? Because they are noticably different?

Im not saying this particular idea is right or wrong but I dont support telling someone what they can and cant think somehow represents some sort of additional freedom to them. It seems like just the opposite.

“Equality” has very little to do with letting someone do something you don’t agree with. It has to do with if something is offered to person A, then person B can not be denied access to that due to race \ religion or gender (there are a few other criteria in there as well which can’t be used).

SnapperJack said :

Interesting that The Greens have raised the possibility of men only pools and sessions. Yes, well . . . We all know what happens when you have men only anything. Recall the male sauna at the old Deakin Health Spa in the 1970s and ’80s which was an almost non-stop gay sex orgy.

I must have turned up there on a ladies only night then – thank goodness for that!

dtc said :

Blen_Carmichael said :

Excluding one gender from certain lanes simply exacerbates the problem, not to mention the fact it’s outright discrimination. What if the proposal were to exclude someone on the basis of race but – using your “solution” – attempting to placate them by pointing out they could come back at a certain time or perhaps use another pool? By your reasoning, it’s merely putting into practice the favoured category’s beliefs, isn’t it?

Well, as a male, I am able to cope with being ‘excluded’ from a couple of swimming lanes every now and then. I’m not a powerless minority like the example you have given (excluding on the basis of race).

There is a difference between direct discrimination against someone (excluding on the basis of race) and not giving someone a benefit that someone else is getting (eg: giving someone exclusive use of a lane).

For example: do you consider that educational scholarships that are only open to low income students discriminate against you (assuming you are not a low income student)? Or low income housing (keeping in mind that some low income people do in fact choose to be low income)? What about expenditure on child care rebates? Do they discriminate against you because you chose not to have a child? What about breast feeding nurses – if you are male you sure dont get much value out of the money spent on them.

The basic foundation of the opposition in this is that people simply dont accept a belief that results in women not wishing to appear in front of men. This is the same argument as the hijab/head wear argument; and it interestingly pits the left wing freedom of thought and speech view against the left wing ‘dont make someone do something that appears to contradict freedom’ view (or the right wing libertarian ‘do what you want’ view against the right wing ‘assimilate into our society’ view).

More like, ‘let’s screen off the poor kids because they don’t like the way the rich kids look at them, and they feel unsafe’ Muslim appropriate swimwear ‘burqini’s’ are available. This is by choice.

NoImRight said :

geni_lou said :

Isnt part of “equality” letting someone else do something you dont agree with? Are these people suddenly more equal when you tell them they cant have follow their own religion because you dont like it? As pointed out above lots of times money gets spent on things for minorities.Why does this cause so much angst? Because they are noticably different?
Im not saying this particular idea is right or wrong but I dont support telling someone what they can and cant think somehow represents some sort of additional freedom to them. It seems like just the opposite.

It’s absolutely not about telling people what they can and can’t think or do. It’s about publicly supporting something that enforces a social norm we rejected many years ago because of its obvious inequality.
I am saying that where that religion has a belief that harkens back to something our society has rejected (ie segregation) that we should not provide public funds to support that action. That goes for any religious belief.
If people don’t want to be around others who don’t fit their standard of dress due to their religion, that’s fine. But I don’t think we should sanction curtaining off a gender group because of those beliefs. We have a cultural history of inequality towards women, and this is a step backward into that, regardless of the reason for it.
I may not like your speedos, but I defend to the death your right to wear them.

Blen_Carmichael said :

Excluding one gender from certain lanes simply exacerbates the problem, not to mention the fact it’s outright discrimination. What if the proposal were to exclude someone on the basis of race but – using your “solution” – attempting to placate them by pointing out they could come back at a certain time or perhaps use another pool? By your reasoning, it’s merely putting into practice the favoured category’s beliefs, isn’t it?

Well, as a male, I am able to cope with being ‘excluded’ from a couple of swimming lanes every now and then. I’m not a powerless minority like the example you have given (excluding on the basis of race).

There is a difference between direct discrimination against someone (excluding on the basis of race) and not giving someone a benefit that someone else is getting (eg: giving someone exclusive use of a lane).

For example: do you consider that educational scholarships that are only open to low income students discriminate against you (assuming you are not a low income student)? Or low income housing (keeping in mind that some low income people do in fact choose to be low income)? What about expenditure on child care rebates? Do they discriminate against you because you chose not to have a child? What about breast feeding nurses – if you are male you sure dont get much value out of the money spent on them.

The basic foundation of the opposition in this is that people simply dont accept a belief that results in women not wishing to appear in front of men. This is the same argument as the hijab/head wear argument; and it interestingly pits the left wing freedom of thought and speech view against the left wing ‘dont make someone do something that appears to contradict freedom’ view (or the right wing libertarian ‘do what you want’ view against the right wing ‘assimilate into our society’ view).

Interesting that The Greens have raised the possibility of men only pools and sessions. Yes, well . . . We all know what happens when you have men only anything. Recall the male sauna at the old Deakin Health Spa in the 1970s and ’80s which was an almost non-stop gay sex orgy.

FioBla said :

Secondly, people who are uncomfortable with their body image can be told to suck it up and assimilate. OK. Is there a threshold level at which these people’s needs are accommodated?

I don’t see why there should be an assumption that people with body image issues will be assisted by removing men from the pool or screening part of it off. For a start, what about overweight men who feel embarassed to be seen in a scantily-clad state by women? There had better be some men’s only sessions to cater for them!

In my own (female) case, I am not overweight but still feel self-conscious about wearing so few clothes in public. This is one reason I rarely go swimming and haven’t visited a public pool since I was a child. However, I feel that way about about seen by anyone, not men in particular. I would not swim at women’s-only sessions either. There are plenty of other ways to get exercise where it’s not an issue.

This proposal is not for the full range of people who might feel uncomfortable at the pool, because there will be all sorts of reasons for their discomfort. It shouldn’t be presented as such.

longshanks said :

There are idiots out there (mostly men) who don’t like the sight of women breastfeeding in public. Not many, thank goodness, but a few. They find it confronting, in much the same way that the lady quoted above finds the sight of men in speedos confronting. But they need to get over it. I’m sorry, but the problem of a tiny part of society should not be the problem and responsibility of society as a whole.

Nicely put – accommodationism naively normalises the revolting behaviour associated with fundamentalist religions, eg, in this case Islam’s treatment of women as 2nd class citizens.
It’s a simple as this – you either support freedom or you support these idiots’ methods for oppressing people.

It’s bad enough that this country isn’t a properly secular Republican state with a God-free constitution and Bill of Rights, but to allow religion to creep back into government on the sly like the Greens are proposing should be an outrage.

I used to be a big, active and financial supporter of the Greens, but the proliferation of crypto-Marxists that have crept into their fold to poison our society with their deliberately sociopathic fringe-dwelling lunacy convinced me to have nothing more to do with them.

Blen_Carmichael1:14 pm 09 Feb 12

dtc said :

Blen_Carmichael said :

0.5% of the population feel excluded, and we mitigate that by excluding 49 per cent of the population?

49% of the population isnt ‘being excluded’, they just cant use a lane or two.

