GIVEN the ridicule it was exposed to this week over its decision to black out the windows of an award-winning swimming pool complex, you would have thought that Walsall Council in the Midlands would have immediately sent in the contractors to rip off the ridiculous dark film.
But no. The council is now going a step further to appease Muslim users of the pool, and is to add a “modesty barrier” to further protect Muslim women swimmers from public view.
The barrier will block the view of the baths at Darlaston Leisure Centre from its open-plan reception.
It is the latest move by Walsall Council in response to requests from the Magic Carpet People, and comes after a dark film was used to cover all 58 windows of the 10-year-old building.
Leisure chiefs say the move will cost “hundreds of pounds”.
They added that funding to create the barrier will come from “external” grants and not from council coffers.
The Express & Star revealed at the weekend that dark film had been used to cover low window panels, with the £1,400 cost for that also coming from elsewhere.
The council became a national laughing stock when the story migrated to the front page of the Daily Express yesterday.
Councillor Anthony Harris, Walsall Council cabinet member for leisure and culture, said:
Adjustments are made to facilities from time to time in response to requests from a wide range of groups within the community.
Local authorities are also legally bound by the Equality Act 2000 to provide access to goods, facilities and services under the six strands of equality which have been written to reduce disadvantage. These measures are to benefit all of our communities.
It’s a shame that such minor adjustments have provoked such a negative response.
Whilst on the subject of madness, it’s been drawn to our attention that Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg’s Your Freedom website has acquired a persistent troll calling itself The Master, who wants the laws “that made homosexuality legal” repealed.
Alas, The Master is no master of the keyboard, and the heading of his demand reads:
Real the laws that made homosexuality legal.
In support of his demand, The Master declares:
Homosexuality should be made illegal again.
It used to be illegal, now it’s not just legal – but encouraged. Percentage wise, homosexuals are far more likely to be paedophiles than normal people.
Homosexuality used to be illegal and Britain used to be a great country – is there a connection?
He then goes into full-on rant mode:
I AM HAVING TO REPOST THIS AS IT KEEPS GETTING REMOVED – GREAT ISN’T IT, LIVING IN A FREE CHRISTIAN SOCIETY. I TELL THE GOVERNMENT WHAT I WANT, LOTS OF PEOPLE AGREE, AND THEN MY COMMENT VANISH!!
The Master then posted a number of silly comments beneath his demand, the daftest being:
They are getting very close to being able to medically cure the illness of homosexuality (the scientists have found the gene that causes homosexuality). Interestingly, for a Christian a better cure is already there – it is called prayer. God can fix you, but you’ve got to ask him and go with it.
Hat tip: Bob Hughes & Ivan
The Freethinker was founded in 1881 by GW Foote, an outspoken critic of religion. After the publication of 
July 7th, 2010 at 10:20 am
All 58 windows?
You really are going to have to stop relying on the British tabloid press – although that would involve letting the facts contaminate a good story.
http://tabloid-watch.blogspot......orces.html
July 7th, 2010 at 10:25 am
Before jumping in and taking your lead from the Daily Express, maybe you should consider checking your sources? A much fuller account of the swimming pool story comes from Tabloid Watch, here:
http://tabloid-watch.blogspot......orces.html
It’s not only muslims who complain about the modern fad for putting swimmers on display to the outside world. I know many people who feel self-conscious about their bodies in swimming costumes. And as a naturist, myself, I am disappointed about the refusal of many authorities to allow nude swimming on the grounds that their pools are too open.
July 7th, 2010 at 10:27 am
I’m very sorry to see you take a Daily Mail story at face value like this. In fact the council has reported that a number of local residents, including some Muslims, requested the glass be obscured. The windows are not blacked out, as can clearly be seen in even the Mail’s photographs. Only a proportion of windows were obscured, and a modesty screen is hardly an unusual feature of a swimming bath.
It is distressing to see such an inaccurate post. In all other ways I am in agreement with you and support your Freethinking stance, but such a position also entails strict accuracy, or else you become what you ridicule.
July 7th, 2010 at 11:24 am
Maybe there wouldn’t be much of a problem if muslims and other believers stopped being so obsessed with sexuality. From what I hear and read it’s usually the male muslims who can’t seem to cope with a bit of naked flesh. About 100 years ago women wore some kind of burkini when going for a swim and they were able to shed a big load of cloth afterwards. Do the dimmies expect us to go backwards, by trying to please a bunch of fundies?
