Full Version: Muslim woman denied pool entry
I'm usually proud of my home state-in particular the eastern half. However, recent events have led me to be rather ashamed.
The incident:
The reason for the case:
http://www.aclu.org/ReligiousLiberty/Relig...?ID=15921&c=141
Questions for debate:
1.)Was Libna Hussein's civil rights violated by the city of Omaha's pool ordinance? Is it a stretch to say her 14th amendment rights were violated?
2.)How might the city have avoided such a problem?
3.)Is the city of Omaha in the wrong on this case? If you say "no" please provide a response that explains your reason.
The incident:
QUOTE
In June and August 2003, (Libna) Hussein took her three children, ages 9 and under, to the Deer Ridge municipal pool in Omaha, only to be turned away at the gate after informing city employees that she could not wear a bathing suit without violating her religious beliefs. She was told by pool employees that she could not be in the pool area in her street clothing, even though she observed other people in the pool area who were not wearing bathing suits. On one occasion, officials told Mrs. Hussein that her children could enter but that she would have to remain outside and observe them from the other side of the pool fence.
The reason for the case:
QUOTE
“The city cannot operate its pools in a way that discriminates,” said ACLU Nebraska Legal Director Amy Miller. “In this case, they have barred the pool doors to three children because of their mother’s religious beliefs. There is no doubt that the City Parks and Recreation Department policies are not only discriminatory, but also have been applied in a disparate manner against Mrs. Hussein.”
http://www.aclu.org/ReligiousLiberty/Relig...?ID=15921&c=141
Questions for debate:
1.)Was Libna Hussein's civil rights violated by the city of Omaha's pool ordinance? Is it a stretch to say her 14th amendment rights were violated?
2.)How might the city have avoided such a problem?
3.)Is the city of Omaha in the wrong on this case? If you say "no" please provide a response that explains your reason.
1.)Was Libna Hussein's civil rights violated by the city of Omaha's pool ordinance? Is it a stretch to say her 14th amendment rights were violated?
Omaha's story is missing from this article but from what I've read it sure looks like it. A case could be made for a 14th amendment violation of equal protection, don't know how much water it would hold in court
.
2.)How might the city have avoided such a problem?
Let her in
3.)Is the city of Omaha in the wrong on this case? If you say "no" please provide a response that explains your reason.
I'd like to hear their reasoning behind it but at first glance I would say they were out of line. I'll be curious to see how they respond.
Doc
Omaha's story is missing from this article but from what I've read it sure looks like it. A case could be made for a 14th amendment violation of equal protection, don't know how much water it would hold in court
.2.)How might the city have avoided such a problem?
Let her in
3.)Is the city of Omaha in the wrong on this case? If you say "no" please provide a response that explains your reason.
I'd like to hear their reasoning behind it but at first glance I would say they were out of line. I'll be curious to see how they respond.
Doc
Just an update on this story:
According to the Omaha World Herald:
According to the Omaha World Herald:
QUOTE
City policy was to bar people wearing street clothes from pool areas.
Larry Foster, the city's parks and recreation director, said that, without an exemption, people must have a swimsuit on to enter but can wear other clothes over that. He said people may be asked to show their swimsuit.
...the city revised its pool dress code to allow exemptions for religious, physical or medical purposes, City Attorney Paul Kratz said Wednesday. This is the first summer for the new policy.
Larry Foster, the city's parks and recreation director, said that, without an exemption, people must have a swimsuit on to enter but can wear other clothes over that. He said people may be asked to show their swimsuit.
...the city revised its pool dress code to allow exemptions for religious, physical or medical purposes, City Attorney Paul Kratz said Wednesday. This is the first summer for the new policy.
Welcome to Nebraska. Im not surprised.
1. I agree it violates her civil rights and probably the city descrimination policy and if we stretch it the states hate crimes laws. However above and beyond the legal crud, its rude, tacky, backwards, and the swimsuit policy is plain stupid.
2. The city could have avoided the problem by not writing such a ridiculos rule in the first place. swimsuit checks, please, id come unglued if some 18 year old yahoo at some public pool demanded to see my swimsuit. Its just a flat dumb rule.
3. The city is wrong. and the worst part is they knew it when they wrote it i suspect.
just my opinion....
angie
1. I agree it violates her civil rights and probably the city descrimination policy and if we stretch it the states hate crimes laws. However above and beyond the legal crud, its rude, tacky, backwards, and the swimsuit policy is plain stupid.