I don’t really see the issue here. A few lanes a few times a week at one pool in Canberra might not be useable by you. In the same way that a few lanes sometimes cant be used due to swimming lessons or training. Just go to another pool. Change your swimming time.

Sure the reason why these women want privacy is ridiculous; but it is their belief. Argue about their beliefs if you want; but if you think people have the right to chose their own beliefs and their beliefs dont impact on you*, dont get worked up about it.

I’m not sure if you’ve swum at a public pool recently, but let me assure you that space is a premium for lap swimmers, particularly in winter. Excluding one gender from certain lanes simply exacerbates the problem, not to mention the fact it’s outright discrimination. What if the proposal were to exclude someone on the basis of race but – using your “solution” – attempting to placate them by pointing out they could come back at a certain time or perhaps use another pool? By your reasoning, it’s merely putting into practice the favoured category’s beliefs, isn’t it?

FioBla – Post #105 –

Sure you might not be disabled, but they don’t prevent you using the ramps if you want to, furthermore you could one day become disabled and thus need to use the ramps. As I said, not everyone has a need to used everything the gov’t provides, but they don’t prevent people from using said services if a person would like to or has a need to.

Our society is based around inclusive principals, in that no one can be excluded from something due to race \ religion or gender. Sure in the example given where a book club for the over 50’s, there are going to be programs set up for certain subsets of the community. But they don’t prevent people who don’t fit in with that subset from joining in.

As for the back pedal from the greens this morning, too little too late guys. I don’t care what your “official policy” on this issue is, Meredith Hunter has made her position clear. Is this something which will lose you votes? Time will tell (lucky for you the election is still a while a way), but it does scare me that Meredith Hunter thought it was appropriate to put out such a release without thinking how it basically portrays men as something women need to be protected from.

Diggety said :

FioBla said :

I don’t think that there is much merit in the “why should I pay for someone else’s… facilities”: Because we do that all the time. I’m not disabled, and yet there is disabled parking, and ramps at public sites.

Having a disability is not a choice, FioBla.

No it’s not.

colourful sydney racing identity12:57 pm 09 Feb 12

Diggety said :

FioBla said :

I don’t think that there is much merit in the “why should I pay for someone else’s… facilities”: Because we do that all the time. I’m not disabled, and yet there is disabled parking, and ramps at public sites.

Having a disability is not a choice, FioBla.

+1 likening people who seek, for nutty religious reasons, to segregate men and women to providing facilities to support those with a disability is highly offensive.

geni_lou said :

[Everyone should have a right to religious freedom, but that freedom should never take precedence over the right of us all to equality.
It is a bigger issue.

Isnt part of “equality” letting someone else do something you dont agree with? Are these people suddenly more equal when you tell them they cant have follow their own religion because you dont like it? As pointed out above lots of times money gets spent on things for minorities.Why does this cause so much angst? Because they are noticably different?

Im not saying this particular idea is right or wrong but I dont support telling someone what they can and cant think somehow represents some sort of additional freedom to them. It seems like just the opposite.

FioBla said :

I don’t think that there is much merit in the “why should I pay for someone else’s… facilities”: Because we do that all the time. I’m not disabled, and yet there is disabled parking, and ramps at public sites.

Having a disability is not a choice, FioBla.

bikhet said :

Gungahlin Al said :

I recall the RA audience was generally supportive of the mosque going somewhere, and quelled thinly veiled arguments against it.

Is/was the mosque publicly funded? If so, there might be some point to mentioning it. If not, then not. As several poster have said, if private pools wish to hold segregated swimming then that’s OK. The main beef seems to be about segregation of public pools.

That pretty much sums it up for me, too.

These are public pools, paid for with public money. They should be accessible to all.

I take the point that sometimes areas are roped off for particular groups or activities. There is no cost associated with that – just some signs and restrictions. No problem.

But putting screens up, at public expense (and probably a high price) just on the off-chance that they MAY be used sometime (and that would appear unlikely) seems crazy to me.

A bit like the bus racks – a noisy minority caused great expense for very little usage.

Can I nominate Meredith for the next Mully award?

and what about the leering, sneering and advances of the local lesbians.

What a joke. When will the Greens (and others) pull there f***ing heads in and actually try to administer the town instead of thrusting their hairy armpitted, tree hugging ideals down our the throats.

I certainly didn’t vote for them. Hang your heads in shame those who did.

dtc said :

Blen_Carmichael said :

0.5% of the population feel excluded, and we mitigate that by excluding 49 per cent of the population?

49% of the population isnt ‘being excluded’, they just cant use a lane or two.

I don’t really see the issue here. A few lanes a few times a week at one pool in Canberra might not be useable by you. In the same way that a few lanes sometimes cant be used due to swimming lessons or training. Just go to another pool. Change your swimming time.

Its not a ‘bigger issue’ or ‘the principle of the thing’. There are an enormous number of rules that are designed to protect or favour minorities, but people dont complain about them.

Sure the reason why these women want privacy is ridiculous; but it is their belief. Argue about their beliefs if you want; but if you think people have the right to chose their own beliefs and their beliefs dont impact on you*, dont get worked up about it.

*: do their beliefs impact on you – see my first para.

It absolutely impacts on our community as a whole. it is not supportive of religious freedom, it entrenched a standard that we, as a society, have rejected and move on from. It accepts that women can feel ‘unsafe’ using public areas with men rather than challenging that. It accepts that it’s ok to segregate based on gender, despite the obvious gender inequality that is supported by that. It takes us backwards, and in a particularly nasty way.
Everyone should have a right to religious freedom, but that freedom should never take precedence over the right of us all to equality.
It is a bigger issue.

I don’t really have a problem with the idea of women-only swim sessions. I realise that it’s a public pool, at that there is a tacit unmentioned that there caters to a religious subgroup, or to be more specific, a Muslim subgroup.

I don’t think that there is much merit in the “why should I pay for someone else’s… facilities”: Because we do that all the time. I’m not disabled, and yet there is disabled parking, and ramps at public sites. I’m not over 50, and yet the ACT Library sets up book clubs for the over 50 (oh no, segregation). I don’t have children, and yet there are public schools and now a push on this site for public childcare. I don’t fish, and yet I don’t mind Lake Burley Griffin being repopulated by fish. (I don’t mind my tax dollars going to all of the above by the way). On a federal level, I didn’t support an invasion of Afghanistan, but there goes “my” tax dollars, and in large amounts too. I will never participate in the Olympics, and yet pay for training of athletes to do so.

Secondly, people who are uncomfortable with their body image can be told to suck it up and assimilate. OK. Is there a threshold level at which these people’s needs are accommodated? Because lets just not bother with public extra large ambulances, extra large public CT scanners and funding bariatric surgery—after all these weren’t necessary in the past, and most people are free to lose weight on their own, right?

Third, “minorities” (I use this phrase loosely to refer to ‘people not like the reader) pay taxes too.

I’m not saying that this is the best way to go. And I don’t think I would limit myself to women’s sessions. If Canberra were a larger community, then an organised minority (e.g. Muslims) can organise a large absolute numbers, and build and maintain their own pool—frankly not a concept beyond the realms of possibility, or privately organise sessions at an existing public/private pool. Then gauge attendance to see how popular such sessions are. But Canberra has a population of 350k, then maybe we shouldn’t just outright dismiss a proposal to consider a design change to a pool under construction (Gungahlin Leisure Centre), to cater to even smaller minorities—AFAIK these people would still need to pay to enter the pool like the rest of us.