July 7th, 2010 at 11:57 am
I have to agree with the above comments here (in relation to the pool story).
It reads like a knee-jerk reaction from an outraged Daily-Mail reader. No fact-checking or indeed Freethinking appears to have been employed.
As a dissemination of received opinion this post is not worthy of Freethinker.
July 7th, 2010 at 12:22 pm
The determined apologists of tabloid-watch sound more selective in their spin than the original promulgators of the story. There’s far more pre-judgement of the issue in their smarmy “exposé†than in most of the comments elsewhere. They get bogged down in counting the windows affected to “refute†the essence of the story, which is that the request came from “the Muslim community… and some othersâ€.
The generality (and syntactical minority) of those “others†versus the complaining group specified by the council itself does tend to suggest that we’re looking at the exercise of religious minority will in this case. I’d find this just as objectionable if the squeals came from Christians or any other bunch.
“Let’s start with the assumption that people are out to get the Muslims…†is hardly balanced journalism in itself. And one wonders where the justification for that perspective on persecution actually comes, certainly not from any rational count of genuine victims of religiously-motivated crime: a statistic that would tend to suggest the polar opposite to be the case!
The pool saga is hardly an urban fable – it happened, didn’t it! Confirmation available by fenestration observation. Then it comes down to “Who asked for itâ€: the simplest things to do being to publish the numbers – on which the Council response is as obfuscatory as expected. Abstract principle aside, democracy is just about numbers in the end.
So, just as any self-respecting democrat would insist on a fair vote-count: let’s have a proper mathematical breakdown of the religious leanings – that’s the main currency of the objection, after all – of all those who either actively objected or got polled. Come on, let’s see the numbers!
On the subject of democracy (pause for defeated sigh) I always thought one sure sign of it was that the minority tended to hear “No†pretty often; and that any civilised minority would accept “No†with grace. Any self-proclaimed democrat therefore ought to be able to say “No†to any minority demand quite reasonably, with impunity and in the interests of the majority.
Darlaston is clearly not a democracy: there, it appears that the minority gets what it wants, regardless of majority opinion. As I said, let’s see the numbers – I’d be happy (indeed, relieved; well, a bit) to be shown evidence that this is not a case of minority religious inhibition spoiling the majority experience. Until then, Councillor Harris really does need to learn to say “No†if he is to do his job properly. At the moment, he and his colleagues are the ones truly responsible for any ill-will generated.
July 7th, 2010 at 2:02 pm
Don’t worry about The Master. The Doctor will sort him out.
July 7th, 2010 at 2:07 pm
If people are too embarrassed to be seen in public wearing swimwear, why the fucking hell do they visit a swimming pool?
And re Nick Clegg’s ridiculous consultation exercise (we all know what laws the general public would really like – that’s why we elect people whom we hope to be intelligent and informed lawmakers), my copy of Private Eye dropped through the letter box at crack of dawn (sorry – midday) today, with this cartoon on Page 3:
Moses descends from Mount Sinai bearing two stone tablets, and says to waiting Israelites: “Just tell me which Commandments you’d like me to scrap”.
July 7th, 2010 at 2:10 pm
If people are too embarrassed to be seen in public wearing swimwear, why the fucking hell do they visit a swimming pool?”
Oooh – I don’t know. How about wanting to do some excercise and not having the readies to install a full-size pool at home?
Just a thought.
July 7th, 2010 at 2:45 pm
You’ve totally missed the point, Enzyme. If people swim at a public pool then they are going to be seen by other members of the general public, EVEN IF IT HAS NO WINDOWS AT ALL. (That is, unless they can get the pool closed to other bathers and take their swim in private!)
July 7th, 2010 at 2:46 pm
always interested in stories where moslims are causing problems but isnt this just a privacy issue. sounds like sensible measures to protect privacy.
just because people dont mind being seen by other bathers doesnt mean they dont mind being seen by others.
July 7th, 2010 at 3:16 pm
But that’s really not what you were asking. Your question concerned why they go to a public swimming pool.
