Woman settles lawsuit after being barred from public pool wearing Muslim garb

AP ^ | 2.18.05

[ambrose]

Woman settles lawsuit after being barred from public pool wearing Muslim garb

LINCOLN, Neb. A Muslim woman in Omaha, Nebraska, says it's nice to feel like part of the community again now that a public swimming pool's dress code has been modified.

Lubna Hussein had been barred from accompanying her three children to the pool area because she was fully clothed, even though she wasn't going in the water. It took a federal lawsuit to get dress code altered.

The suit, filed by the A-C-L-U, has now been settled and the dress code accommodates religious or medical needs.

Hussein says she was twice turned away from the pool after explaining her religion requires her to keep her body covered, except for her face and hands.

Hussein says her little girls are looking forward to trying out the water slide.

[Brian328i]

So what exactly do her daughters wear into the pool, a full body wetsuit?

[1FASTGLOCK45]

This makes me sick!
What if these jihads start blowing themselves up because they are allowed to wear their garbs everywhere? I demand to see their faces when they are in public! It's a safety thing. Imagine all those guns they can hide under all those big coats.. Oh wait, don't they dress like this in NY already?

[SevenofNine]

If she was offend take the garb off LADY must been hot day

HELLO I don't get that Ambrose

I really don't get that
Let see she sue because the pool manager refuse allow her to wear the Muslum garb

SHUT UP

[Theo]

Read the article again, slowly this time.

The woman wanted to accompany her kids as they swam, but wanted to wear (very) modest clothing (per her religion). Her face is not covered. She's not jumping in the pool. Can you honestly see something wrong with that?

[Gondring]

This makes me sick!

What if these jihads start blowing themselves up because they are allowed to wear their garbs everywhere? I demand to see their faces when they are in public! It's a safety thing. Imagine all those guns they can hide under all those big coats.. Oh wait, don't they dress like this in NY already?

EXACTLY! I mean, everyone is flipping out and we are fingerprinting American citizens at the border because of the reported possibility of bra-bombs, and here we are allowing swimsuits at pools!

Obviously they think we're clueless dolts who don't know how to overreact! </sarc>

I daresay that it's an extremely low likelihood that some mother (or even a jihadist impersonating a mother) is going to choose to blow up a pool. In fact, if they feel they must attack someplace, a pool is about as low-threat as possible. It lacks walls to confine the blast or create shrapnel, and many of the potential victims will be shielded by the water (and if the blast is in the water, those outside will be protected).

Of course if nobody were in the pool at all, it would be one cool CANNONBALLLLL!!!

[politicket]

It's an interesting testament to our current society when a woman is ridiculed for being modest. It used to be that women were ridiculed for looking like prostitutes and praised for their modesty. Which one is scriptural for you Christians out there?

[jan in Colorado]

So, is it very common for a jihadist to impersonate a mother?

You really miss that Border thread, don't you?

[jan in Colorado]

Do you know what the dress code was before the woman filed a lawsuit to get it changed?

I didn't get the impression that she was ridiculed for being modest. In fact, I didn't get the impression that she was ridiculed at all.

She was turned away because she didn't meet whatever the dress code was for the pool at that time.

I'm so relieved that the ACLU was on top of this very serious human rights violation.</sarc>

[Ghost of Philip Marlowe]

I'm certainly a defender of modesty, as long as it is voluntary.

I'm not sure if the source of anger in some of these replies is so much in the issue of modesty as it is for the double standards.

Do you think the ACLU and the judiciary would have defended a priest taking some of his parish to swim in the pool and his right to wear his collar and suit? How about the Amish? I highly doubt it.

Once again, they seem to defend the PC and turn their back on the non-PC.

[sheik yerbouty]

Beware of people wearing medieval garb..

[cherry]

some pools require that anybody who goes thru the shower room out to the pool area be actually wearing a swimsuit.....otherwise, there is usually a seating section outside the fenced in pool area....

this might be the case here....

bigger question:.....how can any mother or father take away the joy of swimming from the daughters they supposedly love?......they are sentencing their girls to a life time of little freedom and joy......what a waste...