So, there you go. I don’t think this is a big deal. I’m not fussed either way, and this wouldn’t affect my swinging voting preferences.

harvyk1 said :

Gungahlin Al said :

First, this isn’t a Greens issue. A number of community groups have been lobbying about this for some months now. They have received support from members of all parties in the Assembly, but it would be fair to say the Greens have been very responsive. I believe Jeremy Hanson in the Liberals was too.

Which community groups are they? Surely if a community group is lobbying the gov’t to support a position or to provide a certain facility we’re entitled to know who those people are.

Gungahlin Al said :

I recall the RA audience was generally supportive of the mosque going somewhere, and quelled thinly veiled arguments against it. I ask people here to think this issue through a little better.

I see you’ve completely missed the point here. The RA audience was generally supportive of a mosque going somewhere because in general we had no problem with a group of people spending their own money on a place to pray, and we where totally against an obvious racist pamphlet which was being distributed to nearby suburbs.

However this issue is something completely different, here a group of people who at this stage appear to be either anonymous or simply an excuse for greens policy wish the gov’t to spend public money on a facility which deliberately excludes 50% of the populate for no good reason.

I realise that not every piece of infrastructure built by the gov’t is meant for everyone, however at this stage any piece of infrastructure built by the gov’t is available for those who would like to (or need to) use it. It would be a very sad day the day the gov’t opened any facility which prohibited someone from using it based purely on gender. It would also say to me that we have not learnt the lessons of the past 60 odd years…

Next thing we will have women only screened bicycle paths so the men can’t ogle them in their lycra.

The Greens are being somewhere between ambigous and deliberately dishonest here. Which is it – cultural reasons or people who just don’t feel comfortable – no it’s conveniently a range of minorities. So what next – public transport exclusively for people who otherwise don’t feel comfortable using public transport? We could black out the windows and screen off half the buses!

Even Andrew Barr gets tripped up the Greens’ spin in the Canberra Times article – we are NOT talking about half the population. We are talking about a tiny subset of half the population.

And the update from Hunter – extremely popular private sessions where 60 people turned up! Woah – a few groups of 60 justifies adding hundreds of thousands to the Gungahlin pool pricetag. What happened to the “thousands” she mentioned on the news last night??

Mr Gillespie said :

Why is this issue even being considered?? Why should our taxes be spent on building any “screen” or any structure designed to protect some hopelessly brainwashed nutter’s religious fairy-tale beliefs?!!

That.

Blen_Carmichael said :

0.5% of the population feel excluded, and we mitigate that by excluding 49 per cent of the population?

49% of the population isnt ‘being excluded’, they just cant use a lane or two.

I don’t really see the issue here. A few lanes a few times a week at one pool in Canberra might not be useable by you. In the same way that a few lanes sometimes cant be used due to swimming lessons or training. Just go to another pool. Change your swimming time.

Its not a ‘bigger issue’ or ‘the principle of the thing’. There are an enormous number of rules that are designed to protect or favour minorities, but people dont complain about them.

Sure the reason why these women want privacy is ridiculous; but it is their belief. Argue about their beliefs if you want; but if you think people have the right to chose their own beliefs and their beliefs dont impact on you*, dont get worked up about it.

*: do their beliefs impact on you – see my first para.

Mr Gillespie said :

PULL YOUR STUPID HEAD IN MEREDITH!!!! YOU MAKE ME SICK!!!!!

Watch out Dizzy, Bob will label you sexist for that.

colourful sydney racing identity11:33 am 09 Feb 12

Mr Gillespie said :

Why is this issue even being considered?? Why should our taxes be spent on building any “screen” or any structure designed to protect some hopelessly brainwashed nutter’s religious fairy-tale beliefs?!!

well I’ll be f***ed. I really do agree with something you said…

Gungahlin Al said :

First, this isn’t a Greens issue. A number of community groups have been lobbying about this for some months now. They have received support from members of all parties in the Assembly, but it would be fair to say the Greens have been very responsive. I believe Jeremy Hanson in the Liberals was too.

Which community groups are they? Surely if a community group is lobbying the gov’t to support a position or to provide a certain facility we’re entitled to know who those people are.

Gungahlin Al said :

I recall the RA audience was generally supportive of the mosque going somewhere, and quelled thinly veiled arguments against it. I ask people here to think this issue through a little better.

I see you’ve completely missed the point here. The RA audience was generally supportive of a mosque going somewhere because in general we had no problem with a group of people spending their own money on a place to pray, and we where totally against an obvious racist pamphlet which was being distributed to nearby suburbs.

However this issue is something completely different, here a group of people who at this stage appear to be either anonymous or simply an excuse for greens policy wish the gov’t to spend public money on a facility which deliberately excludes 50% of the populate for no good reason.

I realise that not every piece of infrastructure built by the gov’t is meant for everyone, however at this stage any piece of infrastructure built by the gov’t is available for those who would like to (or need to) use it. It would be a very sad day the day the gov’t opened any facility which prohibited someone from using it based purely on gender. It would also say to me that we have not learnt the lessons of the past 60 odd years…

I’m quite liberal and a feminist. I think this is a terrible idea. First, it’s a huge step backwards. I’m very sorry if some fathers won’t let their daughters swim in a public swimming pool, as stated in the Canberra Times article. But why should we patronize and support sexist beliefs like this? Second, last time I checked, Canberra faces a great deal of important and expensive issues, such as poverty, domestic and child abuse, mental health issues, increasing access to quality health care, and more. Even if creating a segregated pool area wasn’t catering to anti-women agendas, it still wouldn’t take priority over the poor, the sick, the hurting….

Mr Gillespie11:25 am 09 Feb 12

Why is this issue even being considered?? Why should our taxes be spent on building any “screen” or any structure designed to protect some hopelessly brainwashed nutter’s religious fairy-tale beliefs?!!

This is a sick joke if ever I heard one!!

PULL YOUR STUPID HEAD IN MEREDITH!!!! YOU MAKE ME SICK!!!!!

Little OT, but today’s Canberra Times article on this has a poll that really pisses me off.

“Q: Do you support the idea of pools that would allow women-only swimming sessions in the ACT?

Yes, it would encourage greater participation in physical activity among women
No, we shouldn’t be limiting access on the basis of gender”

It’s not the question they ask but the answers. Why do they insist on giving a blanket reason for every ‘yes’ or ‘no’ response?

(/rant)

Not a Greens issue? its on the Greens website! She could have posted on her own blog.

Gungahlin Al said :

Oh and finally, remember this isn’t all about religious beliefs. There’s plenty more to it. But as with anyedia coverage things get cherry picked and truncated.
And while we may be upset by some of the aspects of our society that are tied up in this issue, they exist and you can’t deny them. But you can work on those underlying problems. That takes time though. In the meantime, some people feel excluded…this is about mitigating that. Later!