2. The city could have avoided the problem by not writing such a ridiculos rule in the first place. swimsuit checks, please, id come unglued if some 18 year old yahoo at some public pool demanded to see my swimsuit. Its just a flat dumb rule.
3. The city is wrong. and the worst part is they knew it when they wrote it i suspect.
just my opinion....
angie
Although it sounds like the city has retreated from this policy, the questions are still worth answering...
1.)Was Libna Hussein's civil rights violated by the city of Omaha's pool ordinance? Is it a stretch to say her 14th amendment rights were violated?
Yes, her civil rights were definitely violated. It's not that much of a stretch to make the case for equal protection here.
2.)How might the city have avoided such a problem?
Oh, let's see here... they could have let her in... or an even better solution: not make such a ridiculous law!
Except that it's a public pool! It's funded by taxpayer money! If the taxpayers wish to gather at the pool that they paid for, what's the problem?
The new policy apparently isn't flawless, either:
This goes back to my point that the people who pay for the pool should have free reign to use it. Furthermore, the review should be conducted on the spot and people shouldn't be forced to compromise their privacy by providing "reasonable information".
3.)Is the city of Omaha in the wrong on this case? If you say "no" please provide a response that explains your reason.
Absolutely
1.)Was Libna Hussein's civil rights violated by the city of Omaha's pool ordinance? Is it a stretch to say her 14th amendment rights were violated?
Yes, her civil rights were definitely violated. It's not that much of a stretch to make the case for equal protection here.
2.)How might the city have avoided such a problem?
Oh, let's see here... they could have let her in... or an even better solution: not make such a ridiculous law!
QUOTE( Omaha World Herald article)
Kratz said the city wants to keep its pools from becoming gathering places for people who aren't swimming.
Except that it's a public pool! It's funded by taxpayer money! If the taxpayers wish to gather at the pool that they paid for, what's the problem?
The new policy apparently isn't flawless, either:
QUOTE(Omaha World Herald article)
However, city rules open up the possibility of a longer review. The form says a review could take as long as five business days. The policy says people must provide "reasonable information" supporting their request and possibly offer proof of participation in the religion.
This goes back to my point that the people who pay for the pool should have free reign to use it. Furthermore, the review should be conducted on the spot and people shouldn't be forced to compromise their privacy by providing "reasonable information".
3.)Is the city of Omaha in the wrong on this case? If you say "no" please provide a response that explains your reason.
Absolutely
No, her civil rights were not violated. Public pools are supported by taxpayers for one purpose, to provide places to SWIM. The prohibition on street clothes in public pools is not about discriminating against Moslems, it is about insuring that people have places to swim. You will find that the prohibition probably goes back decades or more, most likely to the 60s or 70s, when many municipalities found themselves spending an inordinate amount of money cleaning filters, and in some cases, replacing pumps and the like, because of the tremendous volume of fiber that that street clothes shed.
I spent a summer being "the pool guy" so I know the filter issue is real, and even before that as a kid we weren't allowed into the public pools in street clothes.
This ain't civil rights, and the city shouldn't have backed down on it, anymore than Florida should back down on its requirement for uncovered faces on driver's license photographs.
I spent a summer being "the pool guy" so I know the filter issue is real, and even before that as a kid we weren't allowed into the public pools in street clothes.
This ain't civil rights, and the city shouldn't have backed down on it, anymore than Florida should back down on its requirement for uncovered faces on driver's license photographs.
QUOTE(Bikerdad @ Jun 12 2004, 02:00 AM)
QUOTE
You will find that the prohibition probably goes back decades or more, most likely to the 60s or 70s, when many municipalities found themselves spending an inordinate amount of money cleaning filters, and in some cases, replacing pumps and the like, because of the tremendous volume of fiber that that street clothes shed.
From what I could gather, she at most-would have been wading in the water with her kids, or just at pool side just making sure that they wouldn't drown. It's not as if she was going to do a dive off the high-dive in full garb.
I think the Omaha pool folks just lot a little bit of perspective here, the sun got to their heads.QUOTE
This ain't civil rights, and the city shouldn't have backed down on it, anymore than Florida should back down on its requirement for uncovered faces on driver's license photographs.