[politicket]

The ACLU should all be thrown into the pool (the deep end).

I was just making a statement about the change in American society where women dressing modestly violates somebody's set of "rules". That is ridiculous.

[Gondring]

So, is it very common for a jihadist to impersonate a mother?

Don't ask me... it was 1FASTGLOCK45 who started talking about jihadists. The article was about mothers. But just to cover bases, I included the paranoid-delusional route, too.

You really miss that Border thread, don't you?

Hmmm... although I never got many answers* about what people actually do advocate, I never dreamt we'd be having this debate about clothing!

Although banning modest clothing certainly has an ironic touch of moving us in exactly the direction UBL hates us for, that doesn't mean it's a good thing. Then again, I'm not going to argue if women want to run around nekkid and all... ;-)

--Gondring

*but I do give thanks to those who did answer!

[politicket]

bigger question:.....how can any mother or father take away the joy of swimming from the daughters they supposedly love?......they are sentencing their girls to a life time of little freedom and joy......what a waste...

I'm sure that she loves her daughters VERY much. That was really unfair of you to say that. She should actually be congratulated for teaching her daughters that modesty is something to uphold and the principal is MUCH more important than learning to swim.

[jan in Colorado]

Yes, Cherry, that is my point. If there was a rule as to the clothing required and the woman violated that rule, then I don't see that as her being ridiculed.

Of course, she had the ACLU to fight for her so she got the rule changed. This will open a Pandora's Box. The rules are changed one by one...special treatment is just the beginning.

[Gondring]

I think you're exactly right. The purpose of the dress code should be examined, however.

I also didn't get the impression that she was swimming.

I'm curious how many people would support taxpayer funds going to public mandatory-nude swimming pools. I wonder if this is a case of "my level of modesty is fine, but let's exclude those who hold different values"...pretty much the dictionary definition of "bigot": One who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ.

[jan in Colorado]

>>>The ACLU should all be thrown into the pool (the deep end).<<<
On this we agree!
Can we add tied up and gagged?

You are making a false assumption.IMHO.

She WASN'T ridiculed for being modest. There is/was a dress code for the pool and what she was wearing violated that rule. Follow the rules or don't participate. That is, unless you can claim discrimination and then get the ACLU to get the rules changed for you. There will be many more rules changed in the weeks and months to come.

[Gondring]

The rules are changed one by one...special treatment is just the beginning.

Yep. Before you know it, those Christians will be demanding to get their "Christmas" as a holiday, or wanting to be allowed to educate their children at home instead of in the schools as is required! Heck, next thing you know we'll have wheelchair ramps and all kinds of special treatment going on! </sarc> <-- (okay, okay...beat me up for using sarcasm, jan...I deserve it! :-)

Of course, if we didn't use public funds for pools, this wouldn't be a problem, would it? ;-)

[Gondring]

I'd rather read the 2nd Amendment to the ACLU after they are tied up and gagged. They'd be begging for the pool--they'd rather die than acknowledge the RKBA is in the Bill of Rights!

[jan in Colorado]

>>I think you're exactly right.<<<

I had to read that a few times as you don't usually agree with me, let alone say I'm "exactly" right. Oh, if you had only just stopped there.

Not to be rude, but I think the rest of your statement is absurd!

First of all, I'm guessing the dress code at the pool has probably been there since the pool opened. Swimming pools aren't usually a topic where dressing modestly is even considered or talked about.

Then you have to go to the far extreme and bring up nude swimming. Why not stay on topic instead of throwing out over-the-top extreme positions?
The end result is the ACLU got the rules changed. It had nothing to do with modesty,and everything to do with the requirements of her religion.

Now, if my religion doesn't allow males and females to swim together, is the ACLU going to fight for me to change the rules? Do you see where this can lead?

For me, if an activity interferes with my beliefs,(and there are many that do), then I just don't participate in them. But, hey, that's just me.

[Khurkris]

Time to pet the burkha babe... Lets Party Dudes!
.........