Mitigating a small groups ‘discomfort’ by taking a massive step backwards as a society? No thanks. And if other groups outside religious feel uncomfortable in public areas, then we as a community need to deal with that. To say that it’s acceptable for a group of people, whatever the reason, to be kept separate from the rest of the community because they feel uncomfortable or unsafe is wrong. Minority groups should not be hidden away from groups that feel threatenedby or stigmatise them. We are a whole and diverse community, and where we fail to behave as such, that behaviour should be challenged as unacceptable. How can we ever move forward as a society if we behave like this? What if gay people had stayed hidden away because of homophobics?
What if people with disabilities where never supported to function easily in society because some people feel uncomfortable dealing with them?
This is a very poor way to provide an easy fix that has much greater repercussions than have been considered. I only hope that with further thought on the wider implications of what this says about us as a community this will be dropped, and better initiatives, that are actually inclusive, taken up.

Blen_Carmichael11:05 am 09 Feb 12

Gungahlin Al said :

That takes time though. In the meantime, some people feel excluded…this is about mitigating that. Later!

0.5% of the population feel excluded, and we mitigate that by excluding 49 per cent of the population?

Gungahlin Al said :

I recall the RA audience was generally supportive of the mosque going somewhere, and quelled thinly veiled arguments against it.

Is/was the mosque publicly funded? If so, there might be some point to mentioning it. If not, then not. As several poster have said, if private pools wish to hold segregated swimming then that’s OK. The main beef seems to be about segregation of public pools.

Gungahlin Al10:39 am 09 Feb 12

Oh and finally, remember this isn’t all about religious beliefs. There’s plenty more to it. But as with anyedia coverage things get cherry picked and truncated.
And while we may be upset by some of the aspects of our society that are tied up in this issue, they exist and you can’t deny them. But you can work on those underlying problems. That takes time though. In the meantime, some people feel excluded…this is about mitigating that. Later!

Gungahlin Al10:32 am 09 Feb 12

Sorry I’m not going to be able to weigh in on this today. Have a lot of Ministers Office stuff happening and some of you no doubt realise it’s Estimates next week…
Before I go, the change rooms aspect was raised and I agree – that’s my ‘bridge too far’.
As for the groups, I have written to the guy I mentioned above and suggested the potential users should engage here. Please be polite if they do.
And please excuse my brevity.

There’s an article in the Canberra Times today on this, of course. Here is a quote from a Muslim lady interviewed for the article:
”It’s not just about them looking at us, it’s about us being exposed to men wearing Speedos.”

Now I do not wish to make any comment about the lady in question, and I’m sure that she is a lovely lady, and a pillar of the Canberra community. However, I can’t help but be concerned at the second part of that statement.

I’m a guy, and I don’t think that speedos are necessarily a good look either. And I certainly don’t enjoy seeing people with 2kg of metal stuck in their faces, or people with (what I deem to be) offensive tattoos.

But guess what? That’s not my problem. I live in a country where it’s fully acceptable for men to wear speedos in a public pool, and where you can pierce every square centimetre of your body if you wish to, and where 95% of the population doesn’t give a stuff and gets on with their lives.

There are idiots out there (mostly men) who don’t like the sight of women breastfeeding in public. Not many, thank goodness, but a few. They find it confronting, in much the same way that the lady quoted above finds the sight of men in speedos confronting. But they need to get over it. I’m sorry, but the problem of a tiny part of society should not be the problem and responsibility of society as a whole.

Oh and by the way: women-only facilities are one thing, but how are you going to deal with the body image question? Morbidly obese only classes? Old and wrinkly only classes? Abnormal body shape only classes? I’m sure that will help people to feel better about their physique.

The thing that I find most strange about this is that the Greens could hardly be seen as supporters of organised religion. I really think they’ve got hold of the wrong end of the ideological stick on this one.

@Gunghalin Al: If I were you, I’d be disappointed in the people who wrote the press release, not the people who responded to the (apparently incomplete) information they were given.

colourful sydney racing identity10:26 am 09 Feb 12

RedDogInCan said :

Gungahlin Al said :

A number of community groups have been lobbying about this for some months now.

Name them. It is difficult to not dismiss this as a crack pot idea if the supposedly legitimate beneficiaries remain in the shadows.

Absolutely. Who are these community groups? Are they ones that subjugate women by forcing them to cover their faces in public and viciously abuse little girls through barbarous genital mutilation?

Gungahlin Al said :

A number of community groups have been lobbying about this for some months now.

Name them. It is difficult to not dismiss this as a crack pot idea if the supposedly legitimate beneficiaries remain in the shadows.

Aren’t women only swimming session blatant sexism?

pink little birdie9:40 am 09 Feb 12

I know of at least 3 private/public pools in Canberra. (Kambah, Kaleen and Curtin) These places are about 25m pools and have only that business in the pool space. I’m pretty sure these are the people who do the womens swim sessions and also private swimming lessons (lessons being the core business).

Are these facilities not meeting the need for these services? surely if people are that keen to have private swim sessions they will seek them out.

Gungahlin Al,
thanks for posting, but if this issue is as broad as you suggest why did your Greens colleague make the issue specifically about women and women’s only swimming?

And depending on how much it costs, I would still disagree with spending public money on this.

Second, the point being made by the groups is that the numbers of people (note: people not women – there would be potential benefits for some gents too) who would take advantage of a degree of privacy in swimming lessons. But that such provisions are very hard to retro-fit (read: prohibitively expensive) but very easy to do in the design and build phase.”

Living in an open, equal society is something that has been aspired to, and fought for, for a very long time, and should continue to be so. It wasn’t so long ago in Australia that women were prohibited from going to certain places, and indeed voting.
As a society we have come past this. This was done through challenging the strongly held cultural belief of the time.
Moving to segregate out/screen people away because of gender is a poor response to a social norm we have fought hard to overcome.
This is not the mark of an inclusive society, it is the mark of a society that uses easy fixes to deal with complex cultural issues.
I was once very involved in the greens, and I deeply regret that now.
There are muslim-appropriate swimsuits. I don’t think we should be saying that it is ok to prevent our children from participating in activities that mitigate risk because of a religious belief.

Gungahlin Al said :

Chop71 said :

Al, I hope you didn’t sign up for this.

Seriously, I think they need you more than you need them.

I’ve only had time to read a few of the comments on this thread, but I’m disappointed on a number of fronts. I’ll have to be brief because work beckons…

First, this isn’t a Greens issue. A number of community groups have been lobbying about this for some months now. They have received support from members of all parties in the Assembly, but it would be fair to say the Greens have been very responsive. I believe Jeremy Hanson in the Liberals was too.

Second, the point being made by the groups is that the numbers of people (note: people not women – there would be potential benefits for some gents too) who would take advantage of a degree of privacy in swimming lessons. But that such provisions are very hard to retro-fit (read: prohibitively expensive) but very easy to do in the design and build phase.

GCC was asked to support the argument and did so, pointing out to the Sport and Rec staff that just like it is straightforward to make allowances for wheelchair hoists, it would be easy enough to design in some screening attached to the ceiling that could be rolled down when needed, without inconveniencing or overly restricting pool access for other users. Just another user group like when lap trainers get sections of the pool roped off, if you like.