Many of the people who go to a public pool may prefer that it be just them there, but are willing to bite the bullet. Moreover, many pools offer a slot for (say) female-only bathing; and some people may prefer that. Given the nature of public pools, and that part of their remit is to encourage health, then it seems that the management would be behaving perfectly correctly by having (say) a women-only session at some point in the week, if only because it stands a chance of encouraging people to use the facility who wouldn’t otherwise.
So far, so good. However, if the whole point of the women-only session is to accommodate for the preference of some women who don’t want to be generally visible to men, it’d seem to be defeated if passers-by on the street can still see in.
Bluntly, if there’s a public health reason to encourage people to swim – and there is – and if that’s likely to be undermined by having huge seethrough windows that discourage some people from using the pool – which seems possible, and maybe likely – and if making them opaque inconveniences noone unreasonably – and it’s hard to believe that it would cause such inconvenience – then there’s a reason to make them opaque.
July 7th, 2010 at 3:40 pm
totally agree with enzyme. it might be a prude non-prude issue but not a muslim non-mulsim one. theres no evidence for it and no-one has been inconvenienced.
unless of course your using the islamic tactic of being outraged at everything.
July 7th, 2010 at 5:37 pm
I agree with Bob Hughes that there is a lot of spin going on now where this story is concerned. I don’t actually see why, in any civilized society, the views of minorities should not be taken into account, but why, when defending this action, did Councillor Harris say: Local authorities are…legally bound by the Equality Act 2000 to provide access to goods, facilities and services under the six strands of equality which have been written to reduce disadvantage? If members of the community in general had complained about “lack of privacy”, why make reference to The Equality Act? Are “prudes” now a minority group as well?
July 7th, 2010 at 7:09 pm
So all those people who object to other humans seeing them with a bit of their kit off would never go swimming in the sea ? Actually that’s a good idea when I think of it, let’s stick huge screens up at the seaside and pump smoke into the atmosphere to obscure the beach from passing aircraft, hot-air balloons etc. Mind you god will still be able to view your rude bits with his all seeing eye, the perv. Reminds me of the crazy catholic mum in the TV comedy ‘Me Mammy’ years ago, when she condemned one of her son’s girlfriends for being “naked under her clothes”.
July 7th, 2010 at 8:23 pm
The religiously-neutral can be either prude or non-prude, agreed. Adherence to a religion that insists on covering women whether poolside or outside, though, does suggest a degree of alignment with the prudish (if not prurient) tendency to be inherent in that belief – in a way that comes as a more (excuse me) fundamental part of the package than with, say, Wicca. And the Council identifies as majority plaintiffs the “Muslim community†(with all the wearily predictable scrotal baggage of spokespersonage and imammary we might well associate with that c-word). I think we can safely keep the lower case p for prude here, along with capital M for Muslim.
As for no-one being inconvenienced: vociferous regulars have counter-objected to their view and light being compromised. In all the kerfuffle over possibly being seen by lookers-in, the cover-uppers have neglected the rights of those who enjoy looking out during their swim. There’s a decent metaphor on comparative outlooks and perspectives, sense of self and so on, right there if you want it.
July 7th, 2010 at 10:07 pm
Thornavis: I was thinking the same thing. Time to bring back those bathing machines in the name of common decency!
July 8th, 2010 at 3:28 am
How about if you choose to live a restrictive religious lifestyle you either avoid swimming or build your own pools rather than making other people adapt everything to suit your nutty beliefs?
July 8th, 2010 at 7:46 am
In some very religious parts of the world sport is forbidden because it makes bodies attractive. People who come from those parts and decide they want to do sport are to be encouraged. It is a sign of progress that the women want to go swimming, and that they are allowed to, as their mothers never were. We can hope the next generation will be more tolerant – these things need time.
I like to go swimming too, and would be unhappy if my not-bad-for-50 body was being observed by some oik on the street. Our local pool has windows out onto its own lawns, but not onto the street. They steam up anyway, actually.
Our pool does have a ladies’ night, and is quite full then, as far as I can see with local ladies of a certain age. Some of the showers have doors round them so modest women can shower in private. I find this quite alright.
July 8th, 2010 at 5:22 pm
Ignoring the bat-schite crazy islamics….
The other women who were complaining about passer-bys able to look into a PUBLIC pool also wanted privacy (Now there’s a silly combination)but the reason was because they noticed that the passing men were NOT looking at THEM so they wanted the barrier up so they couldn’t look at the cute ones either!!! Jealousy is a powerful mover.