[jan in Colorado]

I must say I'm impressed. Even when the topic was about a Muslim woman and how she dressed at a pool, you still found a way to throw a jab in about Christians and you hit my other hot topic, homeschooling, as well.
Now if you had only said the ACLU should be shot before thrown into the deep end of the pool, you would have covered all three of my issues in one post.
Hey, better luck next time.

[1FASTGLOCK45]

WHOA ! I was off in a meeting and didn't know you guys would be up reading this late at night! Ok I think i forgot to put a /Sarc on my post earlier about the whole head-dressing thing!
To answer some questions: Yes, there are some jihads that would pretend to me a mother/father/sister/bus driver etc. etc in order to accomplish their goals to blow others up. The 9/11 is a perfect example..
If your going to go dressed around in a hood in public, where people can't see your body except for face and hands, i think it's a serious security issue. I think most of you would not want to get on a bus/train/plane/boat etc with a group of people that insist on not letting you see what is being carried under their hoods and gowns. Maybe i'm just crazy but i would rather wait for the next ride..You guys let me know if you make it to your destination...

Also i don't believe we need to have the ACLU going around giving everybody special priviliges. Some of you posted good things in regards to that in this post, which i won't repeat because i'm sure you guys have already read it too.

[1FASTGLOCK45]

haha,
Thanks for the warning. Don't go midevil on me!

[freedomfiter2]

I agree. I'm not woman or muslim but,I were to take my children to a public pool, I'd want to keep my clothes on and you'd want me to.

[hershey]

When a Islamofascist bomber dressed in long flowing garb and dynamite vest...or C-4...blows up a Nebraska public swimming pool along with fifty kids and parents, then Nebraska will rethink things.

[Fred Nerks]

[Gorzaloon]

A Muslim woman in Omaha, Nebraska, says it's nice to feel like part of dictate terms to the community again now that a public swimming pool's dress code has been modified.

[need_a_screen_name]

When I saw the headline, I thought it was describing a similar incident in France. IIRC, the Muslims in France want the gov. to build them separate pools.

[libertylover]

The ACLU rarely gets it right but barring the woman from accompanying her three children while they're in the pool is rediculous.

[SouthernFreebird]

I agree...as a fair skinned woman there are many times I go to the pool with my children and I have to be covered or I'll fry. I certainly wouldn't want to lose the right to cover or uncover my body.

[Gondring]

Then you have to go to the far extreme and bring up nude swimming. Why not stay on topic instead of throwing out over-the-top extreme positions?

Okay, would toplessness be fine? This is not an "over-the-top extreme position"...it's a real-life, fought-in-the-courts controversy. My guess is that many (not nearly all!!!) FREepers would want their moral values protected, but don't mind trampling others'.

Just try to put yourself into the position of someone who is told she cannot particiapte in use of her community tax-funded facility without violating her own moral code. It would be similar to having ham sandwiches as the only food for community youth group trips, or banning cross necklaces from a public library, or ... Heck, I'm sure FReepers would be silent as can be if a community center just played R-rated movies since that's what mainstream culture wants, and who cares about moral objections of some.

But you say, "the rules are being changed...and that's the only problem"...well, then, how about an Islamic prayer meeting? I bet they aren't banned on the pools' rules. I suppose you'd be fighting against those who'd make a special exception to ban certain things, if the Islamic Activist form of a FReep showed up? Seems rather contradictory position, and it seems again like saying, "well, MY values are in place...so no changes should be made...unless they protect MY values, not others'"

I think that if we want to take that position, we should get over it all and just announce that bigotry is not a bad word. If we want to be proud of our intolerance, let's do it.

It had nothing to do with modesty,and everything to do with the requirements of her religion.

They are entwined. If you disagree, please try to convince me that opposition to a toplessness policy at a public pool would not be analogous and would not be religiously based (Genesis 3:7). Now, if my religion doesn't allow males and females to swim together, is the ACLU going to fight for me to change the rules? Do you see where this can lead?