Sport and Rec staff resisted, saying that the design had progressed too far to change. A key campaigner on the issue (interestingly not in any way link to the potential users) pointed out that he had raised the issue very early in the design process and was ignored. The Government asked the designers to reconsider. I understand that Sport and Rec are looking for a spot on the March GCC meeting agenda to present revised plans. And Katy Gallagher said at the GCC meeting last night something to the effect that changes have been made to cater to varying needs.

I recall the RA audience was generally supportive of the mosque going somewhere, and quelled thinly veiled arguments against it. I ask people here to think this issue through a little better.

I used to chair the Sunshine Coast Water Safety Advisory Committee, and one of the emergency services’ largest concerns was people from inland who couldn’t swim very well always drowning themselves when on holidays at the beach. I’m behind anything that can broaden swimming skills (and health to boot). Hitting the water is a fundamental part of Australian culture, and I’d like everyone to be able to participate, regardless of whatever their other concerns or beliefs may be.

(For the record: this is a personal opinion, not a party policy.)

Madness. If, in society, we have to cater for every nuroses like this, where does it end?? Seriously? How much money has the Govt got to cater for these issues? If we have survived – generally intact – with the current arrangements till now, what is behind this change? Or are we actually only talking about a religous issue after all? I’m starting to assume so (sorry, i’m a little slow!).
Also, i’m not sure about your argument re: coast drownings. Surely if people are too embarrased/scared/whatever to be seen at a pool, what are the chances of them going to a beach? Further, if the issue is being seen at the pool, then besides a ‘screened off’ area for the pool, wouldn’t they also need a separate change room closer to the pool edge, and/or a concealed walkway between the two? And maybe a tunnel to a special underground carpark….

As I said before, I seriously don’t get this. MLAs, I suggest grabbing a pen and pad and going for a bus ride, visiting a hospital, a school, some public housing, the AMC, a meals on wheels delivery, a nursing home, etc. You’ll come back with a list of things that need attending to before this issue, IMO….

VYBerlinaV8_is_back9:11 am 09 Feb 12

@Gungahlin Al:

As much as I dislike the Greens, I’m really impressed by the way you come on here and engage with us. It makes you seem much more accessible than other candidates and pollies.

I, for one, hope you get in.

Gungahlin Al8:30 am 09 Feb 12

Chop71 said :

Al, I hope you didn’t sign up for this.

Seriously, I think they need you more than you need them.

I’ve only had time to read a few of the comments on this thread, but I’m disappointed on a number of fronts. I’ll have to be brief because work beckons…

First, this isn’t a Greens issue. A number of community groups have been lobbying about this for some months now. They have received support from members of all parties in the Assembly, but it would be fair to say the Greens have been very responsive. I believe Jeremy Hanson in the Liberals was too.

Second, the point being made by the groups is that the numbers of people (note: people not women – there would be potential benefits for some gents too) who would take advantage of a degree of privacy in swimming lessons. But that such provisions are very hard to retro-fit (read: prohibitively expensive) but very easy to do in the design and build phase.

GCC was asked to support the argument and did so, pointing out to the Sport and Rec staff that just like it is straightforward to make allowances for wheelchair hoists, it would be easy enough to design in some screening attached to the ceiling that could be rolled down when needed, without inconveniencing or overly restricting pool access for other users. Just another user group like when lap trainers get sections of the pool roped off, if you like.

Sport and Rec staff resisted, saying that the design had progressed too far to change. A key campaigner on the issue (interestingly not in any way link to the potential users) pointed out that he had raised the issue very early in the design process and was ignored. The Government asked the designers to reconsider. I understand that Sport and Rec are looking for a spot on the March GCC meeting agenda to present revised plans. And Katy Gallagher said at the GCC meeting last night something to the effect that changes have been made to cater to varying needs.

I recall the RA audience was generally supportive of the mosque going somewhere, and quelled thinly veiled arguments against it. I ask people here to think this issue through a little better.

I used to chair the Sunshine Coast Water Safety Advisory Committee, and one of the emergency services’ largest concerns was people from inland who couldn’t swim very well always drowning themselves when on holidays at the beach. I’m behind anything that can broaden swimming skills (and health to boot). Hitting the water is a fundamental part of Australian culture, and I’d like everyone to be able to participate, regardless of whatever their other concerns or beliefs may be.

(For the record: this is a personal opinion, not a party policy.)

2604 said :

Backyard pools: anyone who doesn’t feel comfortable at a public swimming pool should feel free to have one constructed in their own backyard and on their own dime.

“on their own dime”?

What are you, american?

Backyard pools: anyone who doesn’t feel comfortable at a public swimming pool should feel free to have one constructed in their own backyard and on their own dime.

I think a women only LANE would be perfectly acceptable, if a woman feels concerned about proximity to a man in the pool. Otherwise – no way!

Primal said :

…so who was banning bacon again? That’s a far bigger issue.

I was once working in a hospital where it was discovered one morning that one of the cadavers in the morgue had been decorated with strips of bacon overnight. And yes, it was the body of a little old Jewish lady. I have no idea what that was all about, but the shit that goes on in hospitals would astound you. There was far worse than that.

Primal said :

…so who was banning bacon again? That’s a far bigger issue.

If anyone thinks I’m going to stop eating crispy bacon in the swimming pool…

…so who was banning bacon again? That’s a far bigger issue.

Little_Green_Bag said :

Pandy said :

Comment Gunghalin Al?

He’s probably too busy cringing under the table putting a bag over his head.

I’m sure it’s a Green bag too (just like your name…)

The thing that annoys me about this is that some women feel that the only way to deal with someone annoying them (or even theoretically annoying them) is to change their own behaviour; to remove themselves from sight. I think that is sad, and even unjust. If someone really is being a dick-head he should be told so. But to separate the sexes is also prejudging the behaviour of all men, and acting as if being looked at in some way dirties the person being looked at. It’s a fairly bleak way of approaching things. (But of course women who do feel like that should be free to hire a private pool or to have one at home.)

It also assumes that (some) women don’t like looking at (some) men. I have heard amazing rumours that this is not necessarily true!

keepitup said :

I’m still trying to get my head around a RAP (Reconciliation Action Plan), and now this comes along.

They missed the ‘C’ off the start of it…

Little_Green_Bag said :

Pandy said :

Comment Gunghalin Al?

He’s probably too busy cringing under the table putting a bag over his head.

I hope so.

Time to think about going independent, Al?

Just saw the bit on WIN news and I’m astonished all over again. Hunter basically said the “thousands” of female-only gym members means there are thousands who would use a female-only pool. What a bald faced lie!!! Mind blowing! So a private business catering to 50% of the population justifies public spending for say, 5%? Plus my wife says she’s never ever seen a member of these “cultural” groups in her many years as a Fernwood member.

Look, it’s slightly sad that some girls and women are forbidden from swimming but that’s not the public’s problem.

thatsnotme said :

. Women’s only sessions are a very different kettle of fish to a a pool exclusively for women. …

Sure, and Christians Only sessions can be 11-12, Whites Only sessions 12-1.

It boggles the mind that idiotic ideas like this one can get this far without their originators realising how utterly absurd they are.

I certainly don’t like the idea of women’s only swimming sessions, or partitions down the pool, or any other nonsense – but that doesn’t excuse Andrew Barr for tweeting misleading information.