I don't want to digress here, but there are a good number of people besides Muslims who are not required to put their photo on their driver's license. State laws make numerous exceptions to this-which is why the state of Flordia got taken to the cleaners over it.
QUOTE(Bikerdad @ Jun 12 2004, 02:00 AM)
Public pools are supported by taxpayers for one purpose, to provide places to SWIM.
They are also places where parents can watch their kids swim, while not swimming themselves. There was nothing in the article indicating the mother was going to get in the pool herself in her head-to-toe muslim garb. Also, the article indicated that on each attempt she made to gain entry with her children, she saw other people in the pool area who were not wearing bathing suits. Why are they allowing others to wear clothes, but not this woman? The city was smart to back down.
1.)Was Libna Hussein's civil rights violated by the city of Omaha's pool ordinance? Is it a stretch to say her 14th amendment rights were violated?
I don't believe so, though I readily admit I have only a tenuous understanding of the law in question.
2.)How might the city have avoided such a problem?
I don't see any great problem here. This woman is not being discriminated against. The rules which prevent her from accessing the pool are the same for all people.
I don't believe 'religous freedom' should circumvent other laws and rules which have been created to protect people.
3.)Is the city of Omaha in the wrong on this case? If you say "no" please provide a response that explains your reason.
No I don't believe so. I gree with Bikerdad. Swimming pools have certain rules to ensure the health and safety of those swimming in them. This includes protecting the cleaning expenses, and providing swimmers with life guards. I don't believe that this woman's children were in any danger of drowning so I don't see the need for this woman to be by the pool side in her out door garments. I also don't see the validity of any argument that says she has to be by the pool side at all simply because her children are in the water. There are always trained proffesionals at hand to watch over people in the water.
Danish swimming pools often have such rules as well. Cleaning one's body, in particular one's feet is mandatory before entering the pool area. Entering the water in any form of out door clothing, even a T shirt is forbidden.
The city of Omaha's responsibility in this matter lies towards those people swimming in the water. NOT to the religous sensibilities of people who wish to observe those swimming.
Editted to add;
Two wrongs do not make a right. If she saw people in out door garb in the area where it was forbidden then she should have lodged a complaint.
Arguing that its okay to violate a rule because 'other people did it' is not a valid argument.
The city was wrong to violate its own laws for the sake of political correctness.
I don't believe so, though I readily admit I have only a tenuous understanding of the law in question.
2.)How might the city have avoided such a problem?
I don't see any great problem here. This woman is not being discriminated against. The rules which prevent her from accessing the pool are the same for all people.
I don't believe 'religous freedom' should circumvent other laws and rules which have been created to protect people.
3.)Is the city of Omaha in the wrong on this case? If you say "no" please provide a response that explains your reason.
No I don't believe so. I gree with Bikerdad. Swimming pools have certain rules to ensure the health and safety of those swimming in them. This includes protecting the cleaning expenses, and providing swimmers with life guards. I don't believe that this woman's children were in any danger of drowning so I don't see the need for this woman to be by the pool side in her out door garments. I also don't see the validity of any argument that says she has to be by the pool side at all simply because her children are in the water. There are always trained proffesionals at hand to watch over people in the water.
Danish swimming pools often have such rules as well. Cleaning one's body, in particular one's feet is mandatory before entering the pool area. Entering the water in any form of out door clothing, even a T shirt is forbidden.
The city of Omaha's responsibility in this matter lies towards those people swimming in the water. NOT to the religous sensibilities of people who wish to observe those swimming.
Editted to add;
QUOTE
she saw other people in the pool area who were not wearing bathing suits. Why are they allowing others to wear clothes, but not this woman? The city was smart to back down.
Two wrongs do not make a right. If she saw people in out door garb in the area where it was forbidden then she should have lodged a complaint.
Arguing that its okay to violate a rule because 'other people did it' is not a valid argument.
The city was wrong to violate its own laws for the sake of political correctness.
QUOTE(Azure-Citizen @ Jun 12 2004, 11:16 AM)
Also, the article indicated that on each attempt she made to gain entry with her children, she saw other people in the pool area who were not wearing bathing suits. Why are they allowing others to wear clothes, but not this woman? The city was smart to back down.
Very good point. It is one thing to be partially dressed and wading in the water with your little one and diving head first fully clothed. The pool workers obviously failed to make a simple distinction in my opinion.
This is a simplified version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.