Yes, I do. You make the point very well that publicly funded facilities lead to big troubles, and the true conservative answer is to privatize the pool and not use taxpayer funds for something like it. :-) But if they ARE going to provide a public service for the good of the community, then they must provide least-restrictive access or make reasonable accomodations. Be grateful that your values aren't infringed as much as this woman's; after all, she's facing this conflict, while you're calling an analogous one for most Americans "over-the-top."

For me, if an activity interferes with my beliefs,(and there are many that do), then I just don't participate in them. But, hey, that's just me.

That's a very Christian position, but not very common in America. Many Americans would be appalled at their tax dollars supporting things they find interfere with their beliefs, or that would force immorality in order to comply.

Holy Moley, I rambled for such a long post. Sorry...hope it's coherent. I just wanted to be clear, since I didn't want a misunderstanding!

[mgc1122]

One of these days, a bhurka wearing "peaceful" is going to detonate herself and anyone standing near her. It will be interesting to get the reaction from the ACLU crowd then about appropriate wear to public pools ...

[Gondring]

Ah yes, the beautiful vision of "Freedom"...

"[A]s a woman[,] you can no longer refuse medical examination by a male doctor."

Where's the outcry by conservatives against the trampling of rights? I say that if conservatives claim to be in favor of freedom and protection of rights, they should be out there VOCALLY fighting against this. If silent moderate Muslims are "supporting terrorism by their silence," then conservatives who are not fighting to protect Muslims' rights are as guilty of attacking freedom as the lefties who do it openly.

[Gondring]

Oh, so this whole thing is about concealment of a bomb?

As I said before, if someone is going to detonate, no bhurka is needed, and a pool is much preferable to many other locations...if she's gonna do it, I'd rather it be there!

[Dustbunny]

Truly tired of hearing how 'WE' have to bend over backwards to accommodate them.

[Gondring]

LOL...you didn't read the thread far enough. Also, you didn't comment on my disability analogy (a hotbutton of mine, of course! :-)

Honestly, the issues weren't selected to jab your hot topics, but were just the best examples I could think of to make it analogous to the majority of readers. But I'll be sure to remember for next time.

[JesseHousman]

The suit, filed by the A-C-L-U,...

The ACLU has to be the most helpful organization in America.

(For our enemies, that is.)

[jusduat]

I think it's a diversionary tactic. Those kids may enjoy
the swim now, but it a few years they will have to put the
full garb on and no swimming for them. No bike riding,
no games that require mobility. What a depressing way
to live.

[RS]

Hi Jan -

"First of all, I'm guessing the dress code at the pool has probably been there since the pool opened."

I'd guess that too, and I'd like to know the reasoning behind it - My guess would be that nowadays many women would like to be more covered up, just from the skin cancer issues and such. Perhaps it's time for the rules to be changed for ALL, to give all of us more freedom, so there is no need for religious exemptions.

[KosmicKitty]

In 1993, my husband & I took my kids to visit his family in Nebraska. We went to Lincoln for the day to visit Grandma Helen & the family decided to go to the community pool.

Now, let's just say it was 'one of those days' so I didn't feel like donning a bathing suit & going in the water, so I figured I'd sit way over under the trees, far from the pool & read a book & watch my husband & the kids go off the big diving platforms.

Well, let's just say that after being totally humilated by the High School kid who made as 'example' of me, I had to go sit in the car. No, I couldn't be anywhere w/in the fenced in area surrounding the pool, even if I was no where near the pool.

Now, I realize what I should have told them!!!

[jan in Colorado]

Hi RS,

>>>Perhaps it's time for the rules to be changed for ALL, to give all of us more freedom, so there is no need for religious exemptions.<<<<

How refreshing...You hit what the topic of this article is about.I don't think the rules should be changed, but that IS the topic of the article!

It's not about denying someone their rights, or bigotry, or discrimination,or how public funds are spent, or any of those other bogus claims.
There was a rule, and it was expected to be followed! They got the rule changed, end of discussion.

WHY was the ACLU involved in this to begin with? My point is,this is a small first step, and little by little more and more "special" exceptions are going to be demanded. I question the validity of this.

As for WHY that rule is there in the first place? I can only speculate...I grew up going to those types of pools as a kid. From memory, I don't think these pools are designed to have parents sitting out watching their kids. It is for swimming and there is very limited deck space.

I do agree with you. If they are going to change the rule, it should be for everyone,(see post #42) not just "religious" exemptions.

I am sad to see our Country has come to this. I think Political Correctness with the aid of the ACLU, will be the downfall of this great Country.

Expect to see many more of these lawsuits for "exceptions" pop up.(IMHO) The ball is now rolling and I'm afraid it will be very hard to stop it.

[ariamne]

they are sentencing their girls to a life time of little freedom and joy......what a waste...
______________________________________

And that, dear friends, is an apt description of Islam in a nutshell--a life time of little freedom and joy. Especially for girls. And a lifetime of threats and acts of terror for the rest of us.

[jan in Colorado]

Yes it is a diversion, but not in the way you think.

It is a method that is used to gradually make our Country assimilate to their way of life, instead of them assimilating into America's way of life, like our ancestors did.

Once they have a higher percentage of their population living in a community...doesn't take much...then the laws that are changed are much more drastic than "pool attire."

See what is happening in Europe and Canada to get an idea of what the plan here is as well. It is done very quietly,one little step at a time, and most don't even realize what is going on until it is too late.

Accusations of intolerance and bigotry are thrown at any one who dares to question what is going on. The guise is religious tolerance but that is a ruse. Look at this thread. Even when trying to have an honest discussion about the ACLU and rules being changed...bigotry had to be brought up. I think we should be able to question something with out being labeled a bigot or raciest. I'm trying to see the BIG picture here. What are the intentions of the ACLU and CAIR? I for one, don't want to see our Country under Sharia Law and I will never live in my own Country as a dhimmi.

[Joe 6-pack]

Let's face it...the only reason the kids are learning to swim in the first place is so later in life they will be able to conduct underwater demolition operations against sensitive port facililties and U.S. shipping assetts...<]8-)

[jan in Colorado]

Fred, thanks for posting the picture and document. Isn't it funny how they can protest the "unfairness" of their treatment in someone else's Country, yet they don't protest the mistreatment they get from their own "religion" in their own Country.

I still don't understand why, if they are so miserable, unhappy and mistreated... WHY don't they go back to their own Country and live under their laws. It's such an easy solution. Why do other Countries have to change to their way of life?

Sadly, Fred, we know the answer to that question, don't we?

[ariamne]

There was a muslim family in the condo community I used to live in whose daughters would only swim with their tee-shirts and shorts over their suits, despite the rule to the contrary; that one could not wear anything but a swim suit in the pool (filter clogs,etc).

Everyone else conformed to the rule. But they didn't have to. I was and am sick and tired of bending over backward to accomodate the least tolerant, least accomodating "religion" on this planet.

[cajun scpo]

Even the ACLU [like a broken clock] can occasionally be right. Reason behind dress code - "the purpose of which he [City Attorney Paul Kratz] said is to prevent people from using the pool as a social gathering area".

http://newstandardnews.net/content/index.cfm/items/515 [JUN 2004]

The dress code was "she had to be wearing a bathing suit to enter the pool area".

What was she wearing? Not a Burke. 'Hussein wore a long sleeve shirt, her head covered by a scarf'.

City's original solution: The new policy [2004], said Kratz, allows for exemptions to the bathing suit only rule in order to accommodate religious beliefs as well as physical or medical needs. In order to qualify for an exemption, a person must fill out a form, which Kratz says requests "reasonable information" about why an exemption is needed. An applicant may also be required to prove their participation in a religion if requesting that type of exemption. Kratz explained that the city approves many exemption requests immediately, but some can take as long as five business days.

I know I used to go by the pool after work fully clothed where my kids were swimming. Glad I didn't have to put a bathing suit on first. Heaven forbid I might socialize while fully clothed at a pool.

[ariamne]

That's right, Jan. And the word "bigot" is thrown around so often and with so little real provocation on some of these threads, that the use of it seems to stem solely out of a desire to deter criticism of TROP.