Nowhere can I see anyone from the greens or otherwise asking for a ‘women’s only public swimming pool’, as Andrew would have you believe. Women’s only sessions are a very different kettle of fish to a a pool exclusively for women. Surely proof reading a tweet before sending and taking the 10 seconds to think ‘is this accurate?’ shouldn’t be that hard…

Public works can’t cater for such a wide array of unnecessary individual choices like religion, foreign customs, agoraphobia, oglaphobia (made that one up) and being a fatty.

Change your habits, or dig a hole and fill it with water.

Little_Green_Bag5:19 pm 08 Feb 12

Pandy said :

Comment Gunghalin Al?

He’s probably too busy cringing under the table putting a bag over his head.

This has to be the worst case of female vote-grabbing I have ever seen. Makes labor look positively non-sexist by comparison.

Comment Gunghalin Al?

Why don’t the “ones that want a girls’ only pool” join one of the existing girls only swimming sessions?

colourful sydney racing identity said :

which schools banned Christmas celebrations and which fast food restaurants banned bacon?

You could try Google.

eg,
http://www.topix.com/forum/world/australia/TEGFBU9APOCI191M3

p1 said :

I would like a pool where I can swim without the gaze of middle aged hairy, tanned men with gold chains wearing speedos.

Actually, most of the time such men aren’t at the pool (and when they are, I hope they are not looking at me), but when I do see them they give me the creeps.

These men should also be banned from malls.

Luckily I don’t see too many ‘middle aged hairy, tanned men with gold chains wearing speedos’ in malls….

colourful sydney racing identity said :

which schools banned Christmas celebrations and which fast food restaurants banned bacon?

Whilst I have not yet heard of any fast food restaurants banning bacon (apart from ones which want to be halal certified), I have certainly heard of some schools banning Christmas celebrations over fears of offending non Christians. This was a few years ago when Christmas was celebrating the birth of Christ, unlike today when Christmas is celebrating the birth of interest free periods on credit cards.

NoImRight said :

Before we attack a religious group too much ( and Im not saying anyone has) maybe check how many of them actually complained or even asked. Ive seen a few examples of PC types so zealous they seek out “offence” on behalf of minorities that really arent that offended. This often has the reverse effect though that the group is then labeled as whingers or trying to tell “us” what to do.

Whilst a certain religious group can be readily identified as being pro this idea, it seems religious group is in there as a justification for this, not the reason, as the media release also has “accessibility concerns, or for body image reasons.” as reasons as well.

Whilst I think about it, I’d love to see Ms Hunter come onto the RA and define what accessibility concerns could arise from allowing males to use public facilities as well as women? Is there a concern that by having a person there with male parts, it’ll prevent a woman from being able to walk past? (All I could say to that is wow that’s a big “member”)

I expect (but this is only speculation) that Ms Hunter has joined a women’s only gym, and then decided that she’d like to have other activities which don’t involve males either.

As to Andrew Barr’s tweet, it sums this whole thing up perfectly.

I’m still trying to get my head around a RAP (Reconciliation Action Plan), and now this comes along.

“I took my kids to the pool last weekend and decided I would like segregated pools – one pool for normal human beings, and another pool for angry feral bogans and their 100kg 11-year-olds.”……

Agree – we all think that! Especially when the life guards are being their usual inattentive selves!

At the risk of sounding scarily like my mother in law, the suggestion of women only pools primarily on the basis of religion is utterly ridiculous. And if you are over-weight and attempting to get fit, then why would anyone bat an eyelid at you and cause you trauma?

Women only gyms are commercial operations out to make as much money as they can and provide a niche service to those who wish to pay for it. Swimming pools provided by the gov out of taxpayer money are quite the opposite. If minority groups want to open their own and not allow in any other groups, then go for it.

Good to see Andrew Barr has drawn a line under it.

colourful sydney racing identity4:13 pm 08 Feb 12

I have just read the title of the press release: COMMUNITY CALLS FOR WOMEN’S ONLY SWIMMING POOL.

Which community has called for it? How many people have called for it?

NoImRight said :

Before we attack a religious group too much ( and Im not saying anyone has) maybe check how many of them actually complained or even asked. Ive seen a few examples of PC types so zealous they seek out “offence” on behalf of minorities that really arent that offended. This often has the reverse effect though that the group is then labeled as whingers or trying to tell “us” what to do.

+1

colourful sydney racing identity said :

SnapperJack said :

NoImRight said :

Before we attack a religious group too much ( and Im not saying anyone has) maybe check how many of them actually complained or even asked. Ive seen a few examples of PC types so zealous they seek out “offence” on behalf of minorities that really arent that offended. This often has the reverse effect though that the group is then labeled as whingers or trying to tell “us” what to do.

. . . like schools and councils banning Christmas celebrations and fast food restaurants banning bacon from their burgers.

which schools banned Christmas celebrations and which fast food restaurants banned bacon?

I have been told that teachers (public schools in Canberra) must refer to it has the ‘summer holidays’ or ‘holiday season’, saying or promoting it as ‘Christmas’ is definitely out.

Wasn’t aware burgers were going without bacon though….. the humanity!

colourful sydney racing identity said :

Just the same as we should not tie ouselves in knots trying to not offend catholics, scientologists or disciples of Odin.

Can we tie ourselves in knots for the practitioners of Hoj?jutsu?

colourful sydney racing identity3:48 pm 08 Feb 12

SnapperJack said :

NoImRight said :

Before we attack a religious group too much ( and Im not saying anyone has) maybe check how many of them actually complained or even asked. Ive seen a few examples of PC types so zealous they seek out “offence” on behalf of minorities that really arent that offended. This often has the reverse effect though that the group is then labeled as whingers or trying to tell “us” what to do.

. . . like schools and councils banning Christmas celebrations and fast food restaurants banning bacon from their burgers.

which schools banned Christmas celebrations and which fast food restaurants banned bacon?

NoImRight said :

Before we attack a religious group too much ( and Im not saying anyone has) maybe check how many of them actually complained or even asked. Ive seen a few examples of PC types so zealous they seek out “offence” on behalf of minorities that really arent that offended. This often has the reverse effect though that the group is then labeled as whingers or trying to tell “us” what to do.

. . . like schools and councils banning Christmas celebrations and fast food restaurants banning bacon from their burgers.

colourful sydney racing identity3:37 pm 08 Feb 12

Mysteryman said :

colourful sydney racing identity said :

This is probably going to trun me into a three post nut bag, but, the suggestion that having men and boys at a pool is a risk to the safety of women and children is entirely offensive and a disgraceful statement by Ms Hunter.

It appears that we agree again…

Is there a full moon tonight?

And we both seem to agree with Andrew Barr…

Ergh, really??? I’m embarrassed to be a Greens member right about now.

Before we attack a religious group too much ( and Im not saying anyone has) maybe check how many of them actually complained or even asked. Ive seen a few examples of PC types so zealous they seek out “offence” on behalf of minorities that really arent that offended. This often has the reverse effect though that the group is then labeled as whingers or trying to tell “us” what to do.

p1 said :

I would like a pool where I can swim without the gaze of middle aged hairy, tanned men with gold chains wearing speedos.