July 8th, 2010 at 6:59 pm
I think there may have been a simpler answer and that is the fitting of sticky-back film where one can see out but not in. Of course after dark there is a reversal in which way one can see ie. you can can see in but not out.Being as public baths close quite early(before dark) there shouldn’t be that much of a problem.Just a thought.a free one!
July 8th, 2010 at 10:07 pm
Barriejohn – I find you’re stance on majority-rule quite disconcerting. Remember, there are many places that, were majority rule the absolute law, homosexuals, blacks, etc would still be legally killed, hanged, beaten, and worse. As far as I can tell, this does seem a bit over the top, a better approach might have been to install retractable curtains and have a “prude time” or some such to encourage exercise. At the same time, I remember how it was the courts’ decisions on the inalienable rights of minorities, which cannot be taken away without completely trashing our Constitution, that led to the disintegration of our Jim Crow laws.
July 9th, 2010 at 8:11 am
My “stance on majority rule”? I said: ‘I don’t actually see why, in any civilized society, the views of minorities should not be taken into account’, because, while agreeing with much of what Bob Hughes had said, I could see dangers in his statement: ‘Any self-proclaimed democrat therefore ought to be able to say “No†to any minority demand quite reasonably, with impunity and in the interests of the majority’,as you rightly point out. Common sense and compassion are needed. I don’t see where we are in disagreement!
July 9th, 2010 at 10:28 am
I thought my ears were burning (at least over here it’s just ears and just metaphorical…). Actually, I think we’re all in agreement (group-hug): barriejohn made a sound qualification of my democracy-point when he said he didn’t see why “in any civilized society, the views of minorities should not be taken into account†(removing the negative, that says “the views of minorities should… be taken into account†– and quite right, too: that’s a sign of our civilisation conspicuous by its absence from certain other “usual suspect†cultures). I was just hammering the “democracy as majority-rule†point to substantiate my case that the majority choice ought reasonably to prevail whenever things get contentious.
My only further qualification would be that you have to be able to represent those sometimes-despicable minority views realistically: something that PC thoughtcrime and doublethink have made pretty hazardous in our eggshell-treading society, courtesy (probably) of Enoch Powell and Tariq Ali and the various salutary lessons learned about freedom of expression, misquotation, shouting down and media leanings back in the day. In brief: you can’t take minority views into consideration unless you have them honestly articulated (often in all their revolting inhumanity) – this service is beautifully rendered by the Freethinker and a few others… but try looking for the truth about what certain guests here really think elsewhere in the media!
One more thing, actually… by all means, “take into account†(indeed, honestly and truthfully take them into account whenever you can get that truth revealed). BUT, in the end: no sane, reasonable society, or any representative thereof, should ever bend over backwards to accommodate ANY request/demand made on the basis of anything so ridiculous and wrong-headed as religion, of whatever persuasion. That’s just anti-Darwinian! Religion is a soft-headed “choice†people make; more likely, their parents foist it on them, so that their fault is usually more failure to question than active selection. But again, when the religion in question is transparently a male-dominated, sexually-obsessed death-cult – well, I think the “taking into account†of such views should be as far as the accommodation goes, before firm refusal and a healthy dose of accompanying contempt is administered, along with the location of the door marked Out being unequivocally indicated to any persistent dissenters.
July 9th, 2010 at 7:04 pm
barriejohn – I apologize. I missed the keywords. I read it twice, and skipped over them twice. I should have waited until I was less frustrated and pissed off (unrelated to you, not so much to do with the topic) to post. I have that bad habit. Sorry.
July 9th, 2010 at 10:24 pm
I thought you must have misunderstood me!
July 10th, 2010 at 7:56 pm
to Buffy:
Some religious people here in America really do abstain from swimming!
My first husband’s family belonged to the Church of Christ, and each congregation can have different weird rules. One summer they bought an aboveground pool (and they were not wealthy people at all) just so their teenage daughter could go swimming.
That was when my husband told me he had NEVER gone swimming in a public pool in the summer because his family believed it was sinful for boys and girls to go swimming together in public.
I laughed my ass off. I was raised as a Baptist but we never had a rule that restrictive. I went swimming every summer…I felt so sorry for my husband when I found out he had survived every summer of his childhood (in Texas) with no swimming.