Actually, most of the time such men aren’t at the pool (and when they are, I hope they are not looking at me), but when I do see them they give me the creeps.

These men should also be banned from malls.

I took my kids to the pool last weekend and decided I would like segregated pools – one pool for normal human beings, and another pool for angry feral bogans and their 100kg 11-year-olds.

geni_lou said :

We can segregate our social issues away! sure did work in the past. Go greens!

+1

It’s a damn shame that the Greens attract people with such racist and sexist ideologies.

I would like a pool where I can swim without the gaze of middle aged hairy, tanned men with gold chains wearing speedos.

Actually, most of the time such men aren’t at the pool (and when they are, I hope they are not looking at me), but when I do see them they give me the creeps.

These men should also be banned from malls.

colourful sydney racing identity said :

This is probably going to trun me into a three post nut bag

Seems to be a typical male thing. I blame their obsessiveness, inability to recognize social boundaries, and their alpha domineering need to have the last word.

bitzermaloney3:03 pm 08 Feb 12

One senses that it isn’t a problem that Meredith has experienced.

colourful sydney racing identity said :

This is probably going to trun me into a three post nut bag, but, the suggestion that having men and boys at a pool is a risk to the safety of women and children is entirely offensive and a disgraceful statement by Ms Hunter.

It appears that we agree again…

Is there a full moon tonight?

colourful sydney racing identity said :

This is probably going to trun me into a three post nut bag, but, the suggestion that having men and boys at a pool is a risk to the safety of women and children is entirely offensive and a disgraceful statement by Ms Hunter.

I know this is slightly OT, but it’s rant time anyway.

I personally find the whole way males are treated when it comes to kids to be highly offensive. One of my fears so to speak is that if when I’m out with my kids and my wife is not there, if one of them throws a tantrum I might actually have to prove to someone that those kids are mine. Don’t think it doesn’t happen, a few years ago a prominent British politician was ask to move to a different seat on an aircraft because the flight attendant wouldn’t believe he was actually seated next to his own kids. (I just know about this one because he rightly so made a huge issue out of it in the media, the airlines response – the FA was following protocol, thus there would be no apology)

They then wonder why they can’t attract more males into roles involving kids. Everyone looks at men with suspicion, it’s almost a “why would you want to hang around with kids, what’s your angle” type looks, always using “better safe than sorry” for their justification.

Quite frankly I also worry about in years to come will my sons be treated in much the same way as a 1950’s woman was when they tried and enter the workforce? or hell, lets at least try and get this back on topic for a second, go to the swimming pool?

I’m not advocating a male vs female battle of the sexes, in fact exactly the opposite. What I would like to see is this notion of females need protection against males become as outdated as many of the other notions which seemed logical in the 1950’s.

So in case you didn’t get what my position on this issue is, Meredith Hunter can go jump – into a pool filled with males all ready to leer away.

it should be noted that use of the word “leer” was mine.

I’d like to refer you to comments made this week by the French ministre de l’Interieur,
http://www.lefigaro.fr/flash-actu/2012/02/05/97001-20120205FILWWW00008-civilisations-gueant-cree-une-polemique.php

supported by his president:
http://www.lefigaro.fr/politique/2012/02/06/01002-20120206ARTFIG00422-dissonances-dans-la-majorite-apres-les-propos-de-gueant.php

“Contrairement à ce que dit l’idéologie relativiste de gauche, pour nous, toutes les civilisations ne se valent pas. Celles qui défendent l’humanité nous paraissent plus avancées que celles qui la nient. Celles qui défendent la liberté, l’égalité et la fraternité, nous paraissent supérieures à celles qui acceptent la tyrannie, la minorité des femmes, la haine sociale ou ethnique”.

“Contrary to what the relativist ideology of the Left tells us, for us, all civilisations are not equal. Those which defend Humanity seem to us more advanced than those who deny it. Those that defend Freedom, Equality, and Fraternity, seem to us superior to those who accept tyranny, 2nd-class citizenship for women, and social or ethnic hatreds.”

How long before Australian pollies stop pussy-footing around with an alien culture that is not compatible with our values?

Some women and families currently do not use our public pools due to religious reasons, accessibility concerns, or for body image reasons.

These’ “families” do not have any males in them I take it?

How would making swimming sessions change the accessibility of the pool for a disabled person?

If they are not going for “body image reasons”, then surely banning other women from swimming with them is better that banning men, as women bitch far more about other women’s bodies.

If people do not go swimming for ‘religious reasons”, should their belief in fairy stories make swimming less accessible for others?

Dear Greens, please stick to hugging trees, any issue more complex than that and you are soon out of your depth.

colourful sydney racing identity said :

regardless of the size of our muslim community we should not do it. Just the same as we should not tie ouselves in knots trying to not offend catholics, scientologists or disciples of Odin.

I’m sure that Thor can hold his own.

I just wish the Greens press release writer would decide which spelling of organisation they want to go with, or are they trying to appease the advocates of both the American and English ways of spelling?

I think everyone has forgotten, it’s only discrimination if it’s a woman getting a raw deal.

Quite frankly any public spending on public infrastructure should then be available for all the public to use at any appropriate time, there should be no discrimination based on race \ gender or religion.

If a Muslim based organisation wished to raise funds it’s own swimming infrastructure in which pools where set apart for males \ females, then that’s their own prerogative. Provided that no public money (or at least no public money outside normal grants) is used on the project I would not have a problem with that.

Then again, the idea that the Greens would support a small minority fringe cause which is very PC shouldn’t surprise me.

colourful sydney racing identity1:41 pm 08 Feb 12

This is probably going to trun me into a three post nut bag, but, the suggestion that having men and boys at a pool is a risk to the safety of women and children is entirely offensive and a disgraceful statement by Ms Hunter.

colourful sydney racing identity1:39 pm 08 Feb 12

Henry82 said :

We should have a designated swimming days based on your pay bracket, that way i don’t have to share the water with scum.

I think this is all to do with a swimming centre in western sydney where they spent millions of dollars erecting curtains to cover the pool so certain religious groups could swim. I don’t think we have a large enough muslim community to justify it.

regardless of the size of our muslim community we should not do it. Just the same as we should not tie ouselves in knots trying to not offend catholics, scientologists or disciples of Odin.

colourful sydney racing identity1:37 pm 08 Feb 12

This does sound more like an attempt to woo/appease muslim voters.

It never fails to amaze me why the left would do anything to support a religion that advocates genital mutilation of little girls and teaches that the penalty for apostacy is death.

We should have a designated swimming days based on your pay bracket, that way i don’t have to share the water with scum.

I think this is all to do with a swimming centre in western sydney where they spent millions of dollars erecting curtains to cover the pool so certain religious groups could swim. I don’t think we have a large enough muslim community to justify it.

Blen_Carmichael1:28 pm 08 Feb 12

“Providing women’s only swimming would increase the availability of swimming to a number of women and children in our community, both for safety, and for fun.”

Safety? Fun? Serious? The real issue is not safety or fun; rather, it’s the power kick these social justice commissars get from being able to control, and discriminate against, men.

I too look forward to our Chief Minister’s response to this, especially given (see link) her very firm rejection as Education Minister of the proposal to use positive discrimination to recruit more male teachers. That would involve discrimination against women, and we can’t have that, can we?

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2004-05-04/act-rejects-male-teaching-scholarship-plan/1970182

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/03/19/1047749828325.html

I have to wonder how the “Reclaim the Night” school of feminism feels about this? It really does seem to revolve around the notion that women should be “protected” from men.

This seems a bit ridiculous, and I say that as a woman and a feminist who generally supports the Greens.

Reading between the lines it’s a religious thing to pander to certain groups – there are already some women-only sessions for those. I suspect there is a call for more being supported so as to appear multicultural and tolerant etc. It’s not like there have been a spate of male-perpetrated assaults/sexual assaults at pools recently, or have I missed something?

I swim regularly and think it’s fairly pointless, public pools should be public, I suppose a schedule with women’s times could be done as long as everyone is aware so it isn’t inconvenient (like the current situation when lessons use up all the lanes) but then it’d be only fair to have male sessions too.

You can be as covered as you like at a public pool, I usually wear board shorts on top of my swimmers because I’m more comfortable, I also see people with rash tops and full body suits. There are also body types of all shapes and sizes and besides men can have body issues too. This idea really seems like a waste of effort and unfair to boot.

VYBerlinaV8_is_back1:14 pm 08 Feb 12

I didn’t realise the Greens supported misandry so overtly.

I think it’s fine, if they want to create somewhere or some time where women can swim alone, i can’t see the harm.

This is of course assuming that the same will be provided for men?

If they build a womens only facility, then they will build one for men at the same time, or, if they schedule womens only time in one place, they will schedule the same amount of men only time at another, conveniently near by location.

Oh, and of course there needs to be a well stocked bar….

So assuming this to be the case, then i can’t see any reasons to object, and i can only assume this is the case, because otherwise those behind it are a bunch of sexist arsehats…

We can segregate our social issues away! sure did work in the past. Go greens!

Surely it’s better to help people accept their bodies rather than reinforcing the unhealthy notion that they should be hidden from view!?

Besides, have any of the Greens been to a public pool lately? Wobbly bodies everywhere!!!

Holden Caulfield12:31 pm 08 Feb 12

Bring back segregation. It’s the only sensible solution!

I’m also pleased to learn that, apparently, no men have any concerns regarding accessibility or body image.

johnboy said :

I also wonder what they’re going to do with lesbians, gays, and heck the whole rest of the rainbow?

and Monday can be Mankini day

So of all the issues the community has come to the Greens with, this is near/at the top of their list? Wow, good luck Al! Hahahaha!

Someone introduce Meredith to Monash (Melbourne) councilor Denise McGill’s contacts please.

I also wonder what they’re going to do with lesbians, gays, and heck the whole rest of the rainbow?

There is no doubt that cultural issues significantly impact on some women being able to participate in some activities.

However, swimming is such a boring activity that I doubt anyone affected would want to do it anyway.

If there is going to be a women only venues, I demand the following:
– transgender only venue
– missing-limb only venue
– nude only venue
– burkini only venue

Equal opportunity for all.

colourful sydney racing identity said :

I understand, and support, the idea of women only gyms, but this is really going too far.

See I don’t understand women only gyms either, but this swimming suggestion is ridiculous. When i was 30+kg heavier, I didn’t want to go swimming in a public place either. you get over it eventually.

Most of the classes are either majority women or majority men and the odd ones out know that. I’ve done aqua classes where the whole class was 40+ generally overweight women. I kind of felt uncomfortable for a few minutes, but it was all ok.

Even in the general weights room etc there are a mix of people, sure a lot of young guys lifting weights and flexing in the mirror, but they probably make up less than half and there are plenty of older men, women of all ages and sizes all working out together. I don’t like leering men either and I’m a man, but well is it that hard to ignore people. In fact the young guys at my gym are generally pretty good, keep to themselves, do their workouts, have their protein shake and leave. A bit of flirting with the younger girls goes on, but then again, i’d be flirting too if i was 20 again.

In a public place, if someone behaviour is out of line, point it out to the staff. I think 50% of the problem is in onew own mind and thinking somethiong, when its far from the truth. Same can be said for racism, number of times I’ve heard someone claim racism because they didn’t get served quick enough in a cafe FFS!

My brain just exploded. I only wish I’d heard this suggestion without knowing it came from the Greens…

devils_advocate10:53 am 08 Feb 12

I’m usually pretty sympathetic to and accepting of other people’s religious beliefs but have to draw the line when it impacts on the rights of others in a secular community. I don’t care if people want to cover their faces as it doesn’t impact directly on me. BUt the right to swing one’s arm ends when another’s nose begins. Pandering to minorities is fine, until it impacts on the majority, and then it becomes oppressive.

Australia makes no secret of its approach to outdoor swimming attire. Indeed this is an integral part of its international image.

colourful sydney racing identity10:51 am 08 Feb 12

I understand, and support, the idea of women only gyms, but this is really going too far.

Leering men?

I thought it was more PC to say “Potential Sex offenders who eye rape”

There’s already women only gyms – that is pushing it too far as it is. Another prime example as to why the Greens need to take a good hard look at what the majority want not pc whiners!

Ah the Greens,
just when you thought they couldn’t get any more retarded.

I have religious objections to swimming with anyone else, can the government please build me a personal 50m swimming pool?

Morgan said :

Oh please, this is a bit silly don’t you think. What would happen if we had men only swimming times? Or if we had swimming times for white people only who don’t want to share the pool with migrants? Or what about swimming only for fit trim people so no one has to see a fat person? Or conversely we ban all fit people from public exercise so as not to make unfit people feel self conscious? Or while we are at why don’t we just ban men from the world. These are the same people who assume I am a sex offender for taking a video of my young nephews learning to swim to send to their grandparents.

A public swimming pool is for all people men, women, children and families to use. I have no problem in booking lanes etc. but this suggestion would see only women rostered on at the women only times and an inconvience to a great many people. Let private interests build their own facilities at a private expense, and the rest of us will learn to share the pool.

This x 1000. I don’t like where this city is headed.

Al, I hope you didn’t sign up for this.

Seriously, I think they need you more than you need them.

Oh please, this is a bit silly don’t you think. What would happen if we had men only swimming times? Or if we had swimming times for white people only who don’t want to share the pool with migrants? Or what about swimming only for fit trim people so no one has to see a fat person? Or conversely we ban all fit people from public exercise so as not to make unfit people feel self conscious? Or while we are at why don’t we just ban men from the world. These are the same people who assume I am a sex offender for taking a video of my young nephews learning to swim to send to their grandparents.

A public swimming pool is for all people men, women, children and families to use. I have no problem in booking lanes etc. but this suggestion would see only women rostered on at the women only times and an inconvience to a great many people. Let private interests build their own facilities at a private expense, and the rest of us will learn to share the pool.

Daily Digest

Want the best Canberra news delivered daily? Every day we package the most popular Riotact stories and send them straight to your inbox. Sign-up now for trusted local news that will never be behind a paywall.

By submitting your email address you are agreeing to Region Group's terms and conditions and privacy